Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Eircom to cut broadband over illegal downloads - READ POST#1 WARNING
Comments
-
I am sure musicians reading this (not to mention composers, studio technnicians producers and all involved in making recordings) will be immenesely grateful to you for this concession - how generous of you!:rolleyes:
The majority of musicians don't care that much about piracy since the record labels take most of their cash anyway. At least with Creative Commons they have a lot more control.
I find it ironic that you bitch at me for claiming to represent musicians when you do so yourself.And why should morals not be brought up as an issue when copyright material is being distributed by people who do not have the right to distribute the material thereby affecting the income of musicians who you generously conceded should be paid in some shape or form above?
Music still gets sold, people still make money. Piracy has been around a lot longer than the internet, and in fact a lot of bands rose to fame partially on the bootleg scene. Also you can't really pirate a live experience or band merchandise, which is where they make most of their money.I presume you can supply chapter and verse for your claim that a lot of the people running the music industry are immensely immoral themselves? And even if it proved to be the case it is not an argument for distributing material that you do not have the right to distribute.
Oh yeah, I forgot, big business is our friend and never does any wrong...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/
**** like this is absolutely shameful and people like you who end up supporting it just end up looking like sociopaths(which quite frankly, some of the RIAA crowd and studio execs probably are), which is why people don't take anti-piracy seriously.
It's legal bullying more than anything. Fining someone a life-ruining amount of money is not the right thing to do. But of course a lot of types will be "SHE DESERVED IT".
Perhaps people would be more accepting of anti-piracy if it were a minor offense, as it should be, given you cannot prove any losses in the slightest.0 -
Fighting Irish wrote: »Stuff always starts out small, and gets bigger and bigger, in ten years you won't be allowed watch porn online (over exaggeration)
Never the ball start rolling
The Net Neutrality thing is particularly a worry - the anti-Net Neutrality ads they've started showing in the US are particularly scary. If big business didn't intend to abuse the **** out of traffic shaping etc., I don't see why they'd hit the advertising campaigns so hard.0 -
We, as in all customers of ISPs, need to realise that the free ride is over. You cannot get your music for free without consequence. Simple as that. There is no excuse. If you are downloading/sharing music for free, then you need to stop now. If you ignore the warnings (of which you will be given 3) then you deserve to be cut off.
And pay for it.
Many people, myself included, believe that the current legal downloads are charged at far to high a price. That is not an excuse to download for free. Buy your music elsewhere, but do buy it.
Again; nowhere in this post is any kind of argument? You're just bitching at people for being bad and wrong; not giving a nice big long explanation as to how their actions hurt the artists.
I will always have an issue with people who say "Simple As", as should everyone else.
You deserve this, you should do that, there is no excuse. Why? The whole purpose of an argument is to determine this why, and which why is the most pressing. It might seem elementary to you, but you're the one trying to convince others of your viewpoint.
If this new age of "no free lunch" is driven by authoritarians without the capability of putting together a reasonable argument; then I think people should continue to ignore you.
By the way, your argument is one big appeal to force, appeal to consequences too. The consequences are being created by eircom and the "Independant" group themselves, they are not a fact of life. It's people like you enforcing them.0 -
The majority of musicians don't care that much about piracy since the record labels take most of their cash anyway. At least with Creative Commons they have a lot more control.
I find it ironic that you bitch at me for claiming to represent musicians when you do so yourself.
And you can provide chapter and verse for stating that the ''majority of musicians dont care that much about piracy"?
I didnt bitch at you for claiming to represent musicians as I have no doubt that no self respecting musician at any level would allow such representation.
And I can assure you I do not represent anyone but myself and I cannot play any musical instrument. But I do know that if I did make commercial music of any type and people were presuming to distribute it without my permision I would be furious!Music still gets sold, people still make money. Piracy has been around a lot longer than the internet, and in fact a lot of bands rose to fame partially on the bootleg scene. Also you can't really pirate a live experience or band merchandise, which is where they make most of their money.
Yes of course music still gets sold and those paying for it are subisiding those people who chose to download music for free. House breaking has also been around a lot longer than the internet - does that somehow justify it?
The constant 'easy' argument about live performances and merchandising etc leaves out the fact that there are many musicians, writers etc who simply do not play huge live gigs. Many specialist lables, artists record shops and magazines have been decimated by the consequences of file sharing. Do some research on the demise of a magazine called 'No Depression' for example.
I was at a live gig in the Sugar Club a few weeks ago - two world class musicians were playing - there were about 60 people there. I am sure such attendances make up to them big time if their cds are being pirated?Oh yeah, I forgot, big business is our friend and never does any wrong...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/
**** like this is absolutely shameful and people like you who end up supporting it just end up looking like sociopaths(which quite frankly, some of the RIAA crowd and studio execs probably are), which is why people don't take anti-piracy seriously.
Firstly I have never stated that I support any behaviour on the part of the RIAA crowd or IRMA for that matter. Nobody here as far as I can see has argued that big business is anyone's friend however have you looked at the article and seen who exactly delivered the 'guilty' verdict?Perhaps people would be more accepting of anti-piracy if it were a minor offense, as it should be, given you cannot prove any losses in the slightest.
So you judge the morality of something by the way it is categorised?
As I pointed out above if you do some research it is very easy to find 'losses'.**** like this is absolutely shameful and people like you who end up supporting it just end up looking like sociopaths(which quite frankly, some of the RIAA crowd and studio execs probably are), which is why people don't take anti-piracy seriously.
I want to point out again that I never said that I support such activity and to point out that I belive piracy is wrong is not to support any particular activity against it. Now that should not be too difficult for anyone to figure out?
You have a very disturbing habit of making outrageous and apparently unfounded allegations against people and sooner or later this nonsense is going to get you into seriour trouble.
Given your intellectual aspirations you should know this is wrong and desist from it.0 -
-JammyDodger- wrote: »Over the last few hours I've been reading through this (.pdf) paper on the correlation between file sharing and its impact on music sales. The paper finds that, statistically, file sharing has zero affect on music sales, which is an interesting result.
Its amazing what statistics can prove. Any file sharer I know wouldnt know what the inside of a record shop looks like!0 -
Advertisement
-
And you can provide chapter and verse for stating that the ''majority of musicians dont care that much about piracy"?
Nope, it's personal experience that could well be wrong. Certainly there are major artists that are not opposed to it. But even if it was, it doesn't change the truth value of the argument.And I can assure you I do not represent anyone but myself and I cannot play any musical instrument. But I do know that if I did make commercial music of any type and people were presuming to distribute it without my permision I would be furious!
I'm a musician and I couldn't give a toss. If I was making money doing what I love, that's all I'd care about. The fact that some people were freeloading of my music - well, at least they got to hear my music. And more people that hear my music, the more word of mouth I get, and the more music and merchandise I can sell.
People say that only big bands like Radiohead can get away with what they do; but in reality in the older days a lot of bands(Metallica ironically being an example) got a lot of popularity by their bootlegs being circulated.
But then again I actually care about art and music more than consumerism and capitalism, and realise that despite piracy it can continue to be made much the same as before, and does.
The issue with piracy is the same with people that obsess over "Dole Scroungers" in some ways. People are unable to accept that some people get subsidised by others and thus want to punish a wider group of people.Yes of course music still gets sold and those paying for it are subisiding those people who chose to download music for free. House breaking has also been around a lot longer than the internet - does that somehow justify it?
God that's such unbelievably terrible logic. House breaking actually involves physically breaking in and damaging or taking someone's property. You cannot prove a lost sale, and certainly nobody should be as attached to a few dollars out of a few million compared to someone would be valuables.The constant 'easy' argument about live performances and merchandising etc leaves out the fact that there are many musicians, writers etc who simply do not play huge live gigs. Many specialist lables, artists record shops and magazines have been decimated by the consequences of file sharing. Do some research on the demise of a magazine called 'No Depression' for example.
Unfortunately as models change, certain things will end up dying off as they are no longer practical. For example formats such as Vinyl are nowhere near as popular as they used to be, for a number of reasons./
The No Depression you mentioned made this transition to a format that was more viable to them, ironically for you.I was at a live gig in the Sugar Club a few weeks ago - two world class musicians were playing - there were about 60 people there. I am sure such attendances make up to them big time if their cds are being pirated?
But again, nobody has proven piracy means a lost sale.
I am someone who has been faced with the prospect of not being able to play live because of the music I play. This was always a "difficulty" for me with the piracy argument. However since then I've been introduced to a lot of electronic acts that play live, and VJing, and all sorts. Not to mention that musicians similar to myself often get jobs writing music for TV etc.
It's a difficulty, but there are ways around it. I've seen all kinds of acts play live.
Granted playing live music isn't for everyone to the same degree it is others, but again, there are other avenues to make money off your music, and to be fair, sitting down and recording isn't the same for some musicians either.
Some people don't like the idea of music being "owned" in that manner when it's so easily transmitable to begin with.
If someone could do a perfect impersonation of a singer and guitarist for example, and recorded it and gave it to a friend, would that be "Piracy"?
There's too many grey areas here.Firstly I have never stated that I support any behaviour on the part of the RIAA crowd or IRMA for that matter. Nobody here as far as I can see has argued that big business is anyone's friend however have you looked at the article and seen who exactly delivered the 'guilty' verdict?
Hold on. You said that I was incorrect in assuming that the recording industry was run by immoral individuals, but RIAA and IMRO represent the interests of these companies. If they were so moral, why do they allow and fund their efforts in such practices?So you judge the morality of something by the way it is categorised?
As I pointed out above if you do some research it is very easy to find 'losses'.
You're making the argument - you do the research. I'm not doing research to prove your argument for you. Don't be absurd. There is plenty of research to show piracy has a negligible overall effect.You have a very disturbing habit of making outrageous and apparently unfounded allegations against people and sooner or later this nonsense is going to get you into seriour trouble.
I'm curious as to what you'd class a person who has no ethical or moral issues with bullying grannies and single mothers. Personally, that's what I'd consider a sociopath, and yes, many people who defend the music industry's practices often come off like this themselves.
The point is that arguments start to look more like machines defending current law and practice than human arguments. And they don't contain much logic either, so they don't even have the advantage of an emotionless argument(which they're not either, since they try to goad others).Its amazing what statistics can prove. Any file sharer I know wouldnt know what the inside of a record shop looks like!
Personally, while I am not "anti-piracy" like some people, I am also very much for independant music stores. However I don't think piracy is to blame for their demise, more a shift in models. It's unfortunate, but it's unlikely that there isn't some kind of way around it. It's more of a cultural shift than anything. These kind of stores used to be where people hung out and chatted about music, this was one of the big appeals. If there was some kind of new outlet that took advantage of that to maintain a profit, they may be more viable again.
Also the kind of people who support those stores tend to prefer physical media anyway.0 -
Its amazing what statistics can prove. Any file sharer I know wouldnt know what the inside of a record shop looks like!
Statistics can prove a lot, but when applied to such large datasets (this study was based on data over many years and millions of filesharers) the results usually hold merit. It's also worth noting that many filesharers probably wouldn't know what the inside of a record shop looked like regardless of their ability to file share. Any file sharer I know probably wouldn't buy the music either way, so their illegal downloading doesn't really affect the music industry. That's not an argument, just an observation.0 -
And you can provide chapter and verse for stating that the ''majority of musicians dont care that much about piracy"?
I think what annoys people is that the labels "care" much more disproportionately to the artists, and then claim that they are speaking on the artists' behalf.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but people just don't trust the spin from the big labels, and rightly so.0 -
I think what annoys people is that the labels "care" much more disproportionately to the artists, and then claim that they are speaking on the artists' behalf.
And on what basis do you make this claim? There are plenty of artists who have spoken out against file sharing.
There is an interesting cross section of views here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8267142.stmTwo wrongs don't make a right, but people just don't trust the spin from the big labels, and rightly so.
Price fixing has absolutly nothing to do with this argument. Do a google search for price fixing and see how many companies come up. Does that make them liable to be ripped off in some way?0 -
And on what basis do you make this claim? There are plenty of artists who have spoken out against file sharing.
There is an interesting cross section of views here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8267142.stm
Exactly, there is a divergence of opinion, which is NOT echoed by the lobby groups -Those musicians are part of the Featured Artists' Coalition (FAC), a pressure group set up a year ago to speak up for artists' rights.
They say there is no point fighting file-sharing because it would be practically impossible to find a failsafe way to track copyrighted material and penalise the perpetrators.
Doing so would also be a major invasion of privacy and turn thousands of fans against the artists and the industry, they argue.Today's decision is the first step back towards allowing Artists to make a living again.
So exactly how are these two statements consistent?
If these lobby groups truly represented artists, they would recognise this divergence in their approach, however, they don't. They represent the labels, while using public sympathy towards their clients as PR leverage.
No, but it certainly calls into question whether they really have their artists' best interests at heart, or their shareholders.Price fixing has absolutly nothing to do with this argument. Do a google search for price fixing and see how many companies come up. Does that make them liable to be ripped off in some way?0 -
Advertisement
-
Exactly, there is a divergence of opinion, which is NOT echoed by the lobby groups -
So exactly how are these two statements consistent?
If these lobby groups truly represented artists, they would recognise this divergence in their approach, however, they don't. They represent the labels, while using public sympathy towards their clients as PR leverage.
No, but it certainly calls into question whether they really have their artists' best interests at heart, or their shareholders.
There is no denying that artists are affected by filesharing - irrespective of which group you read in that article however the FAC seem to represent Big Name Artists who as people point out have accumulated large amounts of money already and who have alternative sources of income. There are many labels apart from the major ones who are affected by file sharing and they and their artists appear to be conveniently forgotten by contributors on here.
I don't particularly see anything wrong with the IRMA chairman's statement other than it being a bit overdramatic. An Irish musician has been quoted earlier in the thread pointing out more or less the same thing.
You appear to be adopting to FAC point of view while conveniently ignoring the other musicians views?
Again I really dont know why you are pursuing the price fixing argument it has nothing whatsoever to do with distributing copyright material. And where some artists might have contracts with record companies where they got a percentage of sales it would actually increase their income.0 -
Yes I do agree with the FAC point of view, and I think it's unfortunate but entirely predictable that IRMA et al completely ignore it.You appear to be adopting to FAC point of view while conveniently ignoring the other musicians views?Again I really dont know why you are pursuing the price fixing argument it has nothing whatsoever to do with distributing copyright material.
I'll refer you to your earlier reply to Sandvich :pac:dub45 wrote:And why should morals not be brought up as an issue when copyright material is being distributed by people who do not have the right to distribute the material thereby affecting the income of musicians who you generously conceded should be paid in some shape or form above?
I presume you can supply chapter and verse for your claim that a lot of the people running the music industry are immensely immoral themselves?
Now as you rightly add, "And even if it proved to be the case it is not an argument for distributing material that you do not have the right to distribute."
However it doesn't mean that we should take their pronouncements as gospel truth, especially when they make the claim of acting in their clients interests instead of their own self-interest. The two are not necessarily mutually compatible, as suggested by:
I would hazard a guess that some of their signings would not have been entirely comfortable with living off the proceeds of crime, that's if they even saw much of the money.And where some artists might have contracts with record companies where they got a percentage of sales it would actually increase their income.0 -
Yes I do agree with the FAC point of view, and I think it's unfortunate but entirely predictable that IRMA et al completely ignore it.
I'll refer you to your earlier reply to Sandvich :pac:
Now as you rightly add, "And even if it proved to be the case it is not an argument for distributing material that you do not have the right to distribute."
However it doesn't mean that we should take their pronouncements as gospel truth, especially when they make the claim of acting in their clients interests instead of their own self-interest. The two are not necessarily mutually compatible, as suggested by:
Nowhere have I argued about or in fact even mentioned the record companies pronouncements. I don't see anything wrong with them attempting to protect their interests. I might disagree with their methods but they would be irresponsible not to attempt to protect their interests would they not? And in acting to protect their own interests they are simultaneously attempting to protect their clients's interests.I would hazard a guess that some of their signings would not have been entirely comfortable with living off the proceeds of crime, that's if they even saw much of the money
Attempts at mindreading or supposition are irrelevant to be basic issue
surely?0 -
Make it all online and cheap.
In record stores have it like it is dummy cases and then if you want to buy print in store on demand.
That way they make pretty much all profit and only real stingy people will illegaly download.
I blame the industry - not the ''criminals'' who illegally download.
Apple and Amazon etc should have let them die and ushered in the above model where people who do it independently, they were lucky to be given a second chance.
Use it or lose it.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,502 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26422
conor.hogan.2 wrote: »Make it all online and cheap.
.
Just curious, what do you consider cheap?
Say for 1 song or for a standard 12 song album?0 -
Well me personally - I like the price that is on itunes now.
but everything the record labels has - has to be online. Apple will facilitate that as will Amazon and others, so they have no excuse.
When you cut out the waste that goes on in actual physical shops - physical media will last a little bit longer and they will get more money.
I would like to see them die - as they do not deserve the cut they get as they do little compared to anyone else actually involved in the music.
Very few would download if they got 6, 10, 15 euro albums or 79, 99 or 1.29 songs that are theirs for life and is that easy, fast and safe.
If you cut out the record label - all songs could be 99 cent and all albums 9.99 - all profit as technology has outgrown the need for labels and marketers.0 -
... I might disagree with their methods but they would be irresponsible not to attempt to protect their interests would they not? And in acting to protect their own interests they are simultaneously attempting to protect their clients's interests.
Well that's the thing isn't it, some of their clients don't really believe they are acting in their best interests -
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=&screenid=&newsaction=showitem&newsid=2489&dc=6&sn=NewsProcesses of monitoring, notification and sanction are not conducive to achieving a vibrant, functional, fair and competitive market for music. As a result we believe that the specific questions asked by the consultation are not only unanswerable but indicate a mindset so far removed from that of the general public and music consumer that it seems an extraordinarily negative document.
Incidentally there is a much greater cross-section of opposition from musicians to the 3 strikes rule in the UK than suggested by the BBC article.
There were not one, but three industry groups who are opposed -- The Featured Artists Coalition
The FAC's Board of Directors are: Billy Bragg,Kate Nash,Master Shortie,Ed O’Brien (Radiohead),Dave Rowntree (Blur),Howard Jones,Mark Kelly (Marillion),Hal Ritson (The Young Punx),Sandie Shaw,Annie Lennox,Nick Mason (Pink Floyd),Lucy Pullin (The Fire Escapes),Ross Millard (The Futureheads),Fran Healy (Travis) - The British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors
BASCA exists to support and protect the artistic, professional, commercial and copyright interests of songwriters, lyricists and composers of all genres of music and to celebrate and encourage excellence in British music writing. - The Music Producers Guild
The MPG represents and promotes the interests of all those involved in the production of recorded music, including producers, engineers, mixers, re-mixers, programmers and mastering engineers
A motley crew if ever there was one!
The claim that there is only a small minority of musicians concerned at the labels' heavy-handed tactics is simply not borne out by these statements.In contrast to the lack of any credible evidence for the size of the substitutional effect, there is evidence that repeat file-sharers of music are also repeat purchasers of music, movies, documentaries etc. Recent research by MusicAlly has demonstrated the continued popularity of the CD as the purchased product of choice by many music fans. This combined with the continued significance of the CD in the revenue balance of record labels, suggests a much more complex equation in which file-sharing may erode sales, but where it may also promote other revenue streams. For this reason it is dangerous to view the downloading of music as the direct online equivalent of CD sales.0 - The Featured Artists Coalition
-
Well that's the thing isn't it, some of their clients don't really believe they are acting in their best interests -
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=&screenid=&newsaction=showitem&newsid=2489&dc=6&sn=News
Incidentally there is a much greater cross-section of opposition from musicians to the 3 strikes rule in the UK than suggested by the BBC article.
There were not one, but three industry groups who are opposed -- The Featured Artists Coalition
The FAC's Board of Directors are: Billy Bragg,Kate Nash,Master Shortie,Ed O’Brien (Radiohead),Dave Rowntree (Blur),Howard Jones,Mark Kelly (Marillion),Hal Ritson (The Young Punx),Sandie Shaw,Annie Lennox,Nick Mason (Pink Floyd),Lucy Pullin (The Fire Escapes),Ross Millard (The Futureheads),Fran Healy (Travis) - The British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors
BASCA exists to support and protect the artistic, professional, commercial and copyright interests of songwriters, lyricists and composers of all genres of music and to celebrate and encourage excellence in British music writing. - The Music Producers Guild
The MPG represents and promotes the interests of all those involved in the production of recorded music, including producers, engineers, mixers, re-mixers, programmers and mastering engineers
A motley crew if ever there was one!
The claim that there is only a small minority of musicians concerned at the labels' heavy-handed tactics is simply not borne out by these statements.
You are basically repeating your previous arguments and ignoring the fact that many musicians and others involved in the recording industry are vehement opposed to file sharing. Also being against the industry's tactics does not mean that artists are in favour of file sharing either.
You have only to look at the demise of 'record shops' and the fall in cd sales to see the effects of file sharing. And I have yet to meet even one of these mythical file sharers/downloaders who has increased his or her purchases of music/films/documentaries etc has a result of downloading copyright material.0 - The Featured Artists Coalition
-
conor.hogan.2 wrote: »Well me personally - I like the price that is on itunes now.
but everything the record labels has - has to be online. Apple will facilitate that as will Amazon and others, so they have no excuse.
When you cut out the waste that goes on in actual physical shops - physical media will last a little bit longer and they will get more money.
I would like to see them die - as they do not deserve the cut they get as they do little compared to anyone else actually involved in the music.
Very few would download if they got 6, 10, 15 euro albums or 79, 99 or 1.29 songs that are theirs for life and is that easy, fast and safe.
If you cut out the record label - all songs could be 99 cent and all albums 9.99 - all profit as technology has outgrown the need for labels and marketers.
Have you given any thought at all to what you have written above about the role or record shops or labels? Have you been in a record shop lately there are plenty of 6, 10, 15 euro albums availalbe to purchase.0 -
You are basically repeating your previous arguments and ignoring the fact that many musicians and others involved in the recording industry are vehement opposed to file sharing. Also being against the industry's tactics does not mean that artists are in favour of file sharing either.
There is no question of whether these artists are in favour or against file sharing. They are against the tactics employed by IRMA and buddies.
Not according to the people who actually make the music.You have only to look at the demise of 'record shops' and the fall in cd sales to see the effects of file sharing.
Don't you think it's fair that they should be listened to also?This combined with the continued significance of the CD in the revenue balance of record labels, suggests a much more complex equation in which file-sharing may erode sales, but where it may also promote other revenue streams.
You're changing the topic. This is about the IRMA sanctions.And I have yet to meet even one of these mythical file sharers/downloaders who has increased his or her purchases of music/films/documentaries etc has a result of downloading copyright material.0 -
Advertisement
-
There is no question of whether these artists are in favour or against file sharing. They are against the tactics employed by IRMA and buddies.
Not according to the people who actually make the music.
Don't you think it's fair that they should be listened to also?
You're changing the topic. This is about the IRMA sanctions.
I am not changing the topic at all.
Exactly who are the musicians that are claiming that legitimate sales are increasing?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60628Z20100107
And I will say it again I have yet to meet or hear of a file sharer or downloader who has increased their purchases of legitimate material as a result of their downloading activities. I know of several 'music lovers' with hard drives full of music that they havent paid a cent for and wouldnt know what the inside of a record shop looked like.
You are the one who is consistently quoting one particular viewpoint of musicians and ignoring others.0 -
dub45 - I would like to be paid ridiculous amounts of money too - but that doesn't make it right.....
paper sales also fell in that year i would imagine
as did many other things.
must be the pirates, yarrr!±0 -
There is also a theory that some artists / bands sell less records over time because they become crap.0
-
Yes you are.I am not changing the topic at all.
Many of the artists in the groups that released that statement would also be opposed to file-sharing.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with the way it's being handled.
Nice try conflating the two, but most people will see the difference.http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60628Z20100107
Sales of singles soared to an annual record of more than 152 million, an increase of 32.7 percent on 2008. Some 98 percent of all singles were sold in digital format, according to figures released on Thursday by the BPI music industry group.
So please explain to me how a 3.5% fall in album sales but a 32.7% rise in single sales is a catastrophe for the music industry?
In a world with no copyright infrigement, it would be natural that album and CD sales fall anyway -- A move to online sales means that customers now pick & choose tracks instead of purchasing an entire album.
- Sales of legacy formats naturally drop over time
- Ongoing global recession in 2009 reduces spending on non-essentials
Considering all of the above, a 3.5% drop is not looking too bad after all.
Not at all.You are the one who is consistently quoting one particular viewpoint of musicians and ignoring others.0 -
How many artist became homeless or redundant in 2008,9 or 10?0
-
How about the fact that physical media is clearly on the way out? All you have to do is look at the growth of services like iTunes etc. to see a fairly plain illustration of that.You have only to look at the demise of 'record shops' and the fall in cd sales to see the effects of file sharing.
Yes indeed file sharing has an effect but in no way is as dramatic as the Record Labels would have one believe. They would have the world believe that they are teeming on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of file sharing. Too bad their annual couple of billion in profits shoots a hole in that. :rolleyes:0 -
Digital sales are responsible for an increase in music sales worldwide. If you look at the IFPI's own report, you'll see that legal online services struggle to meet the demand, people just can't get enough, hence the massive success of iTunes in just a few years.
These online services usually allow for 99c downloads of any single within an album, versus €12 for the CD. That alone would cause an enormous drop in revenue. There's also the recession and the rise in entertainment money being increasingly spent on video games as well.
Study after study shows that filesharers buy as much, to ten times as much music as non-sharers.
I'm writing this from my iPod and I'll supply my sources tomorrow.
Anyway, even if piracy isn't the cause of the fall in profits, it's still illegal. It's wrong to dowload a person's work without permission. They should be allowed protect themselves through the proper legal channels available to them. It's the bypassing of due legal process that I will not support. We cannot have a situation where people start creating their own laws with different standards than those we hold as a democracy.0 -
I have 11,230 songs in my itunes library.
I bought a large portion of it, i support artists i like - artists that deserve it.
I have even given money directly to some artists at gigs.0 -
conor.hogan.2 wrote: »dub45 - I would like to be paid ridiculous amounts of money too - but that doesn't make it right.....
Is there any possibility that you could tell me what exactly mean?conor.hogan.2 wrote: »paper sales also fell in that year i would imagine
as did many other things.
must be the pirates, yarrr!±
Well if you thought about it at all you would see grounds for comparison.
For ages now 'news' has been free on the internet. This and probably other factors have affected the overall sales of newspapers and magazines.
The difference being that generally news has not been pirated although there are reservations about the way some sites use 'news' produced by others. 'News' (like recorded music) costs money to produce and as you may be aware some newspapers are now introducing charges to access their sites.0 -
Advertisement
-
conor.hogan.2 wrote: »How many artist became homeless or redundant in 2008,9 or 10?
Surely I cannot be the only one who finds this type of nonsensical remark 'bordering' on the offensive?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement