downloading music

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
Thing is, there is already an infrastructure for releasing illegal vinyl rips as MP3s in place, so the artists kind of end up with the worst of both worlds: no compensation, and their music’s being recorded by an amateur through the line-in of a crappy soundcard and then compressed to an MP3

This is true, I've seen a few that had nearly 1000's of techno's smaller label releases, upload 50 gig to join or speak to the admin about "m£mbership"
 

blubeat

blubeat
I dunno, I thought your previous solutions were "the music industry will be OK" and "we're still here after home taping" which kind of misses the point about there being a huge cultural shift for de yout dem in the meantime.
Apologies, you are quite correct of course, my second post was the one that contained my thoughts on ways forward. How I felt that more services like Amazon's DRM free and eMusic.com would increase the growth of legal downloads. I also said I liked the delivery method of allofpmp3 - I did not say I approve of them or use them but the concept is exactly what I am looking for as a consumer.

I think the point some of you missed when I laid out my stall - I am a consumer. I both download illegally and purchase legal downloads. If the music I wanted was more easily available online I would buy more. By encouraging consumers like me then you offset some of the theft from people who have no intention of buying.

When I was a kid and I taped all my brothers records, recorded the old pirate Jazz FM sets etc I didnt pay a penny towards what I listened to but I built a love of music that has meant I have been a paying consumer for the last twenty years.

Napster and my illegal downloading habits exponentially INCREASED the amount I spent on a wider selection of music.

I don't beleive the industry has worked well to meet the demands of new audiences or even old audiences wanting materials delivered in a different way. iTunes is a case in point of poor delivery. 128k DRM? Fuck that. My money will go elsewhere but iTunes has one of the biggest selections which means I can't get it how I want so I might steal it. I know that's not "good" but if the service was there I would buy. if iTunes service was like allofmp3 - holy crap they would be getting megabucks from me.

Also if I could signup to an artist/label page and subscribe to his new releases - for example I would probably buy everything on Hyperdub/DMZ/Blood&Fire/JahShaka Records then each time there was a new release my account would be debited and I would receive the high-quality-format-of-my-choice-non-drm tune - ideally released as asecure podcast so it would automatically synch to my iPod.

What I am trying to do here is provide some ideas on how people might be ecouraged to buy more based on my own experiences and preferences.
 
Last edited:

Dusty

Tone deaf
Dubstep producers appear unbelievably paranoid about their stuff leaking...

Which is a good thing! :D

I like the concept that several dubstep producers were bandying around of promo's being tagged individually so that if anything get a pre-release leak its easy to work out who the individual was and get them blacklisted by every other dubstep producer from then on.

Name and shame.
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
The culture of piracy means that sequencers like Cubase are spread illegally, too. But you are right in that it probably means less opportunities for expensive band recordings.

But at some point the support and development will stop if no-one buys it and if so many people didn't steal it, maybe it would be a little cheaper? Just a thought....
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Either that will develop or music will become increasingly polarised between the ultra-underground (essentially "gentleman musicians") and the hyper-marketing budget overground of an increasingly small range of trans-global mass appeal. The interesting stuff in the middle gets squeezed tho, of course...

This seems like the most likely development in my eyes, adding that I would not be surprised if the overground stuff starts being given away for free (i.e. the music as a mere tool to promote the artist’s brand image).

I like the concept that several dubstep producers were bandying around of promo's being tagged individually so that if anything get a pre-release leak its easy to work out who the individual was and get them blacklisted by every other dubstep producer from then on.

I have been wondering why this has not already been implemented (perhaps it already has?). It seems like such an easy and effective thing to do. Even if it does not stop the songs from being spread, at the very least I would imagine the artist would be interested in finding out who leaks the tracks.

But at some point the support and development will stop if no-one buys it and if so many people didn't steal it, maybe it would be a little cheaper? Just a thought....

Yes, that’s true. But this way of thinking is so internalised in every youth by now. It makes more sense with products like Microsoft Office, and others, where big companies finance them through licensing.
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
This seems like the most likely development in my eyes, adding that I would not be surprised if the overground stuff starts being given away for free (i.e. the music as a mere tool to promote the artist’s brand image).

This has been happening for years with the Majors, S Club 7 - first 3 singles free, Peter Andre first 5 single free - money made on the album. Last week in Virgin I heard the salesmen offer a 20 to 1 deal on some single and this is how Blur beat Oasis in that famous battle.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
This has been happening for years with the Majors, S Club 7 - first 3 singles free, Peter Andre first 5 single free - money made on the album. Last week in Virgin I heard the salesmen offer a 20 to 1 deal on some single and this is how Blur beat Oasis in that famous battle.

Really? But was it the customers who got them for free, or was it the retailers who got them for free and sold them at a very low price?
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
Yes, that’s true. But this way of thinking is so internalised in every youth by now. It makes more sense with products like Microsoft Office, and others, where big companies finance them through licensing.

Eh? All you are buying is a license anyway - you don't own it, just to the right to use it, Office works on the fact that you need to upgrade and once your hooked as a student you'll never move away or Microsoft will turn off your machine via the internets ;)

I don't really get what you mean...
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
Really? But was it the customers who got them for free, or was it the retailers who got them for free and sold them at a very low price?

When you see a single at 99p, they got a deal on it - 1.89 (or whatever prices) they didn't and of course the customers didn't get them for free, there's no value in that or indeed business, shelf space etc
 

mms

sometimes
ALL OF MP3 NEWS
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070521-allofmp3-voucher-operation-shut-down-in-europe.html

GEK - 'The only solution perhaps is to have a licensed bandwidth situation where all music is essentially free but "taxed" based on the identification of filetypes passing thru servers-- revenues being assessed in similar way to royalties for airplay now perhaps?
Either that will develop or music will become increasingly polarised between the ultra-underground (essentially "gentleman musicians") and the hyper-marketing budget overground of an increasingly small range of trans-global mass appeal. The interesting stuff in the middle gets squeezed tho, of course...'

This still doesn't solve ripley's big issue of a bad record industry ripping off artists, which i think is pretty overstated in all honesty and built around some hit air, majors are keen to get a quick return on their money, but this is also because they spend alot . Labels also tend to loose money on all sorts of artists that they spend alot of money on as well.
It's a weird one too as plenty of people do make money from music, there are other forms of making cash from it too, publishing, playing live etc, merchandise. lucrative licences etc.. if you want to play that game.

Lots of underground type people don't want to fuck about with that stuff, so they rely on music ie releases and live as their income, i think in alot of ways, the audiences for this stuff respond suprisingly supportivley to this too, as if there is a moral economy to music if the right choices are made and this is clearly and honestly stated to the prospective audience. I know alot of underground audiences regard mp3 as a secondary or tertiary format too, and want something in their hands, but of course, these audiences are older and this could all change.
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
I have been wondering why this has not already been implemented (perhaps it already has?). It seems like such an easy and effective thing to do. Even if it does not stop the songs from being spread, at the very least I would imagine the artist would be interested in finding out who leaks the tracks.

UR have been doing this for years with their Z-Track 12"s - someone put one up for sale on discogs, all hell broke loose in Techno Fan Boy land :)
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
What I meant by bringing up Microsoft Office is that Microsoft are much more concerned with—and, as far as I know, make most of their money from—making sure that companies that use their product pay for it (= pay for the license to use it). The illegal domestic use of their product is a lesser concern—and can even be positive in that it makes people used to working with it and thus makes them want to use it at their work-place, too. The same does not apply to Cubase, I would guess: they need the money from the home-tinkerers.
 

blubeat

blubeat
a music producer / record label using pirate software can't complain about music piracy
Trust me they do. One of the biggest "complainers" about sharing of dubstep tracks said it was ok to get Cubase via p2p but if a producer made a track on that Cubase he would have a right to be pissed off it was shared. So if the "producer" can't afford Cubase but wants to make money from making music but can't because people can't afford to buy it (but take it anyway) then that is indeed ironic.

With regards to Microsoft Office again I was trying to make a similar point - if it was made easier for consumers like me to buy what we want online then the increase in revenue would offset the cost of the theft in much the same way.

I have had it with p2p - its a waste of energy and usually results in a gappy poor quality collection. I persevere because I can't buy what I want easily the way I want it. I think the majors will be able to adapt to this hence iTunes, Amazon offering new DRM free services but the smaller companies may struggle to implement the technology...that said Bleep.com is a good example of it working. DRM free, hig quality choice of OGG etc.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
a music producer / record label using pirate software can't complain about music piracy

Hmm- but what about the question of scale involved here-- if we ignore the idea of the market as supreme arbiter of moral worth, does anyone actually believe that Steinberg aren't raking it in even accounting for losses thru piracy? I certainly feel no guilt downloading a track by an artist who is already rewarded far beyond what I imagine the upper limit of wealth ought to be... but rather significantly less at ease caning tracks from tiny labels who need every sale, or artists who are in a contractually insecure position... obviously as someone points out above, a lot of people clearly don't think in a moral way whatsoever about this (so it doesn't work as a general rule)... but still- I'm not going to be crying tears for software developers who make the tiniest most marginal improvements between releases and think charging £300 for an upgrade is reasonable behaviour!
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Another thing. It has been said before but bears repeating: the BIG battle is going to occur when the movie establishment feel the ground trembling beneath their feet. It has begun in earnest, but things are going to get far messier before the way of the future is clear. My bet is on a Hollywood loss, as the combination of greed, pseudo-socialism/anarchism («information wants to be free»), anti-Americanism/anti-«liberalism» (Hollywood as both a symbol of U.S. cultural imperialism and purveyors of the «liberal» values so frowned upon by a large number of people), and neo-liberal rhetoric («if your business model doesn’t work, find one that does») is extremely potent.
 
Last edited:

DJ PIMP

Well-known member
In the past MS have accepted piracy as a tactic in poor countries where there is no legitimate market for their wares, it helps to establish lock-in.

I'd like to think that if everyone bought all their software the prices would drop, but business being business, I think the corollary is that piracy drives prices down, or segregates the market where its not worth pricing things below a certain point because the lower price won't generate many additional sales (cheapskates will pirate something no matter how little it costs), and a higher price point will still be tolerated by pro users.

CDs and P2P is an example of this. The music market has to compete with piracy and the price of CDs drops dramatically...
 

hint

party record with a siren
Some interesting recent developments:

Lambcast: http://www.cds.lambcast.com

- An archived file that has a built-in payment system. No need for 3rd party retail or any kind of online shop. You just need server space to offer up the files for download. The customer downloads the file, then makes the payment to "unlock" it.


Amie Street: http://www.amiestreet.com

- The price of MP3s is linked to popularity. Everything starts as a free download, with the price increasing to a maximum of 98 cents per track. Customers are encouraged to check out new music and get credits when they recommend stuff to their friends.
 
Top