from the nytimes business section:

SONGWRITERS SAY PIRACY EATS INTO THEIR PAY
...
Charles Strouse, a composer best known for his Tony-winning musicals "Bye Bye Birdie" and "Annie," says illegal downloading has had a disastrous impact on his profession, not to mention his income.
...
"I am hurting," said Mr. Strouse, who is 75.
...
Mr. Strouse took in about $250,000 from recording royalties in 2002, according to his publisher, Helene Blue. Last year, she said, Mr. Strouse drew only about half that total, mainly because of illegal downloading of various recordings containing his songs.
...
"I've gotten fat off this business," Mr. Strouse said. "But obviously I'm very annoyed. It's awfully hard to write music. Ownership should be guarded very carefully."

i dunno,

i guess i just wanted to offer my condolences to those of you out there who are suffering through these 'tough times' just like mr strouse here.

chin up! maybe that music writin will get a little easier someday..
till then try to keep from starving with that 125K salary.

yeah, my condolences too! Those damn seniors (who else would listen to this crap) pirating these wonderful musicals off the internet. What a shame! Thanks to the gods that cat food is still affordable....

I find it interesting that you never hear any lesser known bands or artists bitching about music piracy. Quite the opposite: I heard more "indie" kinda bands publically encouraging piracy rather than getting their knockers in a knit about lost cd sales. Or am I wrong?? Any opinions?? As my name suggests I am an avid pirate out of economic reasons. I love all kinds of music and if I did not pirate it I would never be able to enjoy all this good stuff that is out there. I promise however that I shall purchase many records as soon as my financial situation allows it and send Mr Strouse a care package with nice tuna and crackers.

PirateMan wrote:I am an avid pirate out of economic reasons.

May I therefore assume that your computer was free, your ISP service is free and your CD-Rs are free? Come to think of it, you probably have a snazzy iPod mp3 player, too, or something along those lines. That was probably free, too, right?

If not, here's what my charitable math tells me:

Your computer was probably around $1500 with monitor, but I'll be charitable and cut that price in half. So $750. And you probably upgrade every 18 months to 2 years, so that's not a one-time cost.

If your ISP service is $35 a month, then that's around $400 a year. And it counts even if it's built into your tuition, unless that, of course, is also free.

And let's say you drop $100 a year on CD-Rs. I'm sure that it's more, but, again, charity.

I'm feeling charitable, so I'll leave out the iPod player.

So you have a generously figured total of $1250 for goods and services that enable your filesharing habits. However, since your computer is dedicated to other tasks (gaming, porn, the occasional plagiarized term paper), I'll even cut THAT low figure in half.

So you (or your parents) have committed $625 this year toward music "purchases", even though you don't think that you are really purchasing any music. Okay, a smart shopper could probably get 50 to 60 records over the course of a year for that amount. That's a good year. Fuck, that's a great year for a poor wittle college kid.

But it's not a great year for the artists, labels and songwriters, who don't see a penny of the income that was generated by the work that you "purchased". Hey, fuck 'em if you want, and that's your choice. You live with your decision and the consequences. But do not live under the illusion that you are not spending any money for music or that your activities do not have real economic impact. And do not insult anyone's intelligence by justifying your activities by using a single hyperspecific example of a wealthy senior citizen crying poor from a loss of songwriting royalties.

Okay?

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

PirateMan wrote:I am an avid pirate out of economic reasons.

May I therefore assume that your computer was free, your ISP service is free and your CD-Rs are free? Come to think of it, you probably have a snazzy iPod mp3 player, too, or something along those lines. That was probably free, too, right?

If not, here's what my charitable math tells me:

Your computer was probably around $1500 with monitor, but I'll be charitable and cut that price in half. So $750. And you probably upgrade every 18 months to 2 years, so that's not a one-time cost.

If your ISP service is $35 a month, then that's around $400 a year. And it counts even if it's built into your tuition, unless that, of course, is also free.

And let's say you drop $100 a year on CD-Rs. I'm sure that it's more, but, again, charity.

I'm feeling charitable, so I'll leave out the iPod player.

So you have a generously figured total of $1250 for goods and services that enable your filesharing habits. However, since your computer is dedicated to other tasks (gaming, porn, the occasional plagiarized term paper), I'll even cut THAT low figure in half.

So you (or your parents) have committed $625 this year toward music "purchases", even though you don't think that you are really purchasing any music. Okay, a smart shopper could probably get 50 to 60 records over the course of a year for that amount. That's a good year. Fuck, that's a great year for a poor wittle college kid.

But it's not a great year for the artists, labels and songwriters, who don't see a penny of the income that was generated by the work that you "purchased". Hey, fuck 'em if you want, and that's your choice. You live with your decision and the consequences. But do not live under the illusion that you are not spending any money for music or that your activities do not have real economic impact. And do not insult anyone's intelligence by justifying your activities by using a single hyperspecific example of a wealthy senior citizen crying poor from a loss of songwriting royalties.

Okay?

In the average home or dorm or whatever, computer system and internet connection are assumed. I think its about as relevant to consider that initial setup in cost to pirate music as it is to consider the cost of your refridgerator in your monthly food expenses.

CDR's are the only real expense incured by pirating music. And, if use mp3's as most people do, you could fit on average 16 albums on a single CD. Last pack of CDR's I bought was 15 dollars for 50.
So, at your figure of 625$, you're looking at 33,000 average length albums per year. It's a lot cheaper.

I still don't support it though. It seems funny to me that people are willing to give money to the CD manufacturers and computer manufacturers and internet providers, but giving money to the bands and labels they like, that's the straw that breaks the camels back. It''s just bizarre that people try and "stick it to the man" by sticking it to one man and then handing a big wad of cash to the other man. Actually, it's more than likely the same man that they stuck it to. Funny.

PirateMan wrote:As my name suggests I am an avid pirate out of economic reasons. I love all kinds of music and if I did not pirate it I would never be able to enjoy all this good stuff that is out there.

Nice justification. Perhaps I could justify robbing music equipment dealers or recording studios because, jeez, I love all kinds of microphones and if I did not steal them, I would never be able to enjoy all the good stuff that is out there! This is where some key human attributes like humility, responsibility and hard work should come into play. If you profess to love the music so much, why not a get a job, put your time in and actually buy the records? I understand the desire to "try before you buy," but most retailers (even online ones) will let you hear some clips of the music so you don't waste your money because you confused Patti Smith with Patti Smyth. And there's something to be said for the time-honored tradition of hanging out with the dudes and listening to records you've never heard before. Yeah, CD burning and MP3's will not kill the music industry any more than home taping did. But like home taping, these new technologies will not replace the actual experience of buying and owning a record. You don't want to meet your favorite band and fumble your way through "I really love your new album...I mean, I didn't actually pay for it - uh, but I want to..." Don't be that guy.

Yes, new CDs are most often overpriced, but so are many other desirable things (cars, guitar amplifiers, stereo equipment from the UK...). If you can't afford a new one, buy a used one or just come to grips with the fact that life is just not fair and you can't have everything you want. Pirating music online is just a safe, easy way to get the "thrill" of stealing something without any actual threat of retaliation. Face it, no one is going to send your ass to jail or beat the shit out of you for stealing some crummy sounding MP3's the way they would if you had the balls to try to steal a car or even a pack of Mike & Ikes from Cicle K. This is the same energy that drives people to adopt ridiculous Internet handles and slag a bunch of people they don't know on message boards. Hmm. Well, at least I do it under my own name, "PirateMan."

Dan

I saw Patty Smyth open for the Kinks in '83. It was 'scandalous'!


True story.

rest assured that you are not talking to a college kid my friends....but thanks for doing the math for me. Now I know how much money I actually saved.

i have never downloaded music because every downloaded song i've ever heard sounds all shitty and makes my uberfancy speakers sound like i'm listening to it through an AM clock/radio.
and i don't like how a marker smudges all over on a cdr.




call it conspicuous consumption or being "bougie" if you will, but i don't mind paying full retail for music from a band i like.

-before the whole "WELL WHAT ABOUT USED CDS HUH YOU MYOPIC HYPOCRITE?!" discussion starts, i'd just like to say that i see no problem with it because it keeps local/indie/hipster-doofus rekkid stores in business and i always seem to buy 2 new to every 2 used cds or records.
fuck virgin and sam goody.
they've never given me comps to a show.

downloading music is for young girls and dilettantes

it sounds like shit, you don't get any cover art, and probably you're not even getting the whole album. all of which means you're tasting, not eating.

you don't hear independent musicians bitching about it too much b/c most of us don't make any money anyway, and many 'indie' folks are desperate for attention any way they can get it

I agree, MP3's sound like shit - even with variable bitrate, 192+kbps, etc... these filesharing "dilettantes" are getting the audio equivalent of watching an epic film shot on 70mm TODD-AO or Super-cinemascope via a noisy low-power NTSC broadcast (or nowdays streaming Realplayer) and not realizing that there was ever anything better. Chances are they're ripping themselves off almost as much as the "artists".

I don't have too much sympathy for the "artists" though. I'll bet most "indie" acts signed to the majors whom are screaming bloody murder are not clearing much in the way of royalties, if any. The high-volume kiddie shit like Staind, Nickelback, and Ms. Spears are losing out, but do I give two shits? Does anyone? (with the possible exception of their corporate 'handlers')

I find it amusing how so many filesharers justify their piracy. As if music is a special medium that should not be subject to the same rights as print and visual media. That they can't afford the price of a CD, but cannot live without acquiring "new" music. Boo fucking hoo people. And although most folks seem to feel that CDs are too expensive; a look at the past cost of purchasing music will reveal how affordable music really is.

For example:

A mono LP record (new release, major label) cost $3.98 in 1955. Adjusted for inflation using the CPI (consumer price index - the most conservative means for calculating value over time) reveals that the same LP would cost $26.70 today.

When stereo LPs came out in 1958 they cost $4.98-5.98 (same criteria). Today that $4.98 stereo LP would be $30.90.

The significance is that to buy music 50 years ago cost a larger percentage of income - keeping in mind that the average household made about $50-90 a week.

And the price of LPs went up over time - even though their real cost went down. The last new LP of a major release I remember purchasing (meaning that this wasn't some limited pressing, or 180g. audiophile reissue - just a plain old large production run LP) cost about $8.95 in 1989 - about $13.90 today. Gee whiz, that's about what a CD costs, eh?

The same thing works with CDs:

I purchased my first CD around 1987 for $15.98. Today that CD would be $24.80. Expensive new technology, yes, but I also bought a budget release at the same time for around $12.98 - which today would be $19.70. Some budget release

Today I collect LP's. I can get a high quality taste of a large variety of music for very little money, since I'm purchasing most of these LPs for $1-3, and occaissonally paying $5 or more for only the most desirable LPs.

Most of the CDs I purchase new are $16-18 and I consider that reasonable, since most of them are classical releases, and that is a low-volume specialty market being sold by low-volume specialty retailers.

The Nickelback CD that's so exhorbitant at $14 would've cost $2.25 in 1958 - less than half the cost of an LP. Hell, even cheap-ass dime store records were still $3 then.

To summarize: the common bitch about CDs costing too much doesn't fly with me. Yeah it's cheap to manufacture them. So what? When you add all the other costs involved in running a business...ah, fuck that...they charge what the market can bear. If you don't like that...well enjoy listening to your grainy little girl download through those super-hi-fi $40 molded plastic trans-du-shit-sers sitting next to your monitor. You've certainly earned it, no?