Music Business Worldwide is reporting that “GLOBAL MUSIC PIRACY DOWNLOADS GREW BY ALMOST A FIFTH IN 2015″.
The amount of music downloaded on illegal piracy sites grew by 16.5% in the second half of 2015 compared to the year’s opening six months.
That’s according to leading content protection and market analytics company MUSO, which tracked web activity on 576 sites which were ‘wholly dedicated to music piracy or contained significant music content’.
Across these sites, MUSO analysed over 2 billion visitor traffic hits globally.
Watch and learn… We can’t make this up. Seriously you have to watch this video.
If we had a nickle for every YouTuber or Tech Journalist that advised musicians that “YouTube” was the SOLUTION TO PIRACY we’d be rich. Really rich. I mean, really, really, really rich. We we’re told YouTube was “promotion” and “exposure” to make money other ways.
We were told how if you just “made stuff people wanted” and “connected with fans” then they would reward you with loyalty and support. Musicians were told they were “whining” about piracy and that they should “adapt and evolve” to the “new way” and just embrace all of this “awesome internet empowered promotion”.
Funny how it is when the shoe is on the other foot. See here’s the thing. All of these YouTuber’s make money from the advertising that runs on their YouTube videos. But when those videos are ripped from YouTube by fans and uploaded to Facebook guess who doesn’t get paid? Yup, you guessed it… the YouTuber’s are getting stiffed and they don’t like it.
Where is Larry Lessig to help these folks out? Remember kids, don’t break the internet! It’s “sharing economy” afterall. You do the work and silicon valley shares the profits.
Soooo… when a musician’s work is pirated on Napster, Grockster, Kazaa, Limewire, The Pirate Bay, oh and YouTube… Musicians should “get over it”. But when a YouTuber’s work, labor and creative output is devalued, or worse monetized by a third party (Facebook) who doesn’t pay them anything, well then, you know, that’s “bad”.
This quote from the AdWeek story above kind of says it all…
But then they ran into a problem known as “freebooting,” which entails republishing videos on social sites without the consent of the folks who made the clips. In essence, it’s a practice of intellectual-property theft that’s plagued Facebook more than other digital platforms—PR-wise, at least—in recent months thanks to a few whistle-blowers.
They go on…
“I spent roughly a week issuing take downs on Facebook—a convoluted process,” Neistat told Adweek. “I crowdsourced the process of finding the freebooters because there is no way to search Facebook. In all, I took down well over 50 different posts—[which was] not nearly all of them. I simply gave up after a while. I anecdotally kept track of the view counts—over 20 million views on the videos I took down.”
According to a recent report from Ogilvy and Tubular Labs, of the 1000 most popular Facebook videos of Q1 2015, 725 were stolen re-uploads. Just these 725 “freebooted” videos were responsible for around 17 BILLION views last quarter. This is not insignificant, it’s the vast majority of Facebook’s high volume traffic. And no wonder, when embedding a YouTube video on your company’s Facebook page is a sure way to see it die a sudden death, we shouldn’t be surprised when they rip it off YouTube and upload it natively.
• On July 19, Chen wrote to Hurley and Karim: “Jawed, please stop putting stolen videos on the site. We’re going to have a tough time defending the fact that we’re not liable for the copyrighted material on the site because we didn’t put it up when one of the co-founders is blatantly stealing content from from other sites and trying to get everyone to see it.” Four days later, Karim sent a link to the other founders, and Hurley told him that if they rejected it, they needed to reject all copyrighted material. Karim’s reply: “I say we reject this one but not the others. This one is totally blatant.”
• A July 29 email conversation about competing video sites laid out the importance to YouTube of continuing to use the copyrighted material. “Steal it!” Chen said , and got a reply from Hurley, “hmmm, steal the movies?” Chen’s answer: “we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. how much traffic will we get from personal videos? remember, the only reason our traffic surged was due to a video of this type.”
Yup, Karma meets irony… How very interwebs… Ok, Ok, Ok… Sorry, just one more…
Everyone’s creativity deserves to be protected. All creators should be united against the illegal, infringing and exploitative uses of their work (especially for profit) without consent or compensation.
Google’s YouTube is a business built on infringement as a model. So called “User Generated Content” is really just code for what the majority of the high value media on YouTube really is, “User PIRATED Content“.
In other words there’s nothing internet advertising loves more than illegally monetizing the work of professional creators, and thus driving down the true fair market rates for those works (keep this in mind when thinking about Spotify and streaming services!).
Below are excerpts from emails discovered during the Viacom Vs. YouTube lawsuit and published by DailyFinance:
• A July 29 email conversation about competing video sites laid out the importance to YouTube of continuing to use the copyrighted material. “Steal it!” Chen said , and got a reply from Hurley, “hmmm, steal the movies?” Chen’s answer: “we have to keep in mind that we need to attract traffic. how much traffic will we get from personal videos? remember, the only reason our traffic surged was due to a video of this type.”
In fact, Google’s ad teams even made suggestions designed to optimize conversion rates by using keywords targeted to pirated content – such as suggesting downloading films still in theatrical release, that obviously were not available yet in any authorized format for home viewing.
EasyDownloadCenter.com and TheDownloadPlace.com generated US$1.1 million in revenue between 2003 and 2005, and Google received $809,000 for advertising, the Journal reported.
Both YouTube and Google Search function similarly by monetizing infringing “User Pirated Content” with advertising. On YouTube users upload infringing music and videos of all varieties which attract the consumers to the globally dominant and monopolistic video streaming site.
Remember the email above where the YouTube founders admit “how much traffic will we get from personal videos? remember, the only reason our traffic surged was due to a video of this type”. And by “this type” they mean professionally produced and created media by artists, musicians, filmmakers and other creative professionals that are of high value in attracting an audience – an audience that can then be monetized with advertising.
Google Search operates in very similar way (no coincidence) by monetizing (mostly with advertising) millions infringing URLs on sites primarily dedicated to distribution of copyrighted works via p2p networks and bittorrent.
According to AppNexus CEO Brian O’Kelley, it’s an easy problem to fix, but ad companies are attracted by the revenue torrent sites can generate for them. Kelley said his company refuses to serve ads to torrent sites and other sites facilitating the distribution of pirated content. It’s easy to do technically, he said, but others refuse to do it.
“We want everyone to technically stop their customers from advertising on these sites, but there’s a financial incentive to keep doing so,” he said. “Companies that aren’t taking a stand against this are making a lot of money.”
What about the removing infringing material with a DMCA notice you ask? Well, we’re glad you did… here’s how it “works”…
Our Attorney-General George Brandis is attempting to reform our copyright law. Meanwhile Google, one of the multi-national companies attempting to avoid paying tax here, is lobbying in Canberra to stop this, by putting forward the following six fundamentally misconceived arguments:
So Google shill Marvin Ammori wrote an Asperger’s ridden anti-copyright, anti-artist tirade on Slate. Of course in doing so Marvin failed to represent his past and current affiliations to Google. Slate, to their credit amended the rant with the following:
Update, March 11, 2014: Disclosure: The author represented Google and other companies fighting SOPA/PIPA in 2011 and 2012. He currently represents Google and other companies on several issues, including copyright reform. These views are his own.
And so, we present the brilliant rebuttal to Google’s disingenuous attack on the rights of individual creators and artists by Kurt Sutter.
Not-So-Zen and the Art of Voluntary Agreements Google’s anti-copyright stance is just a way to devalue content. That’s bad for artists and bad for consumers. By Kurt Sutter
It’s so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who’s the friend of the young everyman. Don’t kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a shit about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You’re just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word “parasite.” And if you think I’m exaggerating, ask yourself why Google spends tens of millions of dollars each year to hire lawyers and lobbyists (like Marv) whose sole purpose is to erode creative copyright laws.
Do they do this because they hate artists? No. They do it because they love money.
Never wanting to lose an opportunity to be bizarrely two-faced, Google is sending around a little graphic today to all you GMail users implying that stopping SOPA in January of 2012 actually enabled creativity to continue to thrive on the Web. Never mind that nothing in SOPA could have stopped you or me or any other would-be creator from uploading our works, ideas, or captured events to the Web; that’s just pesky reality.
But Google isn’t satisfied just to effect public policy in its own interests, it also wants to behave like the abusive and negligent father, who creepily shows up with a smile and a hug when his kid wins an award or becomes famous.
After all, this week isn’t just the anniversary of SOPA Blackout Day, it’s also the week Google received its 100 millionth takedown notice from recording artists who would rather not have their works exploited without permission or compensation. So, the whole, “we protected creativity together” message just kinda makes the skin crawl. Y’know?
The Canadian Independent Music Association just completed a study that pegs the average musician’s income in Canada at $7,228. This echoes an earlier study undertaken by Professor Doug Hyatt of Rotman which put the number at $16,491. Income at these absurdly low levels render it virtually impossible to pursue music as a profession. It starts to look and feel more like a hobby. And let me tell you that this is a far cry from the conditions that could be obtained prior to 1999.
The “middle class” for want of a better term is in a state of what appears to be terminal decline. This is a phenomena that has been remarked on and discussed in many fora but rarely as it applies to the creative class. We now live in a world where a very few musicians have become fabulously wealthy, leaving almost everyone else with very little on the table. Was not digital technology supposed to have done EXACTLY to opposite? Successful bands today have become more brand than band, diversifying into luxury goods, film, television and beyond. This is in strident contrast to musicians of the past who would have been horrified beyond imagining to have their art, their political speech, associated with mere products. I knew artists who turned down absolutely fabulous sums rather than shill for an advertisement.
There’s a post on a tech blog from 2009 following The Pirate Bay guilty verdict titled “Paul McCartney’s Confused About The Pirate Bay” that truly illustrates how many internet consultants and tech blogger’s appear feel about musicians. The comments responding to Sir Paul McCartney speaking about the Pirate Bay verdict show just how much these people don’t seem to understand musicians.
– artists are easily confused about the internet and technology
– artists don’t know what’s best for them (let the “consultant” help you!)
– artists can get paid, but as long as its not via a “government mandated tax” ie, copyright (!?)
– artists shouldn’t be able to live off of one song (royalties), ie you must sing for your supper every night
– artists only ever made money from major label deals (which also seems to contradict labels don’t pay)
– the pirate bay (and the like) is just a tool for promotion that rewards artists who embrace it
– the pirate bay verdict of guilty was/is unfair
In the post Paul McCartney is accused of being confused about a verdict that sentenced four men to jail for operating a business that illegally distributed artists work, without compensation to the artists themselves. The Pirate Bay is a tool of exploitation against artists and Paul McCartney was not confused about this fact.
Let’s get a few things straight.
Piracy is NOT Promotion.
Exploitation is NOT Innovation.
Copyright is NOT Censorship.
In any value chain where the creators work is monetized, the creator should have the right to consent and the ability negotiate compensation. In a true free market either party can walk away if an agreement can not be reached. The Pirate Bay, however was and is an illegally operating business that does not respect the rights of individual artists.
We also find it interesting that the suggestions most frequently given to musicians to “get paid” in the internet era are actually all the same ways artists historically have gotten paid prior to the internet.
Here’s a brief recap of what these so called “business experts” and “internet technology consultants” see as the “new” models for artist compensation… Ready, set, go!
– Touring… existed BEFORE the internet
– Merchandise (T-Shirts)… existed BEFORE the internet
– Film/Sync Licensing… existed BEFORE the internet
– Sponsorships/Endorsements… existed BEFORE the internet
In conclusion, it appears that it is the tech bloggers and internet consultants who are confused about musicians, the internet and piracy. Musicians on the other hand seem to be very clear about these issues.
When it comes to issues of artists rights, we’d rather be with Paul McCartney.
Company accused of ‘derisory’ attempts to stop many illegal downloads amid concerns over level of influence in coalition
Google will be criticised by MPs for making “derisory” attempts to curb music and film piracy and using its “perceived power and influence” at the heart of David Cameron’s government to shore up its position.
The Commons culture, media and sport select committee accused the search engine of offering the thinnest of excuses to avoid taking action against widespread piracy, a problem that the committee claimed is costing the creative industries millions of pounds in lost revenue a year.
Tory MP John Whittingdale, the chairman of the committee, said his fellow MPs were “unimpressed by Google’s continued failure to stop directing consumers to illegal, copyright infringing material on the flimsy excuse that some of the sites may also host some legal content. The continuing promotion of illegal content through search engines is simply unacceptable, and efforts to stop it have so far been derisory.”
In Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Butch (Paul Newman) sits astride his horse outside the same boxcar of the same train he’s successfully robbed over and over. Frustrated by the railroad owner’s ceaseless but futile attempts to thwart the hold-ups, Butch proclaims, “If he’d just pay me what he’s spending to make me stop robbing him, I’d stop robbing him!” Of course it isn’t true, is it? Neither the character nor probably the real Butch Cassidy would likely have given up the life he knew for something as boring as just money.
If you wanted to watch this classic film directed by George Roy Hill right now, you could do so on Netflix or Amazon Prime or rent it from iTunes for four bucks. None of these innovations existed just a few years ago, and those who have repeatedly insisted that they “only use pirate sites because affordable, flexible, online alternatives don’t exist” are starting to sound a little dumb. This is especially true as of yesterday, with the release of a new report by Dr. David Price of London-based NetNames, entitled Sizing the piracy universe.
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.