So, how do you all reconcile the fact...

[EPrecording]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

No, it simply means that you're a crook and you'll steal whatever you have a chance to steal. It doesn't mean you wouldn't buy the wine if you couldn't steal it - it just means you're a thief. I really dislike wording it so strongly, but since you don't seem to understand it any other way.....

Do you work to support yourself? What do you do? You use a screen name of "EPrecording" - do you expect people to pay you for recording or is it simply a hobby? I don't find any web presence for you except these posts.

This is possibly the biggest problem with the arguments being raised on this forum. They always seem to return to the individual, when it should directly embody the industry. You seem to be heading towards an Ad Hominem as the basis for your argument, for which I will avoid as it is largely irrelevant. The very notion that a persons presence in the industry equates to success is ridiculous. People tried and failed in 1930. 1940. 1980. 1990. 2010... and every year in between.

So by saying "no", he is supporting that vineyard through theft? Indeed it makes him a thief... but I fail to see the differentiation you are trying to outline.

The argument that "I am entitled to be paid" is incorrect too. If it were correct, everyone would be rich. You are entitled to charge for your services and your product... and you are entitled to offer those services without the interference of theft. But a thief is just a thief... thinking that the intervention of law enforcement will turn all those thieves into paying customers is quite naive.

Perhaps you should actually look at the figures before commenting, John. As far as your notions about unit sales... what does that really have to do with the consumer? The vinyl single was the invention of the music industry... and as you've pointed out, it sudden undermines album sales.

...and now it is happening again, as you suggest? The massive shift in retail methodology that I originally suggested might be effecting profit margins you say?


And just to point out some errors:

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

This is totally unfounded and untrue.

Suggesting the opposite is also quite unfounded and untrue. Unless of course you are actually a fortune teller, as you allude to in most of your posts.

Again, untrue. There were many things competing for the entertainment dollar back then.Name one thing available now that we didn't have 20 years ago! Those types of tools have been available since the '50s and '60s, and there has always been a perception that some percentage of recordings are faked. It didn't hurt sales a bit until unbridled internet piracy came along. And most of the public doesn't give a damn if something's faked, anyway.

Errrm. Laptop Computers. Wireless internet. Digital mobile phones with mini laptop computers... and cameras, and music players and wireless internet inside them?

Originally Posted by blue nine

bout time.

Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

looks like more "adapting" on the horizon...

Well it appears you never actually entered the conversation... so perhaps it is time to leave.

Piracy is theft? No s*%t.

[EPrecording]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Doesn't mean anything - you could easily be bouncing through a proxy.

Such a comment really does outline the paranoia and sensationalism you are resorting to. You might have the spare time to do such a thing, but really... I have better things to do.

Why not use that spare time constructively and do some reading.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

(CONTINUED) And if you don't support the pirates, what's with the arguing that music has no intrinsic value? The only reason for that argument is justification for piracy.
LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

OK, so this just tells me that you are probably just skimming my posts and not actually absorbing them, so I guess there's no point in continuing discussion:

Originally Posted by soundrick

The service/product that artists offer ONLY has intrinsic value. No "actual" value, in real terms, unless you count the cost of manufacturing a disc or painting.

I was pointing out what makes music easier to steal than say purchasing a ticket for a performance which has some loss prevention ability, only to address your statement.

carry on

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

If you don't support the pirates you should oppose them, not throw up your hands and cry "Oh well, we can't do anything!"

Patience, compromise and appealing to a solution that benefits everyone is going to be far more helpful than a crusade.

If you haven't noticed, the public consumer isn't getting any smarter, if you attack them and demonize them, they aren't going to listen. Since we rely on them for a living it seems like crapping the bed.

Trent Reznor has the right idea. It might not work, but at least he was trying. I'd bet a week's salary he didn't lose a single fan, probably gained many by keeping things interesting.
Unlike Metallica and the RIAA.......

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by chrisso

No you don't. I'm aware of that, and I'm aware of your background and beliefs as stated in previous threads.
I gotta say a couple of things infuriate me though (whoever posts them), a notion of entitlement with regards to musicians, some implication that musicians are asking too much or are outright greedy and any suggestion musicians are somehow to blame for piracy.
On the first two points, as has been stated by me and others on this forum, if a musician ascribes a fee to their output, they are entitled to be paid the fee when someone consumes the work. This is a basic in our society, and musicians shouldn't be treated differently to doctors, dancers, bakers and candlestick makers. Wanna find your music elsewhere at no cost, or cheaper.... fine, just don't take my work without paying for it. I can live with the consequences.
As you know from your own experience and that of your wife, the artists income earning capability is extremely fragile. Musicians are fully aware of that, and have always dealt with it however well they could. The new paradigm seems to be musicians not getting paid on the occasions they are in work. That's not only illegal, its a big fat double whammy.
On the last point, it's another myth put around by the piracy lobby. Musicians have it too easy, they sit around not doing anything while their song writing royalties roll in. They're behind the times and don't understand the worldwide web. Therefore illegal downloading is the reality and musicians should get over it and get on with their lives. If musicians are hurting, it is therefore their own faults, because they can't get off their backside and find other revenue.
Well, in my experience, musicians are pretty hard working. The business covers an enormous breadth of artist, not just the Lars Ulrich and Bono. Most musicians I know have seen their income dropping like a stone for years and are already diversifying like crazy, and actively exploring alternative revenues.
The piracy that's going on is just another cross to bear, by legal and ethical standards an unfair cross to bear.

Good post.

I'm not into the "musicians don't work hard" argument either. It really just shows ignorance.

I knew a bass player working on ships and a housekeeper was giving him shit because he made a better salary and only worked a couple hours a day, just for "playing music". The bass player says, "well, I tell you what, I've trained for half of my life, unpaid most of the time for "training" to do this job, and I could learn your job in a couple hours"..............
Who knows if the housekeeper got it or not, but it's telling about how some people truly don't get how much work goes into this stuff.

And you're right about the entitlement statement, it was the wrong way to make my point. I probably didn't mean it how you took it, so I'll leave it be.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

They always seem to return to the individual, when it should directly embody the industry. You seem to be heading towards an Ad Hominem as the basis for your argument, for which I will avoid as it is largely irrelevant.

Asking someone to state their qualifications is not an ad hominem.

The argument that "I am entitled to be paid" is incorrect too.

Yeah, because you're conveniently omitting half the argument (Ain't selective quoting a wonderful thing?) the argument is "I am entitled to be paid if you use my products or services." I don't think that anyone has demanded payment for music that wasn't downloaded or shows that weren't attended.

The massive shift in retail methodology that I originally suggested might be effecting profit margins you say

You mean taking stuff that doesn't belong to you without paying? Yep, that affects profit margins all right!

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Suggesting the opposite is also quite unfounded and untrue. Unless of course you are actually a fortune teller, as you allude to in most of your posts.

That's utter crap and you know it. I'm referring to the inescapable reality that has ruined the business I've spent my life in and destroyed the incomes of many people I know personally - or forced them into other lines of work.

Errrm. Laptop Computers. Wireless internet. Digital mobile phones with mini laptop computers... and cameras, and music players and wireless internet inside them?

All of which are delivery media (except for cameras) that deliver entertainment that was widely available back then. And cameras have existed for over 150 years - but digital photography is MUCH cheaper than the old chemical kind. Back then there was other competition for the entertainment dollar that's pretty much gone now - like drive-ins and bowling.....

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Such a comment really does outline the paranoia and sensationalism you are resorting to.

No, it merely demonstrates that we aren't as stupid as you seem to think we are.

You might have the spare time to do such a thing, but really... I have better things to do.

HMmmm... It would appear not. You certainly have plenty of time to promote nonsensical arguments justifying theft. From what I've read setting up a proxy isn't very hard - 14 year old kids do it all the time.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by soundrick

Patience, compromise and appealing to a solution that benefits everyone is going to be far more helpful than a crusade.

If you haven't noticed, the public consumer isn't getting any smarter, if you attack them and demonize them, they aren't going to listen. Since we rely on them for a living it seems like crapping the bed.

Well, apparently you haven't been reading my posts in other threads because that is EXACTLY my position. It's only when arguing with juvenile A-holes that I get pushed into this sort of thing - guys that just won't listen and post reams of nonsense. It's not me who's on the crusade - it's them. But when attacked, I defend in kind.

[Toro]

Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon

...That music piracy has undeniably demonstrated that either a) music today is not worth supporting, or b) the populace at large just doesn't really care about this industry whatsoever? That music, in general, is just a fashion statement that people can seemingly forgo if need be? I think it's fair to assume that if someone is passionate enough about something, they will support it monetarily. All forms of media have been hit by piracy, so really, what does this suggest? Either popular multimedia is just not very intriguing these days on the whole, or people simply don't have a spark for it.

You can say it's the economy, you can say that it's the counter-cultural attitude of this generation, but the fact remains, what we do in this business apparently lacks value when we're talking about the general public's wallet priorities. As far as music goes, I don't think we'll ever see a resurgence of sales comparable to what they used to be, even if record companies find a way to enforce DRM almost completely, because I think this generation has left a bad taste in the mouths of consumers.

I don't know, it kind of unsettles me that the main goal of this industry, as of present, is forcing people to buy something they don't particularly even care about.

But, that's how consumerism works, now isn't it.

u only saying dis^ caus3 you don't buy music a my rite? looking 4 some lam3 excuse? soon to TEN ****ING years of this bullshit !! uncle sam is going to take over, and when he does, WE ALL ****!!

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

This is possibly the biggest problem with the arguments being raised on this forum. They always seem to return to the individual, when it should directly embody the industry. You seem to be heading towards an Ad Hominem as the basis for your argument, for which I will avoid as it is largely irrelevant. The very notion that a persons presence in the industry equates to success is ridiculous. People tried and failed in 1930. 1940. 1980. 1990. 2010... and every year in between.

right...

piracy is not about technological displacement, it's about theft, aided by technology

the recorded music industry is not loosing jobs to better competition... better product, lower prices, etc. we've always had that.

in that example we'd be loosing sales to these guys, and we're not:
http://www.soundclick.com

soundclick represent "open source music" freely given away by people who "develop" it in the own time for their own motives... but that's not what people want.

we're not loosing revenue to people who are making a better competing product available and cheaper than we can make ourselves, we're loosing revenue to people who are making OUR product available cheaper (free actually) than we can - for obvious reasons.

we're also not up in arms about technological displacement. that's what happen to hollywood after WWII when television was introduced. it was a game changer, it displaced a lot of people. same as with films going from silent to talkie.

in each of those cases, a new legitimate model emerged, and there was a true opportunity to adapt to the new model, which worked for others and had proven to be profitable although different.

this is also true of detroit. japanese car makers made smaller, more fuel efficient cars that were also more economical and affordable. detroit made big gas guzzlers that suffered from needing frequent repairs. but detroit could have made cars to compete the japanese. the japanese were not making cadillacs and selling them back to us at half price.

one thing television could not do was air movies, or adapt radio shows to television without negotiating and compensating the copyright holders. the displacement of television drove down the demand for films and the studios suffered. but people could go to television and be writers, directors, musicians, production assistants in that new medium.

with internet piracy, it as if television would have been able to take and broadcast any content that had previously existed without having to compensate those people or pay to create and employ any content creators of their own.

that would be a great model, other people, over several decades, have invested in and built libraries of content that television could have broadcast with no investment cost, while monetizing that content against advertising revenue and corporate sponsorships....

that's what's happening now.

what we have now is a technological disruption, which is fine and actually exciting!.

but more so, we have the wholesale theft of content for the sole benefit of third parties who have made no investment, and make no purchase.

there is no way to adapt, because the disruption is theft and not technological.

the technology only allows for the exploitation and theft, in the same way television as an emerging technology made it possible to "pirate" movies and broadcast them.

but that didn't happen.

laws, and consequences for breaking the laws prevented television from raping the film studio vaults for free content.

no one has the "right" to steal or infringe upon someone else's creative work or labor. I tire of all the rationalizations when in the end, if people couldn't do it without consequence, the majority wouldn't... and really, it's just that simple.

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Well, apparently you haven't been reading my posts in other threads because that is EXACTLY my position. It's only when arguing with juvenile A-holes that I get pushed into this sort of thing - guys that just won't listen and post reams of nonsense. It's not me who's on the crusade - it's them. But when attacked, I defend in kind.

Well, I hope you don't think I was attacking you. And, I have not been following these threads, this is only the second one I've been involved in, and not for a while.

I wasn't being juvenile, just trying to make the point that I don't think musicians are going to stop making music because of all this, and I'd like to see that part of the argument disappear. Just as you and I both would like to see many parts of the opposition's arguments disappear.

Just points that aren't helping should be avoided, by both sides.
I'm a pragmatist, and I fully understand that probably won't happen though, LOL.

[soundrick]

Originally Posted by Toro

u only saying dis^ caus3 you don't buy music a my rite? looking 4 some lam3 excuse? soon to TEN ****ING years of this bullshit !! uncle sam is going to take over, and when he does, WE ALL ****!!

Man, I had a really hard time reading this. And English is my first language. I can't imagine what some of the "non-English-first language" folks make of posts like this.......holy cow. LOL

[soundrick]

BTW,

I've been sifting through some of these threads.......

Can you guys point me to what the "pirates" have to say? I can't really find anything that isn't a bunch of semantics BS.
I'd really like to hear a solid argument FOR piracy. I can't find anything worth arguing over.

What do the actual thieves have to say? Or are they not getting involved?

I can't look through this crap anymore, someone post a link to a post......

thanks

[Id Ridden]

You know music is $.99....

$.99!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious....we as a race make the most prominent consumer stand in maybe ever, and we choose to steal something worth $.99....that's it.

This super duper race of advanced beings and this is what we choose...sweet! Couldn't be Ferrari's or something, no, we go after $.99 music made by already destitute artists and musicians...wow!! Watch out Aliens, there's no f'n with us!!!!



EDIT: Sorry, it's now going for $1.29...my previous statement is moot with that new-found tidbit...

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by soundrick

Well, I hope you don't think I was attacking you. And, I have not been following these threads, this is only the second one I've been involved in, and not for a while.

I wasn't being juvenile, just trying to make the point that I don't think musicians are going to stop making music because of all this, and I'd like to see that part of the argument disappear. Just as you and I both would like to see many parts of the opposition's arguments disappear.

Just points that aren't helping should be avoided, by both sides.
I'm a pragmatist, and I fully understand that probably won't happen though, LOL.

I did not intend to imply that you are either juvenile or an A-hole. If it seemed that way I apologize.

[EPrecording]

Originally Posted by blue nine

right...

piracy is not about technological displacement, it's about theft, aided by technology

the recorded music industry is not loosing jobs to better competition... better product, lower prices, etc. we've always had that.

in that example we'd be loosing sales to these guys, and we're not:
http://www.soundclick.com

soundclick represent "open source music" freely given away by people who "develop" it in the own time for their own motives... but that's not what people want.

we're not loosing revenue to people who are making a better competing product available and cheaper than we can make ourselves, we're loosing revenue to people who are making OUR product available cheaper (free actually) than we can - for obvious reasons.

we're also not up in arms about technological displacement. that's what happen to hollywood after WWII when television was introduced. it was a game changer, it displaced a lot of people. same as with films going from silent to talkie.

in each of those cases, a new legitimate model emerged, and there was a true opportunity to adapt to the new model, which worked for others and had proven to be profitable although different.

this is also true of detroit. japanese car makers made smaller, more fuel efficient cars that were also more economical and affordable. detroit made big gas guzzlers that suffered from needing frequent repairs. but detroit could have made cars to compete the japanese. the japanese were not making cadillacs and selling them back to us at half price.

one thing television could not do was air movies, or adapt radio shows to television without negotiating and compensating the copyright holders. the displacement of television drove down the demand for films and the studios suffered. but people could go to television and be writers, directors, musicians, production assistants in that new medium.

with internet piracy, it as if television would have been able to take and broadcast any content that had previously existed without having to compensate those people or pay to create and employ any content creators of their own.

that would be a great model, other people, over several decades, have invested in and built libraries of content that television could have broadcast with no investment cost, while monetizing that content against advertising revenue and corporate sponsorships....

that's what's happening now.

what we have now is a technological disruption, which is fine and actually exciting!.

but more so, we have the wholesale theft of content for the sole benefit of third parties who have made no investment, and make no purchase.

there is no way to adapt, because the disruption is theft and not technological.

the technology only allows for the exploitation and theft, in the same way television as an emerging technology made it possible to "pirate" movies and broadcast them.

but that didn't happen.

laws, and consequences for breaking the laws prevented television from raping the film studio vaults for free content.

no one has the "right" to steal or infringe upon someone else's creative work or labor. I tire of all the rationalizations when in the end, if people couldn't do it without consequence, the majority wouldn't... and really, it's just that simple.

Interesting post. I particularly agree that it is interesting times.

But how have you come to all these conclusions? Just to make it clear, I am not trying to rationalize theft in any degree. It is wrong and I want to make that clear. What I object to, are those against piracy who have rationalized the effect of piracy in monetary amounts when the grounds to do so do not exist. I suspect they are in for a surprise when piracy is enforced, yet the bank balances barely change.

Back to the question, how have you come to all these conclusions? Mainly regarding the internet and the music industry? I have considerable trouble rationalizing something like the internet. We haven't just experienced change in piracy. The internet has literally revolutionized the world including retail markets and distribution tactics.

For example, today I stumbled on a link in John Scrip's signature here on this forum for his Massive Mastering business. Looks nice! I've never used it, but nice samples, good prices... much cheaper than my local mastering engineers. If I use him though, my local guys loses work.

My point? If that local mastering engineer is you, than you lose a sale. Yet the industry hasn't lost a sale. It did lose some money, as I paid less for mastering though. Competition still runs rampant within the music industry, and the effect that the internet has had on it is absolutely mind-boggling. It has literally made the industry smaller, in a geographical sense. There is every chance that you as an individual are losing a sale to someone else. Someone else whose music is considered better. Higher quality. More appealing based on the consumer themselves. Will this be outlined in industry figures? No, because it is still money in the industry. As far as I am aware, prices, distribution, etc have all changed as well since the occurrence of internet music retail. Marketing has changed, particularly on an individual level. This isn't just restricted to the music industry either. It has changed the face of this Earth and the functions and habits of the majority of people on this planet. I certainly wouldn't say the technology only allows for exploitation and theft.

Is piracy bad? Yes. Has the internet effected piracy? Yes, of course. As did the tape recorder. Cassette recorder, CD burner... But anyone claiming to know the true effects of the internet on music and piracy is a fool. Over the last 20 years, things have changed on such a large scale (ie. The internet), and at such a pace that it is impossible to differentiate the effects of each discrete change.

Just some food for thought. Is the music industry profitable? A decline in profit doesn't mean an industry is making a loss. It is merely an indication of a slowing of momentum; The industry is still running forward, just 12% slower than 2008 (in the US). According to this, it is actually running faster in 13 markets. So who exactly in these 13 markets is losing revenue?

Piracy problems? Music industry grew in 13 markets in 2009


How fast would the industry be running without piracy? Given all the statements about how piracy has destroyed businesses. Destroys artist development and is killing the industry it should be a relatively easy question to answer.

But of course it isn't... and the reason is simple really. The opposite of stealing isn't buying. You either steal it or you don't... It is as simple as that. Assuming it is a lost sale, is just that... assumption and nothing more. The rate of piracy and the rate of sales are totally exclusive from each other... yet they can be totally inclusive as well. On a platform as massive as the internet it is left to total and utter speculation, which a lot of people on this forum have a hard time swallowing.

Naturally so... but it is still just speculation, despite how many attempt to represent it as fact.


It seems so obvious in hindsight, doesn't it. The early notions that the internet would be a place for the free transfer and access of information en masse.

[joelpatterson]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

... simple as that. ...

I like this terrifying clarity! Even though I have no business liking it nor the right to say so.

[mhs2xs]

Originally Posted by Toro

u only saying dis^ caus3 you don't buy music a my rite? looking 4 some lam3 excuse? soon to TEN ****ING years of this bullshit !! uncle sam is going to take over, and when he does, WE ALL ****!!

LMFAO...Awesome...

[mhs2xs]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

I like this terrifying clarity! Even though I have no business liking it nor the right to say so.

Joel, you're killing me over here...Too funny

[EPrecording]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

I like this terrifying clarity! Even though I have no business liking it nor the right to say so.

MAINTAIN!!!

[joelpatterson]

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Unfortunately I was there.
Certainly by the mid-80's computer manipulation (Fairlight and Synclavier) was normal and routine.
Manufactured pop has been around at least since The Monkees, The Partridge Family and The Archies, most likely before. Some of the most popular music in pop history.

No one is denying that is was done in earlier era's. The difference is the consumer knows about it now. Just the other night two teenagers sitting behind me at a Rush concert were talking about how they were into the older bands because they can actually play. These kids weren't even born when Rush /zepp / floyd etc were at their peak and they paid big bucks for those seats. That says something that apparently the industry can't or doesn't want to hear over the din of their piracy war cries.

Chris I know who you are and respect what you've done in this business. In my opinion however the industry really has no clue whats going on with their target markets and frankly ignore other demographics completely. They continue to do the same thing hoping for different results and pretending the only issue they have is piracy. That kind leadership is not going to fix anything in this industry.

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

I was there too. Where were you?

I started gigging in the 80's and did my first sessions in the late 80s. So yeah, I was there and have pretty good knowledge of all of the studio tools etc prior to that time as well. The difference is I have the perspective of not being entrenched in the industry's "ivory tower" where the same ideas keep getting reinforced with no opportunity for another opinion to be heard. The music industry is not unique in this regard. It happens in every industry and the ones who don't recognize it and adapt typically fail. See the banking industry if you want evidence. They managed to convince themselves that what they were doing was a good thing and would succeed. In reality, not so much.

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

That's utter crap and you know it. I'm referring to the inescapable reality that has ruined the business I've spent my life in and destroyed the incomes of many people I know personally - or forced them into other lines of work. All of which are delivery media (except for cameras) that deliver entertainment that was widely available back then. And cameras have existed for over 150 years - but digital photography is MUCH cheaper than the old chemical kind. Back then there was other competition for the entertainment dollar that's pretty much gone now - like drive-ins and bowling.....

You really need to get out more if you really believe that the amount of competition for the consumers money hasn't increased several fold over the last 30 years. Thats not even debatable.

[mhs2xs]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

No one is denying that is was done in earlier era's. The difference is the consumer knows about it now. Just the other night two teenagers sitting behind me at a Rush concert were talking about how they were into the older bands because they can actually play. These kids weren't even born when Rush /zepp / floyd etc were at their peak and they paid big bucks for those seats. That says something that apparently the industry can't or doesn't want to hear over the din of their piracy war cries.

Chris I know who you are and respect what you've done in this business. In my opinion however the industry really has no clue whats going on with their target markets and frankly ignore other demographics completely. They continue to do the same thing hoping for different results and pretending the only issue they have is piracy. That kind leadership is not going to fix anything in this industry.

I agree that piracy is not the sole reason for the woes of the industry, at least in my case as a consumer. As I've said in earlier posts, when the big boys started serving up hamburger laced with feces and calling it steak is where they lost me. I'm not a pirate mind you, but I pretty much ceased buying music in any form for many years because I was tired of spending money on trash, and it was coming from the biggest record companies and some of my favorite bands.

One of the biggest problems I see is, we have a generation (or two now) of people with the mentality that they deserve anything and everything just because they exist. Having a job to earn the money to pay for something is the last thing on their mind. They give no thought to how other people make a living because the whole concept of working and being a productive member of society is foreign to them. As long as these types exist, there will be piracy, shoplifting, identity theft etc..Obviously there was always scumbags around in the past, but now they have their own "industry"...A union w/ health and dental benefits will follow shortly I'm sure.

Cheers!
Mitchell

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Interesting post. I particularly agree that it is interesting times.

thanks

Originally Posted by EPrecording

My point? If that local mastering engineer is you, than you lose a sale. Yet the industry hasn't lost a sale. It did lose some money, as I paid less for mastering though. Competition still runs rampant within the music industry, and the effect that the internet has had on it is absolutely mind-boggling.

in your example above, someone is still getting paid, in the pirate version, no one who created the work is being compensated, IE both mastering engineers, don't get paid.

the point you are missing is there is no competing with illegally free without consequence, and as easy to access as a google search.

here ya go - read/watch and report back:

Profits from Pirates | Dirty $$$… Who Profits From Piracy?

YouTube - Pirates, Google and DMCA...

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Just some food for thought. Is the music industry profitable? A decline in profit doesn't mean an industry is making a loss. It is merely an indication of a slowing of momentum;

pretty soon slowing to a halt... YTY YTD #'s are down another 12% first six mos of 2010 vs first six mos 2009...

Can I ask what you actually do in the industry? Do you have a band? Do management? Work at a studio or label?

guess what started happening en mass in 1999...

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010



the promise of the internet is size and scale

this is what the proponents of micro economics and internet flat tax surcharges promote and it should have worked for recorded music.

alot of people have pointed to the transition from albums to individual songs as being the cause of reduced revenue for the record industry

I understand where on the surface one could make this argument, however... it should follow the argument made by the pricing proponents

in 1999 in the USA there were probably 10 thousand retail points of sale for physical music, tower, sam goody, target, walmart, etc.

at the time they were selling $20 dollar physical discs - much of the overhead due to physical packaging, manufacturing, shipping and stocking fees.

these physical retail locations had all the problems of supply side inventory management - a band would be on tour, and no stock would be in that market, a song would be played on the radio and the album would quickly be out of stock, etc. a tv show or commercial features a song and suddenly there is demand, but no availability.

these supply side inventory issues combined with limited points of sale were a massive problem for the record industry. digital distribution has none of these problem.

today someone can walk from their living room to their computer (or it may be on their lap) to order the latest hot song, featured in Gossip Girl.

so today in 2010 there are an estimated 500 million* retail points of sale for prerecorded music via itunes alone.
*500 Million_Active_Itunes_Users

just stop and think about this for a second... we went from 10 thousand points of sale to 500 Million points of sale in less than a decade and removed all of the supply side inventory issues... wow.

the promise, size and scale of the internet should have seen sales of pre-recorded music increase, massively...

there is frequent argument made that if music cost less, it would sell more... well, we now have 99 cent songs and 9.99 albums and sales have dropped by half in a decade...

so the industry removed inventory problems, made music instantly available, allowed for songs to be sold individually at a price never before possible and dropped the price of the album by half of the retail list price of a decade ago...

but we didn't and haven't seen sales increase (or even flatline) because at the same time, the same product and service is offered for illegally, for free, and without consequence.

this also illustrates these issues:

Originally Posted by bilbobaggins

In the past 10 years we've had

more computers
more internet access
more iPods (some 225,000,000 of them!)
more phones with memory
more single downloads
more bands with better visibility than ever before
more people going to more gigs
an economic boom
cheap credit
more disposable income than ever before
The world's economy doubled in size from U.S. $30.21 to U.S. $60.59 trillion

Yet revenues are 50% of what they used to be.

As a footnote, the indigenous music of South America, France, Ireland and Spain (those 'niche' markets that you think are not being affected) are being hit the hardest by piracy. Piracy damaging music sales acutely? | Fast Media Magazine.
I for one will feel sad when all those genres will be ousted in lieu of vodaphone-friendly-feel-good-advertising-fodder.

Bilbo

others would like to make the point that 99 cent songs and 9.99 albums are the cause of reduced revenue - the reasoning being, Lower Prices = Lower Revenue, but this isn't true either...

actually the margin on a 9.99 album download is about the same as a 19.99 CD... due to there being reduced, or removed manufacturing, shipping and distribution fees as well as there being no returns reserves (30% in and of itself on average).

what we're actually seeing is not a drop in revenue from reduced pricing, but more so the decline in overall album unit sales even when factoring album equivalent song downloads.

so in reality it is an overall decline in album unit sales (and again this factoring in album equivalent song downloads).

so these assumptions appear to be incorrect.

even when talking about "singles sales" physical singles contained 2-4 songs depending on format (vinyl, cd, cs) and retailed for about $2 - $4, which like other physical mediums much of that price went off the top to manufacturing, shipping and distribution fees as well as there being no returns reserves (30% in and of itself on average).

So ultimately there is more per unit margin on digital songs, than there ever was on physical "Singles"

2009 Sales Wrap: Transactions Up As Digital Growth Slows

Looking at albums, including track equivalent albums - where 10 track downloads equal one album - last year albums w/TEA totaled 489.8 million units, down 8.5% from the previous year's total of 535.4 million units. That the same percentage decline recorded in 2008 over 2007's total of 585 million album units w/TEA.

although this decline in over all units is certainly represented in lost revenue... less units, less revenue... simple... and it's been going on that way for about a decade...

[mhs2xs]

Originally Posted by blue nine

pretty soon slowing to a halt... YTY YTD #'s are down another 12% first six mos of 2010 vs first six mos 2009...

Can I ask what you actually do in the industry? Do you have a band? Do management? Work at a studio or label?

guess what started happening en mass in 1999...

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010



the promise of the internet is size and scale

this is what the proponents of micro economics and internet flat tax surcharges promote and it should have worked for recorded music.

alot of people have pointed to the transition from albums to individual songs as being the cause of reduced revenue for the record industry

I understand where on the surface one could make this argument, however... it should follow the argument made by the pricing proponents

in 1999 in the USA there were probably 10 thousand retail points of sale for physical music, tower, sam goody, target, walmart, etc.

at the time they were selling $20 dollar physical discs - much of the overhead due to physical packaging, manufacturing, shipping and stocking fees.

these physical retail locations had all the problems of supply side inventory management - a band would be on tour, and no stock would be in that market, a song would be played on the radio and the album would quickly be out of stock, etc. a tv show or commercial features a song and suddenly there is demand, but no availability.

these supply side inventory issues combined with limited points of sale were a massive problem for the record industry. digital distribution has none of these problem.

today someone can walk from their living room to their computer (or it may be on their lap) to order the latest hot song, featured in Gossip Girl.

so today in 2010 there are an estimated 500 million* retail points of sale for prerecorded music via itunes alone.
*500 Million_Active_Itunes_Users

just stop and think about this for a second... we went from 10 thousand points of sale to 500 Million points of sale in less than a decade and removed all of the supply side inventory issues... wow.

the promise, size and scale of the internet should have seen sales of pre-recorded music increase, massively...

there is frequent argument made that if music cost less, it would sell more... well, we now have 99 cent songs and 9.99 albums and sales have dropped by half in a decade...

so the industry removed inventory problems, made music instantly available, allowed for songs to be sold individually at a price never before possible and dropped the price of the album by half of the retail list price of a decade ago...

but we didn't and haven't seen sales increase (or even flatline) because at the same time, the same product and service is offered for illegally, for free, and without consequence.

this also illustrates these issues:



others would like to make the point that 99 cent songs and 9.99 albums are the cause of reduced revenue - the reasoning being, Lower Prices = Lower Revenue, but this isn't true either...

actually the margin on a 9.99 album download is about the same as a 19.99 CD... due to there being reduced, or removed manufacturing, shipping and distribution fees as well as there being no returns reserves (30% in and of itself on average).

what we're actually seeing is not a drop in revenue from reduced pricing, but more so the decline in overall album unit sales even when factoring album equivalent song downloads.

so in reality it is an overall decline in album unit sales (and again this factoring in album equivalent song downloads).

so these assumptions appear to be incorrect.

even when talking about "singles sales" physical singles contained 2-4 songs depending on format (vinyl, cd, cs) and retailed for about $2 - $4, which like other physical mediums much of that price went off the top to manufacturing, shipping and distribution fees as well as there being no returns reserves (30% in and of itself on average).

So ultimately there is more per unit margin on digital songs, than there ever was on physical "Singles"

2009 Sales Wrap: Transactions Up As Digital Growth Slows

although this decline in over all units is certainly represented in lost revenue... less units, less revenue... simple... and it's been going on that way for about a decade...

Some think "a profit" is enough to stay in business, but in today's climate (especially with the HUGE tax hikes that are about to hit, yeah, get those "rich" record label owners) but when a business is bleeding due to loss of sales from theft, as EFF illustrated here, and then has the additional tax burden, it's not going to be long before that business is no more.

EFF, did you major or minor in econ or something? Or is this just a hobby based in self preservation?

Cheers!
Mitchell

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

But how have you come to all these conclusions? Just to make it clear, I am not trying to rationalize theft in any degree. It is wrong and I want to make that clear. What I object to, are those against piracy who have rationalized the effect of piracy in monetary amounts when the grounds to do so do not exist. I suspect they are in for a surprise when piracy is enforced, yet the bank balances barely change.

This is utter bull.; The monetary effects are painfully clear throughout the industry. To say otherwise merely abets the rationalizations of the pirates. The only other factor that has has such an extreme negative effect is the demise of local live music venues due to the invasion of DJs over the last 30 years. Thankfully that appears to be abating a bit, although it's still pretty bad.