Music Business and Piracy

Does anyone here remember Battiato? First Name: Franco. …Not many, I guess, given the scarcity of Italian New Order fans, (Why? Too busy listening to Pavarotti vocal prowess?, who knows). Well he was/is a singer songwriter who in the Eighties used to sing “ The Music business empire grows ever larger while the stage is full of moving half wits”

Well, the stage is as full of dimwits as ever, maybe fuller, but the business has long ceased growing: This year the estimated CD world sales will contract by 6% when compared with last year’s. Which had already seen a steep decline. It was in fact, the 4th declining year in a row.

The industry has already find the culprit: piracy. Easy, innit? Only it is far more complex than that.

Part of the decline is attributable to the worsening economic situation. That much is clear. The end of the CD reposition cycle (people buying PC&L on CD to consign the vinyl to the basement where David Essex has long being languishing, bound and gagged) has not helped either.

No less true is that today music finds strong competitors in the fight for the crucial teen pocket money. Mobiles and videogames claim an increasingly larger portion of potential music buyers’ disposable income. What is equally important, the fight extend to their souls: years ago music played an important part in defining who was “in” and “out”. You could be “so yesterday” by simply not knowing Rough Trade’s latest sign up. Today peer pressure means that not being proficient at “Splinter cell” is far more important in determining the playground’s pecking order. Nothing wrong with that, surely, that is, unless you are a top exec with a major label. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry per capita expenditure in CD’s in the top five markets declined from €42 to €38 between 1999 and 2001.

Lastly there is this minor, tiny proposition that the industry refuses to consider even to negate it. It could conceivably be that most popular music produced today is ...well…not very good. “Best selling” lists appear chock-a-bloc with one day wonders whose sell by date is shorter than most yoghurts you can buy at Sainsbury’s (Timber-who did you say?), endless repackaging of old hands (great, another Elvis sings the Beatles Compilation!) and marketing products supported by massive TV coverage (Pop Idol). As a result the airwaves are clogged with huge acts that were already there 15 years ago and tiny boppers who won’t be there in two. The creative bankruptcy in which most labels found themselves is difficult to exaggerate.

Today’s music business finds his market niche more in the tuck shop than in the delicatessen with the long terms consequences for the business that are to be expected. When you buy a record by New Order or The Smiths you are investing in ageless music, you are also buying a whole work not a massive hit saturating all the available ear slots. When you buy something by Christina Aguilera or Limp Bizkit you are buying into a single hit based on massive promotion, you most certainly know you won’t be listening to it at the end of this season so why bother buying the whole CD when you can download the single for free?

Discuss.

I would say the quality of the music being proffered to the "14-20 something" market is beginning to run out of steam (at least I hope so). Teen pop will never die, to be sure, but its various mutations - Philadelphia school, Brill Building, Archies, and now 'hip-hop' for white pre-teens - all fade from memory at some point, and this current bumper crop will soon see its day.

Apart from the new Radiohead album, I haven't personally been "excited" by recent albums and such. There's simply been nothing new to be excited about, and most of my recent purchases have been reissues of old faves (such as Quadrophenia). So there's not much out there for us "older" (read mature, professional, discerning) music lovers to embrace.

I agree with the whole "competition with video games and phones" arguement, I know from my own experience that my little brother (the target of such music) is more interested in video games than anything currently out in the market. Sure, he buys CDs from time to time, but his money mainly goes towards games. Music just isn't as important to him, and I can't say I blame him. When your role model for masculine cool is Justin Timberlake, it's no use even pretending you give a damn.

why bother buying the whole CD when you can download the single for free?

For that reason record companies are bringing back the CD single with a few added twists. They are adding video files etc.. to Singles to try and entice people to buy. Also there may be a trend to focus more on the "older" crowd (boomers or whatever) who are more likely to buy then be arsed with downloading.

Such a massive topic. Here's my angle, certainly the way regular music buying fans are ripped off in Britain. I seem to remember that we've had a few government inquiries about CD pricing in the last decade as most people have thought we have overpriced CDs and the inquiry always concluded that there was nothing wrong. The music business sniggers, breathes a sigh of relief that they can continue making easy money.

Now it's finally not going their way they don't like it. Suits me fine, time for a clear out - too much ambition and not enough talent in the industry. Most people are getting wise to it and either buying cheaper off the internet or downloading file shares. Is it any wonder? I think there's 2 tiers to the falling sales phenomena. The younger generation just don't like music as much as people in their 20s-30s and you can't blame them for having other interests given what's being marketed to them. For old farts like me in their early 30s they seem to think I want to buy new versions of stuff I've already bought. I've recently seen Sonic Youth, Velvet Underground and Elvis Costello CDs re-released with new extra tracks and they really expect me to buy them again?!? Costello fanatics, in particular, must be severely pissed off as his whole back catalogue has been re-released with bonus CDs. I've done my duty -I must have spent a few thousand quid on buying records, tapes and CDs over the past 20 years. Is that the reward I get for faithfully buying an artists products over a number of years - gee thanks a lot. I'll be getting the extras on file sharing software, thank you very much. If they really value long term fans then we'd be able to hand in our old versions of albums and get a free upgrade.

Phew, rant over. Glad I got that off my chest. It must be a similar feeling for all those people who adore film and are now buying it all again from video to dvd. Expect the dvd deluxe versions to start in 10 years to rip them all off again.

I've never subscribed to that 'CDs are overpriced' thing. When CDs were first available they were about £10-£12. Some 19-odd years later, they are (if you shop about), let's see, £10-£12: no price increase. Compare that to how much a pint has gone up in twenty years, and they ought to be the same price as DVDs by now! Personally I'm happy to pay less than one pound per track for an entire album that I will play time and time again, rather than £40 plus for a computer game I could have completed in one weekend.

As for file sharing, well, if a band wishes to offer music for free download at their website (for example) then fine. Echoboy, for instance, has almost all of his early B-sides (now difficult to find in stores) available for free download - which is a nice way to reward fans, while encouraging albums sales. File sharing is illegal, breaks copyright and may well prevent up-and-coming bands from making a living. Same thing applies with film downloading: alright, the companies that make mega-bucks usually make watered-down, homogenised trash, but there are creative, independent film makers and distributers working on tight budgets, yet coming up with innovative and original material. They all suffer as a result of file sharing, but it's only the independent companies that go out of business or back to their former day jobs: the majors just merge an sack a thousand or so employees, without a moments thought for their welfare or commitment. Once merged, you just get a more tedious stream of throw-away drivel, just as we're seeing with the current "pop" music industries.

People say they want to hear what an album sounds like before they buy it, but there are these things in record shops called "listening booths", that have been around for a mighty long time that serve exactly the same purpose. Downloading songs and expecting it for free is like getting a plumber in to fix a pipe, then when it's fixed telling him you're not paying because what he did was a free trial he had to take before you get him to fit a bathroom suite - which you may or may not pay for at a later date.

While I agree that many people who download mp3s illegally do go on to buy more CDs, the majority of people online do not. I know someone who boasts of an mp3 collection in the tens of thousands: you're telling me he's going to go and and buy all of those officially? He probably hardly gets the time to listen to them anyway! Although the subsequent loss of sales may not have a great effect on well established artists with massive tour schedules and a solid fan base, what happens to a promising young band releasing their first few singles and album to rave reviews, only to be dumped by their record company due to poor sales before they get a chance to record their promising follow-up? For all they know, their songs could be owned by millions in mp3 format, but any future creativity, development or beauty of their music will be lost, all because of people who think they have a "right" to get for free what artists, producers, engineers, manufacturing plants, designers, printers and promoters to as a profession.

One can't deny that the corporate parents of record companies make a fortune, but so do many other corporations. You don't see people in McDonald's helping themselves to burgers, and proudly stating they have a "right" to eat for free due to McDonalds being an evil conglomoration. File sharign is just as illegal. At the end of the day, when companies merge or go out of business, you have to think of the employees that will lose their jobs - not just the artists and fat cat bosses.

Put it another way, would you be happy if it was twelve years ago with all this technology? Thnk about it, New Order release 'Movement', a patchy debut from a band struggling to find their sound after a great loss. All and sundry download it, never see the artwork, think it's okay in places but nothing worth buying... Sales are poor, Factory lose cash more rapidly... No money to reinvest... No 'Power, Corruption & Lies'... No 'Blue Monday'... no career for Peter Saville... No development in dance music... Record companies deciding to stick with what sells: singles to teenagers with pocket money in their pockets and no financial commitments. We'd not be here enjoying disscusions on one of the most innovative and talented bands ever. There could be many bands with such potential out there right now, that may never have a career thanks to people knicking their songs for free because of some weak excuse about 'record company profits...' etc, etc.

You'd be pretty shocked if your boss told you he wasn't paying you at the end of a wroking week beceause he has "a right to get his work carried out for free". Same rules apply to music. We've all got to make a living, and everything costs money. I used to know this Brazillian guy in a web chat room, who'd happily talk about how great New Order were, and how he had nearly everything they'd done... Then I found out it was entirely mp3s, and he'd never bought a single item by New Order! Maybe distribution is poor in Brazil, but if you can install and use file-sharing software, you can easily look up online record stores and mail order even a few items to give some money back to the people that worked hard on the music you love so much?! Suffice to say I don't message that guy any more...

£10-£12 for a nicely designed, nicely packed CD is fine by me.

Right, that's my £12's worth, anyway. I'm off to the record shop to see if there's anyone left in it..! And before you all tell me I'm in the corporate pockets, all the music I work hard on is available in one form or another for free at my website - anyone can have it if they want, listen to it and file share it. Heck, I even sang in a club last night for free. the difference is, I do it as a hobby: a pastime - not full-time and for a living.

Andy.

Great post Andy. I am specially interested in your idea that file-sharing may in fact be one of the reasons behind the dearth of talent in the music scene today. BTW I do not condone in any possible way the free riding of internet music and have never downloaded even a single myself.

12 pounds? what is that? 24 or 30 bucks canadian? still too high for me. maybe you can afford the 25 dollars for a single cd, but i don't think sll of the kids have that sort of pocket money....considering some of the major fans want to buy 3 or 4 records a month...or a week. and if the music industry really respects or needs our business, they can lower their prices. if that means restructuring the business to make it feasible, then that's what they will have to do. i know you can get a lot of older releases cheap...but the newer ones where the artist isn't a popular or well known one, well, those prices are high for the a lot of us. hmv expects me to pay 25 or 30 bucks for a ladytron cd after all the taxes. and something is wrong with that. if the 14-24 year olds is their target market, the right thing to do is lower your prices. despite what those suits say, i don't think it's reasonable to think we have loads of money from our parents and mcdonalds jobs to buy buy these cds.

i've always seen file-sharing as an indirect protest against the record companies. they treat their artists and their consummers is a shoddy way and believe that they can make us buy cds by threatening us with their lawsuits. only now, 3 years after napster, have they considered things like bringing back the cd single and etc etc. they're repackaging the old music, pushing the bad music and won't take chances on an indie or they just buy up the an indie record label or band. i mean, the record company are lazy bastards when it comes to giving the public a good product at a reasonable price. and that doesn't make any sense, cuz supposedly, that's what business is supposed to do: give people quality at a reasonable price. i hope file-sharing will make those bastards at the big whig record companies try harder to make a better product to convince people to buy their product. and there are many bonuses to file-sharing, one is that it is easier to find out about bands through file-sharing. sure, you've got those listening boths, where there are twenty people behind you and you've only got five minutes to listen to your record. geez, that's a great way to help you decide.

and sure, there are those leeches who never buy a cd, but that only makes the industry work harder to give us what we want....convince us worthwhile (not just a right thing to do) to buy their cd. a true fan will buy the cd, cuz a lot of us do understand that many artists are starving on their work. and i'm proud to say i've never downloaded a new order record. always bought it in the shops.:)

I understand what you are saying Snucker, and agree with the fundamentals but what you say identifying file sharing with a form of protest I think it's pushing it too far. It is tantamount to say that shoplifting helps restructuring the food retail business.

When you get to the bottom of it file-sharing means depriving someone of rights to which he is legally entitled, be it the author or the label.

FUCK them. I fail to comprehend how something as successful as Napster cannot be used by SONY INC for profit. Not that I downloaded very much, less than 50 mps and ALL are stuff NLA NO LONGER AVAILABLE AND not on disc OR extremely hard to find.

Put out a decent product and I will buy it. I purchased all the NO vinyl I could, then bought all the cds I could. And I do that with all my fave bands. But now that I am hitting 40 I do not see much out there that I want to buy let alone download. IF NO would release concerts on cd I would buy them. I will continue to support the bands I olove. But as someone once said, I spent thousands of USD on music during my youth I now I am choosey. I hate the shit they call music today.

Most of my new cd purchases come directly form the band today. Local bands that do all their own work without corporate leaches like Sony, RCA or whatever the fuck major labels are today.

The music industry needs to look at itself in the mirror instead of blaming consumers. Give us a reason to pay for their products.

I think the desposability that has become common practice in the major record labels is responsible for alot of it. When you think about it, alot of the top 'artists' these days are only made of 2 maybe 3 singles max every year or so. Most of the album is pure crap, and any kid can download 2 mp3s, even on dialup - and boom, right there all the money the industry pumps into inflating some no talent hack is flushed down the toilet, and that's not my fault if I don't want to pay for the album, tours, merch, etc. I think if the labels were interested in developing talent, slowly, with buildup (singles, tours, lps, lots of fan friendly merch that you'd actually want to buy) they'd eventually see their returns some day, rather than cashing out as soon as humanly possible and moving on to the next big thing.

However, I don't think the situation is that dire. There's been some good developments as of late. I know its kinda underhanded, but in the states we have Best Buy, which is a big fan of undercutting the prices of CDs to get people in the door. Compound that with some of the cut rate sales inflating pricing tactics that some bands have been using (Vines, Libertines, the Coral - all decent bands) and you can pick up a CD for 8-9 US dollars. Alot of labels like to throw in free DVDs and even friggin tshirts so thats kinda cool too. Just wanted to note some positive aspects.. even if its just here in the US...

There was a thread the other day in a music biz board about how catalog sales of past albums have dwindled recently, and of course piracy from P2P sharing was listed as a culprit, which reminds me of the stupid Home Taping Is Killing Music advert campaign from the early 80's. I surely must be atypical of the average file-sharer, for of the nearly 1000 mp3s that reside on my hard drive, I can guarantee that of those there are about 20 songs that I could easily find by driving an hour or so and doing some shopping; the overwhelming majority are live tracks and stuff from long out-of-print albums by artists ranging from R.E.M. to the Pop Group and the Triffids, which is one reason that I got a computer. The heyday of the latter two artists has passed, and the album and single tracks from their early days are not easily found, yet eager fans have shared their music with others the world over, for which I am quite thankful.

One reason that I don't d/l a lot of current stuff is that the sound of mp3s isn't quite what one would get on an official release. Sometimes I'm not really that concerned with the sound, but if I'm listening through headphones, I can tell the difference. When it comes to the live stuff, I'm not that particular about the sound, though it shouldn't be so bad as to make me wanna turn it off immediately, and that is where I have really appreciated P2P sharing, and if an act as anti-Napster as Metallica allows fan taping at their shows, then I have absolutely no qualms about trading live tracks with other users.

Another point is the perceived value of the purchase, especially as it compares with the increase of sales of DVD's here in the states. For a little more than the price of a CD, one can buy the 2-disc set of A Hard Day's Night loaded w/ a number of entertaining extras, and totally immerse themselves for a bit of entertainment for an evening. Most current releases of 'pop' music artists seem to be that there are 1 or 2 decent songs on a 65 minute CD. I know that one has usually seen a movie before buying the DVD, but the realistic chance that one'll be burned by buying a pracitically useless CD does make me think twice before laying down my cash.

I will admit that I helped ol' Jeff the other day by buying the Libertines CD from his company of employment at the bargain rate reserved for developing artists, which is a nice touch. However, the downside of that is usually once that act even begins to look that it may hit the really big time, the list price of said product will rise. ( I do remember CBS doing that w/ artists like Adam And The Ants here in the US in the early 80's, unfortunately,).

Sorry for the long rambling, but I don't feel too much sorrow for the butterfly collectors, errr, sorry, the music industry; they have, in a large part, brought this on themselves by chasing those precious dollars thrown about by the coveted teen audience.

...film and are now buying it all again from video to dvd. Expect the dvd deluxe versions to start in 10 years to rip them all off again.

The companies aren't even waiting 10 yrs to issue deluxe versions. The Matrix had a deluxe issue I think w/i 2 yrs of the original issue and Terminator 2 was recently released in a super duper deluxe version to hype T3. I'm afraid to buy any DVD movies because my money is very limited these days and I KNOW that if I buy something the super duper DUPER version with an extra 30 sec of film only shown overseas to people who bought original Picassos for $5 back 100yrs ago will be released the next day. It ain't worth it, esp since another version with a previously unknown interview conducted in the star's bathroom will come out next month. SO...I'll get my movies ONLY if I absolutely HAVE to have them.

As for music...99-44/100% of it stinks worse than a fresh pile of cat poo in the litter box. I'll dl new stuff on Soulseek to check it out and when my financial situation gets better I'll buy it IF I think it's something I have to have. A LOT of what I dl is singles that I bought when they came out. Unfortunately, not much is living up to what I know I can expect from the groups I love. SOOOOOOO...I buy whatever is available by NewOrder/Joy Division/Electronic, Pet Shop Boys, Paul Weller/Jam/Style Council, the Who, Ultravox...groups that proved years ago that they were better than what was out there when they were new and now 20-30 yrs later. PSB, the Jam, TSC, Ultravox, and the Who all had remastered reissues come out in the last few years and they were ALL excellent. Better sound, b-sides, non-lp A-sides, interviews, info...just thinking about the extras makes one giddy! I hope I can expect the same from the NO/JD/Electronic reissues when (not if) they come out.

As for DVDs by those mentioned....well, I live in America and of those listed only the Who is known and any more it's because they keep doing reunion tours. If they can keep Zak Starkey and Pino Palladino they'll be around forever. The companies aren't going to issue most of the DVDs of the rest of these groups and if they do they are "different" in some way. I lost out on the PAL videos in the '80s and '90s because of the incompatability between formats and I'll be damned if I have to keep losing out because of those fucking regions. SO...I got an all-region player. When I get the money I'll order a PAL-NTSC vcr from walmart.com and I'll find the videos I missed. Those fuckers at walmart won't even carry the damn machines in the fucking stores. I've had to dl videos off slsk and NOOL (THANK YOU Nic and Seb for making them available!!!!) because they can't be found over here. When I DID find videos they were only available from Japan and they were EXPENSIVE. But I bought them anyway.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...the companies whine about piracy and general drops in sales and they can't figure out WHY. If they'd make good stuff available and not make us hunt it down we'd buy the stuff. It's a no-brainer. They might even try promoting someone with some talent!!!

Well...I've ranted...I hope I made sense.

I think, wherever you fall on the whole downloading debate, we can all concede that the technology itself is pretty much here to stay, with the Catch-22 for the record companies as follows:

1.) If they try to shut down the sites offering downloads, they'll be viewed as the "bad guys" and may suffer a buyer boycott.

2.) If they leave it alone or even try and get in on it themselves, they'll be unable to protect their artists from suffering the downloading public's scrutiny of their product before an offical release. More importantly, they'll lose money.

I don't feel any sympathy for the major record companies, but it's the independent ones I worry about. Granted, most smaller labels seem devoted to putting out emo-punk or whatever else godawful trend seems to be sweeping the college circuit, but they still deserve a chance to survive; they're the alternative to more soul-less crap from the majors.

I think the question is not so much "Is downloading wrong?" (I won't offer my opinion of its rightness or wrongness because my own collection of bootlegs could be used against me), but "Will it hurt the record industry?". I remember back in the late 90s, when the story seemed to be how Napster was "bringing the majors to their knees" and other such baloney. The last time I checked, Napster was but a memory and the majors were still around. That seems, to me at least, to negate the arguement that was put out originally by the companies' bigwigs. Something tells me the chairmen of Warner Brothers and Capital Records won't be battling over a half-eaten sandwich in a back alley anytime soon.

So the question remains about the legality of it all, which I think is the hardest thing to address. The very internationality of the Internet would seem to help it, seeing as the Justice Department here can only go after the frattie downloading Smash Mouth on his PC at UC Berkeley but can't really get their hands on the guy in Hamburg who's running the website, and so on. Should there be some sort of "international court on Downloading Violations"? Would the provisions be "crimes against humanity: too many Blink-182 singles illegally obtained and spread over the net"?

Speaking, again, as no friend to the record companies, I think it'll be a long time before the Internet pest is swatted, if ever. You can't stop the technology very much.

As for the arguement concerning whether downloading fans actually go out and get the albums they could listen to on the computer, I suppose it's a matter of your own personnal experience. I've bought things online, but I prefer the hunt through the racks for that oh-so elusive Smiths best-of :D , and I think it's the same for a lot of people. I would download stuff if I had my own computer, but I'd also purchase something I like, just to help the artist (I like to pretend that all my money goes to the artist, the reality of royalties is just too grim). There are a lot of people like that as well. Based on my limited experience with downloading, it's far easier (and healthier, too) to just go to the local record store and get a record that I like or want to hear than it is to download the thing on the computer, and it takes less time. Maybe I'm just fixed on the stereotype of downloaders as spastic retards who don't get out much and spend their spare time arguing the merits of Kirk versus Picard, but it just seems somehow less pathetic.

Now that I've typed far more than I intended to , let me just say in conclusion "Fuck the majors, but support the artists!"

Originally posted by Spotnick Honestly, it's a pure fact of nature, one day, they will run out of melody, the only thing they will be able to do is to recycle... like Puff Daddy ;)But of course there are still a few years ahead of us, don't worry.. ;)

VOLUME 32 ISSUE 08 — 23 SEPTEMBER 1997 New Rap Song Samples 'Billie Jean' In Its Entirety, Adds Nothing NEW YORK—On Thursday, rapper and producer Sean "Puffy" Combs released "Tha Kidd (Is Not My Son)," a hotly anticipated new single that samples Michael Jackson's 1983 smash "Billie Jean" in its entirety and adds nothing. "When I was in the studio mixing and recording, I decided 'Tha Kidd' would work best if I kept all the music and vocals from the original version and then didn't rap over it," Combs said. "So what I did is put in a tape with 'Billie Jean' on it, and then I hit the record button. It turned out great." Combs' current number-one hit, "Eye Of The Tiger," is dedicated to slain rapper Notorious B.I.G.

http://www.theonion.com/archive/archive\_nib02.html

I was gonna nominate this for the "Thread with the Longest Responses", but the past two have just ruined it! :D

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 I was gonna nominate this for the "Thread with the Longest Responses", but the past two have just ruined it! :D

Oops!

Originally posted by Ricardo I'm noticing a "Fingers' syndrome" here in this thread. Where has he been by the way?Oh, sorry for typing such small post. :D

I was thinking exactly the same thing, thought to myself i must post that - then got to the bottom of the thread & hey presto you beat me to it. not seen him on these boards for ages - would be interested in his "insider view"

Bootlegs never killed the Grateful Dead.

Originally posted by blackthorn me up > Originally posted by Ricardo> I'm noticing a "Fingers' syndrome" here in this thread. Where has he been by the way?> > Oh, sorry for typing such small post. :D

I was thinking exactly the same thing, thought to myself i must post that - then got to the bottom of the thread & hey presto you beat me to it. not seen him on these boards for ages - would be interested in his "insider view"

Yes, I was hoping Fingers would add his view to the thread but seems he's gone for good and not just lurking. I would like to read Biznotic Love Trapazoid's views also.