8 ms·

""There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that," he (the chairman of i

""There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that," he (the chairman of industry body the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) John Kennedy) said." No, society has decided that companies profiting exclusively from the distribution of the creative work of others without added value has no future. In case you are confused I'm talking about the "Phonographic Industry".

seertaak 18y ago
> ... without added value. I think this allegation betokens a certain ignorance of how the music industry works. Firstly, producers, recording engineers and assistants, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers certainly do add value -- where "value" is defined in the narrow artistic sense. These roles are certainly part of the "Phonographic Industry". In addition, just because record labels, promoters, publishers, managers, and agents, etc. don't "create" music doesn't mean they don't add value. When they do their job well -- which, granted, is not always the case -- they allow the artist(s) to focus solely on the music, rather than on tasks which they're not particularly suited to, like organizing international, multi-leg tours, getting ads on billboards, doing distribution deals with the likes of iTunes, Spotify, and the traditional music retailers, plugging artists' music into commercial radio stations. Record labels also act as a quasi insurance policy for artists; by using a portion of the revenue streams from "hit" and established artists, they can finance new acts. There is certainly value to that. Jazz music was, after all, only a niche art form known to very few before Norman Granz's efforts to popularize it. In this sense, while he was certainly no Miles Davis or Bird, his work had an immense impact on generations of listeners. (I'd add that in an age of segregation and prejudice against blacks, he stuck his neck out to sign them, and insisted on equal pay for all colours and genders -- see wikipedia) Again: no value? I find it curious that the tech-savvy world of Hacker News, which should be comfortable with the idea of specialization in modern capitalist economies, seems to pine for a return to a "cottage" music industry, where the musician is to perform all of the afore-mentioned roles himself. Am I alone in thinking this would be a step back, rather than forward? Sadly, in order for this system to work, people need to pay for records (but obviously, they should be much cheaper than in the heady 90s days). I therefore applaud the Swedish courts for upholding the rule of law and holding the facilitators of rampant piracy accountable for their actions -- which have, unquestionably, led to much misery for many low-level, up-and-coming musicians (myself included ;)
- nopassrecover 18y ago
  Record labels promote and distribute music. New communication methods mean old ways of promotion and distribution no longer work. New ideas like TheSixtyOne.com etc. are great approaches to new means of connecting musicians with music lovers.
  - seertaak 18y ago
    > Record labels promote and distribute music. True, but not exhaustive. As I explicitly mention above, they also find (in some sense, act as a filter) and finance new acts. And, in any case, you seemed to have ignored my point that recording engineers, producers, etc. are very much a part of the phonographic industry. Care to explain how "new communication methods" have rendered them obsolete? > New communication methods mean old ways of promotion and distribution no longer work. The millions of drivers in the world who listen to the radio disagree with you. And do you really think that just because the internet exists, people don't register offline advertising anymore? > New ideas like TheSixtyOne.com etc. are great approaches to new means of connecting musicians with music lovers. Thanks for letting me know about that site, it looks really cool!
    - nopassrecover 18y ago
      Fair responses. I guess I'm imagining that artists and recording engineers etc. could connect themselves without giving away the majority of the profits to a third party. I don't know enough about the industry to know if this is possible. Offline advertising still works I'm sure but I guess because of the circles I'm in even "regular" (non-geek) people are willing to use technology to find the music they like. I don't know how hard it is for small artists to sell their stuff on iTunes but like I said sites like TheSixtyOne help but ultimately I think that the role of the broadcaster is becoming diminished (and this is evident in all broadcast industries such as t.v., newspapers, movies, music, gaming and more) as people look for better ways to connect with content creators that don't involve both them and the creators being shortchanged. You are right about radio being popular but this is more a case of being everywhere. I think it's role is being diminished as you see a lot more people walk around with mp3 players etc. listening to the music they want. The point I'm awkwardly making is that the value of traditional distribution is not necessarily so valuable now. To borrow an Australian example, it's like Telstra (the central phone company) trying to punish people back into using them and not competitors after years of being shafted when there was no competition. I'd like to see companies considering initial piracy a marketing cost - the people that don't end up buying probably wouldn't have anyway and you'll end up gaining loyal customers who like what they've seen/heard.
ErrantX 18y ago
I'd say that was a minority of "pirates". Im betting most (i.e. the general populace of file sharers dl music & such like) just want a free lunch.
- nopassrecover 18y ago
  Probably. I like to think that a lot of people find and ultimately buy stuff they wouldn't have encountered otherwise. Having said that I'm kind of biased by the industry's use of figures. For instance, if I pirate it then buy it my pirating is still measured as a lost sale. If I pirate it twice it counts as two lost sales. If I buy it because I pirated, it does not count as a gained sale from piracy.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    True and that second part is a fair point (and a statistical issue). I dont think it affects the point though. I am certain that the majority of people on here that do pirate will probably have the consience to purchase what they took if they like it a lot. But what about the 100's of thousands of youngsters pirating all that music. I seriously doubt many of them buy even 10% of what they download. And what about the argument whereby if you download something to "try" it and decide it is not quite worth your money does it then get deleted? Again a doubt it... :)
    - quoderat 18y ago
      Most of those hundreds of thousands of youngsters would not be purchasing those products, anyway. Most just don't have the money. As I look at it, most piracy is free publicity. Notice how movie receipts haven't gone down as piracy has ramped up? Sure, CDs have sold less, but that's a bit different beast.
      - ErrantX 18y ago
        > Most of those hundreds of thousands of youngsters would not be purchasing those products, anyway. Most just don't have the money. Is that an excuse to allow them to pirate stuff. How is a culture of "well just pay for what you can afford and take the rest for free" allowable?

seertaak 18y ago

> ... without added value. I think this allegation betokens a certain ignorance of how the music industry works. Firstly, producers, recording engineers and assistants, mixing engineers, and mastering engineers certainly do add value -- where "value" is defined in the narrow artistic sense. These roles are certainly part of the "Phonographic Industry". In addition, just because record labels, promoters, publishers, managers, and agents, etc. don't "create" music doesn't mean they don't add value. When they do their job well -- which, granted, is not always the case -- they allow the artist(s) to focus solely on the music, rather than on tasks which they're not particularly suited to, like organizing international, multi-leg tours, getting ads on billboards, doing distribution deals with the likes of iTunes, Spotify, and the traditional music retailers, plugging artists' music into commercial radio stations. Record labels also act as a quasi insurance policy for artists; by using a portion of the revenue streams from "hit" and established artists, they can finance new acts. There is certainly value to that. Jazz music was, after all, only a niche art form known to very few before Norman Granz's efforts to popularize it. In this sense, while he was certainly no Miles Davis or Bird, his work had an immense impact on generations of listeners. (I'd add that in an age of segregation and prejudice against blacks, he stuck his neck out to sign them, and insisted on equal pay for all colours and genders -- see wikipedia) Again: no value? I find it curious that the tech-savvy world of Hacker News, which should be comfortable with the idea of specialization in modern capitalist economies, seems to pine for a return to a "cottage" music industry, where the musician is to perform all of the afore-mentioned roles himself. Am I alone in thinking this would be a step back, rather than forward? Sadly, in order for this system to work, people need to pay for records (but obviously, they should be much cheaper than in the heady 90s days). I therefore applaud the Swedish courts for upholding the rule of law and holding the facilitators of rampant piracy accountable for their actions -- which have, unquestionably, led to much misery for many low-level, up-and-coming musicians (myself included ;)

nopassrecover 18y ago
Record labels promote and distribute music. New communication methods mean old ways of promotion and distribution no longer work. New ideas like TheSixtyOne.com etc. are great approaches to new means of connecting musicians with music lovers.
- seertaak 18y ago
  > Record labels promote and distribute music. True, but not exhaustive. As I explicitly mention above, they also find (in some sense, act as a filter) and finance new acts. And, in any case, you seemed to have ignored my point that recording engineers, producers, etc. are very much a part of the phonographic industry. Care to explain how "new communication methods" have rendered them obsolete? > New communication methods mean old ways of promotion and distribution no longer work. The millions of drivers in the world who listen to the radio disagree with you. And do you really think that just because the internet exists, people don't register offline advertising anymore? > New ideas like TheSixtyOne.com etc. are great approaches to new means of connecting musicians with music lovers. Thanks for letting me know about that site, it looks really cool!
  - nopassrecover 18y ago
    Fair responses. I guess I'm imagining that artists and recording engineers etc. could connect themselves without giving away the majority of the profits to a third party. I don't know enough about the industry to know if this is possible. Offline advertising still works I'm sure but I guess because of the circles I'm in even "regular" (non-geek) people are willing to use technology to find the music they like. I don't know how hard it is for small artists to sell their stuff on iTunes but like I said sites like TheSixtyOne help but ultimately I think that the role of the broadcaster is becoming diminished (and this is evident in all broadcast industries such as t.v., newspapers, movies, music, gaming and more) as people look for better ways to connect with content creators that don't involve both them and the creators being shortchanged. You are right about radio being popular but this is more a case of being everywhere. I think it's role is being diminished as you see a lot more people walk around with mp3 players etc. listening to the music they want. The point I'm awkwardly making is that the value of traditional distribution is not necessarily so valuable now. To borrow an Australian example, it's like Telstra (the central phone company) trying to punish people back into using them and not competitors after years of being shafted when there was no competition. I'd like to see companies considering initial piracy a marketing cost - the people that don't end up buying probably wouldn't have anyway and you'll end up gaining loyal customers who like what they've seen/heard.

ErrantX 18y ago

I'd say that was a minority of "pirates". Im betting most (i.e. the general populace of file sharers dl music & such like) just want a free lunch.

nopassrecover 18y ago
Probably. I like to think that a lot of people find and ultimately buy stuff they wouldn't have encountered otherwise. Having said that I'm kind of biased by the industry's use of figures. For instance, if I pirate it then buy it my pirating is still measured as a lost sale. If I pirate it twice it counts as two lost sales. If I buy it because I pirated, it does not count as a gained sale from piracy.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  True and that second part is a fair point (and a statistical issue). I dont think it affects the point though. I am certain that the majority of people on here that do pirate will probably have the consience to purchase what they took if they like it a lot. But what about the 100's of thousands of youngsters pirating all that music. I seriously doubt many of them buy even 10% of what they download. And what about the argument whereby if you download something to "try" it and decide it is not quite worth your money does it then get deleted? Again a doubt it... :)
  - quoderat 18y ago
    Most of those hundreds of thousands of youngsters would not be purchasing those products, anyway. Most just don't have the money. As I look at it, most piracy is free publicity. Notice how movie receipts haven't gone down as piracy has ramped up? Sure, CDs have sold less, but that's a bit different beast.
    - ErrantX 18y ago
      > Most of those hundreds of thousands of youngsters would not be purchasing those products, anyway. Most just don't have the money. Is that an excuse to allow them to pirate stuff. How is a culture of "well just pay for what you can afford and take the rest for free" allowable?