Piracy is a Negotiation, not a Fight
Written by Matt Mason on March 25, 2008The sale of Bebo.com to AOL for $850 million last week sparked a fresh wave of opining about music piracy, with Billy Bragg and Michael Arrington both stepping into the ring. The problem is, they are both wrong.
In the blue corner we have musician Billy Bragg, who sees people like Bebo founder Michael Birch as another type of pirate, or profiteer, earning millions by leveraging other people’s intellectual property, and sharing none of it. He writes in The New York Times:
“The musicians who posted their work on Bebo.com are no different from investors in a start-up enterprise. Their investment is the content provided for free while the site has no liquid assets. Now that the business has reaped huge benefits, surely they deserve a dividend.”
“What’s at stake here is more than just the morality of the market. The huge social networking sites that seek to use music as free content are as much to blame for the malaise currently affecting the industry as the music lover who downloads songs for free. Both the corporations and the kids, it seems, want the use of our music without having to pay for it.”
Artists add value to Bebo, but Bragg is over-reaching claiming they deserve a share in Bebo’s sale price. Bebo also adds value to artists who voluntarily post their songs on the site. Does Bragg also think artists who post on Bebo.com should share their concert ticket profits and royalties with the social network?
In the red corner we have Michael Arrington from TechCrunch, making the opposite but no less extreme case that “recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist.” He also says “if an artist can’t make a living playing concerts live, then he/she may want to think of it more as a hobby than a way to make a living.”
Arrington reasons that because music can be reproduced at a zero marginal cost, it should be free. But marginal cost does not equal total cost. It still costs something to produce music. It still takes money, time and effort to produce good music, not to mention software, movies and other goods with zero marginal cost. People producing such things need to make money in the end. Zero marginal cost does not mean it should be free. It just means we need a new distribution system.
Bragg’s line of reasoning is skewed, but he makes one good point; creative works like songs and films are worth something, and we have to figure out a way to reward creative people fairly in the age of the Internet.
Arrington’s argument is also flawed, but he’s right to say that Bragg is off the mark, and he’s right to say we should neither “line up file traders and shoot them”, or “give a government subsidy to anyone who calls themselves a musician so that they can pursue their art.”
Fortunately for the rest of us, these are not the only two options. Bragg and Arrington represent the two polar opposites in this ongoing debate, and they’re both wrong.
All the people at the extreme ends of both sides of this debate are wrong. But the truce is coming. Soon enough, there will very likely be a $5-$10 a month voluntary license fee for downloading all the music you want, and most people will be happy to pay it. As long as the money makes its way back to artists, it will help the music business grow.
I can’t wait to see an Internet where incredible music resources like OiNK can exist and artists can prosper at the same time, and that day is coming, hopefully sooner rather than later. But when that happens, another community will suddenly find itself as redundant as the music industry’s lawyers; the pirates.
When peace breaks out in the music business, a lot of people are going to have to find something else to talk about (which is why I cunningly future-proofed The Pirate’s Dilemma by talking about piracy in all businesses…). Music pirates will no longer be the face of the revolution, they will be part of the old regime. Over 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote: “Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those, who would prosper under the new.”
Pirates create periods of chaos, then society works out how to make this chaos work for everyone, at which point it is enshrined in law and becomes the new order. Piracy itself is not a long-term solution. The arguments for music piracy as a force for change will become old news when file-sharing is finally legitimized, but the good news is there is still plenty for pirates to rebel against.
The pirate’s job is to push the envelope, while the corporation must play catch up as fast as it can. Both of these communities need each other. But when the corporations do catch up, the pirates need to move on. File-sharing is not so much a movement that needs to survive for its own sake as it is a means to an end. This isn’t a war without end. It’s a negotiation.
Previously: Most Popular DVDrips on BitTorrent (wk12)
Next: Help Azureus to Fight BitTorrent Throttling ISPs
51 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
I can see Bragg’s point about Bebo, but no one has forced him to upload his music for free. He’s perfectly entitled to have his own website with free mp3s and a “DONATE” button. That’s what I’d use.
It’s optimistic to think that pirate sites are acting as a force for change, but a view I share. I just wish the artists would hurry up and realise they don’t need record companies any more. They should utilise torrents in the same way as Trent Reznor, allowing them to make a living if their music is worth it.
The flat-rate licence/tax is something I am totally opposed to. Payment for music should be according to ability and desire to pay.
Is this the real Matt Mason speaking on here? How interesting.
i wonder if this guy is talking on a global scale or just on a u.s scale.
if he talking bout piracy on a national scale confined within the u.s,and limited to music industries,maybe it would work,…just maybe,….
however,applying a solution for a specific industry on a global scale to all types of industries is just plain b.s,
piracy is not a revolution,it has started since man could aquire,store and retrive knowledge,some of the best example would be the art of paper making,which was stole and used worldwide,to the extreme that even violence was applied to get this know-how. check wiki,…
and yes,file-sharing is a mean to
an end,and to meet that end on a global scale is far from possible.
among the things that needs to b sorted out are:
unfair price due to unfavourable conversion rate.
consorship-movies that are allowed in certain countries were banned in “certain” countries,even games.
and the type of ppl that just wants somting for nothing.
and btw,i didnt see any period of chaos created by piracy.the stock market didnt fluctuate due to piracy,execs didnt leap to thier death from hi building due to piracy,9/11 created a period of chaos,piracy didnt.
just b’cos a handgun *could* kill it didnt mean u can win wars with it…
and the correct title for this article should be “MUSIC piracy COULD b a negotiation,not a fight”
ps:2 wrongs still didnt make a right
[quote]This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.
$0.17 Musicians’ unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists’ royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead[/quote]
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/walmart_wants_10_cds
[quote comment="318390"]we talk a lot of shit here on TF.
second in line only to the youtube sheep, we mew random opinion because we really do not have a fuckin thing to do.
anybody got a good random torrent to throw at me?[/quote]
Evans Blue, Reveille, Within Temptation (sound)
Zeitgeist, Network Convoy (picture)
Sorry, Network and Convoy are distinct, not one title
Last one for now;
[quote]The pirate’s job is to push the envelope, while the corporation must play catch up as fast as it can. Both of these communities need each other. But when the corporations do catch up, the pirates need to move on. File-sharing is not so much a movement that needs to survive for its own sake as it is a means to an end. This isn’t a war without end. It’s a negotiation.[/quote]
Sorry Matt; I disagree. You did an earlier story, actually, fairly well done but with a few crucial failings on the rise of piracy and the need to compete rather than stifle.
The same core failing is in your argument here: you assume that if for even one instant pirates and mafIAA can negotiate a ceasefire / bff business plan, then forever and ever the dinosaur mafIAA will stay true to the deal, never again over-restricting their products, GROSSLY overcharging for their products, or abusing their customers.
This is where you are mistaken.
Its unfortunate, too, because I was very impressed with your presentation on piracy, and you made the point repeatedly - British radio, British record companies, American record companies, Fox studios, Hollywood - so many examples of outlaws opposing the system, then within less than one generation becoming even more corrupt than the system they once fought. And this will happen with piracy.
Honestly, I mean no offense, but did you not see the trend? That every successful outlaw/pirate person or company or country ended up being more oppressive than the original oppressor?
That is exactly what will happen to the so-called “successful” venture that legalizes/”legitimizes” piracy!!!
I agree that the current mainstream digital media business model needs to change; I agree that it needs to be better; I agree that it cannot compete (although it is economically possible) with piracy; but I COMPLETELY disagree that if the business world ever comes to its senses, it will be the end of the need for piracy.
Piracy is the competition, the thorn-in-the-side, that spurs these dinosaur mafIAA of all shapes and sectors to be better (more productive, high quality, contributing to society rather than taking from it) competitors.
In closing, the argument is philosophical; you do see much of the economic, but miss all of the long term and philosophical meaning behind the movement.
here.we.go! - I totally agree with you. I think we are both thinking along the same lines here.
I don’t make any assumptions about how the industry will act in the long term, you’re right, it probably will become corrupt again. This generation’s pirates will become legitimized, form a new establishment and almost certainly become corrupted sometime in the future. I don’t see why this wouldn’t happen, it always has in the past.
But that doesn’t exclude the possibility of the majors and the file sharers coming to an understanding of some kind in the near future, in fact that has to happen for this current period of chaos to be replaced with a new order, which is then corrupted.
I think we agree on this. The great thing about the presence of pirates is they keep the markets in check, they are the market’s subconscious, and when there is a problem, a market failure of some kind, the pirates begin acting up until the situation is rectified.
i disagree wholeheartedly with this article, and there’s been an increasing amount of this hypocrisy here lately. in other words, shove it.
i feel bad for anybody that thinks recorded music is nothing more than a marketing tool.
Its seems like the music world knows its way of working is dying, hence this awful effort to still gain money the old way. Imagine if music was free and you only paid for what you felt earned it after you listened to it, a lot of music acts would die overnight, musicians would finally have to pull there finger out and do something fucking interesting for once.
[quote comment="318408"]“You cannot sell what can be freely reproduced.”
Right.
So this means we can no longer sell:
Seeds
Animals
Movies
Software
Bummer. I’ll let everyone know. Thanks for clearing that up.[/quote]
Specious logic, thanks for trying.
Seeds and animals have inherent costs in the reproduction formula. While on the other hand, digital media has none. One digital copy to another costs nothing to perform, assuming a local disc transfer, and nothing more than the costs of bandwidth for a remote one.
In the New Media you are able to sell service and experience, but you will not be able to sell media itself, at least not in any significant way from a corporate-perspective. As music and movies are so easily copied and the production chain is so large, it is impossible to secure and prevent duplication before the product reaches market. Once the majors are forced to accept this reality and embrace digital downloads it will already be to late for them, as we all know - the genie is out of the bottle - and the majority of the world is not going to pay the studios a dime for digital downloads. But by selling the cinema experience and increasing the quality of the products they bring to market, Hollywood will survive. Ditto the music business, although I believe the Major labels will find themselves left in the dust of history as home recording technologies become increasingly cheaper and musicians are able to share their songs without having to sell their souls for market access - because the market is free and open to anyone, you just have give it away. And if it’s any good, you’ll get gigs and the people will come and buy your merch; and I believe artists will find a more meaningful connection and relationship with their audiences, and fans will feel all the more closer to the music they love and that moves their lives…
Funny how u can spot the trolls so easily when they think we will see them just as one of us who’s been enlightened ;)
99% of music I want is either unavailable in my area, “deleted”, or has an exorbitant markup. Have they ever heard of market pricing one wonders. Jacking the price up through the roof may seem nasty and profitable, but in reality doesn’t sell. Pricing fairly (about 10% of current retail) is what will drive up sales despite file sharing, and reap the big profits. But they are too arrogant and up themselves to do that, and so they pay for their own greed.
Btw when are Heroes and Terminator coming back ???
Just a note: Some people here might not have lived during the age of the c-cassette, but back then we used to borrow/copy records from our friends and you’d end up with a huge collection of copied cassettes. However, if I really liked a band I would by the cd/record so that I could have it in y shelf together with the cover art etc. So piracy is not a new phenomenon, and although distrbution channels are WAY more efficient nowadays, many people still choose to support their FAVOURITE bands.
Forgot to mention; in view of the former reasons I feel perfectly justified in downloading what I want, as it’s more convenient. However if there were a CD store here with everything I wanted and I could listen before I buy, and they were cheap, I would buy stacks, as it would then be more convenient to do that, and affordable.
Aside from those considerations, while there are ongoing inconsistent legalities, that isn’t my problem, and I’ll do what I think is right and fair.
From what I’ve read even of US law there are plenty of legal justifications to do so, and I believe that when it’s all sorted out I’ll be too old to care anymore, but it will be legal everywhere, and not just in some countries as it is now.
Anyhow I wouldn’t know who I’m downloading from and if it’s all ok in their country, and neither should I have to be concerned. The Internet is multinational while the cartels want to maintain price fixing, boundaries, and nationalistic propaganda
[quote comment="318532"][quote]This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.
$0.17 Musicians’ unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists’ royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead[/quote]
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6558540/walmart_wants_10_cds/quote
Ok so where do they get off charging $35-$40 (25-27 Euros) then? The greedy leeches can shove their crap where it belongs!!
There is nothing better than this!
http://pluking.blogspot.com
@4 “What gives them the right to be worth more than a brain surgeon, astronaut or a professor? Even my home town (400k inhabitants, clean and fast-growing) spends less money in a year (1m US$) than some earn monthly!”
The average brain surgeon makes a lot more money than the average musician. In fact, the average brain surgeon probably makes more money than the average rock star. The guy you see standing behind the counter at 7-11 makes more money than the average musician.
The only truly rich rockstars are the ones are wrote and recorded many albums over many years that were consistently bought by millions of people. One-hit-wonders and contemporary pop stars eventually have to get day jobs, or end up on “Celebrity Mole.”
@17 “you cannot sell what can be freely reproduced”
It has always been possible to freely reproduce works at no cost to the original author. This is precisely why copyright law was devised (back in the 1600s, believe it or not). The only difference now is that piracy now costs nothing to the pirates either.
I agree with the original author: Recorded music will eventually be an add-on service for your cell phone or ISP.
@ Hiro81… Your quote: “Not should be free, is free. As a freely copyable object the compact disc has no commercial worth - you cannot sell what can be freely reproduced. Well, you can until the bottom finially falls out when the last of the Wal-Mart shoppers buy themselves a $200 computer..”
Once again I agree. So many people have an overly romanticized concept of reality.
The truth of the matter is, the worm turned a good long while ago.
I’ve always maintained that the danger associated with crushing citizen’s liberties for something so obviously trite as music is shameful. And there are a lot of artists who are really a bunch of greedy hypocrites, looking for an elite, cool, cash-rich lifestyle. Hold on while I grab my wallet…
If I don’t believe in Jesus, why the hell am I going to elevate some “star-wanabe’s” myth status when I can do what he/she does at home, on my own, for free? It’s work, but it’s not labour. Playing live is labour. And should be rewarded as such.
“Pirates create periods of chaos, then society works out how to make this chaos work for everyone, at which point it is enshrined in law and becomes the new order.”
Correct. And in classical piracy, on the high seas, what is enshrined in law is the ability to take a shotgun to said pirates wherever and whenever you like with impunity.
The market worked that out and it’s been a workable solution ever since.
Who the hell do you think buys your BS about “piracy is the new way” and producers must “adapt to the new” ?
What lesson has every major producer of goods learned about this “new market” from chinese pirates producing inferior copies ?
When Ping produces a set of golf clubs using the finest metals on earth and some Chinese asshole knocks out a replica set using aluminium, what lesson should they take away about this “new market” ?
That if they want to compete with criminals ripping them off they should screw over the consumer too ?
What ? Tell us you intellectual fraud.
If businesses lowered the price on CD’s, DVD’s, Games ect people would buy them, I mean £30 for a film ? 15 quid for a CD?!?!
What a rip off, I spend less on my internet connection and i can download as much as i want.
-Anon
All I’ve been wating to see is someone who, like me, agrees that music piracy is something of a genie out of the bottle, but who doesn’t deliver that news with a smirk or grin, saying, “Ha ha, slimy music industry, who’s ripping who off now?” Cain here comes closest.
I mean, it’s not like contemporary musicians, or even their soulless executives, are the people who invented the means to share the information in bulk — that was the geeks. This isn’t poetic justice. (It might be poetic justice if we were talking about software piracy, but that seems not to be as big an industry because the geeks are also really good at protecting the stuff.)
In any case, the “It’s only music” argument, from my perspective, is exactly why people shouldn’t make grandiose liberty-or-death for their right to free music. How exactly did my generation get this spoiled?
2 references to this post
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All
Add your response