Piracy

rogerthat wrote: Mike, the legal principle of what you say cannot be questioned but you don't appreciate what would happen, especially given how scattered the music scene is today and how many bands and artists there are, if everybody just moved on to another artist. That would only disadvantage smaller bands even more.  This is basically what I asked in my earlier post: do labels and artist want to talk about the legalities or are they interested in addressing the larger issue?  Maybe the time is ripe to admit that in the present scenario, smaller bands can only post their music on myspace and perform live in the hope of gradually building more mileage and cannot hope to subsist only on album sales?

Many smaller bands have already adopted the new business model and operate without record labels, some of those struggle to sell direct while others give their albums away. Whether they do this through choice or through lack of choice is open to debate. Certainly for many of these smaller bands there is no other choice available to them but to make their stuff available for free because that the reality of the internet age - if they don't do it themselves legally someone out there will do it for them illegally. It is better for them to be in control of how they operate on a business level than have that taken away from them, or forced upon them by some unknown who does not have their best interest in mind. For these bands there is no larger issue to address - they are never going to sell enough CDs and downloads to recover the cost of producing them, and they accept that they will remain "a smaller band".

This might be the biggest post ever.

Dean wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: When you think about it, buying a CD second hand is just as bad, if not worse, than dowloading illegaly. After all, if you buy second hand, you get the full-quality album, booklet etcetera. ... except that someone's already paid for it the first time around. There's a guaranteed sale behind the item, whereas wanton internet theft occurs dozens, hundreds and even thousands of times. The point is, when you buy a second hand album, exactly £0 goes to the artist. I can sort of see your logic, but it doesn't really make much sense. It's not as if artists want you to sell it on. It doesn't do them any good (well, exept in the form of advertising, but that is achived during file-sharing as well). Somebody's already paid for a downloading album the first time round - sure, it goes to more people, so I guess you could say it's worse, but if you imagine around 1/4 (just a random guess) of albums 10 years old have been sold on again, that's an artist losing 25% income! And there's no "but he might still buy it" about that. Several people have tried to explain this before and obviously failed as you have managed to use a fallacy of secondhand resales as justification to convince yourself that illegal downloading is perfectly acceptable to you.   You buy a CD - the tax man gets their cut of the sale, the record store gets their cut, the distributor gets their cut, the record label gets their cut, the artist gets their cut and the songwriters get their cut and everything is good with the world.    The retail sequence involved is the record label sells it to the distributor, who sells it to the record store, who sells it to you. In theory the artist and songwriters get paid at stage one of this process - they get paid by the record label on the CDs they sell, they do not get paid again for the CDs the distributor sells or again for the CDs the record store sells to the consumer - they do not get paid three times just because the CD is sold three times between manufacturer and consumer - for every CD manufactured and sold they get paid once, and only once.   I'm fully aware that 55,000 downloads is not 55,000 lost sales - the actual maths is irrelevant - you could argue that it matters not whether it is 55,000 copies, 1 copy or none - whichever way you look at it the artist does not get paid so it makes no difference how many copies are made. If he does not give specific permission then every copy is illegal and no amount of spurious statistics and studies can change that, even if they do show that some unknown and unprovable percentage of those downloads do get converted into actual purchase. If the artist wants to give his work away for free then it is his choice not yours, if he wants people to share it then it is his choice not yours. He is perfectly justified in claiming that those 55,000 copies are potentially 55,000 lost sales because 55,000 people are enjoying the benefits of his labour without receiving any compensation. If some made-up number of those do eventually buy that still does not justifiy illegal downloading - some other made-up fraction of those would have bought anyway even without downloading.

Well...

First off, I'm not an idiot. I realise it's bad for the artist. I reaslise (now) that downloading is worse. I'm just drawing a loose parallel. Also, how can we guruantee that the person selling the second-hand CD will buy a new CD? Not at all. Nevermind a new CD of the same artists. I don't buy it personally. I don't see how that is any good for the artist. I have read it. I'm just going to address some issues.

Dean wrote: Suppose you didn't sell that CD but uploaded or torrent-ed that perfectly legal "fair use" digital copy - once you do that it all the copies become illegal - the multitude of downloads that result from that are all illegal, they are not "fair use" personal copies any more and the artist does not get paid a penny for any of them. That some of those downloaders may or may not go out and buy a legal version is completely irrelevant.

No, my point was that SOMEONE has bought that CD at some point - unless they got it for free off of the artists are something.

Dean wrote: Now suppose you bought that CD and made a digital copy for your personal use (transfer to an iPlod for example) - that's perfectly legal in most countries (a bit grey in the UK - technically you still need the copyright owner's permission to make a "fair use" copy). Once you sell the original CD the digital copy becomes illegal - you can no longer claim fair use for that copy since you no longer own the original CD. Legally you should delete the copy when you resell the CD - legally and morally, if you still want a digital "copy", you should go and buy a download.

How many people do you really think consider this?

Dean wrote: The central point of your (specious) argument is that if you hadn't sold that CD then the secondhand buyer would have had to go to a record store and buy a brand new CD - so the artist would have been paid twice. The difference there is not only have they now sold two CDs, but two owners are now enjoying listening to them instead of there being only one CD and one owner. However, you sold your CD, you cannot listen to it ever again. This is the same as selling a used Ford Mondeo - once you've sold it you can't use it to drive to work any more, there is only one car and only one owner (and the Ford Motor Company doesn't receive a cheque in the post from the resale either).

But that's besides the point. If they're selling it, they've probably already listened to it as much as they want. It seems very unlikely to me that he's going to sell it then buy another copy later. He's either sick of it, or is keeping a digital copy anyways.

Dean wrote: Now you say the Artist loses out because he didn't get his cut of the resale. Well, no. He's already been paid for the sale of that particular CD and he cannot get paid again for it. There is only one CD and only one owner and it isn't you, even though it was your money that technically paid the artist. In that respect you are no different to a retail store or a distribution company, you're just one that loses money on every transaction.

But now the CD has been listened to two times, as opposed to once.

Dean wrote: Several people have tried to explain this before and obviously failed as you have managed to use a fallacy of secondhand resales as justification to convince yourself that illegal downloading is perfectly acceptable to you.

Downloading has to be either completely evil or perfectly fine. I don't think so. I think it's a pretty grey area. Obviously, it's bad for the artists. There's no getting around it's consequences. It's bad for the record company, in the first hand. All I'm trying to suggest is that it's not as bad for artists as people seem to think. They get advertising. Fans. Loads of stuff. Perhaps those pirates who are 10x more likely to buy are the only true fans. Maybe they wouldn't have become fans if it weren't for file-sharing. We'll never know - the only way to find out would be to create an alternate universe where everything was exactly the same except file-sharing doesn't exist.

Obviously, second-hand selling isn't as bad. I just don't think it's for the reasons you've used. It's just because it happens only once or twice with each CD, and is probably less likely to happen with entire discographies.

Dean wrote: I'm fully aware that 55,000 downloads is not 55,000 lost sales - the actual maths is irrelevant - you could argue that it matters not whether it is 55,000 copies, 1 copy or none - whichever way you look at it the artist does not get paid so it makes no difference how many copies are made. If he does not give specific permission then every copy is illegal and no amount of spurious statistics and studies can change that, even if they do show that some unknown and unprovable percentage of those downloads do get converted into actual purchase. If the artist wants to give his work away for free then it is his choice not yours, if he wants people to share it then it is his choice not yours. He is perfectly justified in claiming that those 55,000 copies are potentially 55,000 lost sales because 55,000 people are enjoying the benefits of his labour without receiving any compensation. If some made-up number of those do eventually buy that still does not justifiy illegal downloading - some other made-up fraction of those would have bought anyway even without downloading.

The point is NOT the maths. I just straight up made up those numbers. The point is, that there has NEVER, EVER been an amount of downloaded albums where 100% of downloads where lost purchases. It's very silly to suggest that.

The point is, a lot of those people probably  downloaded it just because it's free. They wouldn't have bought in otherwise. Obviously, it's still illegal. I'm not arguing about what is and what is not illegal. That's pretty clear. My other point is that the artist might actually be getting more sales for illegal downloading. There is no way to prove that illegal downloading is the cause of drops in sales. There are so many other variables. It's impossible to say. Without illegal downloading, the sales of records might have decreased even more due to less advertising. I would say certainly on some bands/genres (mostly underground ones).

My absolute final point is this. This is a small point. Yes, it is artist's choice if they want to give away their albums for free. BUT it's not as cut-and-dry as that. Like I said before, Devin has been heard saying he'd rather people download his music that never listen to it.

Devin Townsend wrote: It's just like...I make music, I've made a lot of music in the past 3 years and I'm going to do it all because that's what I do and you know I'm not insisting anybody buy it, or even sell it. I mean if you want it you can always download it. If you want me to tour, it would be great if you could buy something but again, I'm not doing this to make a point, I'm doing this just because it's what I do.

So why doesn't he put it up for free? Well, isn't is obvious? Because then less people would buy it. Since it's up for free and there's absolutely no perceived morale consequence he'll get less sales. Clearly, it's still wrong to download his works when you can afford it, but it's cases like this which show it's not as black and white as a lot of people seem to think.

I don't want this to be any more than a debate. I want to point out that it's very clear that downloading illegaly is wrong. I'm sorry if I'm coming across like a bit of an arse, but it's a very interesting debate in my opinion.

Nathaniel607 wrote: So why doesn't he put it up for free? Well, isn't is obvious? Because then less people would buy it. Since it's up for free and there's absolutely no perceived morale consequence he'll get less sales. Clearly, it's still wrong to download his works when you can afford it, but it's cases like this which show it's not as black and white as a lot of people seem to think.

Well said. Unfortunately, this is a contentious topic on this website and most people will insist on seeing this in black and white.  Just as I have been alleged here to be demanding music for free when I finally get time to play my four new acquisitions. Labels should care more about people who really want to purchase music and make it easier for them to acquire it because the masses who bought albums by the millions in the 80s have found new toys with play with and will never come back in quite the same numbers for a long time.  And it's not as if I am not aware of the problems they would face in trying to make it more accessible for purchase; it is easier said than done. But there is no other solution I can think of. 


Edited by rogerthat - October 24 2010 at 06:13

Mr ProgFreak wrote: My suggestion for a small band would be to record their music on their own, without any big company, and to make it available on last.fm for free. If the music is good, that will give it a lot of exposure, and they even might make a few bucks that way (artists get compensated as people listen to free last.fm tracks). In any case, today it's illusory for a small band to make a living selling albums - even if those interested in the music did pay for the CDs or downloads. So artists might as well consider the possibility of having day jobs, at least in the beginning, and make their music available for free. There's other options, too - for example they can make it available at a bargain (e.g. less than $5 for the whole album as mp3), or - and I think this is a really good idea - ask for donations on their website and annouce that by donating fans make it more likely that the band will continue to exist and create more music. In short: I agree that it's not possible for small bands to subsist only on album sales, and I think that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it's bad for bands who try to do that and fail, but IMO that's because the business model is flawed - rather than engaging in futile attempts to make fans support it, trying to change it is a much better idea.

I am not very clear about the details, but didn't Marillion successfully appeal to the fans for support in the mid 90s? There are underground bands here that make a decent living off live shows, go about their day jobs/college and don't even contemplate recording and releasing an album for sale.  So, yes, the business model is flawed.  One of my very good friends is a prog rock/metal fan and very knowledgable about music and is not going to easily find musicians to perform with him for shows in India.   He has a job as a guitar/vocal instructor and is quite happy last time we touched base.  Without music consistently capturing the imagination of a huge fanbase on the scale it used to in the 80s, the old model is not viable.


Edited by rogerthat - October 24 2010 at 06:28

Nathaniel607 wrote: This might be the biggest post ever. Dean wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: Nathaniel607 wrote: When you think about it, buying a CD second hand is just as bad, if not worse, than dowloading illegaly. After all, if you buy second hand, you get the full-quality album, booklet etcetera. ... except that someone's already paid for it the first time around. There's a guaranteed sale behind the item, whereas wanton internet theft occurs dozens, hundreds and even thousands of times. The point is, when you buy a second hand album, exactly £0 goes to the artist. I can sort of see your logic, but it doesn't really make much sense. It's not as if artists want you to sell it on. It doesn't do them any good (well, exept in the form of advertising, but that is achived during file-sharing as well). Somebody's already paid for a downloading album the first time round - sure, it goes to more people, so I guess you could say it's worse, but if you imagine around 1/4 (just a random guess) of albums 10 years old have been sold on again, that's an artist losing 25% income! And there's no "but he might still buy it" about that. Several people have tried to explain this before and obviously failed as you have managed to use a fallacy of secondhand resales as justification to convince yourself that illegal downloading is perfectly acceptable to you.   You buy a CD - the tax man gets their cut of the sale, the record store gets their cut, the distributor gets their cut, the record label gets their cut, the artist gets their cut and the songwriters get their cut and everything is good with the world.    The retail sequence involved is the record label sells it to the distributor, who sells it to the record store, who sells it to you. In theory the artist and songwriters get paid at stage one of this process - they get paid by the record label on the CDs they sell, they do not get paid again for the CDs the distributor sells or again for the CDs the record store sells to the consumer - they do not get paid three times just because the CD is sold three times between manufacturer and consumer - for every CD manufactured and sold they get paid once, and only once.   I'm fully aware that 55,000 downloads is not 55,000 lost sales - the actual maths is irrelevant - you could argue that it matters not whether it is 55,000 copies, 1 copy or none - whichever way you look at it the artist does not get paid so it makes no difference how many copies are made. If he does not give specific permission then every copy is illegal and no amount of spurious statistics and studies can change that, even if they do show that some unknown and unprovable percentage of those downloads do get converted into actual purchase. If the artist wants to give his work away for free then it is his choice not yours, if he wants people to share it then it is his choice not yours. He is perfectly justified in claiming that those 55,000 copies are potentially 55,000 lost sales because 55,000 people are enjoying the benefits of his labour without receiving any compensation. If some made-up number of those do eventually buy that still does not justifiy illegal downloading - some other made-up fraction of those would have bought anyway even without downloading. Well... First off, I'm not an idiot. I realise it's bad for the artist. I reaslise (now) that downloading is worse. I'm just drawing a loose parallel. Also, how can we guruantee that the person selling the second-hand CD will buy a new CD? Not at all. Nevermind a new CD of the same artists. I don't buy it personally. I don't see how that is any good for the artist. I have read it. I'm just going to address some issues. Dean wrote: Suppose you didn't sell that CD but uploaded or torrent-ed that perfectly legal "fair use" digital copy - once you do that it all the copies become illegal - the multitude of downloads that result from that are all illegal, they are not "fair use" personal copies any more and the artist does not get paid a penny for any of them. That some of those downloaders may or may not go out and buy a legal version is completely irrelevant. No, my point was that SOMEONE has bought that CD at some point - unless they got it for free off of the artists are something. Dean wrote: Now suppose you bought that CD and made a digital copy for your personal use (transfer to an iPlod for example) - that's perfectly legal in most countries (a bit grey in the UK - technically you still need the copyright owner's permission to make a "fair use" copy). Once you sell the original CD the digital copy becomes illegal - you can no longer claim fair use for that copy since you no longer own the original CD. Legally you should delete the copy when you resell the CD - legally and morally, if you still want a digital "copy", you should go and buy a download. How many people do you really think consider this? Dean wrote: The central point of your (specious) argument is that if you hadn't sold that CD then the secondhand buyer would have had to go to a record store and buy a brand new CD - so the artist would have been paid twice. The difference there is not only have they now sold two CDs, but two owners are now enjoying listening to them instead of there being only one CD and one owner. However, you sold your CD, you cannot listen to it ever again. This is the same as selling a used Ford Mondeo - once you've sold it you can't use it to drive to work any more, there is only one car and only one owner (and the Ford Motor Company doesn't receive a cheque in the post from the resale either). But that's besides the point. If they're selling it, they've probably already listened to it as much as they want. It seems very unlikely to me that he's going to sell it then buy another copy later. He's either sick of it, or is keeping a digital copy anyways. Dean wrote: Now you say the Artist loses out because he didn't get his cut of the resale. Well, no. He's already been paid for the sale of that particular CD and he cannot get paid again for it. There is only one CD and only one owner and it isn't you, even though it was your money that technically paid the artist. In that respect you are no different to a retail store or a distribution company, you're just one that loses money on every transaction. But now the CD has been listened to two times, as opposed to once. Dean wrote: Several people have tried to explain this before and obviously failed as you have managed to use a fallacy of secondhand resales as justification to convince yourself that illegal downloading is perfectly acceptable to you. Downloading has to be either completely evil or perfectly fine. I don't think so. I think it's a pretty grey area. Obviously, it's bad for the artists. There's no getting around it's consequences. It's bad for the record company, in the first hand. All I'm trying to suggest is that it's not as bad for artists as people seem to think. They get advertising. Fans. Loads of stuff. Perhaps those pirates who are 10x more likely to buy are the only true fans. Maybe they wouldn't have become fans if it weren't for file-sharing. We'll never know - the only way to find out would be to create an alternate universe where everything was exactly the same except file-sharing doesn't exist. Obviously, second-hand selling isn't as bad. I just don't think it's for the reasons you've used. It's just because it happens only once or twice with each CD, and is probably less likely to happen with entire discographies. Dean wrote: I'm fully aware that 55,000 downloads is not 55,000 lost sales - the actual maths is irrelevant - you could argue that it matters not whether it is 55,000 copies, 1 copy or none - whichever way you look at it the artist does not get paid so it makes no difference how many copies are made. If he does not give specific permission then every copy is illegal and no amount of spurious statistics and studies can change that, even if they do show that some unknown and unprovable percentage of those downloads do get converted into actual purchase. If the artist wants to give his work away for free then it is his choice not yours, if he wants people to share it then it is his choice not yours. He is perfectly justified in claiming that those 55,000 copies are potentially 55,000 lost sales because 55,000 people are enjoying the benefits of his labour without receiving any compensation. If some made-up number of those do eventually buy that still does not justifiy illegal downloading - some other made-up fraction of those would have bought anyway even without downloading. The point is NOT the maths. I just straight up made up those numbers. The point is, that there has NEVER, EVER been an amount of downloaded albums where 100% of downloads where lost purchases. It's very silly to suggest that. The point is, a lot of those people probably  downloaded it just because it's free. They wouldn't have bought in otherwise. Obviously, it's still illegal. I'm not arguing about what is and what is not illegal. That's pretty clear. My other point is that the artist might actually be getting more sales for illegal downloading. There is no way to prove that illegal downloading is the cause of drops in sales. There are so many other variables. It's impossible to say. Without illegal downloading, the sales of records might have decreased even more due to less advertising. I would say certainly on some bands/genres (mostly underground ones). My absolute final point is this. This is a small point. Yes, it is artist's choice if they want to give away their albums for free. BUT it's not as cut-and-dry as that. Like I said before, Devin has been heard saying he'd rather people download his music that never listen to it. Devin Townsend wrote: It's just like...I make music, I've made a lot of music in the past 3 years and I'm going to do it all because that's what I do and you know I'm not insisting anybody buy it, or even sell it. I mean if you want it you can always download it. If you want me to tour, it would be great if you could buy something but again, I'm not doing this to make a point, I'm doing this just because it's what I do. So why doesn't he put it up for free? Well, isn't is obvious? Because then less people would buy it. Since it's up for free and there's absolutely no perceived morale consequence he'll get less sales. Clearly, it's still wrong to download his works when you can afford it, but it's cases like this which show it's not as black and white as a lot of people seem to think. I don't want this to be any more than a debate. I want to point out that it's very clear that downloading illegaly is wrong. I'm sorry if I'm coming across like a bit of an arse, but it's a very interesting debate in my opinion.

rogerthat wrote: I am not very clear about the details, but didn't Marillion successfully appeal to the fans for support in the mid 90s? There are underground bands here that make a decent living off live shows, go about their day jobs/college and don't even contemplate recording and releasing an album for sale.  So, yes, the business model is flawed.  One of my very good friends is a prog rock/metal fan and very knowledgable about music and is not going to easily find musicians to perform with him for shows in India.   He has a job as a guitar/vocal instructor and is quite happy last time we touched base.  Without music consistently capturing the imagination of a huge fanbase on the scale it used to in the 80s, the old model is not viable.

I guess that the key is to look at music as art, and consider the money you can potentially make from selling your works of art as a bonus. But again, it's the artist who should make that decision - if he decides to consider his works as commodities with price tags, then we should, too - and not try to circumvent the payment. Instead of doing that we should try to support the artists who emphasize the art over the business.

Nathaniel607 wrote: AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:   great post!     i need to know   Where did Devin Townsend post on progarchives???   thread??? I want to see that! He didn't post on Progarchives, I was just quoting him. Sorry for the confusion! On a lot of forums, it'll just say the persons name in the quote-box. It was actually from an interview with Sputnikmusic. Link: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/feature.php?id=5741

Thanks for clearing that up

Dean wrote: Sorry? Don't recall implying you were an idiot - quite the reverse - you are using fairly reasonable argument to justify your position, but I just think it is flawed that's all.   I never claimed that the seller of the CD would buy another CD - he is free to use the cash to buy whatever he likes - toothpaste, food, a pair of socks. The artist sold a CD, he got paid for it - it doesn't matter how many consecutive owners it has after that - what it doesn't have is two or more simultaneous owners.    I never said secondhand sales were good for the artist, they are neither good nor bad.

But surely, it follows that it's bad. Imagine if they somehow completely outlawed second-hand selling of CDs (obviously this is impossible - just a theoretical situation). People who would normally have bought the CD second hand would now have to buy it first hand - which would definitely mean more money for the artist, right? I can't see how second hand selling has any positive side-effects not equivalent to those caused by illegal downloaded (albeit on a far more inflated level with downloading, which means it is worse).

Dean wrote: Most albums are available for illegal download long before the go on sale to the public. How they get there is immaterial, but the one thing that implies is: no one paid for that "seed" copy.   Other than that I fail to see what point you have made - just because 55,000 downloads resulted from one legitimate purchase doesn't validate any of the downloads.

Yes, that's a good point - a lot of album leak. I know it doesn't really matter since that one legitimate purchase would go to the 55,000 downloads. I was just again equating it to second hand selling. But what you've just said is the main difference I see between second hand sales and downloading illegaly - whereas second hand CDs go between 2-10 different owners, 1 download might go to 55,000.

 

Dean wrote: Never said they'd buy another copy - seems like a dumb proposition to me - I see where you are coming from here, but you have wandered down the wrong track completely.

But to me, that seems like the entire crux of your argument - the belief that the second-hand seller will now be forced to go out and buy another copy, thus earning the artist more money.

Dean wrote: Eh? I really don't get that comment: They cannot listen to it simultaneously unless they are in the same room at the same time because there is only one CD. Once the seller sells the CD he can no longer listen to it whenever he wants. I play my CDs many times - I've listened to most of them more than once. Three people live in my house - I don't buy three copies just so we can listen to it together. The sale of a CD does not restrict or limit the number of times it can be played or the number of people who can listen to it.

• I know, but both have experienced listening to it, and surely, that's worth something. It's like if someone saw a film once, they are probably less likely to want to see it again - they've both experienced the album.
• Yup. But he might not want to.
• Well, yeah, they could have listened to it 20 times each.

Are you sure it doesn't? I would of though it would work like movies. Technically, you aren't really allowed to lend people movies, am I right? So it would be illegal if you went around lending everyone you knew the CD to listen to it. This is kind of besides the point to be honest though.

Dean wrote: I think it is the artists choice whether they use free downloads to advertise an album or not. No one should be making that decision arbitarily on behalf of the artist - let them decide how good or how bad it is for them.

Like I said before - they don't really. An artist coming out and allowing people to download his work for free has a completely different effect to them doing it anyways. There is simply no way to repicate it legally.

Dean wrote: No one has suggested that so no one is being silly about it. The bottom line is 55,000 people now possess a copy of the album that they didn't pay for - if downloading didn't exist they would have to buy a copy if they wanted to possess it.   The notion that those 55,000 people wouldn't have bought the album is a specious argument.

But it's not all about the bottom line. There's more too it. I'm not going to explain it more because I'd just be repeating myself to be honest.

Yes, I know it would just be a certain amount of those 55,000 that wouldn't have bought it. I'm interested if there are any studies suggesting what percentage of illegal downloaders would have bough it. But it is an important point. Like I said, you simply cannot prove the album would have sold less were it not for illegal downloading. I can't prove the opposite.

Dean wrote: I think it is the artists choice whether they use free downloads to advertise an album or not. No one should be making that decision arbitarily on behalf of the artist - let them decide how good or how bad it is for them.

Like I said before - people downloading illegaly =/= artist allowing people to download the album legally.

Dean wrote: And my point is that the illegal downloaders have no right to dictate to the artist how he "markets" his album. You cannot produce hard numbers to back up this claim either - it is a guess, and an unsubstantiated one at that.

I addressed that it's just a guess. There is no way to show either way.

Dean wrote: However, reading the full transcript of what Townsend said in the context he said it, it is not carte blanche for anyone to go and download his entire discography. I think you have interpretted that quote how you want to interpret it.   But if that is what he really means then that is Townsend's choice and his opinion - you cannot take that and apply it to every artist. Unless you go and get a similar statement from every artist who has ever been illegally downloaded you cannot make any point using Townsend's quote. But as I said, read it again - it's not what he means, he does not say that people should illegally download it.

I don't think I've interpreted it wrong. Obviously, he doesn't want you to download his entire discography... he'd rather you didn't. That's kinda of the point. It's the difference between saying "I don't mind that much" and "LOOK! They're all free!". But yeah, Devin isn't really the point - even if I have intepreted him wrong, there must be another artist out their with a similar opinion.

But yeah, your second part is entirely true. This cannot be applied to anyone else. I think it just shows why some artist might not want to put their discographies for free download, but might not feel that bad about other people downloading it for free. Obviously, that's all just guesswork really.

In the end, you are right really with your points. Illegal downloading is wrong and no one should do it. I just think it might not be as awful for the industry as people believe, is all.

I understand most of what you say, and you've made a lot of good points, but it just seems as if you are seeing it as it looks on the surface, and I think there is more depth and intricacies to it than you seem to think.

rogerthat wrote: Dean wrote:   Let the bands decide for themselves how they distribute their music - they created it and they own it so allow them to control it. Pirates forcing their idealism on any band is no different to a big-business record label taking control of their music; downloader's dictating to these bands how they distribute their music is no different to a record label dictating what kind of music a band should produce. If you want to support the smaller artists, then support them. If you want something for free, then seek out those artists who permit free downloads of their music. I am sorry but I only expressed my views on the subject and I am not forcing any brand of idealism on anyone, I am only recognizing harsh realities. In the present situation, bands are not going to have an easy time commercially making music and if indeed as you say, they are already living with it, what are we talking about anyway?  The rule of law is very clear anyway and there's nothing to comment on it.  And I have also not insinuated anywhere in these posts that I demand stuff for free, I have only stated that the distribution model is awful and albums are never available easily in stores.  That at least is the situation I face, I am happy for the sake of those who don't.

less albums are being sold obviously but the problem is the people that are doing all the complaining as somebody has already mentioned are big bands like Metallica who earned and still earn plenty from album sales but happen to have lost maybe 20% of their vast record sales and to a band like this it has no effect.