How much do you want to bed it's the studios hiring people to upload "leaked" "illegal" content to filesharing sites? Think about it, if it takes off in popularity, they know it will be worth the advertising money and a large theatrical release. If not, little promo, maybe a theatrical release or straight to DVD.
But with either case, always blame piracy for hurting profits (which are ever higher) and artists (which are screwed over even more in the name of "piracy").
"Oh sorry Mr Artist, you see, thanks to piracy, your record did not sell well, so we'll have to lower your advances or not give you any more advances, and take larger shares of your other streams of income."
Mr Artist: "Why, Mr Lawyer, is your collections agency taking my daughter's babysitting money?"
Mr Lawyer: "Because of piracy. We all have to make sacrifices Mr Artist. Now run along and rant to your fans about how piracy has taken away your daughter's babysitting money. Get your friends to do the same and maybe, just maybe, we'll give your daughter a whole dollar at Christmas. Unfortunately, she'll have to be taxed as though she earned her full babysitting income for the year, so in the end she'll still owe us."
Mr Artist: "Cursed piracy." *to fans and potential consumers* "Thanks for ruining my life. We artists need to eat too."
Team *could* be volunteer fans. Team could also be a group of individuals who are not out to maximize profits at all costs, but instead earn a decent living (and they do exist).
You can also automate a great deal of the emails (automated phone calls are annoying and not a good bet) to sound relatively person. Answering unique emails, 20 a day, when it is your career to do that, you can make the time.
For someone starting out, working a job, your fanbase won't be hundreds of emails each week.
Again, if you know people who like artists, are technical, and who want to help artists starting out, yes you can create an effective team and still be affordable. You can even be more efficient than the artist, but this would be marketing, not fan-interaction replacement. That has to be up to the artist.
The FBI warnings on movies are similar, no reproduction, duplication (whole or part), etc..
Don't you need permission to cover, even if non-commercial?
SOCAN thinks so. Any song in their repetoir requires a license and collection of fees based on ticket sale percentage or minimum, depending on which is greater (their website). Yes, venues can sign deals, I am just telling you what's on SOCAN's site (as I looked it up for my wedding, they wanted $40 for SOCAN music and even the venue would not know that my unregistered songs were not SOCAN licensed and no fee was applicable).
Hell, if I register with SOCAN and perform my own songs, SOCAN expects a percentage of the performance ticket sales. Do you honestly think they'll give that back in full to me?
If you do covers, it is understandable, you are playing others' music and therefore they deserve the small percentage SOCAN estimates.
I could be wrong, but this is what SOCAN has on their website, or did back in 2010.
Additionally, if you read around on this site for ways to make money and compete with free, you'll see none of them involve counting on P2P to be monetized.
Yup, Wilco may not be in the top 10, nor Amanda Plumber, but they still earn a decent living!
So if your objective is to be completely loaded, then you'll have to write and sell your songs while retaining all rights and try connecting with your fans.
Or you can just continue to argue and hide behind the "you don't get it" mentality that keeps you stuck in the past.
You know what happens to those who refuse to adapt? They go the way of Eatons. No adapt, no exist.
And if you reply "how?" then you haven't been reading, which is understandable, you've been biased into believing no one understand your situation but you so no one can help you. But you want help, but you refuse to accept that it might involve change, change in your thinking.
Put it this way, you're not going to put things back to how they were, so it is you who has to adapt. Sorry.
If I get material I am happy with ready, and I get my voice up, I will gladly release it and use every possible idea presented here to earn money from it. Then I can get better equipment and sound better and spend more time writing than working.
Are the majors making money or the performance artists making money off of P2P? Very little.
Did you negotiate P2P licensing with performers who earn royalties for P2P?
Nope, they are not raking in the cash thanks to P2P itself either.
So no, you don't need to monetize P2P.
Wilco is doing just fine. Take a few minutes to search on this site for bands, case studies, songwriters who are adapting and finding ways to earn a decent living without monetizing P2P.
For some reason you think that because files are shared they would undoubtedly be purchased in the same numbers if those pesky P2P sites/networks were taken away. Not going to happen. People won't flock to purchase music in the same numbers because before the internet they didn't do that, and now there are many other things to spend their money on.
So really, it does not matter who the popular songs are when no one earns a penny based on that.
The flaw in the royalty system that you're stuck with, ASCAP and SOCAN is they estimate, they don't do aggregate data collection and honest value transfer. They just say "oh this is popular, give them the majority of our royalties collected, regardless of the true standings."
So yes you DO need a new model and a new way of looking at things. If you try to monetize a P2P network, you're going to take money from those who shared their stuff and who would rightly deserve fractions of a penny for every transfer.
It will be distributed just like ASCAP/SOCAN, some guess calculation and thus an unfair distribution of funds. So that does not work either!
What have you tried that's different from the days where licensing was the ONLY option because of the stranglehold on distribution of content?
You write songs, that is, create music, but you're not an artist?
You're not a performance artist, I get that, but you ARE a songwriter and therefore an artist.
What people are trying to make you aware of is P2P does not need to be monetized for you to earn income.
It appears easier for you to assume that we simply do not understand "how it works" when we've pointed to articles already (not myself specifically, but this site has them) that explain how the older models work.
I guess it makes it easier for you to say "you just don't understand" rather than "I don't accept your proposals" as a means to go forward.
The choice is yours: sit and complain and say we don't get it, or move forward and try different things you have never done before, which is what we've been trying to explain.
Others are doing it, songwriters included, and they are making a living. Sure, you can pull the obscurity means they are not making a living argument, but it's wrong. Just because you have not heard of them, does not mean they are not making a living, even as non-performaing songwriters.
AC - problem #1, "give it away and pray" is not promoted on this site. That's been stated by Mike many, many times. Simply use the search tool and look for "give it away and pray" and you'll see the authors say that is NOT how to do things.
It is also the conveniently common assumption/interpretation of ideas presented here and on other sites. That is, ideas that don't involve the previous status quo method of paying artists.
You too would need an open mind, one far beyond what has been demonstrated in this very long thread thus far.
While hiding yourself as
An Anonymous Coward
Launching snakebite attacks
As disingenuous Howard
Hughes and the ilk
Of the like minded greed
Off the backs of artists
Like ticks they do feed
or something like that, I don't listen much to hip-hop anymore.
The remaining 22% is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.
I made that number up, just like the losses were made up by the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI/etc.. and you have no proof or means to prove counter to my claims (unlike the data the discredits the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI/etc.. data).
Everyone should be able to use the technology available, via physical stores or bitTorrent or whatever they choose. That's called fair access to distribution means. And such fair access does not exist because the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI/etc.. fear competition (they know most of what they release could not stand up against several independent works).
Is it still criminal when law enforcement does it? For example, will it be criminal for FBI or NSA or whoever it was to coordinate or pay a group from India to coordinate a DDoS against The Pirate Bay? Of course that was at the behest of Hollywood, but still.
Or is it as usual, laws only apply to non-governmental groups (ie: everyone not on tax-payer payroll)?
While attending university, my computer (running Windows ME) upon updating became a paperweight. The U's IT department put me in touch with a free (ie: no cost to me) copy of Windows XP with a valid product key that was my own.
Microsoft gave it to me, no charge.
I'm not a Windows fan. But many others who were gifted a copy have become even more entrenched in the Windows mindset.
The same applies to fair-use. Just as the Mashup example explains, when schools are permitted to show clips of films or play clips of audio, when news corps are free to do the same, it acts as free promotion!
Fair-use exposes more people to work they would not have heard about otherwise. That inspires people to create their own and it inspires others to seek out the fair-use content, or works from the creators of said content.
Can't we just copyright and patent the act of screwing over innovation to maximize profits and squash competition? Maybe then we can stop this BS and society will be better for it. If you were 15 and labelled a thief, would you spend your cash on works from such organizations? Nah, didn't think so. Especially if you were innocent.
Think of a convenience store owner who accused you of stealing (actually depriving the owner of the opportunity to sell a product to someone because you took it and it is no longer available) when you didn't. Think you'll go back? Think you'll tell others what happened? Think they will go to that store and spend their money there?
Now imagine if you were not labeling people as thieves, were not trying to kill competition, if you encouraged innovation by giving some lessons on how to play or how to create like you did? How would people react? That would be like the convenience store owner to has free samples and offers them with a smile. You'd go back wouldn't you when you needed to buy something. You'd tell your friends about how awesome that convenience store owner is and they'd go too.
I don't understand why the Entertainment industry is full of lawyers running the show and bean counters trying to maximize profits with minimal cost and quality (MPCC anyone?).
Perhaps we need a movie about said industry and how they act just as the MPCC did.
Said movie, if done well (decent score, good acting, good editing and dialog) it could really perform well financially and hopefully expose the Entertainment goons for what they are.
Imagine if even 10% of the population (assuming that many are awake) filed FOIA's for info on themselves. I wonder if that would send a message or at least hinder some of their surveillance?
Or would it just be considered abuse of the FOIA and it will be amended, silently, so no one can file it without special permission (meaning you can't file it on yourself only on companies or if you're a journalist)?
If Rumblefish and Martyn Stewart can claim copyright owners of birds singing, do they pay said birds their content creator royalties? Did they have the birds sign away their given copyrights since they created the song themselves? Are they paying the birds royalties for performance rights?
Do Rumblefish and Martyn Stewart provide feeders for said birds whose content they copyrighted without the birds signature or even contacted the birds' lawyers? That sounds like theft to me.
Think of all those singing birds who never get their fair pay (in worms or seed) for their efforts in singing their songs. Hell, I'm surprised Rumblefish and Stewart LLC are not out there shooting birds for performing their copyrighted music.
Madonna signed to a 360 degree deal, that's one reason her prices went up.
Another, for the general price increase, is related to artists (or labels - can't be sure) hire out companies to buy up tickets at normal prices and resell at higher prices. This was in the news a few years back, very sick and greedy!
Mike is not referring to the "industry" he's referring to the entire industry! More Indie groups have had much more success and earnings and chances to be heard than ever before.
The major label industry started consolidating around the same time as the price fixing and Napster. A lot of companies were (and still are) consolidating, which means lay-offs.
Rather than say "it was a combination of things" the "industry" simply blamed Napster and piracy. Rather than expose the demographics of CD purchases (old vs new) they blame piracy. Every time a new medium comes out, people update their collections, which leads to a false-sense of revenue for new artists. It's replacement of worn out records or melted/garbled cassettes.
And all the while new acts, new film makers, new journalists (freelance), new authors, etc... are all enjoying the broken-down restrictions that used to be in place by the gate-keepers of the legacy content industry.
Mike has addressed these points already. If you define the "industry" as the legacy content folks, yes sales are down, jobs are down, but what you fail to account for is the increase from the indies and non-legacy content folks. That's why the numbers show the industry as a whole, not the legacy content industry, is growing.
It's all in the report, have a read, it isn't that long.
So you're saying:
1993 43 353 butts in seats
2001 (2 yrs after Napster and 2yrs after price fixing investigation) 79 401 buts in seats
2009 61 586 butts in seats
Considering 2009 and 2001 are both have more butts in seats than 1993 and price was up, so more revenue?
"Nada" ? I think not. You can't even cherry pick your own facts. Madonna's live concerts increased almost double. The 2008/2009 tour drop of 17 500 butts in seats can easily be accounted for the... oh what was it... FINANCIAL COLLAPSE of 2008! Given prices were $187 per ticket, that's impressive she attracted 61 586 fans in NYC to attend her concert.
The people at the bottom have always been suffering, arguable worse because the labels keep their debt ratio higher than the average home owner in Vancouver, BC.
Add to that those at the bottom have less creative control... you quickly see how life has always been shitty for them.
Labels are run by businessmen. They invest and promote what will bring home huge revenues. They don't risk it on the little guys. They don't invest in the little guys either.
According to a reliable source with Universal Music Canada, there's no A&R folks at Universal Canada. There's no investment in their clients (artists). And the reliable source does not even have any promotion by his label. They treat him like a cash cow. So why he signed again with them a few years ago is beyond me.
He has problems seeing past the "destruction" he sees by calling people in his phone book who are all "hurting" because of "piracy." But has not read any studies, but likely has been "informed" by Universal.
Funny thing, he doesn't even know that he was employing Mike's ideas of CwF and RtB and that's what was enabling 3x the ticket sales as the CD sales.
Once he stopped doing that (in the last year or so) he stopped following the ideas of CwF and RtB and wound up with lower ticket sales, lower website visits, and lower music sales.
He has his reasons, which are irrelevant here, but to the point, Mike is NOT cherry picking. You are, and you even proved yourself wrong.
What's really funny is the excuse for pushing through such legislation: While technology has evolved considerably since then, Canada's lawful access laws have not kept pace.
Yeah, my computer can draw circles, better update the math behind calculating the area of a circle.
Please. No updates needed. It is unlawful (and disgusting) to have child pornography in your home, in printed form, in film-negative form, in painted form, in video form etc.. why do you need to extend that to digital form? What, because it's in digital format somehow viewing child porn has changed in legality because the medium of delivery has changed?
I really hope the Supreme Court of Canada sets Mr Toews straight with that.
Last time I checked, the law stated you could not kill someone, not specifying what medium or method you chose to use, so no updating was required.
You're not allowed to possess or view child pornography, period. It is medium independent!
You can find it without reading our emails or intercepting our cellular signals or land line conversations.
On the post: After Years Of Trying To Kill YouTube, Movie Studios Are Embracing & Profiting From It
filesharing
But with either case, always blame piracy for hurting profits (which are ever higher) and artists (which are screwed over even more in the name of "piracy").
"Oh sorry Mr Artist, you see, thanks to piracy, your record did not sell well, so we'll have to lower your advances or not give you any more advances, and take larger shares of your other streams of income."
Mr Artist: "Why, Mr Lawyer, is your collections agency taking my daughter's babysitting money?"
Mr Lawyer: "Because of piracy. We all have to make sacrifices Mr Artist. Now run along and rant to your fans about how piracy has taken away your daughter's babysitting money. Get your friends to do the same and maybe, just maybe, we'll give your daughter a whole dollar at Christmas. Unfortunately, she'll have to be taxed as though she earned her full babysitting income for the year, so in the end she'll still owe us."
Mr Artist: "Cursed piracy." *to fans and potential consumers* "Thanks for ruining my life. We artists need to eat too."
On the post: How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person
Re: Cost of hiring a team?
Team *could* be volunteer fans. Team could also be a group of individuals who are not out to maximize profits at all costs, but instead earn a decent living (and they do exist).
You can also automate a great deal of the emails (automated phone calls are annoying and not a good bet) to sound relatively person. Answering unique emails, 20 a day, when it is your career to do that, you can make the time.
For someone starting out, working a job, your fanbase won't be hundreds of emails each week.
Again, if you know people who like artists, are technical, and who want to help artists starting out, yes you can create an effective team and still be affordable. You can even be more efficient than the artist, but this would be marketing, not fan-interaction replacement. That has to be up to the artist.
On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
No one needs to reply to you anymore.
On the post: How Can You Tell If Uploading Your Cover Song To YouTube Is Infringing? You Can't
Reproduction?
The FBI warnings on movies are similar, no reproduction, duplication (whole or part), etc..
Don't you need permission to cover, even if non-commercial?
SOCAN thinks so. Any song in their repetoir requires a license and collection of fees based on ticket sale percentage or minimum, depending on which is greater (their website). Yes, venues can sign deals, I am just telling you what's on SOCAN's site (as I looked it up for my wedding, they wanted $40 for SOCAN music and even the venue would not know that my unregistered songs were not SOCAN licensed and no fee was applicable).
Hell, if I register with SOCAN and perform my own songs, SOCAN expects a percentage of the performance ticket sales. Do you honestly think they'll give that back in full to me?
If you do covers, it is understandable, you are playing others' music and therefore they deserve the small percentage SOCAN estimates.
I could be wrong, but this is what SOCAN has on their website, or did back in 2010.
On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Yup, Wilco may not be in the top 10, nor Amanda Plumber, but they still earn a decent living!
So if your objective is to be completely loaded, then you'll have to write and sell your songs while retaining all rights and try connecting with your fans.
Or you can just continue to argue and hide behind the "you don't get it" mentality that keeps you stuck in the past.
You know what happens to those who refuse to adapt? They go the way of Eatons. No adapt, no exist.
And if you reply "how?" then you haven't been reading, which is understandable, you've been biased into believing no one understand your situation but you so no one can help you. But you want help, but you refuse to accept that it might involve change, change in your thinking.
Put it this way, you're not going to put things back to how they were, so it is you who has to adapt. Sorry.
If I get material I am happy with ready, and I get my voice up, I will gladly release it and use every possible idea presented here to earn money from it. Then I can get better equipment and sound better and spend more time writing than working.
On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
Did you negotiate P2P licensing with performers who earn royalties for P2P?
Nope, they are not raking in the cash thanks to P2P itself either.
So no, you don't need to monetize P2P.
Wilco is doing just fine. Take a few minutes to search on this site for bands, case studies, songwriters who are adapting and finding ways to earn a decent living without monetizing P2P.
For some reason you think that because files are shared they would undoubtedly be purchased in the same numbers if those pesky P2P sites/networks were taken away. Not going to happen. People won't flock to purchase music in the same numbers because before the internet they didn't do that, and now there are many other things to spend their money on.
So really, it does not matter who the popular songs are when no one earns a penny based on that.
The flaw in the royalty system that you're stuck with, ASCAP and SOCAN is they estimate, they don't do aggregate data collection and honest value transfer. They just say "oh this is popular, give them the majority of our royalties collected, regardless of the true standings."
So yes you DO need a new model and a new way of looking at things. If you try to monetize a P2P network, you're going to take money from those who shared their stuff and who would rightly deserve fractions of a penny for every transfer.
It will be distributed just like ASCAP/SOCAN, some guess calculation and thus an unfair distribution of funds. So that does not work either!
What have you tried that's different from the days where licensing was the ONLY option because of the stranglehold on distribution of content?
On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question
You're not a performance artist, I get that, but you ARE a songwriter and therefore an artist.
What people are trying to make you aware of is P2P does not need to be monetized for you to earn income.
It appears easier for you to assume that we simply do not understand "how it works" when we've pointed to articles already (not myself specifically, but this site has them) that explain how the older models work.
I guess it makes it easier for you to say "you just don't understand" rather than "I don't accept your proposals" as a means to go forward.
The choice is yours: sit and complain and say we don't get it, or move forward and try different things you have never done before, which is what we've been trying to explain.
Others are doing it, songwriters included, and they are making a living. Sure, you can pull the obscurity means they are not making a living argument, but it's wrong. Just because you have not heard of them, does not mean they are not making a living, even as non-performaing songwriters.
On the post: Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship
Re: Re: Re: Question
It is also the conveniently common assumption/interpretation of ideas presented here and on other sites. That is, ideas that don't involve the previous status quo method of paying artists.
You too would need an open mind, one far beyond what has been demonstrated in this very long thread thus far.
On the post: Dan Bull Talks About Trying To Reach The Charts While Giving Away His Music
What rhymes with Anonymous Coward?
An Anonymous Coward
Launching snakebite attacks
As disingenuous Howard
Hughes and the ilk
Of the like minded greed
Off the backs of artists
Like ticks they do feed
or something like that, I don't listen much to hip-hop anymore.
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re:
Or
The Last Hours of the White Star ocean liner that sank after being struck by an iceberg, April 15, 1912.
And then the MPAA will update their list to include "white, start, ocean, liner, sank, iceberg, April, 2012"
LOL
On the post: Forced MPAA Filter On IsoHunt Means Legitimate Content Is Being Censored
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The remaining 22% is unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.
I made that number up, just like the losses were made up by the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI/etc.. and you have no proof or means to prove counter to my claims (unlike the data the discredits the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI/etc.. data).
Everyone should be able to use the technology available, via physical stores or bitTorrent or whatever they choose. That's called fair access to distribution means. And such fair access does not exist because the MPAA/RIAA/IFPI/etc.. fear competition (they know most of what they release could not stand up against several independent works).
On the post: EU Cybercrime Bill Targets Anonymous: Makes It A Criminal Offense To Conduct 'Cyber Attack'
And when "law enforcement" does it?
Or is it as usual, laws only apply to non-governmental groups (ie: everyone not on tax-payer payroll)?
On the post: UK Entertainment Industry: Fair Use Hurts Economic Growth
Maybe they need to learn from Microsoft
Microsoft gave it to me, no charge.
I'm not a Windows fan. But many others who were gifted a copy have become even more entrenched in the Windows mindset.
The same applies to fair-use. Just as the Mashup example explains, when schools are permitted to show clips of films or play clips of audio, when news corps are free to do the same, it acts as free promotion!
Fair-use exposes more people to work they would not have heard about otherwise. That inspires people to create their own and it inspires others to seek out the fair-use content, or works from the creators of said content.
Can't we just copyright and patent the act of screwing over innovation to maximize profits and squash competition? Maybe then we can stop this BS and society will be better for it. If you were 15 and labelled a thief, would you spend your cash on works from such organizations? Nah, didn't think so. Especially if you were innocent.
Think of a convenience store owner who accused you of stealing (actually depriving the owner of the opportunity to sell a product to someone because you took it and it is no longer available) when you didn't. Think you'll go back? Think you'll tell others what happened? Think they will go to that store and spend their money there?
Now imagine if you were not labeling people as thieves, were not trying to kill competition, if you encouraged innovation by giving some lessons on how to play or how to create like you did? How would people react? That would be like the convenience store owner to has free samples and offers them with a smile. You'd go back wouldn't you when you needed to buy something. You'd tell your friends about how awesome that convenience store owner is and they'd go too.
I don't understand why the Entertainment industry is full of lawyers running the show and bean counters trying to maximize profits with minimal cost and quality (MPCC anyone?).
Perhaps we need a movie about said industry and how they act just as the MPCC did.
Said movie, if done well (decent score, good acting, good editing and dialog) it could really perform well financially and hopefully expose the Entertainment goons for what they are.
On the post: Has The Megaupload Shutdown Been Good For The Entertainment Industry?
Re: The Really Important Measure of the MegaUpload Shutdown
On the post: Artist Sues Sony Music Because Her Artwork Appears In The Background Of A Music Video
what was that...
Hmm..
On the post: The Things You Learn When You Send A Freedom Of Information Act Request About What The Gov't Knows About You
what if everyone does the same?
Or would it just be considered abuse of the FOIA and it will be amended, silently, so no one can file it without special permission (meaning you can't file it on yourself only on companies or if you're a journalist)?
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Royalties
Do Rumblefish and Martyn Stewart provide feeders for said birds whose content they copyrighted without the birds signature or even contacted the birds' lawyers? That sounds like theft to me.
Think of all those singing birds who never get their fair pay (in worms or seed) for their efforts in singing their songs. Hell, I'm surprised Rumblefish and Stewart LLC are not out there shooting birds for performing their copyrighted music.
On the post: How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Third video
Another, for the general price increase, is related to artists (or labels - can't be sure) hire out companies to buy up tickets at normal prices and resell at higher prices. This was in the news a few years back, very sick and greedy!
Mike is not referring to the "industry" he's referring to the entire industry! More Indie groups have had much more success and earnings and chances to be heard than ever before.
The major label industry started consolidating around the same time as the price fixing and Napster. A lot of companies were (and still are) consolidating, which means lay-offs.
Rather than say "it was a combination of things" the "industry" simply blamed Napster and piracy. Rather than expose the demographics of CD purchases (old vs new) they blame piracy. Every time a new medium comes out, people update their collections, which leads to a false-sense of revenue for new artists. It's replacement of worn out records or melted/garbled cassettes.
And all the while new acts, new film makers, new journalists (freelance), new authors, etc... are all enjoying the broken-down restrictions that used to be in place by the gate-keepers of the legacy content industry.
Mike has addressed these points already. If you define the "industry" as the legacy content folks, yes sales are down, jobs are down, but what you fail to account for is the increase from the indies and non-legacy content folks. That's why the numbers show the industry as a whole, not the legacy content industry, is growing.
It's all in the report, have a read, it isn't that long.
On the post: How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Third video
1993 43 353 butts in seats
2001 (2 yrs after Napster and 2yrs after price fixing investigation) 79 401 buts in seats
2009 61 586 butts in seats
Considering 2009 and 2001 are both have more butts in seats than 1993 and price was up, so more revenue?
"Nada" ? I think not. You can't even cherry pick your own facts. Madonna's live concerts increased almost double. The 2008/2009 tour drop of 17 500 butts in seats can easily be accounted for the... oh what was it... FINANCIAL COLLAPSE of 2008! Given prices were $187 per ticket, that's impressive she attracted 61 586 fans in NYC to attend her concert.
The people at the bottom have always been suffering, arguable worse because the labels keep their debt ratio higher than the average home owner in Vancouver, BC.
Add to that those at the bottom have less creative control... you quickly see how life has always been shitty for them.
Labels are run by businessmen. They invest and promote what will bring home huge revenues. They don't risk it on the little guys. They don't invest in the little guys either.
According to a reliable source with Universal Music Canada, there's no A&R folks at Universal Canada. There's no investment in their clients (artists). And the reliable source does not even have any promotion by his label. They treat him like a cash cow. So why he signed again with them a few years ago is beyond me.
He has problems seeing past the "destruction" he sees by calling people in his phone book who are all "hurting" because of "piracy." But has not read any studies, but likely has been "informed" by Universal.
Funny thing, he doesn't even know that he was employing Mike's ideas of CwF and RtB and that's what was enabling 3x the ticket sales as the CD sales.
Once he stopped doing that (in the last year or so) he stopped following the ideas of CwF and RtB and wound up with lower ticket sales, lower website visits, and lower music sales.
He has his reasons, which are irrelevant here, but to the point, Mike is NOT cherry picking. You are, and you even proved yourself wrong.
On the post: Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage... Or You're For Child Pornography
While technology has evolved considerably since then, Canada's lawful access laws have not kept pace.
Yeah, my computer can draw circles, better update the math behind calculating the area of a circle.
Please. No updates needed. It is unlawful (and disgusting) to have child pornography in your home, in printed form, in film-negative form, in painted form, in video form etc.. why do you need to extend that to digital form? What, because it's in digital format somehow viewing child porn has changed in legality because the medium of delivery has changed?
I really hope the Supreme Court of Canada sets Mr Toews straight with that.
Last time I checked, the law stated you could not kill someone, not specifying what medium or method you chose to use, so no updating was required.
You're not allowed to possess or view child pornography, period. It is medium independent!
You can find it without reading our emails or intercepting our cellular signals or land line conversations.
Next >>