NPR intern admits to ripping thousands of songs, not paying- gets smacked down by artist

Wow. Eloquently written response by Camper Van Beethoven's David Lowery (follow link in article)
 
http://entertainment.msnb...id-for-only-a-few?lite

As a 49 year music lover,  to this day I have never illegally downloaded a single song,
and never will.

Fuck I hate my generation.

Meh.
 
This discussion just isn't interesting anymore.
 
No offense, Cassie. 
 
It's just that, as much as we don't like it, people aren't going to start paying for something that they can get for free.  It goes against human nature.  I don't like it, I don't like what it means for the future of music, I don't like how it affects the decisions of artists that I love, but there's literally nothing I can do about it.
 
Writing blogs, ranting on message boards, and other methods of hand-wringing aren't going to change anything.

Spotify, Pandora, Youtube. FM radio, cassette copying, used record shop's ect...

I know way more people that don't pay for music than do.  I know someone with a 160 GB iPod filled to capacity, and didn't buy a cent of that music.  Even though the numbers of digital sales look good, there are way more people that get it for free.  And honestly, most people don't know what's wrong about it.  They aren't musicians so they don't know/care for the process of royalties, and just assume "I'm only one person, it won't make a difference".  People think a music video means millionaires.
While I do support the downloading of music to expand your tastes (I would've never discovered DT, PT, PoS, etc if not for LimeWire back in the day), I do think people should have the moral standard to support these bands afterward.  As soon as I got my first debit card, I went to town and started buying all the CDs of albums I listened to over the years.
However, I do understand that the CD is a slowly dying format, and most people will never listen to them if it's already in their laptop/iPod.  That's the main problem with digital; no one's going to buy an mp3 album after they already have it for free.  Pretty much, the only smart move the industry could make about this is shutting down torrent sites, which has been happening.  It sucks, but if you can't find something for free anywhere, you're bound to purchase it.
And if they're gonna sue people they catch, why not lower the charge to $2 per song and just sue everyone?  That'll make people slow down, and it's not something anyone would truly fight.
 
I'm rambling, and I'll stop now.

Um. In some ways I'm glad they steal. I think i read somewhere that music pirating is why they do a lot of special releases. DT does a really good job of making sure the new albums have something neat if you spend a little extra.

I guess the thing with special editions though is that the people buying them are the people who'd be buying the album anyway (and of course many people buy the special AND regular editions...).
 
Anyways, this used to be an issue that I got REALLY incensed about, but I've just lost the energy for it.  I hate that music piracy happens, but there's plenty of other things (much worse things, at that) that I wished didn't happen, that do.  And yeah, a lot of people miss the point of it, like that South Park episode that was ripping on Metallica, how Lars Ulrich will have to wait an extra couple of weeks to get his golden jacuzzi or whatever it was.  The big names like that aren't the people who are REALLY hit by music piracy, it's the little guy.  Of course all these bands that made all their money before this became a big deal are generally gonna be ok, because a) they've had years of CD/record sales and b) because of all those earlier years, they're much bigger touring bands as well.

I've known of people around me who have downloaded illegally and I can't stand it. Being someone who holds music very near and dear to me it's extremely frustrating. Especially when I want to make drumming my living. Long shot I know, but I want it.
 
I do have friends who see illegal downloading as renting. Like when renting movies from a redbox, blockbuster, etc. They download something they haven't heard before and if they don't like it, they delete it. If they do like it they go out and buy it. In that sense I see nothing wrong, but no matter how you cut it you illegally download.
 
I'm just going to stick with buying my cds :)

Most of us are guilty, especially youths and 20-somethings of downloading music. I try to support my favorite acts financially as best I can, but there is an entitlement to my generation... that at least I try to either suppress / keep it to myself. But It's there. I have a huge physical CD folder from when I was in middle school / high school. However these days it is RARE that I actually buy a physical CD. Buying a digital copy? On occasion... but i find myself not even really seeking out that much music these days. I spend most of my time listening to free podcasts and watching movies (yes that's another download story). Do I feel bad? Sometimes. But I straight up don't have the money to spend on music and films, etc. Now when my favorite bands roll to town... i will empty my bank account for live music.

FM radio, cassette copying

 
blank cassettes and music cd-r's contain a fee (or at least they used to) that goes to the RIAA to subsidize lost revenue from copying.  Far as I'm concerned, that means I can use those to copy whatever the hell I want.
 
I still think a reasonable monthly fee for all the music you can download (AND KEEP) would be good.  But, of course, what's reasonable?   Obviously, while Apple's 99cent song has worked to a degree, there are still a lot of people who simply download for free.   If you had, say, $10/mo for all the music you could eat, would that cause some of the non-payers to start paying?  It might.  And if enough did, you could actually make MORE than what you're getting now.  Of course, you take a hit in the short term.  And there isn't a guarantee that the revenue stream will ultimately increase.  But I'd love to see that model.
 

Bandcamp. That is all.

Bails


Meh.

This discussion just isn't interesting anymore.

No offense, Cassie. 

It's just that, as much as we don't like it, people aren't going to start paying for something that they can get for free.  It goes against human nature.  I don't like it, I don't like what it means for the future of music, I don't like how it affects the decisions of artists that I love, but there's literally nothing I can do about it.

Writing blogs, ranting on message boards, and other methods of hand-wringing aren't going to change anything.

What you are suggesting is complacency.  If people made it as socially unacceptable to steal digital media as it is to shoplift a candy bar, less people would do it and it wouldn't be as much of a problem.  I think we all know illegal downloading is fundamentally wrong, but so many people get away with it that it seems there is no consequence for the misdeed.  Social pressure works.  How about spreading the word that it is uncool to steal music?  Isn't that a start?  Social change is rarely quick or easy.  It's a slow process and takes persistence and a consistent message.  If we can make strides towards reducing things like racism, drunk driving, hate crimes, fuel emissions, etc. through a combination of social pressure and strict law enforcement can't we also make strides towards reducing cybercrime as well?  
 
Besides, nothing obtained for free off of another human being's back is ever any good in the long run.  A person who downloads an artist's entire catalog in one evening never gets the experience of building the collection over time, the anticipation of obtaining it, and the final satisfaction of adding it to their collection.  People who host or download music without paying for it are simply anonymous thieves and they should be reminded that their crime hurts others.  If they don't care that their actions hurt others, I guess they should be dealt with as an antisocial criminal element. 

Attention, naive post follows! 

Now I obviously haven't got much of a clue about the juridical side of filesharing, but I still wonder why there isn't more that can be done in order to try preventing it? For example closing down torrent pages with the explanation that there obviously is some massive missuse going on? I mean if you're trying to steal a CD from a store there is at least some resistance. It is not as simple as downloading a torrent client legally and then finding lots of stuff easily via Google. It's like a record store with ridiculously naive staff. "Hey, can I take the CD outside, just for a minute? I swear, I'm gonna bring it back inside, I just... uhm... wanna show it to my friend, he can't come in because he has dirty shoes!" 

Well, closing down pages can't be an easy thing to do, juridically, but is it really impossible if it is utterly obvious that there are millions of crimes done because of a certain webpage? No chance? It could at least make filesharing harder to do and thus less popular.  

The difficulty with fees like that is that is they help the labels (and likely only the major ones) rather than the artists. We are getting closer to a system like that with subscription streaming services but obviously they don't let you keep the music afterwards. If they did I don't think there'd be a realistic way of ensuring the actual artists you're listening to get paid.

Above message was in reply to Spunky's, it's too late for me to edit it.

Bails


Meh.

This discussion just isn't interesting anymore.

No offense, Cassie. 

It's just that, as much as we don't like it, people aren't going to start paying for something that they can get for free.  It goes against human nature.  I don't like it, I don't like what it means for the future of music, I don't like how it affects the decisions of artists that I love, but there's literally nothing I can do about it.

Writing blogs, ranting on message boards, and other methods of hand-wringing aren't going to change anything.

I don't care that things may not change. It is a really crappy problem and I wish it would get brought up so freaking often that it drives everyone crazy until something gets done about it. Glad you posted it Cassie.

The Fish


Spotify, Pandora, Youtube. FM radio, cassette copying, used record shop's ect...

This.

Bails

No offense, Cassie.

Writing blogs, ranting on message boards, and other methods of hand-wringing aren't going to change anything.

 
No offense taken. However, this is a national story, and a very relevant national discussion. This discussion is not going to go away. It shouldn't.

David Lowery's response to the intern really needs to be read and digested.
 
http://thetrichordist.wor...-all-songs-considered/

Personally... I feel like file sharing is just the norm, and the music industry has been particularly resistant to realize this and move on to new ways of revenue. I´ve never heard of a whole industry rolling up in a corner and crying about the change in their consumer base´ taste for approaching their products.
 
Either you adjust to your consumers or you die... it´s as simple as that.

iTunes (Amazon and others) has made it so easy to download music legally, that there's no need to steal music anymore. You can buy individual songs too, which keeps the cost down. People will always download music illegally however.

itunes still restrict what you can and can't do with your purchased mp3?
 
edit: as an aside, I'd point out things where Lowery is full of shit, but we've been down this road before.  Gets us nowhere.  Nobody really wants a solution.  They want status quo.  And that's the problem.

Spunky


itunes still restrict what you can and can't do with your purchased mp3?

It's not true any more. I've bought from itunes and can do whatever the hell I want with the purchased track.
 
Though I still don't care for itunes. I buy 99% of my mp3s from Amazon.

Spotify is so close to being the right legal thing to do (you pick any song/album you want and stream it for free), but they compensate the artists/labels terribly.  So many bands are pulling out of it because they've lost so much money.

The problem in my eyes - coming more from a legal perspective than a moral one - is that perception is everything.
 
Yes it is a crime, but it is perceived as being lesser than, say, murder.
Yes it is a crime, but it is perceived as being victimless, because we all know Lars has more money than he will ever need.
Yes it is a crime, but it is perceived as being "the norm" because "everyone does it". 
 
I respectfully think it is naive to think that public relations are going to make this go away.  It wasn't public relations that reduced drunk driving accidents, and PR isn't working with drugs (especially the "minor" offenses). 
 
I tend to think if we don't have the stomach to pursue marijuana offenders, we're not going to see any real effort to counter the 15 year old swiping the latest L'il Wayne beats. 
 
I do wish more people realized that the "they don't need the money" argument is bogus.  I think the biggest change to combat illegal downloading is the move toward artists self-releasing things.  I think it brings the artist closer to the consumer, making them more real, and potentially making it more stark that stealing a song - even a $0.99 one - is taking food out of the mouths of the people who created that song. 
 

Ok, but what about Spotify, Pandora, Youtube, I'll leave out cassettes and FM radio, cause spunky makes a decent point. But the other methods are legal access to the same stuff you can just download. 
 
If you have any recording software, you can record a streaming song and transfer it to mp3 and stick it on your ipod, but the end result is the same, I didn't pay anything other than my internet bill and apple. 
 
Maybe comcast should be a record company as well. (ick)

Oh and used record stores.. silly me. They're a "green industry", I just found that out btw. 
 
They don't pay the label or the artist for the "used" inventory.
 
(Dear God, Please keep "the man" out of what ever fix there is to best serve the deserving artists, thanks.)

What is going to be interesting to me is about 5-10 years from now when all these kids that have grown up with the "everybody does it" mentality start to become the artists themselves. I'm starting to see it myself with some of the young up and coming post-rock bands I listen to. Quite a few of them purposefully leak stuff - hell, a few release their albums ONLY by torrents on some of the big trackers. The business model is changing, and a lot of these guys are starting to rely more on online donations, special editions, tours, merchandise, meet and greets, basically everything but CD sales. Radiohead - more specifically Thom Yorke - also released a song from his own torrent username on a site I won't mention. The only way you can get that song is by being a user of an "illegal" site. The business is changing.

Ok, what about Spotify Pandora and Youtube.
 
I'll bet Thom's special song is on there as well.
 
There is no way once an artist releases something in this day and age that they can control their property in the same way as they could 60, 40, 20 years ago. Technology keeps one up-ing it's self. I can make my own concert DVD practically with an Iphone, and when I get in the parking lot, I can put it online and drive home listening to whatever. Never directly paying the artist.
 
All the stuff you mention(311) is going on, and it's the answer to the question. If fans are really interested they will part with cash if you give them alternate options to do so.
 
It was so much easier when you just went a bought the damn album, but alas that's over unless you have a combination of strong interest in music and collections.

portnoy311


What is going to be interesting to me is about 5-10 years from now when all these kids that have grown up with the "everybody does it" mentality start to become the artists themselves. I'm starting to see it myself with some of the young up and coming post-rock bands I listen to. Quite a few of them purposefully leak stuff - hell, a few release their albums ONLY by torrents on some of the big trackers. The business model is changing, and a lot of these guys are starting to rely more on online donations, special editions, tours, merchandise, meet and greets, basically everything but CD sales. Radiohead - more specifically Thom Yorke - also released a song from his own torrent username on a site I won't mention. The only way you can get that song is by being a user of an "illegal" site. The business is changing.

Yes, bands with foresight are adopting new tactics and many have been quite successful. (Giving away free music, live shows, asking for people to donate, if they can etc.) Getting a record deal and selling albums isn't the path to a music career these days, whether people like it or not. 
 
People can shout and scream about pirating all they want, it's not going to stop. The big record companies chose to fight the trend instead of adapting to a changing landscape. Let's just say the big record companies haven't been very successful over the last decade. 
 
 

Also, is there (hypothetical here) a chance, that current high ticket prices are providing fans a reason to listen to said album for free?

The Fish


Oh and used record stores.. silly me. They're a "green industry", I just found that out btw. 

They don't pay the label or the artist for the "used" inventory.

 
I really need someone to explain to me how, exactly, used record stores can hurt an artist.
 
Except in the case of someone who burns their own copy, sells the physical media, and then keeps the digital media therefore creating two copies of one recording, where's the harm?
 
If I buy a CD, listen to it for a while, and then sell it without ever copying it, the artist is NOT getting screwed at all.  Someone buys it from the used record store.  Net result: artist sells one copy, public at large purchases and owns one copy.  No harm done.
 

The Fish

Also, is there (hypothetical here) a chance, that current high ticket prices are providing fans a reason to listen to said album for free?

 
I don't believe that there's any correlation, but that doesn't remove the fact that ticket prices are just way too fucking high.
 
 

I don't think a used record store hurts an artist, but in as far as it can help an artist, I'd imagine it's minimal as they don't pay the label for their inventory. It really helps the collector and fan. And it is an example of the "3rd party" component to this situation.

The Fish


I don't think a used record store hurts an artist, but in as far as it can help an artist, I'd imagine it's minimal as they don't pay the label for their inventory. It really helps the collector and fan. And it is an example of the "3rd party" component to this situation.

I guess I just don't see how a used record store figures into this conversation AT ALL, despite the fact that people always bring it up.
 
The conversation is about paying for music.  Reimbursing the artist for their work.  Used record stores don't factor into that.  
 
Nothing illegal, nothing unethical, nothing immoral.  Just buying and selling - like just about every other business.

No one said it's unethical or immoral or anything else, but again, much like Pandora, Youtube, Spotify, it's hard to figure how the industry deals with these things, considering they're bogged down fighting cases in court about Napster from 10 years ago ect.
 
I'm not on the side of the industry on most of this. I'd like to think that I side with the artists I really like by giving them 60 buck or more for a seat at the show. I don't really bother with the Jay Z's of the world, they weren't getting my money anyway.
 
If a million people don't pay 10 bucks for an album and the big time artists expect X for there effort. They'll make up for it in current concert ticket prices by playing for a half a million on a tour. I'd imagine the established artists are ok with the trade off. 

Cassie5563


David Lowery's response to the intern really needs to be read and digested.

http://thetrichordist.wor...-all-songs-considered/

I think everyone that's posting here that hasn't read the article in Cassie's link above is missing the point of this thread.
 
Excellent article - thanks Cassie!

huh, could of fooled me, I thought I was dealing with it directly..

Bails, I think the issue people take with used records (and video games) is that the secondary purchasers would have otherwise had to buy the experience via a medium that supports its creators. I personally go the pre-owned route more often than not, but I definitely see how it can be a problem.