Open Letter to Music Pirates from NPR

[bakker_be]

As a European music lover, I mostly object to the so-called "convenience" of iTunes or any other service: it's almost impossible for me to get good music legally + lossless. Quite a lot of the stuff on hdtracks for instance is interesting to me, but strictly speaking I'm forbidden to buy it, as I'm not a US citizen. The offerings of Linn etc are somewhat too esoteric for my tastes, and there's only so much classical music I can take.
This means that the music industry is forcing me to keep buying physical media, which I then have to rip, tag, scan for ReplayGain, scan for MusicIP ... I still do this, but a whole lot less than I'd like to, because:
-I only have so much storage space for physical media
-It's not convenient
-I can't buy from the comfort of my couch at night when the kids are asleep ...

This issue isn't caused by the "industry" alone, the artists as well play a role in it. Bands all over the world tweet about the release of their new albums, and about when they'll be available in iTunes, but when you directly ask them about buying in FLAC, there's nothing but radio silence. Metallica is (partly) an exception to this: almost any show of the last 10 years or so is available for sale as a soundboard recording, in both FLAC & MP3, right on their tour site, a couple of days after the performance. No studio material however. I've bought a lot of those already, most recently the recording of the show I went to in Belgium on May 28th and the 4 shows for their 30th birthday.
I think we (the public in general, Squeezebox users in particular) should all begin pestering any musician we can get access too to begin making lossless files available. The success of iTunes proves that people still want to pay, but what if nobody sells what you want to buy?

[Mnyb]

As a European music lover, I mostly object to the so-called "convenience" of iTunes or any other service: it's almost impossible for me to get good music legally + lossless. Quite a lot of the stuff on hdtracks for instance is interesting to me, but strictly speaking I'm forbidden to buy it, as I'm not a US citizen. The offerings of Linn etc are somewhat too esoteric for my tastes, and there's only so much classical music I can take.
This means that the music industry is forcing me to keep buying physical media, which I then have to rip, tag, scan for ReplayGain, scan for MusicIP ... I still do this, but a whole lot less than I'd like to, because:
-I only have so much storage space for physical media
-It's not convenient
-I can't buy from the comfort of my couch at night when the kids are asleep ...

This issue isn't caused by the "industry" alone, the artists as well play a role in it. Bands all over the world tweet about the release of their new albums, and about when they'll be available in iTunes, but when you directly ask them about buying in FLAC, there's nothing but radio silence. Metallica is (partly) an exception to this: almost any show of the last 10 years or so is available for sale as a soundboard recording, in both FLAC & MP3, right on their tour site, a couple of days after the performance. No studio material however. I've bought a lot of those already, most recently the recording of the show I went to in Belgium on May 28th and the 4 shows for their 30th birthday.
I think we (the public in general, Squeezebox users in particular) should all begin pestering any musician we can get access too to begin making lossless files available. The success of iTunes proves that people still want to pay, but what if nobody sells what you want to buy?

+1

Same same and add that I have to mail order everything , the town I live in does not have decent record store.

[pippin]

Depends.
For studio albums I couldn't care less about lossless since they are all mixed for mp3 these days anyway, so there's no difference.

Live recordings, however, are a different issue.

[banned for life]

+1

Same same and add that I have to mail order everything , the town I live in does not have decent record store.

+1

So far as I know, decent music stores do not exist here either. Even back when stock was deep, employees were shallow.

bfl

[magiccarpetride]

For me, morally as well as legally, one
should obtain music in a way that at least has the potential to provide the writers and performers of the music with money unless they specifically choose to give the music away.

In the olden days, before mass copying technology became affordable and available to the mainstream audiences, the only way you could enjoy music is by attending the actual performance. That does not necessarily mean attending the actual live performance. For example, the publishing house could record a popular band, such as the Beatles, but then instead of mass producing the sound carriers (such as LPs) to be distributed, they could've arranged for a series of scheduled playbacks at certain venues. One could easily imagine an event where distributors could charge admission fees (like $10.00 per person) for attending the playback of the Beatles album "Abbey Road". People would show up, pay the admission, be seated, and then the playback would commence. Side A, short intermission, Side B. After which everybody goes home.

You want to hear "Abbey Road" again? Sure, pay $10.00 and attend another 'performance'. And so on.

The above is how the movie industry used to function. That was during the pre-VHS/DVD/blu ray/Netflix/Youtube days.

Why music industry chose to go with a different model, whereby they would mass produce and distribute copies of the recorded performance, is a curious fact that remains kind of difficult to explain. Have they stuck with the movie industry model (i.e. you pay each time you want to attend the playback), I'm sure they would've made much more money in the long run.

But by now, the cat is out of the bag, as we all are in possession of dirt cheap means for not only making unlimited number of identical copies of recorded music, but also unlimited channels for distributing and sharing these copies.

[ralphpnj]

Depends.
For studio albums I couldn't care less about lossless since they are all mixed for mp3 these days anyway, so there's no difference.

Live recordings, however, are a different issue.

As a jazz and classical music fan and listener I beg to differ. You are referring only to most popular music. There are still plenty of great sounding jazz and classical music recordings being made that are most definitely not being mixed for mp3 since many of the potential buyers have no idea what an mp3 is, i.e. think middle aged audiophile. Then again these buyers have no idea what "lossless" is either, in fact all they know are little silver discs played back on overpriced and out dated players.

[mlsstl]

Why music industry chose to go with a different model, whereby they would mass produce and distribute copies of the recorded performance, is a curious fact that remains kind of difficult to explain.

Actually, it is quite easy to explain. The recorded music industry came directly from the music publishing industry. It wasn't until the 1940s that records started outselling sheet music.

It's impossible to use the movie model you describe to monetize sheet music. People buy sheet music so they can play the song on their own instrument in their home. Sheet music sales to the public was a big deal that dated back to 1880, when industry started the mass production of upright pianos for the home market. The song "After The Ball" by Charles Harris sold around 2 million copies in 1892 and millions more in the years after. (Piano rolls for player pianos were also big sellers,)

Before TV, only the rich could afford a movie projector for their home, so the idea of mass distribution of films was an impossibility in the old days. However, record players were quite affordable for the middle class, as were records. The transition of the mass market from sheet music to records was quite natural, plus radio broadcasting had already established the public's expectation that music in their home was a given, whether by broadcast or record.

[ralphpnj]

Actually, it is quite easy to explain. The recorded music industry came directly from the music publishing industry. It wasn't until the 1940s that records started outselling sheet music.

It's impossible to use the movie model you describe to monetize sheet music. People buy sheet music so they can play the song on their own instrument in their home. Sheet music sales to the public was a big deal that dated back to 1880, when industry started the mass production of upright pianos for the home market. The song "After The Ball" by Charles Harris sold around 2 million copies in 1892 and millions more in the years after. (Piano rolls for player pianos were also big sellers,)

Before TV, only the rich could afford a movie projector for their home, so the idea of mass distribution of films was an impossibility in the old days. However, record players were quite affordable for the middle class, as were records. The transition of the mass market from sheet music to records was quite natural, plus radio broadcasting had already established the public's expectation that music in their home was a given, whether by broadcast or record.

Very well stated and AFAIK accurate as well. Thank you.

[RussellMrgn]

as a european music lover, i mostly object to the so-called "convenience" of itunes or any other service: It's almost impossible for me to get good music legally + lossless. Quite a lot of the stuff on hdtracks for instance is interesting to me, but strictly speaking i'm forbidden to buy it, as i'm not a us citizen. The offerings of linn etc are somewhat too esoteric for my tastes, and there's only so much classical music i can take.
This means that the music industry is forcing me to keep buying physical media, which i then have to rip, tag, scan for replaygain, scan for musicip ... I still do this, but a whole lot less than i'd like to, because:
-i only have so much storage space for physical media
-it's not convenient
-i can't buy from the comfort of my couch at night when the kids are asleep ...

This issue isn't caused by the "industry" alone, the artists as well play a role in it. Bands all over the world tweet about the release of their new albums, and about when they'll be available in itunes, but when you directly ask them about buying in flac, there's nothing but radio silence. Metallica is (partly) an exception to this: Almost any show of the last 10 years or so is available for sale as a soundboard recording, in both flac & mp3, right on their tour site, a couple of days after the performance. No studio material however. I've bought a lot of those already, most recently the recording of the show i went to in belgium on may 28th and the 4 shows for their 30th birthday.
I think we (the public in general, squeezebox users in particular) should all begin pestering any musician we can get access too to begin making lossless files available. The success of itunes proves that people still want to pay, but what if nobody sells what you want to buy?

+1

So far as I know, decent music stores do not exist here either. Even back when stock was deep, employees were shallow.

bfl

I have to agree also, I'm more than happy to pay for flac files, if I'm given the chance to do so. I used to use HDtracks to buy albums on occasion, but as a non US citizen i was deemed not worthy. This is not HD's doing but the music industry itself, since the internet, borders have ceased to exist and the music industry should realise this and stop messing around.
I do not want to buy physical media anymore, It just takes up too much space, I do however want to buy a decent mastered album in a lossless format. If as the letter states, the music industry cares for the artists under its charge, then they should remove their collective thumbs from their arses and make it available to all (do they not realise that a digital file is also a cheaper method, meaning more profit for them and more money to the artist?). Sites like bandcamp have the right idea.
At the moment I'm being forced to obtain Hi Res files by other means by the very people who complain about me doing it.... go figure.

[HeadBanger]

At the moment I'm being forced to obtain Hi Res files by other means by the very people who complain about me doing it.... go figure.

The record companies are indeed part of their own problem. If they are unhappy with people downloading lossless music from dubious sources why do they simply not make them available for purchase? Yes, there are some sites that offer lossless downloads but the choice is extremely limited and usually the download versions are actually more expensive than buying the CD on-line and the CD version includes the physical media, artwork, packaging and delivery to your door! Go figure.

The simple rules of demand and supply and are being ignored by the record companies. Their customers want lossless downloads at reasonable prices (certainly less than a CD) but refuse to supply them and then moan about music piracy. It would be like a sports shop stocking premium trainers but only selling their mediocre trainers and then moaning about the number of premium trainers that have been stolen.