Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 62 63 64 65 66 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
you're a customer - the most important player in any industry
so I take it you won't be getting off your arse any time soon to give us something to bit torrent?
-
that bit hits the spot perfectly. the entertainment value recognised at last.
You flatter yourself. But that's hardly new.
-
What amuses me most is being accused of trying to derail the thread with pointless discussion
Who said that?
Well,
come on sam F.
you're better than that.
your derailing a convo over perceived numbers....
Although "perceived numbers" might not automatically equate to "pointless discussion", given the length of your subsequent post, in which case I guess OH GOD THE DOOMSPIRAL
-
DO.NOT.ENGAGE.
-
What Mark said. We've seen eneough pig-wresting around these parts to verify the delight for mud.
-
Points taken; thank you, chaps. I'll step back a bit now, but reserve the right to poke borax at the sillier bits from time to time, once normal (heh) service resumes.
-
I do like "doomspiral". Apt.
-
Well,
apologies to you sam f, you definitely were not derailing a convo over perceived numbers, mark was. a missed used collective "you're".
-
Re Jake:
"Only three people understood the Schleswig-Holstein Question. The first was Albert, the Prince consort and he is dead; the second is a German professor, and he is in an asylum: and the third was myself — and I have forgotten it."
-
APRA Silver Scroll Awards will be presented in Christchurch this year, a first. So robbery will be able to go.
-
APRA Silver Scroll Awards will be presented in Christchurch this year, a first. So robbery will be able to go.
Just when I thought I was out, etc., but I think that'll call for a guest post when it happens, surely?
-
So robbery will be able to go.
dude.... so asking for it.
Free drinks etc, I take it you'll be there?
-
dude.... so asking for it.
Free drinks etc, I take it you'll be there?
I might well be invited, but going to Christchurch is a bit of a stretch.
And yes, I do get the insult. Hilarious.
-
Tut tut, engaging. This will not end well...
-
Tut tut, engaging. This will not end well...
Yes, you are right.
-
This will not end...
-
well?
-
Hilarious.
far be it from you to provoke.
:) why didn't you just obey mark. you don't want to make him angry. you wouldn't like him when he's angry. Waikanae's own bruce banner. -
For some sober assesments of where free music is heading, this Hypebot page pulls together a good range of opinion.
-
<opinion>Some of those people are clinging to a false hope. I think Kevin Kelly (surprise) and the guy from INgroove have it sussed, but most of the rest are still talking about "maintaining exclusivity" and using free as a promo.
I'll stick with Reznor's view from the clip I posted the other day - as soon as it gets published, someone will rip it and put it online for free. It is not possible to stop that technically. If your business model doesn't take account of that, you don't have a viable business model.
And it doesn't matter whether it's music, art, literature or photographs; if it can be delivered digitally, someone is going to give it away, whether you want them to or not.
Now that you know that, formulate a business plan that takes it into account. That is the only sustainable way to make money in this environment.</opinion>
-
Thing is, Mark, finding a 'business plan' in recorded music- and even more in film and tv- when its value to the consumer is 0c is... not simple.
The "pay per play" idea- or everyone having a vast digital collection online for a small access fee- both offer possibility. But it's worth noting the scepticism of some of these "players" about the eventual ability of such services to pay a price both sides can live with. (That's already apparent with the youtube debate.)
As Glenn Peoples says in the Billboard piece linked to,... just as he did in "The Long Tail," Anderson did not draw enough distinction between marginal cost – which in the case of digital distribution is zero – and average cost. When Anderson writes that "the marginal cost of digital information comes closer to nothing," what he means is the marginal cost of distributing that digital information. There are significant costs in recording music. The cost of creating a brand and inducing awareness, other considerations Anderson understates, are both unavoidable and considerable. An insignificant cost of creating and distributing one more digital file does not reflect the amount of investment to be recouped.
There's a little more in this than "industry people" wanting to (further) feather their nests. It comes back to robbery's original feelings of misgiving: "free" sounds great, but it'll have down-stream effects we may not like so much.
Personally, I have a very low tolerance for advertising wrapped round my culture.
I'm not robbery ;-) Unlike him, I tend to agree that free is not just where it's at, but where it's likely to stay. Like him, I'm not prepared to call it a great leap forward. -
Like him, I'm not prepared to call it a great leap forward.
but it's only free if one assumes that sales to listeners are the primary income stream for music creators and once that's been stripped there is little other way to make a return. That's not been the case for most of a decade now. Even before that I'd wager the the bulk of the income of just about any substantial recording artist over the past few decades has not come from the direct sale of master recordings of performances to end users.
The big question is whether the free model has negatively impacted the production and creation of music. And that is something even the most casual observer can see has not happened to date. There was more music released commercially in the US in 2008 than in any other year ever and the UK is currently undergoing a flurry of fresh innovative grassroots bands and acts. Clearly those 'significant costs' are being covered somehow, and that argument from Glenn Peoples misses the point that in the past past those significant costs include supporting vast and hugely expensive (and bloated) recording organisations which are quite clearly rapidly being washed away.
-
Thing is, Mark, finding a 'business plan' in recorded music- and even more in film and tv- when its value to the consumer is 0c is... not simple.
Who said it was going to be simple, Rob? The only simplicity is in understanding that, whether it's a leap forward or not, that's the way it is now, get over it and find a way to make it work for you. And that's what the majority of the writers in that Hypebot series don't seem to want to do. They're talking about "digital exclusivity" like they can still manufacture scarcity to increase value. Nuh-uh. It doesn't work like that in the digital world.
There's a little more in this than "industry people" wanting to (further) feather their nests.
Of course there is. There's a way of life disappearing, entire business models vanishing, I know this. Those writers don't seem to.
-
Clearly those 'significant costs' are being covered somehow
But there's still a problem that isn't just the preserve of music, but most internet media -- the advertising revenue is simply spread too thin across too much inventory.
For all the tub-thumping from the PRS about YouTube, that was the problem there -- just not enough revenue per page. It was *not* that Google/YouTube was somehow evil, it just didn't want to run the service at more of a loss than it already is.
Spotify is going to face exactly the same problem -- there's some money in it, but the incremental revenue is bloody small, especially in a recession.
But, like I say, the music industry isn't alone in grappling with that.
-
I agree with your point Russell, it is a good one.
Without enough focus/volume/revenue for single points/web pages/bands it is incredibly hard for anyone to reach the critical mass of actually turning a profit on their investment, this has been the biggest change in the music industry in the past 10 years-you simply can’t get enough people to pay attention to one act for long enough for them to make a bunch of dough on it
So the model becomes how do you make a little bit of money from allot of people giving you only a small amount of their time-whilst at the same time not making disposable one-off shit product that is only designed to grab 15 seconds of fame. It is an incredibly tough problem and gets even harder when you have to balance the fact that you also have your true hardcore fans that will desert you in an instant if they feel you are selling out or compromising what you stand for
I have to agree with Bob Lefsetz that the days of making mega stars are either very limited or just over altogether, it is very much about small and mid level bands being smart about what they do and making an income through allot of various revenue points as opposed to a massive hit carving them out a fortune. My favorite quote at the moment is from Bryce Edge who manages Radiohead – “If you have 50,000 fans you have a business model”, he is correct in that it is about having a smaller number of people who truly believe in you and then looking after them and keeping them for a long period of time. The possibility of making a career out of music is still very much there, it’s just how you go about getting it is very differentOn the You Tube front I find this very very frustrating. Yes there is promotional value in having your music clip viewed by a bunch of people on the web-only an idiot would argue otherwise. The question to me is how does that value balance against the value of owning a website that you sell advertising on when none of the copyright is yours (and in the vast majority of cases you have no rights to). Personally (and I know a bunch of people will disagree) I think that the value is tilted in favor of the rights holder and they should be compensated accordingly (particularly when you look at the capital value of sites such as You Tube), but this is an argument that has many sides and opinions with both sides making good points
Post your response…
This topic is closed.