But if the company that distributes the pizza to Sainsbury's and Tesco decides to discontinue that particular line, there's nothing you can do about it - it's their decision. The same applies here. The point Maureen is making is that illegally downloading shouldn't really be considered an option, because the decision to make a song publicly available lies with the record label and no-one else. Wanting something is not a compelling reason why you should have it.watchamacallit said:
Music Industry
- Thread starter jmspald
- Start date
There are two important points raised here.
1. Yes, of course the music business has the right to distribute their product the way they want it. But how about asking the artist who created that "product" how they want their music distributed? I don't care how Guy Hands feels about the Pet Shop Boys videos being on youtube, I care about how me, myself, I and Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe feel about that, in this order. And of course the music industry has the right to shoot themselves in the foot -- it starts with a thing as stupid as the non-embedding clips -- HOW ON EARTH would anyone possibly lose money through enabling embedding on people's blogs is completely beyond me -- and it ends with a thing as totally ridiculous as removing the videos from more or less the only mainstream distribution channel there was left. It is in everyone's interest for those videos to stay on youtube -- youtube make money through advertising, record labels sell records through having people see the videos (PROMOS they used to be called sometime), fans want to see the videos, artists want them to be seen. Who makes any kind of gain through the removal of those videos?
2. iTunes region distribution -- in Poland there has been discussion in the media recently about Apple not making iTunes Store downloads available at all. Apple said they couldn't get to terms with ZAIKS (main publishing/artist rights company in Poland) and record labels. Then ZAIKS stated they were never contacted. Now while of course I see the point of people who say "if it isn't available in your country, it doesn't give you the right to download it illegally", I have to say -- get real. This is not the way humans operate. Perhaps it is the way lawyers operate, but not real people.
I decided to wait for the new Pet Shop Boys album and not download the leaks, because I want the CD -- I want to get back the experience that has more or less vanished. But if the day of the release comes, I go to the shop and the CD isn't there, then I go to another shop and the CD isn't there, then I find out cdwow and amazon don't ship to Amsterdam anymore, then I find out Pet Shop Boys pulled their content from itunes... well then try and stop me (without using handcuffs) from downloading it illegally. Music isn't pizza. Music is so much more important than that. Music is an extremely fulfilling unique experience. The new Pet Shop Boys album will be a unique experience, and while I am more than willing to part with my cash and add to Guy Hands' coke fund, if the record industry in its infinite wisdom decides to make that impossible, I will get that experience anyway.
But I promise I will feel guilty about that.
1. Yes, of course the music business has the right to distribute their product the way they want it. But how about asking the artist who created that "product" how they want their music distributed? I don't care how Guy Hands feels about the Pet Shop Boys videos being on youtube, I care about how me, myself, I and Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe feel about that, in this order. And of course the music industry has the right to shoot themselves in the foot -- it starts with a thing as stupid as the non-embedding clips -- HOW ON EARTH would anyone possibly lose money through enabling embedding on people's blogs is completely beyond me -- and it ends with a thing as totally ridiculous as removing the videos from more or less the only mainstream distribution channel there was left. It is in everyone's interest for those videos to stay on youtube -- youtube make money through advertising, record labels sell records through having people see the videos (PROMOS they used to be called sometime), fans want to see the videos, artists want them to be seen. Who makes any kind of gain through the removal of those videos?
2. iTunes region distribution -- in Poland there has been discussion in the media recently about Apple not making iTunes Store downloads available at all. Apple said they couldn't get to terms with ZAIKS (main publishing/artist rights company in Poland) and record labels. Then ZAIKS stated they were never contacted. Now while of course I see the point of people who say "if it isn't available in your country, it doesn't give you the right to download it illegally", I have to say -- get real. This is not the way humans operate. Perhaps it is the way lawyers operate, but not real people.
I decided to wait for the new Pet Shop Boys album and not download the leaks, because I want the CD -- I want to get back the experience that has more or less vanished. But if the day of the release comes, I go to the shop and the CD isn't there, then I go to another shop and the CD isn't there, then I find out cdwow and amazon don't ship to Amsterdam anymore, then I find out Pet Shop Boys pulled their content from itunes... well then try and stop me (without using handcuffs) from downloading it illegally. Music isn't pizza. Music is so much more important than that. Music is an extremely fulfilling unique experience. The new Pet Shop Boys album will be a unique experience, and while I am more than willing to part with my cash and add to Guy Hands' coke fund, if the record industry in its infinite wisdom decides to make that impossible, I will get that experience anyway.
But I promise I will feel guilty about that.
But we're living in such a greedy, instant gratification-obsessed culture. Before downoading existed, if you couldn't get your hands on a record, you WAITED until you could. Just because it's now easier to break the law doesn't mean you should.
Complain and protest to the labels but you can no more justify downloading illegally than you can breaking into your local pub after hours because you 'fancied a pint and couldn't get one anywhere else'. To continue with that analogy, eventually consumer and business demand led to changes in licensing laws. There's no reason to say that the same won't happen with music.
Until then, you are not in a position to call the shots when it comes to how and when you receive your product. It is not me who needs to get real.
I think it comes down to the fact that it's increasingly hard to 'sell' data/information, which is essentially what music is. I mean in the olden days they used to sell sheet music! Nowadays music is just a data file, and with computers becoming more and more powerful and capable of storing and downloading bigger files, the film and dvd industry is likely to be hit as hard as the music industry is now. Then it will be the computer game industry.
The businesses which succeed will obviously be those that provide an 'experience' that is not replicable with a simple laptop and speakers. For instance, live concerts, and things like the Nintendo Wii, which relies on the physical hardware for its sales pitch, rather than the software. I'm not sure how the music industry can apply this.
The businesses which succeed will obviously be those that provide an 'experience' that is not replicable with a simple laptop and speakers. For instance, live concerts, and things like the Nintendo Wii, which relies on the physical hardware for its sales pitch, rather than the software. I'm not sure how the music industry can apply this.
he/him
Maureen said:
While I respect what you said about downloading, Maureen, in terms of the laws and such - my question is grounded in the fact that we live in a different time nowadays. Once upon a time, you had to pay the high fees to import a CD that was not available in your territory, and people did it willingly since they had no other options. Nowadays, people find ways to get their hands on it if it's not available.
So - what I wonder is - why wouldn't the record labels take Advantage of the technological capabilities that we have, and work on global distribution? Because if someone can download an album off a torrent site, they could also download it from a website (I mean ability-wise). The people who are morons and want it for free would still find ways, but at least people who want to contribute financialy have an option.
Actually, I had this whole analogy going along with your earlier one of, if Pub #1 closes its doors at 11pm, but Pub #2 next door is open till 1am and gives away free beer, then the first pub should consider extending its hours if they want a chance at the customer's money. Or something. But then I was thinking if Pub #2 is giving it away for free, why would people go back to Pub #1. And then I thought, well the police could come and shut down Pub #2. And now I give up.
DiscoBlue said:
O.k. - I can see where you're coming from, but I think there's a problem with this type of mind set - and it really bugs me.
Take a look at this article from today's Sun:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/music/article2319523.ece
How does this situation seem fair to anyone? Imagine if this was any other industry - and your product was sampled 100 million times. Would you not expect to make more than £11..!?!
The record industry has pretty much acknowledged that they can no longer make money from selling singles - and precious little from albums. This is because chart acts cost a fortune to develop (rumour has it that The Saturday's are £800,000 in debt to their label), and even then, those few successful acts subsidise the many others that major labels sign, but fail to get off the ground. How are new acts supposed to be paid for?
A performance of a song (on whatever format) is still a performance - and royalties from performances are one of the few ways that a record label and/or band can recoup these days. If you let YouTube off from paying sensible royalty levels, then radio will have a case for not paying... and TV will object... and shops could start to refuse to pay PRS.
Music is not free to make. It's actually very expensive. Any income actually supports a whole industry... not just Johnny pop-star... but also writers, producers, directors, stylists, designers, marketing teams, managers, post boys & tea ladies etc, etc...
Now, I'm not suggesting that people will ever stop making music - but you've only got to look at what's happened to record shops in the UK to see what happens when income dries up.
If artists can't make money from somewhere - there'll be less music, less choice, cheaper music videos - and, in the long run, we'll all suffer from a drop in quality.
In summary - YouTube does not have a right to show music videos for next to nothing. It can show them, but it needs to pay a sensible royalty level that compares with other forms of broadcast. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy watching videos on there - but, if TheBox has to pay PRS on the videos it shows, and Radio1 has to pay for the music it plays - why should YouTube be any different? If it can't afford to do this, then music should not be a part of it's service.
You realise, Maureen, that you only have the moral ground to say things like these if your itunes library doesn't feature a single leak/illegally downloaded mp3 and never downloaded a movie from a torrent site, otherwise you are a hypocrite?Maureen said:
As for CF69, well, what can I say -- I'm a musician (hardly a pro, one album to my name and one minor dance hit in Poland years ago). I don't think music creates itself. But I believe that videos are a promotional tool and as such should be made available for free to everyone who wants to view them. Perhaps it's a stupid view.
Ray's being a modest mouse....Top 20 (or was it top 10) is hardly minor. And wasn't it also a hit on the MTV Europe chart?
EG.
EG.
So it's nothing new, we've heard it all before, etc. but, I do find it quite interesting to hear someone who was so involved in the record industry in it's heyday - signing the likes of Culture Club and the Sex Pistols - declaring it's death. And we all know Richard Branson is quite good at business, etc.
Do you feel that with bands such as NIN and Radiohead releasing their own music without a label, that the traditional record label no longer has a place in the digital age?
Do you feel that with bands such as NIN and Radiohead releasing their own music without a label, that the traditional record label no longer has a place in the digital age?
T
tommie
I wouldn't say it's dead, I just think they need to re-think.
They're currently spending million upon million on legal cases, instead of investing them in new ways of profiting off the internet (like services like Spotify). They're hitting their head against a brick wall as there's no way technology will be stopped and you just have to roll with it...
They're currently spending million upon million on legal cases, instead of investing them in new ways of profiting off the internet (like services like Spotify). They're hitting their head against a brick wall as there's no way technology will be stopped and you just have to roll with it...
I don't follow his logic that festivals and concerts somehow provide people with all the music they're going to need - unless he's inferring that most people just steal music now, and only part with cash for a gig? Also, surely record labels will have to exist in some form in order to fund marketing campaigns, studio time, producers, engineers, videos, promo tours etc etc?
It's an interesting comment. I put myself in the place of a new band or popstar and came up with this:
The only thing I would find useful in a record company is the fact they can pay for a good publicity campaign to get people to buy my records. But most people can use the internet to do a lot of the work. They can film a promo video. Play live gigs. Make music. Then it will appear online and people will listen. I could get a single on iTunes within a few weeks. What can a record label do for me that I can't do myself except fund my PR blitz in all the television channels and magazines? Lady Gaga is proof that for BIG campaigns there is no substitute for major label funded hype. What indie label can do that as well? However, and I've said this many times, indie labels have a commercial power that reaches very far.
As technology progresses you'll find more people able to put their music out there without a major label and profit from it.
The only thing I would find useful in a record company is the fact they can pay for a good publicity campaign to get people to buy my records. But most people can use the internet to do a lot of the work. They can film a promo video. Play live gigs. Make music. Then it will appear online and people will listen. I could get a single on iTunes within a few weeks. What can a record label do for me that I can't do myself except fund my PR blitz in all the television channels and magazines? Lady Gaga is proof that for BIG campaigns there is no substitute for major label funded hype. What indie label can do that as well? However, and I've said this many times, indie labels have a commercial power that reaches very far.
As technology progresses you'll find more people able to put their music out there without a major label and profit from it.
Kirkland said:
But without major labels we made end up with more Sandi Thom's and less Girls Alouds. Visually and musically exciting replaced with cheap and easy to get 'out there'.
Femmenizer said:
One of my points there was that the only thing that separates the majors from the small DIY labels is the fact they've got money and resources and lots more experience. But, and I think this is true, eventually people will be able to bypass that and get their own hype. You heard about the Arctic Monkeys getting signed because of their live gigs and demos being passed around by rabid fans online...whether that's wholly true or not (and I find it more believable than the similar Sandi Thom story which was exposed as a lie) I do think the industry is floundering badly.
Small DIY labels can easily get good distribution and that's half the battle. If they find a way to get their acts known then who knows how much pop music will change? The only real problem with small labels is good publicity that reaches the right people. But I think it's possible to achieve.
EDIT: I mean good interesting pop music could come through on small labels. Not Lolene. I mean people and bands like Unicorn Kid, Skitten, Hi-5 Alive and other groups. Most of them haven't been signed or are on very small but hardworking indie labels. But they're building up a good following through word of mouth.
I think they have a blessing coming in the form of a new format within the next few years - If you look at hi-def audio formats (like SA-CD, DVD-A) in terms of file sizes, then consider current lossless compression technologies, you're probably looking at being able to fit about 3,500 tracks onto a terabyte. Terabyte HDs can now be picked up for as little as £80, which means 1TB and 2TB disks will become the norm very soon. Plus, broadband speeds are being improved And home cinema systems are increasingly good (Dolby 7.1 surround sound etc.) and are hooked up to your digital music libraries.
I think we'll see an MP4 style hi-def audio format, in higher quality than a CD, released digitally through the likes of iTunes. If it were a genuine upgrade on the CD, it would require "the industry" to master and release these tracks, and many would upgrade. You'd still have the piracy issue of course, but I think they would still stand to make a fortune from the rereleases. There are entire swathes of my catalogue that I would be willing to upgrade.
I think we'll see an MP4 style hi-def audio format, in higher quality than a CD, released digitally through the likes of iTunes. If it were a genuine upgrade on the CD, it would require "the industry" to master and release these tracks, and many would upgrade. You'd still have the piracy issue of course, but I think they would still stand to make a fortune from the rereleases. There are entire swathes of my catalogue that I would be willing to upgrade.
Kirkland said:
I used to think this too, but I don't think the music industry is going to disappear entirely. I think new business will move in to fill the void - and labels, be they major or 'indie' will become a thing of the past. By that I mean, I'm sure you'll have artist development companies, PR and marketing companies, production houses etc. who will bring the 'business' to the music. GaGa is a good example - yes she had a major label launch, but she also secured a couple of big brand sponsorship deals that have given her the finance to buy the marketing.
I think there is money in the future of the music industry, but it won't come from selling records which is the only monopoly the 'industry' have had.