One of things I hear pro-pirates say when it comes to stealing music is that each one of those downloads is not a lost sale. Because a lot of those people weren't going to buy it anyway.

OK.

What about this. Imagine I put out a song and 2 million people download it. And let's say none of them would have bought it. A bit unrealistic but let's give the pirates the benefit of the doubt. So I've lost no money. Right?

OK. So now I spend 1 million dollars advertising that song in every way possible. Another 2 million people download it. Still no lost sales?

Maybe.

But something else was stolen. My ability to sell my song to those 4 million people. Because they already have it. And all the advertising in the world is not going to make them pay now. So I lost my ability to sell my song to 4 million people.

No?

Yeah...... what they are saying is that the real customers having downloaded the song illegally, will support you by either buying the song legitimately, or buying successive songs as you release them.
It's the try before you buy argument.
I must say, if I downloaded a song and liked it, I'm hardly likely to delete it so I can pay to replace it.
In reality, I think 9 times out of 10 you're right.
It's counter intuitive to think people will download something illegally, then buy it, although I admit some will (to own the hard copy, or to genuinely support an artist), but for me it's likely a drop in the ocean.

"Try Before You Buy" made a limited amount of sense with software, assuming all involved were scrupulous, moral people.

It makes NO SENSE AT ALL with music, given the numerous avenues for auditioning music legally, free of charge.

Yes!

You have been ripped off by 4 million people, plain and simple.

The other person who ripped you off was the charlatan who persuaded you to sink the cool million into an ad campaign that was just a larger, more extensive version of the world-of-mouth (or whatever it was) that got you the two million downloads for "free."

That million would have been better spent in seeking out paying avenues-- placement in films or video game soundtracks or advertising spots or corporate events or something other than "general attention in the world at large."

So if I'm a decent chef and 2 million people would eat my food if it was free but not if they had to pay for it. If I spend 1 million dollars in advertising my food so another 2 million people will eat my food for free but still they would not pay for my food. Did they steal your ability to sell your food to someone else? Of course not! You can't make anyone pay for something they don't want.

It's not a human right to be able to make money from something you do. You make money if you can and if you can't you have to do something else for money.

No. They stole my ability to sell to them. Specifically.

The market that you can sell to shrinks dramatically when they already have your product for free.

Maybe they wouldn't have paid for it when they stole it but maybe I can convince them later.

Haven't you ever bought a song years after you first heard it? You thought it was OK but something somewhere convinced you that you like it even more now. So much so that you would now buy. Except for the fact that you already have it.

If we can agree that a song is probably stolen 20X more than purchased then we can use these numbers to discuss a typical hit song.

Let's say that your new single sells 2 million copies. So now it's fair to say that 40 million people possess and are listening to your song. What chance do you have of selling that song in the future when 40 million people already have it?

All I'm trying to prove here is that "some" damage is happening when people steal your song, even if they weren't going to buy it in the first place.

OH I agree.
The people who sell limited edition EP's for example.
As soon as a pirate places a copy on a filesharing site (which they have to my knowledge), your 'limited' feature has gone, and so has a lot of your potential customers, and your ability to sell the EP to anyone that wants it in the future.

No.

You're a decent chef and you open a restaurant.

A squatter shows up in the vacant building next door, steals your cookbook, burgles the local supply outlets, and starts giving away EXACT COPIES of the food you sell. He puts up a sign in front advertising that he has the EXACT SAME FOOD that you are selling, for free. He gets 2 million customers who otherwise would have purchased food at your establishment.

You embark on a million dollar ad campaign to try to drum up some business and that ad campaign does in fact attract another 2 million customers who are now interested in your food. However when they show up they see the restaurant next door giving away the exact same food for free so they eat there and don't buy from you.

Everybody loves your recipes and you are the recipient of several prestigious cooking awards, but in spite of that your clientele remains limited to family and friends who feel an obligation to support you because "It's the right thing to do."

It is a basic right to be protected from unfair competition from thieves. There are laws about unfair competition, believe it or not.

The analogies are getting wilder and wilder. Might I say more and more desperate in terms of explaining away piracy.
But this pretty well sums it all up..........

I still ask-- in vain-- when Kenny'd gotten a miraculous amount of attention by not doing a damn thing other than creating the tune, when 2 million fans were enjoying it on their own initiative, what is the point of an "ad campaign"?

.

Unfortunately, this particular song does not conform to placement in films or video game soundtracks or advertising spots or corporate events or something other than "general attention in the world at large.

Should my art be bound to what can work in that limited "box" when there is such a high demand for it from "the world at large"?

Brilliant. Thanks for taking the time.

thumbsupthumbsup

What kind of a song is it that people are gobbling up that doesn't lend itself to-- ah, forget it. You've got an ironclad point-- piracy is stealing and morally indefensible and devastatingly crippling to content creators.

I have a point too-- the instantaneity of communication in the post-internet world has created a vast web of connectivity that the traditional "ad campaign" sought to create from the ground up, each time.

How to exploit this and navigate its treacheries... this is the new eternal struggle.

I understand your point Joel. I really do. And I live by it. But when I'm pontificating in an audio forum, I want a perfect world. I'm not accepting of theft as the cost of doing business.

I don't want society telling me I have to make XXX because everyone steals YYY. I want to make YYY and I want people to stop stealing it.

+1000

Uuugh, it just can't be put more simply.
I often feel like I'm drowning in a sea of propaganda and diversion.

I'm having this debate on another forum and have kept my points very, very simple and clear.
In the end though you get no answer to your question other than "The industry is screwed and there's no going back, so get over it!"

I just can't go there, even though I know every pirated download is not a lost sale based on the scale of piracy, consumer spending power, etc.

What is clear is that consumers are profiting in a very real way from the added spending power freed up by not having to purchase music. So what ever amount would have been spent on music that isn't is absolutely displaced to other rival goods that can not be pirated, or are difficult to do so.

It's also kind of telling that the argument of every download is not a lost sale can only really be substantiated because the volume of piracy is so much greater than the highest known volume of legal sales that it's more/less mathematically impossible to make any other conclusion.

In other words, making the argument that not every pirated download is a lost sale (based on mathematical volume) is another way of saying piracy actually is the #1 reason for the decline in paid sales.

It's the same math.

Ok and no disrespect, but this is where the thread(s) usually go, comparing music with another product/service. Equating life-sustaining materials that people actually need with music may be the emotional perspective of many on the forum (incl. myself), but in the real world it just don't balance.

Or else, i would be bartering some of my tunes for some Taco Bell 'bout now....

You mean people need to eat out at restaurants?
The analogy you're criticising is pretty good. Multi awarded chefs are a luxury item, same as grammy winning musos.

While not every pirated download equals a lost sale it's a very safe bet that every lost sale can be directly attributed to a pirated download.

So if sales are 60% below their peak it's safe to assume that piracy is responsible for a 60% drop in sales, plus a probable additional 10% in average yearly growth.

Whoa... if the peak is 60% what is the average? I don't know but I know it is under 60%, or at the very least equal to it. But the probability of being equal is small, so it is safe to assume piracy is responsible for some drop in sales.

Well, assuming your tunes are good enough there's a fair chance you might be able to do just that if it wasn't for the fact that the employees at your local Taco Bell can get them for free thanks to piracy.

Me, I'd want something a bit better than Taco Bell.......

It's pretty conclusively been shown to be about a 60% drop since the turn of the century, give or take a year.

I'm sure you've seen the graphs and tables posted in this forum. Maybe you haven't taken time to give a close examination.

And in this case there is no peak and average. The amount down is the amount down, it's pretty hard figures. Only spin doctors and statistical data massagers talk about "peak" and "average" in these circumstances.

Yes well if we are talking about data and percentages I am concerned with statistics, in any circumstance.

Which benefits companies like Apple.

Why are people buying every single updated iPod?

Because it comes with FREE music.

I honestly feel that most people feel that they've paid their money by buying the player.

And having the iTunes music store makes it that much worse.

People feel that Apple is profiting from purchasing music and they already bought their iPod from them.

The Artist is making so little that who cares anyway. Right?

I think the numbers game is a waste of time.

Each side is going to inflate theirs knowing full well that it will never be known.

Is car theft vs car sales at a similar proportion?

Absolutely not. Yet we enforce it. Right?

So let's just enforce the law rather than argue how damaging it actually is.

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010

see page 3 post #82
https://gearspace.com/board/6222339-post82.html

I agree. That is all my point was actually.

It's a very good point too. thumbsup