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
So now that Piracy is unstoppable... Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 5th January 2011
  #91
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
By ignoring other factors, I think he's overstating the impact of piracy.
Nobody is "ignoring" any other factors.

Some of the "factors" you're fond of quoting (such as the decline of artist development) are directly attributable to the effects of piracy.

Others, such as the economy, have been shown to have a minimal effect on the industry at most.

Still others, such as alleged competition from other forms of entertainment, aren't factors at all. It is ludicrous to claim that music sales are declining when all other entertainment sales are increasing due to competition, when CONSUMPTION of music is increasing at least as fast or faster than any other form of entertainment.

But you can't understand that because you simply don't want to.
Old 5th January 2011
  #92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
that would be correct but it's not the heart of the issue - the heart of the issue (for me at least) is that it's NOT radio in any form if it's "on demand".
But it's stil a single play and only one listener.

You're right - it's not radio in any way.

Radio in any form reaches multiple listeners per play - a great many of them.

Streaming on demand reaches one.

One.

That's a lot less than many.

One play of on demand streaming is worth a lot LESS than any form of radio play, be it terrestrial broadcast, satellite, or internet.
Old 5th January 2011
  #93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakotajones
just don't spend millions of dollars on fancy stages, lighting, props, visual effects, 1800 roadies...and focus on just the music...and you'll be fine.

I take it you're not a SongWriter?
It appears that he makes his money by selling design work and stage equipment to musicians.

Which, IMO, makes what he's been posting here seem more than just a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?
Old 5th January 2011
  #94
Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
I'm sorry, I promised you the last word, but I just need to respond, then you can once again have it... again, sorry.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to wit, from the link:
It seems emotionally that there is a direct causation in the numbers above, but there is no proof yet. There is no question there IS correlation to the two sentences (though it's pretty clear to me, looking at GNP stats of the US, there certainly is an historic economic component, but I'll digress). But saying there is causation is an emotional argument but a logical fallacy.
Baloney!

The sun comes up, it gets warm.

The sun goes down, it gets cooler.

There's a correlation.

But maybe there's no causation.

Maybe it gets warm because Agni, the fire god, is smiling on the world.

Maybe it gets cold in the winter because Persephone, daughter of Demeter, goddess of the harvest, has to go spend several months as the queen of Hades, Lord of the Underworld.

Maybe.

But I don't think so.

I think it's more likely that winter is caused by the precession of the axis of the world as it orbits the sun, but that's just correlation. It doesn't imply causation.

Subscribe to the mythology of your choice, but don't expect anyone to believe it besides you and don't get offended if they look at you a little funny.
Old 5th January 2011
  #95
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
One play of on demand streaming is worth a lot LESS than any form of radio play, be it terrestrial broadcast, satellite, or internet.
I think you are looking at it backwards - it's worth a lot MORE because it brings neither promotional value or monetary value.

Radio brings great promotional value by exposing music to a large number of listeners in a non-cannibalizing way.

Retail brings great monetary value by charging the consumer a premium for On Demand Access.

If the new model is ACCESS = OWNERSHIP than the monetary value of that ACCESS must be proportionate to the previous model of OWNERSHIP.
Old 5th January 2011
  #96
worth repeating...

Quote:
Originally Posted by psalad View Post
..but let's be honest, you don't KNOW, you're framing the problem as if you do KNOW.

I know it's pointless to keep on this, so have the last word, but please understand I will challenge you when you post like this.

I think you undermine a good argument against piracy by framing your beliefs as fact... thus giving the green light for the pirates to do the same, and ensuring a stalemate.
or not...

Quote:
Originally Posted by terryhart View Post
MP3, Copyright, Piracy, Intellectual Property Issues

The weight of current evidence strongly supports a view that file-sharing diminishes the revenues of the recording industry. There are two forms of evidence.

The first has to do with general factors: the timing between record sales declines and file-sharing is very close; the current decline is very large compared to previous declines; there are no other explanations for the decline in record sales that hold up upon analysis; economic theory implies that record sales will fall. I have the lead article published in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics which provides a thorough discussion of the history and data used in analyzing file-sharing. Among other things it demonstrates the close linkage between file-sharing growth and record sales declines using half-year data. It also points out some heretofore unnoticed inconsistencies in these data. For example, what appears to be the best estimate of the number of audio files downloaded reports that files downloaded are generally less than one tenth the amounts of previous estimates. File-sharing appears to have hit record retailers less severely than it has hit record clubs, causing possible underestimates of harm by those looking at statistics from retailers. Finally, the claims that DVD sales have been responsible for the decline in CD sales (for those articles that provide any evidence at all) have been based on a statistic that provides a misleading picture of the DVD market. That issue of the Journal of Law and Economics has a symposium on file-sharing that anyone interested in the subject must read, including articles (linked below) by Rob and Waldfogel (Penn), Zentner (UTD) and a quartet of economists from the University of Connecticut.


The second form of evidence can be found in econometric studies of the industry. All the econometric studies, except one, find some degree of harm. I have written a recent paper (forthcoming in Management Science) that examines record sales and Internet uses in 99 US cities to measure the impact of file-sharing. While I am partial to my own work, I believe this paper provides the strongest analysis to date of these issues. The methodology avoids many empirical difficulties found in other papers. It concludes that file-sharing is responsible for the entire decline in record sales that has occurred, and that except for file-sharing there would have been an increase in sales since 1999 instead of the strong decline. It also examines which genres had the greatest impact from file-sharing, and they are consistent with intuition (genres appealing to older individuals have the smallest sales decline, and vice-versa). As a by-product of the analysis I examine the impact of general Internet use on time spent with television and radio in order to prevent this Internet effect from contaminating my results. It turns out that Internet use decreases television viewing and radio listening, but the size of the effect in this period is not large (5-10%) and the impact on television is greater than the impact on radio.

All the papers that I have seen by other economists, except for one notable exception, find some degree of harm (to record producers) caused by file-sharing. These include papers by Blackburn, Hong, Michel, Peitz and Waelbroeck, Rob and Waldfogel and Zentner. The lone exception, but the most heavily publicized, is a paper by Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf, which I believe is littered with errors and disingenuousness as discussed in greater detail below.

I have several articles that look at other papers in the economics literature on file-sharing. My first paper to examine the other articles written by economists about file sharing was published in CESifo Economic Studies in the Summer/Fall of 2005. It examines the (generally unpublished) state of the literature (theory and empirics) on file-sharing. This paper makes the point that ‘sampling’ (the exposure effect) is likely to decrease the sales of records and not increase them, as is normally assumed. It also examined the then current literature examining the empirical question of file-sharing’s impact. An expanded and updated version of this paper was published by MIT press as part of a book titled “Industrial Organization and the Digital Economy” which is edited by G. Illing and M. Peitz. This article, besides updating the literature survey, demonstrated that the concept of network effects had not been properly applied to the impacts of file-sharing since the alternative to file-sharing is likely to be radio listening by those unwilling to pay the purchase price of CDs, whereas the theory usually assumes that downloaders are new listeners who provide new network effects.

My initial study of file-sharing was published in Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth. That paper looks at a 30 year history of record sales as well as changes in income, prices, sale of blank tapes, videogames, prerecorded cassettes DVDs, possible changes in the interest in music, and changes in the population. None of these other factors appeared capable of explaining any but a very small percentage of the recent decline in CD sales.
Old 5th January 2011
  #97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
I think you are looking at it backwards - it's worth a lot MORE because it brings neither promotional value or monetary value.

Radio brings great promotional value by exposing music to a large number of listeners in a non-cannibalizing way.

Retail brings great monetary value by charging the consumer a premium for On Demand Access.

If the new model is ACCESS = OWNERSHIP than the monetary value of that ACCESS must be proportionate to the previous model of OWNERSHIP.
No, what you're saying is that YOU'D LIKE TO CHARGE MORE, because it's worth less in intangibles to you as a musician. I sympathize.

But that's not how the marketplace works. The music is being paid for by either advertising or subscription. To an advertiser it's still only one pair of eyes/ears/whatever. To a subscriber it's still only one play with no feed-forward value.

It would be nice if it could be billed like a (commercial) juke box, which is the model it most resembles. But I don't see that as being viable or people would have (commercial) juke boxes in their homes.
Old 5th January 2011
  #98
hi john - we're getting closer, and I understand the point you are making - here are mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No, what you're saying is that YOU'D LIKE TO CHARGE MORE, because it's worth less in intangibles to you as a musician. I sympathize.
Yes, I'd like them to pay more for each listen (which I guess is the same as "charge more" to the consumer). I don't believe there is any positive value for rights holders in the current Spotify model - which is why it is not live in the USA... two years later and counting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
But that's not how the marketplace works. The music is being paid for by either advertising or subscription. To an advertiser it's still only one pair of eyes/ears/whatever. To a subscriber it's still only one play with no feed-forward value.
I completely understand and this is expressly why the model does not work - the economics don't add up. In other words, there is no sustainable ROI in this model - or another way of saying it - On Demand Subscription Based Streaming Models do not work under current conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It would be nice if it could be billed like a (commercial) juke box, which is the model it most resembles. But I don't see that as being viable or people would have (commercial) juke boxes in their homes.
It's an interesting idea - why not just apply those economics to Spotify - here's what I propose.

Advertising/Subscription ; non-on demand curated play lists like Pandora (algorithmic ad/sub rev share).

Pay Per Listen ; personal on demand jukebox 10 cents per play? Hell, 5 cents per play... "cloud served" all devices, one account.

Paid Download; 99 cents per song...
Old 5th January 2011
  #99
Lives for gear
 
RonT's Avatar
 

So now that Piracy is unstoppable...

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein
Are you saying that somebody at GC is offering cracked/pirated software IN THE STORE?

If this is the case I'm certain that GC management would be VERY interested. Not only is that illegal, it's also competing with GC's own sales.
Yes! It took everything in me to not turn his ass in. I just told him I was cool and continued to purchase my copy of Reason.
Old 5th January 2011
  #100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lives For Fuzz View Post
hi john - we're getting closer, and I understand the point you are making - here are mine.



Yes, I'd like them to pay more for each listen (which I guess is the same as "charge more" to the consumer). I don't believe there is any positive value for rights holders in the current Spotify model - which is why it is not live in the USA... two years later and counting...



I completely understand and this is expressly why the model does not work - the economics don't add up. In other words, there is no sustainable ROI in this model - or another way of saying it - On Demand Subscription Based Streaming Models do not work under current conditions.



It's an interesting idea - why not just apply those economics to Spotify - here's what I propose.

Advertising/Subscription ; non-on demand curated play lists like Pandora (algorithmic ad/sub rev share).

Pay Per Listen ; personal on demand jukebox 10 cents per play? Hell, 5 cents per play... "cloud served" all devices, one account.

Paid Download; 99 cents per song...
Dunno if people would go for it but it sounds good to me!
Old 5th January 2011
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonT View Post
Yes! It took everything in me to not turn his ass in. I just told him I was cool and continued to purchase my copy of Reason.
Why didn't you?
Old 6th January 2011
  #102
Lives for gear
 
RonT's Avatar
 

So now that Piracy is unstoppable...

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein
Why didn't you?
Hood Rules...+ I have not been a saint all my life. Still not but I do my best.


Sent from my iPad using Gearslutz
Old 6th January 2011
  #103
PDC
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullik View Post
The key to stop piracy of mp3, is a subscribe type of businessmodel like Spotify.
...and never make any money.
Old 8th January 2011
  #104
Lives for gear
 

damn you guys really, really think piracy is bad! It seems like praising it here would be like walking into the church praising the devil!

But why would you want to support the record companies? they seem a lot more evil than pirates to me. I mean have you ever seen a record contract? Damn!
Old 8th January 2011
  #105
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
damn you guys really, really think piracy is bad! It seems like praising it here would be like walking into the church praising the devil!

But why would you want to support the record companies? they seem a lot more evil than pirates to me. I mean have you ever seen a record contract? Damn!
curious, have you ever seen a record contract? signed one?

this is hold hat... record labels support artists, invest in them, promote them, pay them - pirates just steal, they take and give nothing in return, zero.

where is the great pirate bay record label investing in and developing new bands, paying for tour support, funding studio recording time, producing music videos? where?
Old 8th January 2011
  #106
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
damn you guys really, really think piracy is bad!
But why would you want to support the record companies?
Have you ever had a record contract?

In any case, there are two glaring problems with your view as expressed above.
1) The people clearly hurting the most in this crisis are creative people; musicians, studio personnel etc... You don't think record companies are fair, so you support piracy which adds another, much, much bigger level of unfairness onto musicians. Double whammy no? Makes no sense.
The major labels are surviving OK, selling commercial candy like Beiber and Gaga.

2) Blaming 'record companies' is like blaming 'food stores'.

There are numerous record companies, run by complete music fanatics, supporting niche and adventurous artists.
Thing is, piracy kills those labels as quickly, actually more quickly than the majors.
Having worked with signed artists of all levels for 30 years, piracy is a blunt hammer, bludgeoning them to death. By contrast, major record labels can be managed with a good lawyer and good manager at your side. Otherwise choose your label carefully, like an independent that is run by enthusiasts who truly believe in your music.
Labels are by choice, pirates hold a gun to musicians heads.
Old 8th January 2011
  #107
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
damn you guys really, really think piracy is bad! It seems like praising it here would be like walking into the church praising the devil!

But why would you want to support the record companies? they seem a lot more evil than pirates to me. I mean have you ever seen a record contract? Damn!
What do you do for a living?

Do you support yourself?

Do you play music professionally?

Have you ever made or worked on a professionally released record?

Have you ever toured?

If so, was it a band inna van tour or a professionally produced tour?

Have you ever worked in a real studio in any capacity?

Have you ever had contact with a record company other than as a customer?

If so, in what capacity?

Do you have any idea of how the economics of the music industry work?

If so, please elaborate.

Just so you know, a number of us in this discussion can answer "yes" to some or all of those questions.
Old 8th January 2011
  #108
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Have you ever had a record contract?

In any case, there are two glaring problems with your view as expressed above.
1) The people clearly hurting the most in this crisis are creative people; musicians, studio personnel etc... You don't think record companies are fair, so you support piracy which adds another, much, much bigger level of unfairness onto musicians. Double whammy no? Makes no sense.
The major labels are surviving OK, selling commercial candy like Beiber and Gaga.

2) Blaming 'record companies' is like blaming 'food stores'.

There are numerous record companies, run by complete music fanatics, supporting niche and adventurous artists.
Thing is, piracy kills those labels as quickly, actually more quickly than the majors.
Having worked with signed artists of all levels for 30 years, piracy is a blunt hammer, bludgeoning them to death. By contrast, major record labels can be managed with a good lawyer and good manager at your side. Otherwise choose your label carefully, like an independent that is run by enthusiasts who truly believe in your music.
Labels are by choice, pirates hold a gun to musicians heads.
Well said!
Old 8th January 2011
  #109
Lives for gear
So now that Piracy is unstoppable...

Wow...this got wild here...I do think piracy has gotten out of control...and can't go back...I was just looking for solutions or new ideas on what to do now. I have no other interests other than the work and play(ing) of music. It's is always a good time regardless if I'm playing the local all ages space for free or when I spent the last year touring playing guitar in LCD Soundsystem.

We chose to get involved with music and no one owes us anything. I work hard all the time to make make more work for myself...I like it and have no expectations therefor I have never felt jaded in any way with music or the business of it.

John...you are intense but passionate about this subject I can tell you feel burned in this NEW day and age...I do make a living (some years) with music but I'm not so wrapped up in the ego telling me I MUST ONLY support myself with music. I've done all the things on you check list...contracts, van tours for years, bus tours, mega pro studios and 4 tracking in a basement(that actually got released as a 7")...

I feel pretty good about things...and excited by buying music and that I can check out an artist Iv heard of before I support them...or iTunes actually.
Old 8th January 2011
  #110
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirdss View Post

We chose to get involved with music and no one owes us anything.
That's right. No one owes any of us anything. You are no different to most musicians.
In a capitalist society, if I make work and put a price on it, the consumer owes me that price if they consume it.


Quote:
I do make a living (some years) with music but I'm not so wrapped up in the ego telling me I MUST ONLY support myself with music.
Professional musicians do make their living from music. There is no 'ego' about it. If you want the 'profession' to go away, this is the way to go about it.
If you exchange music for nursing you can see how ridiculous your point is.
I make a living as a nurse some years. I'm not so wrapped up in my ego telling I must only make a living from nursing.
Old 9th January 2011
  #111
One expects to make a living from what one does for a living. If one does not one does something else.

If all the professional musicians (sound engineers, producers, guitar techs, etc) have to start selling insurance to make a living that does not bode well for the future of music.

Nobody is ENTITLED to make a living at anything, except evidently some heads of large financial institutions. But if you do what you do well and people use what you do you ARE entitled to be paid by them. Unless you don't want to be paid, which is your choice, not theirs. If people have no use for what you do you're in the wrong line of work.
Old 9th January 2011
  #112
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by purple vista View Post
curious, have you ever seen a record contract? signed one?

this is hold hat... record labels support artists, invest in them, promote them, pay them - pirates just steal, they take and give nothing in return, zero.

where is the great pirate bay record label investing in and developing new bands, paying for tour support, funding studio recording time, producing music videos? where?
They give you a 'loan' and then let you make a teensy percentage over time on sales. If you're lucky you make a tiny profit at the end, if not you end up owing them money. Its really terrible business, and extremely greedy, and that model is catching up to them. It worked back when it was the only way, but now thank god people have other means so they don't have that 'big label' extortion. In general, buying big label records supports record companies far more than the artist

I think the best way to support artists is using DL services like bandcamp and itunes - artists can make a big ass profits from them! just look at antoine dodson LOL ....
Old 9th January 2011
  #113
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
They give you a 'loan' and then let you make a teensy percentage over time on sales. If you're lucky you make a tiny profit at the end, if not you end up owing them money. Its really terrible business, and extremely greedy, and that model is catching up to them.
That's not true.
The size of 'the loan' is determined in negotiations between artist and label.
No one is forced to hock themselves up to the hilt.
There is no 'luck' in making a profit (tiny or otherwise). You make a profit when you sell a decent amount of records, it also helps if you don't squander your advance, or spend any other money like it's going out of style.
I guess you haven't worked with too many signed artists.
I've worked with them for many years and most have done quite well out of their record company associations. many have done extremely well.
In the end, dealing with record labels is still infinitely preferable to dealing with someone who doesn't respect you enough to buy your music, preferring to take it without permission instead.
Old 9th January 2011
  #114
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
They give you a 'loan' and then let you make a teensy percentage over time on sales. If you're lucky you make a tiny profit at the end, if not you end up owing them money. Its really terrible business, and extremely greedy, and that model is catching up to them. It worked back when it was the only way, but now thank god people have other means so they don't have that 'big label' extortion. In general, buying big label records supports record companies far more than the artist

I think the best way to support artists is using DL services like bandcamp and itunes - artists can make a big ass profits from them! just look at antoine dodson LOL ....
They ADVANCE you money so that you don't have to pay expenses out of pocket. You can concentrate on music instead of flipping burgers, tending bar, or busting your ass as a bike messenger. They cover your tour support. Without that you not only have to pay expenses, you also have to "buy on to" a tour. Opening acts don't usually get paid - they pay.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT IT COSTS TO LAUNCH A PROFESSIONAL CAREER?

After you pay back what you've been advanced you start to see royalties. What, you want to see royalties without having paid back what they already gave you? Are you delusional? NO business operates like that - or they wouldn't be in business very long.

And if your contract's up or they drop you and you haven't paid them back it's their loss, not yours. You're free to hustle another company and do it again. There were artists who ran through 3 or 4 record companies without actually releasing anything, just living off advances. But of course you don't hear about them because they're not complaining and the record companies definitely don't want the world to know that they got took.

Most of the artists moaning about how they got screwed by record companies simply were stupid and put their advance up their nose and got upset when there wasn't any more.

Or that's the way it used to be before the pirates raped the industry and stole all the investment money.

Tell me, what do you do for a living?

Do you support yourself?

Do you play music professionally? (That means for money.)

Do you make your expenses off music?

Have you toured?

If so was it regional, national, or international?

What sized venues were on the tour?

What size venues do you normally play?

Have you ever recorded commercially?

Do you sell your recordings?
Old 9th January 2011
  #115
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
They give you a 'loan' and then let you make a teensy percentage over time on sales. If you're lucky you make a tiny profit at the end, if not you end up owing them money. Its really terrible business, and extremely greedy, and that model is catching up to them. It worked back when it was the only way, but now thank god people have other means so they don't have that 'big label' extortion. In general, buying big label records supports record companies far more than the artist
right - that's why there are no millionaire musicians

Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
I think the best way to support artists is using DL services like bandcamp and itunes - artists can make a big ass profits from them! just look at antoine dodson LOL ....
power to anyone who can, but odds are it's not as much as you'd like to believe because in that case the artist is paying all costs of doing business themselves, in many cases costing them more, and being less effective than a label of professionals doing it for them.

being that you're such a smart guy, you might want to start a label and show us all how it's done right...
Old 9th January 2011
  #116
Lives for gear
 

yeah no pirates totally they rape peoples mothers.

I'm not saying i'm right, because the answer is not clear to me, and i'm not saying your wrong, because you make some good points, but i am saying, just so you know, you sound like a bunch of wackos.
Old 9th January 2011
  #117
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
yeah no pirates totally they rape peoples mothers.

I'm not saying i'm right, because the answer is not clear to me, and i'm not saying your wrong, because you make some good points, but i am saying, just so you know, you sound like a bunch of wackos.
Have you answered this wacko's questions yet?

I'm wackily waiting........
Old 9th January 2011
  #118
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
I'm not saying i'm right, because the answer is not clear to me, and i'm not saying your wrong, because you make some good points, but i am saying, just so you know, you sound like a bunch of wackos.
At last someone gets to the heart of the matter.

Let it be resolved:
1.Piracy = bad
2.The piracy subforum = wackos

Nothing to see here. Move along.
Old 9th January 2011
  #119
Quote:
Originally Posted by spice house View Post
i am saying, just so you know, you sound like a bunch of wackos.
'Wackos' who all have looong experience with both musicians and record companies.
And you have........?
Old 9th January 2011
  #120
Methinks kind long experience with bloggers.

Of course bloggers are the ultimate authorities on everything.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Rick Sanchez / Post Production forum
152
syoreed / Music Computers
43
mac black / Downloads, the future - Q+A forum with expert guests from CD Baby, Tunecore and Nimbit
15

Forum Jump
Forum Jump