OK. So music sites like Spotify and Google Play will now get listed first and highlighted in Google searches, in preference to "pirate" music sites, as long as they pay Google for the privilege. And they are unhappy about this. Sites that want you to pay them for your music are unhappy about paying Google for preferential treatment in Google searches. Yep. Got it. BBC News - Google changes 'to fight piracy' by highlighting legal sites
Don't know if this prompted your post Loz, but I found this particularly insightful, excellent viewing. BBC iPlayer - BBC Music John Peel Lecture - 1. 2014: Iggy Pop Personally, I refuse to download illegally, although I do use Spotify and then buy hard copies etc. But, there is a part of me that understands illegal downloads, considering we were right royally fucked over back in the day with vinyl and then the advent of CD. The sad part tho is I suspect many people will not look upon music as a valid career anymore, simply because there will effectively be, 'no money in it'. I hope I'm wrong, but you've got dig quite hard these days to find something with an edge. Pap will always be pap and always be available. I just hope that those that are truly musically driven don't mind being poor. Actually, that's bollocks, music with an edge is much easier to find nowadays, it's the following/collective sharing that seems to be missing. Maybe I'm just an old git, dunno ...
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The music industry will have to respond to a new reality; renting, rather than owning, content seems to be the way forward.
The majority will probably sing the above mantra. Rush had it right years ago. "All this machinery making modern music can still be open hearted, it's really just a question of your honesty"
I don't pretend to understand anything about the market for music. Apparently there are a thousand online radio stations playing music of every conceivable genre all the time, and everyone can stream them at any time free of charge, listen to the music, or record any or all tracks to play back later. Nobody objects to this, and there is no proposal to limit it in any way. Apparently there are also sites from which everyone can download tracks at any time free of charge, listen to the music, or save any or all tracks to play back later. This is widely condemned as "stealing", "piracy", "dishonest", etc. and draconian steps are taken to suppress the practice. Can anyone explain to me, please, what is the difference? Why is streaming OK but downloading "piracy"? Am I missing something here?
I'm aware of not only the inequity of pirating copyrighted music but also the potentially short-sightedness of the practice. In the (unlikely, IMO) event of the music industry collapsing, artists would be forced without exception to fend for themselves in terms of producing and marketing music. It wouldn't be "the end of music" (many artists already produce and promote themselves) but I believe the music landscape would be very different and very much sparser than it is now. For myself, the vast majority of my music collection was bought and paid for. The exceptions mainly consist of music that is just about impossible to buy, or was impossible to buy at the time I obtained it. I try to legitimise my collection as far as possible and regularly buy CDs or electronic copies to replace the existing, questionable copies, as they become available. I'm not a saint but I am trying. As for my motivation for posting, I just found it ironic that music sellers want a free service from Google in respect of the music they are unwilling to supply for free. It's funny, geddit? To answer Pete's question ... there's probably no answer that will fully satisfy him. Still - by streaming music - ie, having to connect to a service in order to listen to the music, you have to use an on-line streaming service (normally legitimate) each and every time. It isn't a one-off action such as pirating or buying a CD or an on-line copy. By using the streaming service, it is likely that you are triggering a financial transaction that ultimately pays for the piece of music in question. This would normally be in the form of advertising revenues associated with the streaming site - in the Interwebz world, page hits = cash, more streaming equals more page hits.
But surely when you stream something, it is pretty easy to record what you are streaming, and play it again later (after deleting the bits you don't want). Is that not so? What's the difference between that and downloading?
Now I am really mystified. You seem to be claiming that paying for music which is equally available free as some kind of "virtue". Why? I've got news for you: Google is free, ITV is free, Facebook is free, the Evening Standard is free, so you can stop voluntarily sending them money!
OK, I believe I can still type with this sodding great hook in my mouth ... It isn't entirely straightforward to copy something you are streaming although it is possible with tools that are reasonably readily available. It isn't quite as easy as downloading a copy, and this is deliberately so. The reasons for the difference between the two methods are relatively technical and needn't trouble you. It isn't a virtue, if you do not believe in idea behind "copyright" and "intellectual property". If you believe in the principle of paying for goods or services provided by someone, then it doesn't defeat the imagination to work out why what I am doing could be termed "a virtue". I wouldn't call it that myself, but this is the term that appears to be worrying you. If you don't like the idea of the word "virtue" used this way, substitute the phrase "activity that is not an act of theft" instead. What. Free? You mean, no one pays for it, ever? Wow, completely free stuff! Where's the catch? :Hilarious:
Streaming sites came in for all sorts of flak when they first appeared as they too were deemed a form of piracy. However, both industries very quickly got there heads together to mutual satisfaction by realizing both parties could make money out of it. As Loz has already explained advertising revenue, subscriptions etc became a way to keep everyone happy. In the blink of an eye all the major labels were/are throwing their artistes at streaming sites looking for a piece of the action. As Pete has alluded to the thing that really gets me tho is legitimate downloading. Why? Would anyone want to do this? You don't actually own anything except binary copy. No wonder the kidz is saying, "just rip it man". Being honest, if I were a cash strapped teenager again and I had the option of downloading free music, downloading it legally, or spending the money in the pub? There's only ever going to be two winners. The only real winner tho is technology. No wonder the industry is pissed.
Before there was downloading, there was physical media - DVDs, CDs, cassettes, vinyl, books and if you are Pete, wax cylinders and cave drawings. As I understand it, when you bought a CD, you did not own a "copy" of the music (or software). What you actually owned was a licence - that is, the right to use the material on the CD in a way that was described in the copyright terms. In theory, the licence is non-transferable - theoretically, you could sell the CD, for instance, but you could not sell the right to listen to the CD. That right was reserved by the copyright owner. Free stuff! :Hilarious:
I do indeed believe in the principle of paying for goods or services provided by someone, but that principle seems to have nothing to do with the topic under discussion. I understand the term "theft" to mean permanently to deprive someone of something. Downloading a music track does not deprive anyone of any kind of good or service, does it, let alone streaming it? So the whole concept of theft seems wholly inapplicable, as does the supposed contrast with virtue. It matters not whether one person or 10 million people listen to a track played on a radio station, or record it off a stream, or download it, does it? The originator still has the original they created, wholly unaffected, and they are never deprived of it.
Before 1450, when books were written out by hand, there was no concept of copyright. Anyone could copy out the words of a book, a laborious task, and the copy became theirs without reference to the author. Once printing was possible, but not too easy, it became feasible for the business of printing and publishing to be legally controlled, and for each author to establish a kind of commercial monopoly over the reproduction of his writings. Time has moved on and in the modern world anybody can copy and print anything anywhere, cheaply and quickly. Copyright is in process of collapsing. Musical performances before 1900 likewise were not subject to copyright because there was no means of preserving them. Every performance was fresh and unique. Once reproducing sound recordings was possible, but not too easy, it became feasible for the sale of recordings to be legally controlled, and for musical performers to establish a kind of legal monopoly over the reproduction of their performances. In the modern world anybody can copy and play music anywhere, cheaply and quickly, so copyright is in process of collapsing. I see copyright as being a temporary social phenomenon, linked to particular kinds of technology which are becoming obsolete, and doomed inevitably to disappear. In 20 years time, I think the whole concept of copyright will be of only historical interest.
Your right that copyright laws began when printing came along, but it existed with music long before recordings were possible. The music score itself was copyrighted, up until the 1950s the charts were based on sheet music sales not recorded music sales. When you bought the sheet music the publisher paid the composer a royalty. But I disagree that this is a temporary phenomenon, the complexity of copyright laws and the willingness of people and companies to acquire intellectual property rights as source of income probably means it's going to be around for the forseeable future. But listening to pirated music isn't going to go away either. When you listen to music on the radio it may appear to be free but the publisher and composer will receive a PRS royalty. If you record it, either digitally or on old fashioned tape, to replay it a later time, then the royalty is again due and since an agreement hasn't been made with the publisher to make this recording then a theft has occurred.
Heh. OK, simple terms. The artist is deprived of the income they would have received from a "customer" paying for the right to listen to the piece of music. The artist may choose to release it in physical or electronic form, or by means of a live performance paid for by ticket sales. You cannot "steal" an artist's musical output, in the sense of depriving them of it but you can steal their income from such output.
