Good article on justifying piracy

Good article. Will it cause anyone who freely pirates to stop what they're doing? Doubtful. But it does point out the hypocrisy in just about any argument they give for downloading.

I went back and tried to find it, maybe someone on here saw/remembers it, but when Devin took over Metal Sucks for a day back in the fall, he made a comment in one of his posts about being "OK" with someone pirating his songs. Rather, it wasn't an explicit approval, but he felt that he'd rather someone who never bought his music download an album illegally, decide they liked it, then go to his shows and buy some merch, than never listen to him at all. I thought that was an interesting perspective from an artist who deals with his property being stolen almost daily.
 
I hope it doesn't, either - I didn't take what he read as any sort of justification to go "WHOOO I can download NAO!". Just a different view to come from someone who personally has felt the effects of music piracy by those who probably spout the same lame excuses as those debunked in the article.
 
I went back and tried to find it, maybe someone on here saw/remembers it, but when Devin took over Metal Sucks for a day back in the fall, he made a comment in one of his posts about being "OK" with someone pirating his songs. Rather, it wasn't an explicit approval, but he felt that he'd rather someone who never bought his music download an album illegally, decide they liked it, then go to his shows and buy some merch, than never listen to him at all. I thought that was an interesting perspective from an artist who deals with his property being stolen almost daily.

When he was in Tuska here a couple weeks back, he said something in the lines of "Oh yeah, download all of my stuff; fucking download that shit, I don't care!".
 
I agree with Devin's POV. I'd rather someone illegally download my music and become a fan than nothing.
I remember seeing Pennywise a while ago and they basically said the same thing , "Go home and torrent the shit if you don't have it ! Tell your friends!"
Also it should be noted that Pennywise released their last album for free , and you could pay them if you wanted. I thought that was pretty cool and a good example of the "promotion" theme explored above.
 
first of all.. the article wasn't meant to "justify" piracy.. it was about debunking the justifications pirates use. it was an anti-piracy message. a few that have replied here seem to have not gotten that.

second, those artists a few of you have mentioned, and some that weren't mentioned, are able to do things like that because they've already become famous, and in most cases quite wealthy, from the traditional business model. it won't work worth a shit for new bands.

third, if you decide to let anyone who wants to fuck your girlfriend and eat your food to do so, does that mean i should, or that anyone else should? no, this issue is a decision for each individual artist to make, and it is NOT some kind of "moral" position... it is economic in nature.

those bands that can do this do not need labels... they are already famous from their successful years on labels and don't need them anymore... but MOST artists need and want to have a label behind them.

whether you agree or not, piracy is not "morally" justifiable.. but it's only piracy if the copyright holder doesn't want you to download.... if they copyright holder encourages downloading then no justification is required, because you have an invitation.

but don't assume because a handful of already famous, successful artists can afford to experiment with this model, that it's viable for everyone... and don't assume that this fact in any way creates a legal or moral justification to download the music (or any intellectual property) of others who haven't given their express permission.
 
Just incase I'm within those few. I only posted that video because Russtopher's post. Where he said Devin doesn't care. In other words, it just reminded me of the video. Really it's kinda OT. FWIW, I completely agree with the article. In fact, I'm buying the new Dead When I found Her album (1st one) hopefully tonight, even though I could just listen to it on soundcloud. ;)
 
I agree that the traditional business model made for "bigger" artists, but were not in that timeframe/business model anymore right?

So instead of keeping on looking at the past and how good those times were, and complaining how much "were affected" wouldn't it be better to start thinking about a different business model, thats maybe less effective or profitable then the previous, but which keeps you going anyway.

Other options are to either quit music because you can't do it without those shittons of money, or go down with all the labels who also cling onto a failing business model (in this present time).

Times and business are changing right? not comforming to it doesn't work imo.
You gotta work harder as a beginning band now, but we still have "big" artist.
And there are allways gonna be labels in some way, just different than first.
I think it just takes more talent and effort + creativity now to stand out, which is not a bad thing imo.

But what the hell do i know anyway, just my brainfart about it, and i'm just a idiot from holland hehe :)
 
I agree that the traditional business model made for "bigger" artists, but were not in that timeframe/business model anymore right?

So instead of keeping on looking at the past and how good those times were, and complaining how much "were affected" wouldn't it be better to start thinking about a different business model, thats maybe less effective or profitable then the previous, but which keeps you going anyway.

Other options are to either quit music because you can't do it without those shittons of money, or go down with all the labels who also cling onto a failing business model (in this present time).

Times and business are changing right? not comforming to it doesn't work imo.
sounds like you didn't understand what i said at all, and also just have no grasp on the business whatsoever. so... why don't you check with Sven and see what he thinks about just "giving away" the next Aborted CD. :lol:

no.. the traditional model is not "for older successful artists".. no, they are the ones that can do without it (though they needed it to get to their current positions), and they are the ONLY ones that can live without it... every other band signs to labels for a reason: because they WANT to, and because they NEED to... and buying their music legally is not a matter of "conforming" to a "voluntary" system... it's the law, and the ONLY thing that allows for there to be money to properly produce, record, mix, manufacture, market, distribute, and promote new band's music.

what i said in my post was that the "new model"... which doesn't exist except for the few successful bands that can afford to go it alone... is only viable for established acts with big money and tons of fans already, and that the "old model" (aka, the CURRENT model for just about everyone else) is the ONLY path that's proven so far to get artists to the point of being able to do what bands like NIN and Radiohead have experimented with.

and very few to none of the newer acts will ever make it to the point of having enough fame and working capitol to pull off "going it alone", unless people start buying their CDs legally, whether hard-copy or download. period.

and i wish i had a Tenner for each fuck that i've known who argued in favor of piracy while they were unsigned, and then changed their minds faster than Lady Gaga changes stage-clothes once they got signed. suddenly, they hate piracy and think it's terrible.. lol... right about the time they find out that they'll be dropped if they don't get "x" amount of sales and that tour revenues do NOT pay for album budgets.

this new, young, and yes... entitled... generation want to behave as though there's no such thing as intellectual property, and therefore they can do whatever they want with anything they can grab online... i think a rude awakening is coming... maybe not this year, maybe not next... but it's coming.
 
ooohhhh noooo bpcrsjppter15, you got me!!! i take back everything i said!. except that no i don't, because people cheat on contracts... or take advantage of the uninterested. uninterested in their own careers that is. this is why, in ANY business agreement you EVER make, you get a lawyer, and you stay on top of it. this is what successful artists do....

do you think if you make a business partnership with someone for a business, say, that services computers... do you think that there's no chance at all that if you ignore the business and the books.. and just service computers.. that you won't be taken advantage of by your partner?? no, there's a very GOOD chance you will be.

sorry Teddy, pointing out that there's bad eggs in an idustry, does NOT make it ok to steal from it.... and it certainly doesn't help the band get to make more records when you do (and neither does buying a t-shirt at their shows).
 
The problem using the "labels are scumbags" idea as a moral argument (b/c it certainly isn't a legal one) is it only really holds water if you are sending money directly to the artists and song writers who's music you download. After all, the issue is the abusive labels stealing from the artists right? So you wouldn't want to inadvertently punish them too would you?
The whole thing unravels from there, b/c of course you would need specific knowledge of a labels abuses against an artist to be able to make that moral judgment.
In the end it's just another rationalization b/c you just don't want to pay for stuff.
I've always said that if you are going to break the law then go ahead, but own the reality of what you're doing. Don't pretend it's something else.

The Devin Townsend quote really just illustrates how most artists feel: If there is a positive that comes from this situation it's exposure....and that's better than nothing. But make no mistake, nearly everyone would trade that exposure in for the 50% more albums they'd be selling under the old model.
 
Goddamnit, lost my whole story, thanksto UM logging me out.
Well fuck it...
Different opinions here, and way to go on twisting my words man, but whatever, i don't even want a discussion like this again anyway.
Seemed pointless all last times anyway, we'll maybe talk about in person once with a soothing beer ;)

I don't think your rude awakening is coming anyway, and i think its not gonna get you any more money in the meantime waiting for it.
 
I think James hit the nail on the head when he said "entitled" - we're seeing a generation of music fans who've all grown up with cable modems, Napster, Kazaa, etc. and feel like since it's technically out there, they should be ALLOWED to download anything they want for free.

Candy bars are just sitting on the shelf next to the door of a store, but you just aren't ALLOWED to take those. Some people either don't get, or refuse to get, the simple fact that a song and that candy bar are the same - things that don't belong to them UNLESS THEY PAY FOR IT.

I can't speak at length about the industry as I've never been a part of it, other than as a member of indie bands. Nearly everything I've released was for free, just for fun, but I will say that when I actually did charge for one release, as a way to raise funds for a charity, I was livid when I saw "friends and fans" freely offering the album online. They may have bought a physical CD (or iTunes download) but that bought them the right to listen to the songs when they wanted, NOT give them away to anyone and everyone they felt like.
 
James,

Its really not worth hashing out over and over again. They just don't get how the biz works. How are these bands giving away their music supposed to make money to produce, record, distribute, and ultimately live on making music if they just give everything away? What a lot of you unsigned guys fail to realize is there is a reason record labels exist, and its not to fuck over bands. It to get music out to the masses!

Let look at it like this:

You have a band, and you record a CD. Lets say the CD is bangin and the production is of high quality cause 1 guy in the band actually knew WTF he was doing, just to take that part of it out of the equation. Now how do you plan on getting your music to the masses? Myspace? iTunes? CdBaby? Amazon? Your own website?

iTunes = Cost
CdBaby = Cost
Amazon = Cost

Ok so you have your Mp3s on Website / Myspace for free, now how do people find out about it? Myspace? Facebook?

Ok so you managed to get 1000 friends on MySpace that actually like your stuff and arent there just to promote their own shit in your comments section, and now you have 1000 people listening to your tunes. Lets say for shits and giggles those 1000 tell 4 of their friends. So you have 4000 fans all downloading your music for free. So you have a decent sized fan base right?

So now you build a website to host your music so all these 4000 fans can download your CD. Well 4000 downloads times bandwidth cost for your website at lets say 4mb per MP3 so that's 10 songs at 4MB = 400MB times 40000 so that's 1.5 terabytes of bandwidth that's not free, at an average going rate of $1.00 per gig that's $15,000 and you still haven't made any money yet cause you are giving your CD away for free.

So now lets talk how you can recoup your cost:

Merchandise = $ out of pocket
Touring = $ out of pocket

So you decide touring is the better route to go cause T-shirts and "swag" are expensive. All the money for your "tour" came out of your own pocket:
Rental truck / uhaul
Gas
Hotel
Food
Equipment Maintenance

That's about $700 - 1000 a day give or take a few hundred, so what promoter is going to pay you that kind of money? Who's going to buy your tickets at $20 a pop and have 500 at every show to cover the cost? Lets say you guys get 100 people at every show, that's $200 plus some merch so we will say $400 and that's being extremely generous, cause after all you are giving your CD away for free, so no one is going to buy any at the show.

but you dont have merch, and the promoter is paying you based on ticket sales, so yo umade $200 for the day and your rental costs / equipment / travel expenses are $700 so thats $500 in the hole you go every show.

10 shows you lost $500 each on thats $5000 it cost you to tour and make absolutely no money. So you go back home get a day job and say FUCK THIS.

FYI these figures are being EXTREMELY generous for an unknown & unsigned band.

Oh and by the way ... 90% of the promoters out there wont touch an unsigned band that not backed by a label of some sort.
 
You added an extra zero to the file size, 4 x 10 = 40mb, 40 x 4000 = 160gb and theres shit all way you're going to spend 15k on that.
 
Either way its still coming out of your pocket ... and we didn't even factor in the cost of building a website ...lol

Wait hold on .....

4x10 = 400
400 x 4000 = 1600000mb
1600000 / 1024 = 1562.5 gigs

So thats $1562.50 out of pocket ok so its not 15k but its $1500 ...lol

So I was right .....lol

Editited cause my math was still right ...lol