I didn't advance any analogy, I just asked you a question what you meant. Is it my analogy?
So it's the continued survival in unaltered form of large bloated record companies that concerns you?
Isn't that further indication that music is still being purchased?(Bear in mind the increasing market share of amazon and supermarkets in the UK means you now have to sell more to make less - no idea how that applies to iTunes, or other markets, but I'd be surprised if it was significantly different).
Seriously, in unaltered form?Yes, of course
When I wondered if my asking you to clarify your post had been 'offensive' you said 'I don't find it 'offensive', just impossible to believe that anyone could advance it in good faith.'. Maybe a misunderstanding then.Did I say it was?
Presumably this isn't aimed at me either.I believe it's traditional for those on the "freetard" side of the fence to mention U2 at this point....![]()
Seriously, in unaltered form?
What is the 'record industry' being discussed here though? A small number of large slow moving old firms run by greedy fuckers who've exploited artists and consumers for too long and have in their hubris failed to adapt to new conditions.
The majority of artists have nothing to do with that and would most likely be better off if it didn't exist at all. Music certainly doesn't need it.
It's not their fault though. Neither mismanagement nor the march of time and change.This is a cartoon version of the music industry, a reflection of it at its worst. I realise this is a deeply unfashionable thing to say in places like this, but the majority of people staffing the industry are every bit as passionate about their music as people here. The further down the ladder you go, the truer this becomes. These people are hurting far more than those you describe, but rarely get a look-in in this debate.
I basically agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the home taping analogy, which is facile and stupid. It seems pretty obvious that unless something ludicrously heavy-handed is done to stem the free flow of information around the net, there are going to be some pretty fundamental changes to how and when people get paid for their music and hence to the structure of the industry. This could be a good thing in the long run, but it is something that's really happening and not just industry alarmism.One fact is you CANNOT stop information being freely available, that horse bolted long ago.
Things would look quite different now if the big entertainment companies had been quicker to embrace digital distribution instead of faffing around fuming about Napster or whatever. MP3.com was around way before P2P took off anyway so that future was certainly visible to some. Of course with their track record no-one would seriously expect those companies to have done this and they didn't. So Apple stepped in, for one thing.
I do think subscription services might have a future, but again it seems it's hard for the majors to swallow.
Yes it's happening, things are changing, have changed, but it's not killing music.I basically agree with this, but it has nothing to do with the home taping analogy, which is facile and stupid. It seems pretty obvious that unless something ludicrously heavy-handed is done to stem the free flow of information around the net, there are going to be some pretty fundamental changes to how and when people get paid for their music and hence to the structure of the industry. This could be a good thing in the long run, but it is something that's really happening and not just industry alarmism.
Even long before that though the good will of music listeners was abused for over a decade by the artificially high prices of CDs. Heck even the introduction of the unnecessary new format in the first place, which was presumably considered a good idea partly because it meant that people would buy the music in their collections again! What a wheeze.Sure, I'm certainly not here to deny that the industry as a whole has dropped several massive bollocks in their (mis)handling of the internet.