The minute an artist releases their material that's it it's out there and they have no control of it and so won't make the money they should.
Unless it's really good or really popular, in which case it will accrue royalties for being played on the radio or television, for being used in samples, films, adverts, etc. And in which case it will stimulate bookings to perform on radio, television, and at venues.
Ok, You are an artist. You have a deal with Amazon/Ebay. I buy your album for £10. I think put it on my computer and on the share sites.
Well there is the problem, YOU have uploaded it. Consumers need to find their conscience as a part of this. Why did YOU upload it?
I know part of your argument will be 'well somebody will upload it', that's not a justification for YOU to download it is it? Clearly if artists are no longer providing the media for distribution, then the costs need to come down considerably (£5/10song album) and/or use the 'honesty box' method.
The thoughts of the record company guy made me laugh, he was of the opinion that if £200 million worth of illegal downloads take place that's £200 million worth of revenue they have lost.
Err not quite, people who download stuff for free won't suddenly go out and buy these things if piracy is made impossible, they consume it because it's free, if they had to pay for it then it won't get consumed. The DEMOS survey suggests, people who download stuff illegally buy more than people who don't, why didn't they put that to the media companies for comment?
As others have said I also believe the media industries have been ripping us off for years, look how DVDs are priced, cheaper to make than VHS and yet cost more. Oh yeah, they put the cutting room floor on the disc to try and make you think you are getting value for money.
Hmm, but what about the artists that aren't on "giant record labels" as you put it? Artists like Mark Lanegan (just for example), who is not only extremely talented, but is also not a media **** and yet highly respected amongst his peers - he's worked with so many different artists. I wouldn't dream of 'stealing' (because that's what it is, plain and simple) from an artist such as that. It's all well and good saying the money comes from touring, but for people like Lanegan it ALL helps.
With regard to the second bit in bold - speak for yourself.
Here's a question...
Why does having a talent mean you HAVE to be paid or rewarded for it?
I trained for three years as an actor, and have released two albums... none of which has earned me a penny. Not through lack of talent... I get commissions and parts all the time... but the market is SATURATED.
As others have said I also believe the media industries have been ripping us off for years, look how DVDs are priced, cheaper to make than VHS and yet cost more. Oh yeah, they put the cutting room floor on the disc to try and make you think you are getting value for money.
A poor comparison. By way of example I bought the X Files Seasons on both VHS and DVD upon their initial release. VHS sets were going for @£100 on the high street (pre net days) and I never paid more than @£45 for each DVD season (now of course, they’re practically pennies). Factor in all the extra material you got on DVD vs bugger all on VHS, the picture quality, space savings etc and it’s patently untrue that DVD as an overall format has ever really been overpriced. You’d be better off making a case about Paramount and their pricing on Star Trek releases as they have gouged from day one through all the formats: VHS, laserdisc, DVD, HD, Blu-Ray. I can’t recall that far back but I’m willing to bet their 8mm releases of clips to hobbyists in the 70s were similarly extortionate!
A poor comparison. By way of example I bought the X Files Seasons on both VHS and DVD upon their initial release. VHS sets were going for @£100 on the high street (pre net days) and I never paid more than @£45 for each DVD season (now of course, they’re practically pennies). Factor in all the extra material you got on DVD vs bugger all on VHS, the picture quality, space savings etc and it’s patently untrue that DVD as an overall format has ever really been overpriced. You’d be better off making a case about Paramount and their pricing on Star Trek releases as they have gouged from day one through all the formats: VHS, laserdisc, DVD, HD, Blu-Ray. I can’t recall that far back but I’m willing to bet their 8mm releases of clips to hobbyists in the 70s were similarly extortionate!
You are using the example of box sets, sadly we can't compare VHS with DVD any more, but I would suggest that box sets are cheap because, they will already have been sold individually, had their TV rights sold and therefore the companies have already got their money's worth before releasing them as a collection.
A newly released film on DVD can have a RRP of £15.99, bearing in mind that the DVD disc and packaging probably costs less than a pound to produce the company are charging £15 for the film and (as I mentioned earlier) the scenes that weren't good enough to be in the film that they add as "extras". If you think that's value for money then fair enough, but I don't.
You are using the example of box sets, sadly we can't compare VHS with DVD any more, but I would suggest that box sets are cheap because, they will already have been sold individually, had their TV rights sold and therefore the companies have already got their money's worth before releasing them as a collection.
Season sets are rarely, if ever, broken up and sold seperately on DVD anymore (as in one or two eps per disc as they were with VHS and laserdisc). Ironically you’ve just destroyed your own assertion because with VHS, individual volumes were nearly always available before and alongside season sets so by your logic VHS season sets should have been cheaper than DVD ones, and they weren’t.
A newly released film on DVD can have a RRP of £15.99, bearing in mind that the DVD disc and packaging probably costs less than a pound to produce the company are charging £15 for the film and (as I mentioned earlier) the scenes that weren't good enough to be in the film that they add as "extras". If you think that's value for money then fair enough, but I don't.
There’s more involved in producing a DVD than physical manufacturing costs and it’s facile and luddite to compare slapping a grotty looking transfer onto VHS as opposed to remastering for SD DVD and now blu-ray.
Re. Single title VHS releases - Dr Who VHS’ compare poorly to their DVD counterparts price-wise and that’s even before you factor in the masses of additional features or....."cutting-room rubbish" as you like to term it. How is a feature length commentary with the original participants "cutting-room" rubbish BTW?
Most new single disc DVD new releases are available for a tenner on pre-order now and quickly drop even further after release so you’d have to go out of your way to pay more than £9.99 for any new title. Hardly "extortionate" is it?
The problem with "legitimate" downloads is that unless you are into modern albums - it can be a lot more expensive than simply picking up a CD.
I dont like a lot of modern music and tend to go for 60s, 70s and 80s stuff. I also tend not to like albums either, instead prefering to pick and choose tracks from different artists.
On iTunes - individual songs are 79p each - why am I going to download stuff from there when I can pick up a compilation album with over 100 songs on it for well under a tenner. I only have to find a few songs that I like (or that my wife likes) to make it worthwhile - and i'm free to use the songs on whichever sound system I like, and I have a physical disc as a backup in the case of a harddrive crash.
Alot of this stopping filesharing malarky is down to the users not pressing the 'encrypt traffic' buttons within the software. Nor will it stop Newsgroup folk who use SSL security. They can shut/threaten all they want, it will just move people onto ways that can't be tracked (well can be tracked but they won't know what you actually downloaded).
Maybe if the artists bother to make some better quality tracks instead of singing about any old crap, people might actually buy the music. Booohooo profits are down, excuse me...so their down yet their still making a profit. How about make a loss then complain no?. Not to mention companies like Apple know their helping fuel downloading. What did they think was going to happen??
Before iPods we all had memory sticks with 256mb/1gb space on and we could all whack a few tunes on those.....then the almighty iPod comes along with it's massive 30gb hard drive, what did it get advertised like? oh yes 'the new 30gb iPod can hold 20,000 songs'.......are they stupid? who would pay 79p 20,000 times to fill up that iPod? let alone even a 100times (why get a hundred songs when you paid for a device that can hold 20,000).
Season sets are rarely, if ever, broken up and sold seperately on DVD anymore (as in one or two eps per disc as they were with VHS and laserdisc). Ironically you’ve just destroyed your own assertion because with VHS, individual volumes were nearly always available before and alongside season sets so by your logic VHS season sets should have been cheaper than DVD ones, and they weren’t.
What I meant (my apologies for not making it clear) was that the seasons are sold individually and so some revenue has already been gained before they are released in a box set. VHS box sets should have been cheaper, which kind of backs up my point that the media company's have been ripping us off for years.
There’s more involved in producing a DVD than physical manufacturing costs and it’s facile and luddite...
and with that comment I can't be bothered to continue discussing this with you. Having worked in DVD production I would say I have more idea of the costs involved than you do, but hey I'm a luddite apparently.
Well there is the problem, YOU have uploaded it. Consumers need to find their conscience as a part of this. Why did YOU upload it?
I know part of your argument will be 'well somebody will upload it', that's not a justification for YOU to download it is it? Clearly if artists are no longer providing the media for distribution, then the costs need to come down considerably (£5/10song album) and/or use the 'honesty box' method.
You're wrong that isn't any part of my argument.
It's really simple and you hit the nail on the head with the word "conscience."
I would do it because I don't care about people getting paid for their music anymore than I do that anyone else that doesn't for copyrighted material.
I don't care anymore than I care that the stuff I buy cheap in the pub almost certainly is stolen and the original owner wont get any of the money I pay for it.
I don't care anymore than I d knowing that the cheap goods I buy on the pound shops and a boot sales or markets is almost certainly to be that cheap because of cheap labour and sweat shops in poor countries.
I say it's wrong blah blah blah, but in reality I'm a hypocrite and don't care about anyone other than myself, what's good for me and what I get.
If you want people with consciences, morals etc you need to go back in time. In 2010 it's all about what I want and not think about other people and any repercussions of my actions.
This isn't about the big nasty record companies and the poor artists. This affects everyone that creates anything whether it be music, film, fashion or anything else that a person creates. There will always be people that will want to get it or some form of copy of it for nothing.
Piracy is an unstoppable crime. It's wrong but it's a fact of life that everyone has to accept.
....and with that comment I can't be bothered to continue discussing this with you. Having worked in DVD production I would say I have more idea of the costs involved than you do, but hey I'm a luddite apparently.
ie, you know your tortured logic has backed you into a corner so you’re dropping out before everyone else realises it. FYI, I’ve worked in the biz since the early 90s so it’s unfortunate you came up against someone who knows what they’re on about.
Pre-recorded VHS cassettes (even without adjusting for inflation most of the time) were more expensive to the punter then than DVDs are now which is the exact opposite of what you claimed, that somehow now the consumer is being ripped off when in ye olde times they weren’t. And I haven’t even mentioned that practically every pre-recorded VHS from back then has degraded, some being totally unwatchable whereas DVD has a virtually unlimited life especially with the backward compatibility of blu-ray machines.
In your opinion torrents, which download parts from all available sources, are old technology but downloading from a single server source isn't?
I'd disagree.
In terms of the popular methods of filesharing torrents are IMO. As more and more legal pressure is put onto people who use torrents, more people are migrating to other means.
Unless it's really good or really popular, in which case it will accrue royalties for being played on the radio or television, for being used in samples, films, adverts, etc. And in which case it will stimulate bookings to perform on radio, television, and at venues.
True but you're relying on someone wanting to use your songs and paying for those. Pirate radio stations won't pay. Shops that put CD's on almost certainly don't pay anything. Not all places that play music bother applying for licences let alone worry about if the artists get their money when they pop a CD on.
However how do you become popular when there are now more and more retro radio stations appearing? On the very rare occasions I do put music on I listen to Absolute80s (Sky Ch 0200) or something like Capital Gold.
The number of radio stations to get your material out there on is diminishing.
The main stations play artists that have already made it and very rarely an unknown or indie artist. The ones that do then only play the ones that have the better PR team pushing their material.
I think the woman on the TV show was called Katie Nash(?) or something like that. She said she was big thanks to MySpace but it wasnt until the record companies signed her that it really took off for her. Let's say the record company hadn't come in. What is the chances of her getting what she was posting on MySpace getting played on the BBC? It would all be down to word of mouth and hope someone went to Myspace and have a listen.
It could happen but with the amount of music online it's virtually the same as a record company recieving 500 demos a week. If you're lucky enough that someone actually listens to your demo you may be in with a shot. If the person looks at the pile and can't be bothered you're stuffed.
IMO I can see ISp's teaming up with Various labels and film sources and adding a tariff to people who 'want' to access a legal filesharing service.
and basically jumping all over anybody they suspect is doing it etc.
Mandy is so out of touch if he thinks people are just suddenly going to stop..theres ISP's out there offer short term contracts now on the 2nd warning letter people are simply going to move on to another ISP.
I thought the programme didn't amount to much. It seems this bill might lead to some people being warned: big deal. For me, it didn't explain how they are supposed to catch you in the first place. (Maybe the issue will turn out like drugs prevention, with just illegal sellers being targeted, such as those sites online where you have to pay a membership fee before downloading products they don't have the rights to.)
How they plan to catch you is to force the ISP to use deep-packet inspection on all internet users, to basically watch everything you do. This will affect everyone, not just filesharers. Also the cost of doing this will be born by the ISPs so in reality it will be passed on to us, the consumers.
How they plan to catch you is to force the ISP to use deep-packet inspection on all internet users, to basically watch everything you do. This will affect everyone, not just filesharers. Also the cost of doing this will be born by the ISPs so in reality it will be passed on to us, the consumers.
so ISP's like sky talk talk etc..who have millions of customers is going to be looking at a massive bill ?that would explain why talk talk is so up in arms about this issue.
Youtube is becoming annoying. You go on to listen to a song from an artist in your country, that has been released in your country, and find that on their official section probably on their record label...
It's dying as an major entertainment form for the reasons I mentioned as it's no longer a main form of entertainment, it's become less important and secondary compared to other forms of entertainment.
Considering sales of gig tickets have risen by something like 400% over the past few years I certainly wouldn't say music as a form of entertainment is dying. It could be argued that as a live form it has never been more popular. Look how many music festivals there are now. When I started toing to music gigs in the late 1970s there werew two festivals, Reading and Glastonbury. Now there is at least one a week throughout the summer. If people weren't listening to music, they would all fold.
Ok, You are an artist. You have a deal with Amazon/Ebay. I buy your album for £10. I think put it on my computer and on the share sites. How have you as an artist benefiited more than the record companies have? You got my tenner but 20 people have taken from me to try it and see what it's like. That's £200 you've lost.....
That's assuming that those 20 people would of payed the £10 if that was the only way of obtaining a copy. Truth is, a fair proportion wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't free. So yes, the artist loses out on some income but not as much as the record companies would have you believe.
Youtube is becoming annoying. You go on to listen to a song from an artist in your country, that has been released in your country, and find that on their official section probably on their record label...
This content has been blocked for your country.
WTF?
But if you scroll down you usually find another link to the same clip or a similar one.
The key is to "get in early" before it gets blocked and download it using Quivic or similar softwear.
The point he was making was most people's music systems are their PC, are their ipods/mp3 players. If you take the PC away or the internet connection you are literally taking away their record player because they cant listen to it anymore and their ipod/mp3 player is useless since it relies on a PC and an internet connection to get music onto it.
And yeah torrents are old technology. File sharing is done via places like fileupload.com, rapidshare.com and the fantastic megaupload.com. Files can be renamed so they can't be traced and that is how most people download these days. Nobody gonna question a 700mb file called Holiday Photos lol. So how do you stop that? Well i don't think you can. Maybe that is why they are targeting torrent sites and torrent programs. I just can't think of a way they could stop it. I think we are at a point now were no one will buy music or films like they used to. The industry can't go back to how it was and it will not go back to how it was.
Entirely wrong. This bill won't affect people like myself, as we're a part of secure, encrypted sites that trade via newsgroups, FTP and secure torrenting through VPN, which will make it very, very hard for anyone to prove anything. The show on the whole was a joke though, largely an exercise in scaremongering. DDL if anything, makes it easier to be traced, because rapidshare,netload and hotfile are the same company, operating out of germany where they habitually hand over server logs to law enforcement.
Being able to download music has introduced me to a lot more "new" music than listening to the radio ever has and I do go on to go to gigs and buy back catalogues of newly discovered (by me) artists - that is if they are even available to buy in this country
Comments
Unless it's really good or really popular, in which case it will accrue royalties for being played on the radio or television, for being used in samples, films, adverts, etc. And in which case it will stimulate bookings to perform on radio, television, and at venues.
Well there is the problem, YOU have uploaded it. Consumers need to find their conscience as a part of this. Why did YOU upload it?
I know part of your argument will be 'well somebody will upload it', that's not a justification for YOU to download it is it? Clearly if artists are no longer providing the media for distribution, then the costs need to come down considerably (£5/10song album) and/or use the 'honesty box' method.
Err not quite, people who download stuff for free won't suddenly go out and buy these things if piracy is made impossible, they consume it because it's free, if they had to pay for it then it won't get consumed. The DEMOS survey suggests, people who download stuff illegally buy more than people who don't, why didn't they put that to the media companies for comment?
As others have said I also believe the media industries have been ripping us off for years, look how DVDs are priced, cheaper to make than VHS and yet cost more. Oh yeah, they put the cutting room floor on the disc to try and make you think you are getting value for money.
Here's a question...
Why does having a talent mean you HAVE to be paid or rewarded for it?
I trained for three years as an actor, and have released two albums... none of which has earned me a penny. Not through lack of talent... I get commissions and parts all the time... but the market is SATURATED.
So I work in computers. It pays the bills.
Talent is not a bus ticket to a paycheck.
A poor comparison. By way of example I bought the X Files Seasons on both VHS and DVD upon their initial release. VHS sets were going for @£100 on the high street (pre net days) and I never paid more than @£45 for each DVD season (now of course, they’re practically pennies). Factor in all the extra material you got on DVD vs bugger all on VHS, the picture quality, space savings etc and it’s patently untrue that DVD as an overall format has ever really been overpriced. You’d be better off making a case about Paramount and their pricing on Star Trek releases as they have gouged from day one through all the formats: VHS, laserdisc, DVD, HD, Blu-Ray. I can’t recall that far back but I’m willing to bet their 8mm releases of clips to hobbyists in the 70s were similarly extortionate!
You are using the example of box sets, sadly we can't compare VHS with DVD any more, but I would suggest that box sets are cheap because, they will already have been sold individually, had their TV rights sold and therefore the companies have already got their money's worth before releasing them as a collection.
A newly released film on DVD can have a RRP of £15.99, bearing in mind that the DVD disc and packaging probably costs less than a pound to produce the company are charging £15 for the film and (as I mentioned earlier) the scenes that weren't good enough to be in the film that they add as "extras". If you think that's value for money then fair enough, but I don't.
Season sets are rarely, if ever, broken up and sold seperately on DVD anymore (as in one or two eps per disc as they were with VHS and laserdisc). Ironically you’ve just destroyed your own assertion because with VHS, individual volumes were nearly always available before and alongside season sets so by your logic VHS season sets should have been cheaper than DVD ones, and they weren’t.
There’s more involved in producing a DVD than physical manufacturing costs and it’s facile and luddite to compare slapping a grotty looking transfer onto VHS as opposed to remastering for SD DVD and now blu-ray.
Re. Single title VHS releases - Dr Who VHS’ compare poorly to their DVD counterparts price-wise and that’s even before you factor in the masses of additional features or....."cutting-room rubbish" as you like to term it. How is a feature length commentary with the original participants "cutting-room" rubbish BTW?
Most new single disc DVD new releases are available for a tenner on pre-order now and quickly drop even further after release so you’d have to go out of your way to pay more than £9.99 for any new title. Hardly "extortionate" is it?
I dont like a lot of modern music and tend to go for 60s, 70s and 80s stuff. I also tend not to like albums either, instead prefering to pick and choose tracks from different artists.
On iTunes - individual songs are 79p each - why am I going to download stuff from there when I can pick up a compilation album with over 100 songs on it for well under a tenner. I only have to find a few songs that I like (or that my wife likes) to make it worthwhile - and i'm free to use the songs on whichever sound system I like, and I have a physical disc as a backup in the case of a harddrive crash.
Maybe if the artists bother to make some better quality tracks instead of singing about any old crap, people might actually buy the music. Booohooo profits are down, excuse me...so their down yet their still making a profit. How about make a loss then complain no?. Not to mention companies like Apple know their helping fuel downloading. What did they think was going to happen??
Before iPods we all had memory sticks with 256mb/1gb space on and we could all whack a few tunes on those.....then the almighty iPod comes along with it's massive 30gb hard drive, what did it get advertised like? oh yes 'the new 30gb iPod can hold 20,000 songs'.......are they stupid? who would pay 79p 20,000 times to fill up that iPod? let alone even a 100times (why get a hundred songs when you paid for a device that can hold 20,000).
and with that comment I can't be bothered to continue discussing this with you. Having worked in DVD production I would say I have more idea of the costs involved than you do, but hey I'm a luddite apparently.
You're wrong that isn't any part of my argument.
It's really simple and you hit the nail on the head with the word "conscience."
I would do it because I don't care about people getting paid for their music anymore than I do that anyone else that doesn't for copyrighted material.
I don't care anymore than I care that the stuff I buy cheap in the pub almost certainly is stolen and the original owner wont get any of the money I pay for it.
I don't care anymore than I d knowing that the cheap goods I buy on the pound shops and a boot sales or markets is almost certainly to be that cheap because of cheap labour and sweat shops in poor countries.
I say it's wrong blah blah blah, but in reality I'm a hypocrite and don't care about anyone other than myself, what's good for me and what I get.
If you want people with consciences, morals etc you need to go back in time. In 2010 it's all about what I want and not think about other people and any repercussions of my actions.
This isn't about the big nasty record companies and the poor artists. This affects everyone that creates anything whether it be music, film, fashion or anything else that a person creates. There will always be people that will want to get it or some form of copy of it for nothing.
Piracy is an unstoppable crime. It's wrong but it's a fact of life that everyone has to accept.
In your opinion torrents, which download parts from all available sources, are old technology but downloading from a single server source isn't?
I'd disagree.
ie, you know your tortured logic has backed you into a corner so you’re dropping out before everyone else realises it. FYI, I’ve worked in the biz since the early 90s so it’s unfortunate you came up against someone who knows what they’re on about.
Pre-recorded VHS cassettes (even without adjusting for inflation most of the time) were more expensive to the punter then than DVDs are now which is the exact opposite of what you claimed, that somehow now the consumer is being ripped off when in ye olde times they weren’t. And I haven’t even mentioned that practically every pre-recorded VHS from back then has degraded, some being totally unwatchable whereas DVD has a virtually unlimited life especially with the backward compatibility of blu-ray machines.
Seriously, think it through next time.
In terms of the popular methods of filesharing torrents are IMO. As more and more legal pressure is put onto people who use torrents, more people are migrating to other means.
True but you're relying on someone wanting to use your songs and paying for those. Pirate radio stations won't pay. Shops that put CD's on almost certainly don't pay anything. Not all places that play music bother applying for licences let alone worry about if the artists get their money when they pop a CD on.
However how do you become popular when there are now more and more retro radio stations appearing? On the very rare occasions I do put music on I listen to Absolute80s (Sky Ch 0200) or something like Capital Gold.
The number of radio stations to get your material out there on is diminishing.
The main stations play artists that have already made it and very rarely an unknown or indie artist. The ones that do then only play the ones that have the better PR team pushing their material.
I think the woman on the TV show was called Katie Nash(?) or something like that. She said she was big thanks to MySpace but it wasnt until the record companies signed her that it really took off for her. Let's say the record company hadn't come in. What is the chances of her getting what she was posting on MySpace getting played on the BBC? It would all be down to word of mouth and hope someone went to Myspace and have a listen.
It could happen but with the amount of music online it's virtually the same as a record company recieving 500 demos a week. If you're lucky enough that someone actually listens to your demo you may be in with a shot. If the person looks at the pile and can't be bothered you're stuffed.
"The music video" is always available on YouTube..free!
Music companies do add a link at the bottom of the screen for you to download the tune sometimes, I wonder how many people bother?
and basically jumping all over anybody they suspect is doing it etc.
Mandy is so out of touch if he thinks people are just suddenly going to stop..theres ISP's out there offer short term contracts now on the 2nd warning letter people are simply going to move on to another ISP.
How they plan to catch you is to force the ISP to use deep-packet inspection on all internet users, to basically watch everything you do. This will affect everyone, not just filesharers. Also the cost of doing this will be born by the ISPs so in reality it will be passed on to us, the consumers.
so ISP's like sky talk talk etc..who have millions of customers is going to be looking at a massive bill ?that would explain why talk talk is so up in arms about this issue.
Youtube is becoming annoying. You go on to listen to a song from an artist in your country, that has been released in your country, and find that on their official section probably on their record label...
This content has been blocked for your country.
WTF?
Considering sales of gig tickets have risen by something like 400% over the past few years I certainly wouldn't say music as a form of entertainment is dying. It could be argued that as a live form it has never been more popular. Look how many music festivals there are now. When I started toing to music gigs in the late 1970s there werew two festivals, Reading and Glastonbury. Now there is at least one a week throughout the summer. If people weren't listening to music, they would all fold.
Muscians have always made their money playing live, rather than from record sales, so it's hardly something new.
The key is to "get in early" before it gets blocked and download it using Quivic or similar softwear.
Entirely wrong. This bill won't affect people like myself, as we're a part of secure, encrypted sites that trade via newsgroups, FTP and secure torrenting through VPN, which will make it very, very hard for anyone to prove anything. The show on the whole was a joke though, largely an exercise in scaremongering. DDL if anything, makes it easier to be traced, because rapidshare,netload and hotfile are the same company, operating out of germany where they habitually hand over server logs to law enforcement.