Illegal downloading

[LawrenceH]

Interesting debate, lots of good points being made. My take - music files are a form of information. Copying them and passing them on is in that sense rather similar to patent infringement. Coming from left-field, thinking about the great economic debates of recent years we see a clash of competing ideologies, namely expansion-based capitalism and sustainability. To marry these two, the concept of information as currency becomes increasingly important. So we really should respect intellectual copyright if we have an environmental conscience, since a means of making money that doesn't involve transfer of material goods is a necessity!

But. I doubt most of us are real economic idealists, we're primarily in it for the music. For me, I love live music and I think the recorded output of artists who disconnect from live performance usually suffers (not always). So firstly I don't think the move towards a model where a greater proportion of revenue comes from performance is a bad thing. Second, the major players in the music industry claim to be suffering as a result of illegal downloading, but could this be something they've brought on themselves by optimising their musical output from the point of view of disposability? Plus, just because one business model is no longer as viable does that translate to a problem for music as a whole? I seriously doubt it, the evidence is in the decreasing relevance of the singles charts and the burgeoning market for niche music of all kinds. What we're seeing is a fragmentation of the music market rather than a shrinking of that market per se. Of course, some people who base their living on the old system will lose out, but new opportunities arise, and that is ultimately the nature of capitalist markets. I like the way things are changing.

[icastle]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070160' date='Dec 27 2010, 02:59 PM']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.[/quote]

Hey - if they want a squeaky clean reputation they shouldn't go chasing after 56-year-old shelf-stackers who sing to themselves should they?

I am realistic enough to understand that being a 'not for profit organisation' does not automatically give them instant 'saint status' however much people would like that to be the case.
It is extremely easy to run a 'not for profit business' - ask any MP.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='icastle' post='1070189' date='Dec 27 2010, 03:28 PM']Hey - if they want a squeaky clean reputation they shouldn't go chasing after 56-year-old shelf-stackers who sing to themselves should they?

I am realistic enough to understand that being a 'not for profit organisation' does not automatically give them instant 'saint status' however much people would like that to be the case.
It is extremely easy to run a 'not for profit business' - ask any MP.[/quote]
You are clearly, on this evidence, keen on totally unfair appraisal, so I'll leave it there.

[icastle]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070202' date='Dec 27 2010, 03:39 PM']You are clearly, on this evidence, keen on totally unfair appraisal, so I'll leave it there.[/quote]

No, that is not the case.
I am totally against any self appointed group being able to harrass innocent people for no reason - I don't care [b]who[/b] that group is or what their aims are - if it involves harrassing innocent people for no reason then it is fundementally wrong and should be stamped on.
It should also be noted that the 56 year old shelf stacker story is by no means the only example of excessive PRS bullying - a google search shows many other similar stories.

As I said at the very beginning, I believe the PRS started out with good intentions but that they have lost their way.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='icastle' post='1070213' date='Dec 27 2010, 03:55 PM']As I said at the very beginning, I believe the PRS started out with good intentions but that they have lost their way.[/quote]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

[flyfisher]

Is a PRS licence required when a band plays a gig consisting of only original songs? And if so, why?

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070388' date='Dec 27 2010, 07:12 PM']Is a PRS licence required when a band plays a gig consisting of only original songs? And if so, why?[/quote]
Only if they are registered as PRS members, (although it's not the band, but the venue that has the license) and the purpose would be for them to receive payment through the licensing system for a public performance of their material. Probably not worth it for a one off, but if you are touring regularly then it can result in some reasonable cheques coming through.

Edited December 27, 2010 by jakesbass

[jakenewmanbass]

It surprises me that the tone of so many views on here is so suspicious of PRS, it is basically a collection service for musicians, and to that extent is a service that deals with an area that is fraught with difficulty: the collection of monies arising from the usage of intellectual property, I think that perhaps some of the less generous commentators should have a look at the service that PRS provide for the industry before posting on here with tales of what demonic oligarchs that sip champagne from the bellies of virgins whilst draped in swan feather nightgowns run the organisation.

Edited December 27, 2010 by jakesbass

[crez5150]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070407' date='Dec 27 2010, 07:29 PM']sip champagne from the bellies of virgins whilst draped in swan feather nightgowns run the organisation. [/quote]

Sounds like my rider....

[Chris2112]

The PRS seems to often get the two finger salute, like the tax man!

At work we were quoted some outrageous PRS licensing price, all to be able to use radios to listen to music in the work place. The radios were quickly removed and that was another buget slashed!

[crez5150]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1070411' date='Dec 27 2010, 07:33 PM']The PRS seems to often get the two finger salute, like the tax man!

At work we were quoted some outrageous PRS licensing price, all to be able to use radios to listen to music in the work place. The radios were quickly removed and that was another buget slashed![/quote]


While I was demonstrating some Audio equipment at PLASA this year, the company I was working for was charged £43.00 per day for the entire show for playing a track from an Alanis Morissette album. They had a PRS license but it did not cover them off of their premises. I watched the guy go round each exhibitor and issue various fines over a period of four days.

[Ancient Mariner]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070407' date='Dec 27 2010, 07:29 PM']It surprises me that the tone of so many views on here is so suspicious of PRS, it is basically a collection service for musicians, and to that extent is a service that deals with an area that is fraught with difficulty: the collection of monies arising from the usage of intellectual property, I think that perhaps some of the less generous commentators should have a look at the service that PRS provide for the industry before posting on here with tales of what demonic oligarchs that sip champagne from the bellies of virgins whilst draped in swan feather nightgowns run the organisation. [/quote]

I suspect many see the PRS as part of the system that is killing off live music through draconian licensing. I'm not suggesting this is a correct view, but I can certainly see how this might arise.

The UK seems to have become increasingly unfriendly toward live music.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Ancient Mariner

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Ancient Mariner' post='1070477' date='Dec 27 2010, 08:23 PM']I suspect many see the PRS as part of the system that is killing off live music through draconian licensing. I'm not suggesting this is a correct view, but I can certainly see how this might arise.

The UK seems to have become increasingly unfriendly toward live music.[/quote]
I think if a few more people here made a living from music their views may well be tempered.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070397' date='Dec 27 2010, 07:21 PM']Only if they are registered as PRS members, (although it's not the band, but the venue that has the license) and the purpose would be for them to receive payment through the licensing system for a public performance of their material. Probably not worth it for a one off, but if you are touring regularly then it can result in some reasonable cheques coming through.[/quote]
I don't really understand this.

Even if an originals band is on a big tour, why the need for PRS at the venues they play? Presumably they'll be getting their cut from the ticket price anyway, so what is the point of the PRS taking another cut of the ticket price which they would, presumably, have to hand over to the band anyway?

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070497' date='Dec 27 2010, 08:40 PM']I don't really understand this.

Even if an originals band is on a big tour, why the need for PRS at the venues they play? Presumably they'll be getting their cut from the ticket price anyway, so what is the point of the PRS taking another cut of the ticket price which they would, presumably, have to hand over to the band anyway?[/quote]
It's a stream of revenue, that is all, widen your pool of who might be the recipients and you might see some worth in it.

[paul_5]

Here's my 2p worth. Turn on your radio, have a listen. Chances are that there's some insipid pre-digested pop music that has no cultural worth or value, 'sung' by an artist that will maybe only do the one album before being dropped for 'the next big thing' within 12 months. Record companies simply don't invest in [i] artists[i] anymore - they release all of this tosh because it's guaranteed to sell - and thus make a return on their investment.

Arguably if everyone who stole music from the internet started to pay for it then the record companies would have more cash to support not just new, but semi-established artists who need nurturing artistically to produce their best material (good for artists, good for punters). Back in the day labels would tolerate months of studio time because they could afford to have faith in their roster of artists. Yes, they weren't all zingers, but how many truly ground-breaking albums are produced now? Labels just can't afford to do that anymore. I'm not saying that they are pure of thought, word and deed - this is business after all - but they need to make a quick buck to keep the wheels turning. Sadly that's a sign of the times. That is all.

[icastle]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070497' date='Dec 27 2010, 08:40 PM']I don't really understand this.

Even if an originals band is on a big tour, why the need for PRS at the venues they play? Presumably they'll be getting their cut from the ticket price anyway, so what is the point of the PRS taking another cut of the ticket price which they would, presumably, have to hand over to the band anyway?[/quote]

Dead easy - it's money for nothing - it's what happens when you let self appointed groups rule the roost...

[icastle]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070388' date='Dec 27 2010, 07:12 PM']Is a PRS licence required when a band plays a gig consisting of only original songs? And if so, why?[/quote]

No it's not.
It's up to the individual to decide whether to buy into the PRS way of doing things.
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/taysid...ral/8317952.stm[/url]

[Musky]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070497' date='Dec 27 2010, 08:40 PM']I don't really understand this.

Even if an originals band is on a big tour, why the need for PRS at the venues they play? Presumably they'll be getting their cut from the ticket price anyway, so what is the point of the PRS taking another cut of the ticket price which they would, presumably, have to hand over to the band anyway?[/quote]
I'm a little surprised that you're presuming bands will be getting a cut of ticket sales. Plenty of bands bands get zip in terms of cash for supporting a name act, and plenty more are paying for the privilege.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='paul_5' post='1070512' date='Dec 27 2010, 08:55 PM']Arguably if everyone who stole music from the internet started to pay for it then the record companies would have more cash to support not just new, but semi-established artists who need nurturing artistically to produce their best material (good for artists, good for punters).[/quote]

I really think this is the wrong way round wrt cause and effect - the majors started focusing their attention on short-term chart music gain long before downloading became any kind of issue. David Bowie among others has talked about the need for artists to focus more on live performance as a revenue source, I don't think this is such a bad thing.

[flyfisher]

I agree with the live performance thing as a main revenue source, although I do think some of the big names are taking the p*ss when it comes to ticket prices. I could have a holiday in Spain for some of the ticket prices bandied about, especially by many old bands riding the current trend to reform. Still, I guess that's market forces and if people are daft enough to pay such prices then good luck to them.

It'll be interesting to see how the music industry develops, but I don't think 'strong-arm' tactics by the PRS are going to win many hearts. Besides, what IS the justification for needing a licence to have a radio in the office or factory when the broadcasters are, presumably, already paying the thick end of a very large wedge already? This seems like the usual music industry trick of getting the mug-punters to pay more than once for their music.

It would be interesting to know the sales of The Beatles on iTunes since the music industry made such a big splash about their catalogue now being online. Does anyone really believe there were loads of people just waiting to finally buy Beatles tunes online, when their CDs have been available for years? And, let's be honest, millions of kids today already have access to such stuff via their parents music collection and they take it all with them on their iPods and laptops when they leave home.

There is a huge body of 'classic' popular music that is nowadays effectively in the public domain. It might still be covered by various copyright laws but the reality is that almost all songs are freely available on demand these days. The music industry might not like it and our IP laws might not have caught up with the reality, but that's the way the world is working and no amount of music industry posturing and threats is going to put the genie back in the bottle.

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='arthurhenry' post='1069974' date='Dec 27 2010, 02:41 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?[/quote]No.


[quote name='wotnwhy' post='1070138' date='Dec 27 2010, 06:26 AM']If a man takes a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, is that stealing?[/quote]
Yes.

Both of these questions attempt to rationalize theft by intent. The intent is irrelevant to the property owner who has had their property stolen.

Both of the above examples are examples of cognitive dissonance. You want to steal but don't want to be a thief so a construct is created that makes your stealing noble.

I download music all the time. I steal it. End of story

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='1070082' date='Dec 27 2010, 05:11 AM']BTW it mathS[/quote]
It's, not it

[Vibrating G String]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1070674' date='Dec 27 2010, 04:09 PM']It would be interesting to know the sales of The Beatles on iTunes since the music industry made such a big splash about their catalogue now being online. Does anyone really believe there were loads of people just waiting to finally buy Beatles tunes online, when their CDs have been available for years?[/quote]Here's the results for the first week.


Beatles Sales On iTunes Top 450K
November 23, 2010 12:00 EST – Digital & Mobile

By By Billboard staff

The initial Beatles sales figures are in: More than 450,000 albums and 2 million individual songs were sold on iTunes worldwide, according to Apple, since the Beatles catalog was made available Tuesday (Nov. 16). In U.S. the best-selling album was "Abbey Road" and best-selling song was "Here Comes the Sun."

[url="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/news/e3i39b5c49ccd74a21f12815b9fb843970c"]http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_dis...2815b9fb843970c[/url]

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Vibrating G String' post='1070681' date='Dec 28 2010, 12:22 AM']It's, not it [/quote]

typical