

Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing? - bensummers
http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

======
roc
_This is the graph the record industry doesn’t want you to see._

I don't honestly think they care.

A revelation that other products are selling well doesn't diminish the
_legality_ of their argument whatsoever. And doubt regarding the _morality_ of
their argument (let alone their methods) hasn't found one bit of leverage over
the years.

All the chart really does, is serve as a statistical reminder that the
potential end of a business model has no necessary effect on the underlying
product or service.

But the only industry arguments that data refutes, are the hyperbolic arm-
waving PR nonsense that everyone had long since tuned out.

~~~
samstokes
It diminishes the _weight_ of their argument for legislative action, when the
default is to take no action. The fact that illegal activity is occurring is
not, on its own, sufficient justification to put extra time, money or
legislation into fighting it. Here in the UK, where it's illegal to rip CDs
onto an iPod, millions of people do anyway [[citation needed]], but not even
the music industry cares.

When all the labels were doing was filing private copyright infringement suits
against individuals, they didn't need any justification besides being legally
in the right. But now they're lobbying for legislative support in enforcing
their copyright. They're arguing that a) the prevalence of file-sharing is
_harming artists_ , and b) harming artists _harms society_ , and therefore c)
state-backed enforcement for their infringement claims will benefit society.

b) is the part of the argument that copyright reform proponents like to
attack, but a) is just as important to the argument. The figures in TFA seem
to show that music industry revenues _grew_ over the last four years, and that
artist revenues grew even more. If so, that puts a serious dent in the claim
that file-sharing harms artists, and therefore in the argument for state
action.

------
MarkPNeyer
Yes. I wouldn't have bought nearly the amount of music that I have bought if
it weren't for illegal file sharing I did when i was younger. I discovered
most of my favorite artists through illegal downloading, and since then I've
spent hundreds that I wouldn't otherwise have spent going to shows and buying
music.

~~~
brandnewlow
Are you a "music artist?" It's pretty clear that "music consumers" fare better
when you can get everything you want for free.

~~~
tumult
Historically in the record business (as in, since the birth of the record
business up until about 2000) artists had almost no hope of ever making any
money. Playing live gigs or putting out an album usually involved going into
massive debt with a record company just to play a few shows or have a small
demo release. The artists you ever saw in a record store, on the Billboard
TopN, or playing big live shows are the vast, vast minority.

Countless artists just as talented never got that break, which was decided at
the whim of record execs. A certain number of artists would be propped up for
a period of time, and if some fell out of favor, they would be cut away and
replaced from the endless supply of new ones doing anything they can to break
in. There was a maximum number of acts that a record company would support at
once, since that was the optimum number they had calculated for making
profits; there was so much money being spent on things like marketing,
advertisement campaigns, award ceremonies, etc and it you could generate more
money by selectively picking just a few dozen artists to be "allowed" to be
famous and marketing them like crazy.

The music industry is hugely, hugely better for actual artists today. You
don't have to sign your house, car and life away to release music to people.

