Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Millions chose torrents over Radiohead's own site


Stripey

Recommended Posts

Guest treader.
I haven't seen you at any of the gigs i've been to recently so there must be more gigs than you can physically go to on at the moment. Either that or there's a lot on, but not much that takes your fancy ;)

there arent THAT many crust gigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't say anyone is out of pocket, because they are presuming people are willing to pay for the stuff in the first place. Which they clearly aren't. You can't say "oh but I would have made x amount if nobody had downloaded the tunes". You can't say that anyone who has downloaded the tunes would have paid for them otherwise. It's revenue that *doesn't exist*. As I pointed out earlier, illegal downloading is a fact of life, it's there, deal with it, work around it, don't go slapping civil law suits on kids for downloading the latest coldplay album.

I can and I did.

People who are prepared to pay for it are out of pocket.

Why should they have to pay for it when others who are no better than them don't?

People who have paid for it to be created are out of pocket.

If it was free to produce an albums worth of songs then there would probably be no problem but its not free. Money is spent on rehearsals and equipment and studio time and mastering and promotion.

Smaller music stores who rely on sales to generate income are out of pocket.

If people arn't prepared to pay for larger artists work they definately wont pay for smaller lesser known artists. CDs will stay on shelfs and stores will shut down.

Companies who are providing you access to millions of high quality downloads are out of pocket.

They employ staff who have to maintain files and systems and those staff will eventually loose jobs if there is no revenue.

Theft of any kind is a fact of life. The fact that a music track isnt a physical object doesn't make any difference, it still has a price tag and there are still laws governing its purchase and use. Perhaps we should deal with and work round petty shop thieves too.

Errrrrrrrmmm.....

i'm sorry, your right ... perhaps i'v misinterpreted the meaning of shoplifting...

"To steal (articles or an article) from a store that is open for business." or

"The stealing of anything from a shop."

no... no thats what i thought...

but perhaps you could say that they arn't being downloaded from the online store but from a torrent site, however there is no doubt of the legallity...

so in actual fact 'receiving stolen goods' is proabably a closer analogy...

my apologies to anyone who downloads illegally and was offended by being likened to a shoplifter...

after careful consideration a person who downloads illegally is actually more like a pikey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

People who have paid for it to be created are out of pocket.

If it was free to produce an albums worth of songs then there would probably be no problem but its not free. Money is spent on rehearsals and equipment and studio time and mastering and promotion.

..

But they're only out of pocket because their product was overpriced anyway. All of the other examples are merely consequences of that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they're only out of pocket because their product was overpriced anyway. All of the other examples are merely consequences of that fact.

So the only reason people download music illegally is because it's overpriced normally? No, reason people download music for free is because it's free. You put a track online for 1 and the exactly same track online for free - which will be downloaded the most?

At the end of the day unless the artist decides to give his/her work away, they are quite right to expect people to buy it legally and for those that don't to be punished by law. Anything else is theft regardless of the format or means of distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can and I did.

People who are prepared to pay for it are out of pocket.

Why should they have to pay for it when others who are no better than them don't?

People who have paid for it to be created are out of pocket.

If it was free to produce an albums worth of songs then there would probably be no problem but its not free. Money is spent on rehearsals and equipment and studio time and mastering and promotion.

Smaller music stores who rely on sales to generate income are out of pocket.

If people arn't prepared to pay for larger artists work they definately wont pay for smaller lesser known artists. CDs will stay on shelfs and stores will shut down.

Companies who are providing you access to millions of high quality downloads are out of pocket.

They employ staff who have to maintain files and systems and those staff will eventually loose jobs if there is no revenue.

Theft of any kind is a fact of life. The fact that a music track isnt a physical object doesn't make any difference, it still has a price tag and there are still laws governing its purchase and use. Perhaps we should deal with and work round petty shop thieves too.

i'm sorry, your right ... perhaps i'v misinterpreted the meaning of shoplifting...

"To steal (articles or an article) from a store that is open for business." or

"The stealing of anything from a shop."

no... no thats what i thought...

but perhaps you could say that they arn't being downloaded from the online store but from a torrent site, however there is no doubt of the legallity...

so in actual fact 'receiving stolen goods' is proabably a closer analogy...

my apologies to anyone who downloads illegally and was offended by being likened to a shoplifter...

after careful consideration a person who downloads illegally is actually more like a pikey...

Sorry but whinging about piracy is like king kanute trying to command the tide. It's always going to happen and it's technologically impossible to prevent, the failure of schemes like DRM and CSS dvd encryption make this perfectly clear.

Nobody sells betamax videos anymore, because nobody wants betamax videos or has betamax players. You don't see betamax manufacturers moaning about it, they've adapted and moved on. Anyone still in the market of investing in the production and retail of betamax video tapes in 2008 would be branded a lunatic, and probably locked up if they started bringing lawsuits against people for using VHS and suing people for lost revenue, just because reality no longer fits their obselete business model.

This is exactly the situation the music industry is in today. Lots of people no longer consider music to be worth what the industry says it "should" be worth. Lots of people are no longer awed by slick marketing and huge publicity campaigns, letalone the cult of personality that drove the whole thing during the 80's and 90's for example (think michael jackson etc). Lots of people can get music for nothing without even leaving their house and they are happy to do so, and will continue to do so.

Is the answer to bring lawsuits against these millions of people for simply doing what is in their own interest rather than what's in the interest of an industry widely regarded as corrupt, bloated, shallow and detrimental to the artform?

No, the answer is to admit the business model is dead and adapt. In the free market businesses don't have a right to make profits, the public however have a right to act of their own free will. The customer is always right, and the customer has had enough of paying through the nose for something they don't feel is worth what's being charged, so they've gone somewhere else where it's cheaper and easier to obtain.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the only reason people download music illegally is because it's overpriced normally? No, reason people download music for free is because it's free. You put a track online for 1 and the exactly same track online for free - which will be downloaded the most?

.

Well, you've picked me rather unnecessarily there, so I'll just go ahead and keep making the same point, that music is too expensive. Why should anyone give a toss about these record labels? Seriously, who actually gives a fuck when it affects what is essentially the musical aristocracy, and a pop music form that has degenerated into a truly sinister, worthless pile of near-porno sludge.

Why was anyone able to charge 10 or 12 quid an album? Because millions of people paid it. Why did they pay so much? They've literally no idea; their sexual sensitivity had been tweaked; all of their friends were buying it; they simply have warped priorities. Judging by what some people have been saying, only the rich can really afford to be a 'proper' music fan, who willingly buys and buys and buys in continual gratitude and service to their chosen idols. Let them earn less, for the good of humanity. Let's purge the notions of cash, bling, cocaine, lavishness and indulgence so intrinsic to 'music.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you've picked me rather unnecessarily there, so I'll just go ahead and keep making the same point, that music is too expensive. Why should anyone give a toss about these record labels? Seriously, who actually gives a fuck when it affects what is essentially the musical aristocracy, and a pop music form that has degenerated into a truly sinister, worthless pile of near-porno sludge.

Why was anyone able to charge 10 or 12 quid an album? Because millions of people paid it. Why did they pay so much? They've literally no idea; their sexual sensitivity had been tweaked; all of their friends were buying it; they simply have warped priorities. Judging by what some people have been saying, only the rich can really afford to be a 'proper' music fan, who willingly buys and buys and buys in continual gratitude and service to their chosen idols. Let them earn less, for the good of humanity. Let's purge the notions of cash, bling, cocaine, lavishness and indulgence so intrinsic to 'music.'

I haven't paid 10 or 12 for an album in about 8 years. I don't know where you buy music from but you're getting ripped off chum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you've picked me rather unnecessarily there, so I'll just go ahead and keep making the same point, that music is too expensive. Why should anyone give a toss about these record labels? Seriously, who actually gives a fuck when it affects what is essentially the musical aristocracy, and a pop music form that has degenerated into a truly sinister, worthless pile of near-porno sludge.

I've picked on you because I disagree with what you have posted.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm saying that the reason the majority of people download music for free (regardless of the artist or record label in question) is that if it cost anything more than that (even a 1) then people would still download it illegally to avoid even paying this small amount.

Like I said in my last post, people are downloading the music for free because it's free. Not because they think record labels are ripping them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but whinging about piracy is like king kanute trying to command the tide. It's always going to happen and it's technologically impossible to prevent, the failure of schemes like DRM and CSS dvd encryption make this perfectly clear.

Nobody sells betamax videos anymore, because nobody wants betamax videos or has betamax players. You don't see betamax manufacturers moaning about it, they've adapted and moved on. Anyone still in the market of investing in the production and retail of betamax video tapes in 2008 would be branded a lunatic, and probably locked up if they started bringing lawsuits against people for using VHS and suing people for lost revenue, just because reality no longer fits their obselete business model.

This is exactly the situation the music industry is in today. Lots of people no longer consider music to be worth what the industry says it "should" be worth. Lots of people are no longer awed by slick marketing and huge publicity campaigns, letalone the cult of personality that drove the whole thing during the 80's and 90's for example (think michael jackson etc). Lots of people can get music for nothing without even leaving their house and they are happy to do so, and will continue to do so.

Is the answer to bring lawsuits against these millions of people for simply doing what is in their own interest rather than what's in the interest of an industry widely regarded as corrupt, bloated, shallow and detrimental to the artform?

No, the answer is to admit the business model is dead and adapt. In the free market businesses don't have a right to make profits, the public however have a right to act of their own free will. The customer is always right, and the customer has had enough of paying through the nose for something they don't feel is worth what's being charged, so they've gone somewhere else where it's cheaper and easier to obtain.

I can't give you rep because I did not long ago, but that post is bang on the button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've picked on you because I disagree with what you have posted.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm saying that the reason the majority of people download music for free (regardless of the artist or record label in question) is that if it cost anything more than that (even a 1) then people would still download it illegally to avoid even paying this small amount.

Like I said in my last post, people are downloading the music for free because it's free. Not because they think record labels are ripping them off.

Well in that case (illegal downloading as a concrete reality) they should find new ways of making money, even if these prove less profitable than the old.

I'm not an economist, so I cannot work out the multiple ways by which all these factors affect one another. However, I truly believe people have historically been thoroughly ripped off, and that the evolution of the industry towards flashier live shows, more expensive videos etc etc has totally crippled the relatively simple practice of music-making and appreciation. It's a mangled web, but you can't feel anything for the big-shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, what determines the price of a product is not its actual value, but rather the public's perception of its value. If people have been getting ripped off throughout history, it's their own responsibility to educate themselves. Once folk are aware that the marginal production cost of a CD is fuck all, they're less likely to fork out for the grossly inflated prices they might find in the high street.

Things would probably be better if everything was done directly between artist and consumer, without the middle-men of the music industry. Of course, the major labels have extensive distribution networks, but the internet has been helping artists to close this gap for years. Unfortunately, a beast the size of the music industry will take a very long time to die, as the labels scrabble (badly) to adapt to all changes that come their way.

Not sure I agree entirely with the idea of just allowing people to do whatever's in their own interest, and bollocks to everyone else. Granted, I don't think anyone's got any love for the major labels, but what's the point of having the rule of law if we're going to abandon it because someone decides they don't want to adhere to it anymore? The whole point of having a system of laws imposed by the state is because people can't be trusted not to do something that might benefit themselves, but cause harm to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in that case (illegal downloading as a concrete reality) they should find new ways of making money, even if these prove less profitable than the old.

So rather than discouraging people from downloading music illegally, music artists should now stop trying to sell their recorded works and find new ways of making a living?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of having a system of laws imposed by the state is because people can't be trusted not to do something that might benefit themselves, but cause harm to others.

There are always going to be losers when a market changes, but usually it's the large corporations squeezing the life out of everyone else. Free music is the greatest undercut of them all, and one cannot believe for a second that no good will come of it. Subsequently, any artist who requires substantially more than the equivalent of a regular, living wage to practice their art can piss off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could come up with a way to utilise the enormous amount of free exposure they're getting..?

Which they will only be able to then make money from if they were to tour extensively and sell a whole load of other merchandise. What if I told you the only way you can make money as a music artist was to do this? Would you bother even realising records? Would you even bother making music in the first place?

What I'm trying to get at is that it isn't just the "major record labels" you're depriving of "profit". It's the artists as well - be they signed to majors or otherwise. I don't think you fully appreciate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which they will only be able to then make money from if they were to tour extensively and sell a whole load of other merchandise. What if I told you the only way you can make money as a music artist was to do this? Would you bother even realising records? Would you even bother making music in the first place?

What I'm trying to get at is that it isn't just the "major record labels" you're depriving of "profit". It's the artists as well - be they signed to majors or otherwise. I don't think you fully appreciate that.

Doesn't that argument die by the fact that record sales aren't the only way to make money out of music? Does your argument extend only to The Beatles and Madonna or should new bands be coming up expecting to hit the money with album sales?

I understand the inconsistencies in what I'm saying. I don't know that much about this beyond simple observation, I'm just trying to make logical inferences and enquiries along a particular line of thought that is unravelling before me; the debate itself seems quite a confused mess of misinformation, warped opinion, and countless variables that make this topic somewhat difficult to understand and discuss on a level playing field.

The business model that has controlled music for God-knows how long, has produced a shed-load of trash, whilst becoming increasingly sinister in the kind of values it embodies and puts forth. I don't believe anyone truly into making music requires vast amounts of cash to do it; anything beyond overheads and a living wage. If music was sold at a price in proportion to what it actually is, stripped of the various add-ons and covetousness that currently bloat it, then maybe I would think twice before downloading it for free; if buying ten albums didn't seriously dent my bank account then I'd buy them.

Just to point out, maybe less people releasing music would actually be a good thing, when you remember 75% of it is total gash anwyway. There's no point in protecting bad art, beyond its proven ability to make large cash hauls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't that argument die by the fact that record sales aren't the only way to make money out of music? Does your argument extend only to The Beatles and Madonna or should new bands be coming up expecting to hit the money with album sales?

Well, not really. Don't most artists (major or minor) make most of their money from the sales of their various releases as opposed to touring and selling t-shirts? That's the impression I've always been given.

Just to point out, maybe less people releasing music would actually be a good thing, when you remember 75% of it is total gash anwyway. There's no point in protecting bad art, beyond its proven ability to make large cash hauls.

Last time I checked the appreciation of a specific artist, be it in music or any other art form, is entirely subjective. So you, and anyone else for that matter, is in no position to say 75% of music is "total gash" (and where do you get this 75% from exactly? You've listened to 100% of all music output since the beginning of time have you?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked the appreciation of a specific artist, be it in music or any other art form, is entirely subjective.

In which case the mainstream music industry is in the business not of promoting good music, or letting people make their minds up amongst themselves, but in the business of telling people what is good music, and that music just happens to be the stuff they own the rights to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case the mainstream music industry is in the business not of promoting good music, or letting people make their minds up amongst themselves, but in the business of telling people what is good music, and that music just happens to be the stuff they own the rights to.

Yup, pretty much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jake Wifebeater
Either that or there's a lot on, but not much that takes your fancy ;)

That's the one alright, there are very few bands from around here I'm even vaguely interested in. That said, I'm lucky enough to be playing a decent amount of gigs these days so I'm kinda there seeing them by default.

:up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jake Wifebeater
Is that all he really listens to?

Nope, a cursory skim through the vinyl crates will disabuse that notion. I specialise in the HC/grind/Japcore side of things, but that's not the full story and never will be. Just to knock that myth about me on the head, it's been kicking around for a while.

:up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...