Quote:
“I would be more than happy to embrace a system whereby an album was seen as 'content' ie there was no ownership per se but that the writer/owner/composer of the material was paid for delivering it.
I've always seen there being two possible systems for the future of music. One, you the consumer purchase internet access. And from that access you are entitled to stream, view, download whatever. But from your fees paid to your internet provider, royalties are paid to artists according to 'airplay' - like PRS if you will. Impossible to police and monitor probably.
The other, more likely option would be if an album was seen as an asset sold just once to a network or a broadband supplier. An artist makes an album, and instead of a traditional record deal or royalties they are paid a 'buy out' price for their work. Like a film company selling their film to a studio who then distribute it. Networks and broadband providers would then make this work they purchased outright from an artist and make it available to their subscribers.
Obviously, like the film business, the owner of the work would also share in profits and any exploitation of the work. The 'buy out' would be a period of exclusivity for example. Beatles music would be expensive to buy. A new artist possibly more affordable. And charts come from how much of an audience a work generates. This data then determines what collateral an artist has for future works.
The downside to this is, of course new artists.
Who is going to pay a new artist what it cost and what they deserve? Who is going to give a new artist a shot? The answer is new music will be expected to be given over freely. Lily Allen is still blogging about this issue - check out what she has to say at her blog.
We can't stop 'file sharing' - but I absolutely support the need for a model that pays the people who work hard to entertain us all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you want evidence that file sharing has destroyed the recorded music industry, look no further than at the disappearance of studios. You'd have to use sophisticated archeologists because many of them don't exist anymore.
The recording studios where I recorded and mixed my last album, 'This Delicate Thing We've Made' have vanished. These were studios where seminal albums by everyone from Coldplay to Tears For Fears. From Kate Bush to the Gorillaz. Gone Gone Gone.[/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=3][FONT=Helvetica]
The studio where I recorded 'Spin' and Savage Garden's 'Affirmation'? Broke.
The studio where I mixed 'The Tension and The Spark' ?
Dust.
They went broke because they weren't getting any clients.
They weren't getting any clients because not many people could afford to spend the kind of money it costs to record
in a quality recording studio facility.
Those people couldn't afford to record in such spaces because record companies weren't offering the kind of budgets
that used to allow for such costs.
Record companies aren't offering those kinds of budgets because the sale of records doesn't earn enough money to
pay back the investment.
The investment is not being made because the sale of records are so low.
The sale of records are so low because it has generally become the consensus that music is 'free'.
Records sell so few copies these days that major record stores are closing down.
When I was in L.A, I couldn't find the Virgin Mega Stores I used to love. 3 used to exist within a five mile radius of my
hotel.
They're gone now.
When I was in San Francisco, I went to hang out at my favourite Virgin store where I bought 5 years of music, DVD's books
t shirts etc.
It used to be open until midnight most nights.
Then it used to have reduced opening hours.
Then one day, it closed.
Now it's a massive building with nothing in it.
Because the building used to sell music.
And now the general consensus is that music is 'free'.
People think that music is free because you can get it for free if someone gives it away for free.
Giving it away for free really means that someone takes a copy of it, either before it is released or after one person has paid
for it, and puts it online.
When someone 'finds' it online, they're not 'stealing' it. They're 'taking it'. It was offered for free. And besides, they want it.
Surely we should be allowed to have, for free, anything we want in life, no?
So who takes responsibility?
If someone steals a car (which costs about the same prices as say, making a cheap music video these days) and tried to sell it
on ebay - all sorts of people would be held accountable.
But if, say, someone takes the new album by artist 'X' - and posts it on rapidshare - and a hundred thousand people take it - it seems
no one is really held responsible.
They might say, 'well the record companies are making a fortune' (they're not)
or 'The artist is rich (not anymore or possibly they never were)
or maybe they'll point the finger at the person hosting the link - the third party. The 'pimp' in the transaction if you will.
But you can't. Not really.
What happens is the album eventually comes down, after a hundred thousand people have taken it - and the world continues.
Without record stores.
Or great sounding albums.
Or music videos that look amazing.
Or with recordings no longer created in amazing recording studios on incredible equipment that no longer exists.
Without record companies willing to develop new artists and spend money to promote them or allow them to grow.
Because music is, apparently, free.
Would it be so crazy to suggest that an internet provider, a person who might describe their service as providing an ISP -
are actually the ones responsible for the death of the recorded music industry?
Would it be so ludicrous to suggest that if ISP's cancelled the accounts of people who were identified giving away
albums - that this whole problem might be less grim?
Ironically, try to catch a glimpse online of the recent Michael Jackson tribute at the VMA's.
What's that? You can't?
That's because youtube are terrified of Viacom. The minute any 'illegal content' appears from MTV it's immediately
removed. The same can't be said for entire CD quality rips of music over at any number of file sharing web sites.
Music, is apparently, free.
I say it all the time - but what is music worth to you?
I paid for music when I was dead broke.
And when I became wealthy from making a success of my career, I almost went broke making sure I could make
music the way it should sound, in the way it deserved to be presented. So please don't accuse me of being in a position
of privilege. I've always been about putting my money where my mouth was when it came to this issue. Most of the money I earned
from my success in the past has been used to fund my own independent releases.
So my rant is really directed at Governments around the world to come down hard on ISP's. And protect the recorded
music industry. Successful albums mean jobs - band members, crew, designers, directors, manufacturing etc etc etc.
Retail Retail Retail. All soon to be Gone Gone Gone.
This is not about popstars. It's about an industry that is falling apart ironically when the world's interest in music is
at a peak.
For other artist's point of view, check out Lily Allen's latest blog
or this article about Jamie T here.”
“I would be more than happy to embrace a system whereby an album was seen as 'content' ie there was no ownership per se but that the writer/owner/composer of the material was paid for delivering it.
I've always seen there being two possible systems for the future of music. One, you the consumer purchase internet access. And from that access you are entitled to stream, view, download whatever. But from your fees paid to your internet provider, royalties are paid to artists according to 'airplay' - like PRS if you will. Impossible to police and monitor probably.
The other, more likely option would be if an album was seen as an asset sold just once to a network or a broadband supplier. An artist makes an album, and instead of a traditional record deal or royalties they are paid a 'buy out' price for their work. Like a film company selling their film to a studio who then distribute it. Networks and broadband providers would then make this work they purchased outright from an artist and make it available to their subscribers.
Obviously, like the film business, the owner of the work would also share in profits and any exploitation of the work. The 'buy out' would be a period of exclusivity for example. Beatles music would be expensive to buy. A new artist possibly more affordable. And charts come from how much of an audience a work generates. This data then determines what collateral an artist has for future works.
The downside to this is, of course new artists.
Who is going to pay a new artist what it cost and what they deserve? Who is going to give a new artist a shot? The answer is new music will be expected to be given over freely. Lily Allen is still blogging about this issue - check out what she has to say at her blog.
We can't stop 'file sharing' - but I absolutely support the need for a model that pays the people who work hard to entertain us all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you want evidence that file sharing has destroyed the recorded music industry, look no further than at the disappearance of studios. You'd have to use sophisticated archeologists because many of them don't exist anymore.
The recording studios where I recorded and mixed my last album, 'This Delicate Thing We've Made' have vanished. These were studios where seminal albums by everyone from Coldplay to Tears For Fears. From Kate Bush to the Gorillaz. Gone Gone Gone.[/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=3][FONT=Helvetica]
The studio where I recorded 'Spin' and Savage Garden's 'Affirmation'? Broke.
The studio where I mixed 'The Tension and The Spark' ?
Dust.
They went broke because they weren't getting any clients.
They weren't getting any clients because not many people could afford to spend the kind of money it costs to record
in a quality recording studio facility.
Those people couldn't afford to record in such spaces because record companies weren't offering the kind of budgets
that used to allow for such costs.
Record companies aren't offering those kinds of budgets because the sale of records doesn't earn enough money to
pay back the investment.
The investment is not being made because the sale of records are so low.
The sale of records are so low because it has generally become the consensus that music is 'free'.
Records sell so few copies these days that major record stores are closing down.
When I was in L.A, I couldn't find the Virgin Mega Stores I used to love. 3 used to exist within a five mile radius of my
hotel.
They're gone now.
When I was in San Francisco, I went to hang out at my favourite Virgin store where I bought 5 years of music, DVD's books
t shirts etc.
It used to be open until midnight most nights.
Then it used to have reduced opening hours.
Then one day, it closed.
Now it's a massive building with nothing in it.
Because the building used to sell music.
And now the general consensus is that music is 'free'.
People think that music is free because you can get it for free if someone gives it away for free.
Giving it away for free really means that someone takes a copy of it, either before it is released or after one person has paid
for it, and puts it online.
When someone 'finds' it online, they're not 'stealing' it. They're 'taking it'. It was offered for free. And besides, they want it.
Surely we should be allowed to have, for free, anything we want in life, no?
So who takes responsibility?
If someone steals a car (which costs about the same prices as say, making a cheap music video these days) and tried to sell it
on ebay - all sorts of people would be held accountable.
But if, say, someone takes the new album by artist 'X' - and posts it on rapidshare - and a hundred thousand people take it - it seems
no one is really held responsible.
They might say, 'well the record companies are making a fortune' (they're not)
or 'The artist is rich (not anymore or possibly they never were)
or maybe they'll point the finger at the person hosting the link - the third party. The 'pimp' in the transaction if you will.
But you can't. Not really.
What happens is the album eventually comes down, after a hundred thousand people have taken it - and the world continues.
Without record stores.
Or great sounding albums.
Or music videos that look amazing.
Or with recordings no longer created in amazing recording studios on incredible equipment that no longer exists.
Without record companies willing to develop new artists and spend money to promote them or allow them to grow.
Because music is, apparently, free.
Would it be so crazy to suggest that an internet provider, a person who might describe their service as providing an ISP -
are actually the ones responsible for the death of the recorded music industry?
Would it be so ludicrous to suggest that if ISP's cancelled the accounts of people who were identified giving away
albums - that this whole problem might be less grim?
Ironically, try to catch a glimpse online of the recent Michael Jackson tribute at the VMA's.
What's that? You can't?
That's because youtube are terrified of Viacom. The minute any 'illegal content' appears from MTV it's immediately
removed. The same can't be said for entire CD quality rips of music over at any number of file sharing web sites.
Music, is apparently, free.
I say it all the time - but what is music worth to you?
I paid for music when I was dead broke.
And when I became wealthy from making a success of my career, I almost went broke making sure I could make
music the way it should sound, in the way it deserved to be presented. So please don't accuse me of being in a position
of privilege. I've always been about putting my money where my mouth was when it came to this issue. Most of the money I earned
from my success in the past has been used to fund my own independent releases.
So my rant is really directed at Governments around the world to come down hard on ISP's. And protect the recorded
music industry. Successful albums mean jobs - band members, crew, designers, directors, manufacturing etc etc etc.
Retail Retail Retail. All soon to be Gone Gone Gone.
This is not about popstars. It's about an industry that is falling apart ironically when the world's interest in music is
at a peak.
For other artist's point of view, check out Lily Allen's latest blog
or this article about Jamie T here.”
This is taken in full from his blog here.
There is some interesting proposals there, but would I.S.Ps really feel the need to buy content at extra expense to their business? Of course those costs would then get passed onto the I.S.P's customers..
Everyone seems to have an opinion on this at the moment, I wonder what everyone here thinks about Darren's thoughts.
I think his suggestion would be hard to work, because people are already getting their music free from numerous sources, would content being purchased by I.S.Ps actually make a difference?
.
.
