Not going to get into the whole downloading argument there, mookeywrench, but bands don't make any royalties off of records until costs are recouped. It's that simple. It's not unusual for an artist to have fulfilled all recording obligations under a contract, have some recordings that sold relatively well, but still not receive any royalties. I read somewhere that fewer than 15% of records recoup.
Copy-and-pasted this from a music business handbook: If an artist makes three albums with each having recoupable costs of $100,000 and the albums sell very few copies but the artist makes a fourth album for $100,000, then the artist will not receive any royalties until the label has recouped $400,000.
Is it evil that a record company expects to be paid back for its investment? No. But at least raise the royalty rate of records sold so that recoupment costs are paid off quicker, allowing the artist to make some money off of their own albums.
For example, if a band is given $500,000 to make a record, and they make $1 off of each CD, they have to sell a half a million records before they make one cent off of CD sales.
No, that means if they sell half a million albums they just made half a million dollars with the leverage of a record label. They don't pay back the record label with their own out of pocket earnings, they pay it back through the record label's share of royalties. Every buck earned per CD sale goes into the pockets of the band.
It's interesting how everyone posts about being so indebted to making sure the band gets their fair share from the record label, then once they hit the submit button they go onto megaupload and illegally download all their music.
Who has more of a right to take a share of a band's royalties, someone who loans them $500,000 to get the album out....or someone who likes their music a lot?
every buck the band earns per cd goes to the band, because thats ALL the band gets. 1 dollar. the rest go to the label. thats an exploitative relationship and even though its commonplace i'd argue its illegal, and if not, its at the very least unethical.
and the leverage of the label? What is that? Leverage in terms of promotion and press maybe, but not in terms of art. There is a difference between a major promoting a record because they feel the album will be the new hit, and be the top selling album of the year, versus, promoting and doing press for an album that the label believes in and is honest, powerful, gorgeous works of art. The label never, majors at least, never promote on the latter. only the former. the relationship is one of exploitation. labels view it as money only. bands are money only. cd's and music is money only. and to treat art that way, is more disturbing than any slasher flick.
labels are goons, racist greedy power mongers who view art as commodity. again, view my posts about music, and how i feel about music in general on the phil collins thread. thats my honest view of music and how it impacts my life. if i went to Sony today and asked to talk to the CEO's of Sony Music, and told them my tale, told them how music changed my life, how it matters so much to me, i dont think the label or CEO would even care, much less comprehend. the only thing labels, majors see, is $. that sign, that green paper. it fuels them. it charges them. it excites them. very sad..
Not going to get into the whole downloading argument there, mookeywrench, but bands don't make any royalties off of records until costs are recouped. It's that simple. It's not unusual for an artist to have fulfilled all recording obligations under a contract, have some recordings that sold relatively well, but still not receive any royalties. I read somewhere that fewer than 15% of records recoup.
Copy-and-pasted this from a music business handbook: If an artist makes three albums with each having recoupable costs of $100,000 and the albums sell very few copies but the artist makes a fourth album for $100,000, then the artist will not receive any royalties until the label has recouped $400,000.
Is it evil that a record company expects to be paid back for its investment? No. But at least raise the royalty rate of records sold so that recoupment costs are paid off quicker, allowing the artist to make some money off of their own albums.
it isnt the definition of evil to want to be paid back like the labels do, but when it becomes the driving and main force for promoting and signing bands and for labels to release music, thats when the evil comes in. the majors view it as money only. that cant be overstated. its sad to think thats how labels see these albums. but thats the truth. they are merely products that can generate cash and recoup their investments. thats no way to run any buisness whether thats a Fortune 500 company or a record label. its not viable.
Lesson of the day: No business should have a goal of making a profit.
i agree. yep i was wrong. i think profit making should be top priority of any company. who cares about serving customers or creating a quality product or service. none of that matters. and the workers? Well hell, lets pay them crap wages, and stifle unions. lets treat the workers like crap, and maximize profit. better yet, lets provide a crap product as well, repackaged and resold and lets suck the customers dry. and the workers, the people who create things, who create the products, lets give them peanuts and lets save the real money for the people who do all the work and create the products, like the CEO and owner.
oh and innovation, creativity, art, hard work, that all is second to the real issue, the issue of the almighty dollar. if it doesnt sell its crap, and if it doesnt sell it isnt worth promoting or hyping or giving credence to. the art of it all, who needs that right? Its all about the cash
so yeah, totally right mookey. except i'd change that statement. no buisness should have any other goal except making a profit. yep, thats better...
i have to say, i cant relate to or even register anyone who would take the record labels side of the debate. yeah, im gonna side with the multi billion dollar a year industry over the artists or the customers side. its stupid really
i have to say, i cant relate to or even register anyone who would take the record labels side of the debate. yeah, im gonna side with the multi billion dollar a year industry over the artists or the customers side. its stupid really
i agree with a lot of what you have to say in this...i can really sympathise with how you feel, but it's not about siding with a multi billion dollar industry over artists and customers. we live in a capitalist society. you may have a problem with capitalism in general, but that's a whole different issue for a different section of the board. it's naive to think that the art/music business would function any differently than any other major business in a capitalist society.
i agree with a lot of what you have to say in this...i can really sympathise with how you feel, but it's not about siding with a multi billion dollar industry over artists and customers. we live in a capitalist society. you may have a problem with capitalism in general, but that's a whole different issue for a different section of the board. it's naive to think that the art/music business would function any differently than any other major business in a capitalist society.
Well said. A business number one priority should be profits or it will just go bust and who is that going to help? Should it be its only motive? No. There should also be an moral and ethical factor in there as well. If they just put music first and business second you will find they would dissapear quickly but that doesn't mean they should get to exploit anyone either. I guess the whole point in labels is to take care of the business side so the musician can just concentrate on their music. Not every artist can be a shrewd or inventive salesman. It's all about balance I guess.
One of the reasons that the market is in such a mess currently, is that Apple and the labels (in the early days of downloading mp3s) offered people such an uncompetitive deal with legal mp3 downloads that they drove a lot of people who would have been quite happy to pay for their music towards illegal downloading. Itunes created the market for free filesharing.
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
i agree with a lot of what you have to say in this...i can really sympathise with how you feel, but it's not about siding with a multi billion dollar industry over artists and customers. we live in a capitalist society. you may have a problem with capitalism in general, but that's a whole different issue for a different section of the board. it's naive to think that the art/music business would function any differently than any other major business in a capitalist society.
Well said. A business number one priority should be profits or it will just go bust and who is that going to help? Should it be its only motive? No. There should also be an moral and ethical factor in there as well. If they just put music first and business second you will find they would dissapear quickly but that doesn't mean they should get to exploit anyone either. I guess the whole point in labels is to take care of the business side so the musician can just concentrate on their music. Not every artist can be a shrewd or inventive salesman. It's all about balance I guess.
dischord, touch and go, alternative tentacles are 3 labels that value the artist and customer at the expense of profits. i'd say all 3 are way better models of how music buisness should be run, or should have been run than anything else.
ian mackaye doesnt even make a salary from being ceo and head of dischord. he runs the damn thing and doesnt even make a salary. all sales go to the artist or into future projects by the artists. there are no contracts. alt tentacles is run in a similar manner.
thats how record labels should be run. profitable, not millionaires, but quality bands and albums, cheap albums, customer service oriented, and artist friendly almost to a fault. with the exception of touch and go, that strategy has proved stable, profitable, and all those 3 have way more acclaim and credibility than any of the majors.
i agree with a lot of what you have to say in this...i can really sympathise with how you feel, but it's not about siding with a multi billion dollar industry over artists and customers. we live in a capitalist society. you may have a problem with capitalism in general, but that's a whole different issue for a different section of the board. it's naive to think that the art/music business would function any differently than any other major business in a capitalist society.
Well said. A business number one priority should be profits or it will just go bust and who is that going to help? Should it be its only motive? No. There should also be an moral and ethical factor in there as well. If they just put music first and business second you will find they would dissapear quickly but that doesn't mean they should get to exploit anyone either. I guess the whole point in labels is to take care of the business side so the musician can just concentrate on their music. Not every artist can be a shrewd or inventive salesman. It's all about balance I guess.
its not a balance to labels. labels dont say, "you worry about the art, we'll promote and put it out". If you think thats how contracts or meetings go in that world you are mistaken. its more like "make a Nevermind or Marshall Mathers LP as your debut LP or we'll drop you by the second one".
i agree with a lot of what you have to say in this...i can really sympathise with how you feel, but it's not about siding with a multi billion dollar industry over artists and customers. we live in a capitalist society. you may have a problem with capitalism in general, but that's a whole different issue for a different section of the board. it's naive to think that the art/music business would function any differently than any other major business in a capitalist society.
Well said. A business number one priority should be profits or it will just go bust and who is that going to help? Should it be its only motive? No. There should also be an moral and ethical factor in there as well. If they just put music first and business second you will find they would dissapear quickly but that doesn't mean they should get to exploit anyone either. I guess the whole point in labels is to take care of the business side so the musician can just concentrate on their music. Not every artist can be a shrewd or inventive salesman. It's all about balance I guess.
dischord, touch and go, alternative tentacles are 3 labels that value the artist and customer at the expense of profits. i'd say all 3 are way better models of how music buisness should be run, or should have been run than anything else.
ian mackaye doesnt even make a salary from being ceo and head of dischord. he runs the damn thing and doesnt even make a salary. all sales go to the artist or into future projects by the artists. there are no contracts. alt tentacles is run in a similar manner.
thats how record labels should be run. profitable, not millionaires, but quality bands and albums, cheap albums, customer service oriented, and artist friendly almost to a fault. with the exception of touch and go, that strategy has proved stable, profitable, and all those 3 have way more acclaim and credibility than any of the majors.
and that's complety fine that you feel that way. luckily you can choose to support whatever business you want.
dischord and the way fugazi is run or was run is to me the epitome of integrity. i'd argue there has never been a band or label like that. totally revolutinary, and these guys are literally saints.
ian mackaye is sucessful, isnt rich, but is sucessful, has a great legacy, has people lining up to see him play even in a side project like the evens or to see him give a speech or something, and even though bands on his label sell like 1,000 or 3,000 albums tops, its a sucessful buisness model.
ive never understood the idea that a buisness needs to be all about the money. ian mackaye is proof that this is a fallacy
its not that i feel that way. its the truth. dischord and fugazi and alternative tentacles are and were successful. all were about the music and the customer and innovation and integrity and taking care of customers and artists. all things that a few of you seem
dischord and alternative tentacles arent microsoft obviously, but they are hugely successful and are two sucessful labels in a industry dominated by greed and money, but were run and steered in a way to help the customer and artist and not line the pockets of ian mackaye or jello biafra.
remember a few pages back i lamented music fanatics like myself and how the impact and importance of music would be lost on a CEO or label exec. Ian Mackaye is the opposite. I emailed him in college, just on a whim, we discussed the dorms, and college life and music. im not famous. i wasnt writing a paper on the band. im not press. i was just a fan and still am a fan, chatting with a punk legend. thats how things should be....
imagine if all execs were like mackaye and biafra and the azoffs of the world were no longer in existence?
Inevitably, though, the conversation turns to Radiohead's new album, their first since 2007's In Rainbows shocked the music industry when fans were invited to choose their own download price. It should be pointed out that our conversation takes place well before the rushed release last month of The King of Limbs. "There are more than 10 [songs]," he answers. "To me, it sounds like they're all 99 per cent finished. But my quality level is a little bit lower than everybody else's. I'm impatient, childish. But the others are like, 'No, this is nearly right. Let's get this right.' And looking at our old albums, they've been right in the past. They're probably right now."
Announced on a Monday, due on the following Saturday, pulled forward to the Friday – the arrival of the band's eighth studio LP caught everyone by surprise. In the end, there weren't "more than 10" songs – just eight – fuelling internet chat that a follow-up is fast approaching. Though when is anyone's guess; since the download-it-for-£6 release, every band member has remained tight-lipped (including Greenwood, who declined to answer any follow-up questions about The King of Limbs for this feature).
its an either or situation. not between work for free or get paid, but more like sane buisness model versus unsustainable unethical, immoral illegal buisness model.
its not a choice really. its as i said way back at the start of this thread. its either adapt or die. you either adapt to the current situation or you perish.
musicismylife - i can't understand why you are so passionate in your anger with the major labels. it seems aparant that you have many indie label bands that you listen to who do things exactly how you think they should. you are also obviously very capable of illegally downloading music on the web for free, and you seem to take advantage of that. why not just buy albums from these labels you support, and stick it to the rest by exercising your ability to download for free on the web...
musicismylife - i can't understand why you are so passionate in your anger with the major labels. it seems aparant that you have many indie label bands that you listen to who do things exactly how you think they should. you are also obviously very capable of illegally downloading music on the web for free, and you seem to take advantage of that. why not just buy albums from these labels you support, and stick it to the rest by exercising your ability to download for free on the web...
because its FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that out ranks any morality.
musicismylife - i can't understand why you are so passionate in your anger with the major labels. it seems aparant that you have many indie label bands that you listen to who do things exactly how you think they should. you are also obviously very capable of illegally downloading music on the web for free, and you seem to take advantage of that. why not just buy albums from these labels you support, and stick it to the rest by exercising your ability to download for free on the web...
because its FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that out ranks any morality.
The labels were far too slow, greedy and protective in the early days of legal downloads - and now they are paying for the consequences. Since Last FM and Spotify got their more progressive streaming models sorted out, music piracy has been plummeting, and is actually far far lower now than it was in the heyday. In the meantime though the music industry has been ruined. People are not interested in 'stealing' music, they just want a competitive product and to not be ripped off - and now there are better models, they are tending to those.
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
musicismylife - i can't understand why you are so passionate in your anger with the major labels. it seems aparant that you have many indie label bands that you listen to who do things exactly how you think they should. you are also obviously very capable of illegally downloading music on the web for free, and you seem to take advantage of that. why not just buy albums from these labels you support, and stick it to the rest by exercising your ability to download for free on the web...
because its FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that out ranks any morality.
The labels were far too slow, greedy and protective in the early days of legal downloads - and now they are paying for the consequences. Since Last FM and Spotify got their more progressive streaming models sorted out, music piracy has been plummeting, and is actually far far lower now than it was in the heyday. In the meantime though the music industry has been ruined. People are not interested in 'stealing' music, they just want a competitive product and to not be ripped off - and now there are better models, they are tending to those.
I think the point was why doesn't he buy from the indie labels he supports and just download from the major ones that he thinks are greed ect instead of just downloading everything.
I agree with your points except do you have a source for the decline in software piracy? I haven't heard anything about it. I love Last.FM and Spotify seems pretty cool but better streaming quality is needed for this method (prob need a better broadband infrastructure in the UK to go with this)
because its FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that out ranks any morality.
The labels were far too slow, greedy and protective in the early days of legal downloads - and now they are paying for the consequences. Since Last FM and Spotify got their more progressive streaming models sorted out, music piracy has been plummeting, and is actually far far lower now than it was in the heyday. In the meantime though the music industry has been ruined. People are not interested in 'stealing' music, they just want a competitive product and to not be ripped off - and now there are better models, they are tending to those.
I think the point was why doesn't he buy from the indie labels he supports and just download from the major ones that he thinks are greed ect instead of just downloading everything.
I agree with your points except do you have a source for the decline in software piracy? I haven't heard anything about it. I love Last.FM and Spotify seems pretty cool but better streaming quality is needed for this method (prob need a better broadband infrastructure in the UK to go with this)
I will try and find one I read a number of months ago about the massive impact on piracy figures just LastFM and Spotify had made on their own - it was pretty dramatic
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
I will try and find one I read a number of months ago about the massive impact on piracy figures just LastFM and Spotify had made on their own - it was pretty dramatic
It will be interesting to see how Spotify affects illegal downloading when and if it reaches the States.
I think it's a really good model - the catalogue is immense, the quality is great, it doesn't clog up your hard disc, artists get paid, listeners get 'on demand' music whenever they get the urge. I had it on my last smartphone and it was fantastic, you could load up tunes before leaving the house from your wi fi so streaming wasn't an issue. Spotify mobile is the main thing I miss with my blackberry. I really hope it comes out. I think it will be really successful in the states. I know there have been problems with negotiations, but I don't know where it's got to currently. Spotify streams much better for me than Last FM which is a bit crap in a number of ways
Cancel my subscription to the Ressurection
Send my credentials to the house of detention
It will be interesting to see how Spotify affects illegal downloading when and if it reaches the States.
I think it's a really good model - the catalogue is immense, the quality is great, it doesn't clog up your hard disc, artists get paid, listeners get 'on demand' music whenever they get the urge. I had it on my last smartphone and it was fantastic, you could load up tunes before leaving the house from your wi fi so streaming wasn't an issue. Spotify mobile is the main thing I miss with my blackberry. I really hope it comes out. I think it will be really successful in the states. I know there have been problems with negotiations, but I don't know where it's got to currently. Spotify streams much better for me than Last FM which is a bit crap in a number of ways
There has been some issues with artists getting their dues with spotify. It makes a lot of money for Swedish artists apparantley. I think stream quality is 256kps for free users but 320kps for premium users I think. The interface isn't fantastic but I quite like it. £9.99 a month to listen to all the music I want, anywhere I want (No software to download) is pretty good really. Then I can just buy the music I want for my ipod ect.
Streaming at cd quality is the big issue for the future.
Spotify is due to be released in the US this year I believe.
as ive said there are a million ways to support a band. i support bands i like by going to see them in shows, and wearing their merch. i rarely wear any shirts besides band shirts. i also rave about bands i like on here and with my friends and with people in real life. i am just as passionate about music and art in real life, as i am on here. i talk about it constantly with everyone. if i meet someone new i could care less what their job is, or what they do. im into finding out what they listen to, their favorite films, favorite books etc...
i also am not rich. i'd rather spend my money on stuff i cant get for free. like band shirts and merch, concert tickets, etc... than spend my cash on stuff that can be found for free.
The labels were far too slow, greedy and protective in the early days of legal downloads - and now they are paying for the consequences. Since Last FM and Spotify got their more progressive streaming models sorted out, music piracy has been plummeting, and is actually far far lower now than it was in the heyday. In the meantime though the music industry has been ruined. People are not interested in 'stealing' music, they just want a competitive product and to not be ripped off - and now there are better models, they are tending to those.[/quote]
I think the point was why doesn't he buy from the indie labels he supports and just download from the major ones that he thinks are greed ect instead of just downloading everything.
I agree with your points except do you have a source for the decline in software piracy? I haven't heard anything about it. I love Last.FM and Spotify seems pretty cool but better streaming quality is needed for this method (prob need a better broadband infrastructure in the UK to go with this)[/quote]
I will try and find one I read a number of months ago about the massive impact on piracy figures just LastFM and Spotify had made on their own - it was pretty dramatic[/quote]
i will read that article but that sounds dubious to me. so a streaming site, stops people from wanting to obtain and have the actual mp3 files? Plus in 1999 the internet was becoming what it is now. Not many people were on napster because the internet was still not in every household. in 2011, almost everyone has the internet and a computer. its like telephones and cellphones. everyone has one. so i find it hard to believe in 2011, maybe a hundred million new people havent started downloading since 1999. makes little sense really
Comments
Copy-and-pasted this from a music business handbook: If an artist makes three albums with each having recoupable costs of $100,000 and the albums sell very few copies but the artist makes a fourth album for $100,000, then the artist will not receive any royalties until the label has recouped $400,000.
Is it evil that a record company expects to be paid back for its investment? No. But at least raise the royalty rate of records sold so that recoupment costs are paid off quicker, allowing the artist to make some money off of their own albums.
every buck the band earns per cd goes to the band, because thats ALL the band gets. 1 dollar. the rest go to the label. thats an exploitative relationship and even though its commonplace i'd argue its illegal, and if not, its at the very least unethical.
and the leverage of the label? What is that? Leverage in terms of promotion and press maybe, but not in terms of art. There is a difference between a major promoting a record because they feel the album will be the new hit, and be the top selling album of the year, versus, promoting and doing press for an album that the label believes in and is honest, powerful, gorgeous works of art. The label never, majors at least, never promote on the latter. only the former. the relationship is one of exploitation. labels view it as money only. bands are money only. cd's and music is money only. and to treat art that way, is more disturbing than any slasher flick.
labels are goons, racist greedy power mongers who view art as commodity. again, view my posts about music, and how i feel about music in general on the phil collins thread. thats my honest view of music and how it impacts my life. if i went to Sony today and asked to talk to the CEO's of Sony Music, and told them my tale, told them how music changed my life, how it matters so much to me, i dont think the label or CEO would even care, much less comprehend. the only thing labels, majors see, is $. that sign, that green paper. it fuels them. it charges them. it excites them. very sad..
it isnt the definition of evil to want to be paid back like the labels do, but when it becomes the driving and main force for promoting and signing bands and for labels to release music, thats when the evil comes in. the majors view it as money only. that cant be overstated. its sad to think thats how labels see these albums. but thats the truth. they are merely products that can generate cash and recoup their investments. thats no way to run any buisness whether thats a Fortune 500 company or a record label. its not viable.
Lesson of the day: No business should have a goal of making a profit.
i agree. yep i was wrong. i think profit making should be top priority of any company. who cares about serving customers or creating a quality product or service. none of that matters. and the workers? Well hell, lets pay them crap wages, and stifle unions. lets treat the workers like crap, and maximize profit. better yet, lets provide a crap product as well, repackaged and resold and lets suck the customers dry. and the workers, the people who create things, who create the products, lets give them peanuts and lets save the real money for the people who do all the work and create the products, like the CEO and owner.
oh and innovation, creativity, art, hard work, that all is second to the real issue, the issue of the almighty dollar. if it doesnt sell its crap, and if it doesnt sell it isnt worth promoting or hyping or giving credence to. the art of it all, who needs that right? Its all about the cash
so yeah, totally right mookey. except i'd change that statement. no buisness should have any other goal except making a profit. yep, thats better...
i agree with a lot of what you have to say in this...i can really sympathise with how you feel, but it's not about siding with a multi billion dollar industry over artists and customers. we live in a capitalist society. you may have a problem with capitalism in general, but that's a whole different issue for a different section of the board. it's naive to think that the art/music business would function any differently than any other major business in a capitalist society.
Well said. A business number one priority should be profits or it will just go bust and who is that going to help? Should it be its only motive? No. There should also be an moral and ethical factor in there as well. If they just put music first and business second you will find they would dissapear quickly but that doesn't mean they should get to exploit anyone either. I guess the whole point in labels is to take care of the business side so the musician can just concentrate on their music. Not every artist can be a shrewd or inventive salesman. It's all about balance I guess.
Send my credentials to the house of detention
dischord, touch and go, alternative tentacles are 3 labels that value the artist and customer at the expense of profits. i'd say all 3 are way better models of how music buisness should be run, or should have been run than anything else.
ian mackaye doesnt even make a salary from being ceo and head of dischord. he runs the damn thing and doesnt even make a salary. all sales go to the artist or into future projects by the artists. there are no contracts. alt tentacles is run in a similar manner.
thats how record labels should be run. profitable, not millionaires, but quality bands and albums, cheap albums, customer service oriented, and artist friendly almost to a fault. with the exception of touch and go, that strategy has proved stable, profitable, and all those 3 have way more acclaim and credibility than any of the majors.
its not a balance to labels. labels dont say, "you worry about the art, we'll promote and put it out". If you think thats how contracts or meetings go in that world you are mistaken. its more like "make a Nevermind or Marshall Mathers LP as your debut LP or we'll drop you by the second one".
and that's complety fine that you feel that way. luckily you can choose to support whatever business you want.
ian mackaye is sucessful, isnt rich, but is sucessful, has a great legacy, has people lining up to see him play even in a side project like the evens or to see him give a speech or something, and even though bands on his label sell like 1,000 or 3,000 albums tops, its a sucessful buisness model.
ive never understood the idea that a buisness needs to be all about the money. ian mackaye is proof that this is a fallacy
dischord and alternative tentacles arent microsoft obviously, but they are hugely successful and are two sucessful labels in a industry dominated by greed and money, but were run and steered in a way to help the customer and artist and not line the pockets of ian mackaye or jello biafra.
remember a few pages back i lamented music fanatics like myself and how the impact and importance of music would be lost on a CEO or label exec. Ian Mackaye is the opposite. I emailed him in college, just on a whim, we discussed the dorms, and college life and music. im not famous. i wasnt writing a paper on the band. im not press. i was just a fan and still am a fan, chatting with a punk legend. thats how things should be....
imagine if all execs were like mackaye and biafra and the azoffs of the world were no longer in existence?
its an either or situation. not between work for free or get paid, but more like sane buisness model versus unsustainable unethical, immoral illegal buisness model.
its not a choice really. its as i said way back at the start of this thread. its either adapt or die. you either adapt to the current situation or you perish.
because its FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that out ranks any morality.
The labels were far too slow, greedy and protective in the early days of legal downloads - and now they are paying for the consequences. Since Last FM and Spotify got their more progressive streaming models sorted out, music piracy has been plummeting, and is actually far far lower now than it was in the heyday. In the meantime though the music industry has been ruined. People are not interested in 'stealing' music, they just want a competitive product and to not be ripped off - and now there are better models, they are tending to those.
Send my credentials to the house of detention
I think the point was why doesn't he buy from the indie labels he supports and just download from the major ones that he thinks are greed ect instead of just downloading everything.
I agree with your points except do you have a source for the decline in software piracy? I haven't heard anything about it. I love Last.FM and Spotify seems pretty cool but better streaming quality is needed for this method (prob need a better broadband infrastructure in the UK to go with this)
Here's the latest article I saw on the subject:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... iracy-ends
I will try and find one I read a number of months ago about the massive impact on piracy figures just LastFM and Spotify had made on their own - it was pretty dramatic
Send my credentials to the house of detention
Cheers :thumbup:
I think it's a really good model - the catalogue is immense, the quality is great, it doesn't clog up your hard disc, artists get paid, listeners get 'on demand' music whenever they get the urge. I had it on my last smartphone and it was fantastic, you could load up tunes before leaving the house from your wi fi so streaming wasn't an issue. Spotify mobile is the main thing I miss with my blackberry. I really hope it comes out. I think it will be really successful in the states. I know there have been problems with negotiations, but I don't know where it's got to currently. Spotify streams much better for me than Last FM which is a bit crap in a number of ways
Send my credentials to the house of detention
There has been some issues with artists getting their dues with spotify. It makes a lot of money for Swedish artists apparantley. I think stream quality is 256kps for free users but 320kps for premium users I think. The interface isn't fantastic but I quite like it. £9.99 a month to listen to all the music I want, anywhere I want (No software to download) is pretty good really. Then I can just buy the music I want for my ipod ect.
Streaming at cd quality is the big issue for the future.
Spotify is due to be released in the US this year I believe.
i also am not rich. i'd rather spend my money on stuff i cant get for free. like band shirts and merch, concert tickets, etc... than spend my cash on stuff that can be found for free.
I think the point was why doesn't he buy from the indie labels he supports and just download from the major ones that he thinks are greed ect instead of just downloading everything.
I agree with your points except do you have a source for the decline in software piracy? I haven't heard anything about it. I love Last.FM and Spotify seems pretty cool but better streaming quality is needed for this method (prob need a better broadband infrastructure in the UK to go with this)[/quote]
Here's the latest article I saw on the subject:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... iracy-ends
I will try and find one I read a number of months ago about the massive impact on piracy figures just LastFM and Spotify had made on their own - it was pretty dramatic[/quote]
i will read that article but that sounds dubious to me. so a streaming site, stops people from wanting to obtain and have the actual mp3 files? Plus in 1999 the internet was becoming what it is now. Not many people were on napster because the internet was still not in every household. in 2011, almost everyone has the internet and a computer. its like telephones and cellphones. everyone has one. so i find it hard to believe in 2011, maybe a hundred million new people havent started downloading since 1999. makes little sense really