And then regnegs and continues with it's own assumptions. Notice how the other article posted by Torg counters what the analysis says?
There's a lot of assumptions being made and the author readily admits to not having all the data, only a fraction of it, because it's almost never made public.
The author already states "this is all I could find" but has a great deal of "first they said this, but that's not true" with empirical proof.
It's like David Lowery's rants and claims of "data" but he only gives anecdotal data, no real stats and numbers. Yes, I want to see real data, pie charts and graphs and tables, quantized data. Anything else is subject to the same scrutiny as what you (and the LONG article) claims.
And yet another, from an article that suspected (like you) piracy was the main reason for the switch:
Update: In recent months a new and interesting theory has emerged as to why PC gaming is declining in terms of both quantity and quality of major games. It involves the belief that Microsoft and Sony are actively paying games studios large sums of money to ensure that big-name games are developed primarily for the console platform, and released only as console exclusives to the deliberate detriment of the PC platform. The reason why Microsoft and Sony are named as the main culprits in this conspiracy is because Microsoft is the company behind the XBox 360 console, while Sony is the owner of the Playstation 3 console.
To be setup for XBox! Microsoft would not buy a PC game when they have their near perfect console.
Here are some interesting stats, but don't forget the games being developed that require more advanced graphics move to PC first, then join the consoles when the hardware catches up.
Look at the future - online games are expected to overtake physical products - could this be why Diablo 3 is setup the way it is?
Not every decision is based on piracy. Piracy will always be cited as a factor as long as it makes the BSA happy.
Don't forget the duality of most companies, leaking their own games or movies online, and the ones that explode in popularity are matched with massive marketing and the result is huge ticket and DVD sales.
Case and point - Battlestar Galactica (SP?). Release in UK, found online, cable panicked for the US, but instead the US had the largest Sci-Fi viewership ever.
Given consoles have already been hacked, I call bullshit on your piracy claims.
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, can you site where they gave the reasons for going to console? Did they cancel the PC market or just add console to their list? The latter indicates an economic factor outside of piracy.
"US implements DNA scanning machines at their airports to ensure all persons appearing to be in the same group are related. If less than 7 epithelials match, then the person is singled out for full interrogation. DHS spokesperson says "This is the only way to avoid children running away from their parents. We need to protect the children." TSA spokesperson says "It's important that the public be safe. We all know how destructive child soldiers are."
And in other news, a former DHS top-ranking member has recently accepted an executive position at the manufacturer of said DNA scanners, NoLiberty4U. Profits for NoLiberty4U have soared, despite several class action lawsuits being filed against the company over privacy concerns. Though a spokesperson for the CIA says those lawsuits should be dropped within the hour, once the field agents check in with completion of their tasks."
No, game companies are simply afraid of losing control, just like the recording industry.
You can't directly correlate a negative impact on sales because you can't separate out the variables, keeping all but one constant, and testing the system response.
You'd need to run completely identical tests, same subjects, same test equipment, one loaded with DRM, one without DRM and without harassment of filesharing. They'd have to be identical games, same people, same developers, same companies, same Internet connections, same laws etc..
Which is impossible.
If you could actually block something from going on to the filesharing sites, you'd have to do that for identical variables as mentioned and compare.
Since you can't do that, you can't comment on the degree of negative or positive impact on sales. Too many variables to be conclusive and since you can't separate the variables, you can't form a true conclusion.
I've read many studies that try to establish a conclusion and they all have bias and assumptions that influence the conclusion to whatever their core belief is.
You can't model it either. Art is not a widget. Art has a separate formula for needs than things like food or vacation or toys.
Consoles have been hacked as well. Did you know people bought loads of PS3 consoles because it was a better, cheaper blu-ray player that could go online and run GNU/Linux? Not everyone was interested in all three, but the fact that such a system existed, damn right game developers went to consoles, seeing the profits that could be made because vendors took a hit financially with the console in the hopes of selling more games.
Game developers are not stupid, computer diversity creates a problem, consoles are not diverse, less work for the developer.
So do you really think they jumped to consoles just because of piracy?
It's amazing how people assume that's the only variable. Perhaps it's the only they care about because of their core belief, or their salary depends upon it. Adaption is the problem, companies that refuse to adapt get left behind.
Perhaps should ask themselves "why is it no one wants to pay?"
"Is it because it sucks? It's overpriced? Because they can get away for free? Or is it because we're not competing with free by giving a real reason to buy?"
Home theatres hurt (and high prices) hurt the movie theatres. Not people sneaking it. It's all about the experience. People have always snuck in to concerts and while that's wrong, it doesn't kill the concert like you're suggesting, where 10% of the ppl in attendance paid.
This is the biggest problems with these debates, people just can't fathom the perfect digital copy and how no one is deprived of anything. You THINK it is a lost sale, but there's no guarantee they would have purchased anyway. No direct causal relationship, while there IS a causal relationship that those who do pirate because of unavailability (region encoding or licensing issues). There IS causal analysis that shows free stuff online is free publicity and people who take for free purchase more than those who don't.
So maybe your analogy would be correct if those who didn't pay for the movie ticket but did spend some $30 on snacks and another $20 on games - both of which have a high profit margin.
Horse and buggies are only applicable in the "adapt or complain" analogy to artists/labels.
If you could perfectly replicate a horse and buggy at nearly zero cost, without depriving anyone of their own horse and buggy, then you'd be comparing things on an even level.
And the solutions to said infringement, which people here have been saying for a long time, is offer the customer something better than the free copy.
That's the solution to the problem. What is the offer? It varies with each artist. There's no one magic bullet either, it's a combination of different methods of monetizing their talents, their time, and doing what the artist and fans both enjoy.
Imagine if he labeled you a douchebag, said your house should be taken from you and you should be put in jail. Still feel like even downloading his music?
And NO ONE SAID you can't pay for digital copies. All people said was you can't count on that.
And for all your DRM love, guess what it gets you, hated by fans. So you found Diablo 3 requires a server to operate. Check out how many rants exist for people who PAID for their games and still needed the CRACKED copy because the DRM would not allow the PAID FOR game to work!
Point being, if you give a reason to buy besides you created it, you can compete with free without DRM.
People will break DRM just for the sake of doing so, it is NOT the answer.
Betcha love those FBI warnings that are under proposal to be extended to 10 seconds plus another separate 10 second warning on the LEGAL DVD you purchased, don't you? Ain't those lovely, way to spit in the face of paying customers.
Just like your Diablo 3 DRM bullshit. I won't play such games out of principle. Software the "phone's home" only gets used if absolutely necessary, and to me, games are not absolutely necessary. Nor is DRM music or major label music that's been locked down.
Your fucking stupid sarcasm of "Imagine people paying for digital copies" can be countered with "iTunes" and "GIVE THE FANS WHAT THEY WANT" you dumb shit!
Be an asshole and lock it down, people will take it for free or not even bother buying it, either way you get SFA.
Be an awesome person who doesn't have to agree to free downloads, but doesn't alienate their fans, instead they make attractive counter offers and be polite. Some will download anyway, but would those have purchased it anyhow? Likely not.
The choice is yours: douche like Gene Simmons, or be cool like Alex Day or Louis CK or Amanda Palmer or OK GO, or Wilco or etc...
1) Content has value, digital copies do not
2) You don't demand payment as an artist because if people don't like it, they can't return it
Makes sense to you now?
Your construction example is a great way to illustrate you don't understand the difference between art and non-art items. You approve the design ahead of time, you don't buy some design without seeing it and have it slapped together. If you do, you have every right to not purchase it because it is not what you wanted!!!
You can't do that with art. Once you've seen it or heard it, you can't undo that. Building something, once you've seen it you don't have to buy and live there.
Um, no, it's working for payment, but not demanding it and giving more reasons to spend more than just a copy that's freely generated (note: copy is freely generated, not the content contained within the copy).
There are some good things about copyright and you'll find people on this site who agree with that statement. There are some good things about patents too.
The good things was their original intent, a temporary monopoly on the implementation of an idea (patent) or the right to produce copies.
But that's not how things are now, extending copyrights way beyond the death of the author, denying their work from entering the public domain where it can be built upon without fear or extorsion, those are bad. Patent trolling, bad.
Musicians can complain that things are not as they used to be, but they should not expect anyone to care, much like the horse-whip or buggy manufacturers who didn't adapt when the automobile took over. That's our point.
People here are saying "you're not the only ones struggling" and so you have to adapt! That's quite different from just complaining how things are not fair. If my job no longer is profitable, no longer needed, I change it, maybe even my career I change. But that doesn't mean I still can't do what I like to do, I just can't expect to earn a full living as I used to, unless I adapt and change how I do things.
Case and point, Alex Day is doing what the Beatles used to do musically, just record, but he's doing something they didn't - interacting with his fans. He isn't performing live because he'd rather write and do videos. That's from an interview on TuneCore.
Other artists can't make it doing what he does so they tour or whatever. Point is, you have to adapt and change your ways, not complain.
And if you took what I did, as Karl already said, that would be plagerism and wrong. Covers are fine and if yours is better, so be it.
Clarification:
Covers need to refer to original creator. You don't take credit for what you didn't create. But you can cover it, your own musicians playing the music. If you do it better, so be it, that's why performance artists and songwriters are sometimes separate people.
I've actually paid someone to play a song I wrote (because I was standing in my wedding so obviously a guitar on me doesn't work for that situation). It was amazing to hear two artists interpret my original work and perform it, not to mention pay them to do so!
What is your point to all of this?
Digital copies and covers are not the same thing. Commercial piracy is wrong. Fans getting it for free because a) it's not available, b) it's locked down to the point of stupidity or c) it's overprices (recall price fixing against the labels around the same time as Napster - took a while in the courts though), those are the real reasons! More so than try before you buy or shitty corporate music (who the hell would download something they don't like?).
All we said was stop bitching and complaining because that's no longer the profitable means, adapt.
No one said you can't earn a living except you! So are you now arguing with yourself?
We said you can't rely on selling copies as a SOLE means of income. You argued we don't understand how it works and your reply here is another example of your denying what has been written and acknowledged.
You know, artists like Karl, OKGO, and Alex Day will find ways to earn a living making music. Some, like Alex, can use sales of albums/singles/ad revenue, etc.. as a means of income. Others will mix it up with real scarcity.
If people like you don't want to adapt to what works for yourself, then go and join David Lowery, sit around the campfire, have some beers and complain about how the good old days were wonderful.
CEO's and pension plans are investments, from either employee investments, corporate investments as per collective bargaining agreements, or both. And there won't be any money for pensions for my generation (late generation X) anyhow.
But these are benefits which are paid into by different parties. They are not the sole means of income from a form of employment. So you're not really performing a proper comparison.
On top of that, when you die, your pension you invested in, or your company invested in, IS TERMINATED! Your pension does not block someone else from earning a living from your work either!
And Spotify/YouTube are a form of salary. People view, ads generate money, YouTube pays. Artist does not create, does not connect, simply disappears, no one views, no salary. Simple as that.
The point being, and people don't care that about royalties as a means of income, which I know you already know but you are likely just being argumentative for the sake of it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... The point is, royalties are not the problem, perpetual lockup of the work is the problem. Changing laws and criminalizing normal cultural interaction IS the problem, just to ensure an old means of salary?
I don't think so! That's the problem you're not understanding. If people buy your work, great, you get paid a royalty. But what you can't do is lock down people's behaviour and criminalize to guarantee that royalty when the means of securing that salary changes. That's what people have a problem with.
You have to adapt!
The only reason employees at Microsoft keep getting paid is because Microsoft keeps creating new OS's and software development platforms and Office products PEOPLE USE and WANT!
They license, true, but they don't go around demanding licensing for Windows 3.0, they'd rather you buy the latest because it's better (unless your old machine only runs 3.0 because you have a 286).
On top of that, their license includes support. You want extra support, yeah you pay for it, but basic support is included, along with updates! How many songwriters supply updated songs saying "oh shit, I have an accidental here that just doesn't work, overly dissonent, sorry, here's an updated song, thanks for choosing Corey's Composing."
They don't.
So what are they doing for the previous works? Why should those works be locked down to old means and people be expected to pay "import" prices when the Internet just made it easy, no Importing required? Get it?
No one cares about royalties as long as people want to buy them, but to force people into them because that's how you've always done thing is a piss-poor business model. Bribing governments to support your model further illustrates this point.
Don't you realize how easy it is to get your material out to fans? Oh sorry you can't, some grabass lawyer won't let it happen because some other grabass lawyer in another region of the world wants to extort their already impoverished people. Or maybe for some dumbfucked reason South Park's rights holders want to extort more money out of Canadians so we can't watch in on www.thecomedynetwork.ca and if we don't have cable, we'll get it online for free elsewhere. Now the advertising is also gone.
Yeah, that makes great business sense /sarcasm.
You're not going to convince people here that you think we're saying we don't want artists to earn a living, no matter how hard to you try. Using horrible comparisons won't work either. Let's face it, we DO understand and we're telling you what we, the fans, want.
If you don't listen, don't complain when we don't support you. Stop being like Eaton's, listen to your damn fans, listen to the consumer market and give them what they want: access, on their terms, and at a reasonable price -- bonus of if you make it easy.
If the artists on major labels still get SFA from Spotify, then ditch the grabass labels, because they are making it difficult for the indie artists to earn a decent living too! Didn't know that? Check out how much indie artists earn from iTunes, the infamous David Lowery rants about it, but fails to mention the backdoor deals with the labels that brought those shitty indie rates about!
Do you honestly think the majors would want indie artists being able to say "Oh, you only got that much, I get this much because I have no label" and then their sheep saying "maybe we should ditch our label." Labels wouldn't want that, they want control and everyone under their thumb so they can maximize profits, at the sake of culture, artists, and consumers/fans.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a lot of assumptions being made and the author readily admits to not having all the data, only a fraction of it, because it's almost never made public.
The author already states "this is all I could find" but has a great deal of "first they said this, but that's not true" with empirical proof.
It's like David Lowery's rants and claims of "data" but he only gives anecdotal data, no real stats and numbers. Yes, I want to see real data, pie charts and graphs and tables, quantized data. Anything else is subject to the same scrutiny as what you (and the LONG article) claims.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_6.html
Nothing is black and white where you can just blame piracy for everything, however convenient it is.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/05/17/has-the-diablo-3-launch-damage-pc-gaming/
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2012/07/15/what-microsoft-buying-activision-would-mean-f or-playstation/
To be setup for XBox! Microsoft would not buy a PC game when they have their near perfect console.
Here are some interesting stats, but don't forget the games being developed that require more advanced graphics move to PC first, then join the consoles when the hardware catches up.
http://www.techi.com/2011/09/consoles-vs-pc-gaming/
Look at the future - online games are expected to overtake physical products - could this be why Diablo 3 is setup the way it is?
Not every decision is based on piracy. Piracy will always be cited as a factor as long as it makes the BSA happy.
Don't forget the duality of most companies, leaking their own games or movies online, and the ones that explode in popularity are matched with massive marketing and the result is huge ticket and DVD sales.
Case and point - Battlestar Galactica (SP?). Release in UK, found online, cable panicked for the US, but instead the US had the largest Sci-Fi viewership ever.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, can you site where they gave the reasons for going to console? Did they cancel the PC market or just add console to their list? The latter indicates an economic factor outside of piracy.
On the post: Eleven Year Old Kid Shows That Modern Airport Security Is Not As Secure A You Think
In the news (future)
And in other news, a former DHS top-ranking member has recently accepted an executive position at the manufacturer of said DNA scanners, NoLiberty4U. Profits for NoLiberty4U have soared, despite several class action lawsuits being filed against the company over privacy concerns. Though a spokesperson for the CIA says those lawsuits should be dropped within the hour, once the field agents check in with completion of their tasks."
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't directly correlate a negative impact on sales because you can't separate out the variables, keeping all but one constant, and testing the system response.
You'd need to run completely identical tests, same subjects, same test equipment, one loaded with DRM, one without DRM and without harassment of filesharing. They'd have to be identical games, same people, same developers, same companies, same Internet connections, same laws etc..
Which is impossible.
If you could actually block something from going on to the filesharing sites, you'd have to do that for identical variables as mentioned and compare.
Since you can't do that, you can't comment on the degree of negative or positive impact on sales. Too many variables to be conclusive and since you can't separate the variables, you can't form a true conclusion.
I've read many studies that try to establish a conclusion and they all have bias and assumptions that influence the conclusion to whatever their core belief is.
You can't model it either. Art is not a widget. Art has a separate formula for needs than things like food or vacation or toys.
Consoles have been hacked as well. Did you know people bought loads of PS3 consoles because it was a better, cheaper blu-ray player that could go online and run GNU/Linux? Not everyone was interested in all three, but the fact that such a system existed, damn right game developers went to consoles, seeing the profits that could be made because vendors took a hit financially with the console in the hopes of selling more games.
Game developers are not stupid, computer diversity creates a problem, consoles are not diverse, less work for the developer.
So do you really think they jumped to consoles just because of piracy?
It's amazing how people assume that's the only variable. Perhaps it's the only they care about because of their core belief, or their salary depends upon it. Adaption is the problem, companies that refuse to adapt get left behind.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
"Is it because it sucks? It's overpriced? Because they can get away for free? Or is it because we're not competing with free by giving a real reason to buy?"
Home theatres hurt (and high prices) hurt the movie theatres. Not people sneaking it. It's all about the experience. People have always snuck in to concerts and while that's wrong, it doesn't kill the concert like you're suggesting, where 10% of the ppl in attendance paid.
This is the biggest problems with these debates, people just can't fathom the perfect digital copy and how no one is deprived of anything. You THINK it is a lost sale, but there's no guarantee they would have purchased anyway. No direct causal relationship, while there IS a causal relationship that those who do pirate because of unavailability (region encoding or licensing issues). There IS causal analysis that shows free stuff online is free publicity and people who take for free purchase more than those who don't.
So maybe your analogy would be correct if those who didn't pay for the movie ticket but did spend some $30 on snacks and another $20 on games - both of which have a high profit margin.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
If you could perfectly replicate a horse and buggy at nearly zero cost, without depriving anyone of their own horse and buggy, then you'd be comparing things on an even level.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the solution to the problem. What is the offer? It varies with each artist. There's no one magic bullet either, it's a combination of different methods of monetizing their talents, their time, and doing what the artist and fans both enjoy.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And NO ONE SAID you can't pay for digital copies. All people said was you can't count on that.
And for all your DRM love, guess what it gets you, hated by fans. So you found Diablo 3 requires a server to operate. Check out how many rants exist for people who PAID for their games and still needed the CRACKED copy because the DRM would not allow the PAID FOR game to work!
Point being, if you give a reason to buy besides you created it, you can compete with free without DRM.
People will break DRM just for the sake of doing so, it is NOT the answer.
Betcha love those FBI warnings that are under proposal to be extended to 10 seconds plus another separate 10 second warning on the LEGAL DVD you purchased, don't you? Ain't those lovely, way to spit in the face of paying customers.
Just like your Diablo 3 DRM bullshit. I won't play such games out of principle. Software the "phone's home" only gets used if absolutely necessary, and to me, games are not absolutely necessary. Nor is DRM music or major label music that's been locked down.
Your fucking stupid sarcasm of "Imagine people paying for digital copies" can be countered with "iTunes" and "GIVE THE FANS WHAT THEY WANT" you dumb shit!
Be an asshole and lock it down, people will take it for free or not even bother buying it, either way you get SFA.
Be an awesome person who doesn't have to agree to free downloads, but doesn't alienate their fans, instead they make attractive counter offers and be polite. Some will download anyway, but would those have purchased it anyhow? Likely not.
The choice is yours: douche like Gene Simmons, or be cool like Alex Day or Louis CK or Amanda Palmer or OK GO, or Wilco or etc...
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re:
2) You don't demand payment as an artist because if people don't like it, they can't return it
Makes sense to you now?
Your construction example is a great way to illustrate you don't understand the difference between art and non-art items. You approve the design ahead of time, you don't buy some design without seeing it and have it slapped together. If you do, you have every right to not purchase it because it is not what you wanted!!!
You can't do that with art. Once you've seen it or heard it, you can't undo that. Building something, once you've seen it you don't have to buy and live there.
Huge difference.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re:
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
The good things was their original intent, a temporary monopoly on the implementation of an idea (patent) or the right to produce copies.
But that's not how things are now, extending copyrights way beyond the death of the author, denying their work from entering the public domain where it can be built upon without fear or extorsion, those are bad. Patent trolling, bad.
Musicians can complain that things are not as they used to be, but they should not expect anyone to care, much like the horse-whip or buggy manufacturers who didn't adapt when the automobile took over. That's our point.
People here are saying "you're not the only ones struggling" and so you have to adapt! That's quite different from just complaining how things are not fair. If my job no longer is profitable, no longer needed, I change it, maybe even my career I change. But that doesn't mean I still can't do what I like to do, I just can't expect to earn a full living as I used to, unless I adapt and change how I do things.
Case and point, Alex Day is doing what the Beatles used to do musically, just record, but he's doing something they didn't - interacting with his fans. He isn't performing live because he'd rather write and do videos. That's from an interview on TuneCore.
Other artists can't make it doing what he does so they tour or whatever. Point is, you have to adapt and change your ways, not complain.
And if you took what I did, as Karl already said, that would be plagerism and wrong. Covers are fine and if yours is better, so be it.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Covers need to refer to original creator. You don't take credit for what you didn't create. But you can cover it, your own musicians playing the music. If you do it better, so be it, that's why performance artists and songwriters are sometimes separate people.
I've actually paid someone to play a song I wrote (because I was standing in my wedding so obviously a guitar on me doesn't work for that situation). It was amazing to hear two artists interpret my original work and perform it, not to mention pay them to do so!
What is your point to all of this?
Digital copies and covers are not the same thing. Commercial piracy is wrong. Fans getting it for free because a) it's not available, b) it's locked down to the point of stupidity or c) it's overprices (recall price fixing against the labels around the same time as Napster - took a while in the courts though), those are the real reasons! More so than try before you buy or shitty corporate music (who the hell would download something they don't like?).
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
That does not mean the content is worth $0, so don't misinterpret.
People will always pay and some people will always avoid paying (sneaking in to theatres etc..).
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
Who said people could not utilize such means?
Who said records are no longer sold?
All we said was stop bitching and complaining because that's no longer the profitable means, adapt.
No one said you can't earn a living except you! So are you now arguing with yourself?
We said you can't rely on selling copies as a SOLE means of income. You argued we don't understand how it works and your reply here is another example of your denying what has been written and acknowledged.
You know, artists like Karl, OKGO, and Alex Day will find ways to earn a living making music. Some, like Alex, can use sales of albums/singles/ad revenue, etc.. as a means of income. Others will mix it up with real scarcity.
If people like you don't want to adapt to what works for yourself, then go and join David Lowery, sit around the campfire, have some beers and complain about how the good old days were wonderful.
The rest of us will be moving forward.
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funny
CEO's and pension plans are investments, from either employee investments, corporate investments as per collective bargaining agreements, or both. And there won't be any money for pensions for my generation (late generation X) anyhow.
But these are benefits which are paid into by different parties. They are not the sole means of income from a form of employment. So you're not really performing a proper comparison.
On top of that, when you die, your pension you invested in, or your company invested in, IS TERMINATED! Your pension does not block someone else from earning a living from your work either!
And Spotify/YouTube are a form of salary. People view, ads generate money, YouTube pays. Artist does not create, does not connect, simply disappears, no one views, no salary. Simple as that.
The point being, and people don't care that about royalties as a means of income, which I know you already know but you are likely just being argumentative for the sake of it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... The point is, royalties are not the problem, perpetual lockup of the work is the problem. Changing laws and criminalizing normal cultural interaction IS the problem, just to ensure an old means of salary?
I don't think so! That's the problem you're not understanding. If people buy your work, great, you get paid a royalty. But what you can't do is lock down people's behaviour and criminalize to guarantee that royalty when the means of securing that salary changes. That's what people have a problem with.
You have to adapt!
The only reason employees at Microsoft keep getting paid is because Microsoft keeps creating new OS's and software development platforms and Office products PEOPLE USE and WANT!
They license, true, but they don't go around demanding licensing for Windows 3.0, they'd rather you buy the latest because it's better (unless your old machine only runs 3.0 because you have a 286).
On top of that, their license includes support. You want extra support, yeah you pay for it, but basic support is included, along with updates! How many songwriters supply updated songs saying "oh shit, I have an accidental here that just doesn't work, overly dissonent, sorry, here's an updated song, thanks for choosing Corey's Composing."
They don't.
So what are they doing for the previous works? Why should those works be locked down to old means and people be expected to pay "import" prices when the Internet just made it easy, no Importing required? Get it?
No one cares about royalties as long as people want to buy them, but to force people into them because that's how you've always done thing is a piss-poor business model. Bribing governments to support your model further illustrates this point.
Don't you realize how easy it is to get your material out to fans? Oh sorry you can't, some grabass lawyer won't let it happen because some other grabass lawyer in another region of the world wants to extort their already impoverished people. Or maybe for some dumbfucked reason South Park's rights holders want to extort more money out of Canadians so we can't watch in on www.thecomedynetwork.ca and if we don't have cable, we'll get it online for free elsewhere. Now the advertising is also gone.
Yeah, that makes great business sense /sarcasm.
You're not going to convince people here that you think we're saying we don't want artists to earn a living, no matter how hard to you try. Using horrible comparisons won't work either. Let's face it, we DO understand and we're telling you what we, the fans, want.
If you don't listen, don't complain when we don't support you. Stop being like Eaton's, listen to your damn fans, listen to the consumer market and give them what they want: access, on their terms, and at a reasonable price -- bonus of if you make it easy.
If the artists on major labels still get SFA from Spotify, then ditch the grabass labels, because they are making it difficult for the indie artists to earn a decent living too! Didn't know that? Check out how much indie artists earn from iTunes, the infamous David Lowery rants about it, but fails to mention the backdoor deals with the labels that brought those shitty indie rates about!
Do you honestly think the majors would want indie artists being able to say "Oh, you only got that much, I get this much because I have no label" and then their sheep saying "maybe we should ditch our label." Labels wouldn't want that, they want control and everyone under their thumb so they can maximize profits, at the sake of culture, artists, and consumers/fans.
Cheers!
Next >>