Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution
Subject:   not really
Date:   2003-04-28 07:17:15
From:   timoreilly
Response to: not really

I agree very much that the artists should make the decision, not the end users. But in the current legal climate and sea of misinformation put out by the music cartel, it's very hard for artists to make that choice, even if they want to.

I believe you make a serious mistake equating file sharing with software piracy. Software piracy is organized duplication of software for sale -- and that's music (or DVD) piracy as well. It flourishes only in countries without much in the way of copyright protection. It doesn't require additional draconian laws.

Meanwhile, you missed the real point of my article, which is that after a period of possible disruption, some form of publishing infrastructure will inevitably arise again, leading to opportunities for profit. If the music companies and artists fight that evolution, they will be left out. If they embrace it, they can be the ones to leverage the new medium.

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 5 of 5.

  • not really
    2003-04-29 04:39:17  jwenting [View]

    I hope you are right about the industry being able to survive in the long run in an economic system where filesharing as it is today is an accepted phenomenon by that industry, but I have serious doubts.

    There have been several initiatives to sell MP3 or other music files over the internet by record companies, AFAIK none have been successful.
    Here in the Netherlands a chain of music stores last year (or maybe 2001) started a largescale pilot together with record companies where people could assemble their own CDs with a selection of music (current and older) and have it burned for them in the store (or order online and have it delivered to their door), which goes a long way towards destroying the claim of "I do it only to see if I like the artist before going out and buying an album", yet the piracy of music (both largescale by people leeching music off the web and selling it and smallscale by people leeching a few CDs for their own use) has risen sharply (keeping track with both the drop in sale of CDs and the rise of the number of highspeed internet connections).

    Industry initiatives to sell music in electronic format are met with "why should I buy it if I can get it for free", not with "that's a good initiative, now I don't have to resort to pirated music anymore", despite reasonable prices (1 or so per track, a bit more for physical distribution).

    The problem is indeed in part the lack of industry understanding of the current technical and social-economic climate, I don't deny that.
    But in large part the problem is more about the lack of respect among the averate end-user for the intellectual rights of others (coming at the same time as a marked drop in the respect for physical ownership of items).
    The industry embracing new technologies won't cure that, and unless means can be found to both combat the illegal use of those technologies and protect the legal use the embracing of those techs will likely backfire.
    • Tim O'Reilly photo not really
      2003-04-29 12:02:26  Tim O'Reilly | O'Reilly AuthorO'Reilly Blogger [View]

      I don't think that 1 per track is a reasonable price Evidence from markets like cable television show that subscription packages are more attractive than pay per view. What I've always wanted to see in a music service is a basic service with lots of current content (equivalent to radio, just as basic cable is equivalent to broadcast television) with "all you can eat by genre" premium packages.

      According to George Riemann's analysis of RIAA figures, at the peak in the year 2000, the music industry sold something like 900 million CDs at an average list price of $14. But remember all the intermediaries in the channel and the discounts given to those intermediaries. If discounts are anything like they are in the book business, this would suggest that the RIAA members themselves took in something like $6 billion (900 million times $14 times a 50% discount). That is somewhat less than the revenue that you'd get from about 1/3 of Kazaa's 230 million users paying $9.95 a month for unlimited legal downloading of high quality copies. And while it may seem unlikely now, I sincerely believe that a legitimate high quality product at the right price (which we haven't yet seen) will drive out the user file sharing services.
      • not really
        2003-07-28 15:14:37  anonymous2 [View]

        I was thinking that perhaps there are some differences between music and television and the way people interact with them that you didn't consider.
        1) People sit down and watch TV. Because Music is only an auditory experience, many people listen to music while doing other things (such as working etc). Most people do not interact with TV in the same way. This may be completely irrelevant, but I think most people feel an individual song might not be worth as much as an entire movie, and this effects how much they'd be willing to pay for a subscription service.

        2) There is a difference between on-demand and broadcast. TV Cable and Radio are both broadcast.. the schedule is not controlled by the user.. People are less willing to pay-per-view when they cannot control when their enjoyment takes place. Contrast this with Video store rentals and purchased (to own) content which are enjoyed at the users whim. People are happy to pay-per-view when they can control the time of enjoyment.

        Also - don't forget that there's no expiration period on file-sharing. You download it and you've got it till you delete it. It's not like radio, which we have internet versions of already.
        • not really
          2003-09-10 12:24:40  anonymous2 [View]

          I think that you're missing the big picture here. The music industry does not necessarily face a threat to the sales of its music across the board - only a threat to the sales of its music promoted under the current marketing scheme. It is way too expensive - utilizing today's marketing model - for the industry to equally promote all of the bands that it signs, especially if those bands REALLY DO represent a wide range of original and eclectic musical tastes. Personally, I'm a little sick of their marketing scheme. This is what they do (and all of the time): they sign a big name that they think that they can sell (Brittany Spears) and promote this name till the cows come home. I mean, they just throw so much money at this name that it's a surprise that their big name artist doesn't drown in it. And then, rather than doing this for every artist, they sign a bunch of other similar and smaller name artists that can ride on the bigger name's coattails. This practice is becoming more and more prevalent. Do you really wonder why music sales have declined? I mean, have you actually listened to some of the music that is featured in the bigger music stores? It all really sucks. It is all bland, unoriginal, and lacking in meaning. I am a very avid file-trader, but I also buy plenty of music. The only reason I download songs is because I like new stuff. I have discovered many bands by listening to my local (and only one left) public radio station and hearing something I like. I then listen closer for the name of the artist of the song. When I get home I plug these factors into Kazaa and download a few of their songs. When I find that I like most of it, I (usually because I can't find them in a local store) log onto Amazon or something similar and buy the disc. That is how it is done. If the music industry could sign some better artists they may not have this problem.
      • not really
        2003-06-11 00:43:26  anonymous2 [View]


        It's great to see you participating in these threads. Your defense of article is as eloquent as the article itself. I'm excited to see someone with your reputation and inside knowledge of the publishing industry commenting on these issues!