The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Broadband VS Piracy... A Chart...
Old 3rd October 2011
  #1
Broadband VS Piracy... A Chart...

Broadband Penetration vs. Album Sales, 2000-2010... - Digital Music News



no sh*t.

seriously?

the promise of the internet is size and scale

this is what the proponents of micro economics and internet flat tax surcharges promote and it should have worked for recorded music.

alot of people have pointed to the transition from albums to individual songs as being the cause of reduced revenue for the record industry

I understand where on the surface one could make this argument, however... it should follow the argument made by the pricing proponents

in 1999 in the USA there were probably 10 thousand retail points of sale for physical music, tower, sam goody, target, walmart, etc.

at the time they were selling $20 dollar physical discs - much of the overhead due to physical packaging, manufacturing, shipping and stocking fees.

these physical retail locations had all the problems of supply side inventory management - a band would be on tour, and no stock would be in that market, a song would be played on the radio and the album would quickly be out of stock, etc. a tv show or commercial features a song and suddenly there is demand, but no availability.

these supply side inventory issues combined with limited points of sale were a massive problem for the record industry.

digital distribution has none of these problems

today someone can walk from their living room to their computer (or it may be on their lap) to order the latest hot song, featured in Gossip Girl.

so today in 2010 there are an estimated 500 million* retail points of sale for prerecorded music via itunes alone.
*500 Million_Active_Itunes_Users

just stop and think about this for a second... we went from 10 thousand points of sale to 500 Million points of sale in less than a decade and removed all of the supply side inventory issues... wow.

the promise, size and scale of the internet should have seen sales of pre-recorded music increase, massively...

there is frequent argument made that if music cost less, it would sell more... well, we now have 99 cent songs and 9.99 albums and sales have dropped by half in a decade...

so the industry adapted by:
1) removing inventory problems
2) making music instantly available
3) allowing for songs to be sold individually at a price never before possible and...
4) dropped the price of the album by half of the retail list price of a decade ago


and the industry is still accused of "not adapting"! C'mon now!

but we didn't and haven't seen sales increase (or even flatline) because at the same time, the same product and service is offered for illegally, for free, and without consequence.
Old 4th October 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Not news is it?
Old 4th October 2011
  #3
Lives for gear
it is nice to inject facts and figures into the debate. because otherwise the whole thing's just a giant, stupid headache that goes in circles with the same old moralizing and rationalizing.
Old 4th October 2011
  #4
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

As a new creator and someone who never stopped buying vinyl & tapes once the audio bug bit me, I've thought about this topic for the past few years. There is no lone guilty party.

The A&Rs. It used to be standard that A&Rs had musical backgrounds, were musicians themselves, and they would gamble on signing new talent with a different sound in anticipation of it being the next big thing. The decline began when the seeds were sown on the business side of things once musician A&Rs were replaced with marketing/finance major A&Rs who would observe current flavor-of-the-moment trendy bands that were blowing up & selling big; then sign a clone of that sound in attempt to cash in, saturating the market with trite mediocrity and treating the talent sort of how daytraders handle disposable commodities. Pop music went from The Beatles & the Beach Boys to The Backstreet Boys & NSYNC. Pushing image over the music, they don't invest in developing the band artistically and the bulk of the money spent is on advertising/extreme marketing.

The soundclone "talent" signed by these dummies are just another group of young people who think they're cool [check it out i'm playing guitar!], looking to "make it big" but lack the kind of curiosity or passion to carve their own way and instead stick to the well-worn path of least resistance. They might make a few fans in the start, riding the trend and cashing in with a carefully conceived and well packaged product but there is seldom any sense of fan loyalty by their consumers and like a circus sideshow it's on to the next act.

(Over)charging consumers $20 for a CD is gouging when the full-length album is little more than a vehicle for THE IN-YOUR-FACE single. The explanation of fees about packaging and stocking just don't add up when compared with the higher costs involved with clunky, so-called obsolete analog media formats. LPs & tapes take up more space on trucks and store shelves. Pressing vinyl and cutting tape alone cost significantly more than mass producing an equal number of cds. So on, yet lps and tapes hovered around $12 for singles and $16-20 for gatefold 2xlp or double cassette 6-10 years ago when oil was still $30-40 a barrel. I bought a 7" single last week for $5.98 that came with digital download. Still not a bad deal in late 2011 considering the increase in cost of living and inflation.

Music has become a bigger part of peoples' lives...but in most cases I suspect it isn't discovered by active seeking music fans and instead appeals to casual listening, serving as a backdrop instead of a focal point, or like the difference in reading a teacher-assigned book vs not being able to put a book down after picking it up out of interest. People feel entitled to music now that it's everywhere and everyone is a musician/producer/superstar just waiting to get rich. Add on that PC crap "nobody is bad at something if they tried" mentality and standards are further lowered, yet still go unmet when it comes to a casual listener justifying why spend money on something you can hear for free somewhere, even if the quality is inferior. "I saved money so I must be living better!"

For the artist, the greatest boon of the internet is the exposure; the greatest bane is the distribution of the art where others benefit from the artist without consent or compensation.

Finally, the issue that needs immediate addressing is what I perceive as a lack of creativity in production. I'm pretty green so I like picking brains and discussing my own ideas and sensibilities, and in doing so I've heard a pattern of producers pining for "industry standard" in their recording setup. BORING. "I want my stuff to sound exactly like everything I already hear" is a stifling motto. It's good to have standards, it's better to strive for excellence. As good as everyone else vs the best you can be. There have been no major musical style or sound innovations in the past several years, and anyone who argues for Dubstep.....tutt Let's fix that.
Old 4th October 2011
  #5
Lives for gear
 

With all do respect "music sucks" is not the problem, piracy is...

"better" music/production will not result in less piracy, so therefore anti-piracy is job #1

From there, all other conversations can follow.


Posted from a scoring stage or recording studio via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 4th October 2011
  #6
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo View Post
With all do respect "music sucks" is not the problem, piracy is...

"better" music/production will not result in less piracy, so therefore anti-piracy is job #1

From there, all other conversations can follow.


Posted from a scoring stage or recording studio via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Did you really just paraphrase my post into "music sucks" being the problem? I see you're a busy guy and don't have the time to digest a few paragraphs and reflect on them as a whole so I'll try to condense this one for ya.
Piracy is obviously a primary concern and contributing factor in the decline of album sales, but to cite it as its sole cause is simply not true.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Old 4th October 2011
  #7
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post

(Over)charging consumers $20 for a CD
There is one of the many roots of the problem : $20 overcharging! I've never thought CDs were overpriced.......
Old 4th October 2011
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
As a new creator and someone who never stopped buying vinyl & tapes once the audio bug bit me, I've thought about this topic for the past few years. There is no lone guilty party.

The A&Rs. It used to be standard that A&Rs had musical backgrounds, were musicians themselves, and they would gamble on signing new talent with a different sound in anticipation of it being the next big thing. The decline began when the seeds were sown on the business side of things once musician A&Rs were replaced with marketing/finance major A&Rs who would observe current flavor-of-the-moment trendy bands that were blowing up & selling big; then sign a clone of that sound in attempt to cash in, saturating the market with trite mediocrity and treating the talent sort of how daytraders handle disposable commodities. Pop music went from The Beatles & the Beach Boys to The Backstreet Boys & NSYNC. Pushing image over the music, they don't invest in developing the band artistically and the bulk of the money spent is on advertising/extreme marketing.




(Over)charging consumers $20 for a CD is gouging when the full-length album is little more than a vehicle for THE IN-YOUR-FACE single. The explanation of fees about packaging and stocking just don't add up when compared with the higher costs involved with clunky, so-called obsolete analog media formats. LPs & tapes take up more space on trucks and store shelves. Pressing vinyl and cutting tape alone cost significantly more than mass producing an equal number of cds. So on, yet lps and tapes hovered around $12 for singles and $16-20 for gatefold 2xlp or double cassette 6-10 years ago when oil was still $30-40 a barrel. I bought a 7" single last week for $5.98 that came with digital download. Still not a bad deal in late 2011 considering the increase in cost of living and inflation.
Sorry, you're wrong.

Making music cheaper won't increase sales. It's been tried, it doesn't work. All it does is make the people crying that it's too expensive want to pay even less - because they really don't want to pay anything at all.

As to the bit about only 1 or 2 hit songs per album, that's the way it always was before the Beatles and the way it largely continued to be through the late '60s for many US acts.

in '65 an album cost $5. That's equivalent to around $35-$40 in todays money. A 2 song single was $1. that's equivalent to around $3.50-$4/song in today's money.

Music is not "too expensive" now, it's undervalued. Prices need to increase.

Quote:
Finally, the issue that needs immediate addressing is what I perceive as a lack of creativity in production. I'm pretty green so I like picking brains and discussing my own ideas and sensibilities, and in doing so I've heard a pattern of producers pining for "industry standard" in their recording setup. BORING. "I want my stuff to sound exactly like everything I already hear" is a stifling motto. It's good to have standards, it's better to strive for excellence. As good as everyone else vs the best you can be. There have been no major musical style or sound innovations in the past several years, and anyone who argues for Dubstep.....tutt Let's fix that.
That problem is directly attributable to piracy.

There's no money available to finance elaborate or innovative productions. They're certainly not going to come from bedroom recordists who aren't even capable of achieving a proper run of the mill production that's up to commercial standards.

The commercial assembly line mixers have their jobs because they can put out a consistent product of commercially acceptable quality in a relatively short time within a set budget. It's all economics. When money is tight the first thing that goes out the door is creative innovation because it costs too much and doesn't offer a reliable return on investment.

You want to bring back creativity? Eliminate mass piracy. Drive it back underground where it belongs.
Old 4th October 2011
  #9
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
...because they really don't want to pay anything at all.
Merchants want to overcharge and consumers want to underpay? Stop the presses!
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
in '65 an album cost $5. That's equivalent to around $35-$40 in todays money. A 2 song single was $1. that's equivalent to around $3.50-$4/song in today's money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
I bought a 7" single last week for $5.98 that came with digital download. Still not a bad deal in late 2011
considering the increase in cost of living and inflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Music is not "too expensive" now, it's undervalued. Prices need to increase.
Fully agree @undervalued. What you say makes sense, I've paid $40 and more for lps because I value them as such but I stand by my opinion that CDs were/are too expensive for what they are; a low quality mass-produced format and easily lost/stolen/damaged/mass-duplicated. Their limitations have also encouraged the trend of crappy mastering practices. So increasing price without an increase in quality will be met with nothing but resentment and only speed the decline. The industry's attitude towards consumers is all wrong. By attempting to force someone to your terms, you increase the likelihood they'll go above and beyond to find a way to screw you...and enjoy doing so.

By making your art a product for consumption, you subject it to consequences of the free market. Intellectual property laws are reassuring, but they don't discourage the unseen bootlegger, who is ultimately encouraging business competition and should give the industry incentive to produce higher quality products. If a consumer deems the fare for your ware is too high and its value too low they will seek the better deal for themselves, while apathetic to the losers in the transaction. This is our culture now, free market capitalism right down to the local level. "What's it going to cost me?" rather than "Do the gains justify the price?" Copyright protection will be defeated by bored 13 year olds, warez groups will keep cracking software. The problem with embracing and migrating to digital formats as the exclusive medium is they empower any would-be bootleggers with the same potential level of product QC [fidelity wise] as the legit industry pros. You want to eliminate mass piracy? Sorry, you cant. But by ditching the digital dependency you can certainly help your cause.
Old 5th October 2011
  #10
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
That problem is directly attributable to piracy.

There's no money available to finance elaborate or innovative productions.
Cut the marketing, esp tv and flash adspace, invest into R&D. Develop the talent for the long haul, take the blinders off and put down the quarterly earnings reports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
They're certainly not going to come from bedroom recordists who aren't even capable of achieving a proper run of the mill production that's up to commercial standards.

The commercial assembly line mixers have their jobs because they can put out a consistent product of commercially acceptable quality in a relatively short time within a set budget. It's all economics. When money is tight the first thing that goes out the door is creative innovation because it costs too much and doesn't offer a reliable return on investment.

You want to bring back creativity? Eliminate mass piracy. Drive it back underground where it belongs.
This kind of attitude is the problem. Demanding a "proper run of the mill production" and "consistent product of commercially acceptable quality" which translates to safe, predictable, boring. That argument hardly justifies the existing asking price for such a creative product, let alone suggesting an increase for similar productions. "This is the only way to do things" well, look around...is it working? You can either attempt to fix the causes or continue addressing the symptoms while scapegoating what is largely out of your control.

Last edited by wormburner; 5th October 2011 at 12:20 AM.. Reason: ...killer Zappa clip, btw
Old 5th October 2011
  #11
Gear Addict
 
frawnchy's Avatar
 

I agreed with a lot of what you said, but this is brainless:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
There have been no major musical style or sound innovations in the past several years, and anyone who argues for Dubstep.....tutt Let's fix that.

Not all dubstep = Skrillex, or whatever you think it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Music is not "too expensive" now, it's undervalued. Prices need to increase.
If piracy IS stopped, prices are guaranteed to shoot back up, and they shouldn't. Economies of scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
There's no money available to finance elaborate or innovative productions. They're certainly not going to come from bedroom recordists who aren't even capable of achieving a proper run of the mill production that's up to commercial standards.
If "elaborate" and "innovative" mean "genuine-orchestra-featuring", I'd agree.
As much better off as my favourite 'current' bands would be with more money, I find their relatively low-budget music much more elaborate and innovative than 99.9% of what came in the decades preceding piracy.
In my very humble - and no doubt exquisitely incorrect - opinion.
Old 5th October 2011
  #12
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

@frawnchy
I admit listening to Caspa, Chase & Status in '07. Datsik & Bassnectar in '09. It got stale and reduced to a caricature real quick. With exception to the bitcrushed WUHHHHHHHB WUB WUHHHHB WUUUUUB bass, Tech & Glitch or w/e other microcosm of DNB you like already ran its course with those sounds & textures. Based on your links....I'm hearing a lot of David Arkenstone & Autechre fans. Also 'the formula'. I particularly dug the Benga until the wub wub wub....

Even at its best, dubstep's primary use is for dealing with noisy neighbors pissing you off.

Last edited by wormburner; 7th October 2011 at 03:38 PM.. Reason: questionable link removal
Old 5th October 2011
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
By attempting to force someone to your terms, you increase the likelihood they'll go above and beyond to find a way to screw you...and enjoy doing so.
Nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything. You don't like it? Don't think it's worth the money?

Don't buy it.

Pretty simple, huh? No force involved.

Where force becomes involved is when somebody FORCES me to give them my work for free by stealing it.

[QUOTE]By making your art a product for consumption, you subject it to consequences of the free market.Yes. See above.

Stealing is not part of the Free Market. Stealing removes the option of choice for the seller.

Quote:
Intellectual property laws are reassuring, but they don't discourage the unseen bootlegger, who is ultimately encouraging business competition and should give the industry incentive to produce higher quality products.
Wrong.

A thief is not "competition". A thief is a parasite (literally) on the industry he preys on.

No industry can suffer "competition" from unrestrained thievery and survive.

Quote:
If a consumer deems the fare for your ware is too high and its value too low they will seek the better deal for themselves, while apathetic to the losers in the transaction.
No.

Theft is not a legal option.

The customer may comparison shop between different record vendors - in my town there is often a difference of $2-$3 between the 3 or 4 record shops I patronize on the same title.

The customer may also look for special one time discounts such as those at the recent Borders Bankruptcy sale, where I picked up probably $800+ worth of CDs for $500 over the course of 3 visits.

All those are legal options. The artist and the company get paid. It's up to the retailer how much they want to make. It's VOLUNTARY.

Theft is not voluntary. Theft is forced. Theft is against the law. People who break the law need to face the consequences.

Theft is not a question of "market forces. Theft works only to destroy the market.

Quote:
This is our culture now,
Theft is our culture? I don't think so, it's certainly not mine. Tell ya what - go shopping at the supermarket and try to leave without paying. Go down to the Mercedes dealer and drive a new car off the lot without paying.

The laws against digital theft have been badly underenforced for around 10-15 years, for various reasons I've explained at length elsewhere in this forum. That is now changing. Beware.

$200k Profit, From Piracy...

Quote:
free market capitalism right down to the local level.
Wholesale theft is not "free market capitalism". In fact true free market capitalism cannot survive unrestrained theft.

Quote:
"What's it going to cost me?" rather than "Do the gains justify the price?"
Yes. Note that word - COST. The customer has a right to find the best deal. That does not include stealing the merchandise.

Quote:
Copyright protection will be defeated by bored 13 year olds,
The question of music DRM is moot. You can't copy protect music.

You can, however, prosecute thieves. What I was young it was common for 13 year old kids to go shoplifting after school. Until one or two would get caught and either turned over to their parents or given a ride to the station. After that the word would get around.

Quote:
warez groups will keep cracking software. The problem with embracing and migrating to digital formats as the exclusive medium is they empower any would-be bootleggers with the same potential level of product QC [fidelity wise] as the legit industry pros. You want to eliminate mass piracy? Sorry, you cant. But by ditching the digital dependency you can certainly help your cause.
Well, yes, you can.

You simply have to make it easier and safer not to steal. It will still be possible and some people will still do it but if piracy can be contained to 1990 levels when it was still a matter of the technical underground we'll be OK.

What guys like you, being (I assume) of the nerd persuasion always seem to miss is that the vast majority of people ARE NOT NERDS. They don't think it's "kewl" or romantic to sit around hacking all day. They're not interested in learning to evade DNS blocking. Stuff like that is, well, nerdy.

They're perfectly happy to pirate as long as it's as easy as purchasing legally, but make it even moderately difficult and they'll pay rather than hassle with it.

And if you add on to that the possibility of losing their internet connection with that all important access to Facebook and Twitter, plus all the new (and not so new) access to LEGAL content and most of them won't think piracy is worth the effort and risk.

I don't know if you've heard, but the "Big Four" US ISPs have recently VOLUNTARILY adopted a "six strikes" policy against illegal downloads. And the feds have not only started seizing and blocking domains, they've started up criminal prosecution of site operators and large uploaders again.
Old 5th October 2011
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
Cut the marketing, esp tv and flash adspace, invest into R&D. Develop the talent for the long haul, take the blinders off and put down the quarterly earnings reports.
Do you know anything about business?

Major labels are publicly held corporations. If they don't show a quarterly balance sheet that satisfies the stockholders the corporate officers are out the door. Since it takes at least 3 albums for the type of artist you're talking about to break even that pretty much precludes development of anything but mainstream, formulaic pop that will turn a quick profit. Furthermore there's no future in long term sales as long as the piracy problem exists because at present there is almost no long term sales - if you don't sell a WHOLE BUNCH of records in the first 2 months you're simply not gonna sell.

And the idea of killing your advertising budget is, to not put too fine a point on it, flat outs bonkers crazy.

Indie labels, OTOH, don't have any appreciable ad budgets and are lucky to survive at all.

Quote:
This kind of attitude is the problem. Demanding a "proper run of the mill production" and "consistent product of commercially acceptable quality" which translates to safe, predictable, boring. That argument hardly justifies the existing asking price for such a creative product, let alone suggesting an increase for similar productions. "This is the only way to do things" well, look around...is it working? You can either attempt to fix the causes or continue addressing the symptoms while scapegoating what is largely out of your control.
What do you think we do here?

It's guys like you who yammer interminably about the symptoms.

We talk about the problem.

The problem is piracy.

Piracy is like a tick the size of a St Bernard sucking on a beagle.

There are other problems, such as the demise of broadcast radio, but there are solutions in sight for those - things like Pandora and Spotify promise to take over as promotional outlets.

The big problem is that you can't make money when your product is being stolen and distributed for free.

All the other problems you talk about derive from that. They're not causes.

They're results.
Old 5th October 2011
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
Broadband Penetration vs. Album Sales, 2000-2010... - Digital Music News

...

no sh*t.

seriously?

the promise of the internet is size and scale

this is what the proponents of micro economics and internet flat tax surcharges promote and it should have worked for recorded music.

alot of people have pointed to the transition from albums to individual songs as being the cause of reduced revenue for the record industry

I understand where on the surface one could make this argument, however... it should follow the argument made by the pricing proponents

in 1999 in the USA there were probably 10 thousand retail points of sale for physical music, tower, sam goody, target, walmart, etc.

at the time they were selling $20 dollar physical discs - much of the overhead due to physical packaging, manufacturing, shipping and stocking fees.

these physical retail locations had all the problems of supply side inventory management - a band would be on tour, and no stock would be in that market, a song would be played on the radio and the album would quickly be out of stock, etc. a tv show or commercial features a song and suddenly there is demand, but no availability.

these supply side inventory issues combined with limited points of sale were a massive problem for the record industry.

digital distribution has none of these problems

today someone can walk from their living room to their computer (or it may be on their lap) to order the latest hot song, featured in Gossip Girl.

so today in 2010 there are an estimated 500 million* retail points of sale for prerecorded music via itunes alone.
*500 Million_Active_Itunes_Users

just stop and think about this for a second... we went from 10 thousand points of sale to 500 Million points of sale in less than a decade and removed all of the supply side inventory issues... wow.

the promise, size and scale of the internet should have seen sales of pre-recorded music increase, massively...

there is frequent argument made that if music cost less, it would sell more... well, we now have 99 cent songs and 9.99 albums and sales have dropped by half in a decade...

so the industry adapted by:
1) removing inventory problems
2) making music instantly available
3) allowing for songs to be sold individually at a price never before possible and...
4) dropped the price of the album by half of the retail list price of a decade ago


and the industry is still accused of "not adapting"! C'mon now!

but we didn't and haven't seen sales increase (or even flatline) because at the same time, the same product and service is offered for illegally, for free, and without consequence.
meaningless
illogical graph

crappy content
higher prices
competition
economy in the toilet
is the real reason

piracy has virtual ZERO IMPACT ON SALES that would have happened without the pirates involvement
Old 5th October 2011
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by frawnchy View Post
If piracy IS stopped, prices are guaranteed to shoot back up, and they shouldn't. Economies of scale.
Why shouldn't they? You got something against people getting paid a living wage?

Yeah, a handful of big stars get rich. It's like that in any profession - medicine, restaurants, construction, you name it.

The vast majority of people in the field work their asses off to earn a living.

Quote:
If "elaborate" and "innovative" mean "genuine-orchestra-featuring", I'd agree.
No. Not even close.

I'm talking about the ability to record in a large, purpose built room with great acoustics and a separate control room of adequate dimensions and design into a real console of high quality, which a large and varied selection of high quality microphones with an experienced engineer who knows how to record good sounds and a producer who knows how to encourage the best possible performance from the musicians, allowing the musicians to put out the best possible recording of what they do. "Innovative" comes from allowing musicians to create freely without the constraints of limited, low budget, non-professional facilities. It means production that maximizes the abilities of the artists. It means access to production assistance that can help musicians transcend their current level. Think The Beatles with George Martin. Or Mark Bolan and David Bowie with Tony Visconti

Quote:
As much better off as my favourite 'current' bands would be with more money, I find their relatively low-budget music much more elaborate and innovative than 99.9% of what came in the decades preceding piracy.
In my very humble - and no doubt exquisitely incorrect - opinion.
You got that last bit right, but I won't belabor the point.
Old 5th October 2011
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
meaningless
illogical
What are you babbling about now?

crappy content[/QUOTE]

As previously demonstrated that's an effect of piracy, not a cause.

Quote:
higher prices
Nonsense. Music prices have never been lower.

Quote:
competition
Not a factor. There has always been competition.

We've already discussed that at great length, multiple times.

Quote:
economy in the toilet
Again, not a factor. We've discussed this at great length, numerous times, and you have seen the figures that PROVE there is no correllation between the economy and music sales.

Quote:
piracy has virtual ZERO IMPACT ON SALES that would have happened without the pirates involvement
Again, you have been shown the figures on music sales vs. piracy that PROVE that piracy is the major, if not only, case of the decline in sales.

Why do you keep parroting the same absurd nonsense?

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6652457-post17.html
Old 5th October 2011
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
piracy has virtual ZERO IMPACT ON SALES that would have happened without the pirates involvement
The trouble is you have absolutely ZERO evidence to back that claim.
Meanwhile, some quality research, which has never been disputed by the pirate lobby, makes a clear link between broadband and admitted illegal downloading (including music, movies and television).
So it's your hunch against actual undisputed research data.
Old 5th October 2011
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
meaningless
illogical graph
says you

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
crappy content
again, says you... yeah... mumford and sons, radiohead, they all suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
higher prices
kidding right? album prices are HALF what they were a decade ago and single songs are only 99 cents... you'd have to go back to the 70s to get pricing that low, and that's not even adjusting for the inflation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
competition
from who? these guys?
https://www.soundclick.com

let me know when that stuff starts filling ipods, ok?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
economy in the toilet
hasn't made in signifcant difference in three decades prior to Y2K, and if the economy was a factor, why didn't record sales skyrocket with the economy in the housing boom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
is the real reason
see above, it's a laughable list.

piracy has virtual ZERO IMPACT ON SALES that would have happened without the pirates involvement[/QUOTE]

I'd love to know where you get your data...

been through this you, looking at 30 years of data, the economy has had ZERO IMPACT ON SALES on the record business, however, the ubiquity of broadband and widespread piracy is where the numbers plummet... sorry, you are just flat out wrong on this one...

every other contributory factor existed prior to piracy, including but not limited competition from rival consumer products, the economy, etc. And taking that all into account sales climbed steadily for three decades until the onset of massive online digital piracy...




the years correspond to excel row numbers, the graph represents 36 years of data 1973 - 2008.

Excel graphed the years as follows:

1973 is plot point "1"

1979 is plot point "7"

2008 is plot point "36"



so it looks like the "economy" really isn't that big of a factor after all, looking at 36 years of data...

Add to that each decade also saw it's own added consumer competition... The 70s saw the initial release of vcrs and video cassettes as well as video game consoles and cartridges, the 80s say home video boom as vhs matured, cable tv boomed, new types of youth sports took hold, the 90s saw the introduction of dvds, home computers became household items, people started paying for internet service, and cell phones began to be common place...

And yet through each one of those decades (without rampant online piracy) sales grew steadily until p2p and broadband reach ubiquity at the turn of the century...

Then, the sales plummet.

You can choose to ignore this like you can choose to ignore a train crossing or a stop sign, but it's foolish and irrational to do so.
Old 5th October 2011
  #20
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything. You don't like it? Don't think it's worth the money?

Don't buy it.
The people who download illegally take this advice.
Quote:
Stealing is not part of the Free Market. Stealing removes the option of choice for the seller.
Sorry but stealing is part of the free market, legal or not. It's a reality. You can toughen the laws, or rather enforce the existing ones on the books and people are still going to steal if they want to.

Quote:
A thief is not "competition". A thief is a parasite (literally) on the industry he preys on.


No industry can suffer "competition" from unrestrained thievery and survive.

Theft is not a legal option.
Legal or not, it is always an option. You cant force people to be moral.
Quote:
The customer may comparison shop between different record vendors - in my town there is often a difference of $2-$3 between the 3 or 4 record shops I patronize on the same title.

The customer may also look for special one time discounts such as those at the recent Borders Bankruptcy sale, where I picked up probably $800+ worth of CDs for $500 over the course of 3 visits.

All those are legal options. The artist and the company get paid. It's up to the retailer how much they want to make. It's VOLUNTARY.

Theft is not voluntary. Theft is forced. Theft is against the law. People who break the law need to face the consequences.

Theft is not a question of "market forces. Theft works only to destroy the market.
Theft is most certainly voluntary. Nobody is being forced to steal unless it's food and they're starving.
Quote:
Theft is our culture? I don't think so, it's certainly not mine.
Not theft, people focusing on cost rather than gain with the attitude of a sociopath. The kind of people who steal and think they did nothing wrong.
Quote:
The question of music DRM is moot. You can't copy protect music.
Right. You can always make analog bootlegs and then rip them to an unrestricted digital format.
Quote:
You can, however, prosecute thieves. What I was young it was common for 13 year old kids to go shoplifting after school. Until one or two would get caught and either turned over to their parents or given a ride to the station. After that the word would get around.
And the serious thieves get craftier. <challengeaccepted.jpg>
Quote:
You simply have to make it easier and safer not to steal. It will still be possible and some people will still do it but if piracy can be contained to 1990 levels when it was still a matter of the technical underground we'll be OK.
We're on the same page here.
Quote:
What guys like you, being (I assume) of the nerd persuasion always seem to miss is that the vast majority of people ARE NOT NERDS. They don't think it's "kewl" or romantic to sit around hacking all day. They're not interested in learning to evade DNS blocking. Stuff like that is, well, nerdy.
Well I never, how dare you! Takes one to know one! Outrage! But um, what does DNS blocking have to do with anything we're talking about? So while most people might not be interested in computer code [me being one of them] it's a different story if they can easily learn to exploit the system to get a bunch of free stuff that isn't technically free. There is a strong sense of entitlement and desire for instant gratification in the current, young generation.
Quote:
They're perfectly happy to pirate as long as it's as easy as purchasing legally, but make it even moderately difficult and they'll pay rather than hassle with it.
To people with limited means [and they're growing] the path of least resistance might not necessarily be the one with the price tag...
Quote:
And if you add on to that the possibility of losing their internet connection with that all important access to Facebook and Twitter, plus all the new (and not so new) access to LEGAL content and most of them won't think piracy is worth the effort and risk.
You really think that's a deterrent to the determined? Do you not know how easy it is to get on the internet with anonymity?
Quote:
I don't know if you've heard, but the "Big Four" US ISPs have recently VOLUNTARILY adopted a "six strikes" policy against illegal downloads. And the feds have not only started seizing and blocking domains, they've started up criminal prosecution of site operators and large uploaders again.
Yeah I've heard. I have no problem with that in itself, however I wonder how this might open the doors for assault on net neutrality.
Old 5th October 2011
  #21
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Do you know anything about business?

Major labels are publicly held corporations. If they don't show a quarterly balance sheet that satisfies the stockholders the corporate officers are out the door. Since it takes at least 3 albums for the type of artist you're talking about to break even that pretty much precludes development of anything but mainstream, formulaic pop that will turn a quick profit. Furthermore there's no future in long term sales as long as the piracy problem exists because at present there is almost no long term sales - if you don't sell a WHOLE BUNCH of records in the first 2 months you're simply not gonna sell.

And the idea of killing your advertising budget is, to not put too fine a point on it, flat outs bonkers crazy.

Indie labels, OTOH, don't have any appreciable ad budgets and are lucky to survive at all.
Yes, I do. You adapt to survive. Limiting the pop market with novelty acts has without a doubt contributed to its decline. That business model is old hat like video rental stores. Also I said cutting, not killing ad budget. This is the era of social media where we have viral videos spreading the fastest form of word of mouth ever seen. Learn how to use the technology to your advantage.
Quote:
There are other problems, such as the demise of broadcast radio, but there are solutions in sight for those - things like Pandora and Spotify promise to take over as promotional outlets.

The big problem is that you can't make money when your product is being stolen and distributed for free.

All the other problems you talk about derive from that. They're not causes.

They're results.
Can you provide a shred of evidence that links the points I have addressed in this thread as being directly caused by piracy?
Old 5th October 2011
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
Yes, I do. You adapt to survive.
Yeah, it's as if no one has adapted?

Part of adapting is lobbying for protection against rampant product theft. Another part of adapting is educating people about how they are damaging good music, by not putting back, just taking. Another part of adapting is by finding ways to stay afloat despite piracy. I think just about 90% of professionals are doing all the above.




Quote:
Limiting the pop market with novelty acts has without a doubt contributed to its decline. That business model is old hat like video rental stores. Also I said cutting, not killing ad budget. This is the era of social media where we have viral videos spreading the fastest form of word of mouth ever seen. Learn how to use the technology to your advantage.
Funny, you've described Rebecca Black 'Friday' in both scenarios. Novelty act that took full advantage of social media.
Again, you honestly think most professional musicians aren't learning to use new technology to their advantage? You are wrong.
Old 5th October 2011
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
Sorry but stealing is part of the free market, legal or not. It's a reality. You can toughen the laws, or rather enforce the existing ones on the books and people are still going to steal if they want to.
You don't understand economics.

Quote:
Legal or not, it is always an option. You cant force people to be moral.
Sure you can. That's what laws are for.

Quote:
Quote:
The customer may comparison shop between different record vendors - in my town there is often a difference of $2-$3 between the 3 or 4 record shops I patronize on the same title.

The customer may also look for special one time discounts such as those at the recent Borders Bankruptcy sale, where I picked up probably $800+ worth of CDs for $500 over the course of 3 visits.

All those are legal options. The artist and the company get paid. It's up to the retailer how much they want to make. It's VOLUNTARY.

Theft is not voluntary. Theft is forced. Theft is against the law. People who break the law need to face the consequences.

Theft is not a question of "market forces. Theft works only to destroy the market.
Theft is most certainly voluntary. Nobody is being forced to steal unless it's food and they're starving.
Either you're deliberately being disingenuous or your didn't understand what I said.

Theft is not voluntary FOR THE SELLER. Theft forcibly removes the seller's right to determine the price of his product.

There is nothing "free" about theft because it forcibly removes the element of choice from the transaction.

If you don't understand that you not only don't understand economics, you don't understand society or basic human interaction; you're a sociopath.

Quote:
Not theft, people focusing on cost rather than gain with the attitude of a sociopath. The kind of people who steal and think they did nothing wrong.
Indeed. The attitude you're reflecting in your argument is sociopasthic.

Quote:
Quote:
What guys like you, being (I assume) of the nerd persuasion always seem to miss is that the vast majority of people ARE NOT NERDS. They don't think it's "kewl" or romantic to sit around hacking all day. They're not interested in learning to evade DNS blocking. Stuff like that is, well, nerdy.
Well I never, how dare you! Takes one to know one! Outrage! But um, what does DNS blocking have to do with anything we're talking about? So while most people might not be interested in computer code [me being one of them] it's a different story if they can easily learn to exploit the system to get a bunch of free stuff that isn't technically free. There is a strong sense of entitlement and desire for instant gratification in the current, young generation.
DNS blocking is at the core of the PROTECTIP Act and the IN OUR SITES program. If you're talking about evading antipiracy provisions then evading DNS blocking is at the top of your list. If you don't understand this I'd advise that you spend some time reading the first page or two of threads in the piracy forum to get up to speed on the discussion before continuing to post. It'll save everyone a lot of typing.

My point is that people don't want to learn how to jump through hoops to exploit the system. If it isn't no-brainer easy (like piracy is now) the majority of people won't do it. Remember, the majority of people can't be bothered to learn how to program a VCR.

Quote:
To people with limited means [and they're growing] the path of least resistance might not necessarily be the one with the price tag...
Well, if piracy continues to run rampant their numbers will certainly increase. The economic effects of piracy are the reason that the government is finally taking steps to control it. The music business is just the canary in the coal mine.

Quote:
You really think that's a deterrent to the determined?
Again, the vast majority of people are not that determined. It's not like food or water. People can live without music.

Quote:
Quote:
And if you add on to that the possibility of losing their internet connection with that all important access to Facebook and Twitter, plus all the new (and not so new) access to LEGAL content and most of them won't think piracy is worth the effort and risk.
Do you not know how easy it is to get on the internet with anonymity?
True anonymity? Or the illusion of anonymity? The illusion's pretty easy. True anonymity is a lot harder, some say it's impossible. It all depends on how bad they want to get you.

The fact is that while it's possible to get a connection at Starbucks or whatever it's not really a substitute for a connection at home. People are becoming increasingly dependent on their internet connections for essential services such as paying bills (a trend that I don't approve of, myself) and they're not gonna want to run out to Starbucks to do it. And students won't want to hunt up a wifi connection to do their homework.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't know if you've heard, but the "Big Four" US ISPs have recently VOLUNTARILY adopted a "six strikes" policy against illegal downloads. And the feds have not only started seizing and blocking domains, they've started up criminal prosecution of site operators and large uploaders again.
Yeah I've heard. I have no problem with that in itself, however I wonder how this might open the doors for assault on net neutrality.
That's a common theme among the pro-piracy crowd. In reality it won't affect it at all. There are far more serious assaults against net neutrality (I'm assuming that we mean the same thing by "net neutrality" here - the phrase is used by different sides to mean diametrically opposed concepts.)
Old 5th October 2011
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
Yes, I do. You adapt to survive. Limiting the pop market with novelty acts has without a doubt contributed to its decline. That business model is old hat like video rental stores. Also I said cutting, not killing ad budget. This is the era of social media where we have viral videos spreading the fastest form of word of mouth ever seen. Learn how to use the technology to your advantage.
Social media have proven to be a singularly poor marketing tool. And "viral videos" are totally unpredictable and unreliable.

Look at what goes viral:

Rebecca Black

Cute pet videos

Charlie Bit Me



Not much in the way of great music there, is there?

Quote:
Can you provide a shred of evidence that links the points I have addressed in this thread as being directly caused by piracy?
Sure. Read the forum.

Do you really think you've said anything that hasn't been addressed a zillion times before?
Old 5th October 2011
  #25
Gear Head
 
wormburner's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yeah, it's as if no one has adapted?

Part of adapting is lobbying for protection against rampant product theft.
By passing more laws to restrict and even punish the innocent in hopes of thwarting the guilty and would-be offenders? You aren't concerned with alienating your potential audience?
Quote:
Another part of adapting is educating people about how they are damaging good music, by not putting back, just taking. Another part of adapting is by finding ways to stay afloat despite piracy. I think just about 90% of professionals are doing all the above.
Those are things you should have been doing all along. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you aren't inviting any sympathy by seeking to blame all of the industry's problems on piracy without an acceptance of personal responsibility. Again, you can't force people to be moral. Threats and extremism result in resentment and alienation of your allies. Not that I [or anyone?] really thinks an artist or tradesman getting compensated is extreme. Most of the proposed actions I read are simply doomed from the start, piracy levels aren't going to 'return to the 90s' by passing new legislation as the laws take something like 5 years to catch up with the internet's pace. Piracy obv isn't new, but its presence is much more felt due to opportunity the digital environment provides. You aren't going to effectively solve the existing problems that were exacerbated by new technology with newer technology or big brother-like surveillance.

Quote:
Funny, you've described Rebecca Black 'Friday' in both scenarios. Novelty act that took full advantage of social media.
Again, you honestly think most professional musicians aren't learning to use new technology to their advantage? You are wrong.
Yeah speaking of funny I nearly choked and had to reread what you said there. @implying Rebecca Black's infamy is the result of a plan, a good thing for pros, and the model that's going to save the industry. @suggesting 1 [s]hit wonders will stop the nerds from bootlegging the single, no matter how magnificently awful and corny the music is.

And just because the student wants to learn doesn't mean he will be effective at what he learns... and treating R.Black as your mentor speaks volumes about the kind of excellence and longevity *you* strive for. Let's take a look around to see how well these pros are using that same tech with the old hat business model and enjoying success. Give me some examples, I cant think of any.

Now as for doing it right, I mentioned Bjork [other thread] as a good example of adapting. Jack White is also on to something. That 13 year old hewa is not.
Old 5th October 2011
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
By passing more laws to restrict and even punish the innocent in hopes of thwarting the guilty and would-be offenders? You aren't concerned with alienating your potential audience?
Punish the innocent?

Pull the other one, it has got bells on!

People who steal are, by definition, not innocent. And while they may be "part of the audience" they are not CUSTOMERS. They're like people sneaking into the venue without paying. So f*ck 'em.

Quote:
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you aren't inviting any sympathy by seeking to blame all of the industry's problems on piracy without an acceptance of personal responsibility.
So now you're blaming the victim. It's the victim's fault ("responsibility") for being victimized.

Quote:
Again, you can't force people to be moral.
Again, that's what laws are for. Maybe they don't work 100% but they seem to do a good enough job most of the time. So I'd say that you definitely CAN force people to be moral, at least most of the time.

Quote:
Yeah speaking of funny I nearly choked and had to reread what you said there. @implying Rebecca Black's infamy is the result of a plan, a good thing for pros, and the model that's going to save the industry. @suggesting 1 [s]hit wonders will stop the nerds from bootlegging the single, no matter how magnificently awful and corny the music is.

And just because the student wants to learn doesn't mean he will be effective at what he learns... and treating R.Black as your mentor speaks volumes about the kind of excellence and longevity *you* strive for. Let's take a look around to see how well these pros are using that same tech with the old hat business model and enjoying success. Give me some examples, I cant think of any.
You appear to have completely missed the point.
Old 6th October 2011
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormburner View Post
By passing more laws to restrict and even punish the innocent in hopes of thwarting the guilty and would-be offenders?
When the automobile was invented there were no rules.
You didn't have to take a test, you didn't need a license. There were no speed limits.
With new technology inevitably comes unforseen issues which are inevitably resolved by legislation.
Old 6th October 2011
  #28
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
By passing more laws to restrict and even punish the innocent in hopes of thwarting the guilty and would-be offenders? You aren't concerned with alienating your potential audience?
lol, what when and where are these "innocent" people being punished?

The new laws aren't anything 'new', they're implimenting a way to enforce laws that are already on the books. There wasn't any gun regulations before there were guns. There wasn't any laws against wire fraud before telecommunication. Don't be a "dinosaur" complaining that things are evolving..

If you're referring to the Protect IP bill being considered, i'd say you haven't read it. In fact, if that's what you're talking about, i'd go so far as to say "i know" you haven't read it.
Old 6th October 2011
  #29
Lives for gear
 
tvsky's Avatar
 

i could do the same graph Youtube viewership vs album sales and the graph would look exactly the same and be just as relevant

if you discard the effect of massive social and cultural changes that have taken place in the last 15 years your clearly missing a big part of the picture

as we can't take out piracy we have no idea where the music industry sits in the modern world and what kind of numbers it would really generate

but I know one thing , piracy or not its never going to be like 1995 again
Old 6th October 2011
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvsky View Post
as we can't take out piracy we have no idea where the music industry sits in the modern world and what kind of numbers it would really generate
but I know one thing , piracy or not its never going to be like 1995 again
That is true in my opinion.
But all of which is no excuse at all not to tackle piracy head on and try and protect creative people from being ripped off by consumers.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump