This post will be the second in a series of posts between myself and Keith regarding the oh-so-hot topic of music piracy/downloading. You can read his first post on the topic (and my initial reply) here.
Before I begin, I want to be clear on a few things. First and foremost, at this time it is actually illegal in most countries to download music illegally online. As opinionated as I may be, understand that downloading music is still considered wrong by the law, which means that if you do it you are accepting a certain amount of risk that if caught you will be fined and/or taken to court by the copyright holders. My purpose in this discussion is to point out why I feel those who do consider such actions as copyright holders are doing nothing but hurting themselves and their bottom lines.
Another thing that needs to be stated is that I have downloaded music illegally. I’ve done quite a bit of it in my lifetime to be honest, and I will never be ashamed of that fact. I get most of my music these days from my Zune subscription, so you might say I’ve “come clean”, but I find that phrase mildly aggravating and offensive. Much of the music I love today is music I discovered illegally.
In his original post, Keith states his definition of piracy as “..someone who downloads, or effectively steals an artists music..”. Keith’s basic point is that by downloading a song instead of buying the CD, one is hurting the musician through lost sales of their album (we’ll include digital sales in this discussion as well). The problem I have with that definition and reasoning is that its pretty unfair to assume that a person would have bought a CD if they hadn’t downloaded the album illegally. Much of the music I’ve become a fan of I was introduced to through illegal downloading. I would have never listened to Daft Punk if I hadn’t found them (by accident), and I can assure you that without knowing who they were I would never have ended up buying their albums (which for the record I have done, we’ll get to that a little later).
Assuming that lost sales can be counted by the number of illegal downloads is a very arrogant and inaccurate idea. People download music illegally for a slew of different reasons, including lack of funds, boredom, curiosity and some for just plain hate. The last of the group is a rather destructive bunch who I’ll touch on later, it is important to know that they represent a very small minority of users who download music. For the others in the group, downloading music is a way to discover or listen to music they otherwise wouldn’t have the resources to purchase. Those who can’t afford albums need no defense, if they download because they honestly can’t afford something then you can’t really expect that they’d have bought the album anyway. Those who download because they are bored (much like myself) tend to be the ones who also eventually buy albums of bands they end up liking (just as I have). They download because they don’t have the resources to be buying singles or albums for hundreds of different artists just to find some new music they might like. Even those rich enough to afford this will probably quickly find themselves not so rich if they adopt methods such as that to broaden their horizons. Finally, the curious downloader is another person who often times end up buying albums, but will only do so once they’re sure they like the artist. Most curious downloaders are interested in a specific band or artist they have heard (maybe on the radio). As with the bored downloader, the financially feasible way to do that is to get a sampling of their music elsewhere without incurring cost.
In addition to the above, it should be noted that there have been studies done (one example) that show downloaders are actually just as likely to buy an album during a year as someone who doesn’t download. There are also multiple instances of people who have increased sales of an album through the illegal use of it on a YouTube video (example here).
In the end, there is growing evidence being mounted against the claim that illegal downloads equate to lost sales. If anything, we’re being shown by the market that they tend to lead to more profit for the record companies, and that is without mentioning the millions won by the recording industry in piracy-related lawsuits.
At the outset I mentioned that I get most of my music from my Zune subscription these days. I pay about $15 per month to be able to download and listen to an unlimited number of songs from their library and play it on my Zune (with a few restrictions from certain copyright holders). This is one of quite a few examples of programs that have evolved from the use of illegal downloads by people. The Zune Pass, Slacker.com, Pandora, Last.fm and others are all great attempts at filling the void left by record labels on the subject of music discovery. I am having some trouble finding information on how much of the money earned by record labels on these types of subscription and discovery agreements actually goes to artists, but I have a feeling that the number is very low (if not non-existent). Without that information I can’t do more than make an assumption that piracy is no more harmful to artists than my Zune Pass (if anyone DOES have this information I’d be delighted to get some details). I think this is probably a fair assumption, but I can’t stress enough that it is nothing more than conjecture and can’t be relied upon as a valid argument for music piracy without further evidence.
In my post next week I’ll continue dissecting Keith’s arguments against music piracy. Hopefully so far this is proving to be enlightening or at least fair and professional. Feel free to let either of us know your thoughts on the subject and we’ll do what we can to represent our respective sides of the argument thoroughly.
- Andy
Labels: Album Sales, Downloading, Illegal, Music, Music Piracy, Piracy, The Great Music Debate
