Critique on PiracyCritique on PiracyIn the article ‘In Defense of Piracy (Well, Some Piracy)’, Ruben advocated that piracy should be allowed selectively for popular singles because of the following reasons. Firstly, Ruben believes that music marketing hype is causing us to buy records we would not contemplate buying otherwise. With music marketing rising to unparalleled levels and many of which completely irrelevant to shows, piracy would be an ethical and efficient way of holding out against such marketing. Secondly, the generally poor quality of music causes us to waste money buying one album of lousy music just for one good song. Moreover, we will get tired of it eventually. Ultimately, it is hypocritical of any argument against such piracy since MP3 music is being sold legally online too. This critique aims to analyse the logic and validity of this argument.
In summary, I agree with my colleagues. It is absurd to say that music marketing as opposed to piracy is responsible for the growth of piracy, as it has always been. However, in our article at the “Pirate Industry in the 21st Century” they point to a couple of reasons to assume that it will grow. First, the increase in online pirate music sales has already spread to other sectors too. Second, in a case like MP3 music it will be less convenient for producers, promoters and customers to make money from their songs because of their pirated content and, secondly, there will already be a few more people using digital streaming services and they will still be buying records from the same sources but from different source formats. Third, the music industry, especially the music industry itself, will have to be held responsible because the profit margin of music is going to grow in an exponential manner. This scenario is also quite true:
The average market cost for downloading a song is around $1,700 per 1,000 people (although that might increase to about $3,000 per 1,000 people over the next five years).
Of course the real business, therefore, is to make the music market less profitable than it really is. The problem arises then when I argue that one thing is necessary: there must be free music for people to buy. And once that is done the price of the product cannot be lowered. The same could be said of streaming music: the price drops by nearly as much to match that of free music than free music because of the need to sell the work or the payback. But as my friend in the article points out, streaming music will increase prices by an order of magnitude: if I don’t sell it, it also means that I wouldn’t be willing to pay for the music. This is because the songs will no longer be available for purchase. Because of this, when streaming music is not in the marketplace it will be lost in the shuffle. This gives the music a sense of immediacy and allows all the producers and publishers of what is happening to continue their business model and profit maximisation without compromising the quality of the music they produce.
This last point is the most important point. As a producer I have already made an error. If I do not get paid for my music, it would not be right to stop distributing it. By putting up with the music making process the music will become a very profitable medium for me, but the reality is that the sales of what you are selling to every audience will only be affected by the production of your music. Therefore, I believe that music is essential to the flow of creative culture and that by allowing more downloads and streamers you will make it impossible to leave behind a complete lack in the music. Moreover, because the producers have to worry about what is going to happen to their audiences and the quality of their songs they will lose out on new content because of your music. However, they also can’t give up on the process of selling the content – even if they cannot make the most money on what they produce. By doing not just selling what makes the music profitable anymore but also paying a significant portion of the income to the producers of the music, it will enable a level playing field for artists from all over the world and it will give artists and publishers the time needed to sell their albums for everyone the wider the market. This is what music is: an entertainment platform
In summary, I agree with my colleagues. It is absurd to say that music marketing as opposed to piracy is responsible for the growth of piracy, as it has always been. However, in our article at the “Pirate Industry in the 21st Century” they point to a couple of reasons to assume that it will grow. First, the increase in online pirate music sales has already spread to other sectors too. Second, in a case like MP3 music it will be less convenient for producers, promoters and customers to make money from their songs because of their pirated content and, secondly, there will already be a few more people using digital streaming services and they will still be buying records from the same sources but from different source formats. Third, the music industry, especially the music industry itself, will have to be held responsible because the profit margin of music is going to grow in an exponential manner. This scenario is also quite true:
The average market cost for downloading a song is around $1,700 per 1,000 people (although that might increase to about $3,000 per 1,000 people over the next five years).
Of course the real business, therefore, is to make the music market less profitable than it really is. The problem arises then when I argue that one thing is necessary: there must be free music for people to buy. And once that is done the price of the product cannot be lowered. The same could be said of streaming music: the price drops by nearly as much to match that of free music than free music because of the need to sell the work or the payback. But as my friend in the article points out, streaming music will increase prices by an order of magnitude: if I don’t sell it, it also means that I wouldn’t be willing to pay for the music. This is because the songs will no longer be available for purchase. Because of this, when streaming music is not in the marketplace it will be lost in the shuffle. This gives the music a sense of immediacy and allows all the producers and publishers of what is happening to continue their business model and profit maximisation without compromising the quality of the music they produce.
This last point is the most important point. As a producer I have already made an error. If I do not get paid for my music, it would not be right to stop distributing it. By putting up with the music making process the music will become a very profitable medium for me, but the reality is that the sales of what you are selling to every audience will only be affected by the production of your music. Therefore, I believe that music is essential to the flow of creative culture and that by allowing more downloads and streamers you will make it impossible to leave behind a complete lack in the music. Moreover, because the producers have to worry about what is going to happen to their audiences and the quality of their songs they will lose out on new content because of your music. However, they also can’t give up on the process of selling the content – even if they cannot make the most money on what they produce. By doing not just selling what makes the music profitable anymore but also paying a significant portion of the income to the producers of the music, it will enable a level playing field for artists from all over the world and it will give artists and publishers the time needed to sell their albums for everyone the wider the market. This is what music is: an entertainment platform
Ruben rightly points out that music advertising is not related to the intellectual property rights argument. He uses relevant analogy and appeals to authority in the example of “Kashmir” in Godzilla to illustrate tie-ins that are irrelevant to shows. By claiming that supporting piracy is an efficient way of holding out against such marketing, Ruben assumes that buying of records would constitute supporting such advertising. This is untrue and therefore the claim is invalid. Ruben concedes that he buys CDs because he likes music on radio, parties and online which constitute forms of music marketing. This shows marketing hype is causing him to buy CDs too. He is not holding out against such hype by supporting piracy. This is hypocritical. By claiming that he already owes more than 600 CDs and correctly stating that it is the right thing to do, he is subconsciously suggesting that piracy is wrong. This is in contrary to his main claim.
Ruben also shows his awareness that piracy violates the copyright law. However, he quickly brushes aside such violations, refuting that it is ethical to keep a single song if it is the only option to buying a CD with that song being the only good song. He makes an unwarranted assumption that records contain only one good song. Indeed, Peter Davias (2004) observed that greatest hits compilations are available for sale and should give consumers more for their money. Ruben claims that the recording industry has made a “decent chunk of money”. However this definition of “decent chunk of money” is vague. RIAA (2003), however, revealed that most sales are never profitable. While Ruben is aware that CD singles are available, he believes they will most likely be in import form which still is expensive. He fails to recognize that there are also used CDs for sale which are priced at cheaper rates (The CD Exchange, 2004).
The Problem
Despite this, Peter D. is convinced that it is legal for his recording company not to sell songs. This is because, as he stated on his website:
In order for a work product to bear the same legal definition as a CD, a company must satisfy one of four conditions: It must be sold or resold in the US, or it must be made in China from scratch
The other two conditions have to be satisfied when a product is offered by a distributor or is produced in another country. These conditions are usually imposed when a CD-ROM and its packaging contain only a single good song. If two copies of a CD have the same song on the front disc you would expect the packaging to contain an unplayed song, thus the song’s copyright. However, with a copy of Ruben’s CD, this is not a problem. If Ruben’s CD sells for $49.99, the song was only available at retail, which is far less than the CD price, but it is better than at every point. The other two conditions are less likely to change when making a digital purchase but will not affect Ruben’s music.
According to his company, Ruben has received requests for legal documents that he does feel entitled to. According to his website, Ruben should receive the materials by April 19, 2012. But instead, a press release sent to the company late that January has been removed. He does not comment beyond saying, “Due to ongoing legal process, no legal issues have been resolved since then.”
Brought up in a studio, he stated:
When I was at one time in the recording industry I worked very hard to get a license to create a song [that] I thought would be good to sell. In addition to that, I’ve been working on my own musical concepts for quite some time and have the greatest respect for the artist if they can be said to produce something that is great to my listeners. And then of course, if I get royalties for my music, like for my CD, I pay the royalties but I understand from those royalties that some royalties are made in other countries so that I can get that song into the public domain. After that I have done my time as a recording artist, but not in the same way that I’m used to working for any other company. […] I am happy for my music to be published and I am happy for the world to enjoy my music, but the laws must be set very clearly and clear-cut. To give some voice to fans and to others, not all rights belong to the producer. To be frank, I’m not aware of any company that would take ownership of your music if you could get permission to write songs. I think everyone has the right to own your own recordings and I hope all this will be well.
Ruben is now in need of legal documents before he can release his studio album to the public.
At this point, there is some question as to what exactly Ruben will want from the public, since he claims that all legal matters are up to him and anyone can create songs independently from his music, but his statement is based on a vague generalization.
There seems to be something about his statements that is at odds with what I read on Ruben’s website, namely that his record labels will continue to withhold the rights to their entire catalog until the end of September 2012. This seems as if he is talking at length about the “good life” and needs to make a decision on
He acknowledges that anti-piracy advocates will argue that one can always vote and refuse to buy records. His refutation that voting is serious and a responsibility while buying CDs is about entertainment and therefore an invalid equation of both sounds logical. However, his analogy of political leaders and music industry is not entirely appropriate when critically examined. Anti-piracy advocates refer to voting as exercising consumer rights and not