What is the Future of Piracy in the Gaming and Media Industries?

[downtown]

Two things:

1. Piracy has a bright and shadow side and the press and the industry as a whole focus on the shadow side in stead of the bright side:

- free global exposure
- global consumer base

Artists have always made money from gigs, not from selling records. You can't pirate a good live performance.


This bright side is not exploited well/at all, hence point 2:

2. I think all industries should think from the consumer's perspective and not as much from the business perspective. The current business perspective is totally unrealistic.

- people don't buy when they have downloaded
- sales are down
- regional releases

remedy: prices up to make up for losses and make the consumer jump through hoops with all kinds of protection schemes

what is wrong:

- there is so much below-par stuff out there which is sold for a price which is too high. People are not going to waste their hard earned cash for something they might throw in the corner after one view/listen/hour of play, even if the artists/programmers have worked hard for it as well.
- prices are too high in general. People are more willing to take risks if the losses can be bared.
- release stuff at the same time. Regional releases suck. If Americans can get a DVD or a game, it's expensive to import it. To make it worse, I can't even import American DVD's since I have a Region 2 player. How am I supposed to watch Chappelle's Show or Entourage for example?

solution:

- More global releases (less patience needed, less temptation to download stuff in stead of waiting for months)
- Lower prices (you need to sell more copies, but owning a fysical product is much cooler than a digital copy)
- More respect for consumers. Pirated movies have the warnings and compulsary trailers stripped. Pirated games have the compulsary CD/DVD-check removed. Pirated music can be played everywhere without the risk of compromising your PC

A lot of people are tempted by piracy and the industry does not realize that the ball is in their court to change all this....

Ok, couple of things with this post

First, is this idea that Bands make their money, not with CD sales, but by performing. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
This might be true for major labels, but for indies and unsigned (which, I might add, are downloaded just as often as major labels), CD sales make up much larger percentages of their profit. For maybe half of my gigs, since times are rougher, the venue pays me a small fee (gas, free food and drink, small stipend), and I get to open a merch table, to sell T-shirts, CDs and Stickers. This is not too uncommon for unsigned groups. Contracts for smaller labels are dependant on CD sales often as well.

Point is, if you arent on a stadium tour, you need to sell CDs to make money. You cant tour, or make music, without money.

People complain that music is ****, and they arent paying 16 bucks for a horsehockey CD. Fine. Then don't buy it. But then you shouldnt download it either. I can't go to a car lot, say "this car is too expensive and its crap", and then take the car.

I understand the market is changings. CDs ought to be cheaper, and some are. They ought to have more music on them. With the rise of MP3 players, and the internet, music is distributed more online, and by song. 99 cents per song is totally fair. If you really can't afford a buck, go get a job, and stop downloading music.

Its true, some people who download might buy your stuff. But if a guy downloads 20 songs, then buys a CD, you (the band) still come out at a loss. Even if say, 60% of people who download buy stuff (I doubt its that high), 40% of people still have your product, without paying for it, and they are more likely to distrubte that to others, who won't pay. The Band loses.

If people can't afford my product, then they shouldnt download it.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
Matt- I feel with you, I know people in bands that can't even afford merchandise (not that tightpurse Czechs would buy it anyway). But how many people heard Aces High? How can these people target you? If guy downloads twenty songs and then buy CD, how do you make loss over somebody who did not download and did not buy the CD?

BTW last month I got some money and bought a music CD, I pop it into comp and Windows Media Player offers me to rip it. As far as it would affect me I can send the CD to hundred other people who could rip it too... (not that any of them would take it, it is Lordi latest disc)

 

[vinstafresh]

First of all, I respect the work of an artist and in no way am I trying to make piracy sound like a good thing, because it isn't.

That said, 99 cents for an mp3 (not always in good quality when bought at an online music store), IS expensive, relatively speaking. You don't get the CD itself, you miss out on the artwork of the cover and the booklet. The CD itself loses its emotional value and has no decorative purpose whatsoever. I have a CD/DVD-wall, some of which are still shrinkwrapped because I have the downloaded (pirated if you will) versions on my iPod. I'd rather pay $20 for an album than $10 for the digital version any day.

Its true, some people who download might buy your stuff. But if a guy downloads 20 songs, then buys a CD, you (the band) still come out at a loss. Even if say, 60% of people who download buy stuff (I doubt its that high), 40% of people still have your product, without paying for it, and they are more likely to distrubte that to others, who won't pay. The Band loses.

This is a very emotional reaction, because the music you make, is your baby. I understand that the music is an artist's personality, his emotion, it's a process. Remember that a consumer sees music as a finished product, sound waves. It's totally unfair, but there are thousands and thousands of other bands out there, whose album deserves to be bought as well. In the end it's all about getting your money's worth. High prices raise expectations and when those expectations are met, a consumer is prepared to pay for music they love. Or even more plastically: they are prepared to pay for the finished product they love. Remember, consumers pay for your process and emotion with their process and emotion, the earnings from their job, it's a circle. An artist could always get a regular job and earn a steady pay as well... If you want to make money with music, you need to become an entertainer, artists will always struggle to get by.

I think you cross the line if downloading is an alternative for buying.

 

[Pikachu]

Although piracy has been around since the beginning of time, it became overwhelmingly powerful around the year 2000, when broadband internet access was widespread among developed countries. This, along with first-generation popular P2P file-sharing applications, caused the widespread distribution of pirated media.

I am not so sure that the internet has made piracy a much greater problem than before. There was certainly a lot of piracy going on before that too. I remember well how fast floppy discs were passed around among friends in the good old 80s. To a lesser extent the same thing happened with music cassettes. Among my friends piracy was a lot more common back then than it is now. I was actually quite a pirate myself. I see two main reasons for this.

We didn’t have much money, and wasting money on computer games was certainly not acceptable. If I couldn’t get pirate copies of computer games I wouldn’t had any computer games at all. It was as simple as that.

But the social aspect about piracy was maybe even more important. In those days the way things worked was that people shared their computer games with their friends. Having many pirated games indicated that you had many popular friends, which seemed quite important. While buying computer games indicated that you didn’t have any friends that were willing to share it with you, meaning you were a loser.

But all this changed when the internet came around. Anybody can download pirated stuff from the internet. All it takes is to spend time alone in front of your computer, but people who do too much of that looks like losers.

The internet ruined the all fun in piracy, so I don’t do much of that anymore. Now it is more fun to buy stuff, unless it has copy protection of course. Copy protections are so annoying

 

[Sabreman]

So is digital distribution the way forward? Something along the basic lines of the Steam model perhaps. Being a bit of a minimalist I'm not overly attached to physical items - the only soft spot I have in this area is for books. However, films, music and games I could quite happily live without physical copies of. Already every CD I buy gets immediately ripped to the HD and never actually touched again. It's just another item taking up space.

 

[crabapple]

Why do people think that the piracy will be over? becouse heavier piracy protection? there is always a way around, piracy will only increse, soon there will be totally anomynous programs that makes it totally untrackable, then the chance to get caught is slim to none.

 

[downtown]

Bright day
Matt- I feel with you, I know people in bands that can't even afford merchandise (not that tightpurse Czechs would buy it anyway). But how many people heard Aces High? How can these people target you? If guy downloads twenty songs and then buy CD, how do you make loss over somebody who did not download and did not buy the CD?

BTW last month I got some money and bought a music CD, I pop it into comp and Windows Media Player offers me to rip it. As far as it would affect me I can send the CD to hundred other people who could rip it too... (not that any of them would take it, it is Lordi latest disc)

You're right, at this point, I can't say people downloading has really hurt me. I'm a very little band, and people outside of Central Ohio likely havent heard of us (unless maybe they go to my school or something)

However, there are hundreds of unsigned bands, or bands on small labels, that are in similar boats, and DO get hurt. The very small, and the very large arent hurt too bad...its the small-medium groups that are hit the hardest. It seems lots of people have this "oh, they're already rich, 99 cents wont kill them" attitude. That may be true of the Rolling Stones or something, but that attitude will kill any local bands you like

 

[cairo140]

I understand the market is changings. CDs ought to be cheaper, and some are. They ought to have more music on them. With the rise of MP3 players, and the internet, music is distributed more online, and by song. 99 cents per song is totally fair. If you really can't afford a buck, go get a job, and stop downloading music.

Matt, I sympathize with you. I can make the assumption that you are a good musician who deserves to sell many records. Speaking on a personal note though, even through you are a good musician, I would most likely still not buy your CD. If I were really interested, I may in fact download a song illegally. It's unfortunate that I, and 99% of the population, would think this way, but it's the way it is. Artists today need to find more coercive ways to earn money .

As for paying for individual downloads, I think that point is perfectly reasonable. If your music were good, I would definitely support you by paying 99 cents for a song. Thinking honestly, a song lasts 4 minutes on average, and I earn 99 cents every couple minutes, so it's really a pittance of a cost that is easily leveraged by the fact that support allows for the artist to produce more quality media in the future.

 

[downtown]

Matt, I sympathize with you. I can make the assumption that you are a good musician who deserves to sell many records. Speaking on a personal note though, even through you are a good musician, I would most likely still not buy your CD. If I were really interested, I may in fact download a song illegally. It's unfortunate that I, and 99% of the population, would think this way, but it's the way it is. Artists today need to find more coercive ways to earn money .

As for paying for individual downloads, I think that point is perfectly reasonable. If your music were good, I would definitely support you by paying 99 cents for a song. Thinking honestly, a song lasts 4 minutes on average, and I earn 99 cents every couple minutes, so it's really a pittance of a cost that is easily leveraged by the fact that support allows for the artist to produce more quality media in the future.

See, that I think thats the problem. Both sides, the artist, and the listener, have to make changes. Obvioiusly, the market has shown that CDs cost too darn much. You're right. I've downloaded music before too. If major CD labels (heck, any artist), thinks he's going to get 16 bucks for 10 tracks, he's wrong.

So, the artist makes his CD, gives it cover art, makes it special, and makes a discount price, say, 9.99 (12 songs). Artists really cant go a whole lot lower than this, I dont think, if they're signed, because then its no longer profitable for the label.

The industry has done other things to adapt. Tons of bands have 30 second sound clips, for free, of all of their songs, (say, on Napster or Itunes, or their website), or even give a few (not all), for free. This lowers the risk factor for the listener (I dont want to spend 10 bucks unless I know I like the band. Now, I can check for free)

After all of this, if the listener likes the band, he ought to pay for their stuff. After these changes, I dont really see how somebody is justfied by not paying, but taking the music anyways.

If any of you guys are interested, I have a 9-5 job that has nothing to do with music. I give live shows, and I sell t-shirts and stickers along with CDs. I also give private drum lessons, and about half of our band teaches on the side as well.

At this point, making music is a really fun hobby for me, and we'd like to make enough money, not so we become rich, but that we can continue our hobby. My responses are for other guys like us, who are actually trying to "make it". I'm not trying to make myself sound bigger than I am or anything .

Outside of teaching, playing and selling CDs and Merch, I dunno how else we can make money. Do you have ideas Cario?

 

[cairo140]

Matt, have you seen School of Rock? Anyone who has watched that knows the 100% foolproof method to musical success is to fake an identity and live out your dreams through kids, ending up giving after school lessons to squirmy boarding school students. Oh wait, you're already doing something like that, aren't you .

I have to first commend you for the restrained dedication that you put into your music career. You really do love your music, and at the same time, you keep it real, so to speak. Too many wannabe artists actually believe the rich bands when they say, "In order to succeed, you have to pour 110% of your time and energy into your music and nothing else." People who have made it and who speak like that just get on my nerves.

In any case, you're already doing the #1 thing I would have suggested... teach. Teaching is not only rewarding in its own rite (or is it right? I don't know the usage rule of this saying), but it pays well (you should be raking in $25-30 and hour, being relatively well known). I might suggest offering to play concerts at high schools or community events either for entertainment or for a fundraiser. Depending on the demographic, high school students can be extremely responsive to new musical talent. If it's a charity event, not only are you contributing to a good cause, it's great for publicity, connections, and creation of a loyal fan base. If you have a good manager, or manage yourselves well, you might look into free (essentially recreational) gigs in order to raise support.

Above that, the only thing I can really say is, when it comes to music, if you just want to have fun, you're fine the way you are. People buy CDs and merchandise almost exclusively at gigs, so do enough so that you get buy, slowly building a solid fan base. Above all, though, since hitting the huge time is not a goal for you (it is as it should be), then just have fun. Checking out your website, you seem to be pretty big in the Graville, Ohio circuit . I'd try to hunt for diversity in the sorts of gigs and locations in which you play. Good luck with your music hobby.

I know this has nothing to do with piracy; hopefully others will help get this topic back on track.

 

[downtown]

I cant charge that much for teaching. There are two other teachers in the area who have nationally toured (read: actual big deals), who dont charge that much. I get students because I'm cheap (10 bucks for a half hour), and since I'm only 19, parents think I can better relate to their kids.

However, the work is spotty. I can sustain myself just on music money for about a month out of the year, when two local high schools hire me out for the day to teach kids. Its nice work, but its hard to get. Basically, teaching provides me gas/date money/misc. band things.

We try to do as much community playing as we can (not all of our gigs are listed on the website), because you're right, it builds a base, and people are more likely to buy stuff there. However, you can see why we come to rely on CD sales...its the only way to get income in between gigs, and sometimes they come in bunches, and we still have monthly bills to pay .

As for diversity, we're hitting Cleveland Ohio and Washington DC at the end of the month, providing we can procure the funds to do it. Driving vans costs a lot of money these days. Almost everything requires money. Thats why i get uptight over the possibilty of losing part of my stable funding source

 

[nihilistic]

So, the artist makes his CD, gives it cover art, makes it special, and makes a discount price, say, 9.99 (12 songs). Artists really cant go a whole lot lower than this, I dont think, if they're signed, because then its no longer profitable for the label.

Well, out of the 5 industries that are the most involved in the digital piracy debate:

- music
- film/tv
- software
- computer games (they are technically under software but sufficiently different)
- console games

Out of the 5 music is the most trivially pirated (and arguably the least respected) of the lot. No technology is ever going to turn back the clock on music piracy because copying music is simply too easy and convenient.

The other 4 all have some impracticalities. They all share bigger file sizes, with film/tv having the most significant size advantage. The software and games have additional software based locks (which is usually useless) and maybe online verification (which is mostly very useful). Console games also have hardware barriers among other stuff. Music, on the other hand, regardless of whatever level of protection you place on it, can always be circumvented by connecting the output to a recorder.

Music piracy will only become more and more mainstream, and as sad as this may be, it is important for you to realize that you do not have the power or the right to turn the clock back to protect what is essentially an antiquated and defunct business model.

 

[downtown]

When you connect the output to a recorder though, unless you own professional equipment, the product quality takes a pretty big hit. I mean, people did this stuff in the 1980's with tape recorders, but the quality was crap.

I agree that there will likely always be music pirating. If the industry keeps using colleges for a gazillion dollars though, and they become more pressured to create their own networks, then you could see a huge dent in it. American got sued two years ago. Solution? Buy Napster for every student, to cover their arse. The artists get paid, the students get cheap music, everybody wins.

I've seen lots of people say the current model of music sales isnt going to work...even though CDs for large groups still sell in the millions. If people seriously cant be arsed to pay less than a buck for a song they already know they like, what model could work? Are musicians supposed to go "oh well, nobody will buy our music" and give up?

Of course I have the right to "turn back the clock" if I'm a musician, as does the industry. Its our stuff! It might not work, but its the illegal downloader who doesnt have rights.

Also, as high speed internet becomes easier and easier for people to have, the large file problem with downloading movies and TV shows will likely go away. Already, they have services where you "rent" a movie by downloading a film that self deletes after 3 days. Saves you a trip to the store, and has a huge selection. Hows that for an updated model?

 

[nihilistic]

When you connect the output to a recorder though, unless you own professional equipment, the product quality takes a pretty big hit. I mean, people did this stuff in the 1980's with tape recorders, but the quality was crap.

Ah yes, the age old quality argument. Most people fall into one of the 4 groups:
- can't tell the difference with their equipment
- can't tell the difference anyway
- don't care about the difference
- are partially deaf from listening to music

Solution? Buy Napster for every student, to cover their arse. The artists get paid, the students get cheap music, everybody wins.

This is not a solution unless students can opt out of the plan. This is a tax.

I've seen lots of people say the current model of music sales isnt going to work...even though CDs for large groups still sell in the millions. If people seriously cant be arsed to pay less than a buck for a song they already know they like, what model could work? Are musicians supposed to go "oh well, nobody will buy our music" and give up?

Well, it isn't the government's job to come up with a viable busness model for you to earn money. If you cannot find a viable business model, then maybe giving up making music for money is probably the only alternative. Ever think of making music for the love of music?

Of course I have the right to "turn back the clock" if I'm a musician, as does the industry. Its our stuff! It might not work, but its the illegal downloader who doesnt have rights.

My fault for not being clear. That previous statement wasn't directed at the intellectual property you created (i.e. the music), but the form in which you choose to sell them. Much of the expense from that $16 is composed by advertising, studio's (huge) cut, and the medium itself. It can conceivably be much cheaper over itunes or whatnot. Also, the CDs also have a huge drawback in terms of portability and convenience when compared to current technologies such as ipod.

Also, as high speed internet becomes easier and easier for people to have, the large file problem with downloading movies and TV shows will likely go away. Already, they have services where you "rent" a movie by downloading a film that self deletes after 3 days. Saves you a trip to the store, and has a huge selection. Hows that for an updated model?

That is a much better model than wasting a CD/DVD case, at least for people with huge bandwidths.

 

[downtown]

This is not a solution unless students can opt out of the plan. This is a tax.

AFAIK, students can opt out, or at least they can at my school. When you order that many napster memberships in bulk, it comes out to maybe 15 bucks for a year per person. Other schools do it with itunes, and it has been very sucsessful. However, sites like winmx and limewire are totally banned from university networks. A huge amount of music pirating comes from these networks...and that CAN be controled.

Well, it isn't the government's job to come up with a viable busness model for you to earn money. If you cannot find a viable business model, then maybe giving up making music for money is probably the only alternative. Ever think of making music for the love of music?

Making music COSTS a lot of money. Recording gear, amps, mics and a PA easily are thousands of dollars, not counting the instruments themselves. Studio time costs SO much money. I dont make music as a profession, as I've stated several times before. I only want enough to break even. I've been doing this with regular ol' CDs. Thousands of bands have before me...thousands have "made it" with this model. Nobody distributes their music 100% via the internet.

My fault for not being clear. That previous statement wasn't directed at the intellectual property you created (i.e. the music), but the form in which you choose to sell them. Much of the expense from that $16 is composed by advertising, studio's (huge) cut, and the medium itself. It can conceivably be much cheaper over itunes or whatnot. Also, the CDs also have a huge drawback in terms of portability and convenience when compared to current technologies such as ipod.

When one buys CDs in bulk, they're actually pretty cheap to make. If one is creative, then advertising is also very cheap. The studio cut, however, is unlikely to go down. I sell my CDs for around 6 bucks, plus S&H, since I'm trying to increase volume...and the recording was not done professionally (done at semi-pro studio/various bars), so I feel guilty charging more. Once I get enough money to purchase studio time/equipment, then I'd have to charge more. Recording is simply too expensive to charge a whole lot less.



]

 

[nihilistic]

However, sites like winmx and limewire are totally banned from university networks. A huge amount of music pirating comes from these networks...and that CAN be controled.

You are kidding yourselves, as the music industry is kidding itselves too. Winmx and limewire is so ... 4 years ago. Right now, it's emule and bittorrent. As the music industry lobbies for more and more extreme methods of cracking down on its own customers, the file sharers smply go deeper and deeper underground. You can't even dent modern p2p networks by taking out their servers anymore. Everything is distributed. You also can't prevent people from ripping/copying media that you intend for them to hear in the first place. The only people that these measures hurt are the legitimate users.