Re: you think you have the answers but actually you dont! everything has to be done
Congrats, you too have spotted the problem of music 2 point oh! In fact, you have spotted much of the problem of many 2 point oh (no) things.
If you want to be an artist, you must be aa better salesman than you are an artist. In fact, if you want to make a living as a musician, you better know how to design and produce nifty t-shirts in very limited quantities, and sell them to schmucks who won't pay a center for your music, but will pay out their backside for a shirt.
(sorry, let me turn off the rant machine... 24 hours plus of airports and airplanes does that to me).
Now then...
In the end, there is a real problem, that what people truly value in the process is the music, not anything else. They do enjoy the live shows, but even a band playing 365 days a year can't play for all their fans in a year (for bigger bands, they might never play for all of their fans). Not everyone needs more t-shirts or signed junk to crowd up their living space. They do want music, they listen to music every day, they enjoy the music, and they want more of the music.
What we have ended up with is what I think is a shorter term trend where wide scale stealing (using the words of the judge in the recent update to the Jammie Thomas case) has changes the way people apply price and value to the music product. They still value it, but they have been mislead into thinking it is also free. It's just one of those things. Sort of like those people who thought AOL and Time Warner were going to be a great marriage.
Good luck being a musician. For the moment, you might want to spend less time learning your chops, and more time learning about thread count in t-shirts and how to buy them offshore for better prices.
Great post Mike, but there is little new in what you are posting, pretty much the same examples as always.
There is one thing missing in your CwF equation, which is "get fans". You cannot connect with nothing. It's the reason why for almost every example you give, I can easily say "they already had a fan base".
There are only a couple of examples who are actually working by starting with NOTHING, and moving up. When you take a band with an existing an existing fanbase to work from, they can much more easily connect with them (they have been doing for a long time).
In the end, what is missing is the two steps: How to get from zero to "some" and to get from "some" to "enough". This is what the labels "use to do", so how does it happen now?
I think that this post is a good indication that the level of what is considered "success" is slipping rapidly.
10,000 albums would be about 100,000 or so songs sold (assuming 10 per album, usually more). When you take this sort of number, and work it out over the US as a whole, you realize that this is not even really very successful at all.
What do I mean? The idea generally is to get a band on the road playing gigs. Under the old system, the concerts and the media exposure (such as radio or newspaper interviews) helped to sell product, and made the band more money by doing the gigs.
However, let's say the band can play 250 nights a year. If they have sold only 10,000 albums, it would be hard for them to have critical mass in very many places to play bigger gigs. As a result, they might be touring and playing for only a very few fans each night.
Further, a band with only one album might find themselves short of material to play a full show, they are likely to be an opening act for a larger band, once again to get them more exposure in the marketplace.
A band with 100,000 downloads of a single song would likely find themselves in worse shape: Not only would they not have a big enough following to tour, but by being an independant act, they might have a hard time finding an opening act slot to get exposure.
It comes back to the same thing for me each time: Music risks becoming a very regional business, packed full of part time bands, weekend warriors, and students doing it for a kick, and not really the same level of "commercial success" that we have been use to measuring things by in the past.
While I cannot comment directly on this case, I know that PayPal is very quick to close down accounts that they feel are being used for illegal activities. They don't do notification or anything like that, they just lock up the account and tell you to pound sand.
There is no market if the people aren't paying. There is no valid market if the seller doesn't pay for the source product.
The internet only reduces the costs because it fails to pay for the source materials. The market efficiency you point to is artificial. It isn't any different from the street hawkers here in Thailand selling photoshop for a few dollars. The cheap price is artificial, not at all considering anything other than the marginal costs to slap the material onto a CD. That isn't efficiency, that is fallacy.
Parental responsiblity is pretty easy to set for the internet. The computer is only on when a parent is around, the computer is in a "public" part of the house where the children can be monitored, and just as importantly, the parent should take some interest in what the children are doing online.
Giving your child a computer with an open internet connection and allowing them to use it in their bedrooms behind a closed door is just asking for trouble. The internet isn't an electronic babysitter.
The problem isn't the cost to duplicate it, it is the cost to create the first one.
Let's say a band wants to make a new album (dozen songs). There are 5 members in this band, plus an engineer and a producer at work at different points. It takes a year to write, arrange, record, edit, mix, and produce a final product. Now, even if they are working for minimum wage, there is abot $100,000 worth of time right there.
They make the final product, and yes, technically, you can copy it for 25 cents (actually less than that). But in the end, the scarcity, new recorded music, is still scarce. It would cost actually $100,000.25 to product the same amount of new product. Reproducing it isn't where the true costs are.
Without a system that allows that $100,000 to be recouped (and a fair profit made), the production of new material will suffer (and according to some already has). Marginal costs are not the big end of the deal, and looking only there is why there is such a gulf between the digital freebie dreams and the real world realities of producing content.
Actually, this is only the second day on the internet in the last little bit, I was online for a short bit in mainland china, and now in thailand (5 star hotel includes free internet, and I am killing time waiting for some friends for dinner right now).
I don't feel superior at all. Do you? You seem intent on shouting me down, which suggests you think your viewpoint is more relevant than mine. That smacks of superiority. I would say you would be the one needing a little timeout.
Sorry, but the general public hasn't really been clued into the risk yet. The way it is explained, people have more chance of winning the lottery.
With more judgements like this, it becomes somewhat easier to move forward with legal action against file sharers, which should make it clearer to the public that they can in fact get caught. That will more than likely change the way some people look at things.
Let me spell it out for you. Copyright and IP are like contracts - you can't just revoke the contract when you feel like it.
They are artificial constructs, in the same manner of land ownership is an artificial construct, and pretty much every other legal creation.
The rest of your post is where the ranting and whining comes in. You are free to create as much new stuff as you like and give it away as you see fit. Just stop trying to decide that for other people.
The proper authorities operate many of the stands. I think they know already.
Going price for photoshop CS4 with all the extra ads ons is about 200 baht (under $7 US). A few quick questions shows that these are downloaded online and burned to disk, as the cost of an internet connection to download it can often be higher than just getting the disc. Sort of interesting outcrop of filesharing, if you ask me :)
You "ignore 75% of the market" because these people would never be buying useless plastic discs in the first place.
I can't follow your logic. That is like suggesting that if we ignore rain, we won't get wet. How odd!
I think that if you look at the history of many of these sorts of organizations, people often leave just short of their term as they move on to other projects. Heck, plenty of people in public office don't make it to the end of their terms (John Ashcroft, anyone?)
It's only news if you are trying really, really hard to find something to point at.
James, there is no denying that speed and redlight cameras are often as much about generating income as they are about increasing safety. Sadly, too many jurisdictions see them are cash cows and not what they are really good for, which is changing the way the public behaves.
These sorts of cameras have been around for a long time in the UK (I got snapped by one on the highway up to Edinburgh about 10 or so years ago). Painting them bright yellow and making them obvious is pretty much making it clear that it isn't just about money.
It's the real problem. The techdirt crowd-mantra is that they should decide what is free, not the artist or the rights holders. It's what really makes much of what gets posted in the comments here laughable.
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
It all depends how you look at things, but it doesn't really change anything.
On the post: Ten Good Reasons To Buy
#0: Because the music is good.
On the post: If A Video Is Filmed By Chimps... Who Owns The Copyright?
It's not hard to figure out who owns the copyright, unless you are trying to be obtuse.
Strap a camera to your dog, turn on record, and let him wander around. You own the video. NEXT.
On the post: The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There)
Re: you think you have the answers but actually you dont! everything has to be done
If you want to be an artist, you must be aa better salesman than you are an artist. In fact, if you want to make a living as a musician, you better know how to design and produce nifty t-shirts in very limited quantities, and sell them to schmucks who won't pay a center for your music, but will pay out their backside for a shirt.
(sorry, let me turn off the rant machine... 24 hours plus of airports and airplanes does that to me).
Now then...
In the end, there is a real problem, that what people truly value in the process is the music, not anything else. They do enjoy the live shows, but even a band playing 365 days a year can't play for all their fans in a year (for bigger bands, they might never play for all of their fans). Not everyone needs more t-shirts or signed junk to crowd up their living space. They do want music, they listen to music every day, they enjoy the music, and they want more of the music.
What we have ended up with is what I think is a shorter term trend where wide scale stealing (using the words of the judge in the recent update to the Jammie Thomas case) has changes the way people apply price and value to the music product. They still value it, but they have been mislead into thinking it is also free. It's just one of those things. Sort of like those people who thought AOL and Time Warner were going to be a great marriage.
Good luck being a musician. For the moment, you might want to spend less time learning your chops, and more time learning about thread count in t-shirts and how to buy them offshore for better prices.
On the post: The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There)
There is one thing missing in your CwF equation, which is "get fans". You cannot connect with nothing. It's the reason why for almost every example you give, I can easily say "they already had a fan base".
There are only a couple of examples who are actually working by starting with NOTHING, and moving up. When you take a band with an existing an existing fanbase to work from, they can much more easily connect with them (they have been doing for a long time).
In the end, what is missing is the two steps: How to get from zero to "some" and to get from "some" to "enough". This is what the labels "use to do", so how does it happen now?
On the post: Finding The Long Tail In Music
The changing levels of what is success
10,000 albums would be about 100,000 or so songs sold (assuming 10 per album, usually more). When you take this sort of number, and work it out over the US as a whole, you realize that this is not even really very successful at all.
What do I mean? The idea generally is to get a band on the road playing gigs. Under the old system, the concerts and the media exposure (such as radio or newspaper interviews) helped to sell product, and made the band more money by doing the gigs.
However, let's say the band can play 250 nights a year. If they have sold only 10,000 albums, it would be hard for them to have critical mass in very many places to play bigger gigs. As a result, they might be touring and playing for only a very few fans each night.
Further, a band with only one album might find themselves short of material to play a full show, they are likely to be an opening act for a larger band, once again to get them more exposure in the marketplace.
A band with 100,000 downloads of a single song would likely find themselves in worse shape: Not only would they not have a big enough following to tour, but by being an independant act, they might have a hard time finding an opening act slot to get exposure.
It comes back to the same thing for me each time: Music risks becoming a very regional business, packed full of part time bands, weekend warriors, and students doing it for a kick, and not really the same level of "commercial success" that we have been use to measuring things by in the past.
On the post: PayPal Suspends WikiLeaks Account Yet Again; Freezes Assets
Re: So Why Did PayPal Freeze WikiLeaks???
Paypal is not a place to leave your money, IMHO.
On the post: Court Reduces Award In Jammie Thomas-Rasset Case From $80,000 Per Song To $2,250
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"fail" again.
On the post: PayPal Suspends WikiLeaks Account Yet Again; Freezes Assets
On the post: Recording Industry May Go After OiNK Admin Again
Re: Market Efficiencies ...
The internet only reduces the costs because it fails to pay for the source materials. The market efficiency you point to is artificial. It isn't any different from the street hawkers here in Thailand selling photoshop for a few dollars. The cheap price is artificial, not at all considering anything other than the marginal costs to slap the material onto a CD. That isn't efficiency, that is fallacy.
On the post: German Court Finds Mother Liable For Kid's File Sharing, Despite Her Ban On The Practice
Re: Re: Re: Re: Parental Responsibility
Giving your child a computer with an open internet connection and allowing them to use it in their bedrooms behind a closed door is just asking for trouble. The internet isn't an electronic babysitter.
On the post: Nina Paley vs. Jaron Lanier
Re: The 25 cent record album.
Let's say a band wants to make a new album (dozen songs). There are 5 members in this band, plus an engineer and a producer at work at different points. It takes a year to write, arrange, record, edit, mix, and produce a final product. Now, even if they are working for minimum wage, there is abot $100,000 worth of time right there.
They make the final product, and yes, technically, you can copy it for 25 cents (actually less than that). But in the end, the scarcity, new recorded music, is still scarce. It would cost actually $100,000.25 to product the same amount of new product. Reproducing it isn't where the true costs are.
Without a system that allows that $100,000 to be recouped (and a fair profit made), the production of new material will suffer (and according to some already has). Marginal costs are not the big end of the deal, and looking only there is why there is such a gulf between the digital freebie dreams and the real world realities of producing content.
On the post: Give A Man A Fish... And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Re: Re: Re:
I don't feel superior at all. Do you? You seem intent on shouting me down, which suggests you think your viewpoint is more relevant than mine. That smacks of superiority. I would say you would be the one needing a little timeout.
On the post: Court Reduces Award In Jammie Thomas-Rasset Case From $80,000 Per Song To $2,250
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law
With more judgements like this, it becomes somewhat easier to move forward with legal action against file sharers, which should make it clearer to the public that they can in fact get caught. That will more than likely change the way some people look at things.
On the post: 'Public' Consultation Over ACTA In Mexico Almost Required NDAs, Blogger Removed For Tweeting
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are artificial constructs, in the same manner of land ownership is an artificial construct, and pretty much every other legal creation.
The rest of your post is where the ranting and whining comes in. You are free to create as much new stuff as you like and give it away as you see fit. Just stop trying to decide that for other people.
On the post: What The IFPI Report Left Out: Its Own Study Showed That File Sharers Do Buy
Re: Re:
Going price for photoshop CS4 with all the extra ads ons is about 200 baht (under $7 US). A few quick questions shows that these are downloaded online and burned to disk, as the cost of an internet connection to download it can often be higher than just getting the disc. Sort of interesting outcrop of filesharing, if you ask me :)
You "ignore 75% of the market" because these people would never be buying useless plastic discs in the first place.
I can't follow your logic. That is like suggesting that if we ignore rain, we won't get wet. How odd!
On the post: MPAA Boss Doesn't Even Make It To The End Of His Contract
It's only news if you are trying really, really hard to find something to point at.
On the post: Parked Car Gets Multiple Speed Camera Tickets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing data
These sorts of cameras have been around for a long time in the UK (I got snapped by one on the highway up to Edinburgh about 10 or so years ago). Painting them bright yellow and making them obvious is pretty much making it clear that it isn't just about money.
On the post: Give A Man A Fish... And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Re:
On the post: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Appeal Planned
Re: Re:
If you can't show something, how would you take it to court?
Next >>