Tanker

The EU has just released its latest figures about counterfeit products seized at European borders in 2006, and the music industry?s international trade group (IFPI) has jumped on those numbers to call for increased action against Chinese pirates. Of the 23 million counterfeit CDs and DVDs seized by police last year, 93 percent of them originated in China. The EU is worried enough about the numbers that it is contributing to a US-led WTO case against China over the matter.

But does purchasing one of these discs mean that you could be supporting terrorism? According to the IFPI, it does. The group yesterday released a list of 10 ?inconvenient truths? about music, and it makes for interesting reading. Here they are:

1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment ?free music? rhetoric.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
4. Illegal file-sharers don?t care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on ?underground? artists and more inclination to invest in ?bankers? like American Idol stars.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth?it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won?t stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.

It?s a strange mix of the obvious and the bizarre. Point four, for instance, is probably true, and it won?t come as a surprise to anyone who reads point eight that impoverished Chinese farmers are not the ones doing most of that country?s illegal downloading.

Point three is an odd one; certainly, somewhere in the world, someone with terrorist intentions has made a few bucks from the sale of counterfeit discs. But every other point on the list concerns digital file-swapping, not the purchasing of counterfeit CDs on Parisian street corners. It looks like a subtle attempt to elide the distinctions between the two.

Point five is an attempt to turn the ?innovation? argument on its head. For years, pundits outside the music industry have accused labels of pandering to teens through boy bands and ?manufactured? celebrities instead of being concerned with finding, producing, and releasing art. The IFPI suggests that the labels could (and would) be doing exactly that if file-swapping went away.

And then there?s point seven, which isn?t an ?inconvenient truth? at all but more of a rant against those who prefer giving copyright holders less than absolute control over reproduction rights. An ?anti-copyright movement? does exist, but most of the critical voices in the debate recognize the value of copyright?and actually produce copyrighted works themselves (Lawrence Lessig, etc.). The second part of the accusation (?pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little?) is hardly a statement of fact; it comes across as angry retort to those outside the music business who would dare to criticize its methods and goals.

It?s too bad that groups like the IFPI resort to such dubious statements to make their point. Unauthorized file-swapping of copyrighted works is already illegal in most countries; if people are continuing to engage in it, they are unlikely to be swayed by broadsides against ?anti-copyright? crusaders or accusations of funding terrorists.

When it comes to stopping commercial piracy, we applaud the IFPI for its work. When it comes to disparaging those who favor a softer copyright policy, Ars has an inconvenient truth of our own to share with the music industry: these are the sort of tactics that only entrench consumer opposition.

Source: Ars Technica

__________________

Tanker
ICQ 3427575

CCBTools Now featured in the CCBill.com APP STORE

tony286

Its very fucked up, I love the term "the anti copywrite movement" it almost sounds political. It's called fucking thieves.

notabook

3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.

FUCKING AL QAEDA!

__________________

vvq

it doesn't create jobs? what? bandwidth isn't free for anyone.

__________________

Tanker

crazy shit

__________________

Tanker
ICQ 3427575

CCBTools Now featured in the CCBill.com APP STORE

RawAlex

To a certain extent, it is political. But it is on the same level as street punks. They have a somewhat common message, but they aren't truly organized in any real way. They get off thumbing their nose at "the man" more than anything. Copyright is the big man right now, so it isn't too hard to make it a target.

The reality is with enough copyright violation, the value of the original work drops, and the ability to produce new work of the same caliber is lost. Over time, everything degrades. That is the current effect in the music industry, which is suffering greatly with reduced sales... which means less new music, more pre-packaged pap, and less risk taking. Yup, tons more independant music, but for the most part, that is but a background noise non-profit deal.

There has to be a balance, and that balance has been lost.

Nysus

Eventually art will cease to be able to be a big business, which I don't think it should of ever become anyway. Money will be more widely distributed as artists need to create and play music more locally and get a strong fan base who will buy their music; I do believe there will need to be a lot of government funding to help musicians though as a large majority of people who will enjoy the art will still not pay for it. Letting people have access to entertainment that they can't otherwise afford does increase quality of life for a person, and would benefit society as a whole.

__________________
What name is pr0 / Untouched Markets using these days? Untouched Markets - pr0 - Refund My Money Now

Someone owes me $2,000 because they didn't do any work that was paid for *pointing at pr0 / William / UntouchedMarkets*

See http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/948258-untouchedmarkets-pr0-refund-money-post16744521.html and for more detailed see http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/948645-re-recent-bullshit-drama-explained-detail-pr0-untouched-markets.html

thonglife

I read this the other day... I believe I heard this type of stuff before though..

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-and-riaa.html

baddog

tony286

The funny thing is I bet 99 percent of file swappers never stole anything out of a bricks and mortar store in their lives but online its ok.

fluffygrrl

That is such utter and absolute rubbish.

"Work" all through the XXth century, the only period in human history when this "copyright" nonsense was taken seriously does not even begin to measure, caliber wise, with actual work done without the copyright nonsense.

What was Socrate's royalty payment and how did its absence hinder Plato ?

Copyrights add one single thing : they allow people to "create" as a matter of business. This means that the channel is flooded by crap. If Beethoven were born again today, we couldn't ever get to hear him, because he couldn't reasonably afford to payola radio stations and cut deals with walmart to stock his music.

So, while the copyright business may make money and apparent growth/taxes/whatever, it does not create any value.

At some point you will have to confront the actual question. Do you want some corporation to make another two cents a share, or do you want to listen to good music ?

There's plenty of money to be made in legal consulting, accounting and general pencil pushing. Why does art necessarily have to be the same shit ?

Pleasurepays

point 3....

how do you launder money by selling illegal shit?

Pornwolf

Baddog, don't laugh. Nysus is pretty on point.

It's already happening. Mega labels are firing like crazy. Warner Bros, in your neck of the woods, announced they would let go around 400 people in the past couple of months. The budgets are being cut in half... every year. This is happening at every label.

Thanks to p2p and sites like Rapidshare music has been devalued to the point where labels are having to prepare for the day where the majority of their recorded music revenue will come via ad supported distribution.

If, or should I say WHEN, that happens it's going to hurt the small indies more than the majors. I'll tell you why...

When the labels started their downslide they started cutting their signing budgets for the smaller baby acts that they usually sign and allow to grow through touring. Yunno, those bands that grow by playing at local clubs over several years. Maroon 5 is an example of a band like this. They were signed 3 years or more before they got their big break. Because the labels had the budget surplus they could allow that kind of development time while they grew.

Now, thanks to decreased revenue they can only afford to focus on those bands that blow up big. This is why American Idol is so big for them. It works well for the major model. Pop acts take no extended development time and are fairly easy to market quickly.

If things go ad supported the labels with the pop acts will prosper because they deal in mass listeners which equals mass eyeballs for ads.

The indies don't work the same way. They may have a small following but that wouldn't be able to support them in an ad supported model. It can barely support them in a CD sales model. Digital sales just don't cut it. You think ad sales will? Not likely.

This will hurt the development of grass roots bands. Not many artists and producers will be able to afford sticking with it for the long stretches of time when they have kids to feed and such. You can expect fewer to break which hurts choice. There NEEDS to be lots of bands in order to get the best art from the bunch.

Sure, majors suck. But if you look at the big picture they did provide a service.

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

baddog

Yeah, I am sure Rage Against the Machine, RHCP, Snoop and all the others got into it "for the art/music."

They wish they could give it away, but the record labels are forcing them to whore themselves out.

fluffygrrl

You miss the fundamental point tho.

Nobody said every 3 dudes in a garage must absolutely and necessarily pay their bills through whatever they call music. So, yes, plenty of "indie" shit acts will get canned. Along with a good chunk of "banker" shit acts. And sure, some banker shit acts will survive.

I couldn't care less. What I want is more room for the exceptional indies. The sort of people that just take over and redefine the world, a la Beatles. Those need to not be drowned, neither by a full rooster of "banker" shit acts, nor by a full rooster of "indie" shit acts.

If you're not so fucking good that people crash their car upon hearing you sing, you don't belong singing. Time to rise the bar.

And if you're that good, you'll get the eyeballs, or anything else.

Pornwolf

You aren't getting it. Those incredible acts don't pop up out of the blue.

They need some development time. Major, indie it doesn't matter. Those acts still need to develop. Sometimes that takes months, sometimes years.

If you can't eat while you go through that development time you aren't likely to continue long enough to shine.

----------------------------------

Baddog, those acts you mentioned could survive quite well if the labels gave their music away. They have all hit the tipping point where their shows and merchandise make waaaaay more money than music ever could.

The problem for future acts is surviving long enough to get to that tipping point.

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

fluffygrrl

This is a cobbler's approach to painting. While it will yield decent paint jobs, it will not yield art.

Exceptional acts pop exactly out of nowhere.

Pornwolf

Ok, name one.

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

ztik

I would say thats more of a quality thing. Alot of music is shit now a days. Sampled, synthed and thrown together. There was a thread the other day about someone looking for a GOOD album, not one with just 1 hit on it and a bunch of thrown together shit. Somewhere along the line people noticed you could make it with 1 hit and sell a whole CD. No reason to put 12 hits on 1 album, save those 12 hits and release them each on their own album with 14 shitty songs on it.

__________________
.

fluffygrrl

Beatles. Mozart. Hemingway.

You don't have a leg to stand on. Art comes out of nowhere, and nobody has yet in the history of mankind succeeded to "cultivate" art, other than, find art that already existed and stack it up. It's not something that can be industrially manufactured.

The century long experiment at industrially manufacturing art has failed, and it's time we admited as much and let it be.

bl4h

good now theyll have to make solid albums instead of selling albums with 1 good hit and the other 10 songs a bunch of crap. That industry needed a good kick in the ass.

It does a lot of damage to software/gaming companies, this piracy

Pornwolf

Heh heh, how little you know.

How many shit concertos did Mozart compose before he hit a good one?
Did you know his father was a famous piano teacher and he came up under the wings of composers like Bach? Did you know he was hired to compose no name operas before he "hit it big" with his work? That's not an overnight success.

Hemmingway wrote tons of work you have never heard of. Not to mention he cut his teeth writing stories for a newspaper. He started his serious career writing short stories. Some were unpublished until later after he found fame. He didn't go from 0 to 60 as you suggest. He developed over a number of years.

The Beatles? Overnight success? Heh, do you really want me to explain that one to you? Let me give you key dates and you can work out the progress for yourself.

They had roughly formed the band in 1957.
They got a recorded their first song in 1960
They got their first big hit in 1962

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

Pornwolf

Sorry about the typos but I was speed typing. I re read the last post and I saw it looked like a foreigner typed it. haha

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

Pleasurepays

artists have NEVER made real money from album sales...its always made from touring.

Pornwolf

In the beginning of an artist's career he is usually subsidized by a label/manager until 3 things happen:

1. Shows start paying good money
2. Music starts selling
3. Merchandise starts selling

By the time the shows are making big bucks the artist usually makes more money than from record sales of course.

For the majority of acts, they need hits before the show money becomes good money. To get hits they have to be subsidized because they have expenses:

1. Recording & Equipment
2. Touring & Promo
3. Hard good production (CD's, T Shirts etc)
4. Food and rent

Now, those costs can be manageable for short periods of time... but remember it takes 99% of the bands (good and bad) several years before they break big enough to survive without someone paying for all the above.

If the band itself is paying for it they have to break much faster or else they won't be able to continue. Again I will say that's why someone else usually subsidizes it so it takes the stress off the band which allows them to focus on the music and gives them the time it usually takes to develop.

If there's no one around to subsidize the band most cannot sustain the development process. The amount of talent they have is not a factor... it's lasting long enough for that talent to gel and shine that's the hard part. That's what takes money. If there's no money to do that then you can pretty much guess what happens. Record labels usually make the money off of record sales. If record sales go to shit... which they are... the way that they get paid goes away and so does the subsidy money.

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

ultimatebbwdotcom

Exactly,

And in Mozarts time, people would PAY to go and see him play. He didn't have to worry about 100's of people thieving his compositions and trying to make a sly living at his expense. He made his money by touring and back then he was a European celebrity. At worse, you'd get a crowd of people hanging outside of the concert venue listening to muffles.

As for the Beatles, at that time the consumer didn't have the technology at hand to spread their works without the band profiting.

The compact cassete, even though invented in 1962 didn't even become popular in homes until the early 70's.

Now, whether its porn, music, games or dvds...people have too much technology and freedom from prosecution that its no surprise that piracy is rife.

Rui

Pornwolf - brilliant posts man! keep the coming as you clearly know what your talking about (and does match the experience I have in said field -with indie bands I know about)

Pornwolf

Nice! I have spent over a decade in the trenches as well. I still have shit on my shins.

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

StuartD

What about the Spice Girls?

__________________
This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter

fluffygrrl

Nothing is more amusing than watching some self-important ignorance repository stumble right into a well laid trap while grumbling to himself "heh heh how little everyone else knows".

Know this, o ye of much knowledge : Mozart was underage when he "hit it big" as you call it.



We are dully impressed with your wikipedia research. May it be the only reason Bach had time to spend with Mozart was because, well... you know, there weren't 500 corporate suits getting in the way ? Hmm ?

It certainly doesnt seem to happen all that often nowadays, does it. Unless you count Madonna kissing Spears on stage a sort of mystical passing of the trade.

Anyway, this could go on for ever, but really, how long am I to consult for free ?

darling2

Just a few questions.

Would a porn studio hire models and camera crew and pay them in cash if they knew they would never sell any of the footage, it would just be shared free p2p?

Would a Hollywood studio make a $200M film, paying all the actors, directors, camera crew, cleaning ladies etc. if it could not sell a single ticket or DVD copy, and everything would be shared free p2p?

Would a farmer spend his days growing corn if his crops were stolen daily?