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.

Our government, here in cozy little New Zealand has today released a revamped section 92A of the law.

This law applies to music piracy. In it, are fines for music pirates as well as internet suspensions.

Read ‘em and weap.

Begins next year, 2010.

Tory.

This article by the Daily Mail in the UK says a study published by think-tank Demos, found those who admit to file sharing spent more money on singles and albums than people who claim never to have illegally downloaded music for free.
A government in the UK plans to disconnect illegal downloaders from the internet in a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule.
Some artists such as James Blunt and Lily Allen support these plans but Shakira claims she feels closer to fans when they illegally obtain her music.
Of course, the survey also reveals that people would download less music illegally if it was cheaper to buy music. In fact, the legal music companies would DOUBLE their custom if they lowered their prices.

Tory.

She says bands who sell out arenas such as Pink Floyd and Radiohead are not the ones feeling the effects of piracy but for new acts, music piracy and file sharing make it hard for new acts to emerge.

Allen says while old-school artists are driving Ferraris the new, emerging artists are still trying to pay off record company debts.

She recommends record companies get smart 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.

Tory.

Rabid Neurosis or RNS, tapped insiders who could access music before the norms and supplied members of the public with music not otherwise avaliable in the US.

It has been said that the people in this ring, pirated for financial benefit.

Five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 is the penalty the group face so really do not gain but lose financially.

Tory.

Tory.

It seems like a lot of what I find on the internet is older stuff but always very interesting. This is a piece from BBC News in the year 2005.

Alex Kapranos of the band Franz Ferdinand believes that the government needs to have a bigger role in Scottish music.

He states that for cultral output to thrive, there needs to be state input aswell.

I guess what he means is that music, as nice as it is, doesn’t make much money but costs a lot to produce. If the government want to have nice music on their radio stations, they need to provide funding for ‘musos’ to go into recording studios and make music. Aswell as helping less experienced, poorer bands with instruments, amps, all that kind of stuff to make the music sound good.

“I think the role of musicians is to question politicians rather than to go to bed with them,” Kapranos said.

So although musicians need funding from the government and are thankful for the funding they get, they shouldn’t suddenly write songs about how much they love the government. Bands should still stick to their Green Day, American Idiot punk roots which say ’screw the authorities’.

Kapranos believes some parts of music need help being sustained as they are not ’self sufficient’. I’m guessing this applies to the expense of making music which far outweighs the profit a small band gets from putting their music out there.

In addition to his comment about ‘bedding’ politicians, he also says having tea with them is not a good idea either, meaning it’s best not to get too close and friendly to one particular party.

I still think this goes back to the punk kinda movement where music was about doubting authority rather than agreeing. Even rock music has a degree of rebellion rather than conformity and I think it’s important to keep it that way. Even if bands do get help from the authorities, definitely does not mean they’re your best friend.

“If you take everything I’ve accomplished in my life and condense it down to one day, it looks decent!” – George Costanza

Tory.

The recession is hitting the music industry hard. This video is fantastic because it says everything that I’ve been saying in my last few blogs.

Even in a recession people will pay to see a concert. $40 American to see British reggae group UB40. The concert sold out. The band believes that the way to make a living is to perform live. No longer can you become a billionare from selling millions of records.
Record sales are down even if concert sales are up. A lot of people choose to legally download their music as opposed to buying CDs because it is cheaper to download music.

UB40 believe people enjoy going to concerts because it takes your mind off real life and the recession for an hour or 2.
They say that last year they sold 60 million records but really the number would be about 100 million if the illegal downloads were counted. This explains why a $40 concert ticket for them, is more profitable than selling records. 40 million people just ’stole’ their record anyway.

It’s interesting how downloading is both benefitting and disadvantaging the music industry. Legal downloads which are cheap and easy are popular at the moment and are a good alternative to buying CD’s.
Where as illegal downloading which is also popular means that artists don’t get almost half as many sales as they previously would.

As much fun as concerts are though, almost $300 to attend one (all things added up) may not be a smart idea in a recession and as a student.
Hard choices.

“Music – that’s been my education. There’s not a day that goes by that I take it for granted.” – Billie Joe Armstrong (Green Day)

Tory.

Basically, this article from the UK says that some guys from some well thought of US universities are publishing a paper which asserts the benefits of internet piracy.
In my last blog I covered a few of the many reasons why people would want to pirate music. Obviously there are a lot more reasons, both good and bad.

Reading some of these articles makes me realise why I’m a journalist. I have to put these big words and big ideas into little bitesize pieces so that it’s understandable for anyone to read. Right now, I need someone else to put all this complication into bitesize pieces for me!

The basic jist of this article so far seems to be that economists say that the point of copyright, which stops piracy, is so that artists are able to make money off their product, ie: their music.
Their study shows that while a ‘business model’ may be destroyed by the technology of file sharing, artists will still produce new work.

An example of this according to them is that if music becomes free, people may have to pay more to see an artist perform live so that the musician still makes some cash.
I don’t know about you but I’d be happy to pay almost any amount of money to see the bands I love perform live.
My understanding has always been that artists make like 10c off every CD and make most of their money from performing live. Although I’m not sure how true that is but it sounds like if that is true, not much is really changing.

Left to right: Bob Bryar (drums), Frank Iero (guitar), Gerard Way (vocals), Mikey Way(bass), Ray Toro (guitar)

The next point is interesting. What about bands who don’t like live performances? I can see how stressful performing live could be and I personally understand why not every musician would want to follow in the footsteps of a band such as My Chemical Romance who performed live for 3 years straight (I think).

“Remember Jerry, it’s not a lie if you believe it”

I have decided to start every blog with a quote from either Mr Costanza, a politician/about politics or a musician/about music. This is just my way of personalising my blog and maybe making the things I talk about a little more bearable.

What my blog will be about will be rather dry and although interesting, probably won’t be the most exciting thing everyone has ever read.
It turns out our choices are as I thought. Government, politics or the economy.

However, my idea about music is not hard hitting enough. My Costanza theme may not be hard hitting but it’s one way I can personalise this blog.
I had this plan that I could write about musicians who include politics into their music on days when nothing else is happening. This needs to be more refined. I’m going to focus instead on areas like:

• Piracy in music.
• How downloading is affecting the music industry.
• How government funding is affecting the music industry here and abroad.
• Whether or not a change in government has affected the music industry in any way.
• How the state of the economy affects music sales

I need things I can easily stick into my Igoogle and get regular updates about. Single, key words and terms.
There are a few other things I discussed with my tutor earlier but I’ve completely gone blank. If anyone has any ideas relating to politics, economy or government and it’s relation to music, please comment and tell me about it so I can write! Always needing ideas!

Tory.

Picture: Parliament, taken by myself.