Steve Albini on Piracy

[garethom]

I don't like Steve Albini's opinion on this. It reminds me of people using how Nine Inch Nails gave their albums away for free, and still made a lot of money and got booked from them. Yeah, they're fucking Nine Inch Nails. It's not so easy for normal up and coming people to wade through the shit, get sales or bookings in this insanely oversaturated world of electronic music where every kid on the internet is spamming youtubestep tracks everywhere.

Semi-relevant. Just saw this on the old 'tube and it made me laugh:

ah man, so much rates for uploading the full version, where did you find it out of interest?
TheHPJC

Sources are best left undisclosed.
Or you could go buy it, mr pirate.
debtwck in reply to TheHPJC 8 thumbs up

Alright lets be real here! Pirating has been and will always be around artist make a good chunk of their cash from shows.
Bottomline:The only people hurt by piracy are those whose jobs were pointless to begin with.
AnbusKi in reply to debtwck 53 thumbs up

The fuck? 'Murdering has always and will always be around. A good chunk of the human race survive.
Bottomline: The only people who get murdered are those whose lives weren't worth living anyway.'
You're just refusing to take responsibility for the fact you're nicking somebody's hard work by claiming that it isn't causing a problem. Because you can't be bothered to pay less than a pound for it. Give me an example of an underground artist 'making a good chunk of cash' - as in actual figures.
WeirdAndGeeky in reply to AnbusKi

The less than a pound thing is the thing that gets me. Aside from all "artists should be DJing/playing shows" and "it doesn't hurt sales figures" blah, blah, it's that people won't sink less than a pound on a tune, they value it so little. If you wouldn't even pay £0.99 for it (which isn't much more than a bag of crisps now), then I've gotta question why you'd even pirate it at all.

[wormcode]

The less than a pound thing is the thing that gets me. Aside from all "artists should be DJing/playing shows" and "it doesn't hurt sales figures" blah, blah, it's that people won't sink less than a pound on a tune, they value it so little. If you wouldn't even pay £0.99 for it (which isn't much more than a bag of crisps now), then I've gotta question why you'd even pirate it at all.

Tbh they probably listen to them a couple of times at most and it gets lost on their 120GB ipod. I personally put at least a little blame on that type of shit for contributing to piracy. Why the FUCK would you need that amount of music in your pocket? I think it just makes SOME people want to fill it up for bragging rights.

Music being so cheap is a bit offensive imo... .50 for some tracks, holy shit. I don't particularly enjoy paying 15-20 for a single vinyl with 2 tunes, but .50-.99 is a bit of a joke. It has helped devalue music as a whole. It does add up when you consider a whole album, but in the electronic scene, there's mostly just singles.

[garethom]

The less than a pound thing is the thing that gets me. Aside from all "artists should be DJing/playing shows" and "it doesn't hurt sales figures" blah, blah, it's that people won't sink less than a pound on a tune, they value it so little. If you wouldn't even pay £0.99 for it (which isn't much more than a bag of crisps now), then I've gotta question why you'd even pirate it at all.

Tbh they probably listen to them a couple of times at most and it gets lost on their 120GB ipod. I personally put at least a little blame on that type of shit for contributing to piracy. Why the FUCK would you need that amount of music in your pocket? I think it just makes SOME people want to fill it up for bragging rights.

Music being so cheap is a bit offensive imo... .50 for some tracks, holy shit. I don't particularly enjoy paying 15-20 for a single vinyl with 2 tunes, but .50-.99 is a bit of a joke. It has helped devalue music as a whole. It does add up when you consider a whole album, but in the electronic scene, there's mostly just singles.

There are websites out there do amazing deals for albums though. Searched for one release I was having trouble finding, saw it as an album on Play.com for £2.99. For about 10 tracks.

[Riddles]

I personally feel that the majority of people will pay for good music. To use an example, Adele's album has sold more then Thriller, which has been out for 30 years. While I know it is easier to buy music online etc now, it still shows that people will pay for music they enjoy.

The main issue I feel is that we are bombarded with lots of music which has no longevity and people feel that they shouldn't bother paying for something they only will listen to a handful of times.

[wormcode]

There are websites out there do amazing deals for albums though. Searched for one release I was having trouble finding, saw it as an album on Play.com for £2.99. For about 10 tracks.

£2.99 - after play.com takes its cut, the distro/promo, the label, and whoever else... how much is the actual artist making from their work? 50p per album sale maybe?
Plus, usually the artist only gets paid AFTER the label breaks even (depending on contracts).
It's really no different than how big labels have always been screwing bands and artists out of money, just like Steve Albini complained about before: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17

But now it seems he's championing the same thing happening through a different medium.

[dubfordessert]

I personally feel that the majority of people will pay for good music. To use an example, Adele's album has sold more then Thriller, which has been out for 30 years. While I know it is easier to buy music online etc now, it still shows that people will pay for music they enjoy.

The main issue I feel is that we are bombarded with lots of music which has no longevity and people feel that they shouldn't bother paying for something they only will listen to a handful of times.

that's not true (thank god) - adele sold about 20 million, thriller's sold like 100 million. the internet probably influences sales much more now - greater worldwide visibility... more markets

[tyger]

It's not so easy for normal up and coming people to wade through the shit, get sales or bookings in this insanely oversaturated world of electronic music where every kid on the internet is spamming youtubestep tracks everywhere.

it's all about the postyoutubestep.

but let's not confuse issues. there are far more ppl hoping to make a decent living in music than are going to. no change there.

If you wouldn't even pay £0.99 for it (which isn't much more than a bag of crisps now), then I've gotta question why you'd even pirate it at all.

*some* of this (not all) is ppl collecting tunes on their hard drive for the sake of collecting. some of those are *never* listened to. this kind of collecting doesn't substitute for sales at all.

It's really no different than how big labels have always been screwing bands and artists out of money, just like Steve Albini complained about before: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17

But now it seems he's championing the same thing happening through a different medium.

i'm sure the big labels are screwing artists as much over online sales as over offline. (dunno why you say albini is championing this.)

but with online sales it is much easier to bypass the big labels. e.g. bandcamp will do the distribution for 15% (max); yes, that leaves mastering and publicity to do yourself, or pay somebody else to do it. but it's a huge advantage to be able to pick who does each, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it package, where the label does everything, on their terms.

[wormcode]

Championing it as in he seems to think internet shops/selling music online doesn't also screw the artist over with money.

I've always been a big fan of http://www.ithinkmusic.com who is all about independent artists.
edit: lol they recently got fucked over by bankers and had to close down. Huge shame.

“After 5 years of trading http://www.ithinkmusic.com has been closed. Unfortunately our bank have removed our overdraft facility which has made it impossible for used to continue to trade.

A big thank you to all of the labels and music lovers that have supported the service over the years.

[collige]

People screwing other people over is always going to be a problem. I think he's more championing the fact that the Internet lets people subvert the major labels, which have traditionally been the biggest offenders. As tyger pointed out, it's much easier to get into a distribution position where you aren't being taken advantage of.

[wormcode]

That's true and I agree the internet is a great resource, I just mean it's far from perfect or safe for artists. As you said, people screwing others over will always be a problem. Internet can be even more dangerous to people who aren't careful though as it's all handled virtually and it's very impersonal. Always request physical proof/documents etc sent through physical mail for starters.

[Today]

people telling each other what sales would've looked like if not for piracy (sales are just as good, haven't dropped, or that person/demographic was never a potential customer to begin with, etc) just grinds my gears a little. Because all the graphs and correlations and relationships in the world can't tell you what would've been. The point is technology grew faster than anyone could expect and its resulted in a lot of peoples IP being taken without consent. If they signed a contract stating a record deal, they consented to the sales, distro and promo they were getting themselves into. NIN chose to do a free album. It's about consent, imo

[tyger]

i did link to some better scientific studies earlier in the thread.

i agree that whether piracy has increased or decreased sales is not the only issue.

but it is one issue. i'm not clear what your position is on that issue. earlier, you seemed to be saying that piracy obviously decreased sales, studies that suggested otherwise were flawed, but that there was no need for you to produce studies supporting your view, because it was obvious. now you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter. or that it's offensive even to discuss the idea that piracy might not have decreased sales.

[Riddles]

I personally feel that the majority of people will pay for good music. To use an example, Adele's album has sold more then Thriller, which has been out for 30 years. While I know it is easier to buy music online etc now, it still shows that people will pay for music they enjoy.

The main issue I feel is that we are bombarded with lots of music which has no longevity and people feel that they shouldn't bother paying for something they only will listen to a handful of times.

that's not true (thank god) - adele sold about 20 million, thriller's sold like 100 million. the internet probably influences sales much more now - greater worldwide visibility... more markets

my bad, misread my reference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17935650

UK sales.

[exfox]

I don't like Steve Albini's opinion on this. It reminds me of people using how Nine Inch Nails gave their albums away for free, and still made a lot of money and got booked from them. Yeah, they're fucking Nine Inch Nails. It's not so easy for normal up and coming people to wade through the shit, get sales or bookings in this insanely oversaturated world of electronic music where every kid on the internet is spamming youtubestep tracks everywhere.

it's not only true for nine inch nails though. the rakes put their first album for free on their website when they released it, didn't prevent them from getting big and ending up used in ads even here in france. a band from quebec, misteur valaire, gives all its music for free on the internet - they still became huge here and play sold out venues. another canadian band, badbadnotgood, released three albums for free and is getting seriously hyped at the moment. not to mention those mixtapes from araabmuzik and the weeknd last year - they were free but i'm pretty sure they're making more cash these days than most producers whose tunes you can't illegally download, even though they were not exactly nine inch nails in january 2011 -. the list doesn't stop - and i could pick out artists from any genre

[wormcode]

I don't like Steve Albini's opinion on this. It reminds me of people using how Nine Inch Nails gave their albums away for free, and still made a lot of money and got booked from them. Yeah, they're fucking Nine Inch Nails. It's not so easy for normal up and coming people to wade through the shit, get sales or bookings in this insanely oversaturated world of electronic music where every kid on the internet is spamming youtubestep tracks everywhere.

it's not only true for nine inch nails though. the rakes put their first album for free on their website when they released it, didn't prevent them from getting big and ending up used in ads even here in france. a band from quebec, misteur valaire, gives all its music for free on the internet - they still became huge here and play sold out venues. another canadian band, badbadnotgood, released three albums for free and is getting seriously hyped at the moment. not to mention those mixtapes from araabmuzik and the weeknd last year - they were free but i'm pretty sure they're making more cash these days than most producers whose tunes you can't illegally download, even though they were not exactly nine inch nails in january 2011 -. the list doesn't stop - and i could pick out artists from any genre

Yeah but you could probably count those artists on a couple of hands I'm sure. It depends what you consider 'big' or 'successful' though. I don't care about adverts, I meant solely from the music not product placement type stuff. People seem to think selling music to adverts is the future, but I really dislike that type of stuff. That's all I was getting at. There's lots of electronic music given away for free every day, but not many people take notice. Rock bands will always be more popular than the run of the mill producer, I meant electronic music released from one person in their bedroom which is what I'm interested in.

[joeki]

this thread ended when a thirteen year old said "JUST BUY THE FUCKING MUSIC". Though I applaud your brave stance, how are you paying for the music?

My stance is that music shouldn't be made to make a living out of it. Regardless of the piracy issue.

[scspkr99]

Tbh they probably listen to them a couple of times at most and it gets lost on their 120GB ipod. I personally put at least a little blame on that type of shit for contributing to piracy. Why the FUCK would you need that amount of music in your pocket? I think it just makes SOME people want to fill it up for bragging rights.

Music being so cheap is a bit offensive imo... .50 for some tracks, holy shit. I don't particularly enjoy paying 15-20 for a single vinyl with 2 tunes, but .50-.99 is a bit of a joke. It has helped devalue music as a whole. It does add up when you consider a whole album, but in the electronic scene, there's mostly just singles.

There's all kinds of stuff here that just doesn't sit right.

When you buy a record your paying more for the fact it's difficult to produce, there's other significant overheads and a dwindling market. That said there's still no reason why any new release should cost $15-20. Have you paid attention to just how many albums have been released by electronic artists? There's obviously a strong singles market because these are tracks to play out or w/e but there's tons of electronic albums released every week. It's still costs me 8.99 for most electronic albums this is pretty similar to what it was costing me when I was buying vinyl.

As for the Ipod how about me not wanting to have to choose what music to put on my Ipod? Maybe I don't want to have to anticipate what I want to listen to tomorrow and I'd rather wait till tomorrow and decide then what I'm in the mood to listen to? Do you know how many lossless tracks you'll fit on an Ipod, it's fewer than you think.

None of this is really pertinent when it comes to piracy not the cost of the track or the size of the device you're going to save it to.

[wormcode]

There's all kinds of stuff here that just doesn't sit right.

When you buy a record your paying more for the fact it's difficult to produce, there's other significant overheads and a dwindling market. That said there's still no reason why any new release should cost $15-20. Have you paid attention to just how many albums have been released by electronic artists? There's obviously a strong singles market because these are tracks to play out or w/e but there's tons of electronic albums released every week. It's still costs me 8.99 for most electronic albums this is pretty similar to what it was costing me when I was buying vinyl.

As for the Ipod how about me not wanting to have to choose what music to put on my Ipod? Maybe I don't want to have to anticipate what I want to listen to tomorrow and I'd rather wait till tomorrow and decide then what I'm in the mood to listen to? Do you know how many lossless tracks you'll fit on an Ipod, it's fewer than you think.

None of this is really pertinent when it comes to piracy not the cost of the track or the size of the device you're going to save it to.

I really don't see the point of having 'lossless' music with ipod earbuds, sorry. Or even with decent headphones tbh. I buy wav files mostly, but I convert to 320 for mp3 player. Not sure why you don't want to choose new music to put on there, I get sent new mixes and tracks every couple of days so I'm constantly changing stuff out anyway.

I guess we just listen to or watch different artists because I see an LP every 1 or 2 years or so from the ones I follow, maybe a couple of EPs a year. 15-20 for vinyl is pretty standard, but even with digital I would rather pay more than .50/.99 because the actual artist will see a bigger return quicker. As I mentioned I usually buy wavs anyway which are usually around 2 or so per tune.

[exfox]

I don't like Steve Albini's opinion on this. It reminds me of people using how Nine Inch Nails gave their albums away for free, and still made a lot of money and got booked from them. Yeah, they're fucking Nine Inch Nails. It's not so easy for normal up and coming people to wade through the shit, get sales or bookings in this insanely oversaturated world of electronic music where every kid on the internet is spamming youtubestep tracks everywhere.

it's not only true for nine inch nails though. the rakes put their first album for free on their website when they released it, didn't prevent them from getting big and ending up used in ads even here in france. a band from quebec, misteur valaire, gives all its music for free on the internet - they still became huge here and play sold out venues. another canadian band, badbadnotgood, released three albums for free and is getting seriously hyped at the moment. not to mention those mixtapes from araabmuzik and the weeknd last year - they were free but i'm pretty sure they're making more cash these days than most producers whose tunes you can't illegally download, even though they were not exactly nine inch nails in january 2011 -. the list doesn't stop - and i could pick out artists from any genre

Yeah but you could probably count those artists on a couple of hands I'm sure. It depends what you consider 'big' or 'successful' though. I don't care about adverts, I meant solely from the music not product placement type stuff. People seem to think selling music to adverts is the future, but I really dislike that type of stuff. That's all I was getting at. There's lots of electronic music given away for free every day, but not many people take notice. Rock bands will always be more popular than the run of the mill producer, I meant electronic music released from one person in their bedroom which is what I'm interested in.

the advert thing was just an example to show that they became successful even though they gave the tracks away. if you're strictly talking about electronic artists then the example of araabmuzik still stands. there are plenty of others - even though i dislike his music, the example of girl talk comes to mind. his albums are all available for free, does not prevent these records to sell out better than, say, king cannibal's way of the ninja (to strictly compare with another record of mashups/mixes) - even though they're both electronic artists working from their bedroom.

[Johnlenham]

Im still waiting for The weeknd to either appear near me at a gig or put out the fabled vinyl of all three mixtapes so I can give him money for some damn good music.