Microsoft have actually used piracy as their promotion! Imagine this: high school kids all copy (and perhaps sell) to each other the latest Microsoft software. They install it illegally at home, whatever. Now when those kids grow up, which software manufacturer will they choose to put their money into on their home computer, say they have a job where they control the IT budget of a school or business, will they buy microsoft (because they know it already) or will they buy something they haven’t had much experience of (even if it’s cheaper or more fit for purpose)?

Allowing software piracy of their products has helped microsoft, here’s why: they are the market leaders. How they got there is another story, of dubious ethics, but they are, fact.

I am not a market leader in music. Nobody’s heard of me (well, a few hundred have maybe). I can’t utilise this model, and anyway, music can’t work this way anyway. Nobody sticks to one musician exclusively on their stereo the way people stick to only one operating system manufacturer (or even only one radio station!), and i wouldn’t want them to.

I want to listen to tons of different music, i want others to do the same, and i also want people to give me money! As Andrew Dubber points out though, in the linked article, trying to stop people downloading my music for free is not the answer, it’s not even possible, really.

Anyway, just wanted to say it’s different for software, and it’s different for market leaders, like U2 or Radiohead, to use music biz analogies.

Now that technology has allowed the distribution of music over the internet, you would think that musicians would want as many people to hear their music as possible. And young musicians certainly deserve to have access to music. There are some things that can only be learned by listening.

David, you can still do this and shorten the life of copyrights. Why not shorten copyright to just Life, or Life +10? Right now, Copyright is Life +70 or 95/120 years (for works of corporate authorship). That’s a little excessive, IMO.

For example: I believe that I should be able to watch television for free, anytime of day or night, as I please. Lots of people record television shows and put them on torrents to be downloaded. The television industry could have freaked out about this and started suing people…but they didn’t. Instead they did the sensible thing and put their shows online, for free, at high quality with a few commercials thrown in. Given the choice of spending an hour downloading a show and risking getting a virus (or someone’s porn *sigh*) instead, or going to fox.com, nbc.com, abc.com, or cbs.com and streaming the show live with a few commercials, I’ll go stream the video from a legitimate source. I’ll watch the commercials, because they’re very brief, which thanks to TIVO means I actually am exposed to more advertising than I would be if watching via traditional means. It’s a practice that is friendly to all involved–the people that make the shows, the people that broadcast them, and the people that watch them. The networks adapted to filesharing…why hasn’t the RIAA? Is music so very different from a television episode? Why aren’t the record labels putting sites online that let you pick a song, any song, add it to your playlist which has a brief commercial every 5 songs that funds the venture? Why prosecute people for millions of dollars when you could simply come up with a new business model that actually works.

The Times, they are a changing…

Music industry needs to catch up.

Piracy on the other hand, IS a sale and thus a potential purchase was definitely stolen. A 3rd party with no right to sell your product has profited. That’s a major distinction.

Do you have any idea how much the Chinese have stolen Microsoft products? To the tune of billions upon billions. The trade deficit might not be so nasty between us if they actually paid for their software. But asia is out of legal reach. Domestics are not. It reminds me of child abuse when the father is angry at some adult but can’t attack them so he goes after his kids/spouse/etc. The RIAA is a slob of a man wearing a gin soaked wifebeater…

I support piracy and file-sharing in all its forms, in the hope that this money-grabbing celebrity-worshipping culture surrounding music is worn away. With an abundance of choice, and shrinking promotion budgets, I’d like to see music become regional once more. People could focus on music close to home, knowing that they could see these acts live.

Music is a fundamental part of human culture, and will never die. All you need is a voice box and an object to bash rhytmically, and you have enjoyable music. As such, any claims of ‘the death of the industry’ are false. All that file-sharing will do is change the ways we access music, and who can profit off of them.

Personally, I think it’s the most basic example of ‘supply and demand’. When record companies and radio stations could easily control the supply, the demand for paid music was higher. Finding good, cheap music any other way took a bit of work and commitment, something most people didn’t have. Now that the supply of music is abundant, the value of the music is no longer artificially high. People can now pay what they want. Lo and behold, most people don’t feel the majority of music is worth paying for, because it isn’t.

Artists need to get off their high horse and remember why they got into music (for fun and creative expression, I assume).

Cheers