How Embracing Piracy Jumpstarted Brazilian Music
from the oh-look-at-that... dept
One of the more amusingly wrong statements from the RIAA and its supporters is the idea that piracy is killing the music industry. Those who say that without being able to sell music there would be less music out there are flat out wrong, and we seem to see more proof of it every day. There’s more music being produced today than ever before and it’s often because of file sharing — the very thing the industry honchos want you to believe is killing the industry. For natural experiments, we’ve pointed in the past to places like China and Jamaica. In China, where “piracy” is rampant, the music industry is thriving. Musicians have learned to use the piracy to help promote themselves so they can sell more concert tickets at higher prices. They also realized that companies would often pay for the creation of new music, so that it could be used to boost brand recognition of products. Meanwhile, in Jamaica, musicians competed to make better versions of songs, using the same “riddims,” but adding their own singing over them. While in an RIAA-inspired world, the “riddim” creators would get upset, in Jamaica it’s been great for them. The most popular riddims turn their creators into stars who are in high demand to create new riddims from musicians who are eager to be the first to create their own songs on top of the new riddims from the hottest riddim creators.
Now it looks like we can add Brazil to the list of natural examples. There, the tecnobrega music scene is on fire thanks to musicians embracing piracy. They don’t just look the other way, they actively encourage it. Musicians burn their own CDs and rush them down to street vendors, begging them to sell them (without the musicians getting any cut at all). Those musicians also upload MP3s and email them to popular DJs who make mixtapes (similar to the US hiphop mixtape scene). Just like in China, the artists realize that they need to use so-called “piracy” to help them get more publicity. “Piracy is the way to get established and get your name out. There’s no way to stop it, so we’re using it to our advantage,” according to one tecnobrega star, Gabi Amarantos. Contrary to what the RIAA and it supporters would tell you, the lack of copyright respect hasn’t hurt the tecnobrega space at all — it’s made it explode. It’s allowed many more musicians to make a decent living from music than via a traditional model and it means that much more technobrega music is being produced. In other words, all the stories about how a lack of copyright creates less music are, once again, provably wrong. Yet, of course, the RIAA and its supporters will continue to repeat the lie. In fact, the National Anti-Piracy Association in Brazil says that tecnobrega is a problem because it “makes light of piracy.” It’s not “making light” of piracy — it’s making money from piracy.
Filed Under: brazil, music, piracy, tecnobrega
Companies: riaa
Comments on “How Embracing Piracy Jumpstarted Brazilian Music”
Mike, an artist can’t take advantage of piracy, because if they choose to allow others to trade and download their content, it isn’t piracy. You can’t be a willing victom of piracy.
Re: Re:
Hence “piracy” in quotes. It’s a stupid, loaded word, but when you use it this way, it demonstrates why it’s dumb for anyone to use it as its intended use: as something that’s somehow killing the industry — when clearly, it is not.
#1
They are taking advantage of the piracy culture.
…and using people’s desire for “free music” to their advantage.
...
you said “riddim” way too much in the first paragraph. :p
Using “music” for brand recognition or singing to someone elses “riddim” is all very well and there is a place for that, but pretending that this is the same as old fashioned music (real and non-superficial) is just daft.
Granted things always change with time but it would be nice to preserve some of the old expertise/skill/values/culture even if it is unamerican to do that (or maybe because it’s unamerican).
Re: Re:
“real and non-superficial”?
WTF is that?
Beam me up Scotty - there's no intelligent life he
OK – if the artist who created the music and owns the rights to it GIVES the music away to someone to do with as they please (in the Brazillian case – a street vendor who will most likely sell it) – then it’s not PIRACY!!!
Sounds like the Chinese and Jamaicans are doing the same thing. This is NOT PIRACY! And they are not taking advantage of so called “pirates” or piratical behavior because the music was given away to be sold by anyone.
Now – if the street vendor were to buy/steal/”borrow” the music from some source and then turn around and sell it, then that would be piracy.
Merriam-Webster defines piracy as:
1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3 a: the unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals
What’s being described here is NOT piracy.
Re: Beam me up Scotty - there's no intelligent lif
OK – if the artist who created the music and owns the rights to it GIVES the music away to someone to do with as they please (in the Brazillian case – a street vendor who will most likely sell it) – then it’s not PIRACY!!!
See comment #2.
The point remains, however, that what the RIAA and related folks are complaining about, this group of musicians has realized *helps* them.
The original article (and I as well) used the term “piracy” because the point is clear. In terms of what’s happening, it is no different than piracy, and yet somehow it’s helping these musicians.
I agree that it’s not piracy, just as I believe that downloading a song isn’t “piracy” either. But, the point in using the phrase is to realize that the IDENTICAL ACT appears to be helping, not hurting, these musicians.
Who cares about the 'industry'
I don’t think the aggregate effects on an industry have any bearing on whether or not an individual’s work should be stolen. OK, so let’s take it as rote that it’s ‘stupid’ to sell music. It means zero as to whether it’s OK to steal Artist X’s latest release.
Blurring the distinction between voluntary free music and pirated free music doesn’t do a whole lot fo good for anyone. And assuming what benefits som aggregate group is the right thing for every individual in the industry is just weak.
It just occured to me...
Re: It just occured to me...
I was thinking about my music borrowing habits, and something occured to me. For most of the music i own, if i didn’t download it, i would have never bought the CD anyway. So is it really costing the artist anything? How can they lose money on something that didn’t cost them anything to replicate in the first place? Plus, it free promotion!
Good point...
All I have to say is that if piracy was destroying the music industry like the RIAA and its supporters say then why aren’t the artists up in arms complaining? I know if something was threatening my way of life I wouldn’t just let my “representatives” speak for me I’d be doing my own talking.
Simply put the music industry is not in any danger its the recording industry that is in danger. The RIAA loves to equate the recording industry with the music industry as if without record distribution in its current state music itself would end. And that is plain untrue as you can see small time and big time acts both start distributing without cash and publicity from the big labels.
Music Industry in China is not thriving
Firstly, let me state that I work in China and I take it upon myself to correct the notion suggested in this article that the music industry here is thriving. In fact, a lot of the musicians have it tough, though some of them have fared better than others in evolving according to the dysfunctional environment. Yes, there is a lot of free music in China in the form of full-length tracks and there is also a lot of paid music in the form of ringtones and caller ringback tones, at least US$700 mil in revenues in 2006.
So musicians in China who either by piracy or by their own design have their full-length music distributed for free face one or more of the following outcomes, assuming in the first place that their music is good enough to have sufficient appeal:
1)if they are good-looking and media-friendly, the exposure garners them advertising sponsorship endorsement/ appearance fees and hence an income source. The music then becomes a secondary activity for them
2)if their music is ringtone friendly, then they can make money from ringtones/ caller-ringback tones, but then this also comes with the problem of revenue collection or what I call accounting piracy, and again they get screwed here. Note that hip-hop, dance etc and other forms of music like classical etc are not ringtone friendly in China and their artists have limited avenues of income and so the development of some of this ‘niche’ music is being hampered – so instead musicians are focusing on low-common denonimator fare that sells ringtones. And hence in a way, this is affecting the quality of music being developed.
3)if they have it in them, they can undertake the arduous task of touring China without the concert amenities that being on the road in the US or Europe offer – and if they do it enough, they can make a decent living somehow
4)if none of the above options are available to the musician then they have it tough – and that’s the situation facing a lot of them currently.
So, what I always say is that one man’s marketing is another man’s piracy, but to suggest that this ‘piracy’ works for everyone in China is too simplistic a notion as it does affect a lot of musicians in China. Having said that, it is heartening to note that Chinese musicians and the industry are evolving as they adjust to the environment. I am sure there are many holes in the RIAA’s case as was the point in this article but in this instance with regards to China’s music industry, it is important that I give a better picture of how it is on the ground here.
Re: Music Industry in China is not thriving
For more of an overview of the Chinese music industry, refer to http://www.edpeto.com. He has really taken the time to cut through the hype and present the facts and opportunities as he sees it.
good copy bady copy
Mike, have you seen good copy bad copy. They talk about the tecnobrega music scene in what is a good documentary about piracy.
The recording industry has NEVER been about musicians earning a living… its been about the record industry earning a living and passing the crumbs to the musicians. Out of a $1 sale, the musician would be lucky to get, what… 5% royalty? Then that has to be split between managers, lawyers and such. Nobody every focuses on that other 95%. Some goes into manufacture, but the rest goes back to the record label. No, I don’t think its ever been about the artist…
Recording companies worried of losing its monopoly
I think the recording companies used to control the distribution of music and only allow the limited few to access that channel. It limits those who does not have the “ins” access to get their music out. They are so affraid because the P2P network helps musicians access to a distribution channel that is next to no cost to the musicians and the recording companies can’t dictate what comes out. I don’t think less music is being created, its just that more was filtered. The recording companies would do more concert promotions if they were smart…
inestimable illogic
Your post cobbles together three questionable anecdotes, no statistics, faulty logic, a dismal view of the future of music, and ignorance of how music is made to bolster your tired, discredited conclusion that copyright theft is good for rightsholders.
You offer no statistics to support your contention that musicians in Brazil and China are thriving, just a few anecdotal observations. Maths’ personal observations directly refute your claim vis China. As to Brazil, the fact that a few musicians in one particular genre have decided to distribute their works for free online in an unprotected format proves nothing more generally.
If you are going to argue by anecdote, the truth is that there is a strong correlation between nations that have strong IP protection and those that have strong creative sectors (music, movies, software, pharmaceuticals). Nations that have rampant piracy have much less successful creative sectors than those with strong IP protection.
You totally ignore the effect of Chinese and Brazilian piracy on US musicians. How many US musicians are touring in China? How many are getting advertising or promotional deals in Brazil? Despite the phenomenal popularity of US music in China, as demonstrated by the massive consumption of pirated works, US musicians are generating almost no revenue in those countries.
You also totally ignore the role of songwriters. How does piracy benefit songwriters, in your mind? Even though they are not the singers/musicians that the public identifies with a song, will they be getting advertising and promotional deals? How will they tour, since they don’t actually sing the songs? And don’t tell me they can cut a deal for a share of the performer’s profits – in your copyright-free world, the performer doesn’t have to pay the songwriter anything to record their song.
Your vision of how musicians will be forced to earn their living in a piracy-filled future leaves me disconsolate. Instead of musicians being able to live off of the sales of music, and thus spend their lives creating, your vision requires them to spend their time touring and pimping commercial products. This doesn’t seem like a freer or better world for musicians.
Re: inestimable illogic
First off “member of the reality-based community,” why do you not use your name or the name of your employer? It’s would reveal a lot about your position on this particular topic. You have a pretty big stake in this fight (copyright policy in general) and it’s a bit misleading for you to post here pretending that you’re not a biased party.
Your post cobbles together three questionable anecdotes, no statistics, faulty logic, a dismal view of the future of music, and ignorance of how music is made to bolster your tired, discredited conclusion that copyright theft is good for rightsholders.
Yes, in this case we pointed to anecdotal evidence, but I have repeatedly pointed to research and statistical evidence to support the position. I think between the two, I’ve made a pretty compelling case. You appear to disagree. It’s funny, when we point to research, folks like yourself complain that it’s not supported in the real world. When we point to the real world, folks like you complain that it’s not supported by research. And you say that we’re the ones not in the “reality-based community.”
As for the “faulty logic” please do explain. I’d like to refute that claim. So far, I don’t see any clear faulty logic.
As for “ignorance of how music is made,” please do enlighten me, because so far it seems like many musicians have agreed with my position.
Most importantly, “a dismal view of the future of music” has me scratching my head. If anything, my vision of the future of music is incredibly optimistic. It’s one in which more people are making music, more people are making a living from music, more people are hearing new music. That’s been pretty clear from the beginning. The only people who are in trouble in this vision happen to be companies who think the music industry is selling plastic discs.
You offer no statistics to support your contention that musicians in Brazil and China are thriving, just a few anecdotal observations. Maths’ personal observations directly refute your claim vis China.
Actually, there is research that is about to come out on this topic that supports my position — but it’s not out yet and I don’t have permission to talk about it. But the initial report on China was pretty compelling.
As to Brazil, the fact that a few musicians in one particular genre have decided to distribute their works for free online in an unprotected format proves nothing more generally.
Actually, it does prove a fair amount. First off, I like the fact that you claim it’s a “few” musicians, when the article clearly points out that it’s quite a lot. But the key point is that it proves there are ways to build a very successful and profitable music career by using these things to your advantage. This is despite the loud insistence by your friends on the music side of the entertainment industry that such things are impossible. I’m not sure why that makes people like you so uncomfortable other than the simple fact that it changes the business models you’ve always supported.
If you are going to argue by anecdote, the truth is that there is a strong correlation between nations that have strong IP protection and those that have strong creative sectors (music, movies, software, pharmaceuticals). Nations that have rampant piracy have much less successful creative sectors than those with strong IP protection.
Correlation? Damn, man, that’s weaker than anecdotes. What’s even worse is that if you look at the details, it actually shows the opposite of what you’re implying. While it is true that many countries that have strong IP protections have strong creative sectors, you seem to have screwed up the order. The strong IP protections tend to come AFTER they have strong creative industries in place… and the strong IP laws are then used to *protect* those industries, not to encourage further innovation. This has been true almost everywhere you look. It’s true with copyright in the US on books. It’s true of pharmaceutical patents almost everywhere. It’s true of software patents in the US.
In other words, even though IP rights are supposed to encourage innovation, the evidence (and there’s plenty of research on this, much of which you know about) shows that it tends not to do so. Studies have shown that there is no increase in these types of works after strong IP protections have been put in place. In fact, there are some studies that have shown the opposite — as those who suddenly had IP protections could rest on their laurels, rather than continuing to create and innovate.
Since I’m pretty sure you’ve seen a lot of this research already, I find it odd that you then go on to deny its existence.
You totally ignore the effect of Chinese and Brazilian piracy on US musicians. How many US musicians are touring in China? How many are getting advertising or promotional deals in Brazil? Despite the phenomenal popularity of US music in China, as demonstrated by the massive consumption of pirated works, US musicians are generating almost no revenue in those countries.
Heh. And you think this supports your position? Man. I hope no one pays you for business advice. Stick to lobbying. So, because US musicians have been lied to for years and don’t see the opportunities to cash in on huge fanbases in these countries, it’s piracy’s fault? How about it’s the fault of your friends down the street who run the RIAA and keep telling musicians that piracy is a problem. If they learned to understand the economics at play and understood how this represents an opportunity to them, it would open up many avenues for them to make money.
I’m not sure how bad business decisions support your position either. Again, it seems to weaken it by simply highlighting how poorly the folks in your industry have been able to understand the very industry they think they’re in.
You also totally ignore the role of songwriters. How does piracy benefit songwriters, in your mind? Even though they are not the singers/musicians that the public identifies with a song, will they be getting advertising and promotional deals? How will they tour, since they don’t actually sing the songs? And don’t tell me they can cut a deal for a share of the performer’s profits – in your copyright-free world, the performer doesn’t have to pay the songwriter anything to record their song.
I love these false gotchas. We’ve discussed this before. How does a house painter get paid? They get paid for the job they do: painting the house. Lawyers get paid for the work that they do. Journalists get paid for the work that they do.
There’s more music being created than ever before, meaning that there’s more demand for songwriters than ever before. Musicians will pay songwriters to write their songs for them, just like any other business.
This isn’t complicated.
Your vision of how musicians will be forced to earn their living in a piracy-filled future leaves me disconsolate. Instead of musicians being able to live off of the sales of music, and thus spend their lives creating, your vision requires them to spend their time touring and pimping commercial products. This doesn’t seem like a freer or better world for musicians.
Then you obviously haven’t been paying attention. The musicians who embrace this model certainly seem a HELL of a lot happier without having the record labels nickel-and-dimeing them for everything. As for “musicians being able to live off of the sales of music,” please name the musicians who are able to do so? As you well know it’s a very, very, very small segment of the population. The record labels basically take all of that money and there’s almost none to go around to the musicians.
So, I’m sorry, but my model where you have many more musicians who are able to make a living by doing what they love and not having to fight their record label at every corner is troubling to you? Bizarre.
stolen thunder
Inestimable logic mentions many of the points that were bouncing around in my head. The case of songwriters who don’t also perform is pretty compelling. I was also wondering about performers, who do record studio albums, but can’t or won’t tour ( a la Andy Parttridge and XTC). Do they not deserve something for their work?
Generally, I’d say this thread demonstrates some of the shriller voices out there, especially when it comes to bashing labels and the industry. I don’t intend to carry water for the RIAA and majors, but there are plenty of indies out there that have artist friendly contracts and do a very effective job of consistently bringing their audiences new acts that they’ll appreciate. And most of the money spent in an operation like this is not on manufacturing, it is on marketing.
Re: stolen thunder
The case of songwriters who don’t also perform is pretty compelling. I was also wondering about performers, who do record studio albums, but can’t or won’t tour ( a la Andy Parttridge and XTC). Do they not deserve something for their work?
Hmm. I’ve responded to that plenty of times (and did so in the comment above yours). What is wrong with work for hire? And I’ve given examples over and over and over again of ways that artists can still make money without touring. I don’t understand why people come here and say that I said the only way to make money is touring. I’ve given tons of examples that involve much more than touring.
I don’t intend to carry water for the RIAA and majors, but there are plenty of indies out there that have artist friendly contracts and do a very effective job of consistently bringing their audiences new acts that they’ll appreciate. And most of the money spent in an operation like this is not on manufacturing, it is on marketing.
And you call me shrill? Hmm. I’m the person who wrote over and over again that there’s still a place for the labels in here if they focus on marketing and promotions and forget distribution. So now you agree with me and I’m the “shrill voice” “bashing labels.” Yeah, sure…
Before you bash me, it might help to read what I wrote. Don’t bash what you think I wrote.
W-O-W
Apparently Mike and Inestimable Logic have some history and perhaps Mike has mistaken me for a new stalking horse. He’d be wrong on that front.
In regard to songwriters and their lot in this new world where people don’t pay for recorded music, I have a few remarks. First, somehow I did not see your response to I E prior to posting my comment. The work for hire point is an interesting one and in some respects would be an extension of the current system. It also occurs to me that as long as performance royalties are still collected (does this fit in the new paradigm?) touring and radio play, both terrestrial and digital, will generate some income for songwriters. You mention many other examples you have proffered in the past, but they don’t appear in this thread. Point the way and I’ll happily check out your thoughts on this topic more closely.
As to your second major retort, I’d say the following. Here again, I haven’t seen your other posts or blogs regarding how labels should focus on marketing and promotion. Second and perhaps more importantly, when I used the word shrill, I was describing the thread not your initial post and when I did so, I was thinking of the usual somewhat simplistic and unthinking litany of “F the labels” comments that seem to appear. I think you’d agree that this “thread” features some of that sentiment.
Finally as to the facts of your initial post. It does make some fairly sunny claims about how distributing their music for free has resulted in an explosion of tecnobrega and assisted some of its practitioners in getting their name out. But to what end? There are no specific mentions of gigs gotten, licenses executed or radio play garnered. Perhaps you can offer some examples. Tila Tequila had/has a pretty big name (or she gamed the myspace system like no other), but as far as I know she has yet to make any money via music.
Generally, I am all for a newer model wherein we may have very few megastars, but we have significantly more musicians who can make a modest living. Obviously getting there in a fashion that is sensitive to everyone’s needs will be a challenge. Clearly many of the barriers to entry have been lowered and while there are some benefits to that – with luck we’ll all come to know more quality bands deserving of our attention and dollars, be they for cds, downloads, concert tix or merch – I can also think of some downsides. The few real quality acts will be competing with an excessive number of of new entrants into the field as well as all the other digital distractions we have these days (I’d agree that the industry has caused or compounded some of it’s woes, but I also feel it’s competing with quite a bit more than it was 15 or 20 or 30 years ago, namely mobile phones and texting, but also the WWW, more compelling games, IM etc.).
Long enough?
SOMETHING DEEPER - THE FUTURE
The web is saturated with articles and blogs about the death of the music industry & what Madonna, Radiohead and the like in collusion with web 2.0 digital models and P2P sites are doing to the industry … “killing it”?
But this IS the new industry … a place where the majority of content is created and consumed for free, where the creativity embodied on your musical content IS the value attributed to it.
A place where the merit in music conquers all. Or at least in the years to come it will.
It is my absolute belief that “where music leads all else will follow” .. that is the breakdown of the commercial music industry to elements of trade, file sharing, swapping & purchase will one day encompass our whole online commercial structure.
Merit and creative truth will rule, meaningless content (read “pop”) will simply become ignored meaninglessness, and it will struggle for any traction.
The sharing and spread across digital platforms of all online services and products will occur, with value being judged by merit. This will occur whether we are talking about a music track, a new product or a simple day to day service.
Advertisers will no longer be able to saturate our TV screens with useless products and thinly veiled lies about necessity – purchase value & immediacy will be decided by the purchaser.
ok, …. deeper : the human mind is a spark of the almighty consciousness of the creator, imagination and creativity are the doors from which this consciousness emerges.
As human minds develop further and become more fully tuned to the nature of spirit, by stopping thought, abandoning knowledge & trusting intuition, creativity also becomes more fully tuned to this truth. That is, music / knowledge / content / product is freed from the shackles of blind commercialism, prejudice or banality will simply cut through and gain traction by the simple fact of its creative merit.
The deeper the self realization of a person and his/her creativity, the more he/she influences the whole universe by subtle creative vibrations.
Silence is the potent carrier of the present tense. Every sound or action comes from silence & dies back into the ocean of silence.
Death to the music industry, long live the industry of creativity.