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

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Neenja

I'm the super producer you were an assistant to. Where is my damn coffee?

You teach at McGill University?

Pull the other one, it has got bells on.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Disagreeing with people here seems to do that.

Only when you chronically misstate the facts and won't listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Only when you chronically misstate the facts and won't listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.

You mean like people who's claim to superior knowledge is based on being a super assistant and being an understudy in an off Broadway ZZ Top musical?

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

So do these kids BUY older music or download it for free? Piracy is constant across all genres. It's nice knowing kids are developing taste, but it's still no excuse for piracy. And some new bands can play - I saw a young bluegrass band opening for Rev Horton Heat that just TORE IT UP!

They were talking about some autographed CD's they had (don't know who) so presumably they are buying. I doubt an artist would sign a burned copy. They certainly poinied up for the tickets and merch.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Neenja

Lyle Lovett: Albums Sold? 4.6 Million. Money Made From Album Sales? $0 | Techdirt

masnick and techdirt in general is a one sided, anti-copyright, anti-music industry propaganda machine - that being said I'll read this - but after reading his blog daily for a year, 90%+ of his posts are misinformed, heavily spun, or completely inaccurate.

believe what you will... it's on the internet...

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

They were talking about some autographed CD's they had (don't know who) so presumably they are buying. I doubt an artist would sign a burned copy. They certainly poinied up for the tickets and merch.

Well, that's good to hear!

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Neenja

I'm not mad at you pops, but I have a NDA and I'm not here in a professional capacity, you can just continue to insult me and make things up if you want. I will say this though. While you are on an internet forum complaining, I am actually making people money for their work, with the backing of the industry. How much money do you think complaining here is making for anyone and who's backing do you have for doing it?

Atlanta Music Technology Cluster | Academic VC

Indie Music Tech: Free All Music Set to Release

Free All Music

I hope whatever you are working on actually has a real business model beyond burn rate.

[EPrecording]

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...

Pretty soon slowing to a halt, says who?

If you want to use the figures you have supplied, a 50% reduction in revenue over a decade, then gauging the future on straight line depreciation shows the industry will be making $196,000 worth of sales in 2060. It won't even be in the red yet. If you want to escalate the "severity" of the situation, you could try the industry depreciating at a straight line rate of 75% per decade, where it would still be making $90,000 worth of sales in 2040.

Logical states that this won't happen anyway. While the total sum of sales in monetary amounts indicates a decreasing trend over the last decade, within these figures are groups like digital sales that have had a continual increase in sales. Currently the total you have shown merely indicates that the increase of sales of digital formats isn't enough to outweigh the decrease of physical sales. The only way you will see these sales "halting" is if everything is unanimously decreasing across the board, which is it very far from doing.

There isn't a single skerrick of data that supports your prophecy of "sales soon halting". In fact, the data you are using is just of a single national market within a global industry. As I have already pointed out, some markets in the music industry are experiencing mixed yearly outcomes where the straight line depreciation for a decade is much closer to 0%.

If you want to state that 30 years time is "soon slowing to a halt", by all means go ahead. But I'd wager a bet that most of use will be retired by then, and perhaps a large portion 6 foot under.

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...

I am a composer.

I have deleted the links out, but if anyone wants to find them can scoot back to Blue's post.

Well, guess what happened in 2006? In Australia? It sold more albums than ever, and it is a country with some of the most relaxed approaches to copyright infringement. At least as far as enforcing it goes. I can't seem to get past the idea that if it is such a generic cause like piracy, it would be affecting every market in the same way.

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).

So people keep saying, but there is a problem with using such a quote as a source. How is the profit margin being measured? A 20% profit margin is a 20% profit margin. You can apply it to a salt shaker or a jumbo jet and it is still the same 20% profit margin.

20% of $10 over 20% of $20 is a 50% less revenue... but the profit margin remains the same. According to the RIAA, the suggested price of CD's hasn't been $20 since 1983! (in 2007 values). It is closer to about $14. If your quote does indeed mean a concrete monetary figure, then Universal are proposing the most blatantly bold business move:

ttp://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/03/years-late-universal-cuts-cd-prices-to-combat-poor-sales.ars

Between $6 and $10 means they'll need to move 2 to 3 times great numbers of physical product to gain about the same amount of revenue. That is cheaper than a download album as well!

Where do the $1 download tracks rate against the 2, 3 or 4 song CD singles in terms of profit? I'd say it is incredibly shaky ground to suggest buying a single download song yields similar profits to a CD with 4 songs on it.

The "illustration" you have quoted are come across as pretty much unfounded blanket statements as well. An increase in household income doesn't happen equally among the population. For example, 33% of the USA's annual household income is earned by just 6% of the population. 49% of the USA's annual household income is earned by just 20% of the population. There is still 20% of the population earning a household wage of less than $20,000 per year. The majority of the USA's household income is jammed into a very small percentage.

Are music sales restricted by available income? Particularly in the 20% of the population that earn 50% of the USA's income... Food for example, you buy what you need. If you suddenly earn a higher wage, do you suddenly buy higher quantities? Food isn't necessarily the best example, but I'm not sure greater earnings suddenly induce a higher rate of consumption under any circumstances.

As I have already pointed out, some markets have experienced exactly these same occurrences mentioned in your quote, yet the industry figures are quite different. Take a look through here: Statistics A lot of it outlines that people are still buying music in larger quantities than ever. It is the significant shift in format that is altering the bottom line. It remains quite far from doom and gloom though. If every market was headed the way of the USA's, then I can understand such blanket statements as those you have quoted, but it isn't happening.

Perhaps a comparison of industry size against national population could be in order. 60+ years of heading skyward requires underlying support. If the industry itself greatly overshoots the means to support itself it is going to topple as well.

Do you know if anyone has done a study into the media/entertainment market in general? The music video isn't at all included in music sales figures as far as I have seen, yet with the emergence of ipods, portable devices, etc it is possible to purchase those videos. Not only that, a whole new market has emerged with apps, games, ring tones, etc and all that related jazz. Based on the uneducated hypothesis that a consumer has $X to spend, but now more avenues to spend it... yadda yadda... things could look interesting.


Give me some time to ponder on this some more, I have a bunch more to write but need to hit the road. Time for a beer. Take it easy Blue.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by blue nine

Atlanta Music Technology Cluster | Academic VC

Indie Music Tech: Free All Music Set to Release

Free All Music

I hope whatever you are working actually has a real business model beyond burn rate. As with all things, we are ghosts, right?

All 3 of those sites use a redirector that Google Chrome can't handle. Got direct links?

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Pretty soon slowing to a halt, says who?
If you want to use the figures you have supplied, a 50% reduction in revenue over a decade, then gauging the future on straight line depreciation shows the industry will be making $196,000 worth of sales in 2060. It won't even be in the red yet. If you want to escalate the "severity" of the situation, you could try the industry depreciating at a straight line rate of 75% per decade, where it would still be making $90,000 worth of sales in 2040.

Split between how many thousand artists with what level of expenses? Looks a lot like being in the red to me if not literally at least functionally.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

20% of $10 over 20% of $20 is a 50% less revenue... but the profit margin remains the same. According to the RIAA, the suggested price of CD's hasn't been $20 since 1983! (in 2007 values). It is closer to about $14. If your quote does indeed mean a concrete monetary figure, then Universal are proposing the most blatantly bold business move:

Come again? How do you figure that if cost of production remains the same? The only way top maintain profit matgain while reducing price is the cut production costs and that ain't goona happen if you're retaining quality. Net result in your scenario - quality goes down the tubes. It's already happening.

[John Eppstein]

(continued)

Years late, Universal cuts CD prices to combat poor sales
Between $6 and $10 means they'll need to move 2 to 3 times great numbers of physical product to gain about the same amount of revenue. That is cheaper than a download album as well!

You're failing to take into account the fact that in 1982 when the CD was introduced the dollar was worth around 7 times what it is today. So if a CD cost $20 then it should be around $140 now. The fact is that not only have CD prices not kept pace with inflation, they've actually decreased - if a new CD is $14 now (average price or a bit on the high side actually) that's the equivalent of $2 in the early '80s! So yes, the cost of a CD has decreased drastically. BTW most CDs I've bought recently that are not new releases have been under $10....

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Are music sales restricted by available income? Particularly in the 20% of the population that earn 50% of the USA's income... Food for example, you buy what you need. If you suddenly earn a higher wage, do you suddenly buy higher quantities? Food isn't necessarily the best example, but I'm not sure greater earnings suddenly induce a higher rate of consumption under any circumstances.

Unlike food, luxury/entertainment purchases tend to increase with income. With food it's quality, not quantity that increases. In both cases per capita expenditures go up - unless you're getting it for free. There's no evidence that rich people pirate less than poor people and some that suggests the reverse.

[Jake Gilla]

It costs as much to make music as it does to pirate it.

A Computer
Speakers
and the internet.

Ardour and a bunch of free plugs can get you a long way.

Shoot if you want to be a responsible musician and invest a few bucks in your trade you can get even better stuff.

People may be able to get your music for free, but you can make it for next to nothing anyways.


It's sad, it's really sad. But most people in the music industry are going to continue to lose jobs. Personally, I think anyone trying to get a career in music today is in for a big surprise. Get a good day job that offers you the flexibility to make your music, and enjoy making it.

There was music before it was sold, and there will be music after it stops selling.

[Jake Gilla]

WOW! There's a whole sub forum dedicated to piracy?

Just wow.

[rack gear]

@ EPrecording...

I release an album on tuesday and by wednesday its available for free via a google search. tell me how on earth I'm supposed to compete with illegally free without consequence, and as easy as a google search?

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

YouTube - Pirates, Google and DMCA...

as for the academics... this conversation has been had...

here:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5595721-post25.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5595724-post26.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5595727-post27.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5595795-post32.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5595823-post34.html

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5599858-post40.html

time for a refresher...



Some pirates rationalize theft and say they're not hurting anyone it's a victimless crime

Other pirates say they're "freedom fighters" punishing labels who get what they deserve

so which is it?

Victimless crime or punishment for (hypothetical) past wrongs?

It can't be victimless punishment can it?

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Jake Gilla

It costs as much to make music as it does to pirate it.

A Computer
Speakers
and the internet.

Ardour and a bunch of free plugs can get you a long way.

Shoot if you want to be a responsible musician and invest a few bucks in your trade you can get even better stuff.

People may be able to get your music for free, but you can make it for next to nothing anyways.


It's sad, it's really sad. But most people in the music industry are going to continue to lose jobs. Personally, I think anyone trying to get a career in music today is in for a big surprise. Get a good day job that offers you the flexibility to make your music, and enjoy making it.

There was music before it was sold, and there will be music after it stops selling.

they can make this for free (or near next to it):
SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.

but not this, which is a bit different...
Apple - iTunes - Browse the top album downloads

[rack gear]

Worse Than Worst Ever? Tommy Boy Starts Number-Crunching Again... - Digital Music News

The first Beatles album in America came out in 1964 at $4.98 list," Tommy Boy continued. "In today's dollars that would be $35 for a 28 minute, monophonic 8-song album."

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by Jake Gilla

It costs as much to make music as it does to pirate it.

A Computer
Speakers
and the internet.

Ardour and a bunch of free plugs can get you a long way.

Shoot if you want to be a responsible musician and invest a few bucks in your trade you can get even better stuff.

People may be able to get your music for free, but you can make it for next to nothing anyways.

No, not high quality, well recorded music you can't. I wish you could - it would have saved me an awful lot of money. But I tried it and you can't. But have fun, music is a good hobby. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're something you're not.

[elan]

Originally Posted by Greener

Yes and them some. In the spirit of this thread I invite you to wade into this forum for my previous encounters with watches on the street. Lest I waste me time repeating myself just for the sake of being polite.

Good, you are probably the only one, the rest of the people who find them just use them, even because it's nearly impossible to know who was the owner

And the reason why people don't feel responsible in using p2p it's because it isn't considered culture and there is no sensibility about culture, they just find something for free, so why pay for it?

If there were less Britney Spears, probably people would develop tastes more related to the cultural meaning of it so they will understand that's something important for their life, not something they just have to "use" in a party or in the car to impress friends

[elan]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

If you find a watch on the street you're supposed to try to return it to its owner.

And this is more like stealing watches off the rack at Walgreen's.

Well, first I've said if you find watches on the street, meaning if you live in a world where you find watches everywhere, I know it's probably a stupid example, but I wasn't referring to people who lose a watch, I meant if you find watches for free, do you still pay for them?

Btw you are supposed to return it, but it's merely impossible to return a watch, you can't know who is the owner and even the owner probably will do nothing to find it because I know it's got lost

And you could keep telling yourself you have to return it, but we live in a world where that doesn't happen, firstly because as I said is almost impossible to know who is the owner.

Back in p2p, for normal people, it's almost impossible to know to who they are stealing money, that's why they don't feel guilty

As I said, if MTV pictures artists, producers, labels, as people full of money, they don't realize there is another 97% of people for who it's hard to finish the month.

"We wanted a marketing oriented industry, we get what we deserve" totally uncaring attitude. If I ask to my dad about the sixties, seventies, they liked so much the music and artist of the period that they would feel guilty to stole their music even if there wasn't money

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by EPrecording

Pretty soon slowing to a halt, says who?

Give me some time to ponder on this some more, I have a bunch more to write but need to hit the road. Time for a beer. Take it easy Blue.

I wasn't speaking absolutely, but figuratively. An entire industry loosing over 50% of it's revenue in a decade is pretty dramatic... in the last decade there's been an 8.3 billion dollar decline, there are a thousand millions in a billion...

personally, I believe one way or the other this piracy stuff is going to get sorted out - I just don't see a world of "digitally free everything", do you?

the wild west wasn't wild forever either...

[elan]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

I would argue that most of it is art. It's just that the marketing based pablum is very high profile.

Young people have a very odd and historically inaccurate idea of what it was like back then.

Enlighten me... because with that kind of answer I can only answer you with something like "Old people live in a world where they know everything about everything and all the people around them are completely idiot, they never realize it's the opposite"

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by elan

"We wanted a marketing oriented industry, we get what we deserve" totally uncaring attitude. If I ask to my dad about the sixties, seventies, they liked so much the music and artist of the period that they would feel guilty to stole their music even if there wasn't money

and that devotion to artists and paying for music, allowed many great artists to be signed, developed and supported... quiet the opposite of what is happening now..

Piracy Destroys Artist Development

[elan]

Originally Posted by blue nine

and that devotion to artists and paying for music, allowed many great artists to be signed, developed and supported... quiet the opposite of what is happening now..

Piracy Destroys Artist Development

I totally agree with you, point is that were music, now it's background entertainment

3% of the music monopolize all the distribution channels, the advertisement, the radio network, tv etc, and this 3% is marketing based music, so not music to me and to Oscar Wilde (if he was still alive he would agree with me)

That 3% is the only music that exist for most people out there, they don't know the other 97% they don't even think it exist

The 97% is in big part people who try to copy the other 3% to be at their place in the future, another part of this is young people, artists, bands, who are victim of that "I need success at any cost" trend, people who would kill the mother to be famous, then there are unsuccessful artist because they don't make great songs and they deserve to remain anonymous, then there are real artists.. and these doesn't find any space to be known.

Well some real artist can find the way to become popular, but very few comes to my mind now and they are all in the near past, no one in the present (I mean which artist came out in 2010?)

That's why I insist it's a cultural thing, the industry in the sixties, seventies, was more spontaneous, less organized from a certain point of view, marketing wasn't the primary weapon, they had to actually go around and find some great artists, now they find a beautiful lady, better if it's a child (like avril) they take some producers, some writer, they teach her how sing and they hope enough people will drool over her, or envy her, so to sell enough copies for 2/3 albums.. then maybe she will become an actress or she will be forgotten

It's insulting see Spice Girls compared to Pink Floyd only because they have sold a lot of albums

[elan]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Only when you chronically misstate the facts and won't listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.

Again - WHAT DO YOU DO? DO YOU WORK TO SUPPORT YOURSELF? WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE MUSIC BUSINESS?

My guess - you're a student with a bedroom "studio" or maybe a DJ rig. You "produce" ITB using softsynths. You might play in a local band with friends. You're in school, either living in a dorm or with your parents. While you may have a part time job you parents provide most of your support. Most of your "knowledge" of the music business comes from reading.

It's very sad seeing people victim of their idiosyncrasies
People like you who hate young people like to get a rid of their responsibilities giving all the faults to young people.

Young people come to a world they don't know and the way they become is affected to the education and the environment created by adult people.

That said, people like you who see young people as enemies, are only making things worst.

Today young people are the one who could change the world, the same way you could have changed the world when you were young.

Don't blame others to what are your responsibilities.

You see young people as spoilt child, you don't even know how hard is to live in a world where everything is upside down, and if everything it's upside down isn't a young people responsibility because they weren't even born.

p.s. well a p2p related example is that young people born without even knowing you should buy a cd because everyone download and in many cases their parents teach them how to use emule.
p.p.s. playing the same game you play I could say young people are what they are because old farts are so prick to not teach them anything and in general because young people have no opportunities in this world because back in the days music industry was formed by young people, now that young people become old and they don't want to leave their chairs.. they still think they can know what young people want but that isn't true and they find the only certainties in the marketing)

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by elan

Good, you are probably the only one, the rest of the people who find them just use them, even because it's nearly impossible to know who was the owner

You're supposed to take out an ad in the LOST & FOUND of the local paper, or nowadays Craigslist.

If there were less Britney Spears, probably people would develop tastes more related to the cultural meaning of it so they will understand that's something important for their life, not something they just have to "use" in a party or in the car to impress friends

The only thing is that piracy to Britney Spears is like a mosquito bite. To a breaking or indie artist it's a knife in the heart.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by elan

Well, first I've said if you find watches on the street, meaning if you live in a world where you find watches everywhere, I know it's probably a stupid example, but I wasn't referring to people who lose a watch, I meant if you find watches for free, do you still pay for them?

Btw you are supposed to return it, but it's merely impossible to return a watch, you can't know who is the owner and even the owner probably will do nothing to find it because I know it's got lost

And you could keep telling yourself you have to return it, but we live in a world where that doesn't happen, firstly because as I said is almost impossible to know who is the owner.

Bullshyt - see the above post.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by elan

Back in p2p, for normal people, it's almost impossible to know to who they are stealing money, that's why they don't feel guilty

Bullshyt again - they KNOW who they're robbing. How can they not know. They're downloading their victim's music!

Please - enough of the self-serving excuses already!

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by elan

Enlighten me... because with that kind of answer I can only answer you with something like "Old people live in a world where they know everything about everything and all the people around them are completely idiot, they never realize it's the opposite"

Ah but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now"

-Bob Dylan

Understand this - I was you once. I ran with the Weather Underground (google it). I knew John Draper (google him) I was far more radical than you could ever hope to be. I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT! And I sympathize up to a point. But you're wrong. You're hurting innocent artists, and badly.