£10 is not good value for an album you're only going to listen to once, but is excellent value for something you're going to listen to over and over again.
Okay, if you've admitted the point right there that the £10 price is so that they can play it over and over again, then why are you arguing that they have to pay additional licensing fees on top of that?
So then it's up to the bar owner to pay for the performance
You still haven't addressed the point of WHY he should have to pay again. If he purchased the Jukebox and bought the CDs to fill it up why should he have to pay again to play those CDs? HE ALREADY PAID FOR THE CDS. He wasn't buying them because he thought they were pretty, he bought them so he could play them. Now he has to pay again to use his purchased goods for their intended purpose?
Yes, you only pay once for a tin of paint, but that does not mean you get free paint for the rest of your life. Every time you repaint the walls, you pay.
Exactly. When he repaints the walls, that would be comparable to him buying new CDs to put in his jukebox. But when he plays the CD that he already paid for and you say he owes more money because he wants to actually play the CD, that would be more comparable to the paint company charging him for the ongoing use of the paint, simply because it is on his walls.
Every time you replay a song, you pay.
Really? I sure don't, and I'm sure you don't either. When I take a CD or MP3 that I purchased, I don't have to pay again every time I play it. You haven't given any reason for WHY the business should have to pay every time the song is played, when he already paid.
Also, you're seeing music as live performance alone, which is in my opinion an inaccurate point of view, but one which is killing my line of work. I'm a recording engineer.
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Mike says. He has put forth many ways in which musicians get paid besides live performance.
Yeah, it does. He paid for the paint and the pictures on the walls and the neon light in the window. Why shouldn't he pay for something else that adds to the ambience of his bar?
Well then, it's a good thing HE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. You know, by buying the Jukebox and the CD's in it (or paying the Jukebox company). Or if he is playing the radio then that music has already been paid for by the radio broadcaster, and the broadcaster is paid through advertising. Either way the music HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR, why should he have to pay twice?
Christopher Mchale said: Another point overlooked: many of these venues have the jukebox on, or the radio. The music IS being performed.
Why should you get extra money just because the Jukebox or Radio happens to be playing in the background?. The last time I checked, radio stations already pay for the music they broadcast. The CDs in the Jukebox have already been purchased and paid for. It sounds like double-dipping to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Well then, it's really a shame that the industry dropped the ball so badly. Your know, 15 years ago when this amazing new distribution method called the internet started getting really big, and the music industry thought they could just continue along selling plastic discs at over-inflated prices. Then when they finally decided that they could sell music over the internet, they decide to stick with the same over-inflated prices.
If I was a songwriter I would be pretty pissed at the Music Industry for not keeping up with the changing marketplace.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
If you were a musician you would see that. But you're not so who cares what you have to say.
Really? Only musicians can have anything meaningful to say here? Its a good thing I play multiple instruments (drums, flute, clarinet, guitar). Does that somehow make my opinions more meaningful?
I think that all it proves is that piracy has knocked the crap out of retail music sales.
And there is the leap of logic you always make to blame it on piracy. There are numerous reasons why recorded music sales are down and it's not just piracy. You could just as easily say that the decline is due to the industry's inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. Or the music industry's constant attacks on it's biggest fans have turned those fans off of purchasing recorded music.
Also, regarding your statements about how the total revenues have remained flat, so the industry is therefore down by the rate of inflation: Have you even looked at consumer spending reports (put out by Bureau of Labor Statistics)? Consumer spending for non-necessities has remained flat for the last 10 years. So the industry's lack of revenue growth simply reflects this overall lack of consumer spending growth. (nice try, though)
I would also have to assume by your lack of response that I got your profession and affiliation correct.
If you look closely at the chart you will see a tiny increase in live income for artists offset by a drop in their income from recorded revenue.
Tiny? Really? From £440 million in Live Revenue to nearly £700 million in in Live revenue in four years does not seem like a tiny increase to me. I would call that increase quite large.
Effectively, all that has happened is that we traded $x of music and live for $x of live and music. The net numbers are so close, it's almost funny to watch.
That's the way you look at it, but I would have to say your interpretation is incorrect and shortsighted. Sure, the numbers are very close when you combine THE TWO ITEMS WE ARE CONTRASTING.
The way see it, these numbers show that the amount of money people are willing to spend on pieces of plastic and 1s and 0s is dropping significantly, while people are willing to use that money for the experience of a live show.
"If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap"., all I can say is that I can disagree with you without calling you names. Perhaps your parents didn't bring you up to be polite, but mine did. I respect your right to be wrong, please do the same for me (and no, I don't work in music)
I wasn't calling you any names(unless you mean when I called you a shill, which isn't name calling, just an accurate description). I was referring to your argument, and your odd habit of combining Record sales revenue and Live sales revenue, when those are the things we are contrasting. I could just as easily combine Record sales and Licensing and point to the fact that when you combine those two things revenue has gone down significantly, while live sales has skyrocketed.
And I already know you don't work in music, you work in the Movie industry (a lawyer, if I am not mistaken).
Basically, in the UK, the retail music industry grew 3%. That's all. Licensing grew 10%, and importantly represents 25% of the business. If this trend continues, licensing will be a bigger and bigger part of the business.
"whooosh". That's the sound of the point going right over your head.
The whole point of this is the comparison between Record sales and Live revenue. The numbers are presented separately as well as combined, and the point at issue here is to show that Live sales have actually grown quite significantly.
In fact, if we take your idea of "if the trend continues" with record sales dropping by about 25% over 4 years and Revenue from live sales increasing by 70% over the same period, then record sales will become 0 and live sales will far outpace licensing income.
I don't really need to "tag" you as a shill. As my dad used to say: "If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap".
So if you want to write music, but don't have time to tour, you're screwed.
Guess what? Even long before the days of the internet if you wanted to just write music without touring or promoting your music in some way you were screwed anyway.
Live is only there making up for the losses in record sales. Remember the report you posted Mike? Total of the two together (which is how they reported them) showed only about a 3% gain total. Licencing over the same time period was showing 10% gains and more.
Good job missing the point again. The point is that while record sales have been going down, nearly every other aspect of music has shown increased revenue.
Also, live revenue is up by around £370 million, for a 70% gain, while licensing revenue is up only £114 million for a 27% gain. Whether you look at dollar amount increase or proportional increase, Live revenue is up substantially more than licensing.
The only thing going down is record sales, you don't get to mysteriously combine live and record revenue when the whole point of this discussion is to show the contrast between those two.
Re: Re: Re: At which point is it an infirnging derivative work?
You can write a book with all the truth you want. When you make it entirely in reference to the content of another book, that is a derivative work.
Well then at what point does it become an infringement? When I write answers to the book questions for my assignment? When I photocopy my answers and hand them out to classmates? When I type up my answers and print up multiple copies for my classmates? When I charge classmates for those copies? When I have my answers nicely bound at the campus print shop and give or sell them to classmates? When I take that Print shop copy and sell it online on ebay? When I take a digital copy and give it away online using bittorrent? When enough people notice my answer key and a publisher decides to publish my answer key?
If you are saying that an answer key is an infringing derivative work, then at what point does it become one?
Freedom of movement is a human right... unless you're found guilty of theft or assault or embezzlement or fraud and thrown in jail, in which case as far as you're concerned that particular right has been rescinded for the duration of your stay.
But there's the rub. I'll bold it for you in case you missed it while you were typing it "... unless you're found guilty...". It's not "if we accuse you a couple times". You see? The difference here is that they want to kick people off the internet after a couple accusations not actual findings of guilt.
It wouldn't be single device related. It wouldn't be single company related. Imagine every device you buy having a standard key style that is managed by a central system. You register all your stuff, it modifies the smart card style chip inside the device, and suddenly, you can move your content from one play to another REGARDLESS OF THE MANUFACTURE!
Now, here's the key... because you have agreed to work within the structure, the prices of everything is suddenly MUCH lower, because you are no longer paying for the freeloaders.
None of what you said there agrees with what the RIAA/MPAA has been pushing for. Every single piece of DRM I have seen has put more restrictions over what I can do with the content I purchase, not less.
What you say sounds nice, but sure doesn't seem to be the way that the MPAA/RIAA have been pushing things. The ability to play content on multiple devices can already be easily done without DRM, and people have shown willingness to pay for DRM-free content.
Are the movie studios actually in the business of selling movies? I thought they were, but with statements like:
"If you do not like the idea of what studios would like to implement, why not simply avoid the use of VOD? Go see a movie in a theater and enjoy the social experience, wait till the DVD comes out, wait till is appears on HBO, or wait until in is shown on a network broadcast."
It would appear as if they are not really interested in selling movies. Lets go through those statements one by one:
1) Avoid the use of VOD.
What? Are you serious? Here you have an excellent, low cost distribution method and you are telling people to avoid it? I thought businesses were usually pretty happy when something comes along that reduces their distribution costs.
2) Go see a movie in the theater and enjoy the social experience.
Have you been to the theater lately? I can have a much more enjoyable social experience at home with some friends (the movie isn't even necessary).
3) Wait till it comes out on DVD, HBO, or network TV.
Hollywood spends a lot of money advertising (approximately 1/3-1/2 of the budget for any movie is advertising). Most of this money is spent building hype prior to it's release in theaters. It is often successful in getting people interested in the film, but many people who become interested in the film either don't want to or can't see it in the theaters. By the time it is available on DVD, HBO or Network TV, interest in it has completely worn off. So people who would have happily paid to purchase a DVD or pay for a download when it was first released are no longer interested in doing so by the time it is finally available. That seems like quite a waste of advertising dollars.
1 fan downloads music
2 fan fileshares
3 non fan downloads becomes fan and enjoys the music.
4 non fan (now fan) fileshares
5 wash, rinse, repeat.
If that's the case then why does study after study show that people who download lots of movies and music also spend lots of money on movies and music? You have completely fabricated an argument that filesharing prevents purchasing, but reality continues to prove you wrong over and over again. Yet you continue to repeat that same disproven statement.
That's the issue at hand: no one has explained how, they just say it will happen.
That seems to be their typical method of operation. They throw out these statements like "if file sharing continues people will cease making creative content", "file sharing is causing us to lose 500 bazillion dollars a day", and of course "punishing accused file sharers will fix our busniess model problems". They never bother explaining how or why, they just make statements without any actual logic behind them, or with logic that skips steps and makes inaccurate assumptions.
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys scare me.
Okay, if you've admitted the point right there that the £10 price is so that they can play it over and over again, then why are you arguing that they have to pay additional licensing fees on top of that?
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys scare me.
You still haven't addressed the point of WHY he should have to pay again. If he purchased the Jukebox and bought the CDs to fill it up why should he have to pay again to play those CDs? HE ALREADY PAID FOR THE CDS. He wasn't buying them because he thought they were pretty, he bought them so he could play them. Now he has to pay again to use his purchased goods for their intended purpose?
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys scare me.
Exactly. When he repaints the walls, that would be comparable to him buying new CDs to put in his jukebox. But when he plays the CD that he already paid for and you say he owes more money because he wants to actually play the CD, that would be more comparable to the paint company charging him for the ongoing use of the paint, simply because it is on his walls.
Every time you replay a song, you pay.
Really? I sure don't, and I'm sure you don't either. When I take a CD or MP3 that I purchased, I don't have to pay again every time I play it. You haven't given any reason for WHY the business should have to pay every time the song is played, when he already paid.
Also, you're seeing music as live performance alone, which is in my opinion an inaccurate point of view, but one which is killing my line of work. I'm a recording engineer.
Then you haven't been paying attention to what Mike says. He has put forth many ways in which musicians get paid besides live performance.
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
Re: Re: Re: You guys scare me.
Well then, it's a good thing HE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. You know, by buying the Jukebox and the CD's in it (or paying the Jukebox company). Or if he is playing the radio then that music has already been paid for by the radio broadcaster, and the broadcaster is paid through advertising. Either way the music HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR, why should he have to pay twice?
On the post: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'
Re: You guys scare me.
Why should you get extra money just because the Jukebox or Radio happens to be playing in the background?. The last time I checked, radio stations already pay for the music they broadcast. The CDs in the Jukebox have already been purchased and paid for. It sounds like double-dipping to me.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Wants More People To Know About OpenBitTorrent Tracker
I think I found it!
That's it right there. When lawyers are the ones making the decisions, they make decisions that benefit lawyers.
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
If I was a songwriter I would be pretty pissed at the Music Industry for not keeping up with the changing marketplace.
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Really? Only musicians can have anything meaningful to say here? Its a good thing I play multiple instruments (drums, flute, clarinet, guitar). Does that somehow make my opinions more meaningful?
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there is the leap of logic you always make to blame it on piracy. There are numerous reasons why recorded music sales are down and it's not just piracy. You could just as easily say that the decline is due to the industry's inability to adapt to a changing marketplace. Or the music industry's constant attacks on it's biggest fans have turned those fans off of purchasing recorded music.
Also, regarding your statements about how the total revenues have remained flat, so the industry is therefore down by the rate of inflation: Have you even looked at consumer spending reports (put out by Bureau of Labor Statistics)? Consumer spending for non-necessities has remained flat for the last 10 years. So the industry's lack of revenue growth simply reflects this overall lack of consumer spending growth. (nice try, though)
I would also have to assume by your lack of response that I got your profession and affiliation correct.
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re: The Old Apples and Oranges Game Again
Tiny? Really? From £440 million in Live Revenue to nearly £700 million in in Live revenue in four years does not seem like a tiny increase to me. I would call that increase quite large.
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the way you look at it, but I would have to say your interpretation is incorrect and shortsighted. Sure, the numbers are very close when you combine THE TWO ITEMS WE ARE CONTRASTING.
The way see it, these numbers show that the amount of money people are willing to spend on pieces of plastic and 1s and 0s is dropping significantly, while people are willing to use that money for the experience of a live show.
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't calling you any names(unless you mean when I called you a shill, which isn't name calling, just an accurate description). I was referring to your argument, and your odd habit of combining Record sales revenue and Live sales revenue, when those are the things we are contrasting. I could just as easily combine Record sales and Licensing and point to the fact that when you combine those two things revenue has gone down significantly, while live sales has skyrocketed.
And I already know you don't work in music, you work in the Movie industry (a lawyer, if I am not mistaken).
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re: Re: Re:
"whooosh". That's the sound of the point going right over your head.
The whole point of this is the comparison between Record sales and Live revenue. The numbers are presented separately as well as combined, and the point at issue here is to show that Live sales have actually grown quite significantly.
In fact, if we take your idea of "if the trend continues" with record sales dropping by about 25% over 4 years and Revenue from live sales increasing by 70% over the same period, then record sales will become 0 and live sales will far outpace licensing income.
I don't really need to "tag" you as a shill. As my dad used to say: "If it looks like crap and smells like crap, you don't need to taste it to know it's crap".
On the post: Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money
Re:
Guess what? Even long before the days of the internet if you wanted to just write music without touring or promoting your music in some way you were screwed anyway.
Live is only there making up for the losses in record sales. Remember the report you posted Mike? Total of the two together (which is how they reported them) showed only about a 3% gain total. Licencing over the same time period was showing 10% gains and more.
Good job missing the point again. The point is that while record sales have been going down, nearly every other aspect of music has shown increased revenue.
Also, live revenue is up by around £370 million, for a 70% gain, while licensing revenue is up only £114 million for a 27% gain. Whether you look at dollar amount increase or proportional increase, Live revenue is up substantially more than licensing.
The only thing going down is record sales, you don't get to mysteriously combine live and record revenue when the whole point of this discussion is to show the contrast between those two.
Nice try, shill.
On the post: Answers To Textbook Questions: Copyright Violation?
Re: Re: Re: At which point is it an infirnging derivative work?
Well then at what point does it become an infringement? When I write answers to the book questions for my assignment? When I photocopy my answers and hand them out to classmates? When I type up my answers and print up multiple copies for my classmates? When I charge classmates for those copies? When I have my answers nicely bound at the campus print shop and give or sell them to classmates? When I take that Print shop copy and sell it online on ebay? When I take a digital copy and give it away online using bittorrent? When enough people notice my answer key and a publisher decides to publish my answer key?
If you are saying that an answer key is an infringing derivative work, then at what point does it become one?
On the post: EU Officials Push Back Against Hollywood... Sorta; Note That Internet Access Should Be A Right... Sorta
Re: Rights
But there's the rub. I'll bold it for you in case you missed it while you were typing it "... unless you're found guilty...". It's not "if we accuse you a couple times". You see? The difference here is that they want to kick people off the internet after a couple accusations not actual findings of guilt.
On the post: FCC Poised To Let Hollywood Break Your TV And DVR
Re: Re: Re:
Now, here's the key... because you have agreed to work within the structure, the prices of everything is suddenly MUCH lower, because you are no longer paying for the freeloaders.
None of what you said there agrees with what the RIAA/MPAA has been pushing for. Every single piece of DRM I have seen has put more restrictions over what I can do with the content I purchase, not less.
What you say sounds nice, but sure doesn't seem to be the way that the MPAA/RIAA have been pushing things. The ability to play content on multiple devices can already be easily done without DRM, and people have shown willingness to pay for DRM-free content.
On the post: Oh Look: Hollywood Doesn't Need To Break Your TV To Release PPV Movies Early
Re: Shill Reeducation Program
"If you do not like the idea of what studios would like to implement, why not simply avoid the use of VOD? Go see a movie in a theater and enjoy the social experience, wait till the DVD comes out, wait till is appears on HBO, or wait until in is shown on a network broadcast."
It would appear as if they are not really interested in selling movies. Lets go through those statements one by one:
1) Avoid the use of VOD.
What? Are you serious? Here you have an excellent, low cost distribution method and you are telling people to avoid it? I thought businesses were usually pretty happy when something comes along that reduces their distribution costs.
2) Go see a movie in the theater and enjoy the social experience.
Have you been to the theater lately? I can have a much more enjoyable social experience at home with some friends (the movie isn't even necessary).
3) Wait till it comes out on DVD, HBO, or network TV.
Hollywood spends a lot of money advertising (approximately 1/3-1/2 of the budget for any movie is advertising). Most of this money is spent building hype prior to it's release in theaters. It is often successful in getting people interested in the film, but many people who become interested in the film either don't want to or can't see it in the theaters. By the time it is available on DVD, HBO or Network TV, interest in it has completely worn off. So people who would have happily paid to purchase a DVD or pay for a download when it was first released are no longer interested in doing so by the time it is finally available. That seems like quite a waste of advertising dollars.
On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy
Re: Re: actually all miss out
1 fan downloads music
2 fan fileshares
3 non fan downloads becomes fan and enjoys the music.
4 non fan (now fan) fileshares
5 wash, rinse, repeat.
If that's the case then why does study after study show that people who download lots of movies and music also spend lots of money on movies and music? You have completely fabricated an argument that filesharing prevents purchasing, but reality continues to prove you wrong over and over again. Yet you continue to repeat that same disproven statement.
On the post: Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy
Re: Re: Oh, come on
That seems to be their typical method of operation. They throw out these statements like "if file sharing continues people will cease making creative content", "file sharing is causing us to lose 500 bazillion dollars a day", and of course "punishing accused file sharers will fix our busniess model problems". They never bother explaining how or why, they just make statements without any actual logic behind them, or with logic that skips steps and makes inaccurate assumptions.
Next >>