back to article Daddy, what's 'P2P file sharing'?

So long peer-to-peers, and farewell dodgy file lockers: young music fans now steal their music straight from YouTube instead. Research from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the global body for the recording industry, finds that 49 per cent of 16-to-24s use streaming rippers, overtaking …

  1. djstardust

    Was just reminiscing

    About WinMX then I clicked on El Reg and seen this. Spooky or wot?

    Point is that as long as the music industry refuses to play ball and continues to protect it's vested interests & greed people will always find a way round copyright.

    The link I have can rip the Youtube video as an MP4 (or MP3) at full resolution in less than 20 seconds. Really surprised it's lasted as long as it has to be honest.

    1. Phil W

      Re: Was just reminiscing

      Long live Bearshare!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Was just reminiscing

      Or you could buy a DRM-free mp3 from Amazon for under £1.

  2. Grunchy Silver badge

    I have no sympathy for the music industry, I think I despise all musicians. They're pretty much all drug addicted, depraved, and full of hatred, and routinely in and out of jail. Of course I'm speaking of the London Symphony Orchestra, but in general this applies quite well to many in the industry. Everything they produce is overcharged and most of it, to my taste, is substandard and un-entertaining. It also has no protection, not even moral protection.

    Of Course I'm gonna steal it!

    I just go down to the library and borrow all the CDs I want and rip it onto my Walkman, no penalty, no worthwhile humans harmed (in my estimation).

    Here's the thing: I boycott something like 99%+ of all musicians, world wide. Why would I pay anything to the remaining ~1% of this gang of scumwads?

    If the Biebs starves I'm not crying.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What?

      I don't even have to go to the library, even though I do like the talking books. For most mp3s I just download them from Russia, it's easy.

    2. BoldMan

      I look forward to the day when your employers refuse to pay you a fair wage for your work and see how you feel.

      1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

        Already there.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @BoldMan

        A recording artist's decision to go into the studio for some recording sessions makes me their employer how exactly?

        Allow me to remind you of two very important details you seem to have overlooked:

        1. I have signed a contract with my employer that entitles me to being paid a wage for the work I'm contractually obligated to do for them.

        2. I have not signed a contract with any recording artist, so I'm not contractually obligated to pay them a single cent of my money, and neither are they contractually entitled to any payment from me.

        Some artist has a feeling of entitlement to my money just because he spent five years making an album I never asked him to record? He can fuck right off.

        Same artist wants me to buy his new cd? Gladly - providing I like the music on it, which means I should hear it first. But this artist, like so many others, doesn't want me to hear his music under any circumstances unless he gets paid (enough, that is, so YouTube's out). It's his music so I guess he's entitled to that. However, it's my money, and I'm equally entitled to keep it while telling him, like I would any other traveling salesman, to fuck right off.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @BoldMan

          I have no love for the MAFIAA and their like or the extended copyright terms and other parts of the music industry but your argument is a load of rubbish - very much in the freetard realm.

          If I adjust slightly: "I have not signed a contract with a cable TV company, so I'm not contractually obligated to pay them a single cent of my money (and therefore fully entitled to use a hacked cable box to get my TV), and neither are they contractually entitled to any payment from me."

          Or you have not signed a contract with anybody when you walk into a shop, so you can take what you want without paying for it so you can take what you want because they are not contractually entitled to any payment from you.

          If you don't want to sign up for electricity service then you have not signed up a contract with anyone and so you are entitled to rig to the mains/your neighbours and take it for free.

          You may argue about digital copies etc, but you didn't. Whether you have a contract in place is a stupid argument.

          "Same artist wants me to buy his new cd? Gladly - providing I like the music on it, which means I should hear it first."

          I shouldn't have to pay before I go the cinema/watch a concert/go to an amusement park/go to the theatre/read a book/go to Disneyland/hire a car/.... unless I experience the whole thing first, then I'll decide if I like it.

          Just ridiculous - and anyway, there are plenty of legal ways to hear a sample of music first without paying. Samml bands, go and watch them perform at a bar, big bands listen to them on the radio, go to their website and hear their track, go tot their myspace page, by a Spotify subscription so you can hear as many different bands as you want so that you can decide if you like it.

          1. nijam Silver badge

            Re: @BoldMan

            > but your argument is a load of rubbish

            Maybe so, but your counterexamples are largely irrelevant and thus particularly unconvincing.

        2. chivo243 Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: @BoldMan

          @gmortars

          "But this artist, like so many others, doesn't want me to hear his music under any circumstances unless he gets paid "

          Are we talking about Lars from Metallica? He seemed pretty angry with Napster...

          http://www.vh1.com/news/55111/10-times-lars-ulrich-pissed-everybody-off/

      3. Deltics

        I look forward to the day where I continue to be paid for work I already did long after I have moved on and am doing something else.

        Oh, but wait... employer pension schemes have been decimated and all but destroyed. So I guess it's only "creatives" that get to look forward to such things. Which is only fair I guess. It's not like the rest of us are contributing anything substantive to the economy, eh ?

        1. thegrouch

          Presumably by decimation you mean reduced by 10%? As that's what it actually means.

        2. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Any other industry?

          I've created innovative security designs for many companies that are probably still being used - perhaps I should negotiate some recompense based on how many packets are sent to/from those networks.

          I could retire right now and live like a King - what's not to like?

          1. d3vy

            Re: Any other industry?

            "I've created innovative security designs for many companies that are probably still being used - perhaps I should negotiate some recompense based on how many packets are sent to/from those networks.

            I could retire right now and live like a King - what's not to like?"

            Had you licenced them you probably could, however I suspect that you sold them whole sale as part of a contract of employment/b2b contract.

        3. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          So I guess it's only "creatives" that get to look forward to such things.

          Never studied the MPs' pension scheme?

          (I suppose "creatives" is neatly covered by "Why is this lying bastard lying to me?")

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Grunchy

      Re:...overcharged...

      Recharged repeatedly for the same product just on different media, despite theoretically buying a license for the content, is what you really meant to say.

    4. stuff and nonesense

      Ok - Biebs isn't a musician

      Radio, YouTube etc pay a licence fee for music they make available. You can choose to pluck out of the airwaves or stream without impunity. Musicians get a small royalty on those impressions.

      Keeping a copy for yourself without paying is taking money out of a musician's pocket. Simply because, today, music has been reduce to easily copied data is not a justification for copying and keeping.

      I do audition stuff I might want to buy, if I don't like it I don't buy it - I audition it through YouTube and such there is no need to down load it. Streaming is adequate.

      Recording time in a studio costs, engineers cost, production costs, media production costs, musicians have to earn a living.

      Publishing houses inflate the above costs. They make most money out of the musicians, to a level which is immoral relative to the royalties paid to most musicians.

      "Everything they produce is overcharged and most of it, to my taste, is substandard and un-entertaining. It also has no protection, not even moral protection."

      If that is so why would you steal it, there is no value or enjoyment in music for you.

      Music and art in general have value in their effect on people. To those that enjoy the piece there is a desire to acquire a copy for personal consumption at any time. The ability to satisfy that desire has a monetary value, for a CD or LP between £5 and £20. It is not exorbitant or excessive given the pleasure that can be gained.

      Be a thief, please don't try to justify your position with an "I don't like so I steal" argument or please do, try that with the policeman as he pulls you over while you are driving a stolen Ford Mondeo.

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Flame

    "Thanks to the "user-generated content" loophole in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act"

    Funny that, YouTube has absolutely no qualms in citing that very act when its automated infringement tool decides your "user-generated content" is a copy of something a bunch of lawyers decided was copied.

    And in that case, you have zero recourse, because the choice is accept and keep at least your account, or contest and then, if decided against you (by whom, already ? Ah right, some guy at Youtube you didn't vote for), your entire account is cancelled.

    Talk about balanced.

  4. Magani
    Trollface

    Research?

    ""The 13-to-15 age group does not only feel the strongest about music – particularly new music – but also strongly believes that artists should be rewarded for their creativity – and that stealing is wrong," the IFPI notes."

    All data obviously researched from TorrentFreak et al.

    1. nijam Silver badge

      Re: Research?

      > All data obviously researched from TorrentFreak...

      No, all data (plus the emotive wrapping) fabricated by IFPI. Because that's what they always do.

  5. mmaug

    Who''s not getting paid?

    "Amazingly however, 41 per cent of 24-to-34s don't agree that artists should be paid when their music gets played"

    Are they convinced that artists shouldn't get paid, or are they cynical in thinking the money goes to big music houses and very little goes to the artist? The behavior of Sony, Warner, Columbia, et al. does not encourage any sympathy; they try to block everything and anything whether it infringes or not with no real concern. It's about their profits, not about the artists. I prefer to avoid the official releases and back artists more directly thru PledgeMusic and buying merch at live events.

    1. Criminny Rickets

      Re: Who''s not getting paid?

      "Amazingly however, 41 per cent of 24-to-34s don't agree that artists should be paid when their music gets played"

      I agree with this as well. Certainly artists should be paid for their work. When a CD is sold, or a song purchased, a portion of the sale should go to pay the creators of that work. That is it, you have paid your fee to use that music, they have gotten reimbursed for their creativity. Once that is done, you should be able to play that music wherever you want, home, radio, dance etc, without having to pay an additional fee. At one point, a group I was involved with had to pay 3 different organizations a fee, in order to play canned music at a dance, and for a not for profit group trying to raise funds, that was a lot to have to dish out. That should not be permitted, once it's paid for, it should be yours to play and listen to as you wish.

  6. Oengus
    Pirate

    Who pays the bills?

    I wonder who is paying for the content? For the 13-15 year olds I suspect it is the parents. For the 16-24 year olds I suspect that the economic reality has hit and they are having to pay for their own music. Once they start having to pay themselves I think that they are seeing that the "value" isn't there so start to change their attitude towards "priacy"

  7. thomas k

    Yoof, eh?

    Young people just discovering this? Get with the times, kids.

  8. thomas k

    Yoof,eh?

    Young people just discovering this? Get with the times, kids.

  9. Rattus Rattus

    So they reported that...

    ..."The 13-to-15 age group does not only feel the strongest about music – particularly new music – but also strongly believes that artists should be rewarded for their creativity – and that stealing is wrong".

    Did they happen to ask whether these 13-to-15 year olds considered piracy to be stealing? Or are they (incorrectly) trying to pretend that they are the same thing?

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

  10. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Is stealing music from YouTube, like, an actual thing?

    It's a publicly available video, how can you steal from it?

    Next people will be accused of stealing from the radio.

    1. Lunatik

      Re: Is stealing music from YouTube, like, an actual thing?

      Home taping is killing music, remember.

      1. Jon Jones 73

        Re: Is stealing music from YouTube, like, an actual thing?

        Home cooking is killing restaurants.

    2. stuff and nonesense

      Re: Is stealing music from YouTube, like, an actual thing?

      Free to consume but not free to take and retain a copy. Consumption is fine, retaining a copy is theft.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Is stealing music from YouTube, like, an actual thing?

        Very appropriate handle you've got.

        Making a copy for someone else is copyright infringement but the content is legally broadcast and the hardware and media to record it on is legally sold. You can make a copy for personal use. Or presumably all those video recorders, DVRs, and PVRs should all seized and destroyed along with everybody's tape decks?

        If I'm wrong, point me to the law which says it's illegal to retain a copy made for personal use for more than x plays or y days.

      2. d3vy

        Re: Is stealing music from YouTube, like, an actual thing?

        "Free to consume but not free to take and retain a copy. Consumption is fine, retaining a copy is theft."

        While I agree that piracy is wrong its not actually theft.

        As a software developer I'd be pretty pissed off if someone was distributing my work without me getting anything for it...

    3. wayward4now

      Re: Is stealing music from YouTube, like, an actual thing?

      Read the fine print. You can own a movie on DVD but you may not play it to a group of convicts in prison. And not one of the Hollywood celebs says one word about it. Fuggum

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    By reading this comment, you are stealing my content. :)

  12. Seriouscyrus

    I think youtube does take certain steps to stop the ripping, there aren't as many of the ripper sites as there used to be.

    Certainly their api practically makes it impossible officially, all playback is restricted to a web based player, with no access to the actual video files or streams to build your own player. Vimeo is the same (except if logged in as pro user, when you can download your own videos via the api). I see the point as in my case i wanted to load video textures into opengl, but if i can do that, i can also rip the video easily by resaving my textures as a movie file.

    I think rippers work by decoding a secret link to the streams, which could then either download the original files, or be fed into any number of frameworks that can save the video from a stream. Secret link is probably generated each time.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Trollface

      "I think youtube does take certain steps to stop the ripping, there aren't as many of the ripper sites as there used to be."

      What's a "ripper site"? Don't you just install a browser plug-in or use youtube-dl like everyone else?

  13. M7S

    If musicians shouldn't get paid every time their music is played

    (and I'm of no view either way on that point), then is the view here that the same applies to copies being made of software?

    1. Criminny Rickets

      Re: If musicians shouldn't get paid every time their music is played

      There is a difference between playing something and making a copy. In my original comment, I spoke about playing or listening to music you had legally purchased. The same would go for software, you should be able to use it as you like, on however many computers you like, as long as it is you that is using or controlling the computer. On the other hand, if I own a song, or a piece of software, and a buddy likes it and wants a copy, then he should go buy his own.

      1. M7S

        Re: If musicians shouldn't get paid every time their music is played

        That sounds fair. I was referring more to plays on things like youtube or the radio but I fully accept your point, especially when it comes to format shifting

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too bad the quality of file they're ripping is utter shit.

    1. Douchus McBagg

      too bad none of these people understand there are alternatives that don't sound like they were recorded on a mobile phone.

      in a cardboard box.

      in a disused lavatory.

      with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Quality of File

      Really? I've saved a few high res videos from Youtube, without loss of quality.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "Too bad the quality of file they're ripping is utter shit."

      Most of them don't care. Even it it was a full fat lossles FLAC at minimum compression, maximum quality, they are listening in cars or on mobile phone headphones while out and about so the playback is shite anyway, not to mention all the other distractions and background noise. The music its;ef is little more than background noise so the quality isn't really relevant to them. It's the equivalent of a MW transistor radio.

  15. PassiveSmoking

    Home taping is killing music!

    Home baking is killing restaurants!

    Home fapping is killing prostitutes!

  16. Wade Burchette

    A few things

    "The 13-to-15 age group does not only feel the strongest about music – particularly new music – but also strongly believes that artists should be rewarded for their creativity – and that stealing is wrong," the IFPI notes.

    A few things: First, IT IS NOT STEALING! Nothing was physically taken. It is copyright infringement, which is as equally wrong as stealing.

    Second, this new age group does not feel strong about music because it, well, sucks. You, the music studios, stifle creativity and shuffle out another banal song from Adel or Lady Gaga. Far too many songs I wish was banal; far too many are horrible horrible. In 100 years, nobody will care about Lady Gaga but in 100 years people will listen to the Beatles or David Bowie or Ray Charles or other artists who were allowed to be creative.

    Third, why illegally download (what you incorrectly call stealing) something that sucks? Just because people don't want the tripe you are producing does not mean the same people believe artists should be rewarded. The music (and movie) studios vanity has blinded them to the fact that the quality of their product is hot garbage. The record studios think they are wise and perfect and so look for a reason why people don't want their perfect product. Since they incorrectly think people want their perfect product, they look for other reasons why people aren't buying. This is one such misguided reason. I do not want your music, legally or illegally, because it is terrible.

  17. buzz

    Really?

    Wow...I find these comments really depressingly uninformed and the ire misdirected. So much so that I need to seriously reply. I don't know how much of the writing is sarcasm, but I reply none the less.

    I've had several jobs in my life including musician, hardware engineer, and software engineer. My opinions are based upon my personal experience.

    If you think musicians make more money than software engineers, you are seriously misinformed.

    The performance royalties for playing on a CD (if you can get them) are about 5% total. Split among all performers. In a typical five piece band you make 1%. That's one of the reasons for a decrease in band size.

    The song writing royalties are also about 5%. Split among all the writers.

    You do the math. It takes a lot of sales to actually make a living doing this. Most just scrape by.

    If you are a studio musician you get no royalties only per session - flat or hourly fees. In the US plumbers, electricians, basically almost anyone else makes more.

    Most performers who play for performance royalties do not receive advances. This is like writing software or fixing code and only getting paid if someone uses it.

    These royalties are less for digital releases (and of course given the conversation here and everywhere else, easily avoided completely).

    Musicians were largely amateur unless supported by a patron, like most artists, until the the middle class started to develop (somewhere around 1700-1800). We are rapidly heading back to that time. To be a decent musician requires hours of practice relative to performance; easily a ratio of >20 to 1. This means that your hourly rate of $20 per hour is more like $1 per hour. If you don't believe me, follow the amount of money in this business. It's decreasing year upon year. Or try to learn to play or sing something and make a living doing it.

    There are some very successful musicians just like there are some very successful software engineers. Characterizing an industry based upon these folks to rationalize your own ethical choice is pretty lame imo. Would that all coding that you do be free as well for those that don't want to pay for it (including any hourly fees or salary you might make)?

    I don't like the idea of rebuying my releases when the distribution medium changes either, so I don't. But most many companies now issue multiple vinyl/digital releases. CDs don't matter as they're digital anyway. Ripping from You Tube? Sure if that's the only way that a song is available. But to avoid paying someone for their work? Doesn't work for me.

    1. NonSSL-Login

      Re: Really?

      You say that performance royalties for a musician are just 5% and mention the low pay elsewhere but none of that can be blamed on piracy. That is all a flaw in the working music industry and all the middlemen making their money from musicians work. The same people trying to sell the story that piracy is the reason the majority of musicians (anyone can call themselves a musician, regardless of talent but that is another story) not making much money.

      1. buzz

        Re: Really?

        My response was directed to those people that were blaming the excess of some musician's behavior as a reason to justify their actions.

        Yes, there was a huge flaw in the system prior to the advent of digital distribution which continues today. Piracy is not responsible for the current musician's plight but it has made it much. much worse. While smaller musicians can cut out the middle man and distribute to listeners directly, they seldom have the power to collect radio station royalties, other play based royalties, and other unauthorized use (like use in a political advert!) for which they are the rightful recipients; as well as promote over large marketing demographic areas. These little royalties can add up to about $2 - 3K in revenue for a small genre hit. That's what keeps song writers eating. The attitude that it's OK to freely distribute gets extended to these small groups trying to make a go at it on their own and they suffer too, even though they are trying to play outside that ecosystem.

        In all but the largest performers, there is so little money to be made in recordings that the pressure is on to make a living through performing live. That's why ticket prices for shows have skyrocketed and now tend to resemble broadway productions. Much of the profit from small shows now comes form selling the associated merchandise it's gotten so bad.

        Before recordings, musicians were paid primarily for performance. With the advent of recording, it's always cheaper to play a recording than to hire live musicians. That is what's driving these trends. Piracy is making it happen much faster. There will always be music, there is going just be less of it performed live. Thinking portrait painting and photography.

      2. wayward4now
        Linux

        Re: Really?

        The really fun part is that the music companies are charging their percentages as if there was mechanical mediums produced, like vinyl, and the various tape formats on cartridges. They had to assemble a mechanical medium at some expense. With CD's and DVD's the cost of distribution fell through the floor. Then along comes the Internet. The moguls refused to pass the reduced expense to artists and customers alike. Since that is common knowledge, no one feels the pang of regret when they pirate.

    2. nijam Silver badge

      Re: Really?

      @ buzz

      So, out of interest, what bearing does the fact that you're being ripped off by the record company have on this discussion? After all, the article is about people ripping record companies off, not the other way round.

      1. buzz

        Re: Really?

        It's not that simple.

        Getting ripped off by the record company would be fine to complain about if was really happening. However, in my experience, that's old news, and to a large extend promulgated by the large performers who actually used it as leverage to get a deservedly larger share of the profits back in the days of vinyl. For a while there. the capital startup, distribution and promoton costs were very high and it took lots of sales before different numbers made sense.

        These numbers don't persist now because of performers getting ripped off, they come from the associated residual costs in the system and crappy revenue. (For example, you have to hire lawyers to get folks to pay performance royalties.) There's also the problem of oversupply for the market (more musicians than people wanting to hear music). The majority of people who buy music don't seem to want anything but the SOS. Interestingly, this is in sharp contrast to the diversity of what is available. So the big guys do OK and everyone else starves.

        But don't believe me - talk to people in this business and ask them about this. Go to a bar for a touring indie band with some good recordings and ask them about their finances. There's now a phenomenon in Japan rapidly moving the US called pay-to-play. In this route live performers must pay venues to perform and only earn revenue beyond the "investment" payment.

        What's this got to do with piracy? It is not responsible for these trends, but as I said above, it makes everything much worse.

  18. J. R. Hartley

    Ling live the analogue gap!

    I fear Youtube downloading may become more difficult in the future, but they will never be able to prevent it.

    Torrents are still the best for albums.

    Soulseek works best for single tracks and rarities.

    Apparently.

  19. DocJD

    I'm surprised...

    ...at the lack of morals by so many on this site. I would have thought technical people would me more educated and honest.

    1. Grunchy Silver badge
      Gimp

      Re: I'm surprised...

      Lack of morals, ha ha ha you should see what goes on in the music world.

      "Morals" in no way describes the music industry.

      I think the entire sector is defined by drugs & debauchery. I have no moral dilemma "stealing" their product. I do have a big problem consuming it though: as Mojo Nixon famously stated, you pretty much have to be on drugs to listen to that crap.

      (I am, of course, referring not-so-indirectly to the London Symphony Orchestra + their ilk).

  20. superpurpleturtle

    Pay the artist, thats a joke

    I don't pay for music, simply because the artist doesn't get the money, BMI and Sony do

    If the artist launches their own music, as has been done in the past then paying would seem more valid

    1. M7S

      Re: Pay the artist, thats a joke

      I don't think that really holds water.

      I assume you wouldn't take, but refuse to pay, for a Mini just because Sir Alex Issigonis doesn't get a cut? (Old example I know but I don't know any modern car designers), Or the clothes from some high street retailer because the 12 year old working a sixteen hour day on whatever sweatshop only gets 50 cents a day. Yes I appreciate there's a difference between taking a thing and (presumably) making a copy but I think in this case the morality and legality are very similar.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like