Illegal downloading

[arthurhenry]

I have never illegally downloaded music and would be uncomfortable doing so, but what if you're downloading a song for your band to learn and play live potentially hundreds of times? In theory at least, the artists would still receive royalties via the PRS, so does that make it OK?

The other aspect of this is; how exact a science is the distribution of royalties from live performance by cover bands. I've done a few gigs where the PRS have turned up (usually when the club owner says "just two half hour sets tonight lads, hush, hush") I think we may have given them a setlist, but what if we chuck in Pride O' the farm by Dixie Dregs? Do they recognise it and make sure Mr. Morse gets his money? Unlikely. What about snippets of 007 and superman theme that we sneak into a song?

[JimBobTTD]

Spotify. No need for downloading. Clear conscience.

Can't answer the second bit, though.

[largo]

Yep, I use spotify for any songs I want to learn. Unless I've bought it already of course.

[far0n]

I've downloaded stuff illegally as have most people, but what the record companies seem to be missing is that if people can get it for nothing they will. Whether they had the intention to buy it in the first place is another matter. I've downloaded albums illegally just to have a listen... I previously had no intention to buy it, so that in my book is not classed as lost revenue.

Anyway, I've recently bought the latest Jamiroquai CD without listening to it first... it's great in my opinion and well worth the £9.99 I paid for it. Don't understand why people buy mp3s though? Surely if your ipod or PC crashed and you lost the lot... at least you've got your CDs to fall back on right ??

[chaypup]

[quote name='arthurhenry' post='1069974' date='Dec 27 2010, 10:41 AM']I have never illegally downloaded music and would be uncomfortable doing so, but what if you're downloading a song for your band to learn and play live potentially hundreds of times? In theory at least, the artists would still receive royalties via the PRS, so does that make it OK?

The other aspect of this is; how exact a science is the distribution of royalties from live performance by cover bands. I've done a few gigs where the PRS have turned up (usually when the club owner says "just two half hour sets tonight lads, hush, hush") I think we may have given them a setlist, but what if we chuck in Pride O' the farm by Dixie Dregs? Do they recognise it and make sure Mr. Morse gets his money? Unlikely. What about snippets of 007 and superman theme that we sneak into a song?[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that someone here will prove me wrong, but it seems to me that the PRS take much more money than they can give out. As the OP says, how do they know which songs are being played by cover bands? I've never been asked for a set list.

At festivals, PRS take 3% of ticket sales and this is set to double to 6%!
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jul/04/festivals-fear-royalties-hike-tickets)

As a rough guide, from Glastonbury alone, that would be over £1million!

For what? Glastonbury are paying all the acts that play there, every stall that does business at Glastonbury has to have a PRS licence.

So the only thing this million quid is paying for is the music that's played on stage between the acts.

Extrapolate that to include all the other festivals.........PRS are getting shedloads!

As I said, I fully expect someone to come along and point out where I'm wrong :-)







Ps. I do think the PRS do good work and are necessary, just that rather more goes in than than I can see coming out.

[Mr. Foxen]

After that previous thread, and paying attention to the relevant news and such, I'm pretty damn sure downloading isn't illegal in this country, which is why people can't be done for downloading. It is filesharing (specifically the uploading part where you send to someone else) that is illegal. Worse to give than recieve.

[chaypup]

From the PRS AGM 2010
"And total PRS for Music revenue (that is combined figures for PRS and MCPS)
reached £623million.

This translated into £553m royalties paid out to our members."

So that's operating costs of £70 million pounds a year, can't tell if that's a lot or not. :-)

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='far0n' post='1069995' date='Dec 27 2010, 11:10 AM']Anyway, I've recently bought the latest Jamiroquai CD without listening to it first... it's great in my opinion and well worth the £9.99 I paid for it. Don't understand why people buy mp3s though? Surely if your ipod or PC crashed and you lost the lot... at least you've got your CDs to fall back on right ??[/quote]

This is why it's important to back up your data!

I've not really seen the point in spotify. I mean lady gaga made less than 200 quid off one of her hit songs. It's hardly much better than torrenting really. But i guess if it makes people feel better about themselves...

Edited December 27, 2010 by EdwardHimself

[risingson]

I use Spotify nowadays, it means I pay my dues to the artists I love to listen to!

Edited December 27, 2010 by risingson

[JPJ]

I don't illegally download and get most of what I need from iTunes. I obviously need to check out Spotify, but this whole downloading debate does make me laugh.

When we were kids one friend bought an album and the rest of you copied it on to cassette (for the young ones, google cassette ). Nobody seemed to mind back then, and just like today, the materials to make 'illegal' copies were freely and openly available.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='JPJ' post='1070049' date='Dec 27 2010, 12:30 PM']I don't illegally download and get most of what I need from iTunes. I obviously need to check out Spotify, but this whole downloading debate does make me laugh.

When we were kids one friend bought an album and the rest of you copied it on to cassette (for the young ones, google cassette ). Nobody seemed to mind back then, and just like today, the materials to make 'illegal' copies were freely and openly available.[/quote]
I think the glaring point in your argument that falls down is that you don't seem to have considered the maths. If 1 friend bought and 5 copied that means for roughly every 5-10 kids there was a sale in your example. These days the technology allows for 1 purchase and billions of copies within hours.
Don't kid yourself, the industry is being crippled by theft. The equivalent at Tesco would be sell one chicken, have 5 million stolen.

Edited December 27, 2010 by jakesbass

[chris_b]

[quote name='JPJ' post='1070049' date='Dec 27 2010, 12:30 PM']....When we were kids one friend bought an album and the rest of you copied it on to cassette (for the young ones, google cassette ). Nobody seemed to mind back then, and just like today, the materials to make 'illegal' copies were freely and openly available....[/quote]
What you were doing then was illegal and if you botherd to read the info that came with the cassettes you have seen that. It was stealing then and it's still stealing now.

To the OP, I know a lot of musicians and songwriters who get PRS payments. They are very grateful when it comes to paying their bills.

Getting away with it doesn't make anything legal. I can drive at 50 mph in a 30 mph zone and if I don't get caught that makes it legal? Because you can steal a musician’s work and not get caught makes it OK?

We've had this argument too many times.

[wotnwhy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070052' date='Dec 27 2010, 12:36 PM']I think the glaring point in your argument that falls down is that you don't seem to have considered the maths. If 1 friend bought and 5 copied that means for roughly every 5-10 kids there was a sale in your example. These days the technology allows for 1 purchase and billions of copies within hours.
Don't kid yourself, the industry is being crippled by theft. The equivalent at Tesco would be sell one chicken, have 5 million stolen.[/quote]

Intersting math there. I've never seen anything with even close to a billion downloads, or even 5 million. Something hugely popular may have a few hundred thousand, but most things (especially for artists that would feel the pinch (ie, non-commercial)) are rarely into the hundreds. So i feel your math is a little disproportionate.

I'm not saying downloadings ok, thats a discussion that never ends well. But i believe it's being blown out of proportion by an industry that is frightened of the imminent change. For years so-called 'fat cats' have been making a sickening amount of money from music, some of the 'artists' do quite well too, but i believe the true popular musicians rarely get a look in at the money. Now that music can be obtained this easily for free people could never go back (the curse of 'progress'), so the way in which people make money from music will have to change and you're seeing it already. Artists give their tunes away for free, build a fan base then make money off that fanbase with tours, merchandise and hard copies of music. I think this is the way to go, music SHOULD be free, if you fans like you, you will get money out of them somehow.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='wotnwhy' post='1070068' date='Dec 27 2010, 12:57 PM']Intersting math there. I've never seen anything with even close to a billion downloads,[/quote]
was merely pointing out the possible
I agree with some of your other points, but to be run as a business in which people (artists) make a living requires investment, if you don't like the machinations of those companies do something else, but do realise that those companies are NOT investing in the business much anymore. Illegal downloading is why.
It's possible that a decent industry could rise from the ashes and I will watch with interest, one thing is for sure though, many thousands of very talented musicians will walk away because it looks like an avenue riven with difficulty.

BTW it mathS
Math is American

Edited December 27, 2010 by jakesbass

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Johnston' post='1070088' date='Dec 27 2010, 01:16 PM']so what your saying is that artists should go back to making money from grafting rather than a few months in the studio and then sitting back and watching the coinage roll in [/quote]
fantastically naive view

[wotnwhy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070082' date='Dec 27 2010, 01:11 PM']BTW it mathS
Math is American[/quote]

Thankyou (seriously), these sort of things really grate my cheddar (their there they're, bought brought, color colour) when others get them wrong. So i'm glad you pointed it out!

[quote]I agree with some of your other points, but to be run as a business in which people (artists) make a living requires investment, if you don't like the machinations of those companies do something else, but do realise that those companies are NOT investing in the business much anymore. Illegal downloading is why.[/quote]

Hmmm... I think this is where my prejudice overcomes my pity, as those companies not investing as much makes me happier

[quote]many thousands of very talented musicians will walk away because it looks like an avenue riven with difficulty.[/quote]

Whilst (?*) it's always a shame to loose talented muscicians, the avenue IS riven with difficulty, there is no easy path. I believe record companies only serve to remove and alienate the artist(s) from their audience, building them up as larger than life and something to be looked up to. As an example of the new approach which i'm more in favour of i give you dub/reggae band Dubmatix and Dubstep producer/dj Borgore:

I signed up to Dubmatix e-mail newsletter, once a month or so i will get an e-mail full of everything Dubmatix are doing (collaborations, tours etc) and stuff bands they like/work with are doing. Each single they release they offer a free download of at least 1 (and sometimes all) the tracks on it along with links to buy the cd or vinyl. A few months ago they released a free album with Nate Wize. This is a full length album of quality above and beyond many dub albums out in recent years, not something thrown together then put out for free because it was sh!te. Because of this, Dubmatix aren't a dub band i listened to a year ago, then forgotten about. But rather a band i hold in high regard, listen to and talk about regularly, and have several of their vinyl.

I first discovered Borgore from downloading a torrent of various dubstep and hearing a couple of his tunes. Wanted to buy some vinyl, but he was new to the scene and didn't have anything out. Looking for tourdates i found his facebook page and joined it, he posts nearly every day about something or other, and actually responds to fans so he's often in my news feed. It took about a year (due to various problems) for his first vinyl release to come out. With any other artist i would have long since stopped checking to see if the vinyl was out. But his interaction with his fans meant he was never out of my thoughts for long and now he has some stuff out, i own it! And the deep level of connection with him and his fans means he can just ask them to think of ideas for merchandise, they tell him, he sells it, they buy it.

Both (in my view), much MUCH better ways than signing your creative life over to a company who just see's you as a commodity.

(*or while? not sure)

Edited December 27, 2010 by wotnwhy

[Clarky]

I do find it interesting how people are happy to apply different principles to music downloading/file-sharing than virtually any other form of goods. I consider it theft, period, whether or not there are niceties about whether it is the receiving or giving of said music files that is strictly illegal in the eyes of the law. There is obviously one exception - if music was specifically made for downloading/sharing by artists that wish to pursue this approach to building a fanbase/whatever, then of course thats fine. But the vast majority of artists are having a portion of their livelihoods stripped from them without their consent, I would guess. Does any of us like earning less, all else equal?

Old curmudgeon sits back and waits to be flamed by the more enlightened members of BassChat .....

Edited December 27, 2010 by Clarky

[Mr. Foxen]

[url="http://choke.bandcamp.com/album/minutiae"]Download this compilation to which I contributed.[/url]

Spotify functions to make money for the record label/industry and neatly bypass most of the artists revenue streams, hence even massive ones making very little money.

Technology moves on, people have the option to move with it or not, some of those people are artists, most that choose not to move with it will cease to make money from it. Occasionally the really inventive ones will find themselves a niche. I like niche music, so I win.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='wotnwhy' post='1070112' date='Dec 27 2010, 01:51 PM']Both (in my view), much MUCH better ways than signing your creative life over to a company who just see's you as a commodity.[/quote]
That you think about it at all gives me hope, I don't think I have sole access to the answers on this or anything else for that matter, but I do think that having the debate is worthwhile.

[wotnwhy]

[quote name='Clarky' post='1070122' date='Dec 27 2010, 02:01 PM']I do find it interesting how people are happy to apply different principles to music downloading/file-sharing than virtually any other form of goods. I consider it theft, period, whether or not there are niceties about whether it is the receiving or giving of said music files that is strictly illegal in the eyes of the law. There is obviously one exception - if music was specifically made for downloading/sharing by artists that wish to pursue this approach to building a fanbase/whatever, then of course thats fine. But the vast majority of artists are having a portion of their livelihoods stripped from them without their consent, I would guess. Does any of us like earning less, all else equal?

Old curmudgeon sits back and waits to be flamed by the more enlightened members of BassChat .....[/quote]


If a man takes a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is that stealing?
If a man is sat on a bench and there is a car parked nearby with a cd playing and the man taps his foot along to it, is that stealing?

Don't really know what point i'm trying to make here tbh... just that there will always be grey area, nothing is black and white. Where and how big that grey area is i guess is down to your inclusion and interpretation of the factors involved. But then if the person who made the music isn't the one who made it freely available, you are taking something from them they didn't want you to have so...

[Clarky]

[quote name='wotnwhy' post='1070138' date='Dec 27 2010, 02:26 PM']If a man takes a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is that stealing?
If a man is sat on a bench and there is a car parked nearby with a cd playing and the man taps his foot along to it, is that stealing?[/quote]

Example 1 is a life-or-death situation and example 2 does not involve taking permanent ownership of the music. Neither, with respect, apply in this debate IMHO

The examples you gave above of the two bands employing creative use of fanbase targeting and offering free downloads are great - but are both consensual. Its non-consensual downloading I was referring to when I used the emotive word 'theft'

[Mr. Foxen]

'Theft' is also a legal term, and doesn't apply to downloading music, but does to stealing bread. If you buy some bread and program your breadmaker to make perfect copies of your bread, and give them to your friends, your friends aren't thieving the bread either.

If that car is in a place where the PRS rules are applicable, then playing that music requires a licence, such as in the garage playing music whilst the mechanics work on it. But it isn't the listener that is in breach, it is the owner of the place. Analogous to the internet, it isn't the one receiving the music who is in breach, but rather the sender.

[icastle]

[quote name='arthurhenry' post='1069974' date='Dec 27 2010, 10:41 AM']The other aspect of this is; how exact a science is the distribution of royalties from live performance by cover bands. I've done a few gigs where the PRS have turned up (usually when the club owner says "just two half hour sets tonight lads, hush, hush") I think we may have given them a setlist, but what if we chuck in Pride O' the farm by Dixie Dregs? Do they recognise it and make sure Mr. Morse gets his money? Unlikely. What about snippets of 007 and superman theme that we sneak into a song?[/quote]

Without a setlist, the answer has to be an unequivocal "No".
The chances of a PRS employee knowing the origin of every single piece of music that could be paid are extremely unlikely.
I suspect they just take the money for any unidentifiable songs it and just keep it.

Whilst their original aims might have been honourable and worthwhile, cases such as pursuing a 56-year-old shelf-stacker at a village in Clackmannanshire for singing to herself while stacking shelves and the bullyboy tactics used to threaten that she would be prosecuted and fined thousands of pounds if she continued to sing without a "live performance" license kind of shows them up for what they have become...

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='icastle' post='1070153' date='Dec 27 2010, 02:56 PM']I suspect they just take the money for any unidentifiable songs it and just keep it.[/quote]
That's a very strong accusation against a not for profit organisation, I think it's a real shame that you would make that assertion (I imagine) without recourse to any degree of substantiation, remember that your words are instantly published here and that it's very easy for people to go away thinking that because you said it... or they read it somewhere..., that it's true.
More likely that your suspicion is total rubbish, and, I have to say, very poor form.

Edited December 27, 2010 by jakesbass

[Cat Burrito]

I have no strong opinions on it. Personally I have always preferred owning a physical product so I'm not a huge fan of downloading anyway. When I have done it I have used Itunes and more recently Amazon downloads. If I want to hear a track I don't wish to buy I use Spotify if it is not on YouTube. At the risk of sounding like my Dad, I honestly wouldn't know how to illegally download any music

Back in the day I taped a few songs / albums (I have a semi ironic "Home Taping is Killing Music" sticker on my bass case) but again I've always liked to own the originals. The record industry must love me!

[quote name='chaypup' post='1070003' date='Dec 27 2010, 11:19 AM']As the OP says, how do they know which songs are being played by cover bands? I've never been asked for a set list.[/quote]
I think it depends on the venue. We have been asked at a few of the bigger venues we play to fill out PRS forms but generally it doesn't happen or get properly monitored. I don't think it is economical to do every single pub band at every pub gig.