IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Manchester....Piracy capital of Britain.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jaded and Bored |
TV is free (to the consumer) in many parts of the world. The TV tax is a rip off and the govt
are getting away with murder. In any case when you watch a TV show you are not paying to watch
that particular show. The TV licence is to cover the TV set not access to the BBC channels.
There is a 3 tier approach with TV
1. FTA stations. (ITV)
2. Subscription TV. (Sky)
3. The DVD box set. (Buy it online or in stores)
BTB pays for BTC.
So in a music environment it works like this.
1. Free streaming (Youtube).
2. Subscription (Spotify is really the wrong model but until the industry grows up and creates
its own then it will forever be ripped off. AIM should lobby the govt for a universal music subscription service
with a fixed rate set by the govt so we do not have the rip off situation we have with Spotify with a conflict of
interest by the majors who will drive down royalties to maximise profits which go into their pockets and not shared
with the artists.
3. Physicals - No one is saying physicals should be thrown away. Just sell it direct from artist website.
4. Licensing for use. (websites, movies etc).
With respect K, the privileged are not full time musicians. Pick any huge popstar today and they are all business
people with diversified interests. Selling sneakers, perfumes, their image, real estate etc.
But I take your point. Also there have never been working class pop stars. The sooner you become a popstar, then up
the social ladder you climb. But I am not arguing with you here just trying to be practical.
The reason people hunt out a song and visit the artist's website is to get something of value. Access to the artist.
This can be integrated with Facebook and other social media. Also when people like an artist, they go looking for them
online and end up liking them on Facebook which in turn is a gateway to the artist's own site (if done properly). Also
Facebook can be a conduit to selling related products. Just because the music industry can't make it work does not mean
it doesn't work. How many people pre-ordered the iPhone5 thanks to a Facebook post?
A unique web address is not extreme. It costs less than a fiver and you can redirect people to wherever you like.
The reason to do it is to feature high up in the search engine when your song goes viral. Once again these are techniques
marketers use to sell products and just because the music industry is clueless about the internet does not negate the effectiveness
of these techniques.
But the whole reason why is because we have no choice. The genie is out of the bottle and sales will nosedive until it becomes
zero. |
|
K |
Jaded and Bored wrote:A nonsense article that just once again misses the point and the point is that music wants to be free just like TV.
TV isn't free. Arguably the best programmes in the world are made with UK license payers money, the others are paid for by advertising and phone-ins, competitions etc. Notably the quality of the latter isn't as good.
Jaded and Bored wrote:
As for K's argument, yes we are going backwards but not really.
I only said we were going back in time with respect to the privileged being full-time musicians, working class heroes are becoming a thing of the past.
Jaded and Bored wrote:
This way when they google your song they land at your website and you can resell them something with intrinsic value attached to your music.
Why would anyone hunt out a song and buy something else instead? Besides, if anyone is going to look for a song it's going to be on iTunes, Youtube, Spotify etc. Not an individuals website.
Jaded and Bored wrote:
Records should always be accompanied with a unique website with the name of the song?
A website for each song is ridiculously extreme! As above, people don't consume music on individuals websites, in fact, "information" websites are on the wane, social networking is where it's at in which case, how you gonna flog your "something with intrinsic value attached"? |
|
Jaded and Bored |
A nonsense article that just once again misses the point and the point is that music
wants to be free just like TV. This has been coming for many years now and instead of
adapting, the music industry took the wrong strategy. Movies is a bit different as
the lure of the cinema, licensing for TV and rental plus streaming/downloading a movie
takes far too long and can cost a lot more thanks to viruses and trojans.
Spotify has come and is a relief but came far too late and offers the wrong model for
it to make any impact on artists in a positive way BUT it is a necessary first step.
As for K's argument, yes we are going backwards but not really. Most downloads are done
by people who have already heard of the artists and have been exposed to them via the media.
No one is going to spend ages on Pirate Bay for an unknown act. They will Google them
or Youtube them first.
Downloads are a replacement for radio and are basically radio on demand services. Give
the masses what they want which is music on demand from the creators and then you will
see progress.
So let's look at it this way:
Old Skool v World Wild West
Old Skool:
You heard a song on radio
You bought the record
WWW: (at the moment)
You download a song and play a lot
??
www: My recommendation.
You let people Stream/download freely at source.
You sell them a unique experience or product.
Records should always be accompanied with a unique website
with the name of the song?
This way when they google your song they land at your website
and you can resell them something with intrinsic value attached
to your music.
How many iPhones were pre-ordered?
We can learn a lot from Apple. There is value in scarcity.
Michael Jackson sold out all his shows off the back of one TV announcement.
Create demand and urgency by using your creative brains.
There is a reason why labels exist. |
|
K |
The comments on this thread reflects the state of it IMO.
This one has 88 "likes"
Here we go again. The industry moaning that every download is a lost sale. Talented artists no longer need the music industry because they can sell direct. This is what the music industry is really fighting. These are the men in suits who still wish they were selling plastic discs. If they want artists to be rewarded they wouldn't pay them so little per album sale would they?
A ludicrous argument, they can sell direct? So the artist puts the track on iTunes instead of the label, what difference would that make to piracy? Piracy is OK because labels pay the artists too little? Piracy pays them nothing, how's that an argument?
This one has 44 DISlikes
I oppose free downloads, why because theres the time,cost and talent put into producing a recording, so why should it be literally stolen for nothing.Its a bit of the state of society this getting something for nothing, disregarding what its cost others to produce. I only put on my ipod music on CD I have honestly purshased, and unless we do that the music CD industry will soon not be there.
People don't agree that there's a cost to recording material and therefore it's OK to steal it? Where are their morals? I wonder how many of them would happily work for nothing.
83 "likes"
No sympathy for the industry, some for the artists. If we hadn't been grievously ripped off in the CD age, then piracy wouldn't have happened on the scale it has.
So again, it's OK for the artist to get nothing at all because you disagree with how the industry used to be? Most kids happily pirating music today weren't buying CD's when they were expensive and because now they're cheaper it's OK to steal them? I remember when clothes were more expensive but that doesn't mean I steal them now out of spite.
Totally shocking views and sadly, shared by many. |
|
Toby Jugs |
Interesting thread on this here, although it's not viewable to guests so i will quote some
comments.
fatherandy2.proboards.com/index.cgi?boar...lay&thread=75493
musicweek wrote:
The 345 million illegal downloads covered just a 6 month period only. At this rate of piracy, it won't be that long when we will start to see the slow death of the music and film industry altogether, unless the powers that be do something drastic to stop it.
The folk who do this illegal downloading may think it's harmless to download music, movies etc which they steal for free, but they don't stop to think that the they are contributing to ever decreasing annual revenues that would go towards making new music and films etc that they enjoy. Something has to be done. Maybe, if it gets to a drastic un-viable level, then perhaps all music and films will stop being released in the physical form and be confined exclusively to the streaming media, by which no-one can ever own a physical copy or download like they do now. what a shame that will be when that day eventually comes.
Apparently, in the music press, Ed Sheeran does'nt mind folk illegally downloading his music. According to industry data, his + album has been legally purchased by some 1.2 million and illegally stolen by another 8 million. Having or giving approval for what is a criminal offence, is giving out the complete wrong signal to the youth of today. He's technically saying it's ok to steal music. If he does'nt mind folk stealing his music, then why did he bother getting a record deal in the first place? why not just stick to the music fest circuit getting by by scrapping a living busking etc.?
Lenny wrote:
"Record companies need to stop looking at illegal downloading as a problem, and just accept it's something that happens and use it to increase sales. There are benefits.
I don't think illegal downloading is the only reason for the fall in album sales. The "singles" chart is a little devalued these days more as a songs chart - album tracks should be made "album only"; people wouldn't purchase these individually and cherry pick album tracks to buy - and would actually purchase the album (or of course download illegally!)
The point of an album doesn't seem to be quite the same at the moment. It needs to have more of a meaning and in the current climate, it just doesn't. And people do often want to check what they're about to buy. Back in the day - if I bought an album and then realised it was crap, I woulda taken it back."
RALiverpool wrote:
"Having said that, the music industry severely damaged themselves by ignoring the advice of the likes of Tony Wilson (Factory Records), David Bowie & Brian Eno when the internet came along and listened to Lars Ullrich, Dr Dre, Garth Brooks & Bob Seger instead so taking on Napster in litigation for its pioneering peer-to-peer file sharing instead of buying out its technology to utilize for its own benefit via a subscription service.
The result meant that instead of record companies setting up their own equivalent(s) of iTunes & Spotify someone else beat them to it; in the meantime physical sales fell through the toilet in the mid 2000s as a whole teenage generation illegally downloaded music on a scale that blank cassettes & CDs could never achieve in their wildest dreams.
Adjusting for inflation as of 2009 the USA music industry income/revenue from record sales (vinyl/cassettes/CDs/downloads) hit its lowest ebb as it was down 64% from its peak 10 years previously, and down 45% from where it was in 1973, and was in its worst state in real terms for over 45 years."
thehitparade wrote:
I think it is possible to be too glib about the effect of illicit downloading , but there's so much hogwash talked by people on both sides of the argument (not here, in fact, but in general) that it's hard to take things seriously. I don't see how the comparison between tracks sold for legal download and those shared on torrents or whatever you kids call it is in any way relevant, not least because there's vastly more music available through those forms than is on sale digitally (or even at all).
And I've never in my life used a torrent but I thought the whole point of them was that they were peer-to-peer so there wasn't anybody making money out of them.
RALiverpool wrote:
Exactly, it highlights how the music industry behaved collectively like a bunch of King Canute idiots at the turn of the century by attacking the new internet P2P technology instead of thinking about new models with this new technology to create revenue in the post CD age.
By allowing third parties such as Apple & now Spotify to develop their own legal downloads and streaming software instead of doing the equivalent themselves they have lost out massively to the detriment of most people whom work in the music industry today.
ad1 wrote:
The difficulty with statistics like "345 million illegal downloads" is that there's no real way of knowing how many of these were as a substitute for a legitimate purchase. The BPI assumption is always that every one of these downloads would have been a purchase had it not been available via P2P etc., which is clearly nonsense. Ditto the similar claims made about home taping 25 years ago, and so on.
Part of the problem is that record companies need to have a legal means of purchasing a song as soon as people hear it on radio, tv, etc. The "on air on sale" campaign seems to have failed miserably because of the desire to get big first week chart entries (and the indirect promotion that comes with that). The non-availability via legal means just encourages people to obtain it via other means.
There is also a major need for education that it is not acceptable to illegally copy something as a substitute when it would have definitely been legally purchased otherwise. However, there can be some benefits when a casual illegal download introduces someone to a song/artist and as a result they subsequently make a legitimate purchase that they otherwise wouldn't have done. |
|
|
|
|
