Oh I get it- the two sentences have no relation to each other. Why are they in the same paragraph?

OK here it is put very simply and leaving any moral argument aside.
 
Quite simply, if you release an album, an artwork, article of software, a sample library on the internet it is very likely going to get pirated.
 
Just so you know, in case you hadn't worked it out yet and it comes as some surprise when or if ever you decide to go that route.
 
So you have a choice, you proceed knowing that or you decide to do something different instead.
 
Hopefully knowing that it will eliminate any nasty shock you have when it happens.
 
I can dislike it as much as I want, but that is how it currently is, it's how it's been for a few decades now.  It doesn't look like it is going to change any time soon either.
 
My surprise is merely how people manage to be continually to be surprised by it.
 
 

Make something that can't be pirated if you don't want it pirated because if it can be it will be,

Herein lies the rub. It can be pirated. No matter what it is or how it is released, if it is intended for mass distribution, it can be copied. The distribution channel of the original is irrelevant. Vinyl was being ripped and copied to 8-track long before streaming audio was around.What is new is not that things can be copied, but that the copies can be distributed widely anonymously, and virtually without consequence from locations beyond the reach of the law. 

The digital tape recorder was never really available in this country (USA) because the audio industry convinced congress that they would lose their shirts if perfect copies could be made, and hassles over what type of copy protection circuit could be built into those machines before they could be marketed here. Copy protected (DRM) digital audio has been largely abandoned because it made the songs unusable for the user or was so easily circumvented that people got ripped versions that did not have DRM to make life easier, not just because they were free. 

The inescapable conclusion to your observation is that since you cannot record anything in music that cannot be pirated, then you should not make anything. Or rather you should not make anything that you do  intend to make money. The artists who seem to be the most sanguine about the inevitability of piracy, are those who can fill a stadium with fans willing to spend 1000 times the artist's piece of the cost of a paid download to watch them sweat.

Most musicians will never have that business model. The dream of being discovered on a download site and elevated to super stardom is like the dream of hitting the lottery. Clearly the guy who spent so much time and money creating a sample library of obscure drums should not have expected to break even. Increasing his costs by trying to distribute it in a secure way might have actually worked for him. It would probably not have netted him much more. But only because the demand for his product is so low that it is hardly worth the trouble to steal. Regardless or how you present your recording to the world, if it becomes popular, you will lose a lot of potential revenue to pirates. 

So you can ridicule him for not anticipating the pirates, and say it is like complaining about getting wet when you jump in the river, but it is absurd to advise him to take the ferry if there is none. And one thing this thread has demonstrated is that there are people who are not making millions in the business, who are suffering real harm from the pirates.

Jonbouy: but given that if I don't put a lock on my bicycle when I park it somewhere it's highly likely it will get stolen so I'd be silly not to.     Can you get your head around that complicated idea now? 


A push bike?... aww man that's all too easy....  Seriously no chain and lock is going to stop a thief, not even a security alarm. Honestly, seriously, in south western Sydney where I spent most of my earlier life, a car would be flying out the parking lot every weekend night (night club) with the alarm blaring out loud, apparently a locked car and security alarm was not enough to prevent a thief from stealing it. 

I'm so glad I moved out of Sydney a long time ago, nowadays it's not just stolen cars flying out the car park but shoot outs; at police stations, private homes and recently a young guy was shot dead in his car (car rained down with bullets) a shoot out in the same street just a few houses from where I use to live. In fact when I was living there almost every day I hear gun shots.  

Now as for bikes with chains and locks.... stolen?... YES... it's all too easy and the same can be said for software that uses DONGLES.  Point is; protection is not effective; if a thief wants it they'll get it :( 

Bouy - that's the pragmatic truth. And I don't think anyone here is naive enough to ignore that. 

It is an assumption on your part that people "surprised" and totally shocked. If you've read that interview, you'll know that the guy knew his stuff would be stolen when he started out. - Though of course, there can be shock when you actually see it happen to you and what the numbers are.

I don't think anyone is expecting any drastic change in the situation. But if a few people see the light, all the better. And I don't see how anyone could argue against that, not unless they stick to their assumptions.

As for the record execs complaining while making millions. Yes, of course.

Now, imagine how the people under them are affected. Because, before anything has a financial impact on those guys, it will have affected a lot of people.

If David Geffen complains about loss in revenue, you can be sure that everyone else in the building has felt it before him - not just the artists, but the janitor, the receptionist, the IT department, etc. That's not just the music business, that's the model of pretty much every large business.

So when you download an album, you're not stealing from the rich - you're stealing from people like you and me who work on the lower levels. It's those people who'll lose their jobs. 

Quite simply. Piracy is a crime of opportunity.
 
Locking a bicycle doesn't prevent the possibility of it being stolen, but it greatly reduces the opportunity.
 
I already talked about supermarkets calculating the differential between losses due to opportunity and having everything on display.  They know some of it will go missing because of how it is displayed/presented.  They calculate the loss against the cost of fighting theft.  They are business people they work out how to make it pay against the reality that many people don't play ball.
 
Putting it in a box and mailing it out limits some of the opportunity and also gives an opportunity to find the culprit that leaked an online copy for distribution.
 
We've already discussed that vendors prefer supplying a download.

Jonbouy



 
Putting it in a box and mailing it out limits some of the opportunity and also gives an opportunity to find the culprit that leaked an online copy for distribution.
 

Software used to be sold on CD's and DVDs pretty much exclusively, which never prevented piracy. Limiting some of the opportunities might work in the real world, but on the internet, it only takes ONE person to leak the software.

Rain


Bouy - that's the pragmatic truth. And I don't think anyone here is naive enough to ignore that. 

It is an assumption on your part that people "surprised" and totally shocked. If you've read that interview, you'll know that the guy knew his stuff would be stolen when he started out. - Though of course, there can be shock when you actually see it happen to you and what the numbers are.

I don't think anyone is expecting any drastic change in the situation. But if a few people see the light, all the better. And I don't see how anyone could argue against that, not unless they stick to their assumptions.

Thanks Rain, that is the most objective outlook on the whole thread.
 
I'm all for people seeing that the consequences of wholesale theft costs us all in the end. 
 
I'm bored of the common emotional responses and indignation that often flares up around the subject. 
 
I do also think that an expectation that exists among creative types that some reward for what they do is some kind of entitlement.  I'm not saying that is true in this case but it is an attitude that seems to prevail along with the piracy issue.
 
I think just as many of us share a responsibilty not to steal we also have a responsibility not to provide no-brainer opportunities for those that will steal given an easy chance and that's the stance I'm taking on it lately.

Rain


As for the record execs complaining while making millions. Yes, of course.

Now, imagine how the people under them are affected. Because, before anything has a financial impact on those guys, it will have affected a lot of people.

If David Geffen complains about loss in revenue, you can be sure that everyone else in the building has felt it before him - not just the artists, but the janitor, the receptionist, the IT department, etc. That's not just the music business, that's the model of pretty much every large business.

So when you download an album, you're not stealing from the rich - you're stealing from people like you and me who work on the lower levels. It's those people who'll lose their jobs. 

Exactly! 


I know people who work their butt off in the office typical 9-to-5 job, all these people (as you mention) play a critical role as much as the guy that did the recording/production. But if sales are down = job layoffs. In the US already unemployment is high, point is; thieves aren't helping the situation. 

Also, most of these top-40 artists got huge financial backing (invested) by rich executives for which most of that goes toward marketing along with all the staff involved like clock-work to get that artist on the front page of just about every magazine.  The old saying; it takes more than talent?... it's bloody true!!   From my experience having been in meetings with label managers and staff I can tell you they seem just as critical about marketing and costs as they do with the actual song(s) and if sales are down on their 'singles' then the chances of getting that booost (marketing) for their 'album' is most likely not going to happen. 


That is why a lot of artists such as; Be*ber start with singles, if it sells well then that kid is on a home run = is going to continue getting a lot more staff support and financial backing in future but all is not entirely rosy; not an easy road because he also is mostly likely signed to a 360 deal which means; he would no doubt be working his butt off 24/7 for which most of the earnings go back to first; paying back overheads which covers a lot of areas such as; tours, travel, accommodation, gear, which further explains why merchandise such as; Beiber toys are also sold LOL!!