The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Woman in download case has lost her retrial, even bigger
Old 21st June 2009
  #211
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
Since the beginning of these discussions people talk about "old business model" yet I haven't seen a proposition for a "new business model" exept the collectivist global license (that has been discussed at length) .
I already talked a lot about perceived value of music in the eye of the consumer and the outragous prices for music asked.

I already gave you the story about Marillion and their exceptional way of selling their music. I already talked about generating more value like special editions, creative and interesting packaging instead of the boring generic cd jewelcase with a standard printed booklet.

Im not sure how many times I said the word REMARKABLE but that's a keyword in any good businessmodel.

I'm sure that there is enough information about making a good working businessmodel and I'm sure that I atleast spread some of that information in this topic.

That said, even if there are 213289 new working businessmodels. The industry still maintains the status quo and is not listening. They had chance and opportunity but instead of challenging the status quo, they defend and maintain it. Their loss…
Old 21st June 2009
  #212
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy-taxi View Post
That said, even if there are 213289 new working businessmodels. The industry still maintains the status quo and is not listening. They had chance and opportunity but instead of challenging the status quo, they defend and maintain it. Their loss…
Not true. Most ad-supported models have yet to turn a penny of profit. Every subscription model so far has failed miserably. DRM-free formats have been adopted.

The only model that has not been tried is having ISP's levy a tax on their users for unrestricted content, which Universal will begin experimenting with at the end of the year. It's not any easy system to implement and has its share of likely problems.

The only three really stupid things I think the RIAA did are lawsuits against citizens, DRM, and being so slow to offer online sales. I think they are mostly doing their best going forward.
Old 21st June 2009
  #213
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
let me post it again:

Seth's Blog: Music lessons

please take some time and read the article. It's lengthy but well worth it…
Old 21st June 2009
  #214
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
Not true. Most ad-supported models have yet to turn a penny of profit. Every subscription model so far has failed miserably. DRM-free formats have been adopted.

The only model that has not been tried is having ISP's levy a tax on their users for unrestricted content, which Universal will begin experimenting with at the end of the year. It's not any easy system to implement and has its share of likely problems.

The only three really stupid things I think the RIAA did are lawsuits against citizens, DRM, and being so slow to offer online sales. I think they are mostly doing their best going forward.
The problem with a model like tax for content is that you will also let people pay a tax that don't want the content. That's not really fair is it?
If there was going to be such a tax, then that would also mean that all stores could be closed as people pay the tax, thus they can get anything they want.
Why pay in store again for something you already paid a tax for?
Old 21st June 2009
  #215
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy-taxi View Post
let me post it again:

Seth's Blog: Music lessons

please take some time and read the article. It's lengthy but well worth it…
That's largely valid. But the pirate dogma it's based on that piracy will be the norm going forward is unproven at best and pure fallacy at worst.

10 years of 'Wild West' on the Internet does not imply that the Internet cannot or will not be regulated in the future.

If, for example, music and movie downloads become an easily added surcharge to monthly ISP bills (like with cable TV) and piracy becomes harder and harder to participate in, there is no reason to believe piracy won't be minimized.
Old 21st June 2009
  #216
Gear Maniac
 
ThetaAlpha970's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
That's largely valid. But the pirate dogma it's based on that piracy will be the norm going forward is unproven at best and pure fallacy at worst.

10 years of 'Wild West' on the Internet does not imply that the Internet cannot or will not be regulated in the future.

If, for example, music and movie downloads become an easily added surcharge to monthly ISP bills (like with cable TV) and piracy becomes harder and harder to participate in, there is no reason to believe piracy won't be minimized.
Filesharing will continue to thrive and spread, alongside however musicians choose to digitally distribute their content. Piracy is free advertising at best and a potential lost sale at worst. If it remains unproven that it will continue to move forward (and I agree with this, though under the premise that one day people will wake up to the fact that piracy isn't stealing), how will regulation succeed in stopping piracy without stopping filesharing?
Old 21st June 2009
  #217
Lives for gear
 
Geert van den Berg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy-taxi View Post
The problem with a model like tax for content is that you will also let people pay a tax that don't want the content. That's not really fair is it?
If there was going to be such a tax, then that would also mean that all stores could be closed as people pay the tax, thus they can get anything they want.
Why pay in store again for something you already paid a tax for?
Exactly the point I just made in the RIAA thread!

One of the side effect of taxes and fees and that crap is that the business gets even less transparent than it already is.
Old 21st June 2009
  #218
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970 View Post
Filesharing will continue to thrive and spread. how will regulation succeed in stopping piracy without stopping filesharing?
There exists only one major format for piracy and it relies on centralized servers - easy to shut down if law enforcement wants to.

Open P2P networks can be spammed and fake-file-spoofed to a standstill, as Limewire has been. Encryption does not change that.
Old 21st June 2009
  #219
Gear Maniac
 
ThetaAlpha970's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
There exists only one major format for piracy and it relies on centralized servers - easy to shut down if law enforcement wants to.

Open P2P networks can be spammed and fake-file-spoofed to a standstill, as Limewire has been. Encryption does not change that.
Filesharing by bit torrent collects little tiny pieces of the file from lots of people everywhere. None of this information exists on the servers themselves. That's been the problem, you shut the server down, another goes up...and the file is still out there anyways. Besides, how is this regulation?
Old 21st June 2009
  #220
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970 View Post
Filesharing by bit torrent collects little tiny pieces of the file from lots of people everywhere. None of this information exists on the servers themselves. Besides, how is this regulation?
Centralized tracker servers are incredibly easy targets if law enforcement chooses to make them so. They represent the bulk of pirate traffic online.

No new P2P format has arisen to change this in the near future. As I said, truly decentralized formats can be too easily corrupted by the lack of central moderation. And any time a central moderator/server exists, it can be shut down and its owner charged.

Most would not run a illegal tracker or p2p server if jail was a real penalty.
Old 21st June 2009
  #221
Gear Maniac
 
ThetaAlpha970's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
Centralized tracker servers are incredibly easy targets if law enforcement chooses to make them so. They represent the bulk of pirate traffic online.

No new P2P format has arisen to change this in the near future.
Help me out. I would say this is how most all filesharing is done. Where is the regulation in this?

Just saw your edit...many servers deny any responsibility for the content that is shared. Their regulation (or complete lack therof) is appropriate given the technology. WE can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Last edited by ThetaAlpha970; 21st June 2009 at 04:09 PM.. Reason: added repsonse
Old 21st June 2009
  #222
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970 View Post
Help me out. I would say this is how most all filesharing is done. Where is the regulation in this?
I don't understand what you're asking.

There is currently no regulation in most countries. Laws have not been updated to allow the prosecution of sites/servers that exist solely to promote and facilitate the violation of copyright.

As I said, that does not mean such laws are not being negotiated even now.
Old 21st June 2009
  #223
Gear Maniac
 
ThetaAlpha970's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
I don't understand what you're asking.

There is currently no regulation in most countries. Laws have not been updated to allow the prosecution of sites/servers that exist solely to promote and facilitate the violation of copyright.

As I said, that does not mean such laws are not being negotiated even now.
How does shutting servers down that allow content to be shared amount to regulation? Saying that there are some servers that exist solely to violate your copyright material implies a lot of responsibility. It's also difficult to prove given the fact that legal and illegal material is using the same technology (and servers) to share the content. It's the end users who know they are are responsible for uploading or downloading, whether or not they think piracy is wrong.

It is early in the morning for me...maybe I'm not posting as clearly as I should be....
Old 21st June 2009
  #224
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geert van den Berg View Post
Exactly the point I just made in the RIAA thread!

One of the side effect of taxes and fees and that crap is that the business gets even less transparent than it already is.
and thats the paradox. Because it is public property (and regulated by government, which is why we do the taxes) it should be more transparant. Its public money.

But still, I don't think it's a good idea at all. Because its based on general false assumptions. I know a lot of people who don't download at all. They have to pay too.

Besides, its a known fact that there are less sales but I wonder how it really affects the musicians themselves. Britney and the likes still get lots of funds from everything they do. Smaller bands like a Porcupine Tree for example are also getting funds from what they do (but, smaller but more reliable fanbase—read: less hype, more remarkable—so less income then Britney) and the smaller singer songwriters don't get any money at all (but well if they are that small, that seems plausible, if they are so small, they aren't up for download either are they?).
Old 21st June 2009
  #225
Lives for gear
 
santibanks's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volodia View Post
Apple doesn't make millions of profit from Itunes . they make profit from Ipods and Macs . They already said they don't make money out of Itunes . I don't know the situation of other countries but here digital revenues ( downloads,subscription,ringtones) is less than 15% of the total sales revenue ( recorded music) and it's going down . So regular stores still make 85% of the revenue .

The appstore is a protected platform although pirates want to break it now .
Still, even if apple doesn't make profits from the iTunes store, it prooves that there are enough people willing to pay for music if prices are lower…
Old 21st June 2009
  #226
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970 View Post
Saying that there are some servers that exist solely to violate your copyright material implies a lot of responsibility. It's also difficult to prove given the fact that legal and illegal material is using the same technology (and servers) to share the content. It's the end users who know they are are responsible for uploading or downloading, whether or not they think piracy is wrong.

It is early in the morning for me...maybe I'm not posting as clearly as I should be....
I understand what you're saying. It's basically the 'TPB is Google' defense. It is somewhat true. However, no law is absolute, and most are enforce based on the standard of what is reasonably expectable.

For example, it is reasonable to expect that if you were running a legitimate tracker, every now and then a pirate torrent would be submitted and go into circulation. It is not reasonable, on the other hand, that you would refuse legitimate takedown requests of that torrent by the rights holder after it is identified as theirs. And, it would certainly not be reasonable if analysis showed over 95% of your trackers were for clearly unauthorized material.

If you were truly attempting to run a legitimate tracker for legitimate torrents, you would have no cause for concern.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump