The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Why Game Software Publishers Don’t Fear Piracy = why the music biz fails.
Old 10th September 2011
  #121
Lives for gear
 
tvsky's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
It's also a myth to suggest you can listen to free music anywhere.
There are blind spots all over each country.
So unless you listen only at home, or only travel routes you know no dropouts will occur in, you'll still need to own music and carry it on a hd of some kind.
most people spend most of their time in capital cities with pretty much full coverage and that is ever increasing.

of coarse people will always want their own personal music collection , but how much do they need and how much are they prepared to pay for given the free and legal alternatives? It will obviously have an impact.
Old 10th September 2011
  #122
Lives for gear
 
tvsky's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You are wrong on this. Theft is theft. Rampant piracy is what is killing the recorded music industry.

The internet is merely a technology that, at this time, facilitates illegal activity.

That's not inherent in the internet - it's inherent in the way that law enforcement has been failing to deal with the internet.

Tvsky, you've been around here long enough so I'm sure you've read my explanation of this before, but since you seem to have a short memory here it is again.

In the early part of the 20th century there was an epidemic of illegal activity, specifically high profile bank robbery, that was exacerbated by two new technological innovations - the submachine gun and the automobile. The automobile gave bank robbers the ability to pull a job and get over the state line to safety before law enforcement could mobilize against them, due to the fact that there were no laws against interstate flight to avoid prosecution and no federal police agency to co-ordinate pursuit and enforcement on a national level. Bank robbers like John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, and Bonnie and Clyde thrived and became national folk heros in those days when banks were villainized for foreclosing on farmers, small businessmen, and homeowners in the Great Depression. The situation was totally out of control; there was nothing law enforcement could do to stop these new mechanized bandits under the existing legal structure. Attempts to use private security companies like The Pinkertons were only partially successful.

So they changed the legal structure. They made interstate flight a federal crime and they organized the FBI to track, arrest, or simply kill the robbers. Within a couple of years the bank robbery problem, which had been unsolvable under the old system due to the new technologies, was over.

The internet is simply today's version of the automobile. It allows thieves to steal with impunity simply because the necessary law enforcement mechanisms have not been in place to stop it. This is changing and will continue to change.

We've gone through the stage of attempting to use private means of enforcement (The RIAA, civil suits, copyright lawyers), which have not been particularly effective. Now it's time for the federal government to step in.

You can piss and moan about "infringement of your "right" to steal", blah-blah and boo-hoo. I'm sure Bonnie and Clyde and Dillinger felt the same way about the FBI taking away their "right" to flee to safety across state lines.

Good luck with that.

Five charged with criminal copyright infringement
again I was talking about free legal access to music that is currently available on the internet

but as counter to your valid points some might say that the internet by its very nature and design in unenforceable.

I am not saying I totally agree with that , but its a valid point also . Any enforcement at a network level will be difficult , perhaps impossible. At the very best all we can hope to do is make things harder for people and perhaps limit their activities to an extent.

But I don't see the point of enacting harsh piracy measures if everyone switches from downloading mp3s to streaming (and saving , which would be impossible to stop) FLV clips . That transition is already in place and may just get accelerated with harsh enforcement.
Old 10th September 2011
  #123
Eat
Lives for gear
 

i think there's too much music. just like everything else in the computer/internet age, its all become massive info overdosage.

since I got broadband, apps like itunes alone come with tons of stations alone plus my favorite indie terrestrial stations that i couldn't listen to anymore once i moved from their signal area now some 15 odd years later i can now stream all of them. heck, even most all the same producers are still at them dj'ing.

granted its all 'radio' quality, but its fine for when your just sitting around doing things or reading or driving. at home i have an airport connected to my stereo.
if i want jazz, rock, alternative, fusion, electronic, ambient, chillout, filmtrack, spoken word...whatever...there's tons of any genre being streamed

so, its been a long time since it felt it necessary to buy music anymore. and of course, one always has a huge collection of vinyl/cd's of all the stuff they've collected int the pre internet era to listen to.

sure, there's always gonna be stuff you might enjoy but will never ever be aware of but thats always been true. there's only so much time a person has in life. can't grab or know of everything out there, its impossible.

what this has toi do with piracy, idk. i'm just commenting on what tvsky seems to be saying
Old 10th September 2011
  #124
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
again I was talking about free legal access to music that is currently available on the internet

but as counter to your valid points some might say that the internet by its very nature and design in unenforceable..
nonsense.

Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 10th September 2011
  #125
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post
what this has toi do with piracy, idk. i'm just commenting on what tvsky seems to be saying
The glut of amateur crap that can't be given away is not the problem. The wholesale theft of professional music is the problem.

Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 10th September 2011
  #126
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Yes, and LEGAL online streaming sites do pay the artist (or songwriter)
No, it's not as much as a purchase (by a longshot) but it's legal for a reason.
If you want to listen to random stuff on radio, that's fine. (if you mention "Spotify", be prepared.. they'll not last long in their current form..)
Old 10th September 2011
  #127
Eat
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo View Post
The glut of amateur crap that can't be given away is not the problem. The wholesale theft of professional music is the problem.
what are you implying....that music played on 'regular' radio and internet radio streams are amateur content?

or that what i posted has nothing to do with the piracy issue?

if that's the case i was just reinforcing what i perceived tvsky as saying that why buy a lot of music if streaming radio could provide a person with an enormous eclectic mixture if they desired to use it as a supply source
Old 10th September 2011
  #128
Eat
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Yes, and LEGAL online streaming sites do pay the artist (or songwriter)
No, it's not as much as a purchase (by a longshot) but it's legal for a reason.
If you want to listen to random stuff on radio, that's fine. (if you mention "Spotify", be prepared.. they'll not last long in their current form..)

i never heard of spotify. pretty much every terrestrial station internet streams. so at least in the usa, stations are licensed with the fcc, yes?
so what they play is legit, right?

then there's also a lot of web based only radio streams that you also find along terrestrial radio in programs like itunes or windows media player or any other radio app. are they legit?

is pandora legal?
Old 10th September 2011
  #129
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post
i never heard of spotify. pretty much every terrestrial station internet streams. so at least in the usa, stations are licensed with the fcc, yes?
so what they play is legit, right?

then there's also a lot of web based only radio streams that you also find along terrestrial radio in programs like itunes or windows media player or any other radio app. are they legit?

is pandora legal?
YES.
As long as they pay their yearly fee.

SoundExchange

^that's the equivilent of ASCAP,BMI, ect for live performances, except it's Internet only.
Old 10th September 2011
  #130
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
I think you misunderstood.

the consumer can listen to all the music he wants for free without pirating it now , and that is whats going to destroy the industry . And its totally legal.

and that's now in 2011 , whats it going to be like in the next 5-10 years? imagine the bandwidth and connectivity that will be in place then . What hope is there if the industry deliberately gives away its product for free? Or has the industry given up any hopes of defending itself and the per view/stream pittance is as good as its going to get ?

hence the internet itself and not a single activity on it may in fact be the problem. Perhaps there is just no business model that is viable in the always on , everything connected digital future?
Well, no. He can't, really. There are streaming services - but they only work where you can get the stream (which is definitely NOT anywhere, even in major urban areas), the quality is limited, and you can't actually get everything you want. Some labels are already pulling their catalogs from services that don't pay a decent royalty.

Another Label Pulls Catalog from SPOTIFY...

And those services aren't really free, anyway. Either they're advertizing supported or they're subscription based.
Old 10th September 2011
  #131
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
most people spend most of their time in capital cities with pretty much full coverage and that is ever increasing.
"Pretty much"..... Yeah right!

Every major city is riddled with places there is no coverage. Places where cell phones don't work, places where W-Fi doesn't work, etc, etc. And most of those places CAN'T be covered because the dropout is caused by a static feature of the environment.
Old 10th September 2011
  #132
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
but as counter to your valid points some might say that the internet by its very nature and design in unenforceable.
That's what Bonnie and Clyde thought about the laws against robbing banks. Look how that worked out.
Old 10th September 2011
  #133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post
what are you implying....that music played on 'regular' radio and internet radio streams are amateur content?
No. And neither are they free. All that music is paid for. A radio station, be it broadcast or internet, is required to keep logs and pay a royalty on every single play of every single song. It may not be the LISTENER who pays, but the music is paid for just the same - by advertisers or in the case of public radio, by donations.

Quote:
or that what i posted has nothing to do with the piracy issue?
There is that, yes.

Quote:
if that's the case i was just reinforcing what i perceived tvsky as saying that why buy a lot of music if streaming radio could provide a person with an enormous eclectic mixture if they desired to use it as a supply source
And tvsky was merely demonstrating his vast ignorance about how this stuff actually works. See above.
Old 10th September 2011
  #134
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
again I was talking about free legal access to music that is currently available on the internet
It's not free. Free to the consumer doesn't mean somebody isn't paying.
Old 10th September 2011
  #135
Eat
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No. And neither are they free. All that music is paid for. A radio station, be it broadcast or internet, is required to keep logs and pay a royalty on every single play of every single song. It may not be the LISTENER who pays, but the music is paid for just the same - by advertisers or in the case of public radio, by donations.
Great, so that's all good then.
Rhetorically speaking, I guess the point being that, while not necessarily a pirating issue, streaming goes more towards the broader issue of dwindling music sales I suspect.
Old 10th September 2011
  #136
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post
Great, so that's all good then.
Rhetorically speaking, I guess the point being that, while not necessarily a pirating issue, streaming goes more towards the broader issue of dwindling music sales I suspect.
And to that end don't expect Spotify to last in it's current incarnation. Labels are already pulling their content off...


Posted from a scoring stage or recording studio via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 10th September 2011
  #137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post
Great, so that's all good then.
Rhetorically speaking, I guess the point being that, while not necessarily a pirating issue, streaming goes more towards the broader issue of dwindling music sales I suspect.
No more that radio in most cases. Free streaming services don't let you play your total choice of content without restrictions. On Spotify, for example, you can only listen to one song five times in a month. More than that, you pay for premium service or you go buy the song somewhere.

Pandora doesn't give you a real choice of songs, just genres. You choose, for example, "Rolling Stones" and you get a few Stones songs mixed in with a bunch of songs from "Stones-like" bands, some of which may not be much like the Rolling Stones at all.

These services actually act more like promotional channels, taking the place of the now-moribund broadcast radio, than being competition to sales. The real competition to sales is still piracy.
Old 10th September 2011
  #138
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
"Pretty much"..... Yeah right!

Every major city is riddled with places there is no coverage.
Exactly.
Quote:
Despite operator claims of 90% or more 3G coverage, there are still many notspots, including in major towns and cities, according to the map.
Those testers able to receive a data connection only got a 3G signal 75% of the time.
For nearly a quarter of the time they had to rely on older 2G technology.
2G typically offers around one tenth the speed of 3G "mobile broadband".
Mobile coverage has become a huge issue as people rely increasingly on their smartphones to surf the web and send email as well as making phone calls.
And this in a small, highly developed country.
BBC News - 3G mobile data network crowd-sourcing map by BBC News
Old 11th September 2011
  #139
Eat
Lives for gear
 

Granted that I'm a guitar playing geezer in my fifties and its getting harder and harder for my brain to 'light up' like it did not toooo long ago, I find my music buying days have been over for a while.

You're right, terrestrial was always pretty bad beyond FM's early days but personally, I never much was for commercial radio but college and indie listener sponsored.
However, the amount of stations like that available even when I lived in Queens, NY was very limited.

But now with broadband streaming, and as you say there are still playlists, there is just tons more of it. So for me with listening to music, specific artists don't mean much (to me) anymore. Its like the focus is no longer on any particular artist because there are thousands pumping out virtually an identical product in any style people will listen to.

If I want to listen to fusion, or chillout, or alternative for example, there's a large number of both worldwide terrestrial and purely web stations that are genre specific, as well as those that vary genres.

So when I want to listen to music, and, admittedly these days its a background accompaniment while doing something like reading or working, I just turn whatever on and it just keeps coming nonstop out the speakers. Its only when I might hear something REALLY good, I'll check itunes for the artist name and make a note but, I rarely go back because there's just too much damn music anyway!

I really wish I could go back to the pre internet time when I could 'discover' totally one of a kind artists like Kate Bush or Jane Siberry again, because, in those days, these artists were virtually totally alone in their uniqueness (well, still are in a fashion) but with the internet, there's half a million 'quirky female vocalist/artists' pumping that stuff out and while much of it is great *sigh* theres just too much of it and no longer special..

oh well


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No more that radio in most cases. Free streaming services don't let you play your total choice of content without restrictions. On Spotify, for example, you can only listen to one song five times in a month. More than that, you pay for premium service or you go buy the song somewhere.

Pandora doesn't give you a real choice of songs, just genres. You choose, for example, "Rolling Stones" and you get a few Stones songs mixed in with a bunch of songs from "Stones-like" bands, some of which may not be much like the Rolling Stones at all.

These services actually act more like promotional channels, taking the place of the now-moribund broadcast radio, than being competition to sales. The real competition to sales is still piracy.
Old 11th September 2011
  #140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eat View Post
Granted that I'm a guitar playing geezer in my fifties and its getting harder and harder for my brain to 'light up' like it did not toooo long ago, I find my music buying days have been over for a while.

You're right, terrestrial was always pretty bad beyond FM's early days but personally, I never much was for commercial radio but college and indie listener sponsored.
However, the amount of stations like that available even when I lived in Queens, NY was very limited.

But now with broadband streaming, and as you say there are still playlists, there is just tons more of it. So for me with listening to music, specific artists don't mean much (to me) anymore. Its like the focus is no longer on any particular artist because there are thousands pumping out virtually an identical product in any style people will listen to.

If I want to listen to fusion, or chillout, or alternative for example, there's a large number of both worldwide terrestrial and purely web stations that are genre specific, as well as those that vary genres.

So when I want to listen to music, and, admittedly these days its a background accompaniment while doing something like reading or working, I just turn whatever on and it just keeps coming nonstop out the speakers. Its only when I might hear something REALLY good, I'll check itunes for the artist name and make a note but, I rarely go back because there's just too much damn music anyway!
Funny, I'm pretty much just the opposite.

Quote:
"fusion, or chillout, or alternative"
Well some "alternative" stuff is OK, but I tend to look for specific artists, not styles, especially since "alternative" is a somewhat dubious catchall term for anything that isn't "not alternative" Fusion and chillout I avoid like the plague.

I look for particular artists or interesting artists in a given style.

Quote:
"So for me with listening to music, specific artists don't mean much (to me) anymore. Its like the focus is no longer on any particular artist because there are thousands pumping out virtually an identical product in any style people will listen to."
Well, no. In any genre (even presumably ones I can't stand) there will be a few exceptional artists and a pile of me-toos. There is a big problem in the present industry in that there is no development money available so a lot of what gets exposure is the "me-too" acts, which are predictable and appeal to focus group programmers. I guess that one reason that streaming has only a limited appeal to me.

Quote:
I really wish I could go back to the pre internet time when I could 'discover' totally one of a kind artists like Kate Bush or Jane Siberry again, because, in those days, these artists were virtually totally alone in their uniqueness (well, still are in a fashion) but with the internet, there's half a million 'quirky female vocalist/artists' pumping that stuff out and while much of it is great *sigh* theres just too much of it and no longer special..

oh well
There needs to be some new promotional channel that can act as a gateway to filter out all the mediocrity. That definitely is a major problem.

But an equal problem is the degree of conformity being imposed on artists by the lack of development budget.

Don't feel bad about being in your mid 50s - I'm 61........ spent over $300 on CDs last month. Should hold me for a little while.
Old 5th October 2011
  #141
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

Bummer I didn't see this thread sooner...lot of good points made, but I stopped reading halfway through page 2 when the name-calling began.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Actually, what Apple is doing isn't actually DRM for music at all because it's specific to their platform.

Which is where the resemblance to Steam-style DRM begins and ends, as it's not really Steam-style DRM at all.

In fact, it's quite the reverse - it's not DRM to protect the music, it's DRM to protect the platform. It ensures that once a customer purchases a significant amount of music on an Apple based platform they will continue to purchase their music from the Apple store and purchase Apple hardware products to play it because it won't play on anything else. IT PROTECTS THE HARDWARE BASE, NOT THE CONTENT.

In fact, Apple will happily replace you low quality pirated MP3s with higher quality Apple specific files for free to lock you into their playback device platform. THEY DON'T REALLY GIVE A HOOT WHERE YOU GET YOUR CONTENT AS LONG AS YOU BUY APPLE PRODUCTS TO PLAY IT!

Over the past decade, Apple has consistently used pirated music as an incentive to use Apple products, starting with the introduction of the first iPod.

Apple is a hardware company. Their business model is selling you widgets. All the other stuff they do sis simply aimed at locking you into buying Apple widgets and not buying widgets from competing companies. And they're very good at it.
. Apple & Sony both love trying to lock you in to proprietary tech. The one thing Apple has done that requires a closer look is the concept behind the appstore. It gives independent developers the same access to the tools and market as the big guys. If such a concept for a service that provides flexible format content can be combined with the tangible product/extended media & packaging, widgets, apps w/e idea...the right mix will provide incentive to purchase and make sense to the consumer. It won't eliminate piracy altogether, but it might save some struggling folks from going belly up. People love cool collectibles and showing them off to others as a status symbol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Anybody who relies on "the cloud" as their primary storage medium for anything needs to have their head examined.

But go right ahead. In 5 or 10 years I'll be laughing my ass off after the cloud companies start putting the screws to you and the ISPs charge you through the nose for access to your own content.

Interestingly, AT&T just instituted data caps on all their internet accounts. Do you actually think that the fact that they do this at the same time that all these "cloud companies" are the new techno-fad is a coincidence?

I just spent another hundred bucks on CDs today. You couldn't pay me to get near the "cloud".
. Relinquishing control over property for the promise of convenience? Danger
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdme_sadie View Post
I'm amazed that you seem to be under the delusion that the two things are mutually exclusive. A platform without content has no value add, content without a platform is equally dead in the water. Pride though, well apparently that's worth the world to some.

The music industry has a long history of being tied to platforms, vinyl, tape, cd, people owned the rights to those, wanted to get machines out into peoples homes, content drove that. The media, Radio and TV stations set the agenda and controlled who got to hear what, you were as beholden to Sony, to MTV or any number of radio stations as to Apple. Of course if the industry had the idea first (Napster) and run with it now they'd be calling the shots. Instead we all know what route they chose and how well that's worked out. So now someone else with foresight stepped in and controls the board of play. It's a bitter pill especially in the current economic climate, but the economy certainly wasn't this way when this all started, so that's hubris. Anyhow recriminations wont help, the only thing to do is embrace the future and try to get in there ASAP while there's still the possibility of gaining future leverage.
Bjork's newest release = doing it right. People feel entitled to more than just the music, offering some form of tangible accompaniment or exclusive extra content is a great idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
That is a very good question.

On a technical level, no, probably not. Generally when it's time for a technical innovation to come it will happen, regardless of who does it.

On a business level, maybe, somewhat. If the industry had not been so hung up on protected formats legal music would not have been at quite as bad a disadvantage. Whether or not this would have made a difference is anybody's guess.

On a legal level, definitely. The federal government should never have been permitted to ignore the problem and foist the burden of enforcement off onto the industry. That it happened is inexcusable. Would you require a rape victim to find and build the case to prosecute her rapist?
Vinyl+digital download+graphic novel/stickers/iron-ons/posters etc. MERCH. People love to get a deal on stuff they dont really need but want, let them think they're getting one by bundling a bunch of it with the music. Then an increase in price is much easier to justify, as is the acquisition of said bundle.
Old 16th October 2011
  #142
Lives for gear
 

With online Games, like World of Warcraft, which is possibly one of the biggest online gaming ventures EVER...you will find that you indeed can crack it...and indeed play it online with other people who create private servers in the 1000s.

And if you're really good, or part of Jap$.... you can play on blizzard servers...as well.

LOL.

But what happens is, when your private hacked server goes down...WOW still goes on. When Blizzard does find you and ban your 30 day year old level 40 character...you cant retrieve it back...or memorize the list of friends..or rejoin the guild you were in..and so in

So you end up losing much more than playing the game...you lose an experience.

Thats why gaming is different, and thats why people end up paying Blizzard 15$ a month to play....ANYWAY

I used Steam for Counter Strike source when it came out....I Got banned for using a mod that re-enabled by radar? Kinda weird, but i could still play on NON-VAC servers.

So i would goto Game Tiger, find servers, enter console (which is technically "hacking" as well) and join directly...

What happens in this case, is that you're on servers ran by d-bags and people doing their share of experimeting with mods themselves that take more than the fun out of the game. Kind of like running 1000 mph to kill you before the round gets started.

And you're stuck .... so what did i do?

Buy another CS source license.

lol...simple...

Games are like that.

Music, lately, doesn't seem to make people FEEL like that anymore...not in the numbers atleast.
Old 16th October 2011
  #143
Lives for gear
 

Double Post.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump