So, we received a question this morning, and it’s one that every member of the ‘loper team will probably want to address in different ways: who does piracy really hurt? You know the arguments, how some people believe that stealing music doesn’t hurt anything because, well, those corporations are so big, nobody will notice a few bucks here, a few bucks there.
Let’s be honest here. Piracy hurts every single person and business in the chain. It hurts the artist, it hurts the labels, it hurts the retailers. If you’re talking in terms of physical media, it hurts the people who drive trucks and work in warehouses. It hurts artists who haven’t yet been signed to labels. You might not think there’s an impact, but you’re wrong.
One thing that we have had a tough time doing is defining piracy. We’re not alone; if you ask the RIAA, point blank, to help you understand what is stealing and what is not, they won’t answer you. This is why they’re taking the rather unfortunate step of suing people left and right. What will end up happening is that the definitions of piracy will be decided through litigation rather than serious discourse.
So if we, in all of our infinite wisdom, cannot define piracy, what happens to the ordinary individual? How do you know if you’re hurting or helping an artist? There is a lot of evidence that artists who give their work away for free online derive subsequent benefits. Our laws and our culture have not had a meeting of the minds yet; heck, our lawmakers don’t necessarily understand the Internet they’re trying to control.
Making it even worse is the fact that the music industry keeps adding layers of difficulty to the simple act of purchasing and enjoying music. Through endless DRM schemes and buying into deals that ties software exclusively to hardware (see: our lengthy dissection of the DRM wars), the music industry is practically begging consumers to bypass legal purchases and head straight for illegal downloads. It could be argued (and has been) that the industry’s anti-piracy zealousness actually encourages piracy.
Here’s a rule of thumb. If it’s for sale legally, yet you’re not paying a cent for what you’re downloading, you’re probably stealing the music. Unless you see a clear indicator that the music you’re about to enjoy is free of charge. This is a harsh and overly broad definition of piracy. It also ignores those little gray areas that nobody wants to talk about — orphaned music, music that you own legally in about six other formats, the time-honored tradition of friends sharing music with friends.
Piracy is stealing — and it’s stealing from a lot of people, not just deep-pocketed corporations. The problem is, however, that piracy isn’t a black-and-white issue. It’s time to stop suing customers and start figuring out how to make legal purchases as easy as possible. It would make me believe that the music industry was serious about its mission.
This is a broad question indeed. Some could argue that downloading helps check global warming! Think of all the resources held in check by downloading. No trucks, paper, plastic that we have to deal with later on.
But seriously, this is a double-edged sword and it is primarily because music is so personal, mercurial and ethereal. Unlike a movie, which takes hours to download and is more of a complex object as it requires more senses to experience and hard drive space to store. It also involves hundreds of people on the production end alone, never mind the distribution. You also need a 90-120 minute commitment, compared to 3 minutes. There are thousands and thousands of songs produced and released each year, and there are seemingly hundreds of new artists to choose from each year. Movies, maybe a few hundred a year.
Part of the problem is that music has always had the perception of being mostly free. We hear it on the radio, in stores, on TV, in movies, etc. Its ubiquity makes it so familiar it hardly seems like stealing if you get some music from the internet or your friends. A song isn’t a physical object to steal, unlike a store-bought CD. (Lifiting one off the shelves and putting it in your pocket would be stealing. This is all about perception.) Most people wouldn’t dream of stealing a CD, but have no problem when handed a disc of MP3s from their friend. It is different somehow.
I’ve always subscribed to the argument that I support the music industry by going to concerts and buying CDs or downloading from iTunes and eMusic. Sure, I get music from other people on occasion, but that is what inspires me to go out and actually purchase a CD. It’s like a form of marketing, on par with all those freebies that the record companies give out anyway to all the radio stations, sales reps, etc. Are they stealing music when it’s given to them? Hardly. My point being that I spend what I spend each month and that hasn’t really changed year in year out. I can’t afford to spend anymore, probably can’t afford to spend what I do. Yet I still do. Am I a criminal? Fine me or lock me up and you are guaranteed I won’t ever pay a dime for music ever again. Is it worth the loss of that money stream to prosecute me? (Speaking rhetorically!)
If I buy something that I have not heard, only read about, and then trade it in because I don’t like it, am I hurting the record industry as the next person that comes into Amoeba Records could by it used? Is that not a whole other problem right there? What if I only buy used CDs? How is that not akin to piracy?
One thing I learned long ago was that bootlegging (i.e. live music) didn’t hurt the industry, it merely bonded the fan base. It seems the arguments are different now. Piracy used to mean (and for DVDs primarily it still does) bad cassette copies sold on at markets and swap meets. That was wrong, for obvious reasons. It duped the fan and hurt the record companies. Now, with the DRM clusterf*ck music fans are actually inspired to do things to subvert this seeming infringement on their freedom to listen to music as they, the consumer, see fit.
My point: I don’t know, no one seems to know either and it ain’t black and white.
Tim, no offense, but you’re expanding into mega-post territory. It ain’t black and white. Nobody knows — you raised several scenarios that walk like piracy, talk like piracy…but, well, are they piracy? You (and most of us on the team, yeah, you’re on the team) ardently believe in supporting artists. We do so on a variety of levels. One of these is passing cool new music among ourselves. We don’t all have the same taste, but we know when we encounter something that others in the Medialoper ‘verse will like. We do this digitally, and, speaking for my own household, this almost always leads to a slew of legitimate purchases when we dig a band/artist/song.
While I will argue the collaborative process of music versus movies (the latter being bigger, the former also involving a roster of people — it is rare that a band goes into the studio and produces, etc, alone), I’ll agree that music has (like television programming) created confusion by leaving the impression that it’s giving itself away for free. We all know that public radio bases pledge drives on the concept of you’re listening, enjoying, you should pay. But music, especially when it comes to radio, is a commercial-driven notion. Few of us equate the listening with the cost — those commercials are our payment. Most people see them as an intrusion between songs and DJ blather.
Music and television programming have never been truly free, but we’ve never considered the, shall we say?, patrons of the media. Corporations are allowing us to enjoy entertainment for “free”. Now we’re entering an era where corporations aren’t involved, but an entire infrastructure — be it individual artists or entire labels — have to pay bills. And, yeah, it’s getting on close to fifteen years later, and nobody’s talking about the real problems, the real issues, the real solutions.
This clearly isn’t a black and white issue, as the RIAA would have us believe.
Are artists hurt by piracy? Yes. But only to a degree. They’re also hurt by quite a lot of other things directly related to the standard business practices of the music industry. Those practices almost never get called into question.
You have to offset any damage to the artist by the benefit they derive from having their music more widely heard. I know a lot of artists still don’t consider this to be a valid argument, but those same artists almost never complain when their songs get played on the radio. True, they’re compensated for that airplay, but not in anywhere near the manner they would be compensated if everyone who heard their music on the radio actually purchased a copy of album.
Are record labels hurt by piracy? Yes. But only to a degree. They’re also hurt by their failure to recognize that the world is changing around them. They still haven’t fully embraced digital distribution and they continue to force proprietary DRM solutions on consumers with little regard for the consumers wants or needs. Bad marketing, to say the least.
And what about all of those truck drivers and box makers and retailers? Yeah, they’re hurt by piracy too. But they’re doomed either way. Physical media will soon be a thing of the past.
In the profile of Jimmy Iovine in the Los Angeles Times last Sunday, the esteemed producer and talent wrangler said pretty much exactly what we’ve been saying or implying all along: the record companies have a limited lifespan now if they simply want to keep things status quo. Or prosecute Danny the Downloader. They are done, over and out.
What I do applaud is when artists use tools such as their own web site, My Space, iTunes, etc. to branch out, offer new and exclusive songs and market themselves. It’s the initiative I guess. I’m no fan of MySpace, but I see it’s usefulness.
Legal code and RIAA aside, I’d argue that piracy takes place when you copy, burn, download, etc. anything that you would have actually purchased if you had no other way to obtain it.
While accepting ANY burned CD-R from a friend is — technically — an act of piracy, it really depends on the context. Did someone offer you a disc — “hey check this out — it’s something you might like” or was it “let me copy that new Decemberists disc so I don’t have to buy it myself…?”
I’ll concur with Kirk — piracy hurts somewhat, but probably not as much as certain parties claim. And a good portion of it probably doesn’t affect the bottom line for any of the involved parties.
Interestingly, many of the different definitions of piracy given here in the comments can be distilled down to “everything but what I do on a regular basis.” Unfortunately there is no “I think it’s OK” exception in the definition of Fair Use.
I think articles like this, while helpful in pointing out the effects of downloading, can help in exacerbating an important misconception. It doesn’t matter who is hurt, or whether anyone is hurt at all. The unauthorized dupilcation of intellectual property is illegal even if it helps the artist and record company in the long run. It is not up to you to make that decision for me as an artist.
At the end of the day, when the food is not going to sold, I do not have the right to come into your restaurant and take the leftovers. Perhaps in giving people free samples of your food, I may eventually increase your sales. Ultimately though, that is not my decision to make for you.
There are grey areas in the world of downloading, but fewer than many people think. Was it legal to record songs off of your AM radio onto a Radio Shack casette? No. Was it legal for me to make a reel-to-reel tape of my favorite vinyl and give it to you? No. These were not grey areas, but unenforced black-and-white ones. Now that the current version of these same activities involves not one quality-reduced copy going to one person, but thousands of near-perfect ones going to people across the world, it is worth enforcing.
Bryan:
Is it legal for me to copy a DVD that I own to my iPod? The answer is No. But it should be, because it isn’t piracy.
Should we refrain from discussing these issues because someone might get the wrong idea and steal something? No, because last time I checked free speech was still part of the US Constitution.
As for Fair Use – it turns out there is no definition. This past summer we submitted a list of Fair Use scenarios to the RIAA for comment. We thought it would be a good way to sort out the grey areas once and for all. In the end the RIAA chose not to comment on some very specific questions related to legitimate use. The recording industries refusal to define fair use, and by extension piracy, is one of the reasons we’ve been running this series of articles attempting to define piracy.
I understand that music stealing is bad….. but how can you define stealing from buying? These days today everyone is stealing music….. like limwire……. morepheus….. etc.
I am really gay guys, sorry for wasting your time
They said home recording would kill the music industry, they said sharing cd’s would kill the music industry and this is the next step.
I would also like to point out just how terrible music is right now, it’s made me look to more experimental and underground genres of music. Music which I can’t buy in Australia. But with music being released today I don’t think it actually warrants a purchase, the music industry should stop complaning about it’s questionable ‘losses’ and start worrying about making music which will appeal to people who arent tone deaf.