Illegal music downloading beneficial for artists?

[axioma16]

I was trying to find about the impact that internet piracy has had on the record industry, and I have come across this article, which is very interesting.

To summarize, it talks about how illegal downloading has become a promotional tool of sorts, enhancing the income of artists by forcing them to make longer tours to please audiences - who are ever more appreciative of live performances. Conversely, this practice has limited the massive profits that record labels used to derive from record sales; profits that were very unevenly distributed, usually providing very little money for the people responsible for the creation and diffusion of the music being sold.

Thus, while not necessarily profiting from physical CD sales (even if they didn't necessarily did so in the past, either), artists have seen that their individual incomes have risen considerably, while the labels who represent and promote them and their work have seen their profits severely cut.

So, is this a phenomenon of corporatism succumbing to the power of a simpler, more humane means of wealth production, or just a byproduct of widespread practices that are contributing to the erosion of a perfectly functional and essentially fair system?

Much like the movie industry, the major record labels have made a habit of attributing decreasing income from album and single sales to illegal downloading. Aside from the fact that most research has found no direct link between piracy and a decrease in sales, those who take a better look at how the money streams are divided will find that the musicians themselves are actually better off than a decade ago...

Nevertheless, some have argued that illegal downloading makes it easier to discover new artists, which may indeed boost the number of concert visits, explaining the study’s findings. Another explanation could simply be that the tickets for live gigs have doubled since 2000, while the attendance didn’t increase or decrease.

Link: http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-benefits-musicians-hurts-their-labels-091216/

 

[Jayden]

If your not getting paid for your work then how is that good?

 

[axioma16]

Well, many musicians do not get paid for the work they have created, and frequently perform. That's why merchandising and touring are so important; because those are their true means to earn an income, since the profits generated are not mostly absorbed by a third party.

With the exception of well established stars, many singers are literally robbed by record companies, who pay them miserable advancements in exchange for publishing and distribution rights to their work, while limiting the opportunities they have to actually make a profit from the sale of a product they have created themselves.

What some people argue is that record companies are exploiting both new artists who are eager to obtain difusion for their work, and a buying public that has to pay exhorbitantly high prices to finance media campaigns the purpose of which is to sell a product of dubious quality, that doesn't contribute to enrich its creators in any way.

 

[Jayden]

If you work on a cd for months and then people steal it. I dont see this as a good thing for the performer.

 

[Jayden]

It's not a good thing if they care more about the record company than themselves.

I dont understand what that has to do with someone stealing someones work. Imagine if someone asked you to work for free. What would your response be?

 

[Jayden]

And why cant you grasp that stealing is stealing no matter how you sugar coat it? Look at how many thousands of jobs have been lost in the music biz due to illegal downloading.
And explain to me how they are making MORE money by people stealing their work? Ask any recording artist what they think of this and then get back to me.

And imagine if YOU made a cd. You arent so famous that you will make money from a tour etc. But you make money on the amount of cds sold. So then people steal your music online. Where does that leave you at the end of the day?

 

[Jayden]

You are inexorable. Re-read the article very slowly and clearly and you get back to me.

For the record, I didn't say that it isn't stealing. I didn't even say that it's right. I re-stated the article's thesis that it has financial benefit to the artist alone. Recording artists aren't going to publicly support it because it'll piss off their label.

Your premise is bullshit. Anyone who makes a full album or even an EP will "make money from a tour." Usually artists have a much easier time getting a few gigs lined up than actually releasing an album to the public.

All I'm trying to say is I think its wrong. I have many friends that are now out of work due to less people buying product and doing free downloading..

 

[Lord Booticus]

Its not so much stealing as it is handling stolen goods. That weren't stolen. But bought. And then shared with others. Its like borrow a CD from someone and copying it. Just without the need to buy blank CD's.

 

[Jayden]

Its not so much stealing as it is handling stolen goods. That weren't stolen. But bought. And then shared with others. Its like borrow a CD from someone and copying it. Just without the need to buy blank CD's.

Its still stealing. So If I stole something of yours but then lent it to millions of people then its not theft?

 

[andysayshi]

^ People work for free all the time. I am a video editor (and ex professional musician) and I do a lot of work for record companies. I sometimes work at reduced rates or for no fee at all if it means I get my foot in the door with a new client. Restaurants offer two-for-one meals to get you through the door, hoping you'll buy some wine and dessert as well.

The internet is changing the way the music industry works by removing much of the dead weight in the middle. Musicians are beginning to use the music itself as a promotional tool for live performance and merchandise. The internet is a great tool for all musicians, even up-and-coming artists. Never before have production and distribution costs been so affordable, and the potential marketplace for a band or artist is now global, not just local.

The record industry continues to cling to a sales model which is simply not relevant in today's marketplace, and they treat their customers like criminals in a feeble attempt to reclaim that market. They were forced into the digital age kicking and screaming, and as a result the online music market is now owned by companies like Apple who aren't record companies at all.

The future of media is in micro-payments. The iTunes App store is a perfect example - a billion iPhone apps sold in just 18 months! If songs cost 30 cents and movies could be hired for a dollar, most people wouldn't bother with slow bit-torrenting or unreliable crappy copies, they'd just buy the real thing. But the record industry won't accept that - they still want to sell whole albums for 20 or 30 bucks each. They'll be forced to come around eventually, but by then better and faster ways of pirating will diminish their market even further.

 

[Jayden]

^ People work for free all the time. I am a video editor (and ex professional musician) and I do a lot of work for record companies. I sometimes work at reduced rates or for no fee at all if it means I get my foot in the door with a new client. Restaurants offer two-for-one meals to get you through the door, hoping you'll buy some wine and dessert as well.

The internet is changing the way the music industry works by removing much of the dead weight in the middle. Musicians are beginning to use the music itself as a promotional tool for live performance and merchandise. The internet is a great tool for all musicians, even up-and-coming artists. Never before have production and distribution costs been so affordable, and the potential marketplace for a band or artist is now global, not just local.

The record industry continues to cling to a sales model which is simply not relevant in today's marketplace, and they treat their customers like criminals in a feeble attempt to reclaim that market. They were forced into the digital age kicking and screaming, and as a result the online music market is now owned by companies like Apple who aren't record companies at all.

Well what you wrote makes alot of sense to me. But I'm still against illegal downloading. Thats all.

 

[andysayshi]

^ Sorry Jayden I added an extra paragraph above in an edit while you were responding, it seems. Apologies if it made my post any different.

 

[Paws]

If your not getting paid for your work then how is that good?

They still make money through concerts. Also, a construction worker can't sit back and get royalties off his work, instead he has to work everyday, so why should it be different for musicians? Why should they be privileged?

Hey guys, like it when I change the text format so it looks like I'm more important?

 

[freefall]

I forget where I read it, but stealing music doesn't really affect well-known and/or successful musicians, since they are making tons of money from their music legally (hypothetically). The ones who actually get benefits from illegal distributions are the newcomers and/or the less famous ones, which mostly can't afford the cost for advertising and thus are 'helped' with the promotion they need.

 

[NedNickerson]

I've downloaded MP3s off of various peer to peer sites in the past, mostly just to listen to a song I've not heard in a while or to listen to a song I've never heard before. But I rarely keep anything I download for more than a couple of weeks.

Rather than go out and buy a CD from an artist without ever having heard the song, and then not liking the CD, I'll download a few songs to get an idea of whether or not I think I might like the CD. I listen to a lot of movie soundtracks this way. If I like what I heard, I'll go out and buy the CD. It's a listen-before-you-buy approach.

YouTube has had the same effect with me. There have been countless times I've watched videos on YouTube and listened to songs I've never heard before, and then I've gone out and bought the CD based on what I heard on YouTube. A lot of the record companies are cracking down on YouTubers for uploading vidoes with music soundtracks, but for the past two years, YouTube has been working with different record labels and now they offer the option to download the songs through links which pop up on various videos. I think some labels are beginning to see how that can actually be beneficial for the label as well as the artists.

 

[jizzeater]

I think it's beneficial for artists in the long run, but it is really hurting them in the short run.

The loss in sales is killing off the record companies and forcing the artists to cut out middle men and do some of this business stuff for themselves. The ones who refuse to will get left behind, I suppose. It's really bad for genres outside the mainstream.

 

[CumAlong]

I actually wrote a paper on this just recently. Illegally downloaded music increases exposure, increases interest, and therefore boost merchandise sales (concerts, clothing, posters, etc). Merchandise has a MUCH larger payout to the artists than a song does. In fact, most of the money for a song goes to record labels and special interest groups, such as the Record Industry of America (RIAA) and its international counterpart, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). That is why you will see all the propaganda against illegally downloaded music, and the artists remain silent. The artists make out just fine, its the special interest groups that aren't getting the highway robbery sharings they believe they deserve. And it is these same groups that have strangled the music industry with DRM.

DRM, more than anything else is responsible for the sorry state the music industry is in (if you can even call a still multi billion dollar figure that...). Luckily, after almost 9 years, they are starting to smarten up, or at least the IFPI is, the American version, go figure, is still a greedy money mongering machine. And that is why we now see the shift AWAY from DRM in iTunes and Amazon. Even though they may be more expensive, which is robbery in itself... Soon, we may even see more FREE and LEGAL download sites.

 

[Audio Tech]

People that download music to get it free will ALWAYS do so. No customer loss to the RIAA. The artists don't get damn near squat anyway. That's why more artists now self-promote.

I download music that interests me so I can check it out. Or I use Pandora, etc. It exposes me to music I would ordinarily NEVER buy off the shelf because I don't know if I like it.

If I like what I hear, I buy the actual CD. I still like physical media with the least compression possible. Hell, I restore REEL to REEL decks. How many here DON'T know what that is?

This is an age old argument, neither side will win. I buy MORE music because of the internet. Period.

Those that want a free ride will have it, regardless.

We USED to tape stuff off the radio, remember?

 

[personme]

There are artists who have released their music for free simply to spite the RIAA.