The Costanza

WITH the New Zealand government having just released its revamped version of section 92A of 1994’s Copyright Act, music piracy and illegal downloading has become something every internet user in this country will have to think about.

The new legislation which becomes law this year, means people who constantly illegally download could have their internet accounts suspended for six months or be forced to pay $15,000.

The government has recommended that Internet Service Providers should be given the ability to warn customers who are illegally downloading that they need to stop and if not, after three strikes, there will be consequences.

Minister Responsible for the Law Commission, Simon Power says the law is about educating and warning file sharers that their actions are illegal, however, a study in the UK says “kids know that piracy is illegal, but they do it anyway. Only one music service can make them go legit: something that provides unlimited, permanent downloads, not just online streams.”
The latter idea will be explored later in this post.

An interesting story recently came out on Stuff.co.nz, that here in New Zealand, downloading porn is more acceptable than downloading music illegally.

“41 percent of New Zealanders think that it is morally acceptable for a single person to view pornography, compared with 18 percent who consider illegally downloading copyrighted music acceptable.”

The Costanza would have liked to do our own research on this topic because while researching music piracy, we have found many people who believe downloading music is somewhat acceptable for various reasons.

In September, research done in the UK found £200 million was lost in 2009 because of people downloading music illegally. However, they found combatting these music pirates cost Internet Service Providers £365 million so it appears the consequences were heavier for the people on the “good” side of the law.

The Featured Artists Coalition is a group of musicians such as Billy Bragg, Tom Jones, Annie Lennox, Nick Mason (Pink Floyd), Kate Nash, Radiohead, Robbie Williams, KT Tunstall and more that believe file sharing encourages people to buy concert tickets and merchandise.

They do not support music piracy in any way but they do not think the government’s plans to cut internet connections is a good way to go about stopping pirates.

“We remain steadfast in our belief that making threats against individual music fans is not an effective way to resolve any problems associated with filesharing,” the group has said.

The FAC believe file sharing is a good way to advertise music by bands who do not have any other way to be heard and if fans ability to do this is stopped via new laws, it will impair musicians’ ability to do their jobs.

“The focus of our objection is the proposed treatment of ordinary music fans who download a few tracks so as to check out our material before they buy. For those of us who don’t get played on the radio or mentioned in the music media … peer-to-peer recommendation is an important form of promotion.”

Ed O’Brien, of Radiohead and the FAC shares his personal view on file sharing: “My generation grew up with the point of view that you pay for your music. Every generation has a different method. File sharing is like a sampler, like taping your mate’s music. You go, ‘I like that, I’ll go and buy the album’. Or, ‘you know what, I’ll go and see them live’. What’s going on is a huge paradigm shift.”

The comments on this page seem to agree with that statement.

One commenter says “In the past, if people wanted to know what an artist/band/group sounded like, they listened – for free – in a booth/stand at a music shop, on the radio, or at a friend’s. Youtube is merely an extension of/replacement for this and as such is very valuable.”

The above is not the only case of people who believe live concerts are the newest and best way for musicians to make money in a world where music piracy won’t go away.

This website says the amount of money made from live shows has “rocketed” because although it is so easy to download music online, concerts force musicians to put on shows which are so much more than what they have put on their CD’s.

The site also says the new generation is looking for an interactive experience to encourage them not to just download music online. They say live shows drive the sales of recorded music in the internet age.

The Costanza recently went on a research mission to find out the benefits of concerts, which cost more than CD’s, at a time where music is so easily downloaded online.

24,000 people attended a concert by Green Day in December, the highest attendance the Vector Arena in Auckland has ever experienced and double it’s capacity.

Tickets to this show were $110 each which means on the night where 24,000 people attended, the proceeds would have been a massive $2,640,000.

Keeping in mind Green Day sold out two shows in the Vector in December, the proceeds would most likely be double that.

Merchandise is another thing altogether. If you really enjoyed a concert, it’s likely you’ll want a memento such as a t-shirt to remember the night. At $50-60 per t-shirt and over $100 for a hoodie, that’s a lot more money being made from extras.

This post says that even in a recession, people choose to go to live shows.

Unlike the Featured Artists Coalition (mentioned above), some musicians still heavily disagree with music piracy and believe the government is correct in cutting pirates’ connections.

Aging rockers Kiss have spoken out against pirates dictating whether or not they get paid. Lead singer Richard Simmons says what they do isn’t charity, they disapprove of teenagers stealing music and music piracy is ruining the music industry.

Sir Elton John believes illegal downloading is having a detrimental effect on young musicians as well as artists who do not perform live.

Lily Allen wrote a blog in September saying “music piracy is having a dangerous effect on British music”. She recommends record companies become more knowledgeable about new technology and make the internet more user friendly for kids to download music legally instead of having to steal parents credit cards or download music illegally.

Lily, it seems, has a point. A study in the UK found people who download music illegally spend more money on “official” music than people who have never illegally downloaded.

It could be a conscience thing. People who have illegally downloaded feel guilty about it so they go out and buy more records. Or it could be the “sampler” theory mentioned earlier where people listen to samples of music online, illegally and then go out and buy the whole album.

The study showed eighty-three per cent of people downloading music illegally said they buy more music as a result, while 42 per cent said they did so to ‘try before you buy’.

One of the researchers of that survey made an interesting suggestion, one Lily Allen would probably agree with.

“The findings should force companies and politicians to ‘wake up to the changing nature’ of the music industry,” he said.

The music industry is changing fast. In the beginning there were records which moved to tapes and CD’s and now a lot of music is digital. As Bob Dylan sang “The times, they are a changin’”.

There are many sites on the internet if you want to obtain music legally and illegally. Of course the humble CD is still around but it no longer makes as much money as it did because there is just too much choice out there.

Apple is a strong competitor when it comes to music, they have Itunes which is popular for downloading legal music at around $2 a song or around $12-20 an album and of course Itunes is necessary for filling up an Ipod so it is convenient in that sense.

Apple now own American music program Lala, which allows users to play any song or any album once for free before they have to pay for downloads. The song/album is added to the user’s online music collection after one listen and then for 10 cents you can listen to the song/abum as many times as you like.

A very cheap way of gaining access to music because of course, cheap is the key. People now days want fast, cheap, easy access to music.

Apple recently revealed their plans for Lala. In the same sort of format as Lala, Apple are allowing users of Itunes to preview songs they wish to purchase for 30 seconds before they buy them.

For some though, MP3 is almost as old-school as records. The aforementioned Lala prepared to launch an Iphone application in October which “paves the way for the end of downloading songs in the MP3 format.”

This application allows users to download songs onto their cellphones from Lala for 10 cents. However, the songs are not high quality like music which is bought off Itunes.

An upside is songs begin playing within seconds so there is no 2 minute (or more) waiting time like there is when downloading music from Itunes.

In conclusion, how can music piracy be stopped?

People have many a solution about how they believe music piracy could be stopped. One of them is that if you give kids all the music they can possibly consume for one easy payment, they will take it because they like to download a lot of music, the same site says approximately 17 days worth of music can be found on some computers.

Now we’ve covered that, we come to a group who proposes to do this exact thing, legalise music piracy.

Sweden’s Pirate Party won 7% of the vote so won a seat in the European Parliament. So because of this, some guys in Canada started their own Pirate Party. Beginning on Facebook as a group, they eventually gained more members and evolved into a website.

Here is what the Canadian pirate party propose: “We must fight for fair copyright laws. Laws that are fair to consumers, as well as artists … We must also promote and contribute to the sharing of art and culture”

And how would it work?

The website says: “Artists would be compensated through a levy charged by internet service providers to all broadband internet users who engage in file sharing (users who didn’t share files could opt out). In exchange for this levy, the user would be free to download as much music as he or she wanted, from as many sites as desired, to keep it for as long as it’s wanted, and to share it with anyone else who paid the levy. The fees would be pooled to create a fund to pay the artists whose music has been downloaded.”

The amount of money they’re looking at is $3 a month. Very cheap. As cheap as a cup of coffee.

A reasonable solution?

Tory.

Apple are using Lala, which they bought last year, to give people 30 second music previews in Itunes.

Before this, you couldn’t preview songs in the Itunes store before you purchased them.

Lala cost Apple $85 million to buy but seems like it will be worth it as maybe it will mean Itunes gets cheaper music, something everyone wants!

Tory.