UK file-sharers will be 'cut off'

[HundredthIdiot]

Rusty Arches said:

1 million people downloading my album =

Physical sales (yes, some people love the feeling of handing a physical object, think vinyl)
Potential packed gigs
Shirts
Books
Art
Donations
etc

All of those may or may not be viable incomes streams for certain types of act, but why should creators be forced to give stuff away if they don't want to, just because people are too lazy or tight to pay?

[scorp]

Rusty Arches said:

1 million people downloading my album =

Physical sales (yes, some people love the feeling of handing a physical object, think vinyl)
Potential packed gigs
Shirts
Books
Art
Donations
etc

Without copyright law almost all of those will be bootlegged and someone else apart from you will profit. Donations i don't think will be very high unless you have millions of dedicated fans, which only a small amount of artists can maintain. Gigs also need a lot of upfront cash if i'm not mistaken ?

[scorp]

Rusty Arches said:

Nobody is paying for file sharing.

File sharing is not at all like selling dodgy CDs at the market.

Once again, your analogy is floored. Try another

You're not paying the content owner for the right to own the copy either way.

[Rusty Arches]

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

10 Pence Short said:

Blue Meanie said:

10 Pence Short said:

Rusty Arches said:

@ people comparing gardens / cars to digital files

@ calling file sharing theft / stealing

Whatever next, eh! Funny how intellectual property abusers never want to compare them to CDs, though.

So compare it to a cd...

Store had a cd... Chap downloads the song... Store still has the cd.
Or
Chap downloads album... Likes it, so buys that album AND their other albums...
Or
Store has CD... Chap downloads fro iTunes... Store still has cd.

I have quite a few albums, and movies bought from iTunes, but I still download. Consider it a test drive.

Forget the physical product sat on a shelf. It's just a transport method. You're really buying the intellectual property and it just happens to be shipped printed onto a CD or hosted on a server to download.

If you set up a stall on a saturday market distributing copies you've made from a CD, it's the same as someone hosting the digital files on a server for people to download. All that's changed is the delivery format.

Nobody is paying for file sharing.

File sharing is not at all like selling dodgy CDs at the market.

Once again, your analogy is floored. Try another

Read what I wrote- distributing- not 'selling'.

Ohh just giving them away, that would be awesome, I'd have a visit.

[Rusty Arches]

Regardless of what you think about file sharing:

Times have changed, music is and will always be downloaded for nothing. The horse has been roaming the fields for years now.

The business can crash and burn for all I care, music will always be made. I'd laugh if most of cartel collapsed. If there are labels and artists that want to stay in the past, that's fine.

Thankfully most upcoming artists are in full support of file sharers, they understand the more people that listen to their album (worldwide) and get their friends listening, the better. They also understand it's not going away.

[Frankeh]

Radioheads case study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Distribut...


More profitable than their last album even though this one was available for free.

Please explain.

[HundredthIdiot]

Rusty Arches said:

Regardless of what you think about file sharing:

Times have changed, music is and will always be downloaded for nothing. The horse has been roaming the fields for years now.

The business can crash and burn for all I care, music will always be made. I'd laugh if most of cartel collapsed. If there are labels and artists that want to stay in the past, that's fine.

Thankfully most upcoming artists are in full support of file sharers, they understand the more people that listen to their album (worldwide) and get their friends listening, the better. They also understand it's not going away.

How is it any different for books? Or films? Or computer games? Or any other creative work? How is music any different?

What if most people stopped going to the cinema and started watching DVD rips? There would be no movie industry. I like reading books. I like watching big-budget movies. Are you seriously suggesting that you can finance a $100m movie based on T-shirt sales?

[Frankeh]

HundredthIdiot said:

Rusty Arches said:

Regardless of what you think about file sharing:

Times have changed, music is and will always be downloaded for nothing. The horse has been roaming the fields for years now.

The business can crash and burn for all I care, music will always be made. I'd laugh if most of cartel collapsed. If there are labels and artists that want to stay in the past, that's fine.

Thankfully most upcoming artists are in full support of file sharers, they understand the more people that listen to their album (worldwide) and get their friends listening, the better. They also understand it's not going away.

How is it any different for books? Or films? Or computer games? Or any other creative work? How is music any different?

What if most people stopped going to the cinema and started watching DVD rips? There would be no movie industry. I like reading books. I like watching big-budget movies. Are you seriously suggesting that you can finance a $100m movie based on T-shirt sales?

If that started happening (Avatar 1.2 BILLION dollars gross) then the movie industry would need to look at why it's happening.
To say "Because it's free" is passing off the problem. It's nothing to do with free and much more to do with pumping out st.

The music industry, film industry, video game industry, software companies, etc are all guilty of this. However nowadays people don't have to buy the DVD/cd to find out if it's st or not, by which time it's too late.

The movie industry is fine. They're losing profits because they're making crappy movies.

[scorp]

Frankeh said:

The music industry, film industry, video game industry, software companies, etc are all guilty of this. However nowadays people don't have to buy the DVD/cd to find out if it's st or not, by which time it's too late.

Video games developer release demos to let people judge for themselves if it's st or not. There is no excuse for copying video games.

[HundredthIdiot]

Frankeh said:

To say "Because it's free" is passing off the problem. It's nothing to do with free and much more to do with pumping out st.

I don't understand your point. If you don't like the product then don't buy it and don't consume it. There is plenty of information out there to make an informed decision about which movie to see, and plenty of preview facilities to listen to low quality music clips before you buy.

The issue is with people consuming it but not paying for it.

[Frankeh]

HundredthIdiot said:

If you don't like the product then don't buy it

404 Logic not found.

Pretty much all media should be subscription based now, and it will be in the future.
I'll be here to gloat when it is.

The sooner they adapt, the sooner they can stop complaining.

[HundredthIdiot]

Frankeh said:

Pretty much all media should be subscription based now, and it will be in the future.

Why "should" it be? Who are you to assert what people can do with the things they create?

I prefer own stuff rather than rent it. Do I have to give up that right because you think the world should be subscription-based?

[Frankeh]

HundredthIdiot said:

Frankeh said:

Pretty much all media should be subscription based now, and it will be in the future.

Why "should" it be? Who are you to assert what people can do with the things they create?

I prefer own stuff rather than rent it. Do I have to give up that right because you think the world should be subscription-based?

When did I say merchandise shouldn't exist. Physical CD's come under merchandise. They'll be like a boy band doll.

You buy them if you want the memorabilia.

Also I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm telling them what they need to do.
It's up to them if they don't do it, but they'll be bankrupt soon enough if they don't adapt.

See my VHS Player example. How are VHS sellers doing in this day and age?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

10 Pence Short said:

What kind of terms have you set with iTunes for your album?

When are you embarking on a stadium tour?

I take it there's absolutely nothing to stop you doing those things at present?

Sorry a bit late with reply...was travelling home.....



Technically no.....I 'Could' organise that myself. Realistically though, you'd probably get a manager or Agency to take care of that.

But that is record company. And a manager will take a lot less of the royalties than the recorrd company.




I'm not saying they are obsolete yet....but that is the way I think it is heading. Just look at how many artists set up their own labels now. Artists are taking a lot more of a hands-on approach to their career's, and not just settling for playing the music. As the internet media of buying/ selling music, and social network sites expands.....the 'need' for record labels gets less and less.

Another problem record labels have atm is that they usually want too many rights over the ownership and use of an artist's material. As an artist, surely you'd wat as much ownership over your material as possible.

[tinman0]

joe_90 said:

Using the old 'would you steal a car' is stupid, if you could copy a car.. would you? If you could just copy that Veyron, just for 20 minutes.. with a less than .00000001% of getting caught.. you would not do it....?

The arrogance of some of you people is breathtaking. Seriously.

You could copy a Veyron, and VAG would be at your throat over patents and such like. It already happens. People invent new ways of doing things, they get a patent to protect their innovation, and then license it on occasion.

But hell, you go copy a Veyron, because its a victimless crime apparently.

I have a serious question for you - Do you respect anyone's rights or is it just a free for all?

[Jimbeaux]

Rusty Arches said:

Regardless of what you think about file sharing:

Times have changed, music is and will always be downloaded for nothing. The horse has been roaming the fields for years now.

The business can crash and burn for all I care, music will always be made. I'd laugh if most of cartel collapsed. If there are labels and artists that want to stay in the past, that's fine.

Thankfully most upcoming artists are in full support of file sharers, they understand the more people that listen to their album (worldwide) and get their friends listening, the better. They also understand it's not going away.

Just what world do you live in? How do expect intellectual property owners to survive economically?

[Frankeh]

None of you are getting it. There's no point fighting it, it's futile and in most cases counter productive.

If you can't beat them, join them. They HAVE to create a service that adds value. That's what iTunes did and it's worked pretty damn well.

It's not perfect though. Like I said before, subscriptions are the future.
£10 a month, 100 downloads (Aka keep drm free) and unlimited streaming (To discover new music).

CD's get ripped within hours of CD release. No point DRMing music when it's available on the net DRM free (AKA better product)..

Adapt or fk off. You need to learn this.

There's not a business in the world that doesn't adapt and still stays profitable.

Newpapers are a good example. They've realised online news is where's it's at.

[Morningside]

Anyone following this? Click 'Miscellaneous'. Quite a few heated questions.

http://www.youtube.com/ukelection

[Scraggles]

currently using lastfm, shoutcast and occasionally spotify

had a spell of downloading albums a few years back, so thought would try some cd's for a change, only to get the sony "cd" with the free rootkit that fked up my pc

ended up having to format the drive to get rid of it as something else piggy backed the rootkit

not into itunes as have a sony mp3 player, it sounds a lot better than the music on an ipod and as the player is always in a pouch, not care what it looks like

it will not work with itunes and so i prefer DRM mp3

I do buy games from time to time, eg asassins creed, it is a single player offline game, so ubisoft decided to shaft it with DRM that needed you to go online in order to play it

[Frankeh]

An example of an industry moving with the times is the game industry with Steam.

I haven't illegally downloaded a game since steam got good. It's seamless.
You purchase the game and it's linked to that account, not computer.
You can reinstall them with 1 click. An absolutely great user experience.

I don't buy any games on steam with DRM (Well, DRM past being locked into steam) out of principle.

Speak with your wallets.