Who suffers the most from music piracy?

[deltantor]

Who do you think suffers the most from music piracy? please post why.

[wwarnick]

Small bands maybe, but big bands, I think, are fine. You can't download a concert. Celebrities are paid enough through their publicity. However, the rest of the industry was hurt pretty bad, but it doesn't seem to be as big a problem these days. I haven't downloaded music free in years.

wwarnick

[Chucko]

Honestly, who cares? I get the music for free, other suckers pay for it, and the bands keep on making songs.

[blackhole12]

I'm happy if anyone even LISTENS to my music....

[KingAl]

Your rephrasing of the question (Who suffers most from piracy) is different to the original: It's a loaded question - even choosing 'nobody' essentially concedes that people are harmed, though no-one is harmed 'most'. And Chucko, you should probably just speak ...less ;)

[Rkiver]

A recent study showed that music piracy has not affected in the slightest the amount of albums sold, hence no one suffers.

[BrianBlessed]

Terrorists and the drug trade suffer most, through association. Not to mention real pirates, who are out there robbing ships with grenade launchers while their moniker is being watered down.

[Darksun]

The consumers who have to put up with heavy handed copy protection systems that limit fair use rights. Especially a problem with a lot of copy protection of software aswell (Starforce, SecuROM, etc).

However, it looks like the music industry may be coming around to DRM free music downloads, with many execs and Steve Jobs speaking out against the use of DRM.

[Feud]

I said "other", the person hurt the most is the one downloading it. Music theft/piracy/copy right infringment is illegal, and anytime somebody decides to violate the law (and by extension, the rights of others, those others being the owners of the rights to the music) in order to save a few bucks, they erode thier moral charecter. It's one thing to break a law that only affects you, but to break a law by infringing on anothers rights, one cannot do that with out sacrificing charecter and integrity.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Really only the studios get hurt by piracy. First they are the ones who stand to lose most from any lost sales. But more importantly their response to piracy is more and more restrictive DRMs which makes both the artists and the consumer unhappy. At this point the studios are becoming unnecessary since the internet makes it possible for artists to self-publish without losing much. This means the record companies are in danger of getting cut out of the cycle and pissing off everyone with DRM certainly doesn't help them avoid this.

[Spacemonkey]

My point being, people download music they'd never buy.

Then if they don't like it enough to buy it, then why would they bother downloading it?


I think it's the people who buy the music that suffer the most, not only do they have to deal with all the content protection stuff, music is still quite expensive because record companies have to keep the price up to cover costs because of piracy.

However, it was the record companies fault to begin with, they should of dropped the prices along time ago, but they didn't.

Take this for example, when CDs first came out, they were much cheaper to manufacture then tapes, but for the same album, the CD would cost an average $10 then the tape (thats here in NZ). The record companies kept this price structure for more then 10 years after CDs came out.

[Ace Rimmer]

My point being, people download music they'd never buy.

Then if they don't like it enough to buy it, then why would they bother downloading it?

Because it's a hell of a lot easier to download one or two songs you like for free, rather than buy an entire album that mostly sucks.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

My point being, people download music they'd never buy.

Then if they don't like it enough to buy it, then why would they bother downloading it?

In most cases because they don't know the music. Given that radio only plays a very limited set of music there is a lot of music that you may be interested in but have no way to legally listen to it for free. It is an expensive gamble to buy a CD you have never heard. A huge part of illegal downloads is people trying new music out.

I think it's the people who buy the music that suffer the most, not only do they have to deal with all the content protection stuff, music is still quite expensive because record companies have to keep the price up to cover costs because of piracy.

CDs have been the same price since they came out (which was before internet piracy was a problem), so the price of music has nothing to do with piracy. If anything CD prices have come down slightly since piracy became an issue.

[The GoldFish]

Everyone knows consumers are self regulating!

[wwarnick]

(thats here in NZ)

North Zona?

I said "other", the person hurt the most is the one downloading it. Music theft/piracy/copy right infringment is illegal, and anytime somebody decides to violate the law (and by extension, the rights of others, those others being the owners of the rights to the music) in order to save a few bucks, they erode thier moral charecter. It's one thing to break a law that only affects you, but to break a law by infringing on anothers rights, one cannot do that with out sacrificing charecter and integrity.

I must agree. It's something society is beginning to forget. Well said, Feud.

wwarnick