Some More Thoughts on Piracy

Considering the recent verdict on the Pirate Bay trial, the subject of piracy is one of much debate currently. I'm taking a break from the Virtual Reality series to look more closely at piracy and how ridiculous this whole verdict is.

The first thing I think needs to be mentioned is that the “victory” for the music industry is not a victory for musicians, nor is it a victory for copyright protection as many of us perceive it. I seriously doubt that any artists will see a penny from this, even if the fine does get paid it will end up in the pockets of record labels and publishers, the businessmen who have been controlling the industry for too long. That's what the music industry is, a very big and until now hugely profitable business.

The whole case has been clouded in this idea of morality, that copyright needs to protected for the sake of the artists, piracy is theft and anyone who actively partakes in piracy is not only a criminal, but a hugely immoral person. No decent person wants to steal from their friends, or indeed anyone they respect, the industry has tried to convince us that we are stealing from the artists we respect and admire, and we should be ashamed of ourselves. As I demonstrated in the previous post here, piracy as a form of theft is very different to stealing a physical item from your mates.

I'm not saying that artists are not suffering as a result of file-sharing, they are. There is a lot of independent music on small labels (or even self-financed) that can be downloaded illegally. These aren't successful pop stars, or big corporate labels, these are skint people just like you or me, struggling to make a living out of something they love. But this verdict has done nothing for them, no-one has been defending their rights, or trying to seek compensation for their losses. Like I said, this is about the big corporate side of the music industry.

Artists have been getting shafted by record labels and the like for too long. You think when you go out and buy a CD you are supporting the musicians involved? The small percentage of royalties the artist is entitled to only goes toward paying off the debt that artist owes to the label who loaned them the money to record the album in the first place. That debt is re-coupable only from record sales, if no-one buys the album, the artist doesn't have to pay it back. Axl Rose's Chinese Democracy cost Geffen $13m to record, it will never sell enough to pay back that debt. But Axl has lost nothing whether you buy it or copy it. That money could have been spent on better things (although I actually do like the album), but nevertheless I have to admire Axl for turning the tables on his label like that.

Rarely do successful artists “own” their music, the label owns the recordings, the publisher owns the copyright of the songs. Artists are tied to contracts forcing them to compromise their own artistic integrity just to meet deadlines and help the big boys make money. If you ask me, its about time for the whole system to change. Radiohead and NIN have recently proved that giving away music can be good for both artist and fans. If and when this greedy capitalistic music industry does collapse I for one will shed no tears.

Its time for the artists to regain their power, advancements in technology have made it possible for high quality professional studios to be set up in bedrooms and garages, the internet has opened up many new methods for inexpensive distribution and promotion. Music is art, not business. The need for major record labels is not so great any more. Fat-Cats getting rich off the talents of others should start to worry. Nothing could liberate music and musicians more than the death of this industry.

So, was this really a victory? I don't think so. Its just Napster all over again. Nothing changes, people will continue to share information freely just like we always have done. Artists will have to think differently if they want to be successful, embrace the future and learn from the past.

Music fans should support the artists by going to more gigs, buying merchandise, donating money if they can. Request your favourite Radio Djs to play your favourite up n coming artists, not the same old manufactured rubbish. Try to pay for underground music on independent labels via their own websites when you can (digital shops often take a large cut). But most importantly love the music you download, whether you have paid for it or not. Ultimately, any genuine artist does this because they enjoy it and they want other people to enjoy it too.

Pirate Bay may be the latest scapegoat for an industry that values its shareholders pockets over its artists livelihoods, but this industry's days are numbered. Don't fall victim to these capitalist lies and dubious claims of morality. The Pirate Bay are not the villains here, record labels were ripping off artists and stealing music long before file-sharing came about, and they'll continue to if we let them.

Virtual Reality - Pt 2: Digital Thieves

Something of a late follow-on post here, due in no small part to the various real world pressures that have a great deal of control over my life.

We previously looked at some examples of the ways in which our lives have become "virtual", how much of our consumer needs are now found in digital form, as opposed to the physical existence of the past. This has a huge impact on how we value these things. Our economy is essentially based upon scarcity, we can apply a value or worth to physical items as there is always a finite amount of them. However, as the old saying goes: time is money, as workers living in a monetary system we necessarily have to apply a value to time.

Digital goods are effectively nothing more than information. Music, films, software, all of these things we consume are ultimately binary code. Information has been exchanged freely for as long as mankind has been able to. Whether that be early man using basic forms of communication to share hunting/gathering info with his kind or a group of friends discussing their various thoughts and ideas on any subject they care to talk about. Of course, we also pay for information in the form of books (physical items) or education (time-based), but no-one can deny us our right to share the information in our heads (non-physical) with anyone we see fit.

This leads us into the subject of piracy. If your MP3 collection is ultimately non-physical information then surely it is your right to share it as you see fit. On the other hand a great deal of time and money went into the recording of those MP3s, which surely should be reimbursed. And this is where the dilemma lies. Its a simple fact that most people do not see piracy as theft. But theft is not so black and white, it has many shades. No-one can deny that there is a massive difference between stealing from a big corporate shop and stealing from your friends, likewise robbing a bank is not the same thing as robbing a granny. There are many different types of theft, each with their own moral and legal status.

Piracy is a form of theft, albeit very different to the others. To put it into perspective, if i go round your house and take your new U2 CD, then the result is i will have it and you won't, even though you payed for it. On the other hand if i go round your house and copy your U2 CD, then you have lost nothing. Clearly these 2 situations are different. However, while you may own that U2 CD that you payed for, you do not own the music within it, nor do you own the right to copy it (that of course belongs to the copyright holder). Essentially all you do own is the otherwise worthless piece of plastic that the music is stored on.

Now if we remove that mostly insignificant physical element of the album, we are left with just the information. As consumers, when we "purchase" and download an MP3 we don't own anything. Even the artists rarely own their music, publishers own the copyright and record labels own the recording. Believe it or not artists make very little from the actual sales of their albums, regardless of format. Music piracy harms the music industry more than it harms the musicians, and as we have seen there is a huge difference between stealing from a corporation than stealing from a person. For unsigned artists, or those signed to independent labels, it can be a bit different, certainly as far as the morality is concerned.

By no means am i trying to advocate piracy, as a musician myself i would obviously prefer people to pay for my music which i have spent a lot of time making (my only release to date is available as free download but thats not to say future releases will be). I am certain that without the needs of the physical world and the associated costs most musicians would be happy to give their music away, but unfortunately our society is not like that. It costs money to feed ourselves, it costs money to keep a roof over our heads and musicians should be paid for their work.

Nevertheless, piracy exists. It is not a new thing, but the semi-virtual nature of our world has made file-sharing so easy and huge that piracy is no longer contained to friends taping each others music. There is in principle no difference between a legal MP3 from iTunes and an illegally-sourced MP3 from PirateBay, infact often the DRM-free tunes from the latter make for a better "product" from the consumers perspective (i know Apple have dropped DRM, but that doesn't help the millions who have paid for tunes they can't even make copies of for themselves).

Has piracy devalued music? No. Has the digital/virtual nature of our media consumption devalued music as a product? Arguably, yes. These are just my opinions, but they are based on the way i see the world around me. Piracy is a big concern for the music industry, an industry that has been ripping off artists and music fans for too long. Piracy is an issue for the artists stuck within an industry that is rapidly collapsing. The "illegal" distribution of music through file-sharing is nevertheless an example of people taking back their rights to share information freely.

The monetary system has been around for a long time, it was conceived to manage the exchange of physical goods and services. Digital goods and virtual products cannot be valued in the same way. There is potentially an infinite availability of any MP3 or digital file, while the value of money is based upon its finite quantity. Clearly this leads to an imbalance. For the sake of this argument i have focused on music, quite simply because it is the industry that is being affected the most by this new digital age. You can find pretty much anything you want online for free somewhere, but this is of course limited to virtual goods or digital information.

In part 3, i want to look further at how the principles of the monetary system cannot be applied in the digital world. For now though, i would like to hope that the collapse of the music industry is the start of something newer and better, the opportunities for artists and musicians to empower themselves have never been greater. Whatever the future holds, people will still want to listen to music and musicians will still want to create it. Until now, huge corporations have controlled music and its consumption, but digital downloading has changed everything. The future may be unclear but the potential is great.