21/01/2010

The Birth Of Dissent...

I've just been inspired by Miss Lomas's podcast on 'Illegally downloading music' to write down some of my thoughts about the issue.

I've tried to make it as coherent as possible so apologies if it reads a bit like a rant.

Why do people pirate music?
Well, I can't help but think that it isn't as clear cut as some people would have us believe. I do not in the slightest believe that the majority of people who pirate do it just because it's free (yeah, there's probably a fringe element who do, but they are the minority).

For example, your favourite artist releases an album next week that you have already pre-ordered. but it's been leaked onto the internet (by another fan who just wants people to hear it (there's no money involved in BitTorrent leaks)), are you, as the music industry would have you believe, actually committing a crime and being morally repugnant in downloading the album or a few songs from it?. No, of course you're not.

I pay for music, and I have ALOT of music. but I still pirate. why? well the aforementioned leaks, I'm always checking out new bands I've heard about. but as a general rule, the majority of music I've downloaded that I've liked, I've gone and bought.

Proof...

And yet, in the eye's of the music industry, I'm eating into the profits of artists and preventing new talent coming through... and yet, somehow, there's no lack of new artists coming through. all that's changing is the way they're being recognised. either virally through the piracy of their music (major example of this is the Arctic Monkeys, whose debut album was the fastest selling debut in history, because it was on the internet, and people had heard it, and they wanted to go out and buy it), or through increased exposure on the tour circuit.

Another argument they make is that every download equals a lost sale. This simply isn't the case. People will download music that been recommended to them without hearing it first because it's free. That doesn't mean that they would have necessarily gone out and bought it.


The Labels
One major factor affecting the amount of piracy going on is the increasing hypocrisy of record labels.
When file sharing was first being realised as an issue for the music industry, they had two options... to embrace this new frontier, explore the options open to them to increase their revenue and give consumers a choice, this would have given consumers the option to work with the industry in supporting artists and lowering piracy levels. or the other option, to restrict it as much as possible, by shutting down sites that allowed people to share music, suing people who uploaded songs and generally treating music fans like shit.
We all know which road they went down.

And so, for years the major labels used their influence and wealth to bully individuals into paying thousands of pounds for downloading a few songs (note the case of Jammie Thomas, who was ordered by court to pay $80,000 PER SONG, for 24 counts of infringement. a total fine of $1.92m)

I think it's clear to see who the crooks are in this scenario, and it's not the fans who download music.

All the while the music industry has claimed poverty (while enjoying some of their most profitable years ever), and even asked for money to fight pirates from the US banks bail-out during the recession.
You will notice that they always point towards a decline in album sales as definitive proof that piracy is to blame. yet you will rarely see them pointing out that sales of digital singles has risen dramatically. Weird that.

Yet, while the labels fought with file-sharers, the file-sharers were doing something far more constructive, creating a musical utopian community. where a fan of a band could go and get copies of artists stuff that wasn't available in the shops, rarities and b-sides which would otherwise costs hundreds to track down, and yes, leaks. albums that weren't even available in shops could be downloaded off the internet. everything for free.
early on there was nothing stopping the labels stepping in and monetizing this with say, a monthly or weekly fee to use it. yet, they decided that attempting to stop it would be more profitable and worthwhile.


There is also evidence that it is the labels stranglehold on artists that is causing the artists to lose money.
For those who do not know this, when an artist signs to a label, the label retains the legal rights to all music produced by the band for the length of the contract.

This stranglehold is detrimental to the artist and a lifeline for labels.
Many established artists now do not need the labels sucking their income away from them, but cannot do anything about it due to contracts signed long ago (the average contract is for 7 studio albums).

It was recently pointed out that that even with the free streaming service spotify, where it appears the labels are outwardly showing signs of trying to adapt. they are still up to their old tricks. with over a million plays on the service you'd think Lady GaGa was doing fairly well from it. well she's not, a million plays has earned her the grand total of $167.
This is nothing to do with the service itself, independents can earn $0.03 per play, which would have earned her $30,000. instead, because the labels own the music, it's all gone to them.

As you can probably tell, for all labels moaning that piracy is destroying their business, it is probably something they deserve. they allowed it to get like this by pursuing individuals with fines as a way to fund themselves rather than investing in innovation.

Let the dinosaurs die I say. or as Demonbaby puts it:
For the major labels, it's over. It's fucking over. You're going to burn to the fucking ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire. And it's your own fault. Surely, somewhere deep inside, you had to know this day was coming, right? Your very industry is founded on an unfair business model of owning art you didn't create in exchange for the services you provide. It's rigged so that you win every time - even if the artist does well, you do ten times better. It was able to exist because you controlled the distribution, but now that's back in the hands of the people, and you let the ball drop when you could have evolved.

Innovation
So, if bands don't want to be sucked dry of any cash they have in a rapidly changing market, where do they go now?

Nine Inch Nails have innovated in the release and distribution of albums, without the backing of any major labels, and have been financially successful.

This goes back to 2007, the band were signed to interscope records and touring for an upcoming album release 'Year Zero'. at the time they were experimenting in building an ARG (Alternative Reality Game) based on the concept of the album. as part of this they released songs on USB sticks to fans at the shows, the fans then uploaded these songs online and created hype for the album.
also, they were becoming disfranchised by the labels management of leaks and piracy, here's a video from that tour shortly after the album release...



Following this the band were free from their record label, so what did they do.
They made an instrumental album 'Ghosts I-IV' and released it, for free.
the album came with a range of physical packages ranging from the free download, Double CD for $10 up to a Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition signed box set for $300. the 2500 box sets sold out in a day, earning a gross profit of $750,000. and yet, they carried on innovating.
2 months later they released 'The Slip', again for free. no special packages this time, just the free download, and a limited edition CD and vinyl.
Within a month the album had been downloaded 1.4 million times and the 250,000 CD's had sold out.
What's more, with no label these albums were released under a Creative Commons copyright licence, in effect this allowed fans to legally "Remix it, share it with your friends, post it on your blog, play it on your podcast, give it to strangers etc."

Of course Nine Inch Nails aren't the only band innovating like this, Radiohead released their album 'In Rainbows' on a pay-what-you-like basis.
And Bloc Party's 'Intimacy' was rush-released online to prevent leaks and maximise profit.

For those who are wondering how new bands can establish themselves without the distribution network of a label I advise you read Trent Reznors article on the subject. highly useful and informative.


So, here we are in 2010, with the music industry still treating downloaders like shit. If only they'd take a look in the mirror.
Piracy isn't a threat to music, Major labels with excessive middle management, too much power and money are the real threat.

Apologies for the length and rant-like nature of this post. but the whole issue really pisses me off.

That's all for now.
Remember, Sharing Is Caring

Shep.


EDIT:
since writing and posting this two relevant articles have been released.
firstly this study was published, proving that pirates are the music industry's most valuable customers.

and secondly, Ed O'Brien (better known as Radiohead's guitarist) came out and said he doesn't believe pirates are killing music.








No comments:

Post a Comment