TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Sound Recording Just 6% of Average Musician’s Income (Updated)

For the major music labels the sales of recorded music represent the majority of their revenue, but a different picture emerges when looking at the income of individual musicians. A new survey among 5,000 U.S. musicians of different genres shows that on average only six percent of all revenue comes from recorded music. The research concludes that copyright law mostly affects the revenue of the highest-income musicians in a direct fashion.

The RIAA is certain, piracy has a devastating impact on the music industry.

However, a comprehensive study by Professor Peter DiCola of the Northwestern University School of Law shows that musicians themselves are divided on the subject. The survey questioned more than 5,000 United States artists on a variety of subjects, including unauthorized file-sharing.

Of all artists about a quarter say that they are hurt by online file-sharing, but just as many believe that file-sharing helps them. The remaining half have no opinion on the matter or didn’t answer the question.

The survey further shows that even if file-sharing results in a decrease in sales, this only impacts a small fraction of their total revenue. The pie chart below shows the income sources of musicians, and their average percentages of the total music related revenue.

The pie chart shows that “only” 6 percent of the average musician’s income comes from recorded sales. The revenue from live performances is significantly larger with 28 percent. This last group is also growing rapidly, as previous research has shown.


Average revenue streams

recmusic

For the major record labels the above pie chart would look quite different, as they mostly rely on revenue from music sales. This also explains their strong views against unauthorized file-sharing.

The survey also collected data on the incomes of the participating musicians. This makes it possible to compare the revenue streams per income group. As can be seen below, recorded sales are below 10 percent for all groups. Interestingly, the lowest income bracket earns relatively the most (9%) from recorded sales.

The top bracket, earning an average $330,000 a year, earns by far the most from compositions, which make up 28 percent of their music-related revenue. The lowest income bracket makes most revenue from live performances, more than 40% .


Revenue streams by income

distr

One of the conclusions of Professor Peter DiCola draws from the results is that copyright law mostly benefits the high earners.

“Rather than providing marginal incentives to create to all musicians at all times, copyright law mostly affects the revenue of the highest-income musicians in a direct fashion. This is not a surprise, given the prevalence of winner-take-all markets in the entertainment industry,” he writes.

However, he doesn’t say that copyright law should be thrown overboard. One reason for this is that the averages reported in the study don’t mean that certain subgroups (such as composers) rely heavily on copyright.

“Musical creativity takes a number of forms, not just the kinds that copyright law protects. This broader perspective should not, however, obscure the reliance on copyright for many musicians in particular subgroups”.

“Those who focus their activity on composing rely on composition revenue and are much more vulnerable to harm from copyright infringement. The same goes for recording artists who rely on sales of sound recordings,” DiCola writes.

There is little doubt that the music industry has undergone drastic change, so it will be interesting to see how these percentages are affected in the coming years.

Update: The title of the article initially didn’t take into account that some composers/songwriters also earn money directly from “music sales.” The 6% only applies to music sales revenue generated from sound recording.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Anyone

    when the MAFIAA steals 90% of the income from sales it is no wonder that they don’t earn much from it

    • Bananas

      on major labels artists hardly get 1% of the sales

      • Guest

        considering that it is hard to believe that musicians WANT to sign of with them ASAP don’t even reading what they’re signing of for – but that’s true!
        musicians is people too.. so can be brainwashed like the rest of us :(

        • Open minded individual

          Or… it could be because musicians realize using a label means all the business side of things they wont have to worry about whilst the artist can continue doing what he/she loves… the music.

          Same goes for any other ‘industry’. It’s like paying a tax accountant to do the taxation for your company… it means you can get on with doing what you want to do.

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          @Open minded individual

          True, but the tax accountant doesn’t take 90% off the profits of the company

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @Open minded Individual

          Normally if you retained someone to perform a service, if said person then tried to make you sign away 99% of what you’d earn, you would take the provider to court at once.

          Part and parcel of what allows the labels to put such contracts on the table is their “mythical” status. The artist feels they are doing him a favor by signing him. And if the artist is crap, that’s true. If the artist is good then said artist really doesn’t need the label.

          They are terrified that promising artists will ever realize this én másse.

        • Jimmy671

          @Open minded individual

          “”It’s like paying a tax accountant to do the taxation for your company”"

          That’s an expensive way to go about it,there are better choice’s,getting into bed with the MAFIAA
          is not one of them.

        • MindedIndie

          BuddhaFacePalmed, I understand your point; but the example I provided wasn’t a perfect example… their is a difference between a tax accountant & label. If you own a company your getting the sales…. if you’re a label you’re generating the sales. The artist doesn’t generate the sales nor does the tax accountant, I was giving an example on why in their viewpoint a label is a good thing. (maybe a shareholder / label is a better example, but regardless, you get what I mean)

          Furthermore, a label doesn’t take 99% of their overall profits, it takes up to 99% (depending on the label, some are 40%) of the album sales/music downloads. The artists, as mentioned in this article, make there income from the merch/tours etc – which there label organized for them and who gained a larger audience through marketing which therefore results in more merch/tour sales.

          It’s true that an artist can go independent and I love indie artists, however, they will have to deal with marketing, sales, publishing, etc. Just like we can have freelancing, it’s possible but it requires more effort to make a decent living from what you’re doing.

        • Lawnstone

          @MindedIndie

          Yes. The label does organize that for the artists, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t still gutting them for all they’re worth. A more appropriate contract would be a simple payment for services rendered. None of this complicated Hollywood accounting. The label doesn’t need to own the copyright. They don’t need to take a % of the money from all album sales.

          For instance, say recording, marketing, concerts, etc costs $1,000,000. The label could sell those services at a profit and the artist pays the label. Once the debt is covered that’s it. All relations between artist and label can cease and whatever sales occur after the debt is repaid go directly to the artist.

          But with current contracts, the label does own the copyright and it does take a (large) % of the most lucrative part of the deal. And it does so perpetually.

      • Fr3d

        What’s more baffling is that MAFIAA are constantly shouting that piracy is killing the industry, affecting potential sales, etc. when records show they are making record breaking profit every year.

        No wonder artist make sooo little. Abandon MAFIA from the loop and make tons of dollars via concerts. Share with the community and the community will not forget you. Hey, I bet MAFIAA will not even know a single title of their artists. Fans will not!

      • Guest

        Where did you get that figure from? Do you have a link?

      • JordanKratz

        And to me any Artist who is on a MAFIAA Label is a Traitor.I will never buy their shit nor will I even care it exists in the first place.

        • Artist Freedom

          Exactly, being with a major label has gone from being cool and hip to being fail. Why would you want people to think that your music is just more main stream crap? Being with one of the mafia labels is becoming more and more likely to get you boycotted. Big label greed is what’s really ruining the recorded music industry. They have no one to blame but themselves. If they had treated artists with respect, and dignity from the beginning and treated them as the creative business partners that they really are, it would be a whole different scenario. If they were willing to compensate artists fairly, and pay them an honest wage for sales of recorded music than many more artists would defend the labels and would stand up against distribution of music. It’s ironic that their own greed actually hurts their cause.

          If you are an artist, and you are reading this, do the right thing, do the smart thing and boycott the major labels. Educate yourself and use the many alternative distribution channels that exist. Send a clear message to your fans that you are not with the big labels and that you support creativity, innovation, and content freedom. Given that, I know I would support you as I’m sure many others would as well.

    • FreeBSD

      true dat!

    • Bananas

      And they have to pay back the album recording and videos. It is kind of slave work.

      • hear dat

        You make it sound so simple. These guys are even more shrewd than that.
        They trick people to be slaves.
         
         

        studio
        Sound engineer
        Mixing
        Mastering engineer
        Project management
        Artwork
        Marketing
        Sales distribution

        The artist after signing a contract gets billed for that.That’s the BASIC label package.

        The big trick….
        The label provides those services to themselves, at the cost they set.
        If the artist is a singer (kerching), added costs of a writer and all the music, arrangement, musicians etc…. Again, provided by the label at the cost they set.

        The end product breaks even………. The label profits from the *services.
        The end product loses money……… The label profits from the *services.

         
         
         
        Also copyrights
        Mechanical copyrights….owned by label
        (they recorded it via their services)
        Performance copyrights…. owned by label.
        (they gave a drummer £50 to session for them)

         
         
         
        It is great that today, people can record, mix, master distribute etc…. themselves. That is the greatest threat to the labels and they know it.

        • bobmail

          yeah, it’s horrible. The label puts up the money just like an investor, and the band has to pay that investment off after.

          It’s a horrible system, clearly we should get rid of venture capital funds and angel investors for companies as well, because they are giving money up front for something to be made at risk, expecting to get paid back.

          Heck, let’s stop banks from loaning money. That is a really horrible thing – they expect to get paid back.

    • OneEyedWillie

      I didn’t realize what hypocrites the MAFIAA were. They are thieves and when someone steals from them they use the law lol. You can’t make this shit up. ROFL

      • IDIOCRACY

        It is worse, Let me correct you for a moment,

        “They are thieves and when someone *copies what they stole*, they use the law.”

        hehe

      • Guest

        another brainwashed individual..
        say it again with me: illegally copying is NOT stealing (and there’s no harm since you’re not taking away NOTHING from anyone)

        • OneEyedWillie

          The Mafiaa steals the legal way by making sucker musicians sign contracts. We borrow, which they call stealing. Don’t tell me I am brainwashed. I get it all to clearly. The musicians are being exploited by the MAFIAA and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Like most of the corrupt rich they will defend their evil practices right to the bitter end because they have it so good.

    • Musician

      uh, the “mafiaa” doesn’t “steal” 90% of anything. If you have proof of them “stealing 90% of income” you should post it.

      I’m not sure why this article talks about record labels making more from record sales than musicians; record companies don’t go out on tour; by definition, they make their money from… record sales.

      As far as musicians not making money from record sales, well, they used to, until you decided to started stealing from them and coming here to rationalize and encourage others to rip them off.

      What a swell person you must be in real life.

      Have a nice day.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “uh, the “mafiaa” doesn’t “steal” 90% of anything. If you have proof of them “stealing 90% of income” you should post it.”

        Actually they take the average musician for roughly 98% of his revenue, leaving royalties as roughly 1/20 of an artists income. As the article above shows.

        So let me get your confusing argument straight…you claim that when the label takes 98% of the artists earned money it is not theft.

        But when person A and person B exchange copies of information, none of which involves taking anything from the artist, it IS theft?

        You should go work for the labels. It takes quite a lot of work to write such insanity with a straight face, I’ll wager.

        As for what kind of a swell person Anyone must be – well, judging from how he writes he seems a far better person than you whose only contribution around here is an apoplectic heap of cheap abuse added to some outright lies.

        • SoundnuoS

          Man, you’re spinning some interesting math here. Nowhere in the paper does it say that the “mafiaa” take 98% of anyones revenue.

          The paper also clearly shows that for the “average” composer income from composing and recording can be up to 45%. This means that for the “non-average” composer the percentage can be even higher.

          I am indeed getting a feel that the level of intellectual honesty isn’t that high among all posters. I mean there’s claims that royalties mean nothing for musicians, then when this blog posts a paper that clearly shows that they can be a significant part of the income of musicians there’s attempts to spin it in all directions.

          The paper even shows that sales of recordings can be a big deal for lower income artists and then that’s discarded as well.

          Some of your posts do read a bit like statements from a man on a campaign, so I’m guessing there’s some career-related interest here, possibly in connection with the pirate party?
          If so, I don’t expect you to change your mind no matter what arguments you get, but still…

        • Dirty_Bear

          “Some of your posts do read a bit like statements from a man on a campaign, so I’m guessing there’s some career-related interest here, possibly in connection with the pirate party?”

          So you’ve noticed it too. He isn’t the only one though.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Additionally, I think a good thing to note here would be how the CRIA, the Canadian branch of one half of the MAFIAA (or MAFIAC, though it doesn’t sound as awesome) managed to steal about 6 billion dollars from artists over the course of several decades.

          Here’s the proof, by the way.

          http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096–geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement

          …and for what it’s worth, yes, they were guilty.

          http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-to-pay-45-million-for-pirating-artists-music-110110/

          (since Musician doesn’t feel he needs to do his own legwork)

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Man, you’re spinning some interesting math here. Nowhere in the paper does it say that the “mafiaa” take 98% of anyones revenue.”

          That’s the calculated tally on average which is what the artist can in reality expect from royalties.

          “I mean there’s claims that royalties mean nothing for musicians, then when this blog posts a paper that clearly shows that they can be a significant part of the income of musicians there’s attempts to spin it in all directions.”

          Oh, I have no doubt that any musician who signs to a major label will be screaming for royalties. For a start he’s usually unwisely indebted to the label from the get-go.

          royalties can certainly be a part of a musicians income, the problem being that the term “royalty” also implies that the artist doesn’t in fact own his own music. It’s a bit slippery to take for granted that a loss of ownership granting crumbs off the table amounts to a positive reflection of what revenue brings the artist.

          “The paper even shows that sales of recordings can be a big deal for lower income artists and then that’s discarded as well.”

          You mean “artists who didn’t make it to greatness”?

          Anyone who sets out for a vocation where income will naturally be reliant on having a fan base must realize that it simply isn’t sensible to rely on the advertising material alone to carry you through. If you, as an artist, can’t support yourself other than by artificial respiration then that is a good sign you either aren’t good enough or that you didn’t get enough exposure.

          And if you rely on a label in order to get exposure it’s good odds the associated costs will break your already critical revenue.

          As the paper clearly shows.

          “Some of your posts do read a bit like statements from a man on a campaign, so I’m guessing there’s some career-related interest here, possibly in connection with the pirate party?”

          Ah, because working a political campaign under an anonymous handle does wonders for your career?

          Sorry to disappoint you, but I have a 9-5 job…well, an 8 hour a day job, at least, in the real world. My interest in pirate politics is mainly because from the perspective of that job I can clearly observe that most proposed “solutions” by the copyright crowd entail by necessity that the concept of a personal computer and the internet be abolished. That would negatively impact not only my job but my hobbies as well.

          But I’ll clarify it for you. In comparison to most of the body politic, I believe even the ancient art of prostitution can stand as a shining pillar of ethical values. Although I do respect the pirates who have shouldered the burden of descending into that cesspool, you will not find me among them. I am politically active in that i donate to the party every month, closely follow the politics, and turn up at the rallies.

          “I don’t expect you to change your mind no matter what arguments you get…”

          You will never run any argument by me which can override the importance i place on actual fact.

          Those facts being that in any world where copyright extends into non-commercial use, property ownership ceases to exist for everyone along with the right of free communication. In times past, those are concepts people actually killed to preserve.

          And this is why you will never convince me or any other pirate that “copyright” is important enough to balance out that particular scale. It’s not.

          No matter how many times in the past 50 years the music industry has claimed it will die out within five years because people are making copies. No privilege granted by law can or should ever in practice overturn, or even risk overturning human rights.

          When they cause such risk, those privileges have to go.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          I suppose the “unwise indebtedness” you refer to is the advance? Money paid up front, money the artist never has any obligation to give back?

          Re: “Artists who didn’t make it to greatness”
          You know there’s a load of artists there who didn’t make it to Justin Beiber levels of “greatness” that I find a lot more interesting. Some of them don’t hold all the rights to their own recordings, some of them do. For those who do I’m pretty sure they don’t consider sales of their records “artificial respiration”.
          Music is the product and the product is music.

          >You will never run any argument by me which can override the importance i >place on actual fact.
          >
          >Those facts being that in any world where copyright extends into non->commercial use, property ownership ceases to exist for everyone along with >the right of free communication. In times past, those are concepts people >actually killed to preserve.

          And I get accused of making manipulative posts. This is again pure hyperbole.

      • Contrabanda

        I’m a brazilian musician, and I share my music for free on Pirate Bay and lots of others places, including my band blog, back in the 1980′s my band was signed with EMI, they steal from us and after 5 years we dropped those fuckers. Now we make more money with live performances AND FREE SHARING than back in the day with those record label scrooges.

    • http://twitter.com/theedwingarcia Edwin Garcia
      • 7th_Guest

        Why fight copyright?

        Because culturally relevant art is still locked behind a Copyright paywall from us and our offspring for generations to come in near perpetuity still?

        Because even minor excerpts or samplings of any influential audiovisual content released this very day by companies such as Disney will be legally too hot and risky even for your children’s children’s children’s children to sketch or depict by themselves and post up in whatever version of the Internet they might be using then without fear of litigious bullying/blackmailing by that company’s lawyers?

        Because a shady, loose collection of Good Old White Boys rubbing shoulders with top tier representatives and legislators for 60 years now shouldn’t be allowed to act as perpetual gatekeepers of culture and knowledge to billions of people, at the expense of the latter’s privacy, due process, presumption of innocence and other civil liberties no less, based on of legislation relying on void assumptions and constantly bypassed social reciprocal obligations to begin with?

        Pick whichever suits you most. To me, however, the opposite question seems to be the one more worth posing.

    • Wagthedog

      I wonder if anyone posting here makes a living doing something that, if a ten year old decides to take it for free, and share it with his 300 million best ‘friends’, that is apparently his right under ‘free speech’ psuedo excuses?

      It’s all well and good to vilify one side or the other, but unless you can put yourself squarely in the shoes of someone that USED to make a living doing something that is now, apparently, unilaterally decided for him he can no longer expect any money for doing, you aren’t really in a position to talk.

      It’s bad enough to sit in a cubicle, and worry about whether your bosses might decide to offshore and outsource your job, and another thing altogether to realize that this decision rests in the hands of any six-year old with a laptop and a selfish desire to have whatever he wants, whenever he wants it without paying a cent.

  • mOnO

    Boycott all of them ! stop buy and they will “die” !

  • Guest

    And yet AGAIN the RIAA and the labels are revealed to be the biggest thieves stealing from musicians. 6%? Jesus.

    They’re getting robbed so hard it’s barely even worth it for them to sell recorded music.

    But of course while the industry is fucking them up the ass, the industry points to us and says “FILESHARERS ARE DOING THIS TO YOU!”. It looks like only a quarter of musicians are gullible enough to believe it anymore, though.

    Sweating much, MAFIAA? =D

    • JordanKratz

      They need to sweat even more !!! Sweat Red Blood

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        They have blood in their veins?

  • FreeBSD

    they aren’t sweating enough!

    • Scientology

      You said it!

    • Guest

      nice system, I mean picture <3

  • RIAA R HYPOCRITES

    Boohooo..How are the MAFIAA employees & bosses going to get paid if they don’t snatch from the honeypot in which really belongs to the artists.

    Blame it on the people that actually pay for the works of the artists and brainwash artists into believing their organisation will protect their work, promote it, print the CDs and blah blah blah — in reality, these fuckers pocket millions of dollars of the artists money.

    …I guess piggybacking off the REAL artists is the only way the MAFIAA is going to survive. Fuckin hypocrites.

    • Andrew me

      I am honestly hoping that Mega or Kim Dotcom will create an environment where artists are making real money from their creations with absolutely no money going to the Studios. Every artist today can create music creations of the same and sometimes better quality than the Big Studios with a laptop and a few other pieces of equipment.
      I do not 100% agree with how MEGA is going to make the money they intend to pay to the artists but i do understand that this is only the first such site and that if things go well for them the music industry or should i say the big studios are going to have a hard time explaining why they are only paying a few hundred dollars when an artist can make 10′s of thousands just from uploading there creation to Mega.

      I personally think that the music industry saw this coming and they used every trick in the book to encourage the DOJ to go after him before he opened such a site.
      Luckily for the artists he has not just sat back and accepted that the DOJ is law and has proven them to be using illegal tactics to close his business empire down.

      Not only have they chosen the wrong person to do this to but they have a fight on there hands that they cannot win, in a country that hopefully will revel in teaching the DOJ a lesson in law.

  • Anonymous

    we all know why there is such a purge on ‘file sharing’. what a pity that politicians allow themselves to be so hoodwinked by the labels. they are the ones that are so anti sharing because of the monies they (supposedly) lose. it has never been about ‘protecting the artists’ nor will it ever be!!

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    Under current Copyright Law, the biggest and safest money goes NOT to Artists, but to Distributors.

    This is not only true in Music; but, in every Human Intellectual endeavor where a Perpetual Corporate Domain in Intellectual Property is imposed by Copyright Law. The Publishing and Movie business are no different: Big industry sponsored Artists make a lot of Money. Small independent Artists make very little. Distributors make it all!!

    Think about it: The Perpetual Corporate Domain in Intellectual Property represents a massive gift of unearned wealth to Corporate Distributors of Intellectual Property, the least necessary or useful factor in the Creation or use of human intellectual capital.

    What do Artists do? They create!

    What do Digital Distributors do? They distribute!!

    What is the cost of Distribution (digital product warehousing, replication, and transmission)? ZERO!! OR NEAR ZERO!!

    So, what ARE we paying Corporate Digital Distributors of Intellectual Property? A vast unearned economic monopoly premium which is absolutely bigger than ANY TAX being Collected by any existing NATIONAL STATE.

    SO, what does it mean, when a group of Corporations can impose an unearned unaccounted PUBLIC TAX that is vastly bigger than the formal TAX imposed by the STATE through the normal channels of government?

    Answer: It means that those Corporations ARE the STATE!!

    Remember!! Your first High School definition of Fascism.

  • Suicide

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that musicians never make much from the cd sales, unless of course it’s some shitty flavor-of-the-month pop artist that the mass sheep gets shoved down their throats. But even then, those are the dumb “artists” that are the easiest to rip off.

    • guess who

      or are attention whores who’ll be anyones puppet to make it big and be in magazines for morons, i was going to name a few, amazingly i don’t actualy know the names because i never look at them in the news agent or pay any attention to the adds on tv.

      • guess who

        gossip mags and that kind of crap. i’m so pleased i cannot name one of the sheeple mags.

  • MSP

    The survey seems to have missed one of the largest chunks of income for a music writer: Royalties. In the US this would be collected my ASCAP, BMI and SESAC.

    Another missing piece of this survey is % of income derived from music. A majority
    of the people surveyed could be part time. That is usually the case with teachers and performers (touring/shows/orchestra/bands)

    • Guest

      Two things:
      (1) try reading the article;
      (2) try reading the paper.

    • DocGerbil100

      Regarding your first point, the paper explicitly states that royalties are included. Read moar!

      Regarding the second, that’s actually not a bad question to ask, albeit one that the author may have considered outside his (presumably self-selected) area of inquiry – it’s a shame, because I’d quite like to know the answer as well. :)

      PS: The first comment – supposedly by “Guest” – is actually mine. I misread you as one of the usual trolls, at first. Sorry about that. I would have edited the comment to be a bit less rude, but Disqus is bugging up like a motherfucker, at the moment – even deleting via the dashboard only turned the comment into an anonymous comment. I’ve flagged the comment to try and get rid of it. :P

      • IDIOCRACY

        Flagged it for you too, lets see if the moderators reed why and then actually remove it for you.

        hehe

        • IDIOCRACY

          typo read

  • chris_p_bacon(R.O.L.L)

    it would help if the industry stopped spending the artists hard earned money on lining politicians pockets to get legislation on file sharing through so that they can pocket more money and control the world. the more i hear this kind of news, the less i want to even look at a cd, unless it is a cdr blank of course. they are really beginning to cheese me off, that reminds me, …..he fucks off to the kitchen for a snack and hits the post button

    • Anyone

      be careful with CD-Rs, in many countries the MAFIAA has a levy on it

  • Gae

    Anybody considering entering the music business should really by now be fully aware that the old way of making your money mainly off the sales of recordings just does not apply in 2013.
    We are in the digital age and the landscape has changed so much over the last 15 years that you would be a fool if your plan was to make your money the old way, it would be the equivalent of trying to set up a store that relies on sales of vhs cassettes to make a living.

  • Randy Lahey

    Yes but without that 6%, Lars and Britney won’t be able to make their payments on that new Bentley or the Yacht they’ve been strongly considering.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Wrong.

      The major source of income for Britney will not be those 6%. Lady Gaga had strong words on CD-sales being a source of income. As she had it, all the money is in tours, concerts, and from selling other stuff – like fashion – under her name.

      Of course, under a standard slave contract made by a label, even the name is owned so the record companies want the majority there as well.

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    That the Copyright Cartels must suffer the challenge of Pirates Bay and MegaUpload and a million smaller, and perhaps, more annoying Private Trackers, is NOT primarily about the attributes of Pirates Bay, MegaUpload, or those Private Trackers.

    No Sir!! Those infinitely relevant attributes belong to the Copyright Monopolies themselves:

    Do you overcharge your customers for products or services for which there is no alternative supplier?

    Do you achieve a higher unit price over a whole market by restricting supply?

    Do your Customers put up with your abuse as a condition of having any access to what they need?

    Is your Customers’ only choice to pay your price, accept all of your terms, or “do without”?

    Do you successfully coordinate and collude with other monopolies to protect or advance a common interest in Market Control?

    Are you able to apply vast disposable wealth to matters having absolutely nothing to do with your immediate business affairs?

    Above all, these are the attributes of unregulated legally protected Monopolies; but, if additionally, the privilege you must protect is a perpetual Corporate Domain in Human Intellectual Property, then these are YOUR attributes multiplied a million fold.

    THAT is why you face such trenchant opposition.

    THAT is why you must be confronted and abolished!

  • http://twitter.com/JustAGuyOnline Justin Agai

    Teaching?

    • Sense

      I guess average artist give lesson to other no? of course. They are better than anyone else at their domain of expertise.

  • bobmail

    It’s a good story, but more than a little misleading.

    First off, the sampling here is way off. If you look at session musicians or “pay to play” live players, they will have almost no recorded music income, but they depend on it 100% to get paid. The vast majority of performers you see day in day out are working salaried jobs as backup musicians for a main act.

    As an example, can you name anyone in Lady Gaga’s Band? Most can’t, because the musicians are intentionally nameless. They are paid workers.

    Understanding that the music business never was a one dimensional “record music and sell it to make money” thing for a musician is pretty key to understanding why this report is just plain wrong.

    Perhaps they would like to go back and give us a run down from the 70s to compare it to. Oh wait, they don’t want to show the truth.

    • Anyone

      did the MAFIAA steal less back then?

      • Andrew me

        Actually i read a good post about this on a site somewhere i cannot for the life of me remember which site so please dont ask, if you know please post a link thanks.

        in my own words:

        It is called stealing and it is called copying and it is called sharing but in reality if you look at how a computer and the Internet works , what is happening is you are downloading a torrent file, this torrent files provides instructions on where to get further instructions to build a file, this file when it has been built is than used in a software program to generate a stream of 1′s and 0′s to create an analogue signal which creates sound through your speakers. You are in fact not downloading a music track, you are downloading the instructions to create a music track.

        Now if i had to download the instructions to create a 3d model of a car there would be no problem as the car would be made from materials i have paid for, i.e electricity in the case of an mp3 and a polymer in the case of a car.

        Where is the theft in this and where is the illegality in this. As long as i do not sell my creation for financial gain i am not doing anything illegal. So in fact the law that sharing a torrent is illegal is wrong. :)., I wonder how a court would see this.

        • bobmail

          @andrew me: The problem is you are looking at the very technical without looking at the intent and the result.

          You can describe murder with a gun in the same manner, it’s just a collection of assorted metal parts sort of like your car or bike, a brass or copper just like the pipes in your house projectile assembled in the proximity of gun powder, which is really just a bunch of crystals, You are not shooting a gun, you are just triggered a chemical reaction of gun powder. The result is entirely accidental.

          In the end, a magnet link, a torrent file, whatever, is the first step in the process of shooting the gun. It’s the aiming of the weapon. Without that step, the rest of it doesn’t happen.

          It would be like claiming in court that you only aimed the gun, the gun powder did the rest. The judges would likely send you for a mental exam, right before finding you guilty of shooting and likely of being a dumbass as well :)

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @bobmail

          “In the end, a magnet link, a torrent file, whatever, is the first step in the process of shooting the gun.”

          Nope. a torrent file would be the direct equivalent of abstractly discussing a murder, or describing the operation of a gun. A magnet link would be the title of the book in which said murder or weapon was discussed.

          Meaning that you’ve just delivered a perfect argument for why detective novels ought to be banned because they contained words used in describing a murder case. Not to mention bits and pieces of the dictionary.

          That is the reality. Even if said book is read by someone who then goes on a killing spree, you will not ever find anyone willing to state that the blame must go on the thriller he read before deciding to try out his chosen murder method.

          By your argument, pretty exactly, anyone offering a pretty girl dinner and a movie should be arrested for soliciting prostitution as his intent and preparation was spending fiscal means in the hopes of getting laid.

          Bobmail, are you hell-bent on demonstrating catastrophic ignorance in every field you choose to comment on, or is it just in IT and Law you have a fundamental inability to grasp basic facts?

    • N_mailer

      ” First off, the sampling here is way off. If you look at session musicians or “pay to play” live players, they will have almost no recorded music income, but they depend on it 100% to get paid. The vast majority of performers you see day in day out are working salaried jobs as backup musicians for a main act. ”

      So to sum up, you claim this law school report has sampling that is “way off,” and your proof is two random sentences that contradict one another and are supported only by your ass from whence they came. Got it.

      “Perhaps they would like to go back and give us a run down from the 70s to compare it to. Oh wait, they don’t want to show the truth.”

      If by “they” you mean Northwestern University School of Law, then, yes, you are absolutely right. Law schools hate truth. And you see it most often when they release survey results without verifying, compiling and appending a bunch of random historical data, because only a liar would fail to do that.

      Ernesto baited you, sucker, and you bit like a champion.

      • bobmail

        “Ernesto baited you, sucker, and you bit like a champion”

        hey chump, you apparently fail at reading. The study is correct in itself, but it is NOT representative of the music industry. It’s lean towards classical and jazz musicians, who like in an almost entirely different operational universe from the more commercial pop, rock, rap, dance, and AOR areas hurts the crediblity.

        Orchestras and Jazz Musicians are much more dependent on playing live, teaching, and other means by which to make money. They tend to play other people’s work. They (as the study shows) often work for a fixed salary, weekly wage, or contract. Their relationship to, say, Jay-Z or Skrillex is zero.

        So when Ernesto (not the study writers) tries to use that data to try to make claims about the life of most mainstream commercial artists, he fails.

        So I would say that Ernesto pretty much fed you a spoon of shit, and you gladly swallowed it like a sucker.

    • icec0ld

      Wanna know how I know you only looked at the pictures?

      Because if you had you’d have noticed a couple of things that contradict your statements.

      “First off, the sampling here is way off. If you look at session musicians or “pay to play” live players, they will have almost no recorded music income, but they depend on it 100% to get paid. The vast majority of performers you see day in day out are working salaried jobs as backup musicians for a main act.”

      How? What is wrong with this sample? Ample sources of respondents, a standard response rate from different organizations (barring an outlier or two).

      You say the sampling is off but provide no justification for it when the survey states clearly, that the majority of those in the music industry don’t make that much money off of it. Far as I can tell the only reason you have attacked the sampling is because you disagree with the conclusions reached,

      “First off, the sampling here is way off. If you look at session musicians or “pay to play” live players, they will have almost no recorded music income, but they depend on it 100% to get paid. The vast majority of performers you see day in day out are working salaried jobs as backup musicians for a main act.”

      How does this contradict the statement of the article? This is exactly what the research found. Most muscians make their money off of playing “live”.

      “As an example, can you name anyone in Lady Gaga’s Band? Most can’t, because the musicians are intentionally nameless. They are paid workers.”

      Because Lady Gaga is a great example of the majority of artists…

      “Understanding that the music business never was a one dimensional “record music and sell it to make money” thing for a musician is pretty key to understanding why this report is just plain wrong.”

      Thus far you’ve pointed out nothing that contradicts the reports conclusions. Rather, you’ve failed to point anything out and called it wrong? The report has already pointed out “record music and sell it” is not where their income comes from.

      “Perhaps they would like to go back and give us a run down from the 70s to compare it to. Oh wait, they don’t want to show the truth.”

      Today is today. 30 years back is going to show only 1 thing. What it was like for music back then. Anyone should rightly laugh at this farcical idea you have of the truth. What the hell are we to glean about today that we cannot learn about today?

      • bobmail

        Obviously I read the story, I was arguing with the conclusion.

        To say that only 6% of the income comes from recorded music is to ignore where much of the rest of the money comes from.

        Session musicians and “bit players” are paid from that money.

        The concert tours? They depend on the artist having content out there that people know and are willing to pay to hear. So while the income isn’t directly recorded music, it’s based on it. That includes all the effort, promotion, time, and money put up front to get many artists on tour so they can even make the live music money.

        You have to understand that the music business (not the industry, the whole business) tends to source it’s power from the recorded side. We love artists for the music they make, we don’t love music for the artists that make it. We don’t whistle the artist’s name over and over, we sing the songs.

        @SoundnuoS: The problem is the report isn’t representitive of where the money is happening. Jazz and classical musicians aren’t powerhouses selling tons of recorded music. Those are subgroups that depend highly on performance, either as part of an orchestra, or as a Jazz musician playing clubs, performing the standards and collecting a paycheck.

        The problem I have is that Ernesto is trying to draw the conclusion that recorded music is only 6% of a musician income, so clearly piracy can’t hurt. But what he fails to point out is that this report has little to do with the artists that are actually getting heavily pirated, and that are more dependent on recorded music income and record label deals to fund their careers.

        It’s misleading, and more than a little dishonest to try to play a numbers game like that.

        • Anyone

          “The concert tours? They depend on the artist having content out there that people know and are willing to pay to hear”
          if you don’t have to pay for the album you have more money to pay for the concert ticket
          simple logic, that you apparently cannot grasp

        • icec0ld

          “To say that only 6% of the income comes from recorded music is to ignore where much of the rest of the money comes from.”

          You say this but seem unable to point any specific defect to support such a statement.

          “The concert tours? They depend on the artist having content out there that people know and are willing to pay to hear. So while the income isn’t directly recorded music, it’s based on it. That includes all the effort, promotion, time, and money put up front to get many artists on tour so they can even make the live music money.”

          Apparently your knowledge of the music industry extends as far as atypical pop stars. Being unable to know anything else you seem unable to comprehend the results of the report.

          “You have to understand that the music business (not the industry, the whole business) tends to source it’s power from the recorded side. We love artists for the music they make, we don’t love music for the artists that make it. We don’t whistle the artist’s name over and over, we sing the songs.”

          You need to understand that the music industry extends well beyond what the popular rock/pop stars and Lady Gagas out there.

          The research here and any knowledge of the music industry is going tell you one thing, selling music for a living is not the majority out there. This research contradict the very idea you are arguing.

          You haven’t argued any of what you’ve said, instead you’ve made a statement, failed to back it up with any reasonable argument and deflected to irrelevant statements which you haven’t backed up.

          “It’s misleading, and more than a little dishonest to try to play a numbers game like that.”

          It’s misleading and dishonest to use numbers? We’ll take that under advisement in the future. /rollseyes

          What games? What dishonesty? The numbers presented are reliably fact. Go read the report. You say these things and yet can’t explain any of it.

        • Guest

          Hahaha, oh bobmail. Digging your own grave with every comment you make.

          You should change your name to bobfail.

        • maulbob

          “The problem I have is that Ernesto is trying to draw the conclusion that recorded music is only 6% of a musician income, so clearly piracy can’t hurt.”

          Where the hell did you get that from? There is nothing in this article, nor the report, to back up your statement at all. Disagree? Prove it then!

          What I do see is that 94% of the profit from album sales goes to the legacy gatekeepers. The copyright loving corporations are the ones truly hurting artists and this is the true idea I see being put forth.

          And what exactly do these big corporations provide to artists that make them deserving of such a massive slice of the pie? Some time in a recording studio? A bit of advertising? Stamping some CD’s and shipping them to stores?

          None of that justifies the truly massive 94% being taken away from artists by men in business suits. Without talented artists, those suits would have nothing. So given each others relative importance, why do artists keep signing contracts allowing this when they know it’s not really in their best interest?

          Because these same corporations control the vast majority of the industry, gatekeepers in the truest sense of the word. Want to break into the business and make some money from your talent and love of music? You have to cross a toll bridge that is controlled by the suits. Not willing to give them the huge cut they demand? Plan on remaining a nobody, standing on the outside looking in.

          And if you try to circumvent the suits and all the gates they’ve set up by going the indie route? Regret. Those suits, having all that control and the willingness to abuse it, have the power to keep talented deserving artists down and out for good. A perfect example of their underhandedness is payola, a well known and documented scheme perpetuated by those same suits.

          No, they do not care about artists, not even the ones who do give in and sign on the dotted line. They only care insofar as what an artist can provide them, which are riches. Money and the influence and power such provides. Power to get ever more draconian laws passed that favor keeping them at the top, all at the expense and well being of both the artists and society.

          Hopefully someday all of this will change and it will be the artists keeping 100% of the profits. Regardless of the claims made by the suits and their sycophants, such as yourself, people who file share really don’t have a problem with paying. This has been proven by a number of studies over the years and many of us here at TF are living proof, including myself. Eventually the suits will reach a point where they can no longer hide from the things they have done … and none of us will shed a tear at their passing.

        • SoundnuoS

          @bobmail

          >The problem is the report isn’t representitive of where the money is happening. Jazz and classical musicians aren’t powerhouses selling tons of recorded music. Those are subgroups that depend highly on performance, either as part of an orchestra, or as a Jazz musician playing clubs, performing the standards and collecting a paycheck.

          That’s what I was saying. 34.7% of the survey was made up of classical musicians alone and those guys usually have nothing or very little to do with royalty-related income.

          In order to have this paper show the reality for musicians who actually compose and record (the people we’re talking about here) all musicians who don’t do any of those activities should have been removed from the sample.

          That doesn’t change the fact that I find the paper to be supportive of a pro-copyright position, even as it is. Especially the parts of how much of a composers income is related to copyright.

          It’s interesting to see that for the average pop/rock musician income from copyright-related work is almost a fifth of total income. I wonder what people would feel like about having that much removed from their paycheck?
          Again, to really show how much it means for recording and composing musicians, all those who don’t do any of those activities should have been removed from the sample.

          Table 10 is interesting because most respondents report a decrease in income from sound recordings. This would imply that filesharing is actually clearly showing in the revenue stream of musicians.

          Another interesting point is the fact that the top percent of jazz musicians report declines in income from composing and recording and are generally quite negative about the internet.
          This would support my pet theory that’s it’s actually the marginal artists that get hit hardest when their work is being shared for free because their fanbase is so small that there is nothing there to pick up the slack when the fans turn to piracy.

          None of this will matter very much because of the way the graph with the mythical “average musician” is laid out. People who don’t think very far will be able to point at it and go “Look, the record companies steal 94% of the profit from recording musicians!”

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “This would support my pet theory that’s it’s actually the marginal artists that get hit hardest when their work is being shared for free because their fanbase is so small that there is nothing there to pick up the slack when the fans turn to piracy.”

          That theory is sound enough. Here’s the problem though – please point out to me any profession, anywhere, at any time who has not faced an identical problem where that professional has not been able to gain enough of a market niche to support himself?

          If an artist has so small a fanbase that he can not subsist on it then the situation is the same as for any other professional whose skills are so unappreciated he can not use them in order to call it a “job”. The priest who can not carry a congregation has to subsist on other things than holding sermons.

          Such an artist has failed their “job”. Which basically means they are unable to compete in the same league as bloggers who successfully make a living through getting people to just visit their website.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          As far as I know, no profession anywhere, at any time has faced the identical problem of having their customers just take their product for free.

        • Andrew me

          What i got from this article is that artists only get 6% of their profit from music sales. i.e when they sell a cd they get 6% of the profit, that is the cd is sold then the studios take off their costs which they manage to get up to about 90% of the sales price then they give the artist 6% of the ten percent that is left behind. Meanwhile as an example if they design and sell a decent t-shirt they will be making possibly 100% of the profit, depending on whether they pay those people that are selling them or not.

          When you look at it like this which looks like a reasonable assessment of the statistics, artists are not making very much from the sale of music and could possibly make much more if it was given away and people around the world buy a t-shirt from them. Maybe they should start selling t-shirts and giving a free link to download their album.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “As far as I know, no profession anywhere, at any time has faced the identical problem of having their customers just take their product for free.”

          You mean like Google?
          I have news for you. They seem to be doing just fine for a company tossing out free products everywhere.

          Or did you mean Canonical?
          Linus Torvald?

          You know, seems like a LOT of people and a lot of companies, some highly successful, aren’t complaining.

          Now let’s adress the core of your faulty premise. Which is that no one in this case takes anything from anyone.

          Person A buys a CD from a store

          If person B makes a copy of person A’s stolen CD, person B has made a copy of person A’s CD. Point out, if you please, where person B takes anything from anyone.

          If person C makes a copy from person B’s copy, again, please show me where anyone takes anything from anyone else.

          Even if person A had initially STOLEN the CD from the store, person A wouldn’t have stolen from the artist. He’d have stolen from the store.

          If you, as an artist, think a copy of music is the “product” you need to sell as an artist, then you need to get another job. It’s as futile as a carpenter trying to charge everyone who sits in the chairs he’s made.
          And who loudly cries that everyone is enjoying the fruits of his labor. For free.

          Communications media has already progressed to the point where it is thoroughly futile to restrict free communication for anyone who has access to even the barest infrastructure – and indeed, no one would like to live in a world with the restrictions required if unauthorized communication were to be prevented. Even Orson Welles didn’t come close.

          Similarly the urge to pass on something interesting to others is a biological imperative, built in at a level far more basic than mere greed and ambition.
          It will be easier to achieve practical communism than to prevent rampant filesharing using any technology allowing it.

          Copyright has never worked in the non-commercial sense. Ever. The only thing which allowed it to flourish in the first place is that it emerged as a censorship tool in a feudal regime.

          You either adapt to that paradigm shift, learning new skills and how to market them. Or you get steamrolled by the future. And that goes for everyone.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Google doesn’t charge for the ads?
          Torvalds made money on Linux?
          Canonical provides tech support? Who needs tech support for music? “Yeah, you like press play dude”

          Did any of these people or companies have their product taken without consent?

          What part of the word copyright do you not understand?

          People realised hundreds of years ago that the only way to secure compensation for anyone producing immaterial products that rely 100% on being distributed as copies for their sale is to give them the final word on who gets to copy and distribute it.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “Did any of these people or companies have their product taken without consent?”

          Of course not. As Linus himself said on being asked why he didn’t license the Kernel “Because either I gave it away to everyone or it would have been taken from me by a few”.

          So the answer to your question is: “No, they were smart enough to realize the real world offers little choice in that regard”.

          “What part of the word copyright do you not understand?”

          The part where it tells me I have to respect someone else’s desire what I do to my own physical property, whom I communicate to, and what I communicate, obviously.

          What part of “information control is unacceptable” do you not understand?

          “People realised hundreds of years ago that the only way to secure compensation for anyone producing immaterial products that rely 100% on being distributed as copies for their sale is to give them the final word on who gets to copy and distribute it.”

          No, Queen Mary I decided to implement “Copyright” as a means to implement political and religious censorship in an age where protestants were making liberal use of the printing press to ridicule the english crown.

          At the expiry of that license, the very wealthy guild of stationers formed to oversee the implementation of that censorship conveniently invented the reasons you are right now giving as an excuse to maintain their highly lucrative monopoly. Something they succeeded in doing against the same arguments we keep offering today.

          In a time where the main means of mass communication was a printing press, this measure was – barely – able to hold it’s own. And every new progress on actual mass communication has made “Copyright” a more and more absurd concept.

          Today we are facing a situation where one of two things goes away forever. One of those things is “Copyright”. The other is people’s rights to communicate freely at all.

          In that respect your demand for “compensation” becomes as “important” as lamenting the blow British industry would take if India left the empire.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          I’ll counter your property argument with this copy-paste job that has so far been ignored:
          Paying 10-20 $/€ for a record / movie goes nowhere even near to cover even the cost of production. It is silly to expect having the right to redistribute them at that price.
          No one can claim property rights to the content for such a low sum, they remain with the creator.

          What no one ever seems to think about is that the sale of records, movies and books is a remarkably democratic way of selling art.
          It spreads the cost out among everyone buying. Something very popular will automatically be of higher value than something less popular, with more people buying.

          It is crowd funding after the fact, with the publisher assuming all the risks.

          From Wikipedia:
          The British Statute of Anne (1710) further alluded to individual rights of the artist. It began, “Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing… Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors… to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:”

          Seems to me this point from my previous post has some truth in it:

          People realised hundreds of years ago that the only way to secure compensation for anyone producing immaterial products that rely 100% on being distributed as copies for their sale is to give them the final word on who gets to copy and distribute it.

          Only difference between now and then is that we all have the capacity to be book printers

          >Today we are facing a situation where one of two things goes away forever. >One of those things is “Copyright”. The other is people’s rights to communicate >freely at all.

          This, frankly, is hyperbole. Seems to me we’re communicating pretty freely, despite copyright still existing.

      • bobmail

        @icec0ld:

        “You say this but seem unable to point any specific defect to support such a statement.”

        Umm, yeah, it’s all over the comments. Their “average” musician isn’t in the recorded music part of the industry very much, which distorts the results. Jazz artists and classical musicians make much more of their money from teaching and stuff.

        Think about it. How many music lessons do you think U2 has given this year? Or how many classes has Trent Reznor taught? Are you suggesting that they get 22% of their income from teaching? Nope. “Average” in this case refers generally to working musicians, sidemen, and orchestral players. It’s intellectually dishonest to take that and imply that commercial bands only make 6% of their income as a result of recorded music.

        You perhaps want to go look up things like mechanical rights… composer residuals, etc… it’s remarkable how much is made on recorded music.

        So yeah, I pointed to the specific defect. Can you accept it?

        • icec0ld

          “Umm, yeah, it’s all over the comments. Their “average” musician isn’t in the recorded music part of the industry very much, which distorts the results. Jazz artists and classical musicians make much more of their money from teaching and stuff.”

          The average musician is the focus of the study and results because it is repeated constantly that piracy stifles and kills the typical musician by depraving them of their recorded music income.

          “Think about it. How many music lessons do you think U2 has given this year? Or how many classes has Trent Reznor taught? Are you suggesting that they get 22% of their income from teaching? Nope. “Average” in this case refers generally to working musicians, sidemen, and orchestral players. It’s intellectually dishonest to take that and imply that commercial bands only make 6% of their income as a result of recorded music.”

          Again, your sheer ignorance of the actual environment shows with your constant groping of popular artists for your examples. These are not representative of the entire music industry. It is why not everyone is famous and popular.

          “You perhaps want to go look up things like mechanical rights… composer residuals, etc… it’s remarkable how much is made on recorded music.”

          No doubt but reading the report would tell you that sheer amount of money in recorded music is not the focus.

    • ktetch

      And yet the session musicians you’re talking about (I presume you’re talking about the ones specifically for the recordings, rather than the ones hired by gaga/her management) were the ones specifically refered to in the last round of copyright term extensions in the EU (on sound recordings)

      Except when they’re considered ‘works for hire’ (a little trick to take the permormance copyright off them).

      I worked the music business, I know what kind of scum are in the licensing and contract departments.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “The vast majority of performers you see day in day out are working salaried jobs as backup musicians for a main act.

      As an example, can you name anyone in Lady Gaga’s Band? Most can’t, because the musicians are intentionally nameless. They are paid workers.”

      Then they presumably were paid for a set number of hours working? Good.

      Or are you saying the average “paid worker” should be receiving income from his latest work in perpetuity?

      “Oh wait, they don’t want to show the truth.”

      The truth which is presumably according to you that a paid worker should be paid by anyone using his/her work in the future?
      You know what, I’ll try to run that argument by my boss and see what he has to say.

  • SoundnuoS

    Read the paper before getting caught up with the pretty pictures, people.

    The graphs show “the average musician”, the one guy that doesn’t exist.
    The survey includes a lot of different musicians, many of which don’t have any recordings (41.5% answered N/A on the “sound recordings” question and 56.2% answered N/A on the “money from songwriting/composition question”)

    It’s heavily skewed towards classical and jazz musicians (50.9%) and those two genres together make up about 4% of the record business.

    It’s also made in 2011, after music sales have dropped by 50%. It would be interesting to compare it to some kind of similar survey from pre-Napster times, but there probably hasn’t been any made using the same criteria.

    That said, it seemed pretty balanced to me and worth a read if someone is interested.

    I’ll point out that for those calling themselves “composers” copyright-related income on average was around 45%.
    For those musicians who made the most money, copyright-related income was a larger part of the pie than for the average musician. Just goes to show that it’s as everybody has always said, the real money in the music business is in writing songs.
    (As long as people buy the records :)

    I’ll copy-paste some bits for those who don’t want to read the whole paper:

    34/77
    “There are subgroups of musicians who make a much more substantial portion of their revenue from compositions, especially, and also recordings. These relatively copyright­‐reliant subgroups include composers and musicians in the highest brackets for music­‐related income, as described below.”

    35/77
    “This suggests that sound recordings have greater relative importance for lower-income, part-time, and younger musicians. Selling recordings might be a way to get started in the industry. But for higher-income musicians accumulating revenue streams, composition royalties have a much larger role in earning revenue..”

    41/77
    “Figure 8 also shows how some of the negative trends in the industry are affecting musicians’ revenue. Twice as many respondents who compose reported a decrease in mechanical royalties as reported an increase: 50 percent to 24 percent. Unsurprisingly, sales of recordings in traditional retail stores showed a distinctly negative trend, with 50 percent of respondents who record music reporting a decrease. Financial support from record labels is also in decline; 41 percent of those recording artists with record­‐label contracts reported a decrease in financial support against only 9 percent who reported an increase. This accords with my colleagues’ findings in the separate, qualitative­‐interview phase of the larger project.”

    46/77
    “But merchandising, branding, and licensing of one’s persona make up only a tiny fraction of musicians’ revenue, despite the increased prevalence of social networking. Merchandising revenue is a tiny sliver of musicians’ revenue “pie.””

    48/77
    “In sum, some musicians are more dependent on revenue streams that are directly related to copyright than others. The variation in musicians’ sources of revenue is important; it shows that musicians have a wider range of roles and revenue sources that go beyond composing and recording. Musical creativity takes a number of forms, not just the kinds that copyright law protects. This broader perspective should not, however, obscure the reliance on copyright for many musicians in particular subgroups. To return to a key example, those who focus their activity on composing rely on composition revenue and are much more vulnerable to harm from copyright infringement. The same goes for recording artists who rely on sales of sound recordings.”

    Pretty much, yeah.

    • Tactical Nuclear Penguin

      “41/77
      “Figure 8 also shows how some of the negative trends in the industry are affecting musicians’ revenue. Twice as many respondents who compose reported a decrease in mechanical royalties as reported an increase: 50 percent to 24 percent. Unsurprisingly, sales of recordings in traditional retail stores showed a distinctly negative trend, with 50 percent of respondents who record music reporting a decrease. ”
      It’s all in the contract. As many artists have found out, the music company doesn’t want to pay royalties on new formats that come out, Artists from the LP era found that they weren’t getting paid for CD’s, artists from the CD era found out they weren’t getting paid for online sales. So first and formost the drop in royalties is affected by their contract, then dropping sales of physical products being replaced by online digital sales.

      • SoundnuoS

        This is something we don’t know, or have you recently made a contract where you’re not getting paid for digital sales?
        I’d say by 2011 most contracts should have been adjusted to account for the shift in format.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          You mean future spotify contracts will actually provide more generous terms to artists than the above suggests?

          I’m asking this because if current and past trends are anything to go by, the reverse is true. And unless I miss my guess the most prevalent rounds of complaints made by artists came later than 2011.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          You mean the fact that most music is being offered for free doesn’t give spotify all the leverage they’ll need to negotiate any contracts they wish?

          Anyway, the terms of how much of the income from streaming that goes to artists signed to a record deal is something we don’t know, at least I don’t. How those terms could be renegotiated is also something we don’t know.

          For indies that own all their rights and are their own record company, see my point at the start of this post.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “You mean the fact that most music is being offered for free doesn’t give spotify all the leverage they’ll need to negotiate any contracts they wish?”

          That’s exactly what I mean. In order for spotify to get off the ground it took over six years of negotiation with the main labels. After which, every new country for spotify to get introduced to has required several more rounds of negotiation.

          At the end of which every artist to get signed to spotify through a label started complaining about the “close to 0″ revenue they were getting.
          And rightly so. Spotify pays through ad revenues – and have to be transparent about how much they earn. After which the labels grab even more percentage than they do from record sales and pay even less to the artists.

          It’s no wonder Lady Gaga gets ~$200 from a million plays of “Poker Face”. She’d have gotten less than 1/10th of that by being played on radio with a similar audience. This is after the phonographic agency’s collection agency have taken their share as well, mind. It’s pretty clear, looking at numbers from Radio payments and spotify, that quite a lot of money is being paid out but that artists get extremely little from either venue.

          Spotify takes a lot of beating undeservedly, given that collection has hitherto been done by certain swedish agencies (STIM) and only then been allocated to the labels. The revenue stream suffers highway robbery at two places, not just one, before it gets to the artists.

          “Now you’re making the flawed assumption that this income is only 6% of the income for musicians who actually do compose and record, which isn’t what this paper is saying at all.”

          No, apparently musicians who compose themselves gain a hefty chunk in percentage on their deal. That brings them to what, 10%? For recording, well, now you cut away more deadwood and are left with…what? Can we hit a situation where the artists revenue stream from royalties is around 25% or so, minimum?

          Or are we still facing an unchallenged hypothesis that artists are far better off focusing on enhancing their other streams of revenue other than direct sales? I think we are.

          That brings us to Indie labels which is another matter. I don’t think it looks like XL Recordings, Sub Pop, 4AD or Rostrum records are doing badly. And wouldn’t you know it, they get fileshared as much as anyone else.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Your counter-argument could be valid if it wouldn’t be that every indie producer has to accept those same rates. If the indie tries to negotiate spotify can say “take it or leave it” with both of them knowing that the option is to have it taken for free anyway.
          That’s what everyone ignores which is one of the major byproducts of piracy. It removes negotiational leverage from musicians.

          (As a listener I like spotify btw, I’d like to see something like that work out. But like the rest of the net it also has to work out for the people who are putting the stuff out there that makes anyone interested in the first place.)

          And regarding the percentage of income from composing: The paper clearly shows that it can be 45% and higher, no reason why it can’t reach 100% for a succesful composer.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Your counter-argument could be valid if it wouldn’t be that every indie producer has to accept those same rates. If the indie tries to negotiate spotify can say “take it or leave it” with both of them knowing that the option is to have it taken for free anyway.”

          For which you can blame the double-dipping.

          STIM collects the money from Spotify. Then STIM arbitrarily selects who is entitled to receive any money. After STIM has paid their cost for being operational in the first place.

          So by the time the labels do get their cut a significant portion is already missing.

          But there is some truth of what you say. An artist has a choice to publish their music or not.
          If the music is published the artist must find a way to conveniently and easily get money out of his or her fans. Webpages work for bloggers but this is only because the same people come back to the page again, again, and again, every day – and the blogger presents new entries and has a working and highly active forum.

          If the artist is unknown then the first, second, and third step is to become known and acclaimed. And to date Spotify has only one competitor catering to an audience wide enough to assemble those few to whom the artists music caters especially.

          The Pirate Bay – or Promo Bay, today.

          Because Spotify isn’t just a legitimate and legal service – It’s the only such offering a catalogue diverse enough to entice would-be fans of every taste.

          No competition, gouging from the enforcement agency (STIM), further gouging of what remains by the label and at the end the artist still gets ten times as much as a radio performance would with an equivalent amount of listeners.

          If Spotify was as widespread as radio, then that would at least be ten times as big a revenue stream as radio playing offers. More by far still if the artist could actually sign to spotify without label intervention – which, gee surprise, they can’t.

          If Spotify had competition we would also see an increase in basic remuneration.

          It’s rather ironic that Spotify is nothing more than a desperate attempt at recreating napster in legal form. After technological progress has all but closed the window on the central model. Had the labels had the foresight to utilize napster instead of knee-jerk stomping it, we would not be debating this today.

          Today it’s gone so far that copyright enforcement deemed “necessary” is already infringing on basic rights of communication and vital foundations of functional democracy such as messenger immunity.

          We had better hope Spotify actually does succeed in showing the way, because the old model is dead beyond any hope of resurrection.

          “And regarding the percentage of income from composing: The paper clearly shows that it can be 45% and higher, no reason why it can’t reach 100% for a succesful composer.”

          This is the way Trent did it, yes. And no, there is no reason that will not work.
          What will not work at all is insisting that people abstain from making copies, because they will. Fortunately people making copies in such a model is a gain, not a loss.

          Unless you are a record company.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Are you saying Stim doesn’t pay out royalties from Spotify based on the de-facto streams in Spotify?

          Stim also only collects money for plays made in Sweden. How does this matter for foreign indie artists who publish for instance through Cd-baby who keep only 9% of the money from Spotify?

          And the problem with the Promo bay is that it doesn’t do that much promoing.

          You’re saying “If Spotify was as widespread as radio”. That’s another problem piracy creates, getting the legal options to seem tempting enough when there’s always a free option there.

          And as I’ve been pointing out an indie is their own record company, so unauthorised copying is always a loss.

  • Plop

    “it’s as everybody has always said, the real money in the music business is in writing songs.
    (As long as people buy the records :)”

    To be honest, the real money in the music ‘business’ is in writing songs as you say, but not through record sales – it’s through selling that music to people who want to use it commercially for something else, like an advert or film. That’s always been a decent payer for me, particularly getting something onto a primetime TV slot.

    • Guest

      “…,it’s through selling that music to people who want to use it commercially for something else, like an advert or film. That’s always been a decent payer for me, particularly getting something onto a primetime TV slot”.

      Such as?

      • Plop

        Ads are always good payers.

        • Guest

          Yes, I’m well aware of that. Do you have specific examples of your work / work placements in ads / primetime TV slots?

    • SoundnuoS

      Two words: mechanical royalties. If your song sells well that is a significant chunk of cash.
      If you’re an indie, you ARE of course the record company so it all goes to you, even basic sales.

      • Plop

        Now you’re getting it. You see, file-sharing isn’t really an issue once you work out how to make a living from your music regardless. Think flexibly and always keep yourself open to new ‘markets’.

        I’ve always seen file-sharers as free marketing and distribution. And let’s face facts – if someone isn’t going to pay for a track then no amount of stamping your feet will change that. If anything you may just convince them that you’re a cock and not worth listening to. Better to keep your fans and let them share your music because they’re not profiteering from it. Focus on monetising through the people who do want to profiteer from it, such as advertisers and on making money the old-fashioned way through ‘working’ (as if playing music can ever be considered ‘work’ – it’s far too much fun).

        The world is a different place for musicians now than it was 15 or 20 years ago. But not in a bad way. Back then most musicians couldn’t get themselves heard because the gatekeepers stopped them accessing the market, but now the only real barrier is the limit of your imagination.

        • bobmail

          @plop: It’s one of the reasons why every time someone tries to hold Trent Reznor up as a great example of free music, I have to laugh. The guy has made a mint in the copyright world, writing music and collecting royalties from video games, movies, and such. He can afford to give plenty of his stuff away because he’s making a boatload of cash on the other side, from all of his other activities. He is a royalty machine, sucking at the teat of the copyright world every chance he gets.

          He gets to give great public face, while collecting fat checks for copyright works. Nice!

          Now of course, with his latest project with his wife, he knew that giving it away wasn’t going to get it exposure or airplay that he wanted, so he signed a record deal. Even Trent is smart enough to know where the money is, and it’s in getting the exposure and marketing that comes with a good record deal.

          “Back then most musicians couldn’t get themselves heard because the gatekeepers stopped them accessing the market, but now the only real barrier is the limit of your imagination.”

          No, back then artists had two things against them: They were much more protective of their works, not wanting them to be part of movies or heaven forbid commercials, and also that they often formed publishing companies for the music and then sold some or all of those companies to others for quick cash, leaving them with little control over their own music.

          Paul McCartney once told an amusing story of the time he recorded Ebony and Ivory with Michael Jackson. He said the funniest thing that MJ said to him was “I am going to buy your songs”. What Paul didn’t realize was that it was true, MJ was actually trying to buy out the publishing company that owned the rights to the Beatles songs.

          Today, with much of the commercial music world having a half life of beryllium-14, signing rights agreement for the music to get used as much and as often as possible, as quickly as possible, is key to an artist making any money. The music is mostly disposable and quickly forgotten, lost in a sea of other muck out there, so they have no qualms about selling out quick for the cash.

          Times are a-changing, but from a music fan standpoint, this period now is pretty much a low as the horrid power pop era of the mid 70s. The music is just about as easily forgotten, which says a lot.

        • Guest

          @bobmail

          And this is my problem why, exactly? If I don’t like what’s out there I don’t listen to it. I don’t buy it, I don’t download it, I don’t torrent it, I don’t share it. I listen to the few CDs I do have over and over and, if necessary, back up the files. And I have to sit here and listen to you call me a filthy pirate, over and over again. What the fuck.

        • Guest

          @bobfail

          Plop didn’t say a single word about Trent Reznor or anything to do with him. Nice bullshit out of nowhere, Baghdad Bob. Did you have a rant about him all ready to go, got tired of waiting for a moment that made sense to post it, and just decided “eh fuck it, I’ll post it anyway”?

          The release of Ghosts I-IV made him over 1.6 million dollars, so yeah, that’s an absolute validation of free music and self distribution. I laugh whenever some MAFIAA shill like you tries somehow to deny this.

          His new alliance with Columbia indicates one of two things: either he’s amazingly greedy and doesn’t think netting over $1,000,000 per EP is enough, or he has other reasons to sign with them. But one thing’s for sure, it isn’t because Ghosts I-IV failed to make money. And, contrary to what you apparently want us to believe, none of his other projects magically undo its success and everything that it proved.

          “No, back then artists had two things against them: “

          No, Plop was right. You’re making up some ridiculous alternate history where the kind and benevolent music industry was willing sign every artist under the sun, if only they’d stop stubbornly refusing to let their music be used in movies and commercials(WHAT?). The truth is that back then, as now, the recording industry hated risk and an artist wasn’t going to get signed unless the Powers That be thought they were a Sure Thing. And guess what? They only thought a small minority of artists were Sure Things, locking everybody else out in the cold.

          On top of that, even if they did think you were a Sure Thing, you still had to unquestioningly agree with their contract terms and let them fuck you over. If you didn’t, your ass was grass. They were, and remain, bastard gatekeepers and few are the artists they let pass.

          “MJ was actually trying to buy out the publishing company that owned the rights to the Beatles songs.”

          Yes, and what a great day for humanity that was. Instead of letting the Beatles’ catalogue lapse in to the public domain(and that’s one more thing the copyright monopoly has stolen from us), it was purchased by the world’s richest pop star just so he could continue to spend money like water flowing down the Niagara Falls. What amazing evidence for the legitimacy of existing copyright law.

          “Today, with much of the commercial music world having a half life of beryllium-14, signing rights agreement for the music to get used as much and as often as possible, as quickly as possible, is key to an artist making any money. “

          No, Captain Illiterate. For the most part, the key to an artist making any money is to play live. Try reading the article you are commenting on. Of course, if an artist is willing to cut out the middleman and self-distribute(see again, Trent Reznor. Feel free to attempt to laugh reality away), they won’t have any trouble making money from music sales. Unless, of course, their work sucks.

          “The music is just about as easily forgotten, which says a lot.”

          So you’re saying that we need to fight piracy in order to keep shitty bands on life-support? That seems to be the main thrust of your argument, in so far as I can discern any meaning from your rambling wall of text.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Plop

          No, I wasn’t really agreeing with you. The paper clearly shows that copyright-related work and royalties can be significant.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “No, I wasn’t really agreeing with you. The paper clearly shows that copyright-related work and royalties can be significant.”

          Are you saying that an artist who has sales worth ten million should be happy because he gets 1-2% of it? And that this 6% of his total revenue is something he/she should be happy about?

          Now, SoundnuoS, make up your mind. Either you are talking from that perspective of a marginal artist (for whom whatever copyright contracts with a label allots him, the revenue is insignificant compared to what the label has gouged him for in repayments). Or you are talking about a mega star – who in the same seat sees royalties being insignificant in comparison to their other revenue.

          Or you are talking about bobmail’s “unknown musicians” who presumably are unpaid except by royalty for whatever work they perform.

          Because the only way you can say royalty is “significant” is by arguing from a record labels point of view.

          Which would surprise me since you made an effort to tell us all you were in music for a hobby and hoping to go professional – not that you were hoping to help the industry gouge such artists even more.

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          @SoundnuoS

          Only to the highest income musicians and those niche musicians who only compose and record sounds. Which means to say the pop stars of today, the musical ensemble, and the sound effects of movies, tv shows, and games aka NOT the majority of the music industry.

          Imagine, the rightsholder of the Wilhelm Scream should’ve been paid back with interest considering how many movies, tv shows, and video games used it. Damn, that guy must be a multi-billionaire by now. You guys know who it is?

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Now you’re making the flawed assumption that this income is only 6% of the income for musicians who actually do compose and record, which isn’t what this paper is saying at all.

          And indies are their own record companies so it becomes even more important for them.

          I’ll add this bit from the paper that pretty much covers low to high income musicians:
          35/77
          “This suggests that sound recordings have greater relative importance for lower-income, part-time, and younger musicians. Selling recordings might be a way to get started in the industry. But for higher-income musicians accumulating revenue streams, composition royalties have a much larger role in earning revenue..”

        • bobmail

          @Guest:

          you said “The release of Ghosts I-IV made him over 1.6 million dollars, so yeah, that’s an absolute validation of free music and self distribution. I laugh whenever some MAFIAA shill like you tries somehow to deny this.”

          First off, you can drop the “shill” thing. It really takes away from your post. Can you not accept someone not agreeing with you?

          Now, to answer your question: Trent released 4 albums, and make 1.6 million total. That’s nice. Why did he get 1.6 million in sales? it wasn’t because of promotion (There was essentially no radio play), it was from the built up fan base from his label recordings (you know, the lable he ran himself).

          Yet, even the poorly received The Fragile sold 228,000 copies in it’s first week, as a double album it retailed over $20 as a CD, and generated a gross of about 5 million in it’s first week alone. Scale, you know. Reznor got some of that (his deal was pretty good) and also got plenty of residuals as song writer, as music publisher, and so on. Further, the album was a springboard for a two part tour the resulted in a concert DVD that sold very well (see how things are related)? Net in his pocket, The Fragile very likely made Reznor more money than Ghosts, and more importantly continues to make him more money today and will in the future – you know, the old long tail, radio play… residuals.

          You said: “You’re making up some ridiculous alternate history where the kind and benevolent music industry was willing sign every artist under the sun”

          Nobody said that. Far from it, the percentage of acts that get a record deal is very, very low, because the investment made to break an act is rather substantial, and the risks are high. Just like any other business, they invest their money with an eye on a return, not unlike those angel investors who get invovled in tech companies, hoping that one or more of them will hit it big. When they do, guess what – they cash out big time! Are you suggesting their business model is wrong?

          You said: ” Instead of letting the Beatles’ catalogue lapse in to the public domain”

          it shows how little you know or understand. The catalog wasn’t going to “lapse” into anything. It was a package as part of a publishing company, which MJ purchased. That company wasn’t going anywhere. It’s not like someone had left the Beatles tunes in a dust bin or something.

          Clearly from your lack of understanding of even the basics of the discussion, I would say you are pretty much busted. Move along.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @bobmail

          “First off, you can drop the “shill” thing. It really takes away from your post. Can you not accept someone not agreeing with you?”

          Well, Guest does have a point – would you prefer we call you a delusional liar or an utter incompetent based on your long and sordid history of previous commentary?

          The fact is that your arguments consistently lack any shred of intellectual honesty, present false facts with regularity, and try to spin the rest out of recognition. And that doesn’t even cover the times you make assumptions about IT which reality can not ever back.
          When Guest calls you a “shill” he’s actually paying you the compliment of not assuming you are delusional or trolling just for the fun of it.

          “…it was from the built up fan base from his label recordings (you know, the lable he ran himself).”

          Ok, bobmail…so what you are saying that because Trent did things himself he managed to sell what he gave away for free. Making even more fans while doing so.

          In a topic which consists of the importance of labels for artists that’s rather relevant. The rest of it, not so much. Anyone can tell you at no cost that investing any money at all in a pyramid scheme based on the premise that person A will obtain money on the bet that person B and C will not exchange information is pretty ridiculous to start with.

          That sort of “investment” is normally done at a roulette wheel. The only way to win is by being the house.

        • Guest

          @ Scary_Devil_Monastery. Oh look, you’ve just been made an absolute cunt of by bobmail. Well done you.

        • bobmail

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery:

          I would say perhaps you can just leave the adhoms out entirely and try to address points and ideas. 60% of your post is you just trying to figure out a name to call me. How about “person”?

          “In a topic which consists of the importance of labels for artists that’s rather relevant. The rest of it, not so much. Anyone can tell you at no cost that investing any money at all in a pyramid scheme based on the premise that person A will obtain money on the bet that person B and C will not exchange information is pretty ridiculous to start with.”

          Actually, it’s not. It’s called respect, something that is sorely lacking in today’s society. You don’t take something without permission, it’s pretty much a simple rule most of us learned early in life. Piracy at it’s root is the arrogant attitude that your desire for the music / movie / software is worth more than whatever rights the artist has for having created it to start with.

          What you can do is different from what you should do. In a polite and normal society, people do things not because someone is watching them, the police are there, or they risk getting arrested, but rather because it’s the right thing to do.

          For about 100 years, sound, image, and movie recording have been distributed under a system that basically created rules that society agreed to follow in general. No, they cannot be enforced in the absolute, that is something that is up to you individually as a moral person.

          Self control and the ability to conduct ones self in a reasonable and legal manner, even when there isn’t a police car parked next to you is key to a good functioning society. The lack of that is exactly why you have things like gang violence, home invasions, and all that crap. It comes from people not having the moral sense or the sense of respect for others to function in a normal society. Piracy in the end is just the pleasant version of the same thing.

          Quite simply: You wouldn’t have the balls to go into a wal mart with your laptop, rip open a DVD, and start ripping it to your hard drive, because you know you would get it in shit. Why do you think that the internet suddenly removes that moral issue?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @bobmail

          “You don’t take something without permission, it’s pretty much a simple rule most of us learned early in life.”

          And anyone who copyrights a work in reality takes away from me ownership of my own physical property because that person now tries to dictate, as an individual, what I should be allowed to do with the stuff I myself own

          This is indeed a very very simple rule. Everyone trying to claim “copyright” should bar me from doing this or that is a scam artist trying to tell me I don’t own the computer I bought.

          And anyone defending such lunacy is someone desperately trying to uphold that “privilege” by reversing the properly allotted guilt.

          “Piracy at it’s root is the arrogant attitude that your desire for the music / movie / software is worth more than whatever rights the artist has for having created it to start with.”

          It is. Constitutionally so. Copyright is, in the US an optional state-granted privilege. Property ownership is, by that same document, sacrosanct.

          Most countries have constitutions which follow suit. So yes, copyright is a privilege which doesn’t even begin to come close to actual property rights.

          “…people do things not because someone is watching them, the police are there, or they risk getting arrested, but rather because it’s the right thing to do.”

          Which is why people are willing to provide a copy of something interesting to someone else. Because Sharing is Caring. It’s the Right Thing To Do.
          Sharing information is built straight into our genes as a biological imperative. It’s far more fundamental to our success as a race than ambition is. In any world where you can keep people from sharing information, given the technology to do so, you could also implement communism or Nietszche’s enlightened anarchy because that world would not be populated by human beings as we know them.

          “For about 100 years, sound, image, and movie recording have been distributed under a system that basically created rules that society agreed to follow in general.”

          No such thing. To begin with the main reason Hollywood is located in California is because of a desperate attempt by the studios to escape the legal reach of Edison’s patents. And through all the history of “intellectual property” society has never “followed it” except where society actually found it convenient.

          Where society did not find it convenient, even the death penalty did not prevent large-scale violations of such nonsense.

          “No, they cannot be enforced in the absolute, that is something that is up to you individually as a moral person.”

          They can not be enforced at all. Not even when the main medium of communication was a printing press was “copyright” observed. It was circumvented, through all of it’s existence, to the precise degree to which technology enabled it to be circumvented.

          “The lack of that is exactly why you have things like gang violence, home invasions, and all that crap. It comes from people not having the moral sense or the sense of respect for others to function in a normal society. Piracy in the end is just the pleasant version of the same thing.”

          In the same manner that writing a detective story makes you a murderer, you mean (and we might as well use your argument to that effect given earlier)?

          You people should realize by now that trying guilt-by-association by trying to repeatedly bleat “theft! Pedophiles! Terrorists! Assault!” in wild attempts at linking this to piracy simply will not fly. The average “pirate” is a caring person whose main crime is that he or she allows random strangers to copy information from their library.

          Were pirates selfish gangbangers then piracy would not exist. Your problem is simply that pirates are caring and kind people with a greater-than-average moral awareness.

          “Quite simply: You wouldn’t have the balls to go into a wal mart with your laptop, rip open a DVD, and start ripping it to your hard drive, because you know you would get it in shit. Why do you think that the internet suddenly removes that moral issue?”

          Even before the internet I never had the urge to steal anyone else’s property. And you will not find very many pirates who are so inclined.
          However, I certainly taped music off the radio to use in my walkman, and I certainly made my own mixtapes.

          However, both I and every other pirate realizes at once that the person who insists our property is, in fact, not ours is at best a scam artist.

          As you are when you try to draw a comparison between using one’s own property to make a copy of information and stealing someone else’s property.

          Aside from a demonstrated inability to grasp fundamental facts of law and IT we must now add to your CV a total inability to carry a moral argument without reversing the facts.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Do you ever get tired of restating the whole thing over and over? I keep seeing the same comments to @bobmail and @Anon, time and again. It’s got to be getting exhausting.

      • bobmail

        @scary devil dude:

        “And anyone who copyrights a work in reality takes away from me ownership of my own physical property because that person now tries to dictate, as an individual, what I should be allowed to do with the stuff I myself own”

        You are free to do whatever you want with the plastic disc you bought. You can use it as a frisbee, you can put in your cd player, or you can break it into bits. You own it, congrats.

        When you buy a disc, you don’t gain ownership of the content. You get a limited license. It’s the same thing as perhaps renting or leasing a car. Just because you have the car in your possession doesn’t suddenly make it your car, without restriction. You have it on a limited license contract.

        It’s pretty simple. If you can’t grasp that very basic concept, the rest of you highlighted bold spew is meaningless, because you missed the very first thing. Please relearn the basics.

  • Jerk

    A lot of what makes artists the money is the enthusiasm of the fans. A band that wants to control how their fans get their music is going to have a tough time in the future and they will probably die from cancer because of their greedy ways.

  • commenter8

    White House petition to cap all copyrights at 10 years:

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/shorten-excessive-copyright-terms/XMc72zjc

    • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

      Thanks for the reference. Very Useful.

    • Andrew me

      I think ten years is too long but i think it is a start in the right direction so i have signed the petition.

  • steve

    This would explain why there are so many fkin awesome music technology colleges with high profile teachers in the UK

  • DocGerbil100

    Well, fuck my uncle and shit the bed! |=D

    I said years ago in these comments that this was more or less how it was – IIRC, the pro-copyright paid liar(s) commenting here responded with the usual nonsense, only addressing my specific claims once, with the word “bullshit”.

    Ner. >:D

    The only surprise to me is that so many US musicians have a strong opinion on the matter either way, but thinking about it, that does make some sense: as I understand it, American kids get (or at least got) visits in school from MAFIAA representatives, who lecture them on the evils of piracy before they’re old enough to really comprehend it’s existence – I can see how that’s going to have a polarising effect on the way they think later on.

    FYI: I would like to clear up one apparent misconception about how musicians generally work, which is that lots of people here seem to think that most music is made in recording studios. The vast majority of musicians I’ve ever known (I’m from a UK family of musicians) spend very little time actually recording music, the average musician recording maybe one album in a decade, if that (there are exceptions such as Enya, for example, but such artists are relatively rare).

    Typically, it’s only the youngest musicians who fantasise about becoming the next big star – everyone else knows they’re (a) not likely to be that popular and (b) likely to be ripped off by the con-merchants at the label and earn almost nothing from the exercise regardless of how much money it makes (something everyone’s known for many decades). :/

    • SoundnuoS

      Read the paper and think about what it says. For the musicians who actually do composing and recording it matters a lot.

      • Liam Jh

        The artists who compose get paid if the music is good enough to be performed/used or licensed by other artists producers.
        If it is of worth they get paid, seems fairly clear.

      • DocGerbil100

        I wondered when SoundnuoS would try to throw some my way. I knew it was coming. Well, I’m on holiday. Yay. I’ve had many drinks. Hurrah! I think it’s time for a rant. This one’s a doozy. :D

        For anyone wondering, I could be wrong, but on the basis of how various supposedly-separate people have written, I can only conclude that SoundnuoS is the exact same troll who’s been posting here and elsewhere under various names for at least the last five years – on the pro-copyright, pro-reform and anti-copyright sides.

        While each of his sock-puppets has at least an attempt at a distinct voice, they all suffer from the same glaring flaws, for anyone watching carefully.

        • The first clue is over-consistency – every one of his characters maintains a carefully-cultivated written voice. SoundnuoS always sounds exactly like SoundnuoS, no matter how short or long the post, Nejj always sounds like Nejj, Anon the Troll sounds like Anon the Troll, Jack Murdock, Guest the Troll, JJBiener, Reasoned Mind, Neostyles and (quite possibly) Fredrika always sound exactly like themselves, no matter what, from the very first two-line post to the very last symphony of words, years later.

        The only thing wrong with that is that almost no real person ever sounds like this, either in person or in writing. Everybody’s language pattern – with very few exceptions – drifts over time and usually from one day to the next, depending on their state of mind at the time of writing. If you’re inclined and can find and look at the earliest posts from me under DG100 (the only person on here that I can be 100% sure is a real member of the public), while they’re still very much me, they’re very different from how I write today (average post-length was a lot shorter, for one thing). Ernesto and Enigmax have changed, despite having established their writing styles long before I got here (go look at Ernesto’s early posts – most amusing!). Ben Jones doesn’t seem to have changed much, but as far as I can see, he’s a real person who’s never once stopped being angry with the internet, so it’s rather hard to tell.

        People almost always change. It’s by varying degrees, to be sure, but they change. Usually, we improve or at least get more drunk and rant from time to time. Sockpuppets (or at least, weakly-written ones) don’t. There’ll always be one or two people (like Ben Jones) who have a long-developed, consistent tone and pattern, but they are the exception to the rule. For all of our pro-copyright trolls to show identical characteristics for over five years is beyond any shred of plausibility.

        • Character patterns: There’s consistently always three pro-copyright posters on here and seem to have been since I started reading five or six years ago – two named individuals (Reasoned Mind and Neostyles, when I started) and an Anon or a Guest. Or as I like to think of them, Named Stupid Sock-Puppet, Named Smart Sock-Puppet and Anonymous Sock-Puppet (who seems to be either Stupid or Smart on the whim of the poster). With rare exceptions – such as when that Moses guy and his followers showed up and tried to tell us all what’s what (and none of them had a clue how to talk to us) – it never changes. Not from one year to the next. Not plausible, given how variable real people tend to be.

        • It’s worth a bullet-point to say that I might be wrong about specific individuals – I really hope I’m wrong about Fredrika in particular, because his posts have saved the rest of us an awful lot of debunking work. I’m really sorry if I’m unfairly libelling a genuine poster as a nutter because they happen to sound exactly like said nutter – that’s really not my intention at all, please forgive me. :/

        • What’s the point of all these sock-puppets? I’m not sure, but I do note that a lot of the time, the net result of the big back-and-forth debates on fundamentals that never seem to end (such as whether piracy does or does not equal theft, cause harm, etc) is that much of what might be discussed (such as the actual topic of any given blog entry, or how we, as pirates, can best organise ourselves, or where the benefits and drawbacks of file-sharing are for particular kinds of content-creators, or what creators can do in an era of free distribution) are all effectively driven off the page or out of existence entirely by these endless, polarised, meaningless pseudo-debates.

        In my experience, what people say they want – however articulately – is generally a less honest description of their motivations than looking at what they actually get and actually do over the long term.

        The most obvious thing it gets is presence – anyone looking in on the site from outside – such as an artist or journalist or politician – will come away from here with the idea that there’s a whole range of private individuals prepared to stand up for copyright, instead of a silent majority who aren’t sure one way or another because they invariably earn almost nothing from it and a vanishingly small minority of real beneficiaries.

        I doubt that any of these debates have ever changed more than a few people’s minds about file-sharing one way or the other, although the articles sometimes have (I came here with no strong opinions, I came away a convert to the cause, largely after reading the fraudulent bullshit the RIAA likes to peddle as scientific fact, something I would never have seen, if not for TF).

        I don’t doubt that their effect has been to ensure that we all remain disconnected from content-creators who take one look at these debates and leave, disunited as a potential source of our own creative works and disunited as a single political voice.

        • Who’s behind the sock-puppets? I’m not sure. Might be one individual obsessed nutter. Might be one astroturfer for a copyright company. Might be a bunch of astroturfers writing to a highly specific brief. The lone nutter idea gets my vote, simply because I don’t think any astroturfer’s ever been paid well enough to put this much high-quality work into it, never mind a bunch of them.

        Anyway.

        Right now, we have something new, or at least very rarely seen on TF: a Very Smart Sock-Puppet called SoundnuoS, a palindromically-named character and probably the most complex troll I’ve seen on TF. The writer both maintains a tonally-consistent character and uses some very effective, very subtle cognitive dissonance to prevent people from replying, which must be very difficult to do convincingly and consistently over any length of time.

        (NB: For those who don’t recognise the term, cognitive dissonance in this context means saying one thing, jumping out to something essentially unrelated and then back again, or even to a third topic (like the last post he’s written as I write this sentence, a post which starts off with patent law, jumps out to getting Game of Thrones for free and then jumps halfway back to who’ll invest in medicine. Won’t somebody please think of the children! :D). It’s like trying to hold two or three different and unrelated conversations at once – the human brain isn’t usually practised at doing this, so a post using the tactic becomes effectively unanswerable for most people, despite everyone here fundamentally disagreeing with what he’s said. :/ )

        The amount of effort involved for the puppeteer must be quite high, which is presumably one of the reasons why all his other sock-puppets have mysteriously disappeared from here (that and being busy trolling Falkvinge to death over on Reddit). With a bit of luck, the puppeteer will try and write extensively for all of his puppets at once on both pages – in order to debunk my comments – and will end up having a mental breakdown. If they do show up, try and keep them all talking at once and see what happens. :D

        Another notable tactic in use is his increasing insistence that we all go back to an earlier post in the middle of reams of posts in an earlier thread to see why we’re supposedly wrong. Also: he has links ready to paste in to answer any criticism, both to his own past posts and to other sites on the ‘net. Seriously, who does that? Who’s that organised and self-obsessed that they’re keeping links to their own previous posts?! :P

        I note also the lack of anything that we can really “punch against” in his posts – all his statements consist of either typically-vague undeniable facts that we don’t dispute, or quotes we can’t really argue with, because there’s nothing wrong with them in isolation – but all presented in service to an assertion they don’t really support. All most of us can say is essentially “I disagree” and not much else other than quibbling with his implied assertions, all of which feels too weak to post. :P

        The only reason anyone anywhere ever communicates like SoundnuoS is to make it as difficult as possible for anyone else to answer the points that are being made, the degree of skill involved is very uncommon and the degree of intellectual dishonesty involved is without parallel.

        No real musician or music-teacher anywhere on Earth writes like this.

        Anyway, to answer his specific post:
        “Read the paper and think about what it says. For the musicians who actually do composing and recording it matters a lot.”

        It’s a great two lines, the first simultaneously suggesting and asserting that I’ve (a) not read the paper, (b) don’t understand it, (c) that he has much more knowledge of the matter than I do and (d) that he can order me around like an employee. It also has the effect of dragging readers’ thoughts away from my emphasis on copyright (which is that most musicians don’t benefit much from it), up to the paper (that most commenters won’t read) and, with the next sentence, back down to the disproportionately-paid minority who do significantly benefit (while conveniently ignoring that they are the tiny minority).

        The only way his post can be considered to be truthful on balance, is if you overlook the facts that (a) most musicians get nothing or nearly nothing from copyright, no matter how much he dodges and weaves around the point, (b) he’s deliberately using psychological tricks to try and drag your attention away from that point and (c) no-one here is his bitch, he’s ours – nobody has been as obsessed with TF as he is – or posted as relentlessly and tediously over the years.

        How do I address all of that in a brief post? I can’t. No-one can, unless they’ve spent many years honing their skills and designing online writing-personalities specific to the job.

        I can only really answer it with a post like this one, as unfeasibly and unfairly long as it is.

        SoundnuoS, you are a liar and an utter fraud and have been for many years.
        You are a blight and a pox on the face of humanity.

        You are the enemy of freedom.
        You are the enemy of justice.
        You are the enemy of democracy.
        You are the enemy of truth, love and hope.
        You are the enemy of civilisation, capitalism and human advancement.

        You are the enemy of the internet.

        You are the enemy of every musician on Earth.

        Go away.

        • SoundnuoS

          Wow, there’s no way I’ll be able to prove I’m strictly one character, this is the net after all. Still, I’ll answer your post with what will probably turn out to be another wall of text.
          Considering the time it takes (some of which I’d really need to spend on other stuff) to write the posts I’ve written recently, I probably would have a breakdown if I tried to maintain other “characters”.

          About consistency: Imo people actually have fairly consistent posting styles over the short-term. I’ve only been posting for a week or so, so this is the way I currently write.
          Most people whose posts I’ve noticed have been fairly consistent in style during the time I’ve been here, see Scary_Devil_Monastery, TwoThumbs etc.
          I’m also not a native english speaker, so that probably makes my writing a bit stiffer.
          You’re also assuming I’ve only done music for my whole life. I spent two years studying engineering before I noticed that’s not really what I want to spend the rest of my life doing, went on to spend a few years at university studying philosophy, which probably is where a lot of my “style” comes when writing about philosophical and scientific questions. Then dropped out of that as well because I realised I had to do something with music even if it means eaking out a meager living as a guitar teacher.

          I came here from a guitar forum where this argument had been going on for a while so some of my arguments were ready. I link back to previos posts, when the exact same argument appears again and I feel that it’s already been discussed in there. This is to save everyone from having to read (and myself from writing) another wall of text on exactly the same subject.
          A lot of the arguments have been made in dialog with someone, so imo it also makes it easier to follow the line of thought if you can see the counter-arguments.

          I don’t agree that I’m using coginitive dissonance. I’m trying to show that copyright is justifiable and I try to analyse it from a wide perspective. In general I feel that I try to lock onto specific points made by someone and then try to analyse what some of the potential consequences are if we accept them.
          The example you gave about patent law was a specific response to a very manipulative post by some Guest about medicine patents.

          Finding the links to research was easy since I stumbled onto the SSRN site a week ago. You find one paper and related papers are listed.
          The thing that has always annoyed me with pro-piracy arguments is that there’s always a lot of claims about science supporting it (without any proof being given). It’s also always claimed that there is no science to oppose it when in fact the science to support a pro-copyright position is there for anyone to read.
          Most of the pro-piracy arguments seem to be made from opinion and use as evidence a bunch of sites that cross-reference each other.

          Even the research that actually support a pro-copyright position gets twisted into something else. Like this paper we’re talking about here. It clearly shows that royalties and recordings can be significant sources of income for the musicians that actually do them. This is then somehow made into a pro-piracy argument?

          That’s what we’ve been talking about right? If selling records matters as income for the people who make them?

          Well, there it is. Take it or leave it.

        • bobmail

          @SoundnuoS: Well written piece. I think this is key:

          “I don’t agree that I’m using coginitive dissonance. I’m trying to show that copyright is justifiable and I try to analyse it from a wide perspective. In general I feel that I try to lock onto specific points made by someone and then try to analyse what some of the potential consequences are if we accept them.”

          Almost any system in the world has some bad to it. I think line ups suck, but I understand that lining up for something is the way to assure that everyone gets their turn. I understand that it’s important to have traffic laws, even if I want to drive my car too quickly or perhaps on the other side of the road. Looked at in a narrow context (my car should be able to drive anywhere!), it would be right. But in the broader context of traffic laws, public safety, community interest, and perhaps even self preservation, it’s wrong.

          The wider look tells the story.

          Most of the articles you will see here, on Techdirt, and with a few other of the anti-copyright types generally try to prove the system defective by looking incredibly narrowly at single instances, single items, and single parts of the system. That will always be their downfall, because while it plays well to the yes-men who scream “amen!” at the end of every sermon, it really undermines their cause by making them look petty.

          This story is a perfect example. Putting something out there that says “only 6%!” makes it look like piracy wouldn’t hurt much. But the reality is much different, and the connection between recorded music, mechanical rights, composer income, performance rights, commercial deals, and the like is all hinged on that recording. The existence of copyright and the legal structures that exist as a result of it are what makes all of this possible, in a relatively standard way that makes in financially viable.

          Ignoring the whole system to focus on single things is silly, and I think you have spotted why this article (and many others here) follow the trend.

        • SoundnuoS

          @ bobmail

          Yes. We’ve had a major explosion in the diversity of popular culture since the post-war years. This is due in large part to the fact that it has been sellable.
          This has created an unprecented possibility for artists of various kinds to make a living from their art.

          People want to continue to have access to a wide variety of cultural products, most people say they support a creator being compensated for their work and yet they call for the removal of copyright, which is what makes all that possible in the first place.

          That’s some major cognitive dissonance right there.

        • Liam Jh

          And this looks like two MPAA/RIAA Shills trying to hijack a thread, and congratulate each other on the illusion of presenting a reasoned argument for ‘copyright’.
          One of the CIA’s techniques I believe, well played.
          But….. Everyone knows Bob is deluded and only sees his own side of the discussion, facts are just a mild distraction.
          Congratulations SoundnuoS, but you may as well have picked Nejt to be your partner.
          Well spotted DocGerbill100

        • SoundnuoS

          @Liam Jh

          I see no counter argument in your post

        • Liam Jh

          @SoundnouS

          I didn’t post one, there is no point, I don’t have enough money too employ you.

        • Liam Jh

          Well just for the giggles then –
          “Yes. We’ve had a major explosion in the diversity of popular culture since the post-war years. This is due in large part to the fact that it has been sellable.
          This has created an unprecented possibility for artists of various kinds to make a living from their art”
          No this is largely due to the use of mass transport and communication systems and open boarder policies that where developed pre and post-war, allowing a more diverse range of cultures to mingle and develop new ideas and sub-genres. It only became sellable when someone decides to put a price on it.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Liam Jh

          The only reason so much has been published and made available to the general public is because it has been sellable. To deny that, one has to live in an alternate reality imo.

  • joexxx

    That’s the way it should be. Musician gets paid to practice their art – to make and perform music, not to sell copies of his/ her performance.

    • Andrew me

      I think if a music track or part thereof is used to make a profit then a part of that profit should go to the artist, say 85%. But i think individuals downloading music for the fun off it should not be charged for anything as they are not making a profit.

      I do think musicians have an expectation of making some money from their music if it becomes popular and is used everywhere to make money for businesses. This is the only reason i think copyright laws should exist, to get big businesses to pay a reasonable part of the profit to those who have made there existence possible.

      • joexxx

        Absolutely. If you use somebody’s music to make money, you should pay the artist.

  • PARANOIDDELUSIONAL

    You know what’s weird, this is totally off subject, but I think something is going to change soon, and I’m a little worried. I THINK IT IS THE SHADOW GOV’T.

  • josh949

    You are confusing musicians with the models on the cover of cd’s.

  • Funny

    some day they will take all the revenue from selling ,when they leave this mafia.

  • Matt

    Figure 2 – 22% of income from teaching?

    In other words, music teachers who don’t have record deals make more money from teaching than they do from selling records.

    Wow. That’s amazing.

  • Mean-ingless Numbers

    Mean numbers are misleading, because they amalgamate very different situations. Drawing a meaningful conclusion from such disparate situations is pointless, if not intellectually dishonest. You cannot throw in the same bowl a popular musician signed with a major recording company together with an obscure indie artist on Bandcamp, shake well, divide by two and claim that it represents the music industry. Only people driven by ideology and not science would do that.

    I couldn’t care less about Lady Gaga, Hobbit movies et al. What I want to know is how file sharing is affecting independent artists. What about musicians who don’t have a record deal and release their music through Bandcamp? What about musicians who don’t play live shows (because of day job, stage fright, whatever, the reason doesn’t matter)? What about artists who (rightly imo) don’t want to prostitute their art through selling junks (t-shirt etc) or appearing on TV commercials?

    That’s what I care about. And that’s what you should care about also if you truly despised the MAFIAA and its products. But I know there’s a lot of hypocrisy in here, a lot of people saying how much they loathe the MAFIAA and at the same time being their best customer…

    • Liam Jh

      I couldn’t care less about Lady Gaga, Hobbit movies et al. What I want to know is how file sharing is affecting independent artists. What about musicians who don’t have a record deal and release their music through Bandcamp? What about musicians who don’t play live shows (because of day job, stage fright, whatever, the reason doesn’t matter)? What about artists who (rightly imo) don’t want to prostitute their art through selling junks (t-shirt etc) or appearing on TV commercials?
      File sharing is giving artists an opportunity to promote/sell themselves with freedom from restraint and an independence allowing then to voice any message they wish without the control of a global branding machine.
      If a musician cant play live – people still pay for quality physical goods marketed at a fair price.
      If an artist does not want to sell cheeseburgers/T-shirts or the latest condom or soda – then they simply don’t have too, no guns being held to anyone’s head.

      I am hypocrite – I download movies/music – I also buy a lot of cd’s/blu-rays I go to at least 6 concerts a year.

      I is a Pirate – Arghhhhh

      • SoundnuoS

        >If a musician cant play live – people still pay for quality physical goods marketed at a fair price.

        From the paper:

        46/77
        “But merchandising, branding, and licensing of one’s persona make up only a tiny fraction of musicians’ revenue, despite the increased prevalence of social networking. Merchandising revenue is a tiny sliver of musicians’ revenue “pie.””

        • Liam Jh

          “But merchandising, branding, and licensing of one’s persona make up only a tiny fraction of musicians’ revenue, despite the increased prevalence of social networking. Merchandising revenue is a tiny sliver of musicians’ revenue “pie.””

          As my original post was in response to ‘what about independent artists who don’t play live’, as is the case – the independent artist will keep a larger share of the whole revenue pie, no inflated % going to a third party mafiosa.

        • bobmail

          @Liam Jh : The problem is your independent artist is often selling to a much much smaller potential audience. It’s the difference between your product in the corner store down the street and your product in ever Wal-mart in the world. You make much less per unit with Wallyworld, but they move such a huge amount of material that you literally “make it up in volume”.

          10% of a dollar is much less than 1% of a million. You have to look at the net effect, not the middle of the calculation.

        • Liam Jh

          @Liam Jh : The problem is your independent artist is often selling to a much much smaller potential audience. It’s the difference between your product in the corner store down the street and your product in ever Wal-mart in the world. You make much less per unit with Wallyworld, but they move such a huge amount of material that you literally “make it up in volume”.

          You are mistaken – an independent artist has exactly the same target audience as the major labels – anyone and everyone. The independents have a say on how they present there art to the public. Any independent can distribute globaly now, in a more efficient and profitable manner than the ‘major’ labels.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Liam Jh

          Rights to merchandise are generally separate from recording contracts (before the 360 deal anyway). Despite this the study shows that merc is without contest the smallest part of the income for a musician. Merch is not a replacement.

        • bobmail

          @liam Jh: “an independent artist has exactly the same target audience as the major labels – anyone and everyone. ”

          Yes, but the access to that market, the exposure, the marketing, the national and international presence, the ability to get the songs on radio, on streaming sites playlists, heck, getting the artist exposes on sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton… that is all what an independent artist tends to lack.

          Don’t confuse “target market” with “access to market”. Just putting up a website (or a song list on a music site) does not constitute real access and equal marketing potential.

        • Liam Jh

          “Yes, but the access to that market, the exposure, the marketing, the national and international presence, the ability to get the songs on radio, on streaming sites playlists, heck, getting the artist exposes on sites like TMZ and Perez Hilton… that is all what an independent artist tends to lack.”

          And it comes to the same fact – independent artists keep more of the profit and don’t have to pay inflated %’s to a third party mafiosa. If the music is of quality (heck even novelty) then It will get played/sold.

          Enter Shakari ftw.

    • Fsite

      “I couldn’t care less about Lady Gaga”
      Almost throw up when I hear that name.

    • Andrew me

      “What about artists who (rightly imo) don’t want to prostitute their art through selling junks (t-shirt etc) or appearing on TV commercials?”

      WTH seriously , i can understand artist maybe not wanting to live gigs for whatever reason, but you are saying that artists dont want there content to be used in specific areas where people will hear it and they will be financially reimbursed(if they are involved in every financial aspect of there contract)

      If you want to make money from your creation then say that you do not want to have it used in a certain way because of some perceived right and weird outlook, then you do not deserve to be making any money. Nobody can tell me what i can and cannot do with anything i purchase, why should the musician be any different… yes i should pay some of the profits i make by using that artists work to generate wealth for myself(acceptable copyright law), but why the hell should the artist in any way have any say with what i do with something i have paid money for, or that is mine.

      This is one of the problems and should be used as an example as to how the musicians have too much perceived control over there works.

      When i buy a car i can do whatever i want with it, if i use it god forbid as a means to kill someone the manufacturer cannot in any way claim financial restitution for the misuse of the car, the same if i buy a painting, i can alter it and photograph it and do anything i want with it, just as long as i make a potential purchaser clear of the changes i made, and no i do not have to pay a penny to the artist if i resell it and make a profit.

      The artist creates a music track and that track when released becomes public property , if he does not like that then he needs to look for another job, in a completely different area where he can stop people seeing what he does, maybe become a night time guard somewhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500329334 Jonathan Segel

    Right. So a musician must do all of these activities to earn a living. Great.

  • Andrew me

    Actually i read a good post about this on a site somewhere i cannot for the life of me remember which site so please dont ask, if you know please post a link thanks.

    in my own words:

    It is called stealing and it is called copying and it is called sharing but in reality if you look at how a computer and the Internet works , what is happening is you are downloading a torrent file, this torrent files provides instructions on where to get further instructions to build a file, this file when it has been built is than used in a software program to generate a stream of 1′s and 0′s to create an analogue signal which creates sound through your speakers. You are in fact not downloading a music track, you are downloading the instructions to create a music track.

    Now if i had to download the instructions to create a 3d model of a car there would be no problem as the car would be made from materials i have paid for, i.e electricity in the case of an mp3 and a polymer in the case of a car.

    Where is the theft in this and where is the illegality in this. As long as i do not sell my creation for financial gain i am not doing anything illegal. So in fact the law that sharing a torrent is illegal is wrong. :)., I wonder how a court would see this.

    • SoundnuoS

      Doesnt work, you’re not producing a new work of art in the process. The “instructions” on how to build the track have already been made by the original creator and are copyrighted.

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        That is exactly the problem with existing Copyright Law as a system for encapsulating the Ownership of Ideas.

        The Founding Fathers understood that those who would make themselves the owners of Ideas would quickly make themselves the owners of our Democracy; and, soon thereafter, would own us.

        So they explicitly stated, in the face and body of the Constitution (not as an addendum), the purpose of Copyright to be the incentivizing of Creative Arts for a limited time; rather than the perpetual profit for the Copyright holder; with quickest possible reversion to the Public Domain.

        Corporate Copyrigjht Holders abolished the Public Domain and substituted their own Corporate Domain: It’s killing us! Just as the Founding Fathers knew it would!!

        The notion that you have made yourself the exclusive owner of an idea in perpetuity; and, that humanity owes you an eternal Tax for its use is NOT defensible.

        That’s why six billion Andrew Me’s who you can Not control will print their cars with ideas you do not own.

        • SoundnuoS

          If that’s what this is about, then we can all stop worrying. Ideas aren’t copyrightable and never have been. They are in the public domain as soon as they are expressed.
          It’s the specific implementations of ideas that are copyrightable.

          The idea of a girl going out, being attacked by some evil and saved by the hero at the end (Little Red Riding Hood) has been varied in uncountable stories and movies.
          The idea of a guy working for a mean boss on a boat, who meets a girl and the amusing antics they get up to (Steamboat Willie) is freely available for anyone to make their own variation of.
          The idea of a major I – VI – II – V progression in 4/4 time and an AABA structure can be used by anyone and freely varied.

          Ideas can’t be owned. Their specific implementations can be. Can we all go home now?

  • Sam Reeves

    anytime a way of making money is taken away it hurts many more people than those on the top … to just look at the top is a good way to justify robery from those you don’t recognize…

    • IDIOCRACY

      I don’t recognize those on the top, I buy indie, that justifies copying the TOP hehe

  • Rusty Shackleford

    So basically, it’s would be helping musicians if you did download their music and spent that money on merchandise on their own website.

  • Dirty_Bear

    “Some of your posts do read a bit like statements from a man on a campaign, so I’m guessing there’s some career-related interest here, possibly in connection with the pirate party?”

    Wow, they removed your post rather quickly SoundnuoS. The one regarding a particular persons (Scary_Devil_Monastery ) cough.., affiliation to the pirate party…. I was just about to reply to it and then whoosh. Gone. But I think you are right on the money.

    If you suddenly discover that you are having problems posting again, remember that your IP Address is stored in a cookie.

    • SoundnuoS

      I still see it? Or is it a special showing just for me?
      It would be ironic if a site that claims to be dedicated to free speach would censor posts.

      • Dirty_Bear

        It may have been a glitch because your post was showing up as the the very first one. After hitting reply it was gone.

        They were censoring posts, or more specifically, IP banning users who expressed opinion against piracy. However, It wasn’t too difficult to get through.

        It seems that they lifted the ban a couple or so months ago. During this time a few users, including myself, started openly complaining. I was under the impression that they were back to their old tricks again.

        One of the regulars actually blogged about it.

        http://nejtillpirater.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/piratsidor-med-censur/

        • BJonesTF

          Actually, It’s more a bit of a whine. People flag, disqus hides, if it gets a LOT of flags. If lots of posts by the same account gets lots and LOTS of flags, the system stops posting them as a probable spammer.

          I’ve sent an email to Disqus asking about this, and maybe we’ll find out more, but one thing is odd, and that’s the timing on the flagging. It’s almost as if he’s flagging himself, because the activity of the flagging doesn’t match the activity of the site.

          And as the person in charge of the moderation, I’ll say this, Nej is all for automated systems stopping infringement, but apparently automated systems that stop spam are heinous affronts to him because they’ve targeted him, and may be false.

          That he sees no problems with these actions related to alleged copyright infringement targeting others, but has a problem with the same practices targeting spam that affect him, tells you everything you need to know about it.

          And as a side note, if he’s so delicate that Frederika intimidates him, then perhaps the internet is not the place to be. Keyboard warriors are not intimidating, except to the weak of mind, or to those that like to play at being the victim.

  • Asd

    Anyone who signs a record deal today is utterly and completely out of their mind.

    • robthom

      There are plenty of those walking around.

  • Pudderkiz

    If you don´t believe us, believe artists. Wu-Tang clan released an album under a label, but only to rocket shoot their solo careers so they could dictate their own contract terms. Lot´s of people start independent labels, and put in hard work to build them up, because big labels are known to be bloodsuckers to pretty much any artist, exept the fabricated ones that the big labels usually holds.

    • robthom

      Thats the way to do it.

      If you have a hot enough song the radio will be forced to play it and then the industry will come to you.

      Get hot on youtube first.

    • SoundnuoS

      So you mean record contracts are actually useful for building a career? Hmmm….

  • robthom

    If it weren’t for the big media monopolies then artists would be able to promote and release themselves independently.

    But radio stations and music TV aren’t supposed play songs that aren’t brought to them through industry connections.

    The big labels are the reason that artists dont keep most of the money their music makes,
    and often dont even end up owning their own music.

  • Culto

    Very few musicians are recording artists.
    Copyright issues only affect recording artists.
    Very few recording artists ever see artist royalties.
    Publishing income is what has always sustained recording artists.

    • SoundnuoS

      And how is publishing income unrelated to copyright?

  • http://twitter.com/brucekap Bruce Kaplan

    This is a poorly reported story for many reasons. #1 The most important question is how has musicians income mix changed, i.e. what has been the effect of piracy before and after the advent of downloading. # 2 Most songwriting royalties are associated with the sale of recorded music. #3 the average musician is not a professional, but an aspiring or part time musician. But there are many people in between, who are trying to sell music to a niche audience, and they find that there music is easily pirated online. Don’t delude yourselves. Piracy hurts all kinds of musicians at all levels and diminishes the opportunities to make enough money to pay the rent.

  • SomeGuy

    Actually even that 6% is misleading, most artists don’t realize how they are really being screwed until their career ends when the the bills they didn’t know they had show up and they discover most of their income was actually credit. I’ve even met a band that discovered (After all members were bankrupt) that every time the label published their next album they owed more than before.

  • Pingback: Sound Recording Just 6% of Average Musician’s Income (Updated) « Geekpolitic : on Freedom, Privacy and Security

  • Pingback: Linkdump from Facebook 1

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.dear.39 Matthew Dear

    this is taking into account the overall industries earnings, not individual earnings. This shows that because musicians do not earn enough from sound recording they are forced to supplement their income.

    Manipulating data is sick and wrong

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.