Comments on: Illegal downloading

By: Pervach

Pervach — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:16:35 +0000

“there are two kinds of music: paid for and illegal[...] the two are substitutes.”

On this point, i disagree. I believe there is a more significant relationionship between the two as complimentary goods. Consumers have a limited budget to spend on paid songs that they like, the utility of which is increased by sampling illegal music to better identify what music they prefer.

People are reluctant to buy things if they don’t yet know whether they like it or not. Once they know that they like a song (or find one that they like which they would not otherwise have discovered) and predict that they will listen to it numerous times, most people (from my personal observations) buy the paid version. They do this for various reasons – social and moral pressure, convenience, legitimacy value, fashion.

So if illegal music becomes more expensive, people discover less music that appeals to them and are less certain about what they do know, so the utility of paid music for them declines, so demand for paid music DECREASES.

Paid music – illegal music: complimentary goods
Paid music – live performance: complimentary goods
illegal music – live performance: complimentary goods

Paid music – radio/music channels: substitutes.
(listeners sacrifice choosing the music they want to hear, convenience, fashion for price, without social/moral/legitimacy consequences)

By: rauparaha

rauparaha — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:35:43 +0000

@fibby Ha, yes, that would be intriguing. Thanks for pointing it out.

By: fibby

fibby — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:01:13 +0000

Secondly, you’ll switch out some of your illegally obtained music for free music because the two are substitutes.

I’m intrigued by your decision to use the word “free” to mean the opposite of both gratis and libre.

By: Moz

Moz — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:03:13 +0000

What stops artists giving away their music is that as soon as they sign to any label, that label is likely to claim ownership of all their music whether that is the case or not. So while in theory the artists can still give away their music, they’re likely to find it removed from youtube, myspace etc and if they persist they will lose their account. In some cases the “sign with a label” step is not required – a friend donated limited usage rights for a song to a charity compilation and had this problem with that track ever afterward. Again, the distinction between ownership and usage rights is not well understood by many “copyright experts” and music industry PR people.

So one important part of any law is the penalty for misuse. The takedown system right now as no penalty in practice, so it’s widely abused. Until someone (preferably a major label) gets soundly smacked for false claims they have every incentive to keep making them.

By: Ryan Isra

Ryan Isra — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:57:46 +0000

It has becoming part of Internet. It also applies to software, program, coding, movies, etc.

By: rauparaha

rauparaha — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:03:17 +0000

Yes, I’m really just considering whether the music industry would be better off here. However, supposing that we could somehow perfectly enforce IP, there is nothing to prevent artists from selling direct or giving away music for free. I think it likely that illegal downloads and concert tickets, for example, are complements. But an artist struggling for recognition isn’t forced to charge for either of these. I’m just a bit unsure about how infringing IP benefits anyone in the music industry.

The way regulations are being implemented does seem rather strange though, I agree. Having said that, I’m not sure how one would go about enforcing IP rights without being awfully heavy handed about it.

By: Moz

Moz — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:48:21 +0000

Are you considering the effect on the winners in the current music industry changes as well as the losers? You’re taking the view of the plastic trinket sellers and don’t seem to have thought about the artists and fans at all. “buying music” does not just mean purchasing a license token from a retailer, it can also mean paying an artist to perform or buying a license directly from them. And how does free or public domain music fit into this scheme?

It’ll be at least as interesting to see how the new laws do on natural justice. We’re hearing more cases now of people falsely accused of infringement (and the proposed process is built on guilt on accusation) as well as accusations against music distributers (both for infringement, like Lily Allen’s unlicensed (viz, pirate or illegal) mix tapes being hosted by her record company; and for theft – claiming copyright for material they have no rights to). The widespread abuse of takedown notices on youtube and myspace makes me think it’ll be another farce in the same sense, but with nasty legal consequences.

I think it will mostly be a PR effort – the old music industry enhancing its reputation for being a wunch of bankers.