I had a short but interesting conversation on Friday about piracy with someone who believes that downloading pirated music, movies, and whatnot is wrong. "We’re in the content business," he said, referring to his company, and therefore has a great respect for content rights.
That’s certainly a common point of view — the RIAA and MPAA most notably share them. And it’s certainly the legal point of view. But is it the right and logical view?
Let’s focus on music piracy because it’s the most rampant. The number of songs paid for on iTunes and other sites pales in comparison to what’s downloaded illegally.
The idea that piracy is bad for a content company is based on a number of assumptions. First and foremost that they want to sell music — as much as possible.
The assumption that follows is key: That stopping piracy will increase your music sales because, obviously, pirates will have to pay for what they had previously been stealing.
But there’s a key flaw in that logic that organizations like the RIAA don’t get. It assumes that there is no value in having your content ‘out there’ even if it isn’t paid for.
But there is value there. A lot, in fact.
Which will sell more music: To require people to buy it if they want it, or to get it in the hands of as many people as possible? I would argue that it’s better to get your music to more people, even if they’ve "stolen" it, because it’s a better long-term driver of your profits. People will buy more of your music, along with ancillary products — shirts, posters, concert tickets, etc. — that help increase the ‘mindspace’ of your product.
Of course, it’s a valid argument that I’m wrong — that ancillary sales and long-term potential don’t make up for piracy. It’s hard to measure the future. But it is certainly not cut-and-dried that piracy=bad for content makers.
There are some obvious examples. A friend says, "Have you heard this song?" You download it illegally (because it’s easier and cheaper than to go through a music store). You like it. You then buy the band’s CD. Or even if you pirate the CD, you play it in your car for a friend and he buys it.
It’s more important to get your content out there than to make sure that every copy is paid for.
And remember, content organizations like the RIAA are not just trying to stop straight-up piracy. They’re trying to prevent people from using music in YouTube videos, for example.
Again, the logic is that there’s little value in simply getting the song out there. And that’s not true. You can argue about the amount of value, but it’s certainly there.
Finally, consider this recent example from another direction. A group of Ford Mustang enthusiasts (the Black Mustang Club or BMC) created a calendar showing off their members’ Mustangs. But Ford said "No," claiming it owned the copyright to the images of the member’s vehicles.
End result: Fewer people get to see those great Mustang images, less publicity for Ford — less good publicity, anyway. Plenty of bad karma.
The world of content has changed dramatically (I know, duh). And with that change comes a change to the way companies have to look at the world of profit. Old-style ideas like "theft is bad for me" have to be examined. Because, well, sometimes they’re wrong.
The Fray
Morkleb says:
I’ve bought quite a few CDs of bands that I originally heard from pirated music a friend gave me.
That being said, I’ve *not* bought a lot of CDs because either someone gave me a pirated copy of it or because I found it somewhere else myself.
I am an iTunes user, but I am usually unable to find the music that I listen to.
I was under the impression that music companies didn’t make as much from CDs as they did from concerts and merchandising. Is this incorrect?
Andrew says:
As I understand it, the artists make most of their money from merchandise and concerts, but not much at all from music sales. The record companies have it the other way around. Ergo, buying a T-shirt supports the artist; buying the music not so much.
This may be wrong. Anyone know the details?
Eric Berlin says:
And how will people stealing movies sell more movies?
gnomic says:
Movies and music have different properties. Music is short and people listen to the same songs repeatedly. Movies much less so.
I’ve bought hundreds of albums and ripped most of it to my iPod. Most of it I’ve found through “alternative sources” like pandora.com or NPR and bought much of it via ebay since I rarely find the new stuff I look for in any store or even on Amazon.com (although its gotten much better lately).
And I have a network of people who have similar tastes that I share music with. And like me, they go buy the stuff they like.
And I haven’t asked the RIAA for a nickle for all the marketing I’ve done for them.
And I recommend mediamonkey as an alternative to the ipod software (which SUCKS and crashes often). Mediamonkey allows me to rip, get the art, level volume, organize, rename, and tranfer songs quite easily. Well worth the money. (No, I get nothing from the recommendation).
The RIAA is simply trying to control the channels and content for thier own profits, but artists are beginning to find ways (CDBABY, MP3.COM, etc) around the barriers they’ve erected. And people like me are starting to connect to artists we wouldn’t have found 10 years ago. As long as the RIAA can legislate barriers and intimidate customers and artists, they create an artifical and anticompetative cost structure.
Oh, and they should burn in hell. Sooner if possible.
Randy says:
I always suggest folks go look up Cory Doctorow’s experience on how having all his material freely available for anyone to download and read has worked out for him. He’s one of the most well-known of writers who have done this, and every writer I’ve read about that has tested this has said giving away the work electronically has given greater real-world media sales.
Yes, downloading music/movies is illegal. I suggest that the recording and movie industries work to make it easier to do, however, as it seems to work well for content owners who do so and many people want to pay for the option to download unrestricted IP but can’t do so.
Leland says:
Ford owns the copyright on their photos indeed. What a load of dead carp!
I would hope the Mustang Club told Ford to go pound sand.
Neil C. Reinhartdt says:
IT IS WRONG! IT IS STEALING!
PERIOD!
END OF STORY!
lionemom says:
I agree with Andrew. The fact that Radiohead is making money on their latest album release is a testament to the truth of it.
I think the record companies have become as corrupt as the oil companies. The biggies are no longer in it to produce music that they feel people should hear. They are in it for pure profit. They corner the market on their products by selling them through specific retailers and they control what gets on the radio by co-owning the big communications companies that own 90% of the radio stations in the US. It’s pathetic.
I rarely hear new music on the radio, with the exception of WBRU, Providence, which is still an independent radio station. They are Alt-Rock, I wouldn’t call them progressive (there is a real progressive station in Long Island, and I can get them on trips to or through CT.)
I usually hear of new stuff I want through other people, whether it’s people I know, blogs I read or stuff recommended to me.
Anyway, I think the days of the big record companies are fading. I am not sure what will take their place. Maybe new, smaller, artist-run companies to help new artists produce their albums. One can only hope.
Trae says:
I’ve got to agree, that regardless of the legality of unauthorized “sharing”, distributors can’t see the benefit of that share. All they see is lost money. Another point to keep in mind is that most people that pirate wouldn’t buy the CD even if they couldn’t pirate it.
Also, with the more prevalent use of personal media players including cars that store your music too–in my opinion–proves the fact that people don’t want the radio stations (in turn, major labels) dictating to them what to listen to.
Another good example would be your last post on the Giant’s win (Boo by the way). I hope you got the “express written consent” from the NFL before you posted that stuff…as they say:
Video of the copyright statement
A little overboard?