ReR USA?

[Facelift]

You seem to discuss at length the minutiae of "free" music marketplace ignoring one big elephant in the room - illegal access and consumption. All the disruptions on the market (music industry shrinkage, streaming piss-poor conditions, etc) are the straight-forward result of giving people the opportunity of free unrestricted access to whatever content they want despite any legal regulations and ethical concerns. Take it out of equation and the whole narrative would be totally different.

The problem here is how to make powerful Telecom/IT industry obey the laws and stop serving 24h free entertainment using copyrighted material. It is not a technical issue, just a political one. And a very difficult one, because apart from money and influence those companies have certain assets in their hands, which are of high interest for any mundane authorities, which could legally challenge them. These assets are all the details of our Internet activity.

Is this battle lost? Maybe, but it would be a pity if all the people who care gave up the fight.

I'm not ignoring these issues. Rampant copyright infringement has been one factor leading to the devaluing of music in the eyes of the puchasing public. But you do have to understand that copyright infringement - the character of it that you are talking about, anyway - is civil in nature, not criminal. You have to self-police - that's the nature of person/property infractions that aren't criminal. That means that something only has repercussions if action is taken. If no action is taken, then there are no repercussions and the behavior is, for all intents and purposes, "legal."

Some people might not know this, but the recordings that are uploaded onto Youtube are often not owned by the artists any more, as their rights were signed over to a third party (usually the label, or the parent company). It is now up to these companies to decide what constitutes infringment that they want to bother policing.

The talk of "battles lost" may pertain to different issues. The idea that the general public people will be comfortable with spending the 2014 equivalent of $15 on a recording of new music, going forward, is over. Well, that's my opinion, anyway, based on what I'm observing.
But that's not just because music has become devalued due to illegal downloading, Youtube and cheap streaming services. It's also because the idea of owning a copy of a recording itself is becoming obsolete. "Access" is the way of the future, and low cost subscriptions for bundled access is how people will pay for music in the coming years. It makes sense, as devices get smaller and playback venues consist of anywhere, at any time, instead of one's own home or car.
And, pardon my French, but there's a shit-ton of music out there - the music that has been around for awhile and which millions of people are familiar with and which is important to their lives - whose rights-holders are thrilled to bet getting *any* revenue from, 30, 40 and 50 years after it was made. Much of this same music will come out of coypright entirely during the middle of the present century (some before) and then what? It's definitely an issue that bears discussion, IMO. On one hand, 75-100 year-old pop culture has never before been much of a component of present-day pop culture, but maybe there really was something special about 60s/70s/80s music that will captivate listeners of the future. From the perspective of a consumer, when all of that is legally free, paying $15 for access to a dozen new songs by a contemporary band may not seem so appealing.

[Jay.Dee]

The idea that the general public people will be comfortable with spending the 2014 equivalent of $15 on a recording of new music, going forward, is over. Well, that's my opinion, anyway, based on what I'm observing.

Your conclusion is based on the observation of people's behaviour on the marketplace where you can get everything for free. Block them access to illegal content, then raise up legal streaming fees binding them to access/consumption plans and we will be able to evaluate if the concept of music ownership is still passé. I bet it is not.

[chalkpie]

Is it true that YT is going to be a paid service soon?

[Facelift]

Your conclusion is based on the observation of people's behaviour on the marketplace where you can get everything for free. Block them access to illegal content, then raise up legal streaming fees binding them to access/consumption plans and we will be able to evaluate if the concept of music ownership is still passé. I bet it is not.

Two different issues. Music "ownership" was largely the product of the technology of its time. That time is over. The future is all-access streaming. It's just a matter of how it's done and how much of the revenue comes from the consumer. Maybe people will be willing to pay more for it than they are now - maybe they won't. But all the while, the clock ticks on the many recordings that remain very popular today, whose due date for copyright expiration is already closer in time than the start date.
As far as blocking access to uploaded content against the wishes of the copyright holder - Youtube already does this. Youtube is perfectly legal, yet it is definitely a component of the "free music" culture.

[NorthNY Mark]

Your conclusion is based on the observation of people's behaviour on the marketplace where you can get everything for free. Block them access to illegal content, then raise up legal streaming fees binding them to access/consumption plans and we will be able to evaluate if the concept of music ownership is still passé. I bet it is not.

This is my position as well (and I also appreciate your elaborations on the lobster metaphor, which pretty much sum up what I am seeing in music as well as other, arguably more crucial areas of the economy). Laws are only effective when enforced, and the degree to which laws are enforced generally comes down to political will (though I recognize that there are limits to that, as with prohibition, though I don't think the need to take for free what had previously required a purchase is anywhere near as strong or innate as the apparent need to partake in mind-and-mood altering experiences--people got along very nicely when owning music actually cost money, and even those with no money could find work-arounds with sufficient effort.)

[Facelift]

Is it true that YT is going to be a paid service soon?

My understanding is that they want to have paid access but also free content as well.

[NorthNY Mark]

Two different issues. Music "ownership" was largely the product of the technology of its time. That time is over. The future is all-access streaming. It's just a matter of how it's done and how much of the revenue comes from the consumer. Maybe people will be willing to pay more for it than they are now - maybe they won't. But all the while, the clock ticks on the many recordings that remain very popular today, whose due date for copyright expiration is already closer in time than the start date.
As far as blocking access to uploaded content against the wishes of the copyright holder - Youtube already does this. Youtube is perfectly legal, yet it is definitely a component of the "free music" culture.

I see your point, but earlier, you claimed that the reason artists could not be given fair compensation via streaming was that consumers would refuse to pay it and revert to illegal downloads. What jay.dee and I are saying is that you are correct, and therefore that the existence of easy illegal downloading distorts the market in such a way that it is unsustainable for the artists. Stopping--or, more realistically, seriously impeding this illegal flow to the level of, say, home taping in decades past (where it took more effort than what the majority were willing to expend), might change the pessimistic outlook we all share. There is no reason, for example, for Youtube to allow any copyrighted material to be put up without the explicit permission of the rights holders. Too labor intensive for them to enforce? Probably not more so than to expect the individual rights holders to do it (again, what is legal in any business model is determined politically--we simply don't allow factories to cut costs by hiring children, and we don't need to allow Youtube to make a bigger profit by not putting in the labor required to enforce legal copyright protections). There are all kinds of other ways that illegal downloading could be stopped at the level of the internet service provider, but the lobbyists have been effective in getting in the way of such efforts.

[Jay.Dee]

Two different issues. Music "ownership" was largely the product of the technology of its time. That time is over. The future is all-access streaming. It's just a matter of how it's done and how much of the revenue comes from the consumer. Maybe people will be willing to pay more for it than they are now - maybe they won't. [...] As far as blocking access to uploaded content against the wishes of the copyright holder - Youtube already does this.

No, YouTube does not block all copyrighted content uploaded against the wishes of the copyright holder - just look up any Cuneiform or ReR recordings. You need to chase Google to block it and after a while it is back again anyway. They could solve it (and they actually do it for certain holders), but they do not care.

Maybe I do not know what the future is, but I do know quite a few people downloading hi-res stuff from illegal sources, which I am pretty sure they would consider purchasing if it weren't up there for free. Many dedicated listeners do not care for YouTube or Spotify - they want best possible quality available at hand, and not at streaming provider's whim and will. However they are not going to buy new releases from any label as long as they can have them all for free.

As one of these fellow freeloaders put it bluntly - he is not an idiot and he does not give a f**k if the whole music ecosystem ceases to exist. There is enough music already published (and safely deposited on his huge hard drive) to keep him satisfied for the rest of his life. However I am pretty confident that he would quickly resume purchasing, if only new stuff stopped trickling into his PC storage.

For the moment he can spend his smartly saved money on shiny gadgets from Telecom/IT industry (and all of them spend A LOT on that) and that is precisely why their lobbyists work night and day in world's capitals to maintain the status quo.

[NorthNY Mark]

No, YouTube does not block all copyrighted content uploaded against the wishes of the copyright holder - just look up any Cuneiform or ReR recordings. You need to chase Google to block it and after a while it is back again anyway. They could solve it (and they actually do it for certain holders), but they do not care.

Maybe I do not know what the future is, but I do know quite a few people downloading hi-res stuff from illegal sources, which I am pretty sure they would consider purchasing if it weren't up there for free. Many dedicated listeners do not care for YouTube or Spotify - they want best possible quality available at hand, and not on streaming provider's whim and will. However they are not going to buy new releases from any label as long as they can have them all for free.

As one of these fellow freeloaders put it bluntly - he is not an idiot and he does not give a f**k if the whole music ecosystem ceases to exist. There is enough music already published (and safely deposited on his huge hard drive) to keep him satisfied for the rest of his life. However I am pretty confident that he would quickly resume purchasing, if only new stuff stopped trickling into his PC storage.

For the moment he can spend his smartly saved money on shiny gadgets from Telecom/IT industry (and all of them spend A LOT on that) and that is precisely why their lobbyists work night and day in world's capitals to maintain the status quo.

Again, this is pretty much how I see the situation, as well.

[Jay.Dee]

Again, this is pretty much how I see the situation, as well.

Great minds think alike. Good to see you here.

[Facelift]

I see your point, but earlier, you claimed that the reason artists could not be given fair compensation via streaming was that consumers would refuse to pay it and revert to illegal downloads. What jay.dee and I are saying is that you are correct, and therefore that the existence of easy illegal downloading distorts the market in such a way that it is unsustainable for the artists. Stopping--or, more realistically, seriously impeding this illegal flow to the level of, say, home taping in decades past (where it took more effort than what the majority were willing to expend), might change the pessimistic outlook we all share. There is no reason, for example, for Youtube to allow any copyrighted material to be put up without the explicit permission of the rights holders. Too labor intensive for them to enforce? Probably not more so than to expect the individual rights holders to do it (again, what is legal in any business model is determined politically--we simply don't allow factories to cut costs by hiring children, and we don't need to allow Youtube to make a bigger profit by not putting in the labor required to enforce legal copyright protections). There are all kinds of other ways that illegal downloading could be stopped at the level of the internet service provider, but the lobbyists have been effective in getting in the way of such efforts.

Stopping access to illegal downloads and turning off Youtube would definitely increase the amount of money people would be willing to spend on streaming services, though I couldn't say by how much. Spotify seems happy with what consumers are being charged right now.

As far as "lobbies" go, it's the same for all interested parties. All sides have lobbyists pushing extremist, partisan views in Washington (I'm not being critical here - aggressively pushing a heavily biased agenda is what lobbyists are paid to do). What's "right" is for the unbiased to determine. Personally, I have never seen a compelling argument that would make ISP's responsible for copyright infringement or reponsible for the burden of finding it on their traffic. Youtube is a different situation, but Youtube apparently isn't generally being bothered by the large corporations that hold a lot of the intellectual property rights to the content on there. It's a fast-moving situation, however.

[Phlakaton]

This might have been talked about in the previous 17 pages but I'll comment again -

If I'm buying a digital only copy of an album - nothing physical - I dont want to pay the same amount I would for say a vinyl or cd copy. Getting something I can touch and look at is - or used to be a big part of music for me. Gatefolds - box sets - etc. So that change is certainly pushing the money artists make down a hole too. On top of that - the physical copy of an album used to be a nice nugget for the graphic design and art side of the business... which has taken a massive down-turn in quality and creativity over the last 15 years - so this is also spilling into other professions too.

Movie posters - becoming a lost art entirely. Now you see lame photo comps built in photoshop - and nothing cool or awesome like Drew Struzan used to produce.

[Jay.Dee]

Personally, I have never seen a compelling argument that would make ISP's responsible for copyright infringement or responsible for the burden of finding it on their traffic.

I cannot help but appreciate your altruistic support for Telecom industry, but you know, hardly any business feels responsible for any collateral damage related to their activity, until there appears a law regulation followed by an effective law enforcement. This usually helps the business quickly understand the necessity of taking care of unwelcome side effects of their actions with all the burden it might carry.

It has worked very well in many environmental cases like imposing fishing limits on sea food industry, just to bring an example from your favourite field, so it could work equally well in the ISPs case. Indeed, it may hit Telecom industry rather hard and in consequence increase the cost of mobile devices and data plans, but as you are probably aware, every business needs to adapt to ever changing situation on the marketplace.

[Facelift]

I cannot help but appreciate your altruistic support for Telecom industry, but you know, hardly any business feels responsible for any collateral damage related to their activity, until there appears a law regulation followed by an effective law enforcement. This usually helps the business quickly understand the necessity of taking care of unwelcome side effects of their actions with all the burden it might carry.

It has worked very well in many environmental cases like imposing fishing limits on sea food industry, just to bring an example from your favourite area, so it could work equally well in the ISPs case. Indeed, it may hit Telecom industry rather hard and in consequence increase the cost of mobile devices and data plans, but as you are probably aware, every business needs to adapt to ever changing situation on the marketplace.

I have no ties to the Telecom industry. It just violates basic principles of common sense to make them responsible for the acts of their customers.

And your last point doesn't really work, because it pertains to regulations. Regulations are not market conditions, they are external to the markets. Discussions of "shoulds" and "coulds" are appropriate for regulations. But market conditions, on the other hand, simply "are."

[Jay.Dee]

I have no ties to the Telecom industry. It just violates basic principles of common sense to make them responsible for the acts of their customers.

Really? Try to set up a shack selling clubs nearby street riots and then explain to the police that you have solely intended to promote baseball. I would like to see your common sense in juridical action.

Regulations are not market conditions, they are external to the markets. Discussions of "shoulds" and "coulds" are appropriate for regulations. But market conditions, on the other hand, simply "are."

There is no market without laws and regulations. First you need to set (and impose) the rules, then you may talk about the market. And the quality of those rules and their subsequent adjustments (or the lack of thereof) greatly influence market conditions, for better or worse. Overfishing ban increased the prices of sea food, but at the same time helped protect the environment for future generations, which may not have eaten enough sea food in their upcoming lives.

[rcarlberg]

It has worked very well in many environmental cases like imposing fishing limits on sea food industry, just to bring an example from your favourite area, so it could work equally well in the ISPs case.

Nope. The World Wide Web is world-wide, and US regulation isn't going to affect servers based in Canada or Ukraine or Soviet France.

[Jay.Dee]

Nope. The World Wide Web is world-wide, and US regulation isn't going to affect servers based in Canada or Ukraine or Soviet France.

The World Wide Web has quite a few sensitive points like DNS servers and routing hubs, whose control can largely disrupt alleged free flow of information. Actually, some of those nodes are already equipped with sophisticated traffic-intercepting software, which is used for, ahem, quite different purposes.

Trust me, a good grip on those points would not let the 99% of population on a given territory to venture beyond the elastic transparent walls of their cyberspace. And that would be more than enough to bring the three-click crowd in any country back to legit music stores. Technically feasible, we only lack political will.