File sharing and is Lilly Allen right?

Just reading with interest the BBC website and our governments latest plan to allow internet companies to shutdown access for people they believe are persistantly file sharing illegal material.

I have read further into this to find that Lilly Allen has started a blog with a few other artists basically backing this approach as they claim it is killing the music industry.

Now while I understand her concerns I do not agree with her and think that greedy record companies have had it their own way for too long. They decided to bury their heads in the sand when MP3's came along and buried their heads again when broadband became the norm. They have from then on basically lied and treid to scaremonger the gorvernment into trying to stop this because they cant be arsed to recongier there cosy business plans.


The Facts as I see them:

1. A downloaded file is not a lost sale: This is how they play it to the gorverment but this is absolute rubbish. I have a small music collection and most of it is from old CD's I have, that I have converted to MP3. I have also downloaded tracks for "evaluation" but if I had had to pay for my evaluation I wouldnt have necessarily have bought it. I would go on to say that through this method my album purchases through download have actually increased as it has introduced me to a wider selection of music.

2. It kills the music industry: Wheres the evidence ? just because the traditional record companies are not doing well doesnt mean new music isnt alive and well. From my own perspective I think we have a wealth of new interesting bands coming through, some will make it some won't but that has always been the case.

3. Sales are down: Again where is the the proof against normal trends. I do not trust any figures from the record companies after I found that back in the late nineties early naughties they were counting every blank CD sold as a lost album sale. Apple seem quite happy with i-tunes!


just my two pennies worth.

[Stu]

Here, here

The limited amount I download I would not have bought anyway - OK so probably not the best supporting argument. But I just don't agree with the argument that huge illegal downloads equate to huge lost sales. Maybe it's not fair that someone has a vast catalogue on their computer that they haven't paid for (games, films, software or music) but I don't agree that equals loss to the creator/owner.


I know I'm going to get my knuckles rapped by Luke again

[tigersaw]

I bought the same music on vinyl, cassette then CD. The music companies took a huge chunk of my available spend in my youth. Now they cant fleece everone quite so much they are crying foul play, arguing that downloading is killing new talent discovery. I think the opposite, the internet gives new talent opportunity for exposure without their greedy intervention.

[anna]

It´s interesting that artists are jumping on this bandwagon, because they make very little from records, CD´s it is the record labels and companies that generate that income. Artists generate their own income mainly from tours and live performances.

To state that file sharing is killing the music industry is a little over the top. It is however, making music available to a larger audience.

Sandi Thom I think sums this up very nicely with her release of "I wish I was a punkrocker" a fantastic talent that without internet would have perhaps not got very far.

There is an argument for record label control of the industry. In recent years where more musical post production tools are available on the net, and then circulation of these available via youtube, and myspacem, what you do get is an oversaturated market of absoulte rubbish.

I would agree however, that record labels are not moving quick enough, with the technological advances. They are resting on their laurels complaining that things aren´t fair when they simply havent been keeping up with the reasearch and development side of their business´s.

In saying all of this I would say however that I don´t condone not paying for the artists work. I do think however, that the way it is being handled is a little underhand.

This has been going on for years...Metallica vs Napster anyone?

I think a whole generation is being bought up almost expecting music to be free, which it obviously shouldn't be unless by choice of the artist. After all, would you go to work then be told you aren't getting paid? Of course not.

I think that downloading DOES have an impact on music sales - how can it not?
The magnitude of that impact will obviously be played up by the record companies / RIAA / etc but I think it is an issue.

In the past when Napster, then Kazaa came on the scene I downloaded a few albums that I would probably have bought (but then didn't hence the lost sales). Since then, the novelty has worn off and I buy what I want.


There has to be some kind of commitment from the record companies and ISP's to curb the major file hosts, and not just go after Joe Bloggs who got caught downloading Lily Allen's latest single.

[Scoobs]

What about Spotify...? You can play anything you want on that site without paying a bean. It is paid for by advertising, but I can honestly say I cannot remember a single advert on there.

Originally Posted by anna

Sandi Thom I think sums this up very nicely with her release of "I wish I was a punkrocker" a fantastic talent that without internet would have perhaps not got very far.

A pity, as without the ability to totally fabricate how underground she was (with the aid of a record company, it must be noted) we could have been spared that terrible song.

But I digress. The internet is not going to kill the music industry. Tape recorders didn't either, did they? Or CD burners.

[the_lone_wolf]

I'd be more inclined to think she wasn't a little whiny bitch if she hadn't stolen blog content directly from www.techdirt.com - "pirated" it if you will...

http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing...ocrite-090921/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...27456270.shtml

Oh, and she's in the minority of artists, the Featured Artist's Coalition has repeatedly stated that disconnection isn't the way forward and that better legal services are the way to combat the "problem" of piracy:

www.featuredartistscoalition.com

As for filesharing itself, it's the same as the VCR and cassette recorders, big film and big music moaned that they would destroy the industry but they eventually adjusted their business models to suit

The problem now is that the artists don't need the record labels to distribute their music, and they're running scared, desperately clinging to an outdated and unsustainable business model by buying that **** mandleson lunches to force policy changes in their favour, effectively trying to legislate the protection for their business even though it's naturally destined to die. They've shafted the artists and the consumer for ages and now they're reaping the fruits of what they sow

So, **** the record labels, evolve or die is the choice, they will achieve nothing but alienating their customers if they persist with this kind of stupidity...

[Viney]

Remember kids, Home recording is killing music! A phrase that was ont eh back of nearly all the LP's that i have from the 70's and 80's. This problem has been around for decades in one form or another and its never going away.

I am guilty of the odd download here and there, but i have also spent and estimated £35k(shudders) on music in my 38 years on this planet, so think that a few here and there, i deserve!

So who is to blame? The record companies? The media Manufactuers? Both i reckon. The record companies release stuff in a digital format but expect the public to pay the same for it as if they were buing the actual CD. This is totally wrong. In selling a digital download it costs but a fraction of the 'hard copy' There is no case, no sleeve, no distribution costs involved with the download at all. The likes of ITunes probably pay the record company for them to host thier track for maybe a small percentage of the sales. 80p-£1 per track is rediculous and over priced. Sure the Digital domain is here to stay and if they want peolpe to shy away from illegal downloads, then you have to give the public a reasonable alternative. I reckon a Digital album should cost no more the £5 and a track cost of 50p for all new releases and discounts if you buy multiple albums etc, or the ISP's donate a proportion of our rental costs to PRS for distribution to the artists.

With this i also think that media manufacurers have a part in this. If they didnt want us to duplicate or download stuff, then stop providing us with the tools to enable the public to do so. Blank cassettes, CD's, DVD's etc, and lets face it, if the wanted us to stop copying CD's then as sure as god made little apples, they could write unbreakable encryption on all CD's to stop us doing it.

So threatening to prosocute the downloders, is worng. Why not just shut down anything that contains the word P2P, or just block the IP's for the likes of Pirate Bay, Mininova, or all the other torrent sites? They wont, because although the record companies dont want to admit it, they like the idea of getting the music out there to the masses.

So what about LIbaries? My local Libary loans CD's. There is nothing at all to stop me taking it home, chucking it in the CD drive and burning it to my PC. Cost £1-£3 per disc. Cheaper than a digital Download, more expensive than an illegal download, or borrowing the CD off you mate, or borrowing your mates (who is a DJ) hard drive and copying all that? I myself have over 28000 tracks on my hard drive, and that just stuff i have bought (Excluding vinyl) This stuff still goes on and will always continue and that kind of stuff is below the radar. Its a victim of progress really, you give people the ability, and tools to do this stuff and it will be utilised no matter what. So record companies, stop ya whinging and threatening and just live witht he fact this stuff exists. You want to stop it, then do it by stopping people to be able to copy/transfer/record stuff in the 1st place, its YOUR responsibility.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

So, **** the record labels, evolve or die is the choice, they will achieve nothing but alienating their customers if they persist with this kind of stupidity...

+1

Also, I dont beleive that I should have to pay more than once for the same music. I own a CD of an album, why should I pay to then download a copy of that album in electronic format.

Another thing, I went online to buy a copy of the new ACDC album from iTunes the other day only to find that ACDC dont allow you buy on there....so I err, found what I was looking for elsewhere.