[snowwrestler]

Right, because studio time, publishing CDs, booking tour dates, and promoting it all is free.

Before an artist earns money from album sales, they have to pay for all that stuff. When album sales drop, either the artists get less of all those things, or they have to pay for them from other revenue sources. Either way it's not good for them.

The idea that album revenues never did anything for anyone makes no sense.

[MeadowTheory]

Most artists tour for years before signing to a major label, during which time they most likely book all their own shows, do their own promotion (with maybe a tiny bit of help from the venue). They have often released albums on a smaller indie label first, usually recorded on studio time for which they themselves paid. There are many artists that have made a living doing things like this for years and even decades, and they are harmed by a music culture which values artists purely based on the number of units of recordings they can move. It is not a simple binary choice between making things bad for the artists or good for the artists by pirating music or not. I personally think that piracy is the catalyst that will effect a tremendous and positive shift in the music industry, where the artistic qualities of the music and, importantly, the performance of music, take primacy over moving enough album units to hit the quarterly sales goal. Maybe the resulting industry will have a lower overall profitability, but maybe that's not entirely a bad thing, since most of the profits the recording industry has made were based on unethical business practices. The idea that this will spell the end of music because musicians won't be able to make a living is absurd and betrays your lack of vision and historical perspective

[snowwrestler]

Bands don't do these things themselves. When they're starting out they don't know how, and when they start to catch on, it's a waste of their time. The small labels do a lot more than you think. And album sales have been an important part of financing all that. As album revenue has declined, something had to give. Labels are doing less these days, which makes it harder for new and small bands to succeed.

Piracy makes for great exposure. You can't eat exposure though. At some point a band has to make money if it's going to make a living, and piracy has made a big dent in that, even for small labels.

[72deluxe]

"most of the profits the recording industry has made were based on unethical business practices" ---- Citation needed...?

As a musician who happens to work as a software developer in the live audio industry, I would disagree that the music culture harms musicians. I have plenty of recording gear myself and have recorded and mixed the bands I have played in (as a hobby) but I am not blind to the fact that a mixing engineer will likely make a better job of the mix than I will. (Some will disagree - listen to Paul McCartney's Memory Almost Full for an excellent example of how mixing and mastering can destroy and utterly flatten a record).

However, if I were to ever be signed to a record label (a choice that I would have had to make, not by coercion) and sold records, I would be happy if people came to see me live. I would also be happy for people to buy my records - NOT pirate them. My time is not free. The mixing engineer's time is not free. The sound engineer's time is not free. The mastering engineer's time is not free. Do you think it is?

I would NOT be happy for people to be pirating my album. Why would you think that I would be?

I listen to bands that seem not to be touring the UK at the moment and haven't for some years. Does this mean that I can pirate their albums?

I listen to bands that are on small labels. Are the labels benefitted by me pirating the music they sell?

Are the bands benefitted by pirating the music they sell?

How do I listen to a band's music after seeing them live and going home?

All of the "fat cat" arguments are irrelevant - if the band/label have stated that you can buy the album (yes BUY the album), why do you feel entitled for the music for 0.00?

If a software house states that you can have their software for a fee (yes BUY the software), why do you feel entitled to the software for 0.00?

If a supermarket states that you can have their produce for a fee (yes BUY the produce), why do you feel entitled to the produce for 0.00? Do you only buy from "indie" food store because you object to some "fat cat" earning from you buying from a supermarket? Does the capitalist nature of food retail offend you? Does it entitle you to food for nothing from the supermarket?

If anything, piracy has had the effect of sky-rocketing ticket prices to see bands live. And this isn't the "BIG" names either in the pop genre. This is rock/prog/jazz artists.

I think it is INCREDIBLY naive to believe that piracy will suddenly make people choose "better" music (with "better" being entirely subjective). I think some jazz is pretty great, but do you see people going out and buying jazz? No? There's no money in jazz apparently. I like some prog rock. What about prog rock? No? According to you, people should be changing music tastes because of piracy... but I haven't seen it - have you? Has pop music plummeted in popularity? Is there something I have missed?

Do you really see music getting better? Production values might be (hurray for higher sampling rates, headroom and bit depths) but are we entering an era of incredible music changing the face of the world? No?

Apparently a huge shift in the (subjective) quality music is coming because of piracy. I will wait to see it.