Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,187
  • Total Topics: 106,349
  • Online Today: 798
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 06:52:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Politics of Downloading

Started by Johnny Townmouse, March 24, 2009, 10:11:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on March 26, 2009, 11:32:56 AM
I guess my feeling about all this is simply that the music industry is changing, in response to the way that we as consumers choose to listen to music.

To the point that we play along to the music using fake plastic instruments
http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/43718


thugler

Quote from: Robot DeNiro on March 26, 2009, 12:47:36 PM
I'm really not sure that time spent listening to music has fallen.  What about the rise of the iPod?  I know a lot of people who have an mp3 player who wouldn't have dreamt of listening to a CD discman or minidisc player.  I certainly don't believe that the amount of time spent listening has fallen as drastically as the amount of money spent purchasing.


So how else do you explain the fact that more people were listening at the same time as less people were purchasing?  I'm going to stop using myself as an example now because I think it's becoming detrimental to the thread, but you have yet to come up with a plausible explanation for this.


This isn't actually the article I got my info about hours spent on various activities from, but it's fairly similar. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/recorded-music-being-replaced-other-media

I think it's inevitable that music listening might fall a bit along with the rise in other stuff. Can't say it's true for me though.

I can't really explain the difference in album sales/listeners/downloaders. But loads of stuff could effect album sales, and these two things aren't necessarily related, since you can't tell how many of those downloaders would have/have bought the album.


I liked the post about a comprehensive library of music being accesible anywhere. That'll be way too awesome.

George Oscar Bluth II

Last album I bought was Take That for my mum at Christmas.

It's weird to think that, if I was 10 years older than I am, I'd have been at university in the mid to late 90s, so would presumably have spent my spare money on CD's and a stereo and stuff. Now, of course, we all download. I know no-one who buys CDs, or no-one who'll admit to buying CDs anyway because I suspect it'd actually be considered a really uncool thing to do. Which is why I'm a bit uncomfortable with the 'oh, it allows people to explore artists they wouldn't have otherwise found out about, and then buy their records' thing. It's just not true from my vantage point.

I do feel a bit guilty though. Especially when I'm downloading something like Bon Iver, he's one guy, his album probably didn't sell very many, it's absolutely wonderful, I didn't give him a penny for it and it's fairly unlikely he'll come to Norwich any time soon so I can't even allay my guilt by going to see him.

The easy answer is "buy the album then", but it's on my hard drive, why pay for something I already have?

I'd happily rip off U2 or whatever though. If I actually wanted to listen to U2.

Tokyo Sexwhale

Established bands like U2 are barely affected by downloading though, many of their fans are older people who don't know or understand bittorrent, and haven't got the time or inclination to find out.  If they download at all it will be from itunes because it's easy.

So it's the new and "underground" bands who are disproportionately affected.  Their fans are often younger and more computer-literate, have less cash, are used to getting stuff for free off the internet and have far more time to look for it.


thugler

Quote from: Tokyo Sexwhale on March 29, 2009, 12:56:12 AM
Established bands like U2 are barely affected by downloading though, many of their fans are older people who don't know or understand bittorrent, and haven't got the time or inclination to find out.  If they download at all it will be from itunes because it's easy.

So it's the new and "underground" bands who are disproportionately affected.  Their fans are often younger and more computer-literate, have less cash, are used to getting stuff for free off the internet and have far more time to look for it.

It's very well to assume that. But I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the case.

Famous Mortimer

Given your willingness to make vast assumptions based on the evidence of you and your friends, I fail to see what you find objectionable about that statement. Are U2's fans roughly the same age as, say, Animal Collective's fans? Is the average 20-year-old less or more computer-literate than the average 45-year-old? Do students have more or less free time than people in full-time employment? What bit of it are you really disputing? I mean, there's vast amounts of evidence to say that CD sales are going down, at the same time they're becoming cheaper and cheaper to buy; there's also evidence that legal downloading is increasing, but not enough to cover the shortfall; and computers are getting cheaper, broadband is getting faster, and PCs are getting more and more storage. There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence, here and elsewhere, that people are illegally downloading more and more. There is no evidence that consumption of music is decreasing - in fact, the opposite is the case.

You said above you can't explain why album sales have fallen, but it could be any number of things - although you seem determined not to admit it's anything to do with downloading. Why? How much evidence would it take to convince you?


mayer

I used to buy a lot of music. Between 1996 and around 2002 I spent pretty much all my money on CDs, LPs, 7"s, the occasional 12", and even the odd cassette. I mainly bought stuff second hand (in record shops in Camden, Notting Hill & Berwick Street and in charity shops all over), but there was still a fair amount of stuff I bought new (especially CD albums/singles and 7"s).

The first records I ever stole via the 'net were Kid A (copied from a friend) and Standing On The Shoulder Of Giants (the [superior] Noel demo version). Both pre-release, and for both I had printed-off covers, stuck in a jewel case. I also bought Kid A soon after it came out (and won ... Giants off The Independent).

But over the next 2-3 years I more or less stopped buying music. I'll still buy the occasional record (especially if it's a smaller band that I really like and want to do well, like Special Needs or The Indelicates), or something I really love, or a beautifully packaged thing like Dylan's Free Trade Hall gig, but I just end up stealing most of the stuff I want to hear now. I don't particularly like myself for it, and I'm certain that I value the music less because of it. I remember trawling the bargain basement at Music and Video Exchanges across London to buy affordable copies stuff that I'd heard snippets of on TV, the radio or via friends.

I can say that records are too expensive and I get paid naff all, but records are cheaper than in the late-90s (without even taking inflation into account), and used to spend all my lunch money on vinyl and CDs, and that was only ten quid a week.

An example: I've always hated what I've heard of Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton, so naturally ignored The Yardbirds. But having happened across Heart Full Of Soul (and I can't even remember how), I know I can just load up Soulseek and steal pretty much their whole back catalogue. I know that if I had to put a bit of legwork into getting it (and a bit of money too - even if it was a bargain £2 find at Music and Video Exchange), that I'd be a lot more excited about it, I'd listen to it with a much more critical ear, and it'd be the right thing to do.

Problem is, Pandora's box is open on this one, and even if I had the self-discipline not to steal it, the fact that many other people will is certainly having a knock-on effect on the industry, and I'm not confident that it's a positive one. I'm surprised when people argue that they and all their friends buy more music since they started steaing it. I'm not saying it's not true, but I know that it's not true for me, and I suspect for many others too.

Maybe I should just pull myself together and start buying music again and just avoid the temptation, but it's hard.

thugler

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on March 29, 2009, 06:37:42 PM
Given your willingness to make vast assumptions based on the evidence of you and your friends, I fail to see what you find objectionable about that statement. Are U2's fans roughly the same age as, say, Animal Collective's fans? Is the average 20-year-old less or more computer-literate than the average 45-year-old? Do students have more or less free time than people in full-time employment? What bit of it are you really disputing? I mean, there's vast amounts of evidence to say that CD sales are going down, at the same time they're becoming cheaper and cheaper to buy; there's also evidence that legal downloading is increasing, but not enough to cover the shortfall; and computers are getting cheaper, broadband is getting faster, and PCs are getting more and more storage. There is a large amount of anecdotal evidence, here and elsewhere, that people are illegally downloading more and more. There is no evidence that consumption of music is decreasing - in fact, the opposite is the case.

You said above you can't explain why album sales have fallen, but it could be any number of things - although you seem determined not to admit it's anything to do with downloading. Why? How much evidence would it take to convince you?

I can't claim anything for sure, but I'm just really not convinced by the anti downloading arguments, particularly when they are often pedalled by dubious institutions on behalf of big companies. Yes I'm using myself and my friends as an example, but I just hate the idea that the biggest music fans are not buying music anymore.

I already posted one link that shows the decrease in the hours of time people are spending listening to music in comparison to other things. The stats I actually wanted to post had similar stats on spending in these areas and were more up to date, but I haven't had time to go through my history and find the page yet.

Thats surely one explanation for a decline in music sales? not that I'm claiming it's definately the answer, it's possibly a part of it.

I've probably been overstating the case a bit on my end in this thread and apologise for it.


Oh and downloading is not 'stealing'.

I have generally stopped buying cd's unless they are bargains, in favour of vinyl instead, which I feel is a nicer object to look at and hold, generally sounds a bit different if not better. Plus hunting for vinyl is a whole new hobby in itself.

Tokyo Sexwhale

#68
Quote from: thugler on March 29, 2009, 06:20:27 PM
It's very well to assume that. But I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the case.

Well where is the evidence one way or another?  I was offering anecdotal evidence because, as far as I'm aware that's all there is.

I do know that I own between 1000 and 1500 music CDs collected since about 1993, but I doubt that I've bought more than 10 in the last year, or in any year since about 2004/5.  When I do buy CDs it's usually for completist reasons (another reason why established bands should be less affected than new bands); for special features or packaging, because I can't find good quality rips on the internet, and (very rarely) because I can't find a rip of it at all.

I might make an impulse purchase in a record shop, but that's very rare because I hardly go into record shops now.  Why's that? Because I can either buy online, or download.

Now it could be that as I'm older I have less interest in new or underground music, or it could be that my current CD collection is nearly everything I'd ever want or need to listen to; but it could be that whenever I want to listen to something new that I've heard about, or I'm reminded of an old song or artist, my first instinct is to see if I can download it.

I also think it's a reasonable assumption that older people don't download as much due to time constraints, ignorance of bittorrent and bittorrent sites, or they're just not as tied to the internet as your average CaBber. 

The truth is that all other things being equal free and convenient is always more attractive than paying money for a CD that you're probably only going to burn to listen on your ipod/computer anyway.


Tokyo Sexwhale

While I'm thinking about it - I suppose video games are another cause of lower music sales - I'd guess a lot of teenagers and those on a limited budget might have a choice between buying the latest xbox/ps3 game or buying 5 or 6 new cds, the logical thing to do is buy the game and download the music.  Ten years ago, a significant proportion might have chosen to buy the CDs.

PS thugler - why is downloading without the permission of the artist not stealing?  Not saying you're wrong, but how did you come to that conclusion?





chocky909

I agree with mayer. I used to spend a lot on CDs before I got broadband. Now I try to buy vinyl and nice CDs for the bands I really like but it's hard when there are so many other things vying for my cash. I end up buying 360 games or Blu Rays because I can't download them. I buy boxsets when they're cheap because DVDs take effort to burn. Even when I do buy vinyl I usually download the rip in FLAC so I don't have to open the seal which means I keep them as a possible future rarity.

This is a golden age for techy media junkies and I doubt it'll last that much longer so fill up as many 1TB hard drives as you can, preferably with bands that don't need the money and save your cash for up and coming acts with no financial backing. Send them a fucking cheque if you feel guilty or give to charity. It's your karma.

thugler

Quote from: Tokyo Sexwhale on March 30, 2009, 12:49:05 AM
While I'm thinking about it - I suppose video games are another cause of lower music sales - I'd guess a lot of teenagers and those on a limited budget might have a choice between buying the latest xbox/ps3 game or buying 5 or 6 new cds, the logical thing to do is buy the game and download the music.  Ten years ago, a significant proportion might have chosen to buy the CDs.

PS thugler - why is downloading without the permission of the artist not stealing?  Not saying you're wrong, but how did you come to that conclusion?

Those kids will also spend their time differently. Less time is spent listening to music, less money is spent on it also. 10 cd's bought in a year is actually probably above the average.

Using the word stealing to describe downloading is a bit misleading, since you're not actually depriving anyone of something. At worst you're arguably depriving the band/label/middlemen of profits, but this still isn't stealing.

JesusAndYourBush

Quote from: thugler on March 30, 2009, 10:24:00 AM
Using the word stealing to describe downloading is a bit misleading, since you're not actually depriving anyone of something. At worst you're arguably depriving the band/label/middlemen of profits, but this still isn't stealing.

Yes, if I stole a cd from a shop I'd be stealing something physical, and when the shop had none left and someone wanted to buy that cd I'd be depriving them of being able to buy it.  With downloading you're downloading a copy.  If people want to compare it with anything, compare it with borrowing an album off your friend and taping it.  "Home taping is killing music".

Tokyo Sexwhale

Quote from: thugler on March 30, 2009, 10:24:00 AM

Using the word stealing to describe downloading is a bit misleading, since you're not actually depriving anyone of something. At worst you're arguably depriving the band/label/middlemen of profits, but this still isn't stealing.

Well no, you're depriving them of income.  Profits are what is left over after costs have been covered.  You're not even compensating them for the costs involved in making, producing and promoting the music, so that you become aware of it and want to download it.

Quote from: JesusAndYourBush on March 30, 2009, 04:25:41 PM
Yes, if I stole a cd from a shop I'd be stealing something physical, and when the shop had none left and someone wanted to buy that cd I'd be depriving them of being able to buy it.  With downloading you're downloading a copy.  If people want to compare it with anything, compare it with borrowing an album off your friend and taping it.  "Home taping is killing music".

But the physical CD and packaging are not what is important in a music CD, it's the digital 1s and 0s that form the music - the same 1s and 0s that you can also download  - or would you consider a blank cd-r to be the same as a music album?  And the victim of theft isn't usually considered to be the person who wanted to buy the item, but the person who has had their property taken without their permission.

And yes, it's the same in principle as taping a friend's copy.  Except on a massively more efficient scale. 




I used to download a lot but I don't bother much anymore; my area isn't that great for broadband, it still takes quite a while to download a whole album. Nowadays I just order CDs through the local library- £1.50 for an album, I copy them but technically I'm still supporting the artists (library fees count towards their royalties). Seems like a good system to me- I still get the album but don't have to pay through the nose for it. More people should use the library!

Ality Atwo

I discovered Cassetteboy on blog.wfmu.org, free download, no one got any money.

I then borrowed "Mick's Tape" from Jubilee Library - 80p rental, copied it, sent copies back to my friends in Australia, and various tracks ended up on mixtapes I made.

Then when I saw Carry on Breathing for £8.99 in Resident Records I paid full price. In effect, I have built up a relationship with the band so I would definitely buy any future records they release. It's all to do with the downloading though. There's a million things I could download but none of them are ever going to make an impression unless I bump into them in my real life. Because "Mick's Tape" was there in the library I was interested. If WFMU had been offering the whole album for download I might not have bothered.

I still buy second-hand like it's going out of fashion (which it is) - collectable and second-hand shops are still pricey but people are dumping their entire CD collections on charity shops right now. As someone with a fascination for CD singles it's a bit of a golden age for me. But Mick's Tape is one of only two CDs I've bought at full price in the last 12 months.

thugler

Quote from: Tokyo Sexwhale on March 30, 2009, 07:16:12 PM
Well no, you're depriving them of income.  Profits are what is left over after costs have been covered.  You're not even compensating them for the costs involved in making, producing and promoting the music, so that you become aware of it and want to download it.

But the physical CD and packaging are not what is important in a music CD, it's the digital 1s and 0s that form the music - the same 1s and 0s that you can also download  - or would you consider a blank cd-r to be the same as a music album?  And the victim of theft isn't usually considered to be the person who wanted to buy the item, but the person who has had their property taken without their permission.

And yes, it's the same in principle as taping a friend's copy.  Except on a massively more efficient scale.

The only deprivation of income is if you presume that the person either:

A) would have bought the album if it wasn't for the free download.
or
B) would not later buy the album or another album by that artist they would not have purchased without hearing the artist via free download.

Much of the costs are in producing the physical album on a large scale rather than the actual recording process. Downloading is a far way away from stealing. There are potentially negative effects from it, but calling it stealing is completely misunderstanding what it is, and what happens due to it.

Tokyo Sexwhale

And why isn't that a reasonable presumption?  Not for everybody obviously, but some of those people would have bought the album had they no other way of accessing it.  Have a look at your hard drive, at all the music you've downloaded without offering any consideration to the artist or the record company.  If you had no way of downloading them for free, are you saying you would not have bought at least a few of them.  Or even one of them?

And what about those artists who don't get to make another album, because their first didn't sell enough?

Now, I always thought I understood what downloading means, and what stealing means.  They're not synonyms, downloading is simply the method by which you take/use/obtain music without the permission of the copyright holder.  Isn't that sort of "stealing"?

Why should it be different because the rights are digital rather than tangible?  Is it ok to steal a Mars Bar to see if you like it enough to pay money for future Mars Bars or Milky Ways, or on the presumption that if you can't have it for free you won't bother eating any chocolate at all?



thugler

Quote from: Tokyo Sexwhale on March 31, 2009, 08:20:37 PM
And why isn't that a reasonable presumption?  Not for everybody obviously, but some of those people would have bought the album had they no other way of accessing it.  Have a look at your hard drive, at all the music you've downloaded without offering any consideration to the artist or the record company.  If you had no way of downloading them for free, are you saying you would not have bought at least a few of them.  Or even one of them?

And what about those artists who don't get to make another album, because their first didn't sell enough?

Now, I always thought I understood what downloading means, and what stealing means.  They're not synonyms, downloading is simply the method by which you take/use/obtain music without the permission of the copyright holder.  Isn't that sort of "stealing"?

Why should it be different because the rights are digital rather than tangible?  Is it ok to steal a Mars Bar to see if you like it enough to pay money for future Mars Bars or Milky Ways, or on the presumption that if you can't have it for free you won't bother eating any chocolate at all?

It's different because your not taking anything. It's a copy that doesn't do anything to the original. It's fine to talk about whether or not it might have an effect on profits, but it's not stealing and far from it.

the way I look at my downloading habits is, I buy as much music as I can afford, but I want to listen to more, so I download. As long as I'm putting a decent amount of money into the bands I enjoy in some way, I don't see a problem with me listening to a lot more.

I would not have known whether I liked much of the music I download without having downloaded it to try, so I have no idea whether I would've bought it or not. I would not be able to have bought all of the music I have downloaded.

It's one possible explanation, but not a cut and dry one. There are other factors.

TotalMink

Quote from: Tokyo Sexwhale on March 29, 2009, 12:56:12 AM
Established bands like U2 are barely affected by downloading though,

Dont know how relevant this is but they have been top seeded download on tpb for 2 or 3 weeks - thousands of seeders at any one time on but one site.  I am sure that they arent affected in terms of their own $ and the album is just a vehicle for the tour etc but the most downloaded audio right now is the new U2 album.

Robot DeNiro

Thugler I think you must accept (from the anecdotal evidence in this thread if not from the statistics) that you are not a typical downloader.  Because you still buy as much music as you can afford, you're not one of the ones who is doing all the damage.  But it seems that the majority more or less stop buying entirely when they discover downloading, and that's what we're talking about.

(Although I can't help wondering if, were there no downloading, "as much as you can afford" might be a bit more.  There might be a few more 'must hear' albums for which you would sacrifice other purchases, therefore increasing your music expenditure.)

Quote from: thugler on March 31, 2009, 08:43:29 PMIt's different because your not taking anything. It's a copy that doesn't do anything to the original.

I'm not sure that's true.  For a start most peer-to-peer software demands that you give stuff back, so you're not just making one copy for yourself, you're actively giving out copies to other people.  Surely this devalues the original to the extent where it counts as damage.  I'm no economist, but don't the laws of supply and demand state that the more widely and easily available something is, the less valuable it is?

Plus of course you seem to be confusing the music with the lump of plastic that houses it.  Sure, you haven't stolen a CD, but as a musician I'm not really selling CDs.  I don't work in a factory manufacturing CDs, I work in my bedroom making an album.  I'm selling the experience of listening to my music, and if you're taking that experience without paying, you're stealing from me.  Not that I personally mind that much (did you check out that torrent?).

Quote from: Ality Atwo on March 31, 2009, 12:16:05 AM
I discovered Cassetteboy on blog.wfmu.org, free download, no one got any money.

I then borrowed "Mick's Tape" from Jubilee Library - 80p rental, copied it, sent copies back to my friends in Australia, and various tracks ended up on mixtapes I made.

Ha, and I now work in that very library.  So I guess I probably received a minuscule percentage of that 80p and in a tiny way still made money from the copying of that album.  Hooray!

thugler

Quote from: Robot DeNiro on March 31, 2009, 09:58:32 PM
Thugler I think you must accept (from the anecdotal evidence in this thread if not from the statistics) that you are not a typical downloader.  Because you still buy as much music as you can afford, you're not one of the ones who is doing all the damage.  But it seems that the majority more or less stop buying entirely when they discover downloading, and that's what we're talking about.

(Although I can't help wondering if, were there no downloading, "as much as you can afford" might be a bit more.  There might be a few more 'must hear' albums for which you would sacrifice other purchases, therefore increasing your music expenditure.)

I'm not sure that's true.  For a start most peer-to-peer software demands that you give stuff back, so you're not just making one copy for yourself, you're actively giving out copies to other people.  Surely this devalues the original to the extent where it counts as damage.  I'm no economist, but don't the laws of supply and demand state that the more widely and easily available something is, the less valuable it is?

Plus of course you seem to be confusing the music with the lump of plastic that houses it.  Sure, you haven't stolen a CD, but as a musician I'm not really selling CDs.  I don't work in a factory manufacturing CDs, I work in my bedroom making an album.  I'm selling the experience of listening to my music, and if you're taking that experience without paying, you're stealing from me.  Not that I personally mind that much (did you check out that torrent?).

Ha, and I now work in that very library.  So I guess I probably received a minuscule percentage of that 80p and in a tiny way still made money from the copying of that album.  Hooray!

Yes I accept that, I'm by no means a typical downloader on this forum, which did disappoint me a bit. I am probably the biggest downloader amongst my friends, however I also spend the most on music.

You might be right about the 'as much as you can afford' thing although I really don't buy much else other than the occaisonally dvd, and I'm quite poor at the moment.

All I was saying is that the physical copies are not effected by downloading. Nothing is taken away. I don't really know whether it has an effect on supply and demand in the way you describe or not. However since you mention economists, one of my friends studied economics at uni, and actually did their dissertation on this topic, and came to conclusions similar to mine. I have no idea what research he did or anything so it's rather pointless mentioning.

I think people might still want the cd, because it's the official product, and has the artwork etc.
That's half the reason I buy vinyl to be honest, it's massive and great to look at.

Johnny Townmouse

Adam & Joe played some Cassetteboy on Saturday. They didn't pay for it either.

Robot DeNiro

Bastards!  And because we can't sign up to the PRS (for obvious reasons), we'll never see a penny...

joeyzaza

Norwegian study shows that Peer-to-peer downloaders spend more on music

QuoteResearchers examined the music downloading habits of more than 1,900 Internet users over the age of 15, and found that illegal music connoisseurs are significantly more likely to purchase music than the average, non-P2P-loving user.

Fuel for debate, although it doesn't really favour one side of the argument over the other i.e. is it "illegal downloads cause people to spend more on music" or "big consumers of music also download stuff illegally"?

Perhaps the only conclusion to be drawn from this and other studies is that record companies are failing to milk their customer base.


All Surrogate

Replicator technology would entail a massive change in the economy, and society at large; institutions would have to adapt or die.

If the replicators require raw material as well as electricity, then a) those things which can be replicated from materials which are cheap or free would be favoured (for example, being able to freely capture carbon from the air would make carbon-heavy objects more prevalent - coal itself is mainly constituted from elements found in the air) and b) business interest would shift to the production of raw materials which the general public do not find it easy to obtain freely.  It could be that people replicate solar cells and wind turbines to provide the power for their replicators, and then only buy small quantities of rare elements as they need them.

Of course, it's all just speculation, and cornucopia machines are long distant, but such a technology would change society significantly, perhaps enough to render tradition economic stances irrelevant.  Whether it would be for the best, I'm not sure; I ponder it regularly.

Lfbarfe

Between 1979 and 2002, I spent a fortune on records. Since then, I've spent hardly anything. I don't download very much. I'm still discovering things that I bought but never got around to playing properly.

sirhenry

Just to point out the absurdity of the recent piratebay verdict:http://www.thepirategoogle.com/