I’ve also downloaded Pitfalls in Measuring the Impact of File-sharing and Measuring the Effect of Online Music Piracy on Music Sales.  I found these articles from the usual liberal sites and a more conservative article on Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation article is really interesting because it notes the risk in moving to an all mp3 based distribution model while P2P still flourishes.  Currently, mp3s have difficulty competing with CDs.  If iTunes and Napster take off (even more) and CDs are a thing of the past there won’t be a difference between the P2P free version and the purchased version.

Economists refer to these types of goods as perfect substitutes, reflecting the fact that one digital file (the copy made available by the seller on the Internet) is a nearly perfect replacement for the other (the copy made available by the file sharer). It is a basic tenet of economic theory that, when choosing between two such goods, consumers will choose the one that costs less.

A good argument.  I digress, The author of the article still doesn’t note the foundation of Oberholzer and Strumpf’s Empirical Analysis which is, briefly stated:

If you were offered a free (no strings attached) plane ticket to Florida you would most definitely choose to take it.  Yet, if you weren’t ever offered a trip would you have ever even thought of going to Florida?

In other words, would the individuals downloading music ever had purchased a CD in the first place?  In most cases, research has pointed to no.  Furthermore, would some of these same individuals have ever listened to most of the music they’ve downloaded (had they been demanded to pay for it)?  Research still points to no.

Maybe I’m naive to think this but I feel KaZaa, BitTorrent, and other P2P systems are not popular because the content on the networks is free.  I think they’re popular because people that use them realize the freedom of exploration at their fingertips.  I truly believe people would rather pay for music than steal it.  I truly believe P2P users want copyright holders to be compensated.  But these users don’t want to give up their freedom in the process.

These along with a privy of others, are the reasons I support VCL.  Copyright holders deserve to be paid but the fans do a better job of making music available than labels.  We need a system that allows both to exist, compulsory licensing models such as ASCAP and VCL I believe, are the answer.

Luckily, we each write our own songs and can do with them as we please.  That’s the bottom line.  I know I sparked this particular discussion with my response to your post, but I’ve lost the will to keep going with the back and forth…shoulda learned my lesson after the last thread.

The only specific example I remember is the movie Outfoxed.  What about music?

I know damn well you don’t get all your information from this site.  There are plenty of examples of music out there (Chuck D of Public Enemy for example).  Not to mention, if it works for film there’s no reasonable argument why it won’t work for music.

Three words:  Plummeting record sales.  Good enough?

Two words, Prove it! The majors have been claiming this for a while now with no evidence.  But it’s quite easy to find opposing evidence here, and here (PDF)!

Where is the foundation for your support?

EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), DownhillBattle.org, P2PNET.net, Boing Boing, Slashdot, and numerous other online research and news organizations.

Yes, the proposals I’m getting behind are in their infancy and/or unproven.  But VCL is based on ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.  There’s no one arguing that those systems don’t work, so why would I argue against VCL?

Also, your initial patron comment contradicts your later one.

I’ve already responded to this in a previous post on this topic, so I’m not going to repeat myself.

“This is your opinion.  There are a lot of very intelligent individuals that completely disagree with you.  There are also industry patrons, music business execs, and others that disagree with you. Yet, no matter how many of these opinions I post on this site.  Or how many examples (Napster) I show in place, working, AND making money you aren’t going to change your mind.”

The only specific example I remember is the movie Outfoxed.  What about music?  Then there have been a bunch of quotations from various industry folks.  Nothing any more concrete that my opposing arguments.  I won’t change my mind until I have a good reason to, and I haven’t heard one yet.  Randy, you’re implying that I’m being stubborn or something, but you’re overestimating the validity and effectiveness of your counter-arguments.

“In the mean time, be my guest to post some negatives on file-sharing.  Not just your opinion, but evidence of file-sharing’s destruction of the music industry.  At least then you’re contributing beyond barking from a stage with no foundation.”

Three words:  Plummeting record sales.  Good enough?  And since you’re accusing me of making unfounded claims, remember that all of these proposals you’re getting behind are either totally unproven or in their infancy.  Where is the foundation for your support?

Yes, the mixtape example would make you an indirect patron, UNLESS your friend downloaded the album for free.  And I’ve never agrued against tape-sharing amongst personal friends or acquaintences.  It’s the large-scale and impersonal aspect on the internet that troubles me.

One more thing – you’re right that Tweedy was talking about both.  Not that you said this, but bootlegging a concert, with or without permission, doesn’t make you a patron of the arts either.

And by definition, if I make a mixtape with a Promise Ring track on it and that provoked my friend to purchase a Promise Ring album aren’t I a patron of that artist?  Support equates to patronage, and I would argue that a mixtape is definitely a way of promoting, thereby supporting, the Promise Ring.

Support: Something providing immaterial assistance to a person or cause or interest.

What I’m saying is, anyone who thinks that something like VCL or piracy could ever in a million years be profitable for musicians as a whole is kidding themself.

This is your opinion.  There are a lot of very intelligent individuals that completely disagree with you.  There are also industry patrons, music business execs, and others that disagree with you. Yet, no matter how many of these opinions I post on this site.  Or how many examples (Napster) I show in place, working, AND making money you aren’t going to change your mind.  And frankly, I’m not asking you to.

The one thing I find hilarious is your argument was used when radio (AM or FM) first hit big.  Your argument was invalidated when recordable cassette tapes began being mass produced.  Yet, you still persist.  All anyone can say is, only time will tell.

In the mean time, be my guest to post some negatives on file-sharing.  Not just your opinion, but evidence of file-sharing’s destruction of the music industry.  At least then you’re contributing beyond barking from a stage with no foundation.

pa·tron [ páytrən ] (plural pa·trons)

noun

1. sponsor: somebody who gives money or other support to somebody or something, especially in the arts

2. regular customer: a customer, especially a regular one, of a shop or business

Art is not free, nor has it ever been.  Even it is available to be experienced for free, the artist “takes a loss” in terms of the time, effort, and materials that he invests in the production of the artwork.  A single artist can choose to make his art available free of charge, but, by definition, anyone who partakes of art without paying the artist is NOT a patron of the arts.  That’s just a fact.

The cat is definitely out of the bag, as Gershon put it, so there really is no choice but to go along with the trend.  He’s kind of saying, “Well, I don’t agree with it, but I’m powerless to stop it.” Fine, but I’m hearing so much about how this can be profitable for a musician and have yet to have the particulars explained to me.  How can having their music illegally downloaded and/or licensing it to be used free of charge actually result in increased profit for an artist?  Sure, your music might get heard by a few more people who may or may not (probably not) buy your record despite the fact that they can have it for free.  Sure, you might draw a few more people to your shows, but you’re not making any more money if most of these people have already downloaded your record for free – you might almost break even if EVERYONE who downloaded your record for free also showed up at your concerts, but that’s a big “if”.  So I guess if your new fans that discovered you via the internet and who quite possibly have your record but didn’t pay you for it ALL show up at your concerts AND buy a couple t-shirts or hoodies or stickers EACH, you might do better under this system that under the old one.  Good luck though.

What I’m saying is, anyone who thinks that something like VCL or piracy could ever in a million years be profitable for musicians as a whole is kidding themself.  You might be able to pick one or two cases where it worked out that way, but they would be very rare scenarios.