The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
1.2 billion illegal music downloads in 2010 a record Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 22nd December 2010
  #61
TRA
Lives for gear
 
TRA's Avatar
 

If I buy an album on vinyl and rip if for my iPod or download it from the internet...what's the difference? I'm getting a second copy that I didn't buy regardless of how I got it.

That said I've been buying a bunch of vinyl records lately, and I like that some come with a free digital download of that album. THAT should really be the "new" music format.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
I actually find Boyle to be very innovative from an "industry" standpoint. It the industry doing what the people want instead of what they want for once. She shows that if the industry will get out of their own way, people will buy music.
Hmm, you really couldn't find any one more industry manipulated or industry hyped than Boyle.
She's like The Monkees for the older, not really interested in music for music's sake customer.
The paw prints of Simon Cowell and his huge industry empire are all over Boyle.
The plain fact is the public couldn't care less about the likes of Boyle until Cowell and Oprah hyped up the 'product'.

I think what the public have always wanted is continued great songwriting and artists they can believe in.
Boyle fails miserably on factor one, and we're not sure yet about factor two. My guess is that by the time the next Britain's Got Talent or X factor USA comes along, the public will swiftly move on from Boyle.
That's very bad for her and bad for the true creative side of the industry.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRA View Post
If I buy an album on vinyl and rip if for my iPod or download it from the internet...what's the difference? I'm getting a second copy that I didn't buy regardless of how I got it.

That said I've been buying a bunch of vinyl records lately, and I like that some come with a free digital download of that album. THAT should really be the "new" music format.
That's one of the problems with these huge supposed download numbers. We have no way of filtering which ones actually cost sales.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #64
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
That's one of the problems with these huge supposed download numbers. We have no way of filtering which ones actually cost sales.
Ya, exactly...
Old 22nd December 2010
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Hmm, you really couldn't find any one more industry manipulated or industry hyped than Boyle.
She's like The Monkees for the older, not really interested in music for music's sake customer.
The paw prints of Simon Cowell and his huge industry empire are all over Boyle.
The plain fact is the public couldn't care less about the likes of Boyle until Cowell and Oprah hyped up the 'product'.

I think what the public have always wanted is continued great songwriting and artists they can believe in.
Boyle fails miserably on factor one, and we're not sure yet about factor two. My guess is that by the time the next Britain's Got Talent or X factor USA comes along, the public will swiftly move on from Boyle.
That's very bad for her and bad for the true creative side of the industry.

He couldn't have orchestrated that if his life depended on it. I too suspect Boyle will fade quickly, but she won't ever have to clean someone elses house to make a living. She got to live the dream well after anyone is allowed to and good for her.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
people seemed to have devalued content itself , but not the event of the content . they are still happy to go to concert , cinema (bigger the better) , theater , theme park ride . Even if they have seen the content before they are happy to pay for the big experience.
That's a load of bull.

The simple fact that people are stealing it PROVES that it's not devalued. People don't steal things they don't feel have value. That's the basic fact that all the"content is devalued - it should be cheaper" freetards always ignore.

PEOPLE DON'T STEAL THINGS THEY DON'T WANT.

If robbers break into a metals exchange and steal all the gold is it because they think the gold has no value? Does the theft make the gold worth less?

If people could steal the concert they'd do that too. There is, in fact, a problem with counterfeit tickets being sold to many large concerts. If the technology to make a convincing ticket was available to the average punter how many people do you think would buy tickets to shows? You'd probably see most shows going to a "pay at the door only" policy.

People steal BECAUSE THEY CAN, not because what they steal is worthless. People only claim that what they steal is worthless to make themselves look less guilty because down inside they know what they're doing is wrong and they don't want to admit it. People lie.

PEOPLE STEAL THINGS THEY VALUE, NOT THINGS THEY DON'T.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
It is not possible for digital sales to compensate for the difference in price between them and physical sales.

In most cases we are talking a $15 purchase in the 90s being replaced with a $1-$3 purchase in the naughties, but the article you posted shows strong gains in digital sales in the UK for 2010.

The CD ship has sailed and there is no getting back on board and there really is no reason to discuss them anymore than there is reason to discuss wagon wheels.
Well you and I agree that the CD ship has sailed, you won't find me saying anything to the contrary.

Where you and I have to agree to disagree is over the size and scale of the market potential for legal paid music sales when there is NOT 1.2 billion illegal downloads in the marketplace that are available without consequence.

One of the arguments that consumers have made is that if music cost less it would sell more - well, that appears to be true as it can't really cost less than free...

The promise of the internet is size and scale - 500 Million+ points of sale with instant access to the largest inventory ever available at 99 cents a song... and in the USA digital music sales look to have flattened this year.

I know you put forth that the $15 CD is being replaced by only $3 in song sales - but I'll put forth that the $15 spending power is still there, it's just been transitioned into non-easily illegally obtainable goods like smartphones (and data service plans), ipods, computers, harddrives, HD TVs, gaming consoles, etc - it's amazing how much money is still out there - what's also out there is the instantly available consequence free, illegally free product. A penny saved is a penny earned, so every dollar saved from downloading songs is easily applied to the purchase of the many products listed above.

Without the illegally free, consequence free supply of recorded music, I'd suspect industry revenue would easily double - which I believe is very conservative given the shear volume of illegal downloads currently happening.

Does anyone really, honestly believe that piracy is decreasing and legitimate sales are increasing (in total net revenue)?

We can go round and round, and I know how you feel, but I simply and respectfully disagree with you.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #68
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
You completely missed the point of the studies. That's all.
Look, if a "study" tells me that the sun orbits the earth I'm not going to give it much credence.

You can make a "study" prove pretty much anything you want it to.

When a "study" claims something that conflicts with not only my experience but also the experience of the majority of people I know who work in the field that the "study" purports to cover then it's pretty obvious to me that the "study" is worthless propaganda.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #69
Lives for gear
 
tvsky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
That's a load of bull.

The simple fact that people are stealing it PROVES that it's not devalued. People don't steal things they don't feel have value. That's the basic fact that all the"content is devalued - it should be cheaper" freetards always ignore.

PEOPLE DON'T STEAL THINGS THEY DON'T WANT.

If robbers break into a metals exchange and steal all the gold is it because they think the gold has no value? Does the theft make the gold worth less?

If people could steal the concert they'd do that too. There is, in fact, a problem with counterfeit tickets being sold to many large concerts. If the technology to make a convincing ticket was available to the average punter how many people do you think would buy tickets to shows? You'd probably see most shows going to a "pay at the door only" policy.

People steal BECAUSE THEY CAN, not because what they steal is worthless. People only claim that what they steal is worthless to make themselves look less guilty because down inside they know what they're doing is wrong and they don't want to admit it. People lie.

PEOPLE STEAL THINGS THEY VALUE, NOT THINGS THEY DON'T.
what part of "so please do not attack me." did you find difficult to understand ? I don't need your condescending replies or aggrevated CAPS ATTACKS in every post . this was meant for the crazy piracy forum people like you ,. normal people are trying to have normal discussion without the spite you inject into every post

what are you even talking about ? because people can click a web page and download a song in 30seconds that makes it of value to them ? you wasted a page of your attacks to say that ? I can click on webpage and do the same , doesn't mean I value it , or I value it anymore because it stealing and not free!
Old 22nd December 2010
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neenja View Post
He couldn't have orchestrated that if his life depended on it.
Wow, I find that the most incredibly naive comment.
You think Boyle would ever have surfaced without Cowell and blanket coverage fully orchestrated by him and in collusion with the media?
These reality tv shows are ratings gold, sell tv advertising and celebrity gossip magazines.
There is nothing more attractive to those media than an underdog conquering all, a compelling story that 'warms the heart'. It's been done before on Idol shows and those 'out of the norm' winners have all sunk as fast as a stone.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #71
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Look, if a "study" tells me that the sun orbits the earth I'm not going to give it much credence.
Facts sometimes go against our preconceived knowledge.. those things we think we intrinsically "know." Just ask copernicus.

You stated that piracy was 100% responsible for the downturn of the music industry. No offense, but that is completely laughable. If you said 90% you might even have an arguable point (even if there is no data to prove it). The truth is, there are other factors, including the economy, buying trends, music taste, music quality, other entertainment options outside of recorded music, etc that have impacted the industry PRIOR to piracy, and of course, still impact the industry afterwards. Combine that with the the internet (which, taken apart from piracy, had a HUGE impact on buying habits, taste, and availability of music, PLUS had a huge impact on where our entertainment buying dollars go), video games, etc, and really... I can't put it any more kindly... but you must be smoking crack.

You make things fun here, that's for sure, but... come on. REEEEALY?

You KNEW that Pomplamoose was making more money from their music then youtube.... until you KNEW otherwise when we looked at the numbers. Your "facts" are... not.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
Taken from the wired article which Bob posted.


"The labels are reticent to admit their relationship with BigChampagne for public relations reasons, but there's a legal rationale, too. The record industry's lawsuits against file-sharing companies hang on their assertion that the programs have no use other than to help infringe copyrights. If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance."

"We would definitely consider gleaning marketing wisdom from these networks a non-infringing use," says Fred von Lohmann, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the San Francisco-based cyber liberties group that's helping to defend Morpheus, Grokster, and Kazaa."

once these seemingly opposing parties have consolidated their interests and positions both parties will optimize for their own interests.
both may well end up allied with a model which doesn't entail artists being able to profit directly from their creativity and ingenuity.
any technology which locks down and carves up the internet will be designed to leverage both these parties interests at the expense
of the artists and creative. The game for them is to intercede in the channels of communications and distributions and stop monetization
appearing in the hands of the individual.

both parties here are in agreement that this BigChampagne technology is extremely useful for them to leverage other markets or strategies.
It would be interesting to know (how) it is that BigChampagne can get this data. at the very least it is being sold to them by the P2P hosts.
or it is some facet of the P2P programs themselves which allow anyone in the know to gain access to the data. or it's the ISPs etc.

anyhow this phrase is interesting.
" If the labels acknowledge a legitimate use for P2P programs, it would undercut their case as well as their zero-tolerance stance."

it seems to indicate that the labels are playing both sides. that they have some licensing agreements with numerous P2Ps
(which we've already covered previously)
or that is other advertising parts of their conglomerate interests which profit from the advertising impressions associated with either,
the legitimate free download (and or) the illegitimate ones on the (same) P2P network. The illegitimate downloads are the ones which,
aren't licensed by them for a free download. However, the result of legitimate licensed downloads on the same network may well have
exactly the same impact on the artist as the illegitimate ones. because other parts of the labels conglomerate interests still profit from
secondary add impression deals.

this is probably why Fred von Lohmann uses the phrase "marketing wisdom"
The labels are even prepared to re leverage worldwide metrics on P2P network activity which is gleaned off the back of many illegitimate downloads.
and of-course the legitimate ones which have been sanctioned by agreement of the labels themselves.


BigChampagne CEO Eric Garland:
Universal Music toasts BigChampagne | Digital Media - CNET News
"The Internet has inherited the music business," Garland said. "When you look at MySpace plays, Rhapsody, iTunes, Last.fm, all of that dwarfs traditional music purchasing. Instead of CDs, we paid attention to this sleepy little Internet thing, but it happened when no one was watching. Well, we were watching."

an interesting site.
The Music Void Michael Gudinski Interview Music Video on MUZU.TV. The Music Void Music Videos
But that's not a legitimate "use" for P2P programs. If you use satellites to do surveys of cattle rustling that doesn't mean there's a legitimate use for cattle rustling - it just means that you have a way to track the traffic in cows.

Same thing for music. Big Champagne is merely giving an accurate track of what's moving in the illegal channel. It doesn't legitimize the illegal traffic. I just allows the industry to see what's going on that would otherwise be hidden.

There's a legitimate use for Big Champagne. There is not a legitimate use for the illegal traffic that it tracks.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #73
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Ya, exactly...
Which is exactly why it's valuable to listen to those who are trying to sell (like musicians).
Crikey....
You just admitted the numbers can't be accurate, but you wont accept any evidence or involvement from the victims.
Why are you even in the debate?
You don't believe the accuracy of data such as it is, and you don't believe the victims of the crime.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #74
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
on an interesting note though big movie sales are also increasing

it seems that people are still very prepared to go an see a big budget 3d movie , even if they have downloaded a poor quality divx copy of it
No. You are mistaken.

Big movie sales are not increasing.

Gross receipts are increasing, due to the increase in ticket prices.

Ticket sales, on a per ticket basis, are not increasing.

There's a limit to how much you can milk out of an audience by increasing prices.

The touring industry hit that limit for live shows last summer.

The movie industry is next, and it's gonna get really bad when inexpensive 3D TV sets become available over the next year or two.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #75
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
But that's not a legitimate "use" for P2P programs. If you use satellites to do surveys of cattle rustling that doesn't mean there's a legitimate use for cattle rustling - it just means that you have a way to track the traffic in cows.

Same thing for music. Big Champagne is merely giving an accurate track of what's moving in the illegal channel. It doesn't legitimize the illegal traffic. I just allows the industry to see what's going on that would otherwise be hidden.

There's a legitimate use for Big Champagne. There is not a legitimate use for the illegal traffic that it tracks.
I think they are suggesting that BigChampagne shows that there (is) (a) legitimate use for P2P which the labels are gaining from. it would serve to go against any assertion that NO legitimate use of P2P, other than the sharing of illegal content is possible. hence weaken their case to some degree.

it might be interesting to see if this argument (for) a legitimate use is altogether avoided in any subsequent hearings. that would be revealing imo.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #76
Gear Guru
 
Muser's Avatar
Neenja, you made this statement a moment ago.

"From a customer standpoint this all pretty much based on convenience. If they can't easily find a torrent list or some download site in Russia they will buy the single they want."

....

Then in response to TRA 's statement:
If I buy an album on vinyl and rip if for my iPod or download it from the internet...what's the difference? I'm getting a second copy that I didn't buy regardless of how I got it.

you responded.
"That's one of the problems with these huge supposed download numbers. We have no way of filtering which ones actually cost sales."

.....

I think you are actually allowed to make a backup.

however in your first statement the implication is that (every) unavailable torrent is a lost sale (if) they don't already own one other version in some format or another.
e.g. mitigated by your second statement by way of fact that, they may be wishing to obtain a torrent in respect of backing up an original purchase.

If you want free content you are going to end up with an advertising model driving that free consumption.
you are also going to end up with (only) the players capable of taking the loss, surviving.

That would likely still be the big players you may be critical of, as they will be the only ones able to have the infra structure
and massive regulatory and licensing agreement compliances in order to function.

who is going to pay for an artists work in that kind of environment. ? The point is that (someone) is still going to be controlling the value of content and it's distribution. it's just that the value will be almost zero and the controlling party won't be you or I. neither will we be likely to make a living from it without being a slave to the advertising impression.

if people are ok with that, I'd rather they just say that. I most certainly am not ok with it for numerous reasons.
but all my reasons are made on the back of being in support of the artist and creative. my assertion is that any model which devalues or undermines the artist independence is unacceptable. This doesn't suggest any artist can't give their work away for free if they choose to btw. that is acceptable imo. but do you want to only be able to give it away for free on the back of some distribution and content model which necessarily entails an advertising impression ?

because looking at the current trajectory of the advertising, media and content industry, this will likely be the case whether you like it or not.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #77
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
what part of "so please do not attack me." did you find difficult to understand ? I don't need your condescending replies or aggrevated CAPS ATTACKS in every post . this was meant for the crazy piracy forum people like you ,. normal people are trying to have normal discussion without the spite you inject into every post

what are you even talking about ? because people can click a web page and download a song in 30seconds that makes it of value to them ? you wasted a page of your attacks to say that ? I can click on webpage and do the same , doesn't mean I value it , or I value it anymore because it stealing and not free!
Please take the chip off your shoulder and reread the post. The caps are for emphasis, nobody's attacking you. If you think my posts are condescending to you, perhaps you should have a look at yourself and why you're so defensive, because they are certainly not intended that way.

Have a beer, take a Valium, whatever.

Then think about what I said.

Normal people don't steal things they don't want.

It something isn't of value to them they'll simply ignore it.

There is a term for people who steal things they don't want. They're called KLEPTOMANIACS, and are regarded as mentally ill.

Are you seriously claiming that a large segment of the population is suffering from kleptomania? Because if this is true it's a mental health crisis of mammoth proportions.

I think it's far more likely that all these people are stealing music because they have the ability to grab something of value for free without much chance of getting caught. In other words, they think they're "getting over" on society, the music business, the chumps who actually pay for music, or any combination of those.

It's like a guy in a bar who sees the person in front of him drop a $20 bill. Does he hand it back to the person who dropped it or does he put it in his pocket and hope nobody noticed? Sadly, a lot of people would pocket the $20.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #78
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Which is exactly why it's valuable to listen to those who are trying to sell (like musicians).
Crikey....
You just admitted the numbers can't be accurate, but you wont accept any evidence or involvement from the victims.
Dude... we've been around the block too many times on this. Because I don't worship at your altar of knowledge, I'm not "listening"... let me put it this way, to an ant, when his anthill has been knocked down by a gust of wind, it's the world coming to an end. Yet.. to a bird, who is NOT an ant yet can see the entire BIG picture, it's just a gust of wind. Of course, the converse is also true... the people in the trenches also have a perspective that is valuable. I'm not denying your experience, I'm disagreeing with your conclusion, and I'm trying to see the big picture. I may be wrong, but I have a brain and I'm going to take everything I can learn and use my brain to make a conclusion. Sorry if it bothers you, dude.

Quote:
Why are you even in the debate?
Because... I want to be. Why aren't you doing anything about the problem, if you think it's so important and so huge? Why are you just standing on the sidelines?

Funny, I offered FOR FREE to put together a video PR campaign to help the cause. NOBODY has stepped up to do the legwork to identify people to be involved. NOBODY. I don't get it, I guess it's just easier to spend time here taking pot shots at those who DARE disagree with you and your industry experience.

Quote:
You don't believe the accuracy of data such as it is, and you don't believe the victims of the crime.
There it is... the facepalm. You throw it out EVERY TIME you make a post that is FAR off the mark. It's an indicator, actually. Thanks.

We all know the data that exists is imperfect. I guess in your world, you throw all that data out and use what you "know." Fine, we live in a different world.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
You stated that piracy was 100% responsible for the downturn of the music industry. No offense, but that is completely laughable. If you said 90% you might even have an arguable point (even if there is no data to prove it). The truth is, there are other factors, including the economy, buying trends, music taste, music quality, other entertainment options outside of recorded music, etc that have impacted the industry PRIOR to piracy, and of course, still impact the industry afterwards. Combine that with the the internet (which, taken apart from piracy, had a HUGE impact on buying habits, taste, and availability of music, PLUS had a huge impact on where our entertainment buying dollars go), video games, etc, and really... I can't put it any more kindly... but you must be smoking crack.
No.

You're simply wrong.

None of those "other factors" really has anything to do with it EXCEPT for this - some of those factors are a direct result of music piracy, specifically the decline in music quality and "buying trends". The term "buying trends" is actually pretty meaningless in this context because people won't buy something they can easily steal with fear of retribution. That's your "buying trend".

The economy is a non-issue, as historically the entertainment industries and music in particular have thrived during times of economic recession. During recessions people consume MORE music, not less.

Other entertainment options are likewise a non-issue. There have always been other entertainment options. Video games were around for years and made no impact on music sales. They still don't. It's like claiming that Major League Baseball has an impact on music sales. What there hasn't always been is an easy way to steal music without getting caught.

Music taste is another non-issue. We're not talking about the sales of any type of music being down, we're talking about ALL music.

The internet is a factor of course because it is an intrinsic part of the piracy problem. Without the internet piracy would be merely a minor annoyance instead of an industry destroying blight. But it's not a factor in and of itself, it's part of the problem of piracy.

The fact is that it's not me that's smoking crack, it's you who is making lame excuses for rampant theft.

Quote:
You KNEW that Pomplamoose was making more money from their music then youtube.... until you KNEW otherwise when we looked at the numbers.
Would you cool it with the Pomplamoose already? They're a fluke and not even close to the game changing commercial success you present them as.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Which is exactly why it's valuable to listen to those who are trying to sell (like musicians).
Crikey....
You just admitted the numbers can't be accurate, but you wont accept any evidence or involvement from the victims.
Why are you even in the debate?
You don't believe the accuracy of data such as it is, and you don't believe the victims of the crime.
He's in the debate because he's a piracy apologist who will stop at nothing to gain converts to his cause.

And because he doesn't know when to quit.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muser View Post
I think they are suggesting that BigChampagne shows that there (is) (a) legitimate use for P2P which the labels are gaining from. it would serve to go against any assertion that NO legitimate use of P2P, other than the sharing of illegal content is possible. hence weaken their case to some degree.

it might be interesting to see if this argument (for) a legitimate use is altogether avoided in any subsequent hearings. that would be revealing imo.
The entire question of the legitimacy of P2P is a red herring. There are obvious legitimates uses of P2P. My idea for a legal Bittorrent site is one of them.

This is a totally different matter than defending pirate sites that happen to be based on P2P technology. Does anybody argue that FTP lacks legitimacy because some pirate sites are based on FTP?

No.

The entire question is a red herring.

Which reminds me - it's about time for sushi.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #82
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
let me put it this way, to an ant, when his anthill has been knocked down by a gust of wind, it's the world coming to an end. Yet.. to a bird, who is NOT an ant yet can see the entire BIG picture
So the many thousands of well known musicians who are campaigning online are 'ants' and you (who has no facts, precious little experience and who relies almost solely on internet babble) aspires to be the 'bird' seeing the big picture.
Amazing. heh


Quote:
I'm disagreeing with your conclusion, and I'm trying to see the big picture.
Any real, actually believable conclusions forming? I'd like to read them, that's for sure. Not personal hunches or internet rumor mind you.


Quote:
Why aren't you doing anything about the problem, if you think it's so important and so huge? Why are you just standing on the sidelines?

Funny, I offered FOR FREE to put together a video PR campaign to help the cause. NOBODY has stepped up to do the legwork to identify people to be involved. NOBODY. I don't get it, I guess it's just easier to spend time here taking pot shots at those who DARE disagree with you and your industry experience.
While we're on the subject, I invited you to watch a video explaining quite eloquently the creative person's side of this debate. You never did, you basically couldn't be bothered, and instead spent the same amount of time taking potshots at creative people in this forum.
I have my own video camera by the way. I said then and I say again, no one cares about a 50 year old backing musician who once played on a couple of hits. I hate to break it to you but that's a reality. If anyone one wants me to contribute to their anti-piracy message, and i think what they are saying is appropriate and will reach the appropriate people, basically ordinary customers who are generally not that well informed on the industry itself, I'll happily donate my time.
What you are offering me is a rather pathetic smokescreen. You know no one cares what I say or think out there in pirate land. They care more about Thom Yorke, Jack White and Trent Reznor. So this little idea that you're going to help me sell my message to the pirates at large is just a joke isn't it? It's a silly tactic to diminish my point of view on this single tiny corner of the web. So shall we put it to one side once and for all?


Quote:
There it is... the facepalm. You throw it out EVERY TIME you make a post that is FAR off the mark. It's an indicator, actually. Thanks.
Perhaps watch out when you start typing 'dude' and 'bro', it's a similar marker.

Quote:
We all know the data that exists is imperfect. I guess in your world, you throw all that data out and use what you "know." Fine, we live in a different world.
Wow, that's actually funny. You're saying you live in a world where what you 'know' has little relevance?
In a debate, what people 'know' is as valuable as any data that's available.
In a debate where true data is hard to find, what you 'know' has even more relevance.
While we're at it.... what do you know about music business commerce, the effect of piracy, and making the day to day crust as a musician in a world with expanding illegal filesharing?
What do you actually know as concrete information to add to the debate???
Old 23rd December 2010
  #83
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
So the many thousands of well known musicians who are campaigning online are 'ants' and you (who has no facts, precious little experience and who relies almost solely on internet babble) aspires to be the 'bird' seeing the big picture.
Amazing. heh
I guess I have to draw you pictures. The "bird" is not me. I have beliefs, which I freely label as beliefs. I also point to data which is imperfect, that supports my beliefs. When that data shows otherwise, I learn. Often my beliefs are wrong. That's called learning.

Quote:
Any real, actually believable conclusions forming? I'd like to read them, that's for sure. Not personal hunches or internet rumor mind you.
Again... dood... do you really want to go over this again and again? I've said.. I suspect the 20% is probably close to correct. I don't "know" anything. The best data shows my "hunch" to be close to correct, though I originally suspected it was probably more like 1/3 of the downturn was attributed to piracy. So it's less than I thought... so far.

Quote:
While we're on the subject, I invited you to watch a video explaining quite eloquently the creative person's side of this debate
Yes. You're correct.

Quote:
I said then and I say again, no one cares about a 50 year old backing musician who once played on a couple of hits. I hate to break it to you but that's a reality.
There are lots of reasons to do nothing. I personally look for ways to do something rather than reasons to do nothing.

Quote:
What you are offering me is a rather pathetic smokescreen. You know no one cares what I say or think out there in pirate land.
Again, that's where we disagree. I think it's ONLY people like you who can convince others, not rock stars. AGAIN... we've been around in circles on this, so nevermind, I'm not going to beg you to do something, it's up to you, the opportunity is there. There is at least one other poster here who thought it was a damn good idea, and talked some big ideas about how he was going to find some people... etc.... ?? Nothing. OK.

I think it would be very effective, especially the way I would play it.

Quote:
Wow, that's actually funny. You're saying you live in a world where what you 'know' has little relevance?
"Know" with quotes around it. You "know" lots of things you don't have proof of. That's good enough for you, and that's fine. I feel I don't know anything (no quotes) until it's proven. You have a low burden of proof, IMHO.

Quote:
In a debate, what people 'know' is as valuable as any data that's available.
In a debate where true data is hard to find, what you 'know' has even more relevance.
Again, you and I disagree. You use the word "know" for the same thing I use the term "suspect." I think you really mean "suspect" because you can't really know most of this stuff. Nobody does.

Quote:
While we're at it.... what do you know about music business commerce, the effect of piracy, and making the day to day crust as a musician in a world with expanding illegal filesharing?
ummm... almost nothing? What I know:

- people are making money at other business models in the era of piracy, though most not as much
- government usually acts poorly and slowly in cases like this because they can't get their sh*t together, and so far that is the case
- the music business (recorded and live) is down significantly for a variety of reasons, the breakdown of which is debatable
- the best evidence we have shows piracy responsible for ~20% of the downturn of the recorded music industry

That's about all I know. There are lots of other things I suspect are true... but we've been there.

Quote:
What do you actually know as concrete information to add to the debate???
The same as you... not much. (add) Sorry, let me make this positive rather than negative. What actually do you KNOW?
Old 23rd December 2010
  #84
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Would you cool it with the Pomplamoose already?
Yes, you'd like that, wouldn't you? heh I don't blame you. Prime example of how your "facts" are incorrect. The truth is, facts cannot be incorrect... thus your facts... aren't.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
II don't "know" anything.
"Know" with quotes around it. You "know" lots of things you don't have proof of. That's good enough for you, and that's fine. I feel I don't know anything (no quotes) until it's proven. You have a low burden of proof, IMHO.

You use the word "know" for the same thing I use the term "suspect." I think you really mean "suspect" because you can't really know most of this stuff. Nobody does.

The same as you... not much. (add) Sorry, let me make this positive rather than negative. What actually do you KNOW?
I deal with the real world, you deal with the virtual world.
My knowledge is based on real events and real people, yours is gleaned from the internet (by and large).
You, like many other net enthusiasts have come to believe virtually knowing something is as good as actually knowing something. Virtually doing something is equal to actually doing something.
If you want to see the 'big picture' you need to disengage from the single medium that is the web, and do like me - travel widely, live in several different countries for long periods of time, work at all levels of the music scene, talk to people at all levels of music from the local pub to the outdoor stadium. Work alongside people who make and distribute musical instruments. Work alongside people who make and distribute music software.
I may not be able to prove anything to you, but as far as 'the big picture' is concerned, I'll take my real work experience in it's international context and my real relationships with all kinds of people effected or not, against your Northern California based, hobby based, virtual view.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #86
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

No answer. Ok more direct. What do you know that contradicts what I wrote above?
Old 23rd December 2010
  #87
Gear Nut
 
bom619's Avatar
 

@ John E:

I disagree completely with your rational. Music is simply worth less than it was a few years ago. It takes less money/skill to produce and less money to distribute. Though the music business often defies logic, this is real and something we on the supply side of the industry need to come to terms with. I know that this is an unpopular perspective on this kind of forum but that's the world we live in. If it hasn't happened in your town, it will soon enough.

Downloading music is just how kids check out bands. Whether or not they keep listening isn't up to those of us on the supply side of the business. The industry as a whole blew it by letting the genie out of the bottle (releasing everything they ever had on an un-protected audio format) and turning the youth culture against them by trying to put it back in (RIAA lawsuits).

I don't feel sorry for the record companies at all and tying artist profits to their profits is nonsensical. In the early eighties, the majors were still smarting after the public turned against disco (causing retail stores to return unknown millions of albums to distributors). There were huge layoffs in the business starting in the late seventies that only stopped when the clouds parted and god delivered unto thee the 'compact disc' format. Obviously, the cd was kind of popular. The profits from the CD era were artificially inflated during the nineties as everyone and their grandmother were re-purchasing what they already owned on cass/vinyl. This was a huge windfall for the labels as it cost nothing for the intellectual property and they got to charge the public for albums like Hotel California three times (cass/vinyl/cd) in a span of 15 years. Artists were charged additional contractual premiums for CD's releases (a new technology at the time) which lessened their profit even more.

While the labels were perfectly happy to support a new distribution technology in the eighties (cd), they were the last to get the memo about the internet. The labels should have been first and their laziness/denial cost us ALL a lot of money. Had the labels been smart enough to open an itunes style store before napster became huge, we would be having a very different conversation. When the customer has to define to you (the multi-national corporation that should know better) how they would like to be served your product, you have already lost them. Apparently the customer is always right... unless you are in the music business.

The price of music will continue to go down unless the recording business as a whole regains 100% power over the distribution channels like it had in previous years. I don't know about you, but I consider this VERY unlikely in the age of digital distribution. No one that has ever owned an ipod is going to go back to a wall sized rack of CD's and no one that makes a debut record will have to split $1.25 per copy between 5 band members. Sure, no one will sell 5,000,000,000 copies of anything but a band that sells 10,000 copies out of their trunk of their car can actually make a living. Those are my clients and business is good.

Last edited by bom619; 23rd December 2010 at 02:57 AM.. Reason: Punctuation.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #88
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real MC View Post
That study should be taken with a grain of salt as it was commissioned by a recording industry organization, who have a history of inflating and/or manipulating numbers to their advantage.
OK - lets say they're just off by 600 million...That still leaves 600 MILLION ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADED SONGS.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Neenja's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnkenn View Post
OK - lets say they're just off by 600 million...That still leaves 600 MILLION ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADED SONGS.
Make the number as high as you want, but it doesn't mean anything. There are people with 10s of thousands of songs in their library. They aren't lstening to them and they damn sure wouldn't have bought them. If easy downloading goes away, so does 90% of these downloads. It just isn't realistic to think otherwise. Think of it as a buffet. When people go the all you can eat buffet they gorge themselves until they are about to pop. Make them have to pay what they eat and they consume normal amounts.
Old 23rd December 2010
  #90
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
- the best evidence we have shows piracy responsible for ~20% of the downturn of the recorded music industry
You claim this repeatedly.

So tell us - what is responsible for the other 80%? Besides things that can be shown to be secondary effects of piracy and other "factors" which can be shown to be irrelevant because they existed before the piracy problem and didn't have any serious effect then.

We're waiting.............


HMmmmm?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Serra / So much gear, so little time
4
imaginaryday / So much gear, so little time
15

Forum Jump
Forum Jump