The 10 "Inconvienient Truths" of File Sharing 587
54mc writes "The IFPI, an international recording industry organization, has released a list of Ten "Inconvenient Truths" of file sharing. Though the group has a vested interest, it's still an interesting read as it tears apart some of the most common arguments in favor of file sharing. Ars Technica follows up with a more thorough explanation of some of the points. 'Point five is an attempt to turn the "innovation" argument on its head. For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and "manufactured" celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away. And then there's point seven, which isn't an "inconvenient truth" at all but more of a rant against those who prefer giving copyright holders less than absolute control over reproduction rights. An "anti-copyright movement" does exist, but most of the critical voices in the debate recognize the value of copyright--and actually produce copyrighted works themselves (Lawrence Lessig, etc.).'"
Great post.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not for ALL filesharing for music, but rather using it for recognition and buying albums to support their cause.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:1, Interesting)
>The fact that they were wildly successful doing so.
This dates back to at least the 50's, and is probably an outgrowth of our nation's racist past. Popular black music was re-recorded by a white artist. I imagine they were specifically targeting young women even then. I don't know enough about the Big Band Era, Depression music, etc. to know if the phenomenea predated it. However, prior to the roaring 20's most music was performed live, so any "manufactured celebrities" would be pretty local.
Allow me to preach to the choir (Score:5, Interesting)
See items 5 and 10 (paraphrased here): File sharing forces record companies to devote resources to big-name marketing vehicles rather than "artists" [item 5]; You won't find new music through file-sharing because it's mostly "popular music" [item 10]. It sounds to me as though they're playing into the hands of the infringers, then, by continuing to produce and promote exactly those things that are the bread and butter of their nemeses.
However, I will concede that point 3 is correct. In fact, I purchased a bootleg Britney Spears CD from a poorly-disguised gentleman calling himself Mr. "Lin-Baden" last week.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Downloading. (Score:3, Interesting)
Great, so you're passing on supporting one form of evil (overpriced DRMed downloadable music) and supporting another evil (Best Buy) instead.
Stop supporting evil and buy music from someplace non-evil, like your local used CD store (or an online one like secondspin.com).
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this, like most other instances where a small caste of people benefit wildly from the work of someone else, will all come to an end through technology, and the richest individuals will find themselves living only as well as everyone else -- and for the everyone else, this will be quite an improvement.
That's what file sharing means to me. It's a non-violent way to say NO. I don't think most people who participate would present their case exactly like this, but it's the underlying theme.
Tough subject, really. (Score:2, Interesting)
Point 3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The whole list (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if you really want to inspire some people that don't always work together (just throwing a dart, here... let's say, The Chieftains along with Van Morrison) to do something that you can enjoy, you've got to convince them to go on tour together? I'm personally very happy when people that will NEVER have their lives lined up right to tour together nevertheless put up the money and time to work together in the studio and record some interesting work. They have no means whatsoever to pay for those efforts (and all of the overhead of travel, post-production, studio personnel, etc) unless they can sell the work to the audience for whom it's intended. Much great music would never happen if those circumstances couldn't be arranged and paid for. Sales of the recording is how that happens.
And... let's not forget that this isn't just about some band. Should Pixar be out "performing" the movies that it takes hundreds of people years to make, just so they don't have to fret about someone in Russia making advertising money off of setting up pirated downloads? You're right, I'm sure. For some people, their movies might indeed seem better performed live in a bar.
Inconvenient truth #11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Predictably, the "media" companies are attempting to resist this change in the balance of power by making an issue of just about anything that erodes their market share. Thus, the increased interest in DRM and file sharing.
2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate (Score:4, Interesting)
Two questions for the Peanut Gallery:
1) What do you think the payment compliance rate would be if it were voluntary?
2) Would you pay per play? 2 cents? 5 cents? How about if there were a cap at a dollar?
I had a framework for doing this worked out but never did any of the market research.
Re:2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate (Score:5, Interesting)
Pay a fixed rate per month. I'm not sure how much this should be, but not a huge amount. Have iTunes (or whatever) record a play count of each track each month. At the end of the month, the money should be divided amongst that artists I listen to (assuming any are still alive), with a percentage determined according to the play count. If I don't upload a play count, then it should be distributed amongst the most popular artists of the month (for the privacy nuts), or according to my history (if I have one). In exchange for this, I want to be allowed to listen to any music that has been created.
This system would reward artists who create pieces which I want to listen to again and again. People who release an album that people buy, listen to once, and then decided they didn't like would get hardly any money. People who make music that finds its way into a lot of peoples default playlists would make more. I would be able to copy music that I liked to my friends, and if they listened to it then it would benefit the artists.
Re:The 10 Convenient Truths About File Sharing (Score:2, Interesting)
This raises the question- how are those who produce art supposed to earn a living if they can't sell their product? I can see the arguments coming- "they don't make money from art sales, the middleman does." But again, how do they put food on the table?
3 . It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain
Well, if obscure bands want their music to reach the masses without a middleman, they should put it online. Again, to predict the argument - "bands are oppressed by record labels and can't do what they wish." The record the music in your garage and post it online.
The thing is, art and any intellectual property takes time and effort to create. Why shouldn't the creators be compensated? And the argument that the actual producer of the product doesn't see much of the money. Well, when you buy a pound of coffee or a pair of jeans the farmer or tailor doesn't see much of the money, but does that mean you should just shoplift them?
Asbestos suit on!
Re:You, sir, are an ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting point. However, what your point lacks is quantity/quality. If it's worth money, how much is it worth? Pirating isn't being done by the masses to give the F-You to the record company and "the man" just because they are a big company, but because they do not believe the product/service they supply is not worth the value they're presenting it at.
Simply put, if pirates could buy brand a new movie on a standard DL-DVD without a box (toss it in a paper slip) for $4-$5, pirates would probably buy it oppose to copying. However, $15-$25 for a new DVD film is not worth it for most people. They probably already paid $10 to see it in the theater or can pay $2-4 to rent it and watch it as many times as they want in the week they have it.
A long time ago, I mentioned this 'dream' of mine. Big box retails (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc) getting a high quality DVD burning machine. You walk up to the counter, ask the person for the film you want, they'll punch in the movie id into their computer and the machine plops out a fresh high-quality burned DVD with sticker art. The clerk tosses the DVD into a paper slip and charges you $4. Maybe you rested a DVD case, and he charges you an extra $2 and prints out the DVD case insert, pulls a plastic DVD case off the shelf and inserts the slip art.
The consumer walks out the door with a $6 DVD, the store doesn't need to bother about inventory space, besides the machine and computer containing the DVD image catalog. Movie houses don't need to spend the time and money running DVD making machines, paying truckers and shippers to drop it off at distribution centers, etc. All they do, is download it into their customers DVD Making machine computers on release day. They can even setup a distribution network (hello bit-torrent), so they only have to upload it into the central Big Box Store system and Big Box Store can be responsible for the band-width for uploading it into all it's stores.
The cost is still more than DIYers but low enough to entice those who might pirate to just buy instead. They don't have to go out and buy a stack of DVD media. They probably get better quality DVD since they're not compressing the image, or removing audio tracks to fit onto a non DL-DVD. They also get a nice fancy art-work sticker, instead of just scrawling the name on with a sharpie marker.
The only way to fight the pirates is to offer the service at the value that it's worth. I think that, in general, people feel the cost of watching a movie isn't what it use to be in a world where entertainment is at your finger tips anywhere you go, from portable video game players, to cell phones, to the internet.
Movie theaters are not the only place one can go to 'escape' reality, anymore. Since the prices continue to climb along with entertainment competition, it's only natural to see demand drop off. It goes for saying that I often won't see a film in the theater anymore (unless it's a blockbuster or I'm a fan) and even then, I make every effort to go the the cheaper matinée. It's now 'wait until DVD' because I can rent it for $1-3. The same philosophy probably goes to those who use to buy DVD's for their collection. However odd it is, that such a crime is fairly socially acceptable.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20070531
Either it has been relabeled or the discussion of file sharing was not directly addressed in the title.
That being said, it reads more like an opinion/rant rather than any piece of truth.
Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
If it is so profitable, why can't the music industry put up an ad-supported free download site?
AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels. But psychoanalysis of their motivations can hardly be called "truth"
Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
How dare they make such a mean-spirited threat
Guess we'll have to look underground for our underground music.
ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Which ISPs? Will their helpdesk help me set up my p2p program so I can download some tunes?
The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Pontificating is actually big business these days. Bloggers, politicians, talking heads all do it.
However, this hardly counts as a truth. As mentioned elsewhere, it is more of a whine, or a rant.
Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure.
Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Most people have this idea that it might be wrong because of the paid ad campaigns but they don't really feel it is wrong or they would have stopped by now.
P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
Re:file sharing is "wrong" (Score:5, Interesting)
"Society" doesn't have any say in whether those things are wrong either. If something is wrong it remains wrong regardless of the majority opinion. In any event, it doesn't really matter. For all property-right violations the legitimacy of the punishment is inherent in the offence. A murderer cannot rationally argue against corporal punishment; a thief cannot rationally argue against being fined. Either the defendent must agree that the action was wrong, and thus deserves punishment, or they must claim that the action was right, and thus the punishment (being the same action) must also be right.
Subjective morality only becomes an issue when you attempt to criminalize things that are either victimless, or acceptable to those committing the "crime". Copyright violations fall in the latter category (or possibly both, depending on your point of view). Let the punishment fit the crime -- prohibit "pirates" from holding copyrights. See if they care.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use computers running Microsoft Windows to track their resources and finances.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use oxygen as part of their metabolic processes.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use explosives to blow things up.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use water to hydrate themselves.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use coffee and other stimulants to stay awake in the morning.
Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use exercise equipment to stay in shape.
If you don't want to be like organized criminal gangs or terrorist groups, you better stop selling counterfeit CDs, running Microsoft Windows, breathing, using explosives, drinking, caffeinating, or exercising RIGHT NOW!
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, a lot of their points seem to be direct responses to many of the Slashdot/digg memes.
"Important to understand this. Among poor people who don't own computers or cd players, there was a surpisingly low amount of file sharing or purchasing of pirate CDs. Go figure."
Believe it or not, this is lost on lots of people. Just a few weeks ago when an article about software piracy in India came accross Slashdot, a common retort was that the average income in India is something like $2,000 a year, and thus they simply can't afford that software. As you've no doubt figured out, the average income includes the millions of dirt farmers who have no computer, let alone running water, and the pirated software is being used by that segment of the Indian population that can afford mobile phones, computers, designer clothes, et al. just fine. Yet it's a good enough statistic for us to justify piracy.
"If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed."
This is another direct salvo against the rationale that you hear all the time around here: "the real reason that music sales are off is because today's music sucks!". Yet the list of top pirated songs [bigchampagne.com] matches up with the top ten tracks sold. 90% of popular music sucks in any given year; this is something that people learn as they get older; thus the common perception that it's only today's popular music that's awful; nostalgia helps us forget that the top music in, say, 1993 was pretty crappy, too. The music-listening public has just as much appreciation for today's sucky pop music as we always have; we're simply pirating it a lot more than we used to.
Re:Monthly rate (Score:4, Interesting)
The subscription model is already fairly successful, and most subscription services will sell you a given track -- those that you buy, you can continue to use even after you cancel the service. The model is fine. What needs to happen is that DRM needs to all but disappear.
Using the artists-get-paid-for-plays model is novel, but would require some sort of DRM to work; you'd need to limit the players that could use that music so that stats would be properly reported and aggregated. It could be less-restrictive (i.e. work on any machine participating in the service), but it would still have to exist.
I don't necessarily have a problem with DRM in cases where it's very clear that you don't own the content (such as the subscription tracks). However, it's essential that tracks offered for purchase be DRM-free (you either own it or you don't, there should be no gray area).
Re:2 Questions for Anybody Who Would Participate (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue complaints that this is Communism in three, two, one
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
Communication is of increasing importance to newer generations, and if you refuse to accept it you'll just become an old fogey.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
But giving them a deluxe full-featured phone so they can play games, surf the net, and text msg all their friends (all of which add hefty fees to your monthly bill)? Forget it.
Re:Monthly rate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Monthly rate (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd envisage different scales of payment and so on so that you can arrange varying deals according to how much music you actually listen to. A half-decent service would automate the use of payment scaling to an extent, (just like you automatically buy a track if you've spent enough on it) so that you don't have to make sure you don't start being uneconomical.
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh? Kids have always wandered around on their own in "familiar territory", past the age of 6 or so (it's a bit depressing to think of a mall as familiar territory, but it's certainly true these days for a large portion of the population). Has American society become so insanely dysfunctional that this isn't possible anymore?!?
Re:Wrong answer. What's the real reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
Dumb question. It's so profitable because Pirate Bay has zero production costs. The music industry doesn't because it actually pays the producers of the music and invests in its production.
And Phil Spector may have used his legitimate music money to purchase a weapon that he allegedly used to shoot Lana Clarkson
Dumb analogy. Phil Spector legitimately purchased a weapon using legitimate money. Organized criminal gangs use illegitimate money to achieve illegal acts. Where's the similarity?
According to the last item in the list they actually do care, expressing a preference for major labels.
There's a difference between caring and preferring. The point is that while p2pers may prefer mainstream acts on large labels, they don't care if they're not. This is to address the usual argument that p2pers are some kind of principled copyright Robin Hoods, striking out in the name of freedom against the man. They're just freeloaders. They don't care where the music comes from, they just won't pay for it.
If unpopular music were traded most frequently would it still be unpopular? or would it then be popular? I've just gone cross-eyed.
You're missing the point (deliberately, I think). What's being addressed here is again a usual argument that p2p file sharing is good because it lets people discover exotic new music they wouldn't otherwise hear. Everyone is supposed to agree that this is a good thing. (We'll side step the argument about whether that makes it ok to take it without payment for the moment.) But the point being made is that this is not evident when you examine the music being shared. The vast majority of it are mainstream acts that can be heard anywhere and most filesharing is not about discovering new acts at all.
Naturally, everyone can produce anecdotal cases of discovering new acts. But do they outweigh all the other file sharing? I doubt it.