Why Some People Think Illegal Downloads Do NOT Damage Album Sales?

I'm not going to be a hypocrite and lie to everyone. I illegally download music. I don't understand why a lot of people think that illegal downloads do NOT harm album sales whatsoever. It's totally valid to think that illegal downloads can do exactly just that.

I love to see musicians getting paid for every album of theirs owned. Unfortunately, I live in Malaysia where an album is worth as much as 3 hearty meals. I'm a child under the care of parents who aren't financially stable enough to allow their son to purchase something that pricey. I'm sure I'm not the only one who resort fo illegal downloads for the same reason. Some people of your countries illegal download music, regardless of album prices.

People like me are the reason why musicians don't get the amount of money they deserve. Of course, plenty others who are richer also illegal download as well. When illegal downloading is free, why do we bother paying for legal downloads when we're consuming music for free as a habit? I actually think it's silly that some people think what we do doesn't harm album sales.

I'll let everyone leave comments here on why and why not illegal downloads damage album sales. Prove me right. Prove me wrong. I don't care because I don't seemed to have a basic understanding on this matter.

The unfortunate reality is that, for the majority of artists signed to a record label, their contracts are very exploitative. As a result, their albums have to sell insane numbers before the artists see any money from album sales. Most artists' main income is from concert sales, and merch that fans buy directly from them. So a lot of illegal downloaders see themselves as Robin Hood types—album sales aren't going to support the artist, so by stealing it they're just depriving those exploitative record labels of money, right? Karmic justice, right?

The even more unfortunate reality is that hurting the record labels is likely to just hurt the artists further. If a corporation sees their profits start to drop, how are they going to respond first: by cutting their CEO's salary, or by cutting the wages of their lowest-ranked employees? So if everyone illegally downloads the latest album from Popular Alternative Rock Band, EMI Music Group is going to look at their dismal album sales and decide that PARB is a bad investment. So PARB will suddenly find themselves with a much lower budget for their next album—assuming EMI doesn't drop them altogether.

(That, of course, is with the major labels. Some of the small record labels, 100% independent of the majors, actually treat their musicians well. And some musicians aren't with any label, so obviously all album sales go directly to their pockets. Oddly enough, even though these players have more to lose from illegal downloads, they're generally to be the most chill about it. Most of them view downloads as a form of free advertisement: users who wouldn't have bought the album download it for free, and after listening, some number of them enjoy the album enough that they decide to legitimately buy it.)

I'm also of the opinion that the record labels do perform an important function. They're the ones who get the albums distributed, so that if you need an album now you can walk into a brick-and-mortar store in your hometown and buy it there. They're the ones with deep pockets to get the musicians access to good recording equipment, so they can sound their absolute best. They're the ones who can hire artists and graphic designers to make the album look as good as possible. Sure, the musicians could do that all themselves if they wanted, but the record label's help frees up musicians to focus on the music itself. So, I still think that, in an ideal system, record labels should get a cut of album sales—albeit a much smaller cut than they currently get.

But the biggest reasons I still pay for music? Because I prefer physical copies and high-quality audio. I want my music to be something I can hold in my hand, not in my hard drive. And the majority of illegal downloads are mp3s—almost CD quality, but not quite.

All that said, I don't begrudge anyone who downloads music because they can't afford it.

edited 6th Dec '14 10:30:35 AM by MetaFour

I didn't write any of that.

I don't know what to write as a comment on your post because you just took the words right out of my mouth. Really, thank you for writing such an elaborative post that proves my point.

But here's a question by me. Do digital downloads cost less than physical copies to make? If they really cost less, I can understand why musicians forego the physical format and opt solely for digital downloads. Considering that a lot of music fans illegal download music, it makes sense to say that making less physical copies cuts cost to compensate the loss caused by illegal downloading. Of course, this is not to say that eveyone dismisses the great clarity of music brought by the physical format.

Yes, selling digital downloads costs much less for the musician than printing up physical copies and selling them. Especially with vendors like iTunes, eMusic, Bandcamp, etc, that handle the selling and manage the servers all on their own.

I didn't write any of that.

That is one question I thought of, why do people go through the extremely exploitative record companies anyway? Do they bait and switch the artists and then threaten legal action if they don't get what they want? Do the artists not perform their due diligence and then get locked into a horrendous contract with them?

Why choose them, when more respectable and more lenient record companies exist?

Warning: This poster is known to the state of California to cause cancer. Cancer may not be available in your country.

Some musicians were just unaware of how unkind the industry is. I suspect a lot of musicians would have benefitted from having a lawyer go over their contracts. And the industry does everything in its power to convince the musicians that the exploitation game is the only option.

Steve Albini's article "The Problem with Music" is a classic expose of how musicians get fleeced.

Aaaand as I was looking for it, I found that he gave a big speech just last month, revisiting the topic and talking about how the internet has changed everything. He's pretty optimistic about these changes, actually.

I didn't write any of that.

Assuming they see star potential in you (a one in a million shot if there ever was one), they'll actually have the kind of budget to finance what you'd want to do if it's somethingelaborate, and they'll have the power and budget to promote you as much as possible.

But that's only the absolute best-case scenario, which hardly ever happens.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

What do all of you think of The Pirate Bay(TPB)'s shutdown?

As a latecomer to all the corners of the Net, I was only introduced to TPB by a friend in Summer of last year. I regularly used it for the past few months and am starting to miss it. It was my gateway for plenty of music I had never thought I can get. I wonder if there's a possibility that this shutdown is temporary. But not to worry, the shutdown of arguably the most notorious Torrent site is not going bring any huge changes to online piracy. I can consume and consume any music available on other sites as a pirate.

For writing the previous sentence, I feel even more conflicted for illegally downloading. Sigh.

edited 15th Dec '14 10:45:28 AM by tropeslave

Depends on the album.

Every single time.

My angry rant blog!

Yeah, it does cut down on album sales, that's why I don't really do it. The raw streaming of music on youtube and stuff is more debatable though, especially if it's Vevo or Content ID'd and allowed, personally got me into a lot of bands. Some smaller metal bands approve of illegal downloads just because it's the only way to get their stuff out there, and lots of huge bands have been okay with bootlegs then and now (looking at you Metallica.) Bootlegs can definitely be a good advertising vehicle, especially for underground stuff.

Bottom line though, yeah, piracy is bad, except maybeeeee bootlegs of non-officially released stuff, aka a live show like most bootlegs.

If we're talking bootlegs, some bands even endorse bootlegs. A good chunk of the fandom of The Grateful Dead subsists on trading boots of every single live show the band has played. Paul Mc Cartney seems to even tacitly endorse it, just keeping his mouth shut on the issue a lot of the time, not really ever speaking negatively about it the trillions of Beatles bootlegs out there, and even including a character in his movie Give My Regards To Broad Street a bootlegger with whom he was on friendly terms.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Depending on what kind of albums? I'm curious. I hope you don't mind elaborating on your post.

First, musicians are actually paid jack shit for the albums. Most of the profits go to the label. Musicians earn their money touring and doing other such things.

Second, people who pirate and purchase, on average, buy more than people who only purchase, this is especially true for videogames, but also for all other forms of media. People who pirate and don't purchase would not start purchasing if piracy were impossible.

Third, to quote Neil Young, piracy is the new radio.

I joined the police just to kill people.

However, if the record label sees a lot of profits for an artist's albums, they may be more inclined to give them a bigger budget for the follow up album, as well as more artistic freedom.

It's not nearly as black and white of a situation as people tend to think it is.

edited 17th Dec '14 11:22:50 AM by Odd1

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Music quality is hardly correlated with album budgets after a point. Past said point money gets blown on collabs with expensive big-name artists and such. It is better to spend the album money on tours and such to help the musicians go independent, because larger profits from the album will more likely lead not to "you're now free to do anything on your next album", but "do the exact same thing again".

The problem lies in the music industry. They cling to the album format and copy protection when it's time to move past both.

It's adapt or die.

edited 17th Dec '14 1:28:39 PM by lazybanshee

I joined the police just to kill people.

What's so bad about the album format? And I'd argue that they hardly cling to that—the focus of the industry often seems more largely on singles. Album sales matter, sure, but singles get the greatest focus.

And while a bigger budget doesn't guarantee a better album, it certainly allows an artist more freedom and more of an ability to explore options they might not have had before. Compare, say, The Beatles' Please Please Me and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, for example.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

I'm generally on the pirating side. For two reasons. The first being a lack of stable money to buy any albums, and second because of my visual impairment, using physical media is problematic and feels more trouble than it's worth, compared with digital media that is clearly labeled and formatted.

I'd agree pirating does take from potential corporate album sales, but saying that piracy is the bigger evil is ignoring the whole corrupt music business to begin with. Ultimately the greedy execs with ridiculous slave contracts, poor promotion, and forcing creative artists to be shoved into a mold to me, is more damaging than piracy.

Piracy unlike stealing physical copies, does not actually detract from the overall supply of music. Any product bought or not can be endlessly copied and distributed, and in that sense it's not actually hurting the artist.

I'm not saying it can't, some indie artists need all the sales they can get, but for the most part the money that goes into music companies mostly goes to everyone aside from the artists themselves.

And as mentioned, the other side to it is that music gets spread around much more than if it was only bought physically. Potential paying fans are exposed to music they'd have a much smaller chance of ever seeing if they hadn't become aware of it through pirated copies or online promotion. And also as mentioned, most of the money artists do get are from touring and merch, something piracy cannot replace.

One of my favorite bands Streetlight Manifesto is a good example. They'd been struggling with a record company that seemed to be doing everything they could to obstruct any music being made. Albums were forced to be scrapped because they told the band they'd not sell, criticized their music outright, and delayed them constantly to the point where albums that were already near completion had to be pushed back for years because they weren't allowed to sell them unless they gave the okay.

Eventually the band began to just encourage their fans to torrent their work, because then they'd at least get to hear their music, which was ultimately why they made the band to begin with. It allowed their fanbase to grow quite a bit after torrenting was encouraged, and it led them to quit their label and go indie, where their sales steadily increased with a bigger fanbase and more touring. They sell their albums wherever they can, but ultimately regard them as advertizing for the live shows.

"No will to break."

You bring up the Beatles to prove that album quality scales with album budget? Why the Beatles?

As time goes, it becomes easier and easier to create your own music. You can create your very own home recording studio by the fraction of the price people blew on professional studios in the sixties... of course, soundproof materials become cheaper with times slower than electronics, but you get my point. Wide availability of samples, sheer amount of musicians without a band everywhere. You want to sell your album? You don't need to sign exploitative, slave-like contracts that entitle you to a tiny fraction of the profits, if any. Just hop on bandcamp! Success stories are everywhere. People go independent and very successful all the time.

> What's so bad about the album format?

It exists only because of physical carriers. Vinyl, tape, CD. Albums are archaic and artificial in the era of digital distribution, and more and more artists like Royksopp and Al Yankovich who have creative control over what and how to release prefer to release the tracks in a continuous stream year round to stay relevant in our age of attention, attention, attention.

There are singles, then you buy the same singles + filler songs on an album, then there's the Japanese edition, ridiculous.

edited 18th Dec '14 7:18:36 AM by lazybanshee

I joined the police just to kill people.

Not album quality. I'm talking about how with a bigger budget, one can put more into the music. That doesn't necessarily make it better or worse, but if you have elaborate ideas, a bigger budget obviously helps, no?

And if you can't afford to pay them, then you can't really get what you want, now, can you?

Can a random broke schmuck on the street hire a string quartet or an orchestra?

edited 18th Dec '14 7:18:09 AM by Odd1

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Also:

You realize that's only a tiny fraction of the people who try this, yes? The people who haven't succeeded, you don't hear about them because nobody cares about people who tried and failed. Don't let availability bias blind you here. For every success story, there's 100 people who crashed and burned or have been perpetually stuck going nowhere for years.

edited 18th Dec '14 7:21:04 AM by Odd1

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

And I am saying that obviously you can't play music if you can't afford instruments or actual musicians, but past some point, where you can more or less work the materials you planned to use without splurging on hiring the entire London Symphonic Orchestra for your arachnidstep LP, and I am saying splurging, because people do nothing but splurging at times, randomly inviting expensive musicians like Snoop Dogg on low-profile albums when it doesn't even fit the genre all that way, and they do it why? Not for creative expression at this point, but for sheer marketing.

> The people who haven't succeeded, you don't hear about them

Welcome to show biz. This is how music has always been like. This is how all forms of creative expression have always been like, and if you will claim that a newbie band desperate for attention fails because people pirate their tapes of all things, I will ridicule you, I will have no other reaction.

Where would Metallica be, if not for cassette tape piracy? Nowhere, that's where, making Lars' crackdown on Napster all the more hypocritical. So much for their rah rah anti war shit too. Fakes.

edited 18th Dec '14 7:24:14 AM by lazybanshee

I joined the police just to kill people.

I honestly don't think you understand what I am getting at here, so I'm just stopping.

Insert witty 'n clever quip here.

Not necessarily. Just look at Björk's Biophilia.

I understand what you're getting at, I just addressed this point in my very first sentence when I noted that past some point there is no use in pouring money money into album budget, and you're arguing things prior to that point.

> Biophilia

Is a multimedia project. I will not call it a regular album.

edited 18th Dec '14 7:26:39 AM by lazybanshee

I joined the police just to kill people.

Your definition of album is very strict and limited to a past perception of albums. I'm more open-minded about how albums can be made and be considered to be actual albums. In fact, Biophilia is officially called an 'app album'. The word album is in there, because it's the core/basis of her project.

What is your opinion on video/film albums (Interstella 5555, the Fryars' Power)? Those are also multimedia. Yet, the albums that are the core of it were released (Discovery and Power, respectively).

edited 18th Dec '14 8:24:11 AM by Quag15