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 28th December 2010
  #211
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
y
the only way to have any "scientific" accuracy is to have ISPs report the amount of data traffic by category (snip)
Lots of interesting stuff snipped, but... yet again... the question is not what percentage of torrent traffic is illegal, what percentage of internet traffic is torrents, etc. The question remains, how much of the industry's downturn is as a result of piracy.

So... the only studies we've found that attempt to answer that question are the ones Terry has pointed to in his blog.
Old 28th December 2010
  #212
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post

So... the only studies we've found that attempt to answer that question are the ones Terry has pointed to in his blog.
Which are all practically useless due to their outdatedness.

Maybe you need to find a bandwagon to jump on, the blog studies left town 5 years ago.
Old 28th December 2010
  #213
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Piracy is responsible for 100% of the loss of music sales. This is an indisputable fact.
WTF??

I'm on your side, but making a statement like this is not helping the cause......not on this forum anyway......



(whistles with hands in pockets and slowly walks away..........)
Old 28th December 2010
  #214
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
They were study specific and had zero, zip to do with Terry or his blog, they were about the individual studies.
The please link to them, as I must not have seen them. The only thing I recall was a post where you had a problem with one study and dismissed all the others as a result of your problem with the first one. I could be misremembering though.

Quote:
I'm talking about the way you argue to the Nth degree with people here who are in the industry.
I disagree because my experience differs from yours.

Quote:
When people told you your attitude to corruption in the label system was highly exaggerated, you begged to differ
Call it what you like. My experience differs, from my time in the radio industry and talking to my friends who were signed and had bad experiences. Sue me. I have a different opinion because of what I have seen. If you had my inputs you would likely have a similar opinion.

Quote:
You think it's a disagreement, but as they all had long experience with a variety of labels and you hadn't, you had to claim they were biased (dismissing their experiences).
You are too funny Chris. I haven't ever dismissed your experience. I don't doubt you believe you are right, and I don't doubt your experiences. I say over and over again... I disagree with your conclusions, not your inputs. I also say... we all know how people often look at the same group of inputs... data... and come up with different conclusions. I have also said how I have seen you demonstrate exactly how your logic train works, and it makes me much less apt to trust your opinion. That's it. I don't know why it's so difficult for you.

Quote:
Case closed. No matter that the 'data' is limited and 4 to 5 years old in a business scene that changes beyond recognition every calender year.
Well, you are the only one who has said "case closed." My mind is still open to newer data. Please provide it, I'm open to learning.

Quote:
I pointed out that people generally only survive this tough business if they have a handle on their business model, and have an understanding and strategy to overcome any barriers in their way
Having a handle on the business doesn't mean you understand the specific impact piracy has had on your industry vs. other issues. That is something that can be accurately measured by data, not opinion, IMHO.

Quote:
You'd like to say if I looked at the studies I'd see I might at worst be losing 20% of my sales.
Ahh, maybe that is why you are having a hard time with this, you are misinterpreting the results. Seriously, please rethink this. The data is suggesting that piracy has had a major impact, but the rest of the impact has been caused by other issues. The analysis of what those issues are were outside of the scope of the studies, but we've discussed some of them at length. Piracy is not the only thing that has a negative impact.

Quote:
Rather than accept I am informing myself, and the results I'm seeing are rather shocking...... you're on a mission to diminish my point by prattling on about Google's methods of operation.
Please don't be confused, those results ARE shocking and are messed up. I'm not "diminishing" your point, only saying you're not answering the question I'm asking.

The fact that software piracy is rampant doesn't help us quantify the damage piracy has done to the music industry.... at least not that I can see. Obviously it is significant.
Old 28th December 2010
  #215
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Which are all practically useless due to their outdatedness.
...and when you have something newer for me, I'm all ears!
Old 28th December 2010
  #216
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
My "conviction" started with an opinion. I looked at the data, and the data actually reinforced my position. If the data showed something else, I would change my perspective.
No, you cherry pick the data to reinforce your opinion.

You simply refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with your preconceptions.

Quote:
Part of the problem with all this is your belief that the data is comprised of studying students. I'd look at the data yourself and check in to that assumption if I were you. Even if it did comprise ONLY students, didn't we already establish that students were some of the worst offenders with illegal file sharing?
The problem is that since these surveys are asking questions about the respondents' illegal activities there exists a powerful motive to be less than totally honest in answering.
Old 28th December 2010
  #217
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Lots of interesting stuff snipped, but... yet again... the question is not what percentage of torrent traffic is illegal, what percentage of internet traffic is torrents, etc. The question remains, how much of the industry's downturn is as a result of piracy.
So your assumption is that millions and millions of people are spending hours and hours of time every day downloading material that the don't need, don't really want, and have no real use for or interest in. Exactly why would all these people engage is such absurd behavior? What could possibly be their motivation? Sure a small percentage of the might be collectors, but you know something? It isn't very satisfying downloading collection of bits and bytes if you're never going to actually access them. Most people who collect like tangible objects with some degree of value attached to them. People do not usually collect things they feel are worthless.

Quote:
So... the only studies we've found that attempt to answer that question are the ones Terry has pointed to in his blog.
Studies, schmuddies!

You can devise a study or manipulate statistics to prove almost anything. You point to these old, out of date, poorly contrived studies as if they actually MEAN something, which, in point of fact, they do not. They didn't really mean anything when they were fresh (because of problems with the methodology and sampling) and they mean absolutely nothing now.

And can you explain to me how, even if these "studies" were accurate and were not obsolete, how a sampling of a few hundred kids at one institution could be extrapolated to determine the percentage of downturn for an entire industry? And come up with some VALID reasons to account for the other 80%?

The fact remains - these studies, if they reflect anything, reflect the percentage of illegal downloads which actually constitute lost sales. They tell us nothing about the percentage of sales that are lost to illegal downloads. There is no possible way for such a study to tell us that.
Old 28th December 2010
  #218
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
So your assumption is that millions and millions of people are spending hours and hours of time every day downloading material that the don't need, don't really want, and have no real use for or interest in.
That is not my belief.

Quote:
They didn't really mean anything when they were fresh (because of problems with the methodology and sampling) and they mean absolutely nothing now.
What problems with methodology? All you've said is they are bad because they only studied college students... read them and find out if that is true, that might be a good start.
Old 28th December 2010
  #219
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Lots of interesting stuff snipped, but... yet again... the question is not what percentage of torrent traffic is illegal, what percentage of internet traffic is torrents, etc. The question remains, how much of the industry's downturn is as a result of piracy.

So... the only studies we've found that attempt to answer that question are the ones Terry has pointed to in his blog.
no, those are the only studies you have found... there are plenty of others that you don't agree with... but in either case, it's all inconclusive anyways, isn't it? Industry sales appear to be down about 60% due to piracy - you disagree with that, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion... you're a guy who is convinced the sky is green and the grass is blue, can't help you there.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6104676-post387.html
Old 28th December 2010
  #220
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
My experience differs, from my time in the radio industry
Which was how long and at what station?


Quote:
Having a handle on the business doesn't mean you understand the specific impact piracy has had on your industry vs. other issues. That is something that can be accurately measured by data, not opinion, IMHO.
The thing is you are all over the place on this forum.
One minute dismissing opinion over hard data, then putting forward anecdote and opinion as concrete evidence when it suits your anti label agenda:
...you think this might be why some people are anti major?

Your one sentence conclusion: the labels are either incompetent or evil.
That based on one guys anecdotal tale, reported on another guy's blog.
Where is the data dude, where is the data?
There is NONE, but you are happy to make a conclusion based on a single anecdotal report.
It's not good enough that dozens of industry members are reporting similar piracy experiences on this forum...... because the (5 year old) data doesn't tally. tutt
Old 28th December 2010
  #221
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
no, those are the only studies you have found... there are plenty of others that you don't agree with
Very few of the studies you have pointed to have tried to answer the question I was asking. I'm not sure if it's because you don't understand, or if it's because it's the only thing you can find. Regardless, the closest one was a study that had no references, claiming to have "collated" studies from a variety of other studies... none of which it named. I emailed them asking for references and I never received a response. Call me crazy, but I tend to not trust studies without references.

OH, and if there are others I don't know about, please help me out by providing them so I can learn.
Old 28th December 2010
  #222
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Which was how long and at what station?
Over eight years at a variety of stations, starting in small markets and working my way up to San Francisco. I eventually got into tech because I was completely tired of the BS in radio and music businesses.

Quote:
Your one sentence conclusion: the labels are either incompetent or evil.
In the case in question, I think it was either/or, and as I've said before it matches what other people I know who were signed have said. Again, it's based on my own experience, my own frame of knowledge. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else... it's just the way I see it. I expect someone like you who had no problems with accounting or mismanagement or bad/incompetent executives would disagree. What do you want me to do, deny what I've experienced because you said so? Really, get over it, I disagree with you.
Old 28th December 2010
  #223
From November:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6031870-post37.html

You neither reacted or replied by the way.
Study 1 (the most recent, 2006, Monash University) wasn't accessible. It had been moved or I couldn't figure out a way to read it.
Study 2 was 4 years old and made by an economics professor who has also studied pensions. He listed no interest in music or the music business on his resume page.
Study 3 looked at data from 2003/04!
Study 4 surveyed 412 students, and again, 6 to 7 years ago.
Study 5 concentrated on Napster and was 4 years old.
Study 6 (incredibly enough) studied the years 2000 to 2001 and looked at the effect of piracy on CD's.

I mean I keep saying there is no data, you keep saying this is the best data we have, but are you really basing your 2010/2011 view of piracy on small studies that are 4 to 10 years old?
Old 28th December 2010
  #224
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Over eight years at a variety of stations, starting in small markets and working my way up to San Francisco.
How many years at which specific station in SF.


Quote:
In the case in question, I think it was either/or, and as I've said before it matches what other people I know who were signed have said. Again, it's based on my own experience, my own frame of knowledge.
Hey, I'm not asking for excuses, I'm highlighting your double standards when it comes to the subject of piracy and the recording industry.
One guy writes about a bad experience, and it chimes with a few tales you've heard from friends.
Then you post your conclusion that the labels are either incompetent or evil.

I tell you about my piracy experiences, along with others on this forum. Similar tales are all over the internet, with a wide ranging selection of musicians all campaigning against piracy.
And your conclusion?
There is no good data and personal experience amounts to an 'ant' that doesn't see the big picture.

Show me your data on record company abuse and corruption, or else you are an ant who doesn't see the big picture on labels.
Which ant do you prefer by the way? A widely traveled ant that's professional, or an amateur ant that stays at home?
Old 28th December 2010
  #225
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I mean I keep saying there is no data, you keep saying this is the best data we have, but are you really basing your 2010/2011 view of piracy on small studies that are 4 to 10 years old?
Thanks for providing the link.. I don't remember reading it.

Here's what you wrote in the original post:

Quote:
•Norbert J Michel is an economics professor, who aside from some research on music piracy has also studied retirement plans and tax rebates. He lists his interests as sports and outdoor pursuits. He's not even claiming an interest in music, let alone any experience in the industry, and his last piracy study was 4 years ago. I think we all know 4 years is a lifetime in web developments.
•Juan D. Montoro-Pons and Manuel Cuadrado-Garc´ıa are also economics academics (nothing to do with the music scene). They used as the basis of their research statistical data from 2003 and 2004. See above comment on the use by date.
•Rafael Rob and Joel Waldfogel published their research in a journal of law and economics (notice how music is glaringly absent from every study so far?), and their survey questioned 412 college students.... again back in 2003/2004. 412!
•Again Seung-Hyun Hong (Stanford) is purely schooled in economics. His study is recycled data from published consumer reports, is again over 4 years old and focusses squarely on the effects of Napster. The relevance to today???
•Wow, MARTIN PEITZ and PATRICK WAELBROECK are once again economics academics..... where is any music industry experience in all this??
Their study actually looks at evidence from 2000 - 2001! It looks at the damage to CD sales. Are CD's still completely relevant in this debate?
The chief argument you make is that these people don't know about music. That is not relevant.

The other argument is about dates. That's fair enough to a point... though, if it really was about the dates, then you would have to actually admit to the accuracy of the data for the time period in question, which I doubt you will do (because you're looking for any reason to cast doubt on it).

Let's look at the newer data, when it comes out, and have this conversation again.

Yes, it's absolutely true that things may have changed along the way, and the data should change when it comes out. We'll look at it then. If it comes out that piracy is more of a problem, then you can say "I told you so" and have a good laugh at my expense. Remember, I actually thought it was a higher percentage than the data shows, and I still do.
Old 28th December 2010
  #226
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
How many years at which specific station in SF.
Several, and I'm not going into it.

Quote:
Show me your data on record company abuse and corruption, or else you are an ant who doesn't see the big picture on labels.
I don't care whether you agree with me about record company corruption. I know enough people who have experienced similar things, I'll stick with my view, which is clearly my opinion.

Quote:
Which ant do you prefer by the way? A widely traveled ant that's professional, or an amateur ant that stays at home?
I'll take the ant who is creating the best art... the art that moves me the most.
Old 28th December 2010
  #227
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Several, and I'm not going into it.
Why not?


Quote:
I don't care whether you agree with me about record company corruption. I know enough people who have experienced similar things, I'll stick with my view, which is clearly my opinion.

Either scientific data is important top you or not. In the case of record company bad practice, scientific data is clearly irrelevant to you, because you'll jump on an individuals anecdote as strong evidence.
Old 28th December 2010
  #228
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post

The chief argument you make is that these people don't know about music. That is not relevant.
No man.
Have you read anything I've written over the last two pages?

My chief argument is that the data is old...... very old.
The piracy scene, and internet evolution is moving at a lightening fast pace.
Yes, I also point out the disconnected nature of the main protagonists, nearly all economists with no attempt to involve anyone musical, music industry, or even creative into the research.
Then there is the small sample, 412 students in one study.
The first study is... I don't know what? I can't read it, can you?
Two other studies look at Napster (irrelevant) and CD sales in 2000-01 (irrelevant by date, if not by medium studied).
So that leaves 4 studies.
I've asked you the question repeatedly and you've done everything to avoid answering.
You choose to hang your hat on 4 studies that are around 6 years old?
You disagree with personal evidence on likely levels of piracy and it's affect on creative people, but when you come across anecdotal evidence about record company bad practice you are all over it with no questioning as to it's veracity?
Old 28th December 2010
  #229
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
My chief argument is that the data is old...... very old.
If that is your chief argument, then the data is accurate for the time period in question. The question now becomes what is different between then and now. I can even accept that... and as new evidence comes in, we'll see how things have changed. That's fine. In the meantime... it's still the best data we have.
Old 28th December 2010
  #230
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
The question now becomes what is different between then and now.
Actually, I think the real question is why are you still clinging to it like the gospel?

But anyway, the iPhone was introduced since your last study. iTunes for iPhones. The one-hundred millionth iPod sold in April 2007.
Broadband rolling out to more homes, and faster.
I mean surely you don't need me to highlight the super fast evolution of digital music and it's relationship with the net.

Quote:
In the meantime... it's still the best data we have.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is..... what's the use in clinging to irrelevant data, unless it's to avoid accepting a new reality?
Old 28th December 2010
  #231
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Very few of the studies you have pointed to have tried to answer the question I was asking. I'm not sure if it's because you don't understand, or if it's because it's the only thing you can find. Regardless, the closest one was a study that had no references, claiming to have "collated" studies from a variety of other studies... none of which it named. I emailed them asking for references and I never received a response. Call me crazy, but I tend to not trust studies without references.

OH, and if there are others I don't know about, please help me out by providing them so I can learn.
And this is different from what you do how?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Over eight years at a variety of stations, starting in small markets and working my way up to San Francisco. I eventually got into tech because I was completely tired of the BS in radio and music businesses.
Which station in SF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
Thanks for providing the link.. I don't remember reading it.

Here's what you wrote in the original post:

Quote:
•Norbert J Michel is an economics professor, who aside from some research on music piracy has also studied retirement plans and tax rebates. He lists his interests as sports and outdoor pursuits. He's not even claiming an interest in music, let alone any experience in the industry, and his last piracy study was 4 years ago. I think we all know 4 years is a lifetime in web developments.
•Juan D. Montoro-Pons and Manuel Cuadrado-Garc´ıa are also economics academics (nothing to do with the music scene). They used as the basis of their research statistical data from 2003 and 2004. See above comment on the use by date.
•Rafael Rob and Joel Waldfogel published their research in a journal of law and economics (notice how music is glaringly absent from every study so far?), and their survey questioned 412 college students.... again back in 2003/2004. 412!
•Again Seung-Hyun Hong (Stanford) is purely schooled in economics. His study is recycled data from published consumer reports, is again over 4 years old and focusses squarely on the effects of Napster. The relevance to today???
•Wow, MARTIN PEITZ and PATRICK WAELBROECK are once again economics academics..... where is any music industry experience in all this??
Their study actually looks at evidence from 2000 - 2001! It looks at the damage to CD sales. Are CD's still completely relevant in this debate?
The chief argument you make is that these people don't know about music. That is not relevant.

The other argument is about dates. That's fair enough to a point... though, if it really was about the dates, then you would have to actually admit to the accuracy of the data for the time period in question, which I doubt you will do (because you're looking for any reason to cast doubt on it).

Let's look at the newer data, when it comes out, and have this conversation again.

Yes, it's absolutely true that things may have changed along the way, and the data should change when it comes out. We'll look at it then. If it comes out that piracy is more of a problem, then you can say "I told you so" and have a good laugh at my expense. Remember, I actually thought it was a higher percentage than the data shows, and I still do.
Not only do these people not have any experience in or familiarity with the music industry, they also have no apparent experience with of expertise in internet piracy. They're "studying" something they don't have the foggiest idea about.

The majority of them are friggin' STATISTICIANS, a profession notorious for being able to "prove" whatever they believe is true or are hired to support.

One of them based his "study" on recycled data from "published consumer reports", whatever that means. Not exactly scientific by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

One study is based on 412 students, presumably at one school. Not really a valid sample.

One of these "studies" appears not to have even been done in the US or UK markets, which are the major problem areas for internet piracy.

None of them are remotely current.

Quote:
The chief argument you make is that these people don't know about music. That is not relevant.
How can it not be relevant that these people don't know anything at all about the fields (music and internet piracy) that they purport to be studying? Would you trust a non- biologist to create a report about cancer research? A non-mathematician to publish a paper about mathematics? A non-physicist to publish about quantum mechanics or atomic reactions? An non-doctor to publish about medicine? A Chinese peasant to publish about English Literature? It is ABSOLUTELY relevant.

The fact is that all the "studies" you base your arguments on are bogus. They're about as valid as if I published a paper on astrophysics.
Old 28th December 2010
  #232
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Why not?
Because if he did we could check his credentials.
Old 28th December 2010
  #233
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
If that is your chief argument, then the data is accurate for the time period in question.
I question that very seriously.

I see nothing to convince me that the data was valid even at the time of the studies.
Old 28th December 2010
  #234
there are two data sets that are pretty consistent regardless of source:

1) the staggering volume of illegal consumption ranges from 10x's to 20x's that of paid consumption

2) the staggering 60% drop in revenue/sales of paid legitimate music consumption during the same time frame

A reasonable person would conclude that these two factors are in fact related, that when there happens to be a growth in illegally free, there happens to be a corresponding drop in legally paid.

There is really no scientific way to find the exact number of sales that are lost except to look at the exact number of sales that are factually declining during this period. Those are real numbers, real losses.

For those who are intellectually dishonest, or intentionally obtuse due to personal bias there will never be an argument good enough to connect these two data sets - despite it being clearly obvious that one is effecting the other.

Everyone can pretty much see that because the illegal consumption is so staggeringly beyond the scope of what paid consumption ever was it's mostly likely the case that every illegal download is not a lost sale.

But I also believe that it's fairly obvious, that sales should have either remained flat or seen modest growth due the unprecedented size, scale and opportunities of legitimate digital distribution not the least of which is 500+ Million points of sales (Since 2007), instant availability to the largest music inventory ever, and at the lowest price point per album in history for frontline product, and even the ability to consumer songs at 99 cents each.

Intellectually dishonest staw man arguments and red herrings ultimately do not change any of these facts that are reported from sources as varied as The Wall Street Journal, CNN and Torrentfreak... lol.
Old 28th December 2010
  #235
This thread was started to discuss the 'latest study'. thumbsup

The 20% figure that keeps being bandied around is a complete nonsense.
For these clear reasons....
The figure was extrapolated from some research dated 10 years ago, some research into an invalid factor (Napster), and polling as small a sample as 412 American students, when the issue being studied is global, because it is an issue of globalization in part.
Old 29th December 2010
  #236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
there are two data sets that are pretty consistent regardless of source:

1) the staggering volume of illegal consumption ranges from 10x's to 20x's that of paid consumption

2) the staggering 60% drop in revenue/sales of paid legitimate music consumption during the same time frame

A reasonable person would conclude that these two factors are in fact related, that when there happens to be a growth in illegally free, there happens to be a corresponding drop in legally paid.

There is really no scientific way to find the exact number of sales that are lost except to look at the exact number of sales that are factually declining during this period. Those are real numbers, real losses.
It seems to me that this should be sufficient "scientific" data to convince anyone.

This IS the raw data in its most basic form.

Any "studies", especially those based on size limited sample respondents or subjective questionnaires/interviews are beside the point; they might have some limited sociological interest in gauging people's attitudes, but they don't actually reflect any FACTS.

Only the raw figures reflect the facts.

Nothing else need be said.
Old 29th December 2010
  #237
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Because we are working in the industry being affected.

...

And yet you guys who aren't in music professionally think we don't know the environment we're operating in?
...
You know intimately the immediate environment you're operating in. But working in one sector of an industry doesn't magically give you an in-depth understanding of all of the factors affecting that industry. Spending a month in the executive offices of a large record company will give you a quite different view. Or in the accounting office, or in rights management... I haven't done it at a record company, but I have at a software company. The phrase "blind men describing an elephant" comes to mind.
Old 29th December 2010
  #238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
You know intimately the immediate environment you're operating in. But working in one sector of an industry doesn't magically give you an in-depth understanding of all of the factors affecting that industry.
Sorry Don, but you are becoming one of the worst culprits.
Firstly, you aren't in the industry, and yet you take almost every opportunity to question the validity of our argument here. From what basis in real world experience?
Secondly, I'm a touring musician, I've spent ten years writing music for film and tv, I'm a studio musician with an international resume, and I have my own music software (which is incidentally widely pirated), and you would describe me as working in 'one sector of the industry'.
And actually what I wrote before said 'we' not 'me'....
I was including all the industry professionals who regularly post in this section, many from different parts of the world, and specialising in different areas of the industry. You can clearly see a shared experience.
So I'd give your above post 0/10 for accuracy and contribution I'm afraid. tutt
Old 29th December 2010
  #239
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
First, please note that that's 1.2 billion downloads in the UK market alone.
True, but not relevant at this point.
Mind explaning to me how that isn't relevant?


The question was, if a given number of illegal downloads had been blocked, how many more legal downloads would there have been in the same period? The 1.2 billion figure was used as an example because it was cited in the thread title, but the actual number is not required to answer the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
...
I wish somebody could suggest a "new business model" that could give some relief from these problems. In the old days the record company would just rent a studio for a month or two and it would be done and I wouldn't need to put up all the cash up front. In the old days I wouldn't have to schedule everything around all the musicians' day jobs.

So I'm really ready for a "new business model". As long as it's one that actually works.
In the old days "you" (the generic "you") never complained that you never saw a cent from your record because it was all swallowed by record company advances. They may have been the good old days, but they were the bad old days too.

Even if piracy is stopped tomorrow, the old days aren't coming back. Which you can live with, provided something viable replaces them. I don't have an answer. I wish I did, so I could get rich...
Old 29th December 2010
  #240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post

In the old days "you" (the generic "you") never complained that you never saw a cent from your record because it was all swallowed by record company advances. They may have been the good old days, but they were the bad old days too.
I'm sorry but this is once again bollox borne out of inexperience in the subject we are talking about.

Firstly, in many respects it's up to the artist how the advance is spent.
Yes, in extreme situations an expensive producer and/or expensive video production can be forced on the artist. But in my real world experience, the savvy artists have not wasted their advance, often investing in their own studio. The un-savvy artists have booked limos to take them to the studio every day. They've spent most of each studio hour playing pinball or pool, and I know more than one who's lived in a 4 star hotel for a year, instead of looking for an apartment to rent.
But since the punk and new wave revolution, and the rise of indie labels, the whole thorny subject of artists owing big advances to arrogant labels is really a myth.
Big advances are rarely handed out, and literally hundreds of thousands of bands have signed to indie labels with their first album already in the can, and an understanding from both artist and label that money wont be squandered.
I mean you guys are literally living in the 70's still!
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