Do you think Youtube/downloading illegal music hurts or helps the music industry?

[Deleted]

So I was wondering... there are many laws going on, many record companies (probably all) who hate Youtube/such sites and the illegal downloading of music.
Making their music free and accessible obviously cuts into their profits, and into the profits of the artist.
Many artists, including the likes of Jack Black, have campaigned against illegal downloading, and some artists simply do not allow their music on Youtube/Spotify, etc..

But am I the only one who thinks this is a good thing?
To start, if I couldn't even hear an artist before buying a CD, I probably wouldn't buy it.
I have about a 100 CD's, most of which were bought because I liked a few songs off of a certain album. Whether I acquired that song through illicit means, or whether I streamed it, just being able to get into made me go out and buy it.. because it was worth buying.
And even if you DON'T go out and buy CD's... perhaps, for example, you download a Wolfmother album, because you heard a song of their from an advert. Maybe you become a fan, and you end up going to a concert, or buying other merchandise, and just generally talking about the bands, hyping it, getting your friends involved... all because you had the ability to get their music. Isn't that a much more valuable asset than £10 and a bigger sales number?
Plus the fact that at this point, it is fruitless to fight it. It will be downloadable SOMEHOW. So why do the record companies not just let it happen?

As an added thing, although I'm not a signed band, I am in one, and I would MUCH rather have my stuff heard than me myself make more of a personal profit (as long as I break even - the costs to make the album).

I remember a case where I think the band OK GO had made a video/uploaded their music video to their own channel and the record company had taken it down in violation of artist's rights... even though the artist themselves had uploaded it.

Also as one last tidbit, I love Led Zeppelin, but they REALLY piss me off with how arsey they are with their music.
No album songs on their official Youtube, and what is worse is how they block all guitar tab on the internet, on sites like UltimateGuitar and such.
How many kids learning guitar pick it up and go "gee, I wanna learn some Led Zep?"... some many, and yet the band you to go out and spend many on the official tab book. So they stop you being able to learn their songs on the internet.
It's disgusting for a band THAT wealthy.

[obdigore]

Pirating discussion isn't allowed on this forum, so this is probably going to get closed.

But it is a double edged sword. People who use it to find new music is a boon, people who DL everything they want and no longer spend money on music is a bane.

To act as if the Recording Industry should 'just take it' is like saying 'I'm going to kill you anyway, just lay down and take it'. I don't agree with a lot of what the recording industry does, but to claim that they should 'just take it' is amazingly shortsighted.

[Heathy]

meh piracy is one of them grey areas and it is bad, if you exploit it, but its also good in the sense that, if your product is good, no matter how much it gets pirated, it will make money, because its good.

i see piracy can be bunched into 3 categories of ppl.

1) you can't afford any entertainment, you pirate it all, noone lost out anyway because you didn't have the money in the first place.
2) you can afford some entertainment, you pirate some stuff, but you save and buy things you enjoy or are looking forward to.
3) you are well off could afford any amount of entertainment but you pirate everything and just don't give a crap.

1 has practically no effect of the loss of sales.
2 will pirate stuff but some sales will be made by products deemed worthy of a purchase.
3 needs a slap.

you can sub categorize but that is the way i see it. so much crap gets produced and i think its equally criminal that for example you have to buy a movie that you might not like until you actually watch it so, its catch 22.

rule of thumb i think would be, if its good, ppl will buy it.

i'm quite surprised how much copyrighted material is actually on youtube, they must have terabytes of stuff on there which shouldn't be, although it is a good way to market your music. if youtube one day decided to comb their servers and rid the place of everything not authorized by the CR holders, it could go either way for sales, some ppl might think 'well if i can't demo it i'm not throwing my money at a chance its good' but ppl will still buy things simply because it has an artist name they like.

fact is i believe the majority of ppl who pirate, do it because they can't afford it anyway. it might be a bit naive but i honestly believe that is the majority factor. ridding the world of the ability to pirate probably won't do anything to sales, at least it won't completely change everything in the way that ppl think it will.

[Deleted]

It's one of those things that almost everyone does and has its benefits as well causing problems. If it wasn't for piracy, the price of DVD's and CD's would still be outrageous, I mean how many time have people forked out say £20 for a movie on DVD or £15 on a CD and it has been dire. Piracy has caused a decrease in the price in physical copies of music/movies (not so much games) but to counter that, it now costs silly amounts of money to go to festivals or see big name pop-stars, hell even going to the cinema is becoming far to overpriced. In all honestly the artists who make music and actors in films are already signing multimillion $$$ deals before the albums/movies are released, they've made their cash to me and royalties are fair enough but mostly that's going to some fat record company executive.

Games on the other hand cannot benefit from live performances or have developers paid to sponsor brands on the red carpet etc. so by pirating a game, it really does hurt the industry, leading to this bullshit half made game with DLC released every so often to finish it. To me this has became another double edge sword in itself. I used to buy all my games, then I started to pirate the ones I wasn't sure about (and tbh thank god I never spent £40 buying some) but now it's came to the point I don't even buy games anymore. I'm not looking to pirate yet I'm not willing to buy a half ass game I need to unlock to complete. This not only stops me from enjoying a game and giving a publisher money but it also stops me from recommending it to friends and further increasing sales.

[semaphore]

It's essentially free advertisement. It helps the industry, except when the industry goes berserk over it alienating people from wanting to give them money.

Making their music free and accessible obviously cuts into their profits, and into the profits of the artist.

That's not obvious at all. Watching a youtube video is nothing like owning a CD. Most of the pirates who pirated the music and didn't buy the CD, wouldn't have the buy the CD to begin with; thus profits are only marginally lost. Many who heard the music through unconventional channels and then buys the CDs, wouldn't have bought those CDs have they not heard those music; this increases their profits.

It's a combination of both the basic economic principle of demand for a non-essential good (at p=0, you get heaps of consumption that you would not be able to get at p=$10), and the fact that the most active music pirates are the same group that spends the most money on music (as a group).

[Howard Moon]

Both.
Our technology changed, the way our music-business works has changed.
You have bands (and their management) who use this change to grow and you have people who can't adapt to this new age.

I personally know bands that became 'famous' due to the internet and I've heard about stars who can't purchase a 5th car because of the internet.
The answer to your question is not that simple.

Hehe pretty good answer. Yeah I think file sharing does probably hurt the big popular artists, but it most definitely helps the smaller less known ones who are trying to get "out there".

But honestly, it's not hard to take advantage of the internet in order to make big money as an artist. The ones opposing file sharing are just too stubborn to adapt their marketing strategies to the new world.

[semaphore]

To act as if the Recording Industry should 'just take it' is like saying 'I'm going to kill you anyway, just lay down and take it'. I don't agree with a lot of what the recording industry does, but to claim that they should 'just take it' is amazingly shortsighted.

The difference though is that piracy doesn't kill them. What the copyright industries should do is to adapt to the changing market and take the most advantage of it that they can, but to make it adversarial (with respect to potential consumers) as they were doing hurts themselves. Pursing people who are making money from piracy, on the other hand, is absolutely fair game and I doubt anyone really cares if the RIAA does that instead of blackmailing people who can't afford to fight back.

[Jurwi]

As long as I see half retarded pop stars driving porches and living in mansions, I really couldnt care less if my downloading "hurts" them.

[semaphore]

Another thing about illegal downloads is that they are just so much more organised and convenient than legal channels. Everything that I buy, I still download, just because it is easier and more convenient than ripping the CDs or encoding the bluray for storage myself.

[Northy179]

If anything YouTube helps the music industry as long as people want it to, if you monetize a song then as soon as someone uploads that song or uses it in a video it will get linked back to you and you can control what Ads etc those videos have to include.

Some artists make thousands of dollars in advertising, sometimes by no effort of their own, just from famous people uploading montages etc with that song used.

[Deleted]

As long as musicians' cut is between 5-15% of the net income from their albums, I will not support any labels. Musicians don't even own the music they are performing.

I'd rather see bands like Trivium 3 times per year (Rock im Park, Stuttgart and Munich) rather than paying their music labels for a CD.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If an artist, in this modern era, doesn't want their music to be freely accessible on youtube for "previewing" out of principal, they're only hurting themselves. They might be making a statement, but in the end it only cuts into their own profits.

Here's the thing, most (but not all) of the people who illegally download probably wouldn't have bought the music anyway, but one of the biggest issues of downloading is convenience. The music industry took a long time to adapt, but they finally saw that people want to be able to click a button and listen to the one song, not run down to the store and buy an entire album for the one good song that the artist put out. Very few people bought albums for the entire album, as there have only been a few notable albums that the majority of people liked every single song on it.

[Heathy]

I haven't really checked recently for new tracks, I like hardstyle and I've noticed a bunch of different artists are these days giving out free tracks on youtube, they'll make a great track and just give it away as an incentive to buy their other music, that is adaptation.

obviously its not for every artist, some music is much harder to produce, but it is one method i've noticed from the changing market.

[semaphore]

I haven't really checked recently for new tracks, I like hardstyle and I've noticed a bunch of different artists are these days giving out free tracks on youtube, they'll make a great track and just give it away as an incentive to buy their other music, that is adaptation.

obviously its not for every artist, some music is much harder to produce, but it is one method i've noticed from the changing market.

Other ways that artists are making money is going on tours, merchandising, etc. So having the free exposure from an online medium helps promote their other, more profitable products.

[Deleted]

The old systems of music labels hurt everyone.
Pirating is fucking awesome to everyone.

[MasterHamster]

Apparently the music industry hasn't understood quite yet how much they benefit from sharing. Guess things like FB and Twitter, where people share, hasn't really made an impression on how much people like to share stuff with others.

I've discovered a lot of bands through sharing, be it piratebay, youtube or facebook links. Bands I otherwise would never hear of. Knowledge = profit for them. Merchandise, live concerts, ad revenue (depending on how they roll online)

A band called Monster Cat made their first album downloadable on thepiratebay, with codes for a discount on merchandise. Now they get gigs (not major ones, but they get offers to play live and on radio.)
Can anyone tell me how much coverage a new band gets without sharing? People shared things by word-of-mouth, and playing music at home with friends, or watching movies. Now we share using facebook, twitter and youtube. Major artists, who themselves have become franchise, may see a small negative impact due to sharing, because everyone already know who they are. New artists NEED sharing. And it WORKS.

The Anti-Pirate White Knights may think they protect some kind of integrity of the music industry and "help" people get paid for their work, but all they do is damaging aspiring artists.

If you cannot see how bands can earn more profit by making themselves available on say YouTube or maybe upload a bonus track for free on piratebay, you're short-sighted. All you can think of is "a download means they didn't pay!"
Yeah, maybe they didn't pay, but they now know about the band. They share it with others (assuming they like what hey hear). And the more listeners you have, the more you earn.

So. Sharing = Win for smaller bands and new artists, and a minor impact on the poor genre-defining ones who can take money-baths if they so wish.
And frankly, I don't give a shit about the latter.

[Chirri]

I haven't heard of any artists suffering financial hardship due to music piracy. I've heard that artists get their income from touring, not their record label. In that regard, artists who support their label and denounce music downloading strike me as easily herded sheep. Perhaps I'm wrong, and being a sheep by parroting misinformation. I don't mind being wrong, it won't change my income, and it's not my name or fame on the line. Quite a lot of older, established artists have stated that they're actually fine with people downloading their music from the internet, they don't have an issue with pirated songs.

People swapping tapes and CDs, making copies of them, didn't matter back in the day. Everyone did it. People would record from their favorite radio stations. People could share with one another. Recording companies still sold tapes and CDs, artists still went on tour. Big name artists still get more publicity, but smaller artists are able to get a great deal more visibility than they used to, and they don't have to share a cut of their album sales with the recording studios.

Illegal music is a dark mark on the face of the music industry, imo. It's illegal - not for the protection of the artists and creative minds behind the music we listen to, but for the protection of the companies that both promote and attempt to shape the music industry. I've been enjoying the music of independent artists a great deal more than corporately sponsored power house names, recently. In that regard, I suppose illegal downloading isn't doing them any damage from my direction - I don't want what they're putting out, anyway. I'm a great deal more likely to purchase a small name band's singles and albums through iTunes or some other (legal) source because I know that my money is going to the artist, not someone "representing" or grooming the artist.

YouTube, in particular, is a sort of spawning and breeding ground for people new to, or breaking into, the industry. Young, un-signed artists are working with one another; they're hooking up with people working in video and visual recording, people wanting to break into directing and choreography, people who want to act or model, young stylists, etc. They're getting their sound and expression out to people for absolutely free, they're getting practice in recording and mixing and producing and cooperating on original music as well as covers. They don't mind when someone shares a track without paying for it - they're ecstatic that anyone wants to listen to them so badly, even without the income. They love that someone's creating a play list with their vid on YouTube that anyone can listen to, and it isn't earning them a dime.

I suppose I'm not concerned about "The Music Industry." I'm more interested in the artists and the music itself, not the executives and art directors.

TLDR: Yes, it's hurting the Industry. No, it's not hurting the state of music.

[Dezerte]

Pros:

* More exposure, this can be vary valuable for unknown artists not backed by a giant corporation.

Cons:

* Could lead to less sales, it's impossible to know if said person actually would have bought your album if he didn't pirate it.

I have more respect for artists with the integrity to not sell their rights to a business. The moment you start demanding payment for your work it loses it's artistic value.

Edit: Reading the other posts I'd also like to add that I agree. Piracy hurts the industry, not so much the music itself.

[MasterHamster]

People need to differentiate between Sharing and Piracy, but also the synergy between the two.

A new band starts. How do they reach out, when very, very few would randomly buy their album at a local retailer (no internet sharing allowed)

Piracy is a double-edged sword. You reach out to more people, which will lead to more earnings. But the overall value of each listener becomes lower.
Say you go on youtube right now and links a song you just heard and liked. (you're already guilty of "piracy" by listening for free, and you can download the song using FireFox addons) What happens? More people see it. Some may become devout fans and buy their stuff and albums.

It's as it always has worked. People share what they like with others. It happened before sharing became easy on the internet, and it will always continue.
Play a CD for friends and they MAY buy it for themselves.
Share a pirated album and the downloaders MAY buy it for themselves.

Sharing is positive for the industry, but the top executives who bathe in money don't gain as much from sharing as smaller bands, because their franchises are already well known.

[Kerath]

I'm not going to get involved in the piracy discussion, because afaik that's a no-no as far as topics go.

As for things like Youtube... I can't speak for how other people use it, but I use it to check out bands I haven't heard before, to decide whether to go out and buy their album (I'm old fashioned and like owning the physical CD), or buy a ticket for the concert my friends are going to. If I wasn't able to sample their music first, I wouldn't buy CDs or go to concerts of new bands (or at least, new to me) anywhere near so often.