Illegal Downloads To Be Banned In France
Posted November 24, 2007 — in Music News
Internet users in France who download music and films illegally could have their web access shut down by a government body, under a ground-breaking industry agreement backed by Nicolas Sarkozy, the president and reported by The Financial Times.
In a landmark speech Nicolas Sarkozy said: “The rights of authors, the preservation of creativity, the recognition of the rights of each artist, of each performer… was an important commitment of my presidential campaign.
Sarkozy said he feared the internet was becoming a “lawless zone where outlaws can pillage works with abandon or, worse, trade in them in total impunity. And on whose backs? On artists’ backs.”
Three-strikes-and-you-are-out policy means repeat offenders will get a warning threatening to cut off or suspend internet access if they do not stop illegal file-sharing.
This is a step forward in creating a formalized business. It’s about time someone is playing hard ball by removing access to the Internet for the ones being discovered as illegal downloaders. Hopefully China and Russia will follow Sarkozy’s lead and create similar laws that holds their citizens to the highest morals and ethics. According to a report released by IPI, rampant global piracy of recorded music has cost the U.S. $12.5 billion in economic output and 71,060 jobs annually.
Big Brother Is Watching.
Comment by JohnFamiglia — November 24, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
The record collection of 1998: a book of 320 cds.
The record collection of 2008: a 160gb iPod.
The cost of a 1998 collection: 320x$15 = $4,800.
The cost of a 2008 collection: 40,000 x $.99 = $39,600.
In the same way that we’re used to taking hundreds of photos on our digital cameras & throwing away most of them, consumers are now used to downloading music on a whim or just to listen to once. Without the constraints of the physical elements, media becomes disposable in the digital world. These trends in media consumption are irreversible but are also GOOD because more artists have a chance to be heard. (Well, it’s good for artists & consumers. Not necessarily labels, who have built their system on controlling what we heard but have LOST OUR TRUST by forcing crap down our throats.) If you’re good, you’ll end up being listened to. If you’re not, you’ll just sit some deep dark corner of someone’s iPod collecting iDust.
The value of music to the consumer: $4,800 / 40,000 = $.12 per song.
The price goes down, but volume goes up to compensate. The key is monetizing these curiosity file transfers that are more akin to a myspace play than a traditional purchase.
Change every law in the book in every country in the world, but sales are NOT GOING BACK UP because the price of music doesn’t reflect the value of music to the consumer. Consumers will find a way around any attempt to outlaw music. And even if they don’t, the beneficiary would be subscription services like Rhapsody (better yet, free.napster.com), because they come closer to matching what consumers demand, even if they’re still way off. They aren’t nearly as far off as the $.99 per song model.
Comment by Jon Cole — November 24, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Jon, You fail to mention that the drop in the value of music is due to the rapid free distribution of music.
I agree that with the current business model, sales will continue to fall unless free downloading becomes a controlled asset of copyright owners, but the value of music didn’t begin to drop sharply until Napster was popularized. The RIAA does intensive research of sales every year. Before Napster and other giant downloading sites, the music market was controlled. These sites flooded the market. This is the reason that value of music has gone down. One must wonder whether we are heading towards a different type of market or no market at all and what the consequences might be.
I believe the labels are selling crap acts because only the crap is selling at this point. One thing that many music junkies fail to realize is that most people aren’t music junkies. Don’t get me wrong. The people have a right to be outraged. I feel I am being force fed “No One” by Alicia Keys everyday, but the average walmart(Best Buy, etc.) shopper probably doesn’t and the person doesn’t search for music with eclectic music ideals.
Subscription Based Programs: As a consumer I would love to pay a one time fee(if its reasonable) for my music, but we have to look at who will be controlling the fees. Don’t think that these majors are going to rest peacefully when one person pays the fee, downloads two albums and two singles, while another person pays the same fee and downloads 50 albums in the same amount of time.
Comment by Rick — November 26, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Technological progress allowed for the price of music to drop, Rick. This is a blessing. It allows for more people to have more music. Do you realize how much money would be saved in manufacturing & distribution if the industry would genuinely embrace the digital world? The internet is like the second coming of the assembly line, Rick. GET WITH IT.
CD sales were at their HEIGHT at the HEIGHT of Napster. CLEARLY there was something to be harnessed here that wasn’t. Just look at Doug Morris’ own words…
>>”There’s no one in the record industry that’s a
>>technologist,” Morris explains. “That’s a
>>misconception writers make all the time, that the
>>record industry missed this. They didn’t. They just
>>didn’t know what to do. It’s like if you were
>>suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his
>>kidney. What would you do?”
>>Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even
>>that wasn’t an option. “We didn’t know who to hire,”
>>he says, becoming more agitated. “I wouldn’t be able
>>to recognize a good technology person — anyone with a
>>good bullshit story would have gotten past me.”
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/11/universal_music_ceo_doug_morris.html
This guy uses the word TECHNOLOGIST! CAT’S OUT OF THE BAG, RICK. It’s time for the suits to begin SHOULDERING AT LEAST PART OF THE BLAME.
Here’s a life lesson, Rick. When life hands you lemons, you start a lemonade stand. YOU’VE GOT TO REACT, whether it’s FAIR or NOT. Litigation isn’t always PRACTICAL (obviously). In any other industry, Doug Morris would’ve been TOSSED OUT ON THE STREET A LONG TIME AGO. He’s FAILING MISERABLY AT DOING HIS JOB!
We should’ve been wondering about the implications of digital music A DECADE AGO. I was 14 years old, downloading White Zombie & Iron Maiden tracks on an early version of Napster & I WAS MORE CLUED IN THAN EVERYONE IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY. Are you KIDDING ME? I remember thinking to myself “I better grab what I can while I can, this isn’t going to last.” I would leave AOL signed on while I slept downloading Saxon & Megadeth & King Diamond & In Flames & I thought for SURE this would cost money in the very near future. And I would’ve paid. But they dropped the ball BIG TIME.
A decade later, it’s time to BRACE OURSELVES for the consequences. If you’re just now starting to ponder what might actually happen, you’re fucked.
Maybe your friends aren’t “music junkies,” but everyone I know is. Have you looked at the growth rate of “music junkies?” And we’re not just talking about music snobs like myself, we’re talking about people downloading Aqua & Britney Spears & Janet Jackson. Do you have any clue the rate at which “music junkies” are being converted? Have you even GLANCED at the file sharing statistics? Did this new world completely pass you by? The average computer has several thousand music files on it… Lefsetz posted a study on it a few months back. How long do you think it will take for those figures to double? Do you want people to PAY for those songs or not? This is the future, like it or not. More tv channels, more satellite radio stations, more digital pictures, more music in your iPod. This is what technological progress affords us. Get clued in or get left behind.
It’s far past the time to give a fuck WHY the value of music has dropped. Whether the ignorant execs are to blame or the music pirates or Lars Ulrich or snow white & the seven dwarfs, IT’S TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MONETIZE DIGITAL MUSIC SO THAT THE INDUSTRY DOESN’T DISAPPEAR. Christmas is coming & people aren’t going to be buying compact discs, they’re going to be buying iPods & iPhones. Music is going to take an even BIGGER HIT next year. Mark my words.
The solution, & this is coming from a “technologist,” is to sell high quality files (lame encoded mp3s at v0 settings) at a price that reflects the new trends in digital music consumption.
Or we could just cry some more about how life’s not fair. And maybe start to wonder where music is going & maybe begin to ponder the consequences of digital music. Maybe we could also start looking for a new job.
Comment by Jon Cole — November 26, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
I understand that current state of the music biz is highly debatable.
But lets get to the bottom line…
Technology can be a blessing or a curse depending what kind of glasses you decide to put on. For instance, one may say a Blackberry is a blessing because it allows them to check email away from the office. In other case it becomes a curse when a wife says she can’t get her husband to pay attention to her because of the blackberry. In the womens case, the technology of receiving email away from the office was not a blessing, it was a curse. You can find plenty of books in book stores that deal and discuss “Technology, the advantages, and the dis-advantages…
Secondly, price dropping may not be a good thing. It depends on the degree of the drop. If MACS were free, Steve Jobs wouldn’t be dancing in the land of Milk and Honey.
The drop in the value of music is absolutely due to the rapid free distribution of music. This is Economics 101 dealing with supply, demand, and scarcity. Turn to page 163.
On to Doug Morris…
There’s no one in the record industry that’s a
technologist,” Morris explains. “
Only the gullible would believe such a statement. A multi million dollar company has access to the brightest and shiniest new comers.
The Truth is Doug Morris and all the other labels knew it would be tough to monotize music on the net, so they wanted to grab the lack buck off of CD sales. They are smart business man. All the other industries cannot make big bucks off the web either. Myspace, YouTube, Porn Industry, Major Mags, Publications, (WSJ, US Weekly, Newsweek, Time) cannot make money off the web.
Has anyone read the Harvard Journals? Where is all the money on the net?
Anyone who claims that artists are happier and doing better because of Napster and LimeWire never held a serious position in the music biz or managed somewhat successful artists. I promise..
Mega Artists are doing much better, they are crapping money. Big Sponsors, Big Corp dollars. The new comers have it harder than ever.
I believe Big Brother will have a more active role in the internet in the future and thus will turn things around. It will take a couple of years. Once technology improves and gets a little faster where more people can download movies..Big Brother will step in. Right now, copyrights are taken seriously..
I like Lefsetz, i find him funny and witty. Sometimes you can find some truth but other times its pie in the sky thoughts. Sometimes he is all text book but far away from reality as it gets.
Comment by koar — November 26, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Technology can be a blessing or a curse DEPENDING ON HOW YOU REACT TO IT. Eyewear has nothing to do with it. The record labels chose to run headlong down a dead end street. A 14 year old would’ve said “You’re going to fall off a cliff at the end of that street. You’re all going to lose your jobs.” That makes them good businessmen? I disagree. Wholeheartedly, I disagree.
No one’s making money because songs are still $.99 per song. That’s obvious. To presume that anyone would be doing well, established or not, at this point in time under this model is downright absurd.
But the internet is a golden opportunity. I spend more on music now than I ever have. Currently I’m hooked on Melanie Safka… I’m going to drop $40 on a stack of her LPs on ebay after I finish this post. I would never have known about her if not for the internet & my ability to sift through large quantities of recorded music. I discovered the Format through the internet back in 2003, just months after the band formed. A package I ordered from theformatmerch.com came in the mail just two nights ago that contained their most recent album, Dog Problems, on vinyl, their new live dvd, their new b-sides compilation, & their first EP that I originally downloaded via Kazaa back in 2003. That’s over $80 (including shipping) in the past couple of weeks alone, thanks entirely to the interweb.
There’s not a band on modern radio that I would pay $10 for. But I WANT to pay money. I just need to get my money’s worth. This concept of “getting your money’s worth” was foreign in 60’s because the business wasn’t driven by corporations. You always got your money’s worth. You weren’t being scammed. You have to think about why something like Napster would take off like wildfire. Why it would even be developed in the first place? The supply & demand thing is further down the line.
Previously this kind of relationship with music could only be developed by combing through your parents’ record collection, which is PRACTICALLY WHAT NAPSTER WAS.
People don’t have more money to spend on music. No one I know has $40 large in their back pocket to fill their iPod. But everyone I know has an iPod. So if they want to buy more music, WHY NOT SELL IT TO THEM AT A LOWER PRICE? I don’t see the problem there. The irony of this entire thing is that the iPod is the industry’s lifeline at the moment. When music became free, the iPod came into the picture & gave these curiosity downloads value. “I may only listen to this once, but at least it’ll be on my iPod so I can always have it around JUST IN CASE.” That means we can sell 40,000 $.12 songs, many of which will never even be listened to more than once. BUT WHO CARES? So long as they pay. Chances are that 51st song or maybe the 89th song is going to change their life & then they’ll drop $40 on merch without hesitation. They’ll buy the back catalog. They’ll buy a physical copy of the music they bought digitally, maybe even in two formats.
Adjustments have to be made, of course… less money can be spent to record & promote an album, you have to meet the demands of this volume by providing niche artists. Things spread out. The indies can now compete because the mainstream slowly dies & the superstars become less super. But that’s life. That’s where the cycle has brought us. So long as the volume is high enough to compensate, who cares?
The idea is not & never has been to maintain a certain per-song value. This is a BUSINESS. The goal is to, at the very least, survive, & hopefully even make some profit. This is still a possibility, but not if we continue on the current path. I wouldn’t put my money on the industry surviving long enough for Big Brother to step in. Furthermore, Doug Morris’ ability to make his yacht payments (or whatever it is he spends his absurd salary on) nearly disappears next to my liberty.
Hopefully Ron Paul will take office & set everyone straight.
As for Lefsetz, he’s my hero. Not necessarily because of the things that he says, but because he says them. I don’t agree with everything he says, but almost everything I believe about the music industry he has said at one point in time, even if he’s contradicted it, also. It’s important that someone be out there examining things from different points of views & throwing out ideas. It’s not his job to piece them together, to create solutions, only to offer perspective.
Comment by Jon Cole — November 26, 2007 @ 6:39 pm