To a Mother Concerned About File Sharing

Greetings,your son makes a good point on somethings but its a situtation where your you lose some but u gain some meaning,if your music is being pirating out there,the good thing is you gain popularity for free and so more people know about u that way so yes it does help to get the word out about your name and when u do concerts more people will come so u can make it up,the down side is,if your music is pirated and your music is copyrighted and registered with bmi,ascap and so on where u can be making royalty monies,lets say your music was pirated 5000 times and its 5cents each time your music is played on radio,so thats 2,500 dollars that he would have lost that he could be making in royalties. So with him doing concerts selling his CD’s he makes back up the monies. Right now theres nothing we can really do to stop the pirating. Either way its a win win situtation Yes its illegal if u post it but if i bought his CD and liked 1 of his songs and wanted to send it to some friends,I could convert the CD to mp3 files upload it in an email to my friends and they will have the song for free and yes thats another person that knows about your son. This is just my thoughts. Feel free to comment back to me,one love.

That’s $250, not $2500. And I think by “u”, you (note the context in which this word is used) actually mean “you”.

What about songwriters and producers? They don’t get money with concerts!

I think one of the most difficult things for small artists, especially those that are unsigned, is promotion. File sharing, whilst not particularly brilliant for generating revenue, allows artists to spread their work out there to a lot of people looking for new stuff. As has been mentioned already here, people are far more likely to check out an album and be a potential fan if they’re getting the music for free. Don’t like that album? Delete it! No money wasted.
I’m a small time unsigned artist and so I’ve had to think about the problem of file sharing a lot and the only thing to do is accept it and try to use it to our advantage, on the plus side it’s excellent promotion and it means that we have to reinvent sales techniques to get around the problem of people getting it for free. Look at artists who have gone all out for custom packaging or hidden extras/unlockable content in order to sell the physical release.

I think the point I’m trying to make is that I used to dislike file sharing, thinking it was the death of the music industry, but it’s not, it just means that fat, bloated and unmanoueverable as it is, the industry needs to reinvent itself to deal with it. Look at Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails giving albums away for a custom-donation, I bet they still made a pretty penny out of that, and I know a fair few people who still shelled out the £10 for a physical copy of it regardless.

I don’t understand why anyone who says they love music…

… would see it as worthless.

It’s simple: If people aren’t willing to pay for the music, that means that songs now exist solely to sell t-shirts, keychains, posters. The consumer product (band merchandise) has become more important than the music.

Also take into account that:
1) not all bands tour internationally– so those 10,000 fans in another country won’t be helping you put any money towards recording costs, new guitar, etc.
2) not all bands tour
3) that top 3% of money-making artists on labels enable new bands to get signed
4) the price of CDs was high– but it was the profit margin that enable $ to be made even from a niche band– for example, this is why a lot of world music
5) a coke or a coffee costs more than a song–you finish the drink in 5 minutes. You listen to the song for years. Think: how much do you spend on soft drinks a week?
6) if you think music should be free, fine– but be consistent– then your concerts should be free, and your merchandise too.
7) if you wouldn’t walk out of a record store with an album without paying for it, why would you steal it on the ‘net? And even if the artist is giving the music away for free, don’t you think they’d appreciate you buying it anyway?

Think this instead:

If I buy this album, and 50 of my friends by that album (you probably have 150 on facebook), then I have enabled that indie artist to afford to record one more song that I may love.
And imagine if only 10 people with 50 friends did that: now that artist can afford to record and release a whole album. You have directly, and cheaply, enabled more music to be made.

Hi,

> 6) if you think music should be free, fine– but be consistent– then your concerts should be free, and your merchandise too.

I think recorded music should be shareable, and I think I am being consistent.

> 7) if you wouldn’t walk out of a record store with an album without paying for it, why would you steal it on the ‘net?

This is an excellent demonstration of how the “stealing” analogy doesn’t work. I wouldn’t walk out of a record store with an album without paying for it because then I would be removing something from the record store. Before they had an album, and now they don’t. When I share music on the net, nothing is taken from the “record store”; the person who gave it to me had a copy, and now we both have a copy. Why must we think about a world in which everyone can have something for the same cost as two people having it, as if it were the world where you have a loaf of bread, and I steal it, and now you don’t have it any more? They’re completely different, and demand different analysis.

- Chris.

fwiw never said cds were overpriced to enable musicians could make money on the profit margins– but if money/profit could be made on small runs, like 10, 000 units, cuz of the margin, then all of a sudden niche music could be released– suddenly a label could make money on obscure african music, etc. so a byproduct of the gouge actually enabled much more ‘risky’ music to be released…

and as for it doesn’t follow that a person who shares never buys– of course. but what’s the ratio? ask someone who downloads a lot of music but also buys… and they’ll buy maybe one album a month but download 25. (and ask anyone under 25 what music they’ve bought recently and they’ll look at you as if you’re speaking a foreign language.) i forget the ratio, and i’m too lazy to look it up, but something like 3% of songs on a full ipod (1000+ songs) have actually been purchased… (i could be wrong on that stat.)

also recently with pirate bay being shut down /prosectutions for illegal d’loading in sweden, they have have seen a significant increase in online legal purchasing… so it seems that people are more or less taking it for free, because they could get away with it…

and as for the analogy of walking out of a record store with a record and the justification that some widget has been removed that has to replaced, so you wouldn’t do it, but that online it is different– you are negating the fact that hundreds of hours are put in to creating that work of art, and THAT is what should be compensated, or supported. As for ‘a world in which everyone can have something for the same cost as two people having it’… sounds like you don’t believe an artist should be compensated or paid for anything other than that original, first sold ‘unit’. so if two, or two hundred, or two thousand people download it/copy it from that first unit… that artist is really only justified in being paid once (1 dollar, or 10 bucks or whatever), because the delivery system allowed the infinite copying. you’re arguing that ‘nothing is taken from the record store’ when it’s on the net– but something is taken from the artist: adequate compensation for his/her efforts. (creative, but also promotional hours)

and that’s the point that i think needs to be stressed: that art (music, film, books, etc) has value. if you download a song for free, and listen to it more than once, support the artist and buy it. for the price of a couple beers peed out after half an hour, you could have an album forever.

I will try to make this brief. There was a tme in the past when music was a local thing. People could not travel because travel was for the rich and musicians would play music because they could do that better than chop wood. But most of them still chopped wood. I have been a drummer for 20 years, session player for 12 and play a miriad of other instruments. I agree wuith the cat above that said you should change your son’s focus by talking about creating a future in music. That should teach him some lessons through hard work and knock a little of the ideology side down. I also agree with the other cat above that said he wants his art under his control. I sure don’t want my emotional and personal works being used to cell cigarettes or (insert your personal gripe here).

Truth is I have a day job becuase I love my wife, wanted a house and maybe a son of my own. I love music and intend to play until my body can not. Where does pirating music land in here. Simple… you want it… I mean IT… to make it… pirated music is not going to stop you. But understand that a label is a comprimise. If you are going that far you are already willing to crash diet, dye your hair, NOT dye your hair, or run around half naked for the camera… so… tell your son to get on stage and try and make that concert money. Save his pennies and make that CD. And then decide if he wants to give it away, post it for free or jump on the Metallica boat and whine with Larz.

-e

Chris,

“This is an excellent demonstration of how the “stealing” analogy doesn’t work.”

Whenever you take something that is not yours, it is stealing by definition.

“I wouldn’t walk out of a record store with an album without paying for it because then I would be removing something from the record store. Before they had an album, and now they don’t.”

Would you spend $18 for a blank CD? If you answer “no” then you admit that the music on the CD has value. The music has the same value without the CD. When you “share” music, you are taking or giving something of value which you do not own. If the music had no value, you wouldn’t want it to begin with.

“When I share music on the net, nothing is taken from the “record store”; the person who gave it to me had a copy, and now we both have a copy.”

Something is taken. You don’t have to right to make such a copy. You are taking that right from the copyright owner. That copyright has value.

“Why must we think about a world in which everyone can have something for the same cost as two people having it, as if it were the world where you have a loaf of bread, and I steal it, and now you don’t have it any more?”

Because people have rights. They have the right to be compensated for their work. You do not have the right to take the results of their work without their permission.

As far as the loaf of bread, it is nothing but flour, yeast, water and a few other ingredients. Yet you pay more for a loaf of bread than you would for the ingredients. You are paying for the expertise and effort of the baker. When you buy a CD, you aren’t just paying for a piece of plastic. You are paying for the expertise and effort of the musicians, songwriters, producers, engineers, promoters, etc.

“They’re completely different, and demand different analysis.”

You only believe them to be different because you are trying to justify illegal and immoral behavior. Property rights are property rights. You can’t violate them just because you want free music.

If you really believe you have the right to take the results of someone’s work without compensating them, tell me if you would continue to work if your boss refused to pay you for your work. Chances are, if you work in an office, you what you produce for your employer is some form of intellectual property. If you believe you should be able to take someone else’s IP, then you have to be willing to donate yours without getting paid.

Hi Valerie.

Thanks for sharing this with us.

I have not read any of the other reply posts, so forgive me if I repeat anything.

I am going to address your son’s excuses one by one…..because that is what they are: excuses

1 He tells me the record sales make money for the record label, not the artist.

WRONG. True some labels have ripped off artists in the past but other artists made good deals with labels. It all depends on the individual artist’s business savvy and their leveraging power.

But here is something else to consider: Even if the artist has made a bad deal. If you steal their music through pirating you ripping them off even further.

HOW? A label deal is a loan. A bad label deal is a loan with MEGA interest attached to it. The artist has to pay back every penny that was put into recording, manufacturing and promoting their album.

When you steal their music you are robbing them their ability to pay back that what they owe the label.

What’s more the lack of sales (from piracy) could result in them being dropped from the label, having all promotion of their album dropped and being in debt to the label.

To sum up: When you use the excuse. The labels are ripping them off, you are also saying that it is ok for you to rip them off too. You are now no better than the label you are criticizing.

2 He says that the artists make all their money from touring and live concerts.

WRONG: Not all artists can tour. Not all can afford to tour. I can’t. It’s too expensive.

Also your son is not thinking about the songwriter. The recording artist is not always the songwriter. The songwriter only gets money from the sale of the music and from airplay royalties. A songwriter gets about 8 cents per copy sold. If they have to split that with the publisher they get only 4 cents, if they have to split that with the recording artist (even though the recording artist had nothing to do with writing the song…and yes, this does happen in the industry) they have to split that too.

3 He thinks the pirated music promotes the concerts and therefore helps the artist make more money.

WRONG: No one asked your son to promote their concerts by pirating their music. As an artist I give away certain set of songs free as promotion….and that’s it. That doesn’t mean I want you to pirate the rest of my music. Other artists do the same thing. That is all they are authorizing. If they didn’t authorize it you are STEALING IT!

3. I still don’t allow pirating in my house.

Good for you and God bless you for taking a moral stance.

I have heard every excuse in the book and I have a comeback for everyone.

Here are few of the most used ones, just in case your son tries to argue further.

Every one else is doing it – Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn’t make it right. A lot of people living in Germany didn’t speak out against Hitler because everyone was doing it.

I wasn’t going to pay for it anyway – I wasn’t going to pay for that hamburger at McDonalds so I should be allowed to have it for free, right? If you didn’t pay for it, you don’t have the right to own it and you are a crook.

4 But tell me what you think – as artists out there having your work “shared,” are you just glad to have it being enjoyed, or does it bother you?

That is why I have the set 8 free songs that I have authorized for sharing and no more. I feel that those 8 free songs are enough to decide if you like my music. If you want the rest, you should purchase it. If you pirate my other songs you are stealing from me. You are robbing me of my ability to make a living with my music and I have nothing but contempt for you. It does not make me happy that you are pirating my music.

5 Admittedly, he is stealing music that is recorded by major record labels,

Stealing from the rich is no different than stealing from the poor. Stealing is stealing. And just because you are stealing from major label artists doesn’t make those artists rich. In fact many of them are in debt (As I outlined earlier).

6 so maybe it’s different than the independent musician working for his living. But I’d still like to hear what you think.

The only thing that is different for independent artists is that it is even harder to make money than it ever has been.

Maybe your son will feel differently when has to sing his own money into recording his album, getting his CD manufactured, paying for distribution and all the other costs associated with trying to put out a professional CD to compete in the marketplace.

The music industry is in a shambles and there are a lot of reasons for it. A lot of it is the fault of the record labels. Their greed, & their short sightedness. But some of the blame also must fall on the consumer for pirating rather than paying for their music.

Thanks again Valerie for sharing this. You sound like a good mother and your are doing your best to raise your son right.

“File sharing is no differnt than recording a song off the radio or recording an album from a friend I remember when a radio stations use to play whole albums they let you know when they were going to play the album that way you would know when to record the whole thing also theres the record clubs where you could get 11 c.d.s for a penny”.

It’s completely different.

You had to know when they where going to play the song. You had to know someone who had the album.

It was wrong then and it is wrong now, but the difference is that the internet has made the scale worldwide and access universal.

The former was no different from the latter but access and scale made it’s harm negligable and not worth bothering over. That has all changed now.

Publishing rights is where the artist and labels mainly make their money.Its up to the artists to make sure that they are getting their publishing roylities.(Get a good layer)Being a artist myself with a c.d. out I would like to see ASCAP reconize file sharing but it would have to be done in a rational way Im sure if theres a will theres a way.

firstly, i write music, firstly, for myself, if other people like it awesome, but thats what my passion is, i do everything from home, almost all my equipment was either gifted to me, or bought used, and i can still make cd quality audio, i think total studio cost is around $3000, sure i am not a pro at recording or mixing or mastering, but thats because i don’t put the effort into learning it, so when people start saying “oh i had to pay this much to make my cd in a studio” please, just stop, with a bit of willingness to learn, and small financial investment, you can record it yourself, most engineering is turning a knob till you get the sound you like, the software makes it all the more easier. If you write music, you are an artist, you are creating something so that the world can hear what you have to say. If you are going to sit there after an complain that no one paid you to listen to what you have to say, then there is something wrong. I put everything I write on my website with a great big download button beside it, because for me, payment is when i have someone come up to me after a show or wherever and goes “i listened to this track here, and seriously, that rocked” or at show someone saying “you blew my mind” those are the responses that should be the payment, because i am sorry, sure it doesn’t put food on my table, sure it doesn’t pay the bills, but that is worth more than getting a couple of bucks per cd. If someone wants to get into music to make money, so be it, but DO NOT complain when someone feels that your music is not worth paying for. Everyone’s taste in music is different. And the value they put on what they got out of your music is also entirely up to them. It should not be about “pay me what i feel its worth” but “pay may what you feel its worth to you”. NIN and Radiohead have it right, and lots of others are following suit. As for the downloading, i am all for it, just like the reply to the mother’s letter, download everything, listen to it all, figure out what each one is worth TO YOU, and do what you feel is right from there.