Pirates Are The Music Industry’s Most Valuable Customers
Written by Ernesto on January 22, 2010Once again the music industry has come out with disappointing results for physical music sales, which they blame entirely on file-sharing. What they failed to mention though, is that their findings show that music pirates are buying more digital music than the average music consumer. Since digital music is the future, pirates are the industry’s most valuable customers.
Have you ever heard one of the major movie studios complaining about the decrease in sales of VHS tapes? We haven’t. The music industry on the other hand continues to blame the decrease in physical sales on digital piracy, ignoring the fact that there’s a generation growing up that has never owned a physical CD.
Yesterday the music industry lobby group IFPI presented its 2009 figures, again putting the blame for decreased physical sales on file-sharers. Unfortunately, most mainstream media outlets simply reposted the IFPI press release and their flawed analysis. In general, no effort is made to actually balance out or check the message being sent out to millions of readers.
In their annual Digital Music Report, IFPI states that file-sharers are half as likely to buy physical CDs than the average music buyer. Although the report is about digital music, they carefully avoid saying anything about file-sharers and digital sales. That would actually show a completely different picture as we will explain below.
The music group made this statement based on an IFPI-commissioned study that was executed by Jupiter research. Although IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak, we can conclude the following from the two pages that were published online.
Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…
* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.
These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer. In fact, the group that makes up the music buyers category actually includes the buying file-sharers, so the difference between music sharers and non-sharing music buyers would be even more pronounced.
How can this be true and why was there no mention of this in the Digital Music Report? They must be spending less on digital music then, right? But again, this is not the case at all. On average, file-sharers actually spend more than non-sharing music buyers. At least that’s what Mark Mulligan, Vice President and Research Director at Forrester Research who conducted the study for IFPI told us.
Mulligan has his hands tied and couldn’t say much about the findings without IFPI’s approval, but we managed to get confirmation that paying file-sharers are the music industry’s best customers. “A significant share of music buyers are file sharers also. These music buyers tend to be higher spending music buyers,” Mulligan told TorrentFreak.
So why do file-sharers download music without paying? According to the annual IFPI report, one of the main reasons people share music is because it’s free. This leads the music industry group to conclude that they are cheapskates and not willing to pay for music at all. But, as the above clearly shows, they are misinterpreting this finding, and we’d like to explain why.
In the digital age, people’s demand for music has changed significantly, but their budgets are still limited. The average file-sharer is currently spending $100 a year on music according to IFPI’s own research, not really a group that can be classified as freeloaders. However, their demand for music simply exceeds their budget and that’s where they start downloading music on file-sharing sites, because it’s free.
Just to be clear on our motivation to balance the ‘facts’ as reported by IFPI. We are not advocating that all music should be free and neither do most of the music lovers who share files online. However, the music industry continues to ignore that file-sharing is much more of a signal from the market that it is the increased demand for music that fuels piracy.
The solution to the problem is relatively easy. Start offering more unlimited and unrestricted music services and piracy will go into a free-fall. File-sharers are already paying for digital music, and they pay more than the average music consumer. File-sharing is simply a market signal showing that there is a need to compensate for the lack of high quality and affordable subscription services.
If anything, the music industry should have more respect for file-sharers, as they are their most valuable consumers. They are ahead of the curve and actually leading the way for the future of digital music, buying more digital music than anyone else. It’s the music industry that has to change, not the other way around.
Previously: Music Industry Set For Civil Action Against OiNK
Next: Demonoid Is Open To All Without An Invite
165 Responses
The music industry does not like people cherry picking their music tracks… but apparently love to cherry pick their stats.
Just another point to add to their long list of double standards.
Oh, and I do hope they rot in hell, pity a few crazy people with baseball bats have not already sent them there. (One can hope…)
Read that report this morning in the Guardian’s Money section, and I thought this isn’t journalism, it’s churnalism.
I hate it when the big media just copy findings of a subjective body like the IFPI without checking for facts or twisting of truths.
File sharing and P2P keep the failing music industry alive.
Here’s the link to the article in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/21/music-industry-piracy-hits-sales
Get up of your lazy arse Katie Allen and do some proper investigating.
Hey, you may wanna alter the setting for the Tweetememe button (you’ll find it in the admin panel under Tweetmeme) to point at your account on twitter instead. :)
Nice post!
“Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…
* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.”
These are also the people that the recording industry is most pissing off. Way to go – alienate your best customers, criminalise them, rip them off, then complain bitterly when they rewrite the rulebook for themselves!
>>Read that report this morning in the Guardian’s Money section, and I thought this isn’t journalism, it’s churnalism.
It’s not about Brein, so…
One problem with sharing is that it allows people to hear the full album before paying for it. If the album sucks, they lose the sale. Not because it was “stolen”, but because it isn’t worth buying to begin with. This requires the artists to produce quality music, not just release albums to fill a contract.
Give me an unlimited subscription for $100 a year and I’ll sign up in the morning.
@9 that’s a problem?
Now everyone, watch our favorite copytard trolls, Reasoned Mind and neo, come in here and spew everywhere about how these pirates are actually evil and destroying the industry and must be punished. Without regard to arguments and statistics presented in the article, of course. No, no, it’d be far too inconvenient for them to have to actually acknowledge real arguments that constrict their trolling. Best to just play dumb and ignore ‘em all.
Obvious trolls are obvious.
Pirates are Grrrrrreat!
100 dollars a year on music and 100 dollars a month on high speed internet
access.
@9
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Last time I bought an album without knowing it inside out was Metallica’s Re-Load. Needles to say, my interest in music died for few years.
@9
You’re being sarcastic.
Damned Poe’s law.
what they failed to mention is that digital sales are steadily improving faster than cd’s are declining, but ppl are mainly purchasing singles not albums, as i for one, am sick of purchasing an album for £10+ with two good tracks on it.
now we have a choice not to purchase the crap that the RIAA (Sony, Warner) put out just to fill an album.
@9
right, and the music industry lives from selling a lot of crap. if you want to hurt them, don’t buy from them. buy from the artists themselves. the i-net provides everything for micro distribution…
it’s actually the same with books: the big book-selling firms get in my country up to 50% of the money you pay. therefore, it makes sense to buy directly from the publisher. (in the future maybe even from the writer self, who knows.)
Shoplifters often make legitimate purchases in department stores, too. but they are still thieves.
btw piracy is free publicity for artists whom reap the benefits of more ppl attending concerts/gigs but the middle men like the riaa members are the ones losing out.
the gatekeepers time is coming to an end & they dont like it much as they wont be able to rip off the artists & fans for much longer.
@19 this is digital stuff not something you can touch physically.
So its not the same
who pays for music anyways?
lol
It atually makes more sence to be a shoplifter. If you get caught then you only pay for the cost of the goods you tried to steal ie: a CD. if you get fined for piracy you get fined thousands of dollars for every music track.
Reasoned mind, you are what we call verkrampt, and those types of people were responsible for apartheid. I suggest you try your best to free that caged mind.
The music industry is a non-issue since they’ve released nothing but garbage for the past 5-10 years. If somebody gets sued for downloading Jonas Brothers and R&B with robot-filter vocals, they deserve it for encouraging crap artists.
anyone that thinks that the facts and commom sense reported here is going to help, i can assure you, think again! the ‘industry’ will ignore everything it wants to, particularly all that points to what has been left out, namely, what proves that they are NOT losing money! they may well be selling less physical music (ie cds) but are certainly more than making up for that loss by the amount made from digital sales! trouble is, they want to carry on selling cds, just as before, but want to sell digital music as well. more than that, they want the same music bought on-line as is bought on cd, so the same track/album is bought by the same person at least twice!! talk about corporate greed! cheeky bas**rds!! losing money? absolute b/s!!
I must admit, it’s amazing to watch so many industries panic in the wake of digital technology (and distribution) via the internet. The music and print publication industries are among the biggest whiners these days. And, I have to wonder, if they spent less time crying over spilled milk and more time developing new strategies, would they be in such a panic?
Spending all of your efforts fighting change, rather than searching for ways to embrace it, is just another form of complacency.
Shoplifters often make legitimate purchases in department stores but they ARE thieves. Shoplifting = stealing
Downloading is not thieving. RIAA is thievery. Only when file-sharing rob a hard drive can you call it stealing. Reason Ass if you take your logic elsewhere see how ridiculous it sounds.
Water is available free, that doesn’t stop people from purchasing bottled water. I’m sure if you, narrow minded stuck up gentlemen/lady/both were a spokesperson for the water bottle company, you’d be saying the same thing. Drinking water from water fountain, tap, sea, ocean, river and rain would be stealing. What a load of bu11.
Excellent, so Im not the only one :D
@RIAA, point taken.
@Reason Mind, Obvious troll is obvious.
It’s shit.
People still buy independent physical releases.
@Reasoned Mind
Comparing downloading to shoplifting?
Obvious troll is obvious.
People pirate music because they are sick of paying 20$ for a CD that was rushed to the store shelves for sale because the execeutives want the royalties to start pouring in…..People can go home to their computer and download the one or two tracks that are actually worth listening to in a matter of minutes in this day and age.
Same thing goes for movies. I only speak for myself but I don’t download much music. I’m more of a movie downloader…. I DO PAY TO SEE ALOT OF MOVIES for the experience aka Avatar….
Most of the movies I download are ones that when I go to the movie theatre to see I know I’m going to have to listen to some punk kids talking or making wise cracks through the whole movie. That’s why they put up DVDSCREEENERS online right? to avoid the awful movie experience?
This is to advance the debate:
TO the “”"”music”"”" (hem! hem! if you call this music!) and movie “industry”:
…………………./´¯/)
………………..,/¯../
………………./…./
…………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
………\……………..’…../
……….”…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
…………..\………….\…
(Copy this re-post and Email to the corporation of parasites and their executives and employees. Thanks!)
right on #34
“Pirates Are The Music Industry’s Most Valuable Customers”
Not me.
I am not and will not be the most valuable customer of parasites.
Who is reasoned mind? He always not only manages to cause annoyance but his intellect is laughable. There was once a time when pirates were people who owned the printing press. The bible was not only translated into english because of pirates, but smuggled all the way to england because of pirates. Same for countless things that you take for granted.
Il have you know my IQ is equal to my age… 15
@36
You ARE already a parasite, way before even digital “piracy” existed. You can’t be more parasite than that
it’s not the loss of revenue that drives them nuts, it’s the realization that all their precious monopoly power is going down the drain.
They spend 30+ years lobbying and conspiring to turn the laws of supply and demand upside down in their favor, and then comes this stupid technology stuff suggesting people don’t have to live with what they shove down their throat at their conditions.
Remember “stick it to the man”?
I still don’t understand why pirates would ever buy digital music at all ever. That to me is something for people who dont know how or don’t feel comfortable downloading from free sources, or won’t just a song not an album (as I rarely if ever see CD singles for sale anymore).
When I buy music (and I own almost 500 CDs) I want to actually buy something real… I want an actual thing… not a piece of data that I could download for free. I want my disc and album cover and booklet. I want to have a collection of music I can actually see. That I can put on a bookshelf (or media shelf) to display my collection. Right next to my bookshelf with books for the same reason, I read books from the library and buy the ones that are really good to add to my collection, many of which I’ve never opened cuz I already read it from the library or a paperback passed from friend/family.
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/21/music-industry-piracy-hits-sales”
…
“Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@guardian.co.uk “
Consider this statistic: I’m 0% likely to ever buy any type of software, music, or game as long as I can get it for free.
I think they should do a world record pirating attempt and honour the winner with a gold plaque just like the “musicians” get but not shaped like a record.
Piracy is a symptom of a problem.
Not a problem unto itself.
Although easily ‘fixed’ the steps to do so involve corporate re-structuring, which for any established business/monopoly is the least desirable step to take.
So rather than change the corporate model, they buy your politicians, they spew propaganda from the paper mills and echo lies from satellites, twist the words of constitutions and re-structure the CIVIL model to better fit their desires.
And who is at fault? It is the consumer/citizen.
For letting it get so EASY…
The Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement or ACTA as it is referred to will stunt the growth of technological advancement, and bring all parties involved a great deal of unrest in many areas.
Lisbon Treaty was paid for.
ACTA was paid for.
Our fellow Alan Ellis, was arrested with the BBC in the back of the Police-Car which took him.
How did that happen?
It was paid for.
And why?
Because in the end my working class friends,WE pay for it.
The accelerated degradation of our rights and political systems, the steep curve rising with each outrageous headline buzzing with injustice, call for some timeless quotes about the hideous ‘machine’ we know as capitalism.
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
@41
touche.
And then there are people like me, who are cheapskates, and haven’t paid for music in 12 years.
I acknowledge that what i do is wrong.
I acknowledge that a guy on the street who tells you where to find someone who will sell you drugs should be held responsible, and that torrent sites SHOULD be illegal for facilitating piracy.
Alan Ellis’ defense was awesome, but he just committed perjury – he knew what he was doing. If he didn’t, then he was a complete idiot.
All of this dancing around morality v law gets boring sometimes.
Yes, some things technically aren’t illegal, and some “bad people” contribute to society, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong to share music online.
I applaud all victories for “pirates”, and I hate large corporations controlling everything, but I’m not so self-righteous to think that music sharing is morally right.
The artists are still getting screwed, even if pirates are “winning” against the labels.
I’ll tell you why people buy music but also share it. Because the music industry bombards us with d*ngballs. It’s just the same with the film industry. They tell you “Oh, this album/film’s gonna be great! Buy it!”. Ok, I buy. And when I start to listen/watch, I suddenly realise that I’ve just been lied to and that what I’ve bought is total cr*p. You see, the good thing with file-sharing is that you get something for free. You can listen/watch and decide whether you like it or not. If not, you don’t buy. If yes, then you buy. I have so many CDs at home. Yes, I’ve listened to much more music but most of the things I think are nice for my ears/eyes, I buy. Actually file-sharers (pirates) are the real critics when it comes to art (music, films etc.).
[quote]The artists are still getting screwed, even if pirates are “winning” against the labels.[/quote] In most cases definitely not. It’s like the actors. Usually they pay the artist to do his thing. Then most of the money go to the company that sold his/her/their records.
To bad since it would be better to not see folkks buying RIAA Corporate crud.
The lawyers are the ones that are telling the executives that they MUST defend their copyright and they lay out the doomand gloom scenerios. The executives give the okay, so the lawyers then start suing single parent families, elders/seniors, widows/widowers, pensioners, welfare recipients, starving students, grandparents, children, families, dead people, etc. For the lawyers it’s like shooting fish in a barrel and the possibility unlimited income for them. Then they say “oh we are doing this for the artists” and they don’t compenstate them a single penny. The lawyers are really the only people that truly profit from piracy and not the executives, artists or even those that operate torrent sites. The ones that have the most to lose…their futures, financial stability, freedom, happiness…are fans and even innocent victims that get in the crosshairs of the media corporations.
Gotta love the lawyers for perpetuating the negative stereotypes. I hope everyone understands that most polititians are actually lawyers themselves. It’s easy to see why the politicians/lawmakers always side with the media corporation lawyers. Money talks and they know how to make sure they never get caught.
So, the funny thing is – if they manage to push the three strikes laws through then they’ll be cutting off their biggest paying downloaders, LOL
I bet that’ll cause some uncomfortable moments in the boardroom
Any comment on this tweet? http://twitter.com/Mark_Mulligan/status/8074993556
Says he never talked to you, so how is it you are quoting him saying he said it to you?
Honestly, I just hope that music industry continues to lose money and goes broke, musicians should be making money purely off live performances, not recorded media.
These corporate fatcats have been taking a free ride off musicians for to long and it has to stop!!!!
They havent heard of the falling economy then… Blaming it on piracy my ass
You pirates will burn in hell for your theft. You are all stealing. Why defend it? Admit it and stop it.
Obvious stealing is obvious.
Give the people what they want and they WILL pay for it. bottom line.
I grew up listening to cd’s, cassette tapes, watching movies on vhs.
Do I own a single music cd? hell no.
I fall into every one of these categories:
* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.
I have spent more on buying digital music than I ever did buying cd’s or cassette’s.
The only time I download a song/album is if I am unable to find it on itunes or amazon.
Maybe the music industry should look into providing a better more centralized marketplace. I want to give you my money and it seems to me that you do not want it.
My file-sharing friends often download albums as soon as they leak, because they’re too impatient to wait for the album’s official release. These same friends easily spend more than $100/year on digital downloads from iTunes and Amazon.
untz untz untz untz
We have been telling them that over and over. They’d rather close their eyes to the evidences. I wonder why…
On a side note, http://mongo56.co.cc/ is down with a suspension notice. You guys from TF have any leads on what happened?
First, I’d like to say that I pirate and I have never paid a cent and I never plan on paying as long as it’s available for free.
You can say “pirates are the music industry’s best customers”, but that’s no justification for what we’re doing. It’s stealing, get over it. Stop trying to paint ourselves as good-guys.
This is completely misleading. If you have the idea that pirates will listen to music and will, after sampling it for a few days, will buy tickets, ringtones etc, you’re wrong. The research shows that pirates are more likely to pay than non-pirates. Who falls into the category of non-pirates? Usually people who aren’t interested in music. Pirating is so easy, everyone does it. The few that do not are too out of touch with the technology and music to pirate, let alone pay for a song.
Even if pirates fork over some cash, that doesn’t make what we do a right thing. I can’t steal milk from my local supermarket and pay only if I like the quality or taste. The industry isn’t complaining about pirates not paying, their complaining about lost profits. It’s their product and you shouldn’t decide how they distribute it.
Quit trying to paint us as Robin Hoods doing the right thing. I’m not demonizing myself as well as my fellow file-sharers, but you have to realize we’re not helping anyone but ourselves.
@59
Wait, what? So even if it results in increased sales of music and increased satisfaction of fans, it’s still wrong? How does that make any sense?
I didn’t know that every music fan is also a pirate… o_0
Digital != physical…
What’s the difference?
Why not? And “because it’s against the law” doesn’t count. I want to know why it’s a good idea to let a single entity maintain exclusive rights over the distribution of creative works.
But then there’s this:
It aggravates me when people say they share files and then condemn it. Not only is it blatantly hypocritical, but you don’t even have the balls to stand up for what you do?
Ugh.
@Reasoned Mind:
Shoplifting is stealing because it removes the original item.
Piracy is not because it simply makes a copy.
FACT: If piracy did not exist, I would have spent $50.00 on DVDs this year rather than the $450.00 I did.
This isn’t related to music, but it’s the same point. The availability of music and video through piracy makes me buy the quality content out there. I have found my favoutite TV Shows and songs through piracy, and those are the series & albums I purchased.
Thomas Rasset has had here fine reduced one hell of a lot.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
It is just sad that fans are punished by being fans.
But the even sad part is that fans act like junkies that can’t control themselves even when it is really bad for them.
Don’t like the music industry that is all good just move on to places where you will get all those things that others don’t want you to have.
Jamendo and Magnatune are 2 places where people can get music they can share, copy, distribute without fear.
Want real change?
Change how you consume, promote and support copyleft artists and in time all of them will need to use copyleft licenses if they want to get money.
I have over 800 original movies and a couple of hundred downloads.
Those that I have not replaced with originals are crap and I wouldnt waste money on them. In fact me downloading does equal more than one lost sale cause I tell everyone I know they are crap as well.
I also go to the cinema on a regular basis, and if a film is good, I get a copy and then replace with an orginal. I have been to the cinema more because of the copy I have seen and have wanted to see it in the full glory which makes a good film great.
Piracy doesnt lead to the amount of lost sales, because those hard core that always download, wouldnt have purchased anyway, they would have rented it and copied it that way, or not bothered at all. Those that seek value like me, use it as a try before you buy and yes big music industry I know that will piss you off, because you will have to stop releasing crap to get my money……
its annoying hearing all the references of digital content “piracy” being like physical product thievery.
it is nothing the same.
to the person who mentioned something about not being able to go to the store, steal milk and pay only if they like the taste/quality; that is a bogus analogy.
a proper analogy would be if instead of going to the store to buy your milk, you go to random joe’s house, see the milk he digitally created a copy of on his own personal time with his own means and tools, tasting HIS milk, and then deciding that you do or do not want to purchase it from the supermarket.
it is very similar to going to the supermarket and tasting food that they have samples of. do you consider it STEALING? or do you taste it, say “this tastes like shit no thanks/this is great i will buy some right now”?
people need to grow some common sense because there just isnt enough in this world to lend to people so dumb.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read here. And also one of the best thread of comments as well.
Well a lot of my friends who have whole terabyte drives full of pirated music and movies are NOT the industry’s most valuable customers – they don’t ever buy, or go to concerts of the music they pirate although they enjoy listening to and watching the music/movies on their expensive home entertainment gear with huge widescreen television which they HAVE to pay for.
They also buy the best pc and technology to facilitate pirating media. If piracy was not an available option then they would have to pay for their music/movies they enjoy and then in that case they would be valuable customers.
They pirate because they can get away with not paying for media even though they could legally download their music/movies from iTunes or similar on-line stores.
I can’t see how pirating helps the artists/actors and the supporting industries who are employed and employ more people to support the art of music making. Taking without giving anything in return is a recipe for disaster for all musos and entertainers.
Do the charts from the Jupiter Research results make sense to anyone?
For the 1st chart:
1) What does Internet User refer to?
2) The percentages don’t add up, so I’m assuming they asked InternetUsers, MusicSharers, and MusicBuyers, “how many of you have bought a cd in a shop?” etc.
3) If 2) is true, then why is this data useful without asking HOW MANY cds they bought?
The second chart actually looks at annual spending (though self-reported), but since the segments are “not mutually exclusive” how do they split them up? That knowledge would be extremely useful since they claim that:
“Although some music P-to-P users are also music buyers, the overall value of the segment is counterbalanced by the significantly larger share of other, less valuable P-to-P users. Thus music sharers are the lowest-spending, least valuable consumer segment, with an average spend of just €65.64.”
Either I’m missing something, or something is REALLY fishy.
“Taking without giving anything in return is a recipe for disaster for all musos and entertainers.”
but they are giving.
they are giving copies of media to others who want to view it and make decisions on whether or not to purchase.
with the way the economy is these days, not everyone can afford the insane prices of a cd or movie ticket or dvd. i’m sorry but $25 for a movie ticket is a joke. $6 ticket on a packed cheap tuesday matinee, not so bad, but then you get screwed when you want a drink or something to munch on. cant bring it from an outside source, yet they expect you to pay $3.50 for a small drink, $4.50 for a medium drink, or $5.50 for a large drink..
yes, food prices at theaters are not the issue here but its just more fodder for the cannon. all these companies are out there to make a buck, understandable. but do they really have to conspire together to screw over the common consumer at every single chance they get? NO!
throw us a frickin bone here and realize not everyone gets $1.92mil settlements they can use to buy movie tickets and physical cd’s. realize that we work as hard as we’re able and with all the media and advertising out there, we’re continually having all these new movies and songs and crap products crammed down our throats while the prices continue to skyrocket and no one is left with any money for anything, let alone the extras they keep shoving in our face.
this sort of thing needs to be worked out and its not something that one organization is going to be able to do. all these big companies need to look at themselves, look at the common person and then think to themselves; is it better to sue someone for a $2mil settlement, thereby eliminating a significant portion of would-be customers resulting in extremely low profits largely due to their own inappropriate response to a situation that basically did nothing but saturate the tech savvy consumer with publicity that makes your company look like the biggest money grubbing pricks in the industry? or is it better to see that people are not flush with cash and maybe help people out with cutting back prices and offering better services, even charity work.
i would be much more likely to pay for music if i knew for a fact that a portion of my money is going to fight aids in africa or something along those lines. not just adding more money to the worst organized crime ring in the history of the world.
i have more to say but i’m tired and the idiots are pissing me off..
Guys, guys, you’re doing it all wrong! You’re supposed to be boycotting the MAFIAA, not being their most reliable customers! Why would you subsidize a group of criminals who sue their customers, want to censor the Internet to propagate their dinosaur business model, etc. etc.? C’mon!
Boycott the MAFIAA. Support independent labels and artists, and go to their shows.
As soon as I learned about Nerdcore Hip-Hop and streaming Netflix movies, the pirate in me was dead. I stumbled on an entire musical genre that promotes sharing of their music in their songs! They make money at shows and on merch. And Netflix? Well, I could give a crap about pirating a movie now. For a reasonable $9 a month I have unlimited streaming movies/shows wherever I go that has an internet connection.
Tbest way for the entertainment industry to eliminate piracy is to offer their customers what they want? All I’ve ever wanted from them was to not be ripped off over and over by greedy douchers. Netflix realized that and so did a lot of consumers.
“Boycott the MAFIAA. Support independent labels and artists, and go to their shows”
but then they’ll just claim that you boycotters are just pirates and are costing them money.. boycotting is good and all but this is one situation where it seems like it would just further the problem.
“but they are giving.
they are giving copies of media to others who want to view it and make decisions on whether or not to purchase”
Reply:
Why would anyone buy something they have already downloaded for free?
So there’s a “person” that performs an “act” that you find utterly “satisfying”. You want to “compensate” this person, but instead you have to give it up to another pretty buffoony “person” that’ll beat you to a pulp or ruin you if you don’t pay up.
Does the concept seem familiar?!?
Pimps, agencies, labels….. all the same crap. You have to be of a certain “nature” if your main talent is to control a market place with brute force and rip off both provider and consumer of a service.
i went out and purchased every single portishead cd i could find in stores after downloading their mp3′s for free (legal in my country)
why did i do this?
i love the music.
i wanted higher quality songs than were available for free on the net
i also think that they deserve to make a profit off of the music which i so enjoy.
i dont have very much money at all, but i would gladly give up what i do have for something that i truly enjoy and feel is worth the money… (which is why i have never purchased a copy of windows ;)
and before anyone gets on that.. i do NOT pirate windows or anything microsoft, i use open source software..
@10, any sort of pay-for-privileges deal between content owners and consumers needs to be in the form of a very specific license that provides some guarantee for the consumer that they won’t be sued for any activity they conducted in accordance with the license while it was in effect, as well as a guarantee that the license won’t be retroactively revoked. It also needs to be applicable to all music on all labels. With that sort of deal, I’d even pay a bit more (say, $500 a year) if it would allow me to be a licensed sharer, not just downloader. Even if only a fraction of sharers & leechers opted in, and even if the renewal rate each year was fairly low, there’d be plenty of new people opting in each year, and there’d be gobs and gobs of cash flowing and a predictable revenue stream for the music industry.
Stealing is stealing you pirates will always be condemned no matter what. And stop calling me a troll ):(
I am not a troll.
Reasoned Mind is the only poster that is making any sense around here.
I remember a few decades back when you had to buy a whole album in order to get one or two songs that you liked. I am so glad those times are over.
Now we can buy single tracks online. Oh, and by the way, this will force artists to come up with better music, not just one or two good songs in an album, and the rest cr@p!!!
I hate black people, I am a troll.
@81 true
I guess if I really love the artist and dig all his music, I will digitally buy the whole album as a whole body of work.
For other artists where I only want to buy certain songs – in this modern world you have the option of buying just the songs you want from an album and which keeps me happy and still supports the artist.
#80
My comment will always make sense
it will always be!
because i said so U_U
Check this out! An amazing judge!
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/
Obvious pirates are obvious
i got wormz
Labeling one who pirates digital media without purchasing a “fan” is like calling a designer who infringes on car design an “automotive enthusiast.”
Both take without paying.
Only those who get something for nothing defend it as not stealing.
But we all know what it is.
Build comfort by bouncing my casket to mel’s, build rapport by negging my tux, then go for the F-close (it’s in my will). Being dead is such a DLV. Dirt nap, dirt nap, dirt nap.
If only my medical staff had a stronger reality…
I got AMOG’d out of existence…
Anyone that thinks R&B means Rhythm and Beat is as dumb as the music industry.
Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…
* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.
I’m sorry, where exactly did these statistics come from? I’ve looked through the 3 page .pdf from the juniper research and the 2010 Digital Music Report released by IFPI and I don’t see any indication for these figures. Could you clarify where you found them please?
well I for one,anything that I have uploaded,I have bought and paid for so the music industry can go f*** themselves.I bought and paid for and I will do as I want with it..enough said….
http://music-torrentz.com
At least when I upgrade a software programme I usually get a discount. I’ve never had a discount when I’ve upgraded my music from vinyl to cassette tape to CD.
….back in the good ol’ days of Napster I’d buy at least a dozen CD’s a month. Since the RIAA’s shutting down of Napster, I average 1 DC per year. I have completely lost interest in music altogether since I saw the true greed.
File sharing is a phenomenon that the recording industry will have to learn to love ,,,, or die. Karma is a bitch.
One more reason to believe that digital music stores (iTunes, Amazon) and filesharing are the future.
To begin with, copyright legislation appeared for and intented to protect the COMMERCIAL aspect of a creative work. The commercial aspect…
Copyright means that noone can commercialy exploit a creative work without the explicit premission of the creator. It does not mean that people can view this work for free, share it, talk about it, copy it for their personal use et. Copyright simply means, that people cannot make money out of it – only those that the artist approves.
This means that the arbitary “interpretation” of copyright law by certain modern companies constist a VERY SERIOUS VIOLATION of the ORIGINAL LAW, OF ITS RAISON D’ETRE, OF ITS MEANING, OF ITS INTENTION.
Those who abuse the law, twist it, claim things that the law has absolutely nothing to do with and attempt to enforce their twisted “interpretation” in society, ARE criminals, should be treated as such, should be prosecuted, should be fined, should pay damages to every single person or organization that they have slundered and their illegal profits confiscated.
That’s the real crime, totally ummention from all those that get pseudomoral pseudolegal pseudoconcerns. It is sad indeed how low some ‘humans’ can fall.
CORRECTION: It does not mean that people can’t view this work for free, share it, talk about it, copy it for their personal use et.
So if you are looking at, enjoying or using for your personal pleasure a creative work you are not unlawful. If you are commercially exploiting that work without permission, you are. That’s copyright.
What is file sharing? Well, it is when you bought this new dvd movie and invite your friends where you all watch it together. You just shared your file with them and they got to watch this movie for free. Also, file sharing is when your friends borrow this dvd from you in order to watch it for some time – more file sharing takes place since your friends will invite their friends to see that movie.
Here… only one paid for a dvd that so many other people watched for free. According to IFPI and trolls here, you are “illegal” doing this and every single one person that sees that dvd movie must necessarily pay for it.
Sounds paranoic? Indeed…
But the most astonishing thing is that there are actually some humanoids out there that firmly believe in this paranoia and will even attempt to enforce it.
Also, if you go to a gallery exhibition and take a photo of a recent work of art, exhibited there and for sale, you are illegally copying the artist’s work, according tO IFPI.
Even if it is not of course the original work but simply a bad-quality copy, you have absolutely no right -according to IFPI- to photograph that work and show it to your friends, unless you pay for the gallery owner, for the P&R staff and for the various expenses and taxes of the exhibition.
Of course file sharing has always been a part of society – it is only the medium that changed. It is there, where the point is missed. It’s the medium that changed NOT the activity. And that before the existence of that medium, file sharing had never ever been conceived as something that could ever possibly violate any artist’s rights.
Oh.. .I just forgot.
File sharing is also when there is a work that interests you, but is rare because it was published a long time ago, or copies were few, or is considered “unpopular” therefore noone really cares to re-publish it. You can’t buy this work any more, but you can still find and make a copy of it for your own personal use.
What now IFPI? Are you attempting to cease the circulation of every single work that is not widely popular, to some hundrends of thousands of people? There are several such instances: music, books, movies that are of a specific subject and perhaps extremely specialized, so they would only interest a very very small number of people anyway.
Noone loses money from circulating such works. Because noone would re-publish those works anyway, since they wouldn’t exactly bring in the $$$$ rolling… Unless there is some government subsidy to do that (money taken from our taxes, in other words) or some private benefactor (can’t count on that now, can you?).
@ 39 Jan 22, 2010 at 20:57 by General Snus
They buy digital music to support the music they like. They believe it will send a message that people are willing to pay for the music so that people will continue to make it. Sure they have already downloaded it for free and do not need to purchase it. Some do it out of guilt, some do it for the exact reason mentioned above. As far as subscription services go, they do that to listen to new music and find out the names of the artist before downloading more. It probably saves more time than randomly downloading mp3s from Usenet by artists they’ve never heard of only to find out it’s country (or insert music genre you despise).
@59 Jan 23, 2010 at 01:33 by RJ
That’s because you’re a leech. Not to mention trying to shut down Creative Commons and the public domain. Follow your own advice and leave Nine Inch Nails and Rednex alone.
I’ve been saving up to buy albums that I’ve downloaded and i like.
Who’s the real Reasoned Mind? I’m confused…
@ 104 Jan 23, 2010 at 12:44 by Reasoned Mind
The real Reasoned Mind (i.e. Raisin Brain) is the corporate troll paid to come here and try to make filesharing look bad. You can tell who it is because he/she speaks out against all filesharing. Raisin Brain is against the public domain and considers even sharing a copy of ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ to be theft. Also, Raisin Brain continuously equates filesharing with theft. Even though filesharing is not theft, Raisin Brain does not realize that because Raisin Brain never researches anything nor backs up any argument with proof.
TF claims they do not tolerate trolls, but apparently that is not true. Maybe they don’t consider Reasoned Mind a troll because of the lack of success he/she has garnered as the comments generally left by Raisin Brain causes everyone to go on a downloading spree.
Who says I don’t pay for music?
*donations to trackers
*seedboxes
*VPN’s
Theese aint free.. infact I spend mor emoney now, to ensure I have a fast, secure reliable means to dl lossless music than I ever did before when I bought only a few cd’s a year.
Unfortunately I am not their valuable customer even if I do buy music. I use RIAA Radar to make sure I don’t buy any single album affiliated with them. I listen to mostly obscure and underground music, when I buy music, I try to buy directly from the band website so they get 100% of the money.
Now I am going to browse the news for stupid articles about some Hollywood star doing benefits for Haita earthquake victims.
@ Flac_Mastah_Flex
It still shows much of a selfish person you are and going out of your way to download only for your own enjoyment. Yes you pay for it, but only to your benefit. It would be a different situation if you can’t afford the music all together, but in this case if you have some money to spend, how can you face the musician that you admire in this case and proclaim your admiration. Then in this case you haven’t the real passion for the music.
That is no different from donating to a warez site you download from, but not thinking about the developers who spend the hard hours to code the software. Especially if its just a small time developer and not big corps like Microsoft or Adobe.
@93 ditto
When I upgraded from LP’s to CD’s I never got a “upgrade discount” either, sanity prevailed after my 450th CD purchase, I stopped buying CD’s when I realised I was paying royalties TWICE for the same music without even a nice “Fvck You” note from the music industry in the sleeves.
I download for FREE and support independent artists not affiliated to the big labels in any way.
@91
65.97% of statistics are made up
& 72.3% of people beleive this
100% of illegal/unlawful downloads are undertaken by pirates.
5% of TF readers have a logical thinking(raisin) brain. I’m proud to be part of the 95%
31.333*% of readers beleive all the BS on here
I was thinking, what´d happen if somebody actually made a reasonable survey? ie question 10 milion people about their habits, determine how much they pirate, how much they buy, how much of the buying is directly caused by piracy, how much is indirectly, how much of the buying has caused pirating, how have their habits and tastes changed because of “proper” and “unproper” accuiring of media, etc. If the organization doing the survey would present all data would we be able to accept it? Would the MPAA be fine when a mass of 10 milion people shows that piracy is “good” (causing consumption, generating new artists, etc), or would pirates go with the notion that the questioning of 10 milion people showed that the caused harm was more than the good that came of it? Or would we keep on playing the same old “glass is half empty/half full” game, saying that 10 milion is nothing and 1 buying pirate is enough to prove the point… or that he/she is still causing harm, even in the light of purchases?
@88
Obvious troll is obvious.
Calling someone a “troll” does not disprove their point.
I download more music than anyone else I know.
I buy more music, whether physical (vinyl, not CDs) or digital, than anyone I know.
Hmm.
Obvious tosser is obvious (even anonymous ones)
Anyone who dares to disagree : instant troll>?
Open mided these Pirates, aint they – as bad as the MPAA RIAA etc etc they dislike sooooo much
#105, “Think about it”…….. having a different opinion than your own doesn’t make someone a troll. For all the misleading “facts” piracy advocates quote here, the loss of revenue to all the middleclass workers in digital industry is undeniable. The fat cats remain fat, the superstars already have their money and don’t care and the little guys with kids and mortgages and mouths to feed literally do not share in the cash you no longer spend on their products because today, you infringe and take their products instead. All of this is fact.
When someone gets a product for free unlawfully, they have no compelling motivation to purchase a legal copy of it, and just “saying” you’ll support the artists you love doesn’t make it happen. And the purchase statistics show us that it is NOT happening, revenue is a fraction of before.
Think about the products you’ve taken and the cash you have not spent. You have no right to their products if you don’t pay for them the way the worker/creator/industry intended. Whether you would have purchased or not is irrelevant. Purchase properly or do without. I’ve never been paid to place an opinion on TF.
Before this is sorted out, the government and industry responses will be huge, because digital industry is such a crucial part of our future. You’ll succeed in getting something for nothing and harming the little guy, but you’ll also be personally responsible for the loss of freedom and privacy and mutual respect that once existed between artist, industry and fan.
Pirates are pilfering lowlife’s, frankly. Digital thieves, every one, regardless of whether the master is safe somewhere in a vault or not.
My brain size as big as a raisin. Now who’s smarter than me?
Just skipped through the comments, will read them later however:
Even though the MAFIAA got their own paid research turned against them I must conclude that most “pirates” are not smart enough to stop funding the ‘enemies’ war against them. First the industry should fall and only then start supporting the artists of choice (or for now only totally independent ones).
If worried that an artist may stop making art in the meantime (and get a job) then just remember that the graveyards are filled with indispensable people. There will always be (new) artists. (hope “indispensable” is the right translation for the saying)
@72
All well and good for you Yanks but you forget that the rest of the of the world reside out of your borders.
If I could have the choice of downloading from Netflix then I would gladly pay the cost BUT yet again we are told that Copyright only allows then to provision the USA (as if this is the only worthwhile country in the world) and we we will only have to wait for the big 4 to allow export before we are allowed to use.
What a load of old Bo*****s allow worldwide distribution and the world is your oyster.
Non of the comments above are by me. I now go by the name of Martin.
@110
“65.97% of statistics are made up”
Unless it fits your way of thinking you forgot to add.
“100% of illegal/unlawful downloads are undertaken by pirates.”
Pirates never had internet in the past but ships and it seems to me modern day pirates are to busy with their little boats, hostage taking and RPG’s to be on the internet so you couldn’t be more wrong.
Anyway go sue some Somali pirates, hero.
I agree.
I’m 17 and have only ever bought one CD in my life. I Pirate music and if I really like a band I’ll buy it on itunes.
@Reasoned Mind
Your post, #116, has been analyzed and determined to be
[x] misleading
[x] FUD
[x] trolling
on the basis of the fact that you have (check all that apply)
[x] compared the downloading of a digital file with the theft of a physical object and/or called file sharing “stealing”
[] vastly exaggerated financial losses to rights holders due to file sharing
[x] insisted that file sharing is killing the music/movie/software/book industries
[x] stated that file sharing harms honest artists by depriving them of needed revenue
[] said that without copyright, there would be no incentive to create or innovate
[] implied or explicitly stated that artists should have absolute, permanent control over their creative works
[] supported unjust punishments for copyright infringement that do not fit the offense
[x] supported unjust, expensive and invasive anti-piracy laws and measures
[] defended the entertainment industries and/or excused an immoral or illegal action of theirs
[x] implicitly or explicitly attacked fair use, right of first sale, and/or the public domain
and you have done this despite the fact that (check all that apply)
[x] effectively enforcing copyright on the Internet is difficult, time-consuming and expensive
[x] changing laws to allow easy, effective enforcement of copyright on the Internet would breach peoples’ privacy and fair use rights
[] overly broad and restrictive copyright has been demonstrated to harm society and restrict creativity and innovation
[] the modern implementation of intellectual property rights favors large corporations over individuals
[x] just because something is illegal does not mean it’s wrong
[x] the financial losses to file sharing have been challenged and no solid evidence has appeared to support the claims of massive losses
[] Internet Service Providers have no desire to spend millions of dollars to police their networks and drive away customers
[x] one download of a copyrighted work does not equal one lost sale
[x] any financial losses from file sharing are incurred by publishers and distributors as opposed to artists and creators
[x] artists may in fact benefit from file sharing as it gives greater exposure which leads to greater sales and a large fanbase
[x] it has been repeatedly demonstrated that people who download will also buy more
[x] some industries, such as the motion picture industry, are bringing in record profits despite file sharing
[x] due to regional lockout and the entertainment industries’ resistance to change, some people have no choice but to pirate content
[] a large amount of free and legal content exists online, proving that people will create even if there’s no financial incentive
[x] you have failed to cite any sources for your arguments, particularly those dependent on data.
In conclusion, I advise you to:
[] review the fundamental intent of intellectual property law
[x] actually read the article you commented on
[x] actually respond to the arguments that others make against you
[x] sodomize yourself with a retractable baton.
Obvious troll is obvious.
All I have to say about this post’s comment section is…
lol@ all the RM wannabies. Want to know how to rid yourself of a troll? Stop feeding it. Sadly, the real RM has shown himself to be a more mature and polite individual than the people supporting piracy. If it came down to a debate between you & him for the future of copyright… he’d sadly win.
Well that’s basically how it goes. Pirates start swearing, flaming, shouting while the anti-pirates are calm & collected. Guess who the judges listen to more?
@124
Believe me, people have tried to reason with RM before, to argue point-for-point with him. I am one of them; I’ve spent a lot of time writing up counterarguments, refutations and responses across many TorrentFreak threads. It doesn’t matter. He ignores arguments and challenges and happily sails on to the next thread, to post the same anti-pirate BS (which, by the way, is so extreme and ridiculous that it’s no wonder people get baited into responding).
Having a dissenting opinion is not a bad thing… but expressing it like he does is unacceptable.
If there were an actual debate, one he could not ignore if he were losing, I would trash him. I’ve spent a long time studying up on copyright, the Internet, and file sharing. I’m loaded with arguments. Reasoned Mind, of course, recognizes this and pretends I don’t exist for his own convenience.
We believe in the no piracy controls with our business
https://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php
@116 Jan 23, 2010 at 15:50 by Reasoned Mind
First of all you accuse me of doing something that I have never done. Not only do you not have proof, but spread vicious lies. I’ve told you hundreds of times before that lies are not opinions. You claim that I have infringed and that is an outright lie. Sounds like you’re being a troll. That is not an opinion, you have just proven it to be fact.
‘And the purchase statistics show us that it is NOT happening, revenue is a fraction of before.’
Please provide a link to this delusion. UK sales are up (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/a193994/single-sales-reach-all-time-weekly-high.html). US sales are up. Stop lying.
‘I’ve never been paid to place an opinion on TF.’
Every sentence in the paragraph that proceeded it is a lie. Why should this one not be? What site were you paid to post on? Using your own logic, why would you do something unless you have something to gain? Remember, your logic.
‘regardless of whether the master is safe somewhere in a vault or not.’
It’s not safe. It was thrown in the upper New York Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuMont_Television_Network#Programming). You continue to try to shut down the public domain and creative commons. You continue to tell artists like Reznor, The Reptilians, None Inch Nails, Rednex, etc., etc. what they can do with their own creations. You call all filesharers thieves regardless of legal authorization or definitions. It seems the only thief here is you as you are trying to steal what rightfully belongs to the public. You use copyright as an excuse but you can’t even mention what you think has been infringed upon. Sure we know about the ‘Love Guru’ guy and the mom sharing music. But two people do not give the right to take away the public domain. Why not take away guns since some people shoot others? Why not outlaw driving since some drive drunk? The only logical explanation is that you are trying to deprive people of their own work. Who’s the thief?
The first time you ever respond wasn’t to the many times I’ve refuted you but to a comment that wasn’t even directed towards you.
And all you managed to do was prove me right.
@124 Jan 23, 2010 at 18:18 by CapnS
If you think false accusations are mature, you need to look up the definition. Sadly, courts do favor false accusations over the truth.
@123 Jan 23, 2010 at 18:08 by Anonymous
Wish I read yours before writing mine. I am humbled by your expertise. And to prove Raisin Brain wrong, I disagree that arguing for ‘artists should have absolute, permanent control over their creative works’ to be trolling as I have contemplated the effects of abolishing the right to transfer copyright. I have concluded that if creators cannot sell the copyright of their work to corporations that a lot of the current problems would go away.
Proof that differing opinions do not always lead to the absurd ignorance prevalent in Raisin Brain’s posts (No infringement of Post® Raisin Bran is intended).
“I Pirate music and if I really like a band I’ll buy it on itunes.”
Don’t! Don’t buy anything on iTune kid!
No money for the parasites!
“Sadly, courts do favor false accusations over the truth.”
Let’s multiply false accusation against the corporate parasites to see if this is true.
There is plenty of real accusations to go with though!
@129
Admittedly I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here. My bit about “artists should have absolute control” is a jab at RM and neo’s tendency to argue in favor of absolute copyright, disregarding rights such as fair use, and disregarding limited terms (neostyles has actually argued, at one point, against the concept of the public domain). Saying that rights holders should have absolute control is akin to saying that copyrights equal property rights, which is fundamentally untrue.
I’m just too tired of their trolling to actually write out real responses anymore. I’ll tick the appropriate boxes, copy/paste it in, and still prove them wrong every time. Just goes to show you how cookie-cut their posts are… the usual anti-piracy drivel, again and again.
@123 Done some research ? Nice.
Now that you have created it you should use the checklist every article a RM (or neocon) appears in the comments :-) All that hard work should be put to good use, would be such a waste otherwise.
The bit up there about “drink the jug of milk, then decide to pay for it” is totally fallacious.
When you buy the milk (or any other physical product) there is an implicit understanding between customer and merchant that this item will fulfill some need or function for you. If it does not, you take it back, hand them the thing and the reciept, you say “this thing is $_bad-state, I want my monies back”. They say “Sir yes sir”, and all is well. Rarely, there are merchants that simply don’t do refunds for any reason, but these folks typically have signs clearly stating so; you know up front that you’re stuck with it even if it’s not quite right.
This _IS_NOT_THE_CASE_ with “products” that are primarily information delivered on a physical storage medium. Most places (here in the US, at least), you cannot bring back an opened musicCD/videoDVD/software and get a refund under any circumstances, even if you have legitimate technical problems making that media function correctly or at all. (many places will take back _sealed_ media, but this is worthless point for anyone but the “oh bother, I got two of this for Bday/$_holiday” crowd) The minions will generally be apologetic, but won’t budge from policy. (which was probably coerced by the MAFIAA… before or after they started FUD-ing on file sharing??? who knows) Those same minions probably know that feet are being shot, but they get in trouble if they don’t follow The Rules their employer sets down.
I can hear the rebuttal already: “But it’s established policy that they don’t refund, so you can’t bitch about it!” A marginally valid point, save for this: THEY DON’T HAVE A GIANT FRACKING SIGN OVER THE MEDIA SAYING “NO REFUNDS”. At the vast majority of merchants, the _general_ rule is that you can return things, with reciept, withing reasonable time from date of purchase. No sign saying otherwise (for media), so a (technically false) assumption is made.
All that, on top of being offered a selection that heavily reinforces Sturgeon’s Law (90% of all is crap), is it any wonder so many people are trying before they buy???
I happily download anything I wish to hear. If a music album can muster more than two songs I truly enjoy, I’ll go buy the CD, if I’m able; there’s really awesome electronica coming out of Eastern Europe, and some of it is tough-as-balls to chase down to buy, in any format. If a good artist happens to be part of the RIAA Empire, I’ll find the disc second-hand or go without. I do not support their asshattery under any circumstances.
Otherwise, frack em for not trying hard enough during production. I’ve bought a few steaming turds, back in the 90s… Never again.
Currency does not grow on trees for the average person. No one likes to throw money away, common man nor corporate overlord. Taking our money for vastly inferior products, not allowing refunds… _THAT_ is stealing, regardless of how many politicians you grease, laws you buy, or websites you shut down.
We are fighting back, plain and simple.
The music industry has created this monster. Most music produced in the last 10 years isn’t worth purchasing. They target the younger generations who don’t have the money and the older generations who prefer substance are left wanting and their the ones likely to pay for it.
Honestly, is anyone going to pull out their 50 Cent albulm 10 years from now and not laugh. Seriously, you old schoolers, do you still have that Kid n Play albulm??? They’ve made their bed now….
“File sharing is also when there is a work that interests you, but is rare because it was published a long time ago, or copies were few, or is considered “unpopular” therefore noone really cares to re-publish it. You can’t buy this work any more, but you can still find and make a copy of it for your own personal use.”
This is a pet peeve of mine. I wish that copyright wasn’t (essentially) forever, and if works have not been maintained by IP holders (ie- they haven’t released a version of it, or made that original version available again) it falls into the public domain for anyone to choose to reissue.
CD’s/DVD’s suck. They are too big, The shrink wrap is always too tight, you need two hands to open the case, they skip and when scratched wont play properly.
…those are just the beefs I have with the format. I will have to mention here that THEY COST MONEY.
How is that going to compete with a FREE download from a torrentsite?
I don’t buy any media anymore. Just merchandise. When I drive by an HMV I snicker at those inside.
If I like the band/movie/program I buy the T-shirt/beach towel/toy. From the artist’s own website if possible.
Bottom Line: There is no value if the product is laying around like leaves in a yard. Those leaves will be RAKED IN. FOR FREE.
Those who create the product must protect it. Not leave it around like a car idling in their driveway.
Protecting the product should probably NOT include; Trying to get communications tech banned, suing/alienating the prospective customers or pressuring governments to enact unenforceable laws/censorship…That path will fail as the genie is out of the proverbial bottle.
I consider myself to be an average modern consumer. Everyone in my family has cell phones so we don’t pay for land lines(obsolete). We have three separate internet connections at our house so no cable/satellite bill(also obsolete). We are members of multiple private torrent sites, run computers with many terabytes of storage and post on torrentfreak thru paid proxies. There are millions like us. More everyday.
IT’S NOT THAT WE AREN’T WILLING TO PAY! SELL US SOMETHING WE CAN USE!!
When artists do not need music companies to produce, distribute, and promote physical music media anymore, music companies are interested in putting artists and fans into contrary opposition. Just to don’t let them meet “behind music companies’ back.
What percentage of money for bought CD comes to the artist? About 10? maybe 20? Nowadays Artists can sell their music online without any help of music industry for a half price and having at least profits twice as big.
“Legal user”: buys music, that music companies want to sell. So he/she is often not very fond of this music, so he is buying less.
“Pirat”: buys music, that he/she like, enjoys to go to the concerts, buying gadgets and so on.
Latest CD of polish music group Kult was stolen, and available online before it hit music stores. However it was Kult’s most successful year. More people was attending to their concerts and buying their merchandise.
Some experts claims that this “false-start” was a great advertising. Hundreds of thousands downloaded this album because it was available before it’s opening night. And some percentage of this people becomes a new fans.
@Another fact, Hey you are absolutely right.
But we all know that these greedy fat cats want more money for themselves rather than the artists. You think these middleman were set up for the artists benefit?
They just want to sell more CDs that’s where most of the money comes in from. Digital sales are less profitable for these greedy men. They have the power to sway the gov’t to go after the people that actually bring in money (from their own reports).
Watch this video for more insight about the actual truth.
The problem is that there are two types of pirates:
1) the bad ones who download loads and NEVER buy any music/dvds because they are getting it for free.
and
2) Those who use torrents to find new content and preview their media and purchase the stuff they really like.
I fall into number 2. Without torrents i know for a fact i would not have spent no way near as much on dvds and music.
@tommy t
According to IFPI report there is no number 1. They are reporting 100 percent of the pirates are paying customers. be it a subscription service, physical or digital media and so on.
Even most popular and household name artists support filesharing such as 50 Cent, Chuck D, Nelly Fertado, Shakira, Norah Jones, Radiohead, Blur’s Dave Rowntree, Rednex, to name a few.
@91
you idiot didn’t you read?
“IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak”
I download a lot of music on torrents. If I like it, I’ll pay to go see the musician/band when they come to town. I like it this way. Live music is so much better. Since file sharing, more bands and musicians are touring which is a good thing. It creates jobs.
That said, I think record shops are cool. There is something about holding it in your hand. It’s sad to see them go.
A more useful (for the artists) statistic would be the percentage of file sharers/downloaders who pay to go to shows.
But the report’s kind of stating the obvious that file sharers are more likely to buy single tracks and albums online than non-file sharers.
hey at least they dont have to waste money pressing cd’s and have the inlays in cd’s. which are nice to have but i dont know a single person who pays for any digital media. only hardware things to run that media.
and those people who dont buy music would rather save that $10 to save up for a kick ass sound setup or towards a entertainment setup.
vinyl is the only thing worth buying these days. nothing replaces the deep base and treble levels. a digital medium can’t create in anyway. which have higher pitches in a stereo and surround sound outputs. vinyl can only be mono or stereo. or maybe blu-ray media. in a year will be the new main pirated media clogging the pipes all over.
@dude [Quote I download a lot of music on torrents. If I like it, I’ll pay to go see the musician/band when they come to town. I like it this way. Live music is so much better. Since file sharing, more bands and musicians are touring which is a good thing. It creates jobs. Quote]
@dude
Young Bands have no option but to tour constantly (which means less time in the studio to be creative) working their bums off because of no sales coming in from their music because their so called fake fans are illegally downloading their songs It may create jobs for the people that support the tour, but artist/bands have to pay up front all costs from the tour and the cut to the touring band is usually break even or most times the tour is a loss – so how does the artist continue to be an evolving artist without any income coming in?
so Dude do you go to and pay for tickets to go to live performances of the bands that you pirate music from ? not picking on you… just saying hon ?
unless you are a high profile artist that can absorb piracy of songs and tour to full houses – you are doomed to never ever making it beyond momentary interest because if your music is just not selling you will disappear and lose that potential to be a truly brilliant superband of the future that we will never hear because – you are dead in the water from lack of sales…. lots of bands from the 70s 80s 90s did not make it until their 3rd or 4th album – after each release they sold more and more from building a following and went on to become career band/artists that were respected by their fans and the music industry!
I miss those times and I will miss the disappearing record store with the physical cd and coverart but I am also loving my iTunes library – digital downloads are the future.
Record labels are not needed for sure. Have a look at Rage Against the Machine beating X Factor winner in the UK charts. The facebook campaign came out on top.
@PegLeg
Geez… another Internet poster who blindly accepts the MAFIAA’s propaganda about p2p.
Never stopped to consider whether file sharing has any positive effects, did you?
Never thought about how mass digital distribution builds a much larger fanbase than it otherwise would have, did you?
Never figured you should challenge the idea that a download is a lost sale, did you?
You’re correct: digital downloads are the future. Copyright reform is also the future. The sooner we see changes that legalize file sharing, the better.
@145
Actually, yes I can read. Hence the reason I posed my question. Ernesto’s article clearly states that although he could not get the full report he did manage to find those statistics in the 3 page section he links to. He also states that those are the music industry’s statistics. If he is quoting statistics, he has a source, and I was curious where, exactly, the source was found as it did not appear in the documents he linked to. The full quote in the article (in case you don’t want to bother scrolling back up) is as follows:
“Although IFPI refused to share the entire research report with TorrentFreak, we can conclude the following from the two pages that were published online.
Compared to music buyers, music sharers (pirates) are…
* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.
These figures (as reported by the music industry) clearly show that file-sharers buy more digital music than the average music buyer.”
@132 Jan 24, 2010 at 00:31 by Anonymous
Basically my point is that if copyright can only belong to the creator and their immediate family, then the industry (i.e. corporations) could never own them. It would make it more difficult to rip the artists off. This can be achieved by outlawing the transfer of copyrights (outside of wills). Putting the ownership of copyrights solely in the creator’s hands would end most of the current problems. By no means, though, am I advocating any extension of copyright. It needs to go back to at most the standard 50 years which is more than enough.
I guess if you couldn’t get tracks that you wanted for free to have on your players/entertainment devices you would have to buy them thus giving sales to the artist to support them and their music – so there would be sales.
If the artist/bands wants to give away songs to promote themselves to gain a fanbase that is their call.
Artists/Bands that release music with the intention of trying to make a living should have a say in how their creations are distributed. p2p is not making a copy for friends or family – the song is being distributed without permission to squillions of file sharers for free without any thought to the creator of the music and how he will continue to make a living. Unless you are an established artist that fills huge venues – touring doesn’t make money after everyone gets their little slice of the pie.
Sorry I know I am very much in the minority here – I guess I just don’t understand coz I go to work and get paid and I buy music so that the artists that I love also gets paid for his creative work. I wouldn’t continue to work at a job that I didnt get paid for thus the quality of music in this free for all world will suffer!
I havent been reading any proganda except on here lol – I am just saying that I think it is fair and honorable to pay for music like you would do for any other product you wanted.
Runs for the hills now – have a good day people!
@154 Jan 25, 2010 at 22:39 by PegLeg
So are you saying the pirates that are the best customers of the music industry should stop buying?
@154
Or I could go with the free and legal alternatives available.
Do you really think that file sharers, many of which have strong anti-RIAA sentiments, would just become paying customers if piracy were impossible? No. They would find another way to use file sharing, or start distributing copylefted music. See, the RIAA also thought that suing your customers and forcing DRM on them will make you look good in their eyes… look how far that got them…
Can you supply any substantive arguments to support this?
You’re making an unfair assumption on the part of everyone who downloads a copy. Who’s to say that people who download won’t buy? After all, isn’t that the subject of this very article you’re commenting on?
Dude, you sound almost as bad as neostyles. Making blanket generalizations? That’s a trick of his. He’s commonly referred to as a troll, too, because of stupid tricks like these.
Can’t really call producing music a job. With an actual job, you get paid as you work. You work more, you get paid more. With producing music, you work once and feel entitled to payment for the rest of your life.
Um, people are going to create music even if we get rid of all financial incentives to do so. Music was made for thousands of years before it was possible to sell copies of it. Free music is made nowadays.
Really? Because I think it’s kind of nonsensical to pay for copies of something that is not scarce, especially for every copy you acquire. I also think it is more fair and honorable to protest against the broken copyright system that we have. You want to see fairness for artists? Support copyright reform.
The definition of “customer” is
someone who pays for goods or services from a supplier.
Illegally downloading for free is not being a valuable customer.
If you already have the song in your possession free why would you then decide to go buy that same song and put another copy on your hard drive to listen to?
If artists stop coming up with trash that they think they can make millions out of just because they pay off media “reviewers” and think consumers are stupid, they’re sadly mistaken
I downloaded Ke$ha’s new album Animal yesterday and I thanked God I didn’t buy that shit. The only good song was Tik Tok, the rest were pure crap. Hell, even Lady Gaga sounds like Mozart compared to that HAHAHAHA.
Bottom line is – make good music = more sales. Make 1-2 good song(s) but the other 18 crap, and you shouldn’t really expect to sell a bucket load of discs
@157
There’s an article about that you could read.
@150 so after getting the full album illegally to listen to when ever you want to now… u have decided on Ke$ha’s new song as the only song you liked to listen to… so of course you bought it – yeah right!
Itunes lets u sample and buy individual songs – you dont have to buy the whole album.
I found this so offensive
“Can’t really call producing music a job”
say that to yourself as you r listening to other people’s hard work for free as you are getting through your day listening to stolen music at your job whilst getting paid at your job!
Pirates buy more than music buyers? Your choice of words is strange.
Let me remind everyone again that CDs are also digital music! Get it through your thick skulls already! Only LPs and cassettes are analog.
Do you, by any chance, work at the American Department of Redundancy Department of America?
Also, what you said has nothing to do with the argument that putting out an album and expecting a constant flow of cash for it is nothing like working a day, getting paid for a day, and repeating.
@91 Jan 23, 2010 at 09:12 by acetrinity
@110 Jan 23, 2010 at 14:27 by Reasoned Mind
I’m pretty sure these statistics are derived from the first graph (pg1) of http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/Jupiter_Research_study_on_online_piracy.pdf
* 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
17% of music sharers vs. 13% of music buyers “Bought songs online”
17 / 13 = 1.307. 1.307 – 1 = .307 ~= 31%
* 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
8% of music sharers vs. 6% of music buyers “Bought albums online”
8 / 6 = 1.333. 1.333 – 1 = .333 ~= 33%
* 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
4% of music sharers vs 2% of music buyers “Paid monthly subscription for music”.
4/2 = 2. A 2-fold increase is 100%, right? So, it’s 2 – 1 = 100%
* 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.
8% of music sharers vs. 5% of music buyers “Paid for music on my mobile phone”
8 / 5 = 1.6. 1.6 – 1 = .6 ~= 60%
I think it’s extremely dishonest to widely claim results are based on a scientific study without actually publicizing the study.
Plus, I don’t think the data on the first 3 pages supports their conclusions (see @69).
@61
“Let me remind everyone again that CDs are also digital music!”
You’re right, except that the Jupiter study has categories of “Digital Music Buyers”, “Music Buyers”, and “Physical Only Buyers”. I’m pretty sure the “Physical Only Buyers” is referring to CDs.
This is cool. I buy physical albums and digital music. I sometimes buy both the physical and digital music of the same album (i.e. Alicia Keys), if I really looooove the artist. If I’m kinda iffy about the album or the movie, I download it from the pirates, if I reeeeaaaaalllllly love it, I would buy a DVD or purchase a digital copy or buy a physical album. If I just like it or if I hated it, well, I’m not going to buy it. :-) That’s all.
@162
Thanks, that makes a bit of sense then.
22 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.