Music piracy

[vballs]

Hi,

I thought some people here may find this interesting.

Ive recently been listening to a lot of múm so I went to take a look at their facebook page. On their page, múm had responded to a fan who claimed that their music is the only music he would actually pay for as opposed to downloading it off pirate sites for free.

múm pointed this guy to this interesting article. It is well worth a read.

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/201 ... onsidered/

In one way or another the music that is downloaded for free is being paid for, making other people money except for the artists.

I wonder how many people have downloaded BoC`s music for free? (Although its not actually free when you consider other costs involved for the ability to do it in the first place)

Maybe if it was paid for fairly they could have financed these audiovisual projects they were talking about in old interviews. Just a thought.

[Mexicola]

Spot on. Nice find.

[IanRedpoint]

I knew about the Emily White thing but hadn't seen that response to it. I couldn't agree more.

Back when I was a teenager, I made a conscious choice to spend what little money I made on music, both records and gigs, in the full knowledge that I was giving up other other equally expensive pleasures. I never smoked, drank relatively little and didn't drive until my late 20s. I had an amazing time.

I also got to hang out with a lot of cool musicians and came to realise that even the bands I idolised (like My Bloody Valentine) were living in poverty in London squats... and this is all in the supposed boom-time of the music industry, pre-Internet. Not buying the records was never an option for me, even if it meant a diet of dried pasta for a month.

Since more artists have been using Soundcloud and Bandcamp I've been using that to preview music I might want to own/buy rather than illegal downloading. I still have a fairly set budget for music every month and I only want to spend it on the music that truly matters to me. 9 times out of 10, that's an artist for whom my $10 (or whatever) equates to a meal or towards a new bit of studio equipment. I would argue that is most likely the case with BoC too.

[Jonse]

In one way or another the music that is downloaded for free is being paid for in one way or another, making other people money except for the artists.

I wonder how many people have downloaded BoC`s music for free? (Although its not actually free when you consider other costs involved for the ability to do it in the first place)

Maybe if it was paid for fairly they could have financed these audiovisual projects they were talking about in old interviews. Just a thought.

Not necessarily. P2P doesn't really make anyone money. Torrents you could argue that on some trackers with ads all over the site they could be turning a profit based on the fact you had to view them to get the torrent, but that can be easily negated and ultimately is a profit from a totally different thing (which is honestly used to keep those sites alive, for the most part).


As the case with any artist I've listened to, BoC for me started with a collection of torrent files. Then after confirming I enjoyed them, I went out and purchased CD's. Now I would even use a PayPal donate button if they had one on their site to show how much I support them. In fact, if every artist had one of these on their site I would pay them twice the amount of money the label desires for every release of theirs I have downloaded and completely avoid purchasing it from retail, just to make sure the label doesn't get a cent of the money that really belongs to the artist.

[The Friendly Stranger]

In one way or another the music that is downloaded for free is being paid for in one way or another, making other people money except for the artists.

I wonder how many people have downloaded BoC`s music for free? (Although its not actually free when you consider other costs involved for the ability to do it in the first place)

Maybe if it was paid for fairly they could have financed these audiovisual projects they were talking about in old interviews. Just a thought.

Not necessarily. P2P doesn't really make anyone money. Torrents you could argue that on some trackers with ads all over the site they could be turning a profit based on the fact you had to view them to get the torrent, but that can be easily negated and ultimately is a profit from a totally different thing (which is honestly used to keep those sites alive, for the most part).


As the case with any artist I've listened to, BoC for me started with a collection of torrent files. Then after confirming I enjoyed them, I went out and purchased CD's. Now I would even use a PayPal donate button if they had one on their site to show how much I support them. In fact, if every artist had one of these on their site I would pay them twice the amount of money the label desires for every release of theirs I have downloaded and completely avoid purchasing it from retail, just to make sure the label doesn't get a cent of the money that really belongs to the artist.

That's cool but unfortunately you're in a minority and no sound business model can put a minority first. I think record labels have a place and cutting them out of the equation completely wouldn't help the industry. The more time artists spend managing themselves, their intellectual property rights, distribution etc is less time spent making music. It's unrealistic. To be honest I agree wholeheartedly with the article posted by vballs. I won't claim to be blameless, I have downloaded a little in the past and occasionally burned friends' CDs, but I reckon I have bought around 90% of my music. I don't think that's too bad all in all.

[Jonse]

In one way or another the music that is downloaded for free is being paid for in one way or another, making other people money except for the artists.

I wonder how many people have downloaded BoC`s music for free? (Although its not actually free when you consider other costs involved for the ability to do it in the first place)

Maybe if it was paid for fairly they could have financed these audiovisual projects they were talking about in old interviews. Just a thought.

Not necessarily. P2P doesn't really make anyone money. Torrents you could argue that on some trackers with ads all over the site they could be turning a profit based on the fact you had to view them to get the torrent, but that can be easily negated and ultimately is a profit from a totally different thing (which is honestly used to keep those sites alive, for the most part).


As the case with any artist I've listened to, BoC for me started with a collection of torrent files. Then after confirming I enjoyed them, I went out and purchased CD's. Now I would even use a PayPal donate button if they had one on their site to show how much I support them. In fact, if every artist had one of these on their site I would pay them twice the amount of money the label desires for every release of theirs I have downloaded and completely avoid purchasing it from retail, just to make sure the label doesn't get a cent of the money that really belongs to the artist.

That's cool but unfortunately you're in a minority and no sound business model can put a minority first. I think record labels have a place and cutting them out of the equation completely wouldn't help the industry. The more time artists spend managing themselves, their intellectual property rights, distribution etc is less time spent making music. It's unrealistic. To be honest I agree wholeheartedly with the article posted by vballs. I won't claim to be blameless, I have downloaded a little in the past and occasionally burned friends' CDs, but I reckon I have bought around 90% of my music. I don't think that's too bad all in all.

That's the point. I hate the industry with a passion and the sooner it fails and business is set aside in regards to reasons why musicians create music, the better IMO. I have watched over the last four or five years as the majority of labels keep supporting artists that push out nothing but uncreative, unoriginal garbage that usually appeals to a certain established sound audience and almost always is not brave enough to try and innovate. Meanwhile, I've found so many independent artists that I actually enjoy who have put themselves online, promoted themselves individually and actually have something different to offer. If anything, the dissolution of labels and distributors being necessary or even relevant to creating music it seems to me will just ramp up the competition to be the best and the artists that stand out in this environment would be fucking incredible. No more would we get labels paying rich producers to pick out some kid who can't do jack shit except sing in a mediocre fashion, throw him/her over a heavily-template based song in FL Studio and force him/her into our lives, drawing attention away from the innovators and those who actually work to put together their tracks.

[IanRedpoint]

Would you class a label like Warp as being part of the music industry or being a collection of people putting out music that they love? I'm not saying that everything on Warp is to my taste, but I do feel that everyone on the label is there because someone is really into them.

The problem for completely independent artists is getting heard in a terribly over-saturated marketplace. Where I think a label is useful is in drawing attention to other artists on the label. There's plenty of stuff I've checked out, and then loved, because it has been on the same (independent) label as artists I'm into. Arguably Aphex Twin led me to Autechre and BoC, thanks to Warp. One of the things I love about netlabels is that they can help with that word-spreading process.

Obviously, major labels can take a running jump...

[Jonse]

Would you class a label like Warp as being part of the music industry or being a collection of people putting out music that they love? I'm not saying that everything on Warp is to my taste, but I do feel that everyone on the label is there because someone is really into them.

The problem for completely independent artists is getting heard in a terribly over-saturated marketplace. Where I think a label is useful is in drawing attention to other artists on the label. There's plenty of stuff I've checked out, and then loved, because it has been on the same (independent) label as artists I'm into. Arguably Aphex Twin led me to Autechre and BoC, thanks to Warp. One of the things I love about netlabels is that they can help with that word-spreading process.

Obviously, major labels can take a running jump...

I'd class Warp as an exception. Indeed it is a typical label. However, labels with concern of ethics and quality such as Warp are few and far between.

Keep in mind though, a component of "terribly over-saturated" is when prominent names that may or may not be good are propelled by labels to their prominence. If the labels weren't there, they would have had to come up with something unique and interesting to stand out among the other independent musicians. This puts them on even plane, so in fact anyone who wanted to achieve prominence would have to find what they can add to their style that makes them appealing and worthwhile, which would probably over time result in a uniqueness among diverse artists (the good ones, at least) and if nobody is the same, then the market wouldn't be over-saturated anymore.


Unless of course, what you're saying is that the market of music in general is over-saturated and that people, despite what their tastes might be, would cease looking for music that pleases them because "there's too much", which would seem to me more along the lines of a cultural laziness problem, lol.

[cubistking1906]

very few buy physical media these days which makes it hard to measure how much p2p piracy has affected boc. I would theorize that youtube, grooveshark, and pandora have taken away more possible sales than p2p networks have, just considering the ease of access.

either way, its a shame the general masses don't realize the importance of actually paying for shit.

And I wish boc had a donate button. I'd throw money in it regularly.

We should petition for this.

[IanRedpoint]

very few buy physical media these days which makes it hard to measure how much p2p piracy has affected boc. I would theorize that youtube, grooveshark, and pandora have taken away more possible sales than p2p networks have, just considering the ease of access.

I know people, musicians even, that listen to music almost exclusively via YouTube. It's free and gives the air of being ethically acceptable. No better than piracy really and for one of my friends in particular the only people that make any money are the mobile networks when he goes way over his data limit!

Back to Rodheh's post - it's the market of music that I consider to be over-saturated, or rather that it is overwhelming for the regular music fan. You need arbiters of taste (blogs, labels, forums, review sites like Drowned in Sound or even Pitchfork) just to help filter the mass of data that is out there. It's just impossible to know where to start otherwise.

It is a sort of cultural laziness, but without some kind of guidance people would only ever brush the surface of all the amazing music that's out there. They would only ever see what the big corporates want them to see, as that is what pays for and get given prominence in mainstream media. Back when I first started buying music I relied heavily on the music press, Melody Maker and NME, to open up the world of underground music to me - to show me the stuff that would never make it onto tv or radio (John Peel excepted). Labels were a big part of that too - 4AD, Creation pre-Oasis, Warp...

The same friends of mine who listen via YouTube have largely given up on looking for new music. When a Neil Young box set and a Bob Marley compilation are the only music I can remember seeing advertised on tv recently then it's obvious that there is so much mainstream accepted pop and rock music history out there to be repackaged and sold to younger generations that it is easier for both music industry and those 'fans' to stick to old established artists and never stray beyond the safe and canonised. In many young people's eyes there is no need to go looking for new music when there is 50 years of history to be consumed... and that depresses me perhaps even more than a generation's unwillingness to pay for music.

[thorpeparkguru]

I'm all against piracy... now.

But when I was just starting to get into Boards of Canada... I downloaded music has the right to children and Geogaddi...

but then less than a week later I bought them from amazon...

tbh most people who illegally download music, if they enjoy it buy it.

If they don't enjoy it, they delete it.

Though I really dislike people who blag on about "WHY PAY FOR IT WHEN IT'S FREE ON SOULSEEK!"

How would they like it if they put all that work into making music and didn't get at least a thanks?

[cubistking1906]

Boc should sell limited edition prints of their photography and artwork. I'd buy the hell out of that and I imagine that could be some steady supplemental income.

In other words, they have so many loving and dedicated fans that they should branch out a bit and let their current fan base support them in other ways besides buying just the music itself.

[Cupz]

I still think the best way to support artist is just sending them the moneyz without third parties.

[Jonse]

very few buy physical media these days which makes it hard to measure how much p2p piracy has affected boc. I would theorize that youtube, grooveshark, and pandora have taken away more possible sales than p2p networks have, just considering the ease of access.

I know people, musicians even, that listen to music almost exclusively via YouTube. It's free and gives the air of being ethically acceptable. No better than piracy really and for one of my friends in particular the only people that make any money are the mobile networks when he goes way over his data limit!

Back to Rodheh's post - it's the market of music that I consider to be over-saturated, or rather that it is overwhelming for the regular music fan. You need arbiters of taste (blogs, labels, forums, review sites like Drowned in Sound or even Pitchfork) just to help filter the mass of data that is out there. It's just impossible to know where to start otherwise.

It is a sort of cultural laziness, but without some kind of guidance people would only ever brush the surface of all the amazing music that's out there. They would only ever see what the big corporates want them to see, as that is what pays for and get given prominence in mainstream media. Back when I first started buying music I relied heavily on the music press, Melody Maker and NME, to open up the world of underground music to me - to show me the stuff that would never make it onto tv or radio (John Peel excepted). Labels were a big part of that too - 4AD, Creation pre-Oasis, Warp...

The same friends of mine who listen via YouTube have largely given up on looking for new music. When a Neil Young box set and a Bob Marley compilation are the only music I can remember seeing advertised on tv recently then it's obvious that there is so much mainstream accepted pop and rock music history out there to be repackaged and sold to younger generations that it is easier for both music industry and those 'fans' to stick to old established artists and never stray beyond the safe and canonised. In many young people's eyes there is no need to go looking for new music when there is 50 years of history to be consumed... and that depresses me perhaps even more than a generation's unwillingness to pay for music.

Eh, I guess just to me it seems like most labels (excluding Warp, Skam and a few other exceptions) seem to not be filtering the over-saturation of music in a manner that guides the regular music fan to quality music. In fact, the whole thing about "just what the big corporates want them to see" seems to be already significantly in play to me. The fact that I can't walk down a street with a bunch of stores on it without hearing one of them blasting some stupid Katy Perry song or something along those lines and the fact that the bulk of radio stations pretty much only play this image-based commercial pop/rock music 90% of the time is pretty sad to me.


Anyways, I guess it really depends on the point of view someone looks at it all with. As your location field indicates, I would assume you're from the England. Possibly the level of quality regarding music being filtered out for "the regular music fan" is still high there. Here, it is lower than it has ever been before.

[Waterbagel]

Here, it is lower than it has ever been before.

I think that's kind of a generational thing. There's always a huge group of any given generation that thinks the stuff coming out today sucks. People thought the same thing about 60's music, 70's music, 80's music.. But given time, a lot of popular stuff from "back in the day" becomes a fond memory.

[Jonse]

Here, it is lower than it has ever been before.

I think that's kind of a generational thing. There's always a huge group of any given generation that thinks the stuff coming out today sucks. People thought the same thing about 60's music, 70's music, 80's music.. But given time, a lot of popular stuff from "back in the day" becomes a fond memory.

Personally, I disagree.

I mean, I totally get your point and for a lot of people the thought process is like that, but ultimately some shit is just fuckin' shit, whether it's shit from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's or now.

[Mexicola]

Bands find it easier than ever to reach new listeners, yet harder than ever to make a living from it. Unless you're incredibly fortunate or a total commercial sellout, it's almost impossible to make a decent living from music in 2012.

Go and ask Adam Wiltzie how much hand-wringing he had to do before he let Range Rover use The Dead Texan on it's advertising campaign recently. Or how much money he made off the recent Winged Victory tour/record. I'm guessing he found himself in what Pan-Am used to somewhat colorfully call 'a negative profit situation'.

Better still, ask him his opinion of how his close friend Mark Linkous took his own life (as mentioned in the article that started this thread) after living in virtual destitution despite rave reviews.

More and more, I read about my heroes taking day jobs. One is now trained to mould those expensive in-ear monitors you'll see the 'big' bands using and moonlighting as a guitarist for other bands. Another now illustrates for The Guardian and has completely jacked the whole thing in. His parting shot? 'I thought I was a guitarist and song-writer. I never had any dreams of being a waiter.' Another now selects the tunes for Guitar Hero. That last one once won Album of the Year at the Kerrang awards just 9 years ago and turned down a support slot with the Foo Fighters to front a soldout UK tour with his own band. They also played live on prime time UK TV (Top of the Pops UK pop-pickers).

All three bands in question were established, popular and - frankly - incredible. Two were dropped by their label and the third pack it up after the mobile phone money ran out and they had another round of selling about 3 LP's and a T-shirt.

If all you want are bedroom producers knocking out second rate electronica, then fine. Be my guest. But for all 'the industry' screwed us for years (and it did) every time one of my favorite bands throws the towel in (and it happens regularly these days) I can't help but think things have gone too far the other way. When I can download, for free, a bands entire discography in an hour or so, it can't be right.

Downloading music doesn't effect 'the man', not really. 'The Man' will do what he's always done and move onto something else. Businessmen are businessmen. Music, advertising, iPhones, pharmaceuticals, you name it. They can screw money from us in any number of different ways and they will. Downloading music, however, does screw the artists. We can justify it any way we like, but it is what it is.

I'll leave you with one last thought. I doubt it, but what about if BOC decided not to bother releasing anything because 'it's not worth it anymore'. ie. the 'fans' will just download it so bollocks to them. The artistic ideal is a lovely concept, but these people still need to feed and cloth themselves and their families. If they can't do that through their art, sure they might still produce something. But why should they let you or me experience it?

[IanRedpoint]

Eh, I guess just to me it seems like most labels (excluding Warp, Skam and a few other exceptions) seem to not be filtering the over-saturation of music in a manner that guides the regular music fan to quality music. In fact, the whole thing about "just what the big corporates want them to see" seems to be already significantly in play to me. The fact that I can't walk down a street with a bunch of stores on it without hearing one of them blasting some stupid Katy Perry song or something along those lines and the fact that the bulk of radio stations pretty much only play this image-based commercial pop/rock music 90% of the time is pretty sad to me.


Anyways, I guess it really depends on the point of view someone looks at it all with. As your location field indicates, I would assume you're from the England. Possibly the level of quality regarding music being filtered out for "the regular music fan" is still high there. Here, it is lower than it has ever been before.

No. It's just as sad and depressing here. All I was suggesting is that a significant number of independent labels are still trying their best to promote great music, just as they have for the last 20+ years. There's definitely a difference in the way indie labels are perceived between our two countries. We had a weekly music press and a national radio broadcaster that championed leftfield and underground music, and that filtered through into the mainstream pop culture here. I can't honestly say that is the case here anymore, but the folks running most indie labels lived through all that same as I did and still putting out music because they love it despite knowing that they will almost undoubtedly never make a decent wage from it.

[Waterbagel]

I've always been very on-the-fence about this subject, but I think Mexicola may have just influenced my views a good bit. Hmm.

[Negamuse]

I'm torn. On the one hand, downloading has showed me SO MUCH music I never would have bought otherwise. But on the other hand, fuck I miss record shops.

And yeah, I used to go along to record shops (independents, this was), pick up something that looked interesting and ask to listen to it on headphones so I could decide if I wanted to buy it. Couldn't do that after the mid-90s I'd say... which is about when filesharing took off. Maybe out of necessity?