Torrent technology - evil?

Or is it more than that? The PirateBay trial has ended - for now. Judge found the 4 accused guilty, and sentenced them to 1 year in prison and 30 million in fines.

On one side, you can claim that these people knew exactly what PirateBay would be used for - hell, even the name suggests the use.

On the other hand, you can make a comparison that one of my friends made: sue the road makers! They provide a road, on which people break laws by driving fast and recklessly. Or how about car makers? They provide the means to do it.

Actually, going by the ruling in this PB case, one could almost sue every ISP, Computer Brand, MP3 player brands etc etc etc, for providing the means to break copyright laws, and it would make just as much sense.

The issue here, isn't just PB isolated. It's every torrent-page out there. Yes, of course we know that probably most of them will contain torrents of copyrighted material. But there's also tens of thousands of torrents to legal material. Heck, several companies, including Blizzard, use torrent technology to distribute their own content.

Is it technically wrong to spread copyrighted material for free? Yes. Technically. But how come, when asked how much the net and piracy has meant for their music and revenues, most artists concede "a lot"? Established brand names (which you indeed may call Britney Spears, Kanye West etc) don't need the net, since they already have billions invested in marketing campaigns.

But for the "little" ones. The J.U.S.T.I.C.E's, the Kaizers Orchestra's, Kutuman's, Datarock's, Detektivbyrån's, the Basshunter's, et cetera ad nauseum. Sure, some people think their music is crap, but thanks to piracy and net distribution, these artists have made names for themselves. Some of them got picked up so quickly by the mainstream (through analyzing web trends), radio stations etc will still claim it was "their discoveries". Others simply would never have been known outside their countries if it wasn't for net distribution.

It's a way to discover new music, new tastes. If it wasn't for the net, I wouldn't have bought - well - about 75% of my CD collection. I would never have known about El-P, Dieselboy, Dry Kill Logic, Atmosphere, P.O.S., Aesop Rock, Herbaliser, DJ Shadow etc. By sharing with others, one discovers new influences.

Also, most studies conducted in the past 4 years, show that people who download music and movies - IN GENERAL - buy more music and movies than those who don't. Want links? Go google it.

In conclusion, the industry is desperately clinging to their old standards where the artists get fuck all, and the big shot companies take it all. Just imagine it, so many of those greedy bastards would be out of a job if more artists discovered they could distribute their own productions online, without their expensive help.

Just look at Spotify - it's brilliant. I pay 99 NOK a month, and I can listen to tons of music in excellent quality. Some record companies are of course resisting this, and in doing so they limit the content available to Spotify users. The more companies and artists embrace this, the sooner they can start making money in a new market. Not as much money as before for the companies - more money for the artists.

Piracy and a possible solution?

I've been thinking a lot about piracy lately. Why? Well, I've done my fair share of downloading. Do I like to be labeled as a criminal? Of course not. Do I understand that it is criminal? Yes.

See, the thing about buying music and movies, is that it's so ridiculously expensive. Let's say I buy a new DVD release. That's 200 NOK right there. Almost the same price for CD's. How much, exactly, goes to the artist? I'd venture a guess and say "not much".

Last year, I found Spotify, which was just a whole new world for me. I mean, paying a monthly fee to get access to decent quality music streams? I was delighted. I found quite a lot of the music I usually listen to there, and it wasn't long before I didn't even bother to keep Winamp up. You could just queue hours and hours of music, and not grow tired.

So the concept is valid. However, it would need some slight changes. First of all, it needs a wider selection. For this to come true, the industry needs to cooperate. Which they won't, since the whole concept of Spotify renders several links in the chain obsolete, which in term makes those links earn no money on the music, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is definately something they will fight for.

I think basically the only thing holding the Spotify-concept back, is the expensive chain between the artists and the consumers. The powers making money off of artists, are too overwhelming, and too strong at the moment, for the consumers themselves to dictate the terms.

A lot of people I've spoken too agree that paying a monthly fee of, say, 200 NOK for music and movie access online, is an agreable option. Of course, it wouldn't be expected to gain access to "new things" until a fair time has passed since release. I.e. movies are available when the DVD is released, and music albums maybe X amount of time after they hit stores. I don't know, I'm sure something could be worked out.

Other issues that would need to be adressed are:

1. Whether or not we would be allowed to store data locally for personal use.
2. Pricing on the subscriptions, different kinds of subscriptions etc.
3. Online/offline problem.

The point is, the technology is pretty much there, the consumers are pretty much saying yes to this solution (ref. Spotify's user base, and how many of those are paying subscribers), and artists are warming up to the concept.

I just wanted to let it out there, for people to think about. Do we really need the money hungry middlemen?

(Related article from db.no here, from itavisen.no here)