US Gov admits piracy figures are bogus

[Brian-M]

I don't really see what copyright laws add to our society. It basically amounts to people not being able to use the products they buy as they see fit. There will always be people making high quality music and software even if they don't earn a living from it.

Copyright laws exist so that the people who do the work to make a book, song, movie, ect, can can get paid for their work. Imagine what would happen without it. Somebody starts a band, invents songs, sell a few self-recorded CDs. Someone in the music industry gets hold one of the CDs and starts selling millions of copies, and the band that did the work doesn't see a cent from any of these sales.

Originally copyright laws were invented to be applied to books, and at that time only large companies would have the resources to affordably produce copies. The same applies to recorded music, before audiotape was invented. So originally, in practice, copyright laws only applied to businesses and companies. But now everybody has the capacity to reproduce electronic copies of books, music and movies with ease, the laws apply to us too, because the law doesn't distinguish between a natural person and a legal entity (such as a corporation).

Think of it like this...

Imagine you have a small band, and you start selling home-made CDs of your music, to try and make a little money. But someone buys a CD, and makes a few dozen copies of it, and gives these copies to their friends, many of which make more copies which they give to more of their friends, and so on.

Next thing you know, the CD that you spent six months working on, and thousands of dollars for professional studio time and editing to create, isn't making you any money because everyone is getting copies for free. You've actually made a huge loss financially, not to mention the hundreds of hours of work that you won't get any money from. So you and your band never make another CD, because it's not worth the time and oney to make.

What kind of laws would you come up to prevent this from happening?

 

[Meed]

Society has decided that maintaining professional quality music & software is more desirable than having no professionals and leaving it to hobbyists.

I think that's reasonable.

Society decided? Not so sure that's a fair statement.

The difference between a professional and a hobbyist is just that one gets payed. It doesn't mean that the quality of the product is necessarily inferior. Professional musicians didn't start out as professionals.

 

[Meed]

Copyright laws exist so that the people who do the work to make a book, song, movie, ect, can can get paid for their work. Imagine what would happen without it. Somebody starts a band, invents songs, sell a few self-recorded CDs. Someone in the music industry gets hold one of the CDs and starts selling millions of copies, and the band that did the work doesn't see a cent from any of these sales.

I agree with intellectual property protections as far as sales and plagiarism go (except in the case of medical products).

Think of it like this...

Imagine you have a small band, and you start selling home-made CDs of your music, to try and make a little money. But someone buys a CD, and makes a few dozen copies of it, and gives these copies to their friends, many of which make more copies which they give to more of their friends, and so on.

Next thing you know, the CD that you spent six months working on, and thousands of dollars for professional studio time and editing to create, isn't making you any money because everyone is getting copies for free. You've actually made a huge loss financially, not to mention the hundreds of hours of work that you won't get any money from. So you and your band never make another CD, because it's not worth the time and oney to make.

What kind of laws would you come up to prevent this from happening?

None. Personally, although I would never spend thousands of dollars on studio time without a better reason than selling home-made CDs, I'd be thrilled if that happened to me. As unrealistic as that scenario is. To get such a positive reception to my music and so much exposure would be a great accomplishment. It also would make it much easier to get more and better gigs. The vast majority of musicians do not make a living through CD sales, they do it through teaching and gigs.

I've dabbled in amature music and the idea that time spent making music is somehow wasted if I'm not payed for it is bizarre to me. Making music is its own reward. It's a bigger reward if it's heard and appreciated by others.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Society decided? Not so sure that's a fair statement.

The difference between a professional and a hobbyist is just that one gets payed. It doesn't mean that the quality of the product is necessarily inferior. Professional musicians didn't start out as professionals.

It's also that the professional can devote time and resources to the project that the hobbyist cannot. It also involves a qualitative change of dedication when what you tinker with in the evenings becomes your full time job.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Society decided? Not so sure that's a fair statement.

The difference between a professional and a hobbyist is just that one gets payed. It doesn't mean that the quality of the product is necessarily inferior. Professional musicians didn't start out as professionals.

And thus has time to make great music. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[Meed]

Indeed. But I don't think the difference would be all that big. And anyway, bands could still go professional and they would still have incentive to make recordings to increase exposure and in turn the ability to profit from live shows (not to mention the non-monetary incentives).

 

[Meed]

And thus has time to make great music. It's a pretty simple concept.

*And thus has more time to make great music.

I'm not sure how many would go professional in the first place if making great music required not having a job.

 

[quixotecoyote]

*And thus has more time to make great music.

I'm not sure how many would go professional in the first place if making great music required not having a job.

I've done both the self-produced album (many years ago) and video game hobbyism. I don't think you quite grasp the time commitment of either one, especially if you're going to create something that doesn't sound like it was recorded in a garage or look like it was made from sprites, MSpaint, and the spiritual residue of a swarm of angry dead insects.

 

[Ducky]

Indeed. But I don't think the difference would be all that big. And anyway, bands could still go professional and they would still have incentive to make recordings to increase exposure and in turn the ability to profit from live shows (not to mention the non-monetary incentives).

Protip: Bands themselves aren't the ones that make their music sound great on the album. As a sound engineer professionally, I have heard very few bands ever be able to self-produce anything that isn't crap-sounding no matter how genius the content is to listen to live.

As a touring musician making 10 bucks an album out of the back of my van after every show, I know you make **** from gigs. Absolute ****. The money is made peddling your cd's and t-shirts, etc.

So no, the difference is amazing and huge.

 

[Meed]

I've done both the self-produced album (many years ago) and video game hobbyism. I don't think you quite grasp the time commitment of either one, especially if you're going to create something that doesn't sound like it was recorded in a garage or look like it was made from sprites, MSpaint, and the spiritual residue of a swarm of angry dead insects.

My mom (not a professional musician) made an album along with some musician friends. They used a studio. Didn't cost an arm and a leg. Sounded very good.

You say I don't grasp the time commitment, yet you still did it? What I grasp is that many people are very dedicated to their hobbies.

 

[erlando]

I recently ran into some crazy DRM on a legit copy of Dragon Age: Origins(I do pirate a quite a bit, but this one I own). None of my DLC was showing up on the map, and after doing some research I found that it is a form of DRM; I had to connect to a Bioware server or some-such to authorize the DLC I had bought at the time of playing. I don't know why my game wasn't doing it, but whatever...

Ubisoft is currently implementing their "always-online" DRM in their games. You have to be online to play - even if it's single player. Lose your internet connection and it's bye-bye. No more gaming for you.

This is turning a lot of otherwise paying customers toward piracy.

 

[Meed]

Protip: Bands themselves aren't the ones that make their music sound great on the album. As a sound engineer professionally, I have heard very few bands ever be able to self-produce anything that isn't crap-sounding no matter how genius the content is to listen to live.

Sound engineers aren't unaffordable, they generally are included in the price of studio rental time which is really not that bad.

As a touring musician making 10 bucks an album out of the back of my van after every show, I know you make **** from gigs. Absolute ****. The money is made peddling your cd's and t-shirts, etc.

Okay, I was thinking more of people who play local gigs than touring, but I can see why sales make more sense doing that. The local gig players I've known make more money from giving lessons, but playing live obviously adds enjoyment and variety.

So no, the difference is amazing and huge.

Well let's face it, becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is, except for the very small percentage who manage to make it big. Yet there is still an overwhelming amount of awesome music out there.

 

[Ducky]

Sound engineers aren't unaffordable, they generally are included in the price of studio rental time which is really not that bad.



Okay, I was thinking more of people who play local gigs than touring, but I can see why sales make more sense doing that. The local gig players I've known make more money from giving lessons, but playing live obviously adds enjoyment and variety.



Well let's face it, becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is, except for the very small percentage who manage to make it big. Yet there is still an overwhelming amount of awesome music out there.

I absolutely disagree. Independent musicians can make money and it is a viable career choice - I have many friends doing this now that make good money. But it takes the ability to be able to make money off your IP.

 

[Meed]

Really, they make most of their living through CD sales? That surprises me.

 

[Rolfe]

Think about the commitment from classical musicians required to perfect their art. The innumerable hours of practice, the college degrees, the sheer perfectionism and dedication. Amateurs just aren't in that league. If you can't make money as a professional classical musician, that level of commitment just ain't going to happen.

Rolfe.

 

[Ducky]

Really, they make most of their living through CD sales? That surprises me.

They make a large part of it through that, yes. Why does it surprise you that the sale of CD's is much larger than being paid for gigs? I made far more money on CD sales than I ever did getting paid to play a bar or a hall.

 

[Meed]

I take back "becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is", I'm sure that was an exaggerated statement on second thought and I'm not exactly sure how I was defining "professional musician".

They make a large part of it through that, yes. Why does it surprise you that the sale of CD's is much larger than being paid for gigs? I made far more money on CD sales than I ever did getting paid to play a bar or a hall.

Well it'd surprise me if very many could sell hundreds of CDs per week or something amounting to that yearly over a significant portion of time.

Think about the commitment from classical musicians required to perfect their art. The innumerable hours of practice, the college degrees, the sheer perfectionism and dedication. Amateurs just aren't in that league. If you can't make money as a professional classical musician, that level of commitment just ain't going to happen.

I don't think that's an easy way to make a living since orchestras are often seasonal. You might get a good hourly earn, but not a sufficient amount of hours. I could be wrong though. However, I think it's safe to say that most classical musicians don't make a living through CD sales? My uncle is a classical pianist btw and he mainly just does lessons now.

 

[Fishstick]

They make a large part of it through that, yes. Why does it surprise you that the sale of CD's is much larger than being paid for gigs? I made far more money on CD sales than I ever did getting paid to play a bar or a hall.

Out of (non-gotcha) curiousity, do you also sell MP3's on a site, or only CD's? With a lot of lesser-known groups that I end up buying music from I'd rather purchase some FLAC's or MP3's than another CD i'd end up ripping anyway.

ETA: Also what genre do you play, maybe I'd like it!

 

[Ducky]

I take back "becoming a professional musician is really not a viable career choice as it is", I'm sure that was an exaggerated statement on second thought and I'm not exactly sure how I was defining "professional musician".



Well it'd surprise me if very many could sell hundreds of CDs per week or something amounting to that yearly over a significant portion of time.

I think you would be surprised at how many CD's many independent artists could move a month if they were gigging heavily. I don't have any hard numbers for other bands, but one I worked with re-ordered sets of 5000 CD's three or four times before we broke up (over a time period of about a year.) You don't have to sell hundreds per month to make a good living. at $1 a CD and whatever costs of recording you've spent (studio time and mastering), you often can reclaim your losses quickly enough in the first pressing to pay for the second pressing and begin to turn profit. If you could move 500 CD's at 10 bucks a piece in two months, you do the math. Add supplemental income from gigging (which may or may not be very much depending on where you can get booked) and other IP you sell (shirts, stickers etc.) and you don't do half bad. At the time I was active, it was also pretty easy to get a deal with Amazon for warehouse/sales of a CD.

Out of (non-gotcha) curiousity, do you also sell MP3's on a site, or only CD's? With a lot of lesser-known groups that I end up buying music from I'd rather purchase some FLAC's or MP3's than another CD i'd end up ripping anyway.

ETA: Also what genre do you play, maybe I'd like it!

I haven't been actively selling CD's or recording since 2002. Back then we did not sell mp3's because it hadn't been the market it is today. Today we'd have set up an iTunes partnership (or Jamendo, etc.)

I have been in many genre's of bands over the years. The albatross of a solo album I have been working on since 2003 (I was sidetracked by some medical issues and a day job to pay for my insurance) is loosely defined as funk rock I guess.

 

[Steve]

Think about the commitment from classical musicians required to perfect their art. The innumerable hours of practice, the college degrees, the sheer perfectionism and dedication. Amateurs just aren't in that league. If you can't make money as a professional classical musician, that level of commitment just ain't going to happen.

Rolfe.

And yet classical orchestras were viable for hundreds of years prior to the invention of recording. Their income came from live performances and teaching, similar to most classical musicians today. I doubt that orchestra (not soloists) members earn a very high percentage of their income from the royalties from orchestral recordings.