danno, luckily the music you're marketing is timeless, the dl angle won't hurt you on the level of a 1 month club banger. Your target audience are definitely not the ysi/rapidshare bloggers. So consider it as free publicity.
I think you might be disconnected from the blogosphere.
I don't think danno was counting on sales from them. He said to me (in the real world non the less hah!) he was hoping to target sales from folks who shop at the "world music" section of a chain store. A la folks who bought "buena vista social club" and such.
Well, be that as it may, clearly he has been affected by their practices and is not happy with the situation.
It's a sad state when we target releases to people old enough either to not know how to download or to know better.
danno, luckily the music you're marketing is timeless, the dl angle won't hurt you on the level of a 1 month club banger. Your target audience are definitely not the ysi/rapidshare bloggers. So consider it as free publicity.
I think you might be disconnected from the blogosphere.
I don't think danno was counting on sales from them. He said to me (in the real world non the less hah!) he was hoping to target sales from folks who shop at the "world music" section of a chain store. A la folks who bought "buena vista social club" and such.
Well, be that as it may, clearly he has been affected by their practices and is not happy with the situation.
It's a sad state when we target releases to people old enough either to not know how to download or to know better.
it's the reality of the situation unfortunately, certainly far from ideal. Basics of sales/marketing, target your audience, especially if it's a niche product.
It doesn't make it any better, but the competition is working from a level playing field. Sales expectations have to be adjusted in light of current consumer habits. Is it an acceptable loss? For the small folks grinding, probably not.
It's an insurmountable force. Rather than fight it, use it to your advantage in some way. Get it on ITMS, you'd be surprised at how much a small label can get off online sales. It's not major numbers by any stretch of the imagination, but a $500 cheque every few months is not a bad look at all.
Off topic, but I do find it interesting that a gurl made a homemade album and it's number 1 on the download album chart. No label support. Just word of mouth.
Back to the topic. The point I think your all missing is, the old ass business model and distribution days are done. Deal with it... Or don't I guess.
Parts of my family have been in the record selling business for over 30 years. I was a part of it for around 15. I'm not going to sit here and cry that I can't make a living selling music anymore. Nobody can control it now that it's out of the bag. The best that you can do is figure out how to move on and continue to make a living from music or move on.
But I have a feeling this will be an ongoing discussion forever.
What about the immensely positive quality of life impact all of this free music is having on hundreds of millions of people? If I was a frequently downloaded artist, I think the knowledge of the good I was doing alone would sustain me in my musical endeavors.
What about the immensely positive quality of life impact all of this free music is having on hundreds of millions of people? If I was a frequently downloaded artist, I think the knowledge of the good I was doing alone would sustain me in my musical endeavors.
What about the immensely positive quality of life impact all of this free music is having on hundreds of millions of people? If I was a frequently downloaded artist, I think the knowledge of the good I was doing alone would sustain me in my musical endeavors.
How would you pay your engineer?
Some sort of barter system, I suppose, but really I wouldn't--all of my musical associates would have to take a vow of poverty.
Music as a product is basically an intangible commodity and can now be gotten for free and exchanged freely. If the only real costs (from a consumer standpoint) are:
1. Access -- having the technology that makes it possible to consume the product, like an iPod, DVD player, PC, etc. That includes storage costs like external USB drives.
2. Time -- it takes time to find, download and check stuff out
... then the question is should you really expect the consumer to be willing to pay anything more? The artistry, all the effort that goes into creating a piece of music such as an album or compilation, is it possible any more to put a price on it?
Most consumers, I think, don't put much of a premium on the stuff that's important to a musician or producer or DJ or compilation producer, or whoever you might be.
So then, how do other industries handle these kinds of issues? maybe folks here can think of exmaples, but I'm hard pressed to think of industries that deal with intangible stuff where the real price of obtaining said stuff is approaching zero.
I think licensing your original music to TV, film, commercials is probably the only way you'll be able to make money in the future, especially if you're an independent. Every other transaction will essentially be free.
What about the immensely positive quality of life impact all of this free music is having on hundreds of millions of people? If I was a frequently downloaded artist, I think the knowledge of the good I was doing alone would sustain me in my musical endeavors.
How would you pay your engineer?
Some sort of barter system, I suppose, but really I wouldn't--all of my musical associates would have to take a vow of poverty.
What about the immensely positive quality of life impact all of this free music is having on hundreds of millions of people? If I was a frequently downloaded artist, I think the knowledge of the good I was doing alone would sustain me in my musical endeavors.
How would you pay your engineer?
Some sort of barter system, I suppose, but really I wouldn't--all of my musical associates would have to take a vow of poverty.
And really, what's money compared to the priceless satisfaction of knowing that you helped create something that will bring happiness to millions for years to come, and maybe even bring you true musical immortality?
Music as a product is basically an intangible commodity and can now be gotten for free and exchanged freely. If the only real costs (from a consumer standpoint) are:
1. Access -- having the technology that makes it possible to consume the product, like an iPod, DVD player, PC, etc. That includes storage costs like external USB drives.
2. Time -- it takes time to find, download and check stuff out
... then the question is should you really expect the consumer to be willing to pay anything more? The artistry, all the effort that goes into creating a piece of music such as an album or compilation, is it possible any more to put a price on it?
Most consumers, I think, don't put much of a premium on the stuff that's important to a musician or producer or DJ or compilation producer, or whoever you might be.
So then, how do other industries handle these kinds of issues? maybe folks here can think of exmaples, but I'm hard pressed to think of industries that deal with intangible stuff where the real price of obtaining said stuff is approaching zero.
I think licensing your original music to TV, film, commercials is probably the only way you'll be able to make money in the future, especially if you're an independent. Every other transaction will essentially be free.
I think the problem with this argument is that while the transaction cost of the work approaches zero, the cost of producing the work remains relatively high. A major purpose of copyright is to ensure the production of future works; when copyright is ignored by the consumer, as in your argument, no future works are created. I think the logical conclusion of your argument is a world where pre-existing works are freely transferred but almost no new works are created. There will always be people who produce new works at their own expense and those that rely on live performance to support their art, but outside of this minority it will no longer be viable to support oneself in music. My guess is that this is not what people want, consumers included.
An alternative is the Cuban system of the 70s where the government simply gave musicians a living wage and released their music on the national label. Personally, I don't want the government playing that kind of role in our culture.
Hand up if you've never downloaded something illegally.
It's not illegal for me to download music. I'm not breaking the law...
Because it's American copyright?
You just answered the question yourself. American... Not world copyrights. That's why you don't see the US RIAA suing in other countries. You see their counterparts in those countries suing.
According to the laws in my country, I'm not breaking the law. Hence why nobody is getting sued.
The EMI /Apple deal is definately a last ditch effort to get some money out of thier catalog from the consumer side. The majors have finally seen the future that they created and that is basically they are going to make money on licensing and spins and thats about it. if they can do ti they will sign deals with merchandising eals attached as well, but other than that, music as a hard good is going the way of 8 track.
Yes Starbucks did start their own label but I am not really sure if that was a smart move in this climate. Although with thousands of retail points across the US, I guess it would make sense.
The only other option I can see for the labels is cashing in on some of the ad revenue that sites like frogster or wahtever it wa that popped up a few months ago will be craeting with their download in exchange for watching an ad model. Though i am not sure if that will work out.
On the flip side, though I think it may provide a nice loophole for Mixes to be an outlet if the labels/RIAA finall give up the whole muic trading issues.
And anyone or any study that says DLing has not hurt music is completely batshit crazy.
Hand up if you've never downloaded something illegally.
It's not illegal for me to download music. I'm not breaking the law...
Because it's American copyright?
You just answered the question yourself. American... Not world copyrights. That's why you don't see the US RIAA suing in other countries. You see their counterparts in those countries suing.
According to the laws in my country, I'm not breaking the law. Hence why nobody is getting sued.
I have to agree with the poster above that this is a morally dubious defense of the practice.
There will always be people who produce new works at their own expense and those that rely on live performance to support their art, but outside of this minority it will no longer be viable to support oneself in music.
If artists' merit is judged solely on their live performances then this has the potential to be a positive consequence..
There will always be people who produce new works at their own expense and those that rely on live performance to support their art, but outside of this minority it will no longer be viable to support oneself in music.
If artists' merit is judged solely on their live performances then this has the potential to be a positive consequence..
??? if you're really really into seeing 'bands' i guess
Hand up if you've never downloaded something illegally.
It's not illegal for me to download music. I'm not breaking the law...
Because it's American copyright?
You just answered the question yourself. American... Not world copyrights. That's why you don't see the US RIAA suing in other countries. You see their counterparts in those countries suing.
According to the laws in my country, I'm not breaking the law. Hence why nobody is getting sued.
I have to agree with the poster above that this is a morally dubious defense of the practice.
Especially in the smug manner it is being presented.
The message seems to be "I'm Canadian - and since it's legal here, my conscience is clean as I fuck artists and labels out of money"
Hand up if you've never downloaded something illegally.
It's not illegal for me to download music. I'm not breaking the law...
Because it's American copyright?
You just answered the question yourself. American... Not world copyrights. That's why you don't see the US RIAA suing in other countries. You see their counterparts in those countries suing.
According to the laws in my country, I'm not breaking the law. Hence why nobody is getting sued.
I have to agree with the poster above that this is a morally dubious defense of the practice.
Especially in the smug manner it is being presented.
The message seems to be "I'm Canadian - and since it's legal here, my conscience is clean as I fuck artists and labels out of money"
Yeah those Canadians are all the same with their beady little eyes and flapping heads..
Comments
Well, be that as it may, clearly he has been affected by their practices and is not happy with the situation.
It's a sad state when we target releases to people old enough either to not know how to download or to know better.
ok i'm being a dick i'll stop now
Deej, I largely agree with what you're saying, but this thread is a silly place to start that argument.
Ironically....the majors aim releases at those folks to YOUNG to download ala the 8-11 year old girl!!!
I think there was an article in the NY Times recently about how Disney's music game is thriving.
it's the reality of the situation unfortunately, certainly far from ideal. Basics of sales/marketing, target your audience, especially if it's a niche product.
It doesn't make it any better, but the competition is working from a level playing field. Sales expectations have to be adjusted in light of current consumer habits. Is it an acceptable loss? For the small folks grinding, probably not.
It's an insurmountable force. Rather than fight it, use it to your advantage in some way. Get it on ITMS, you'd be surprised at how much a small label can get off online sales. It's not major numbers by any stretch of the imagination, but a $500 cheque every few months is not a bad look at all.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/ar...lbum/article.do
Back to the topic. The point I think your all missing is, the old ass business model and distribution days are done. Deal with it... Or don't I guess.
Parts of my family have been in the record selling business for over 30 years. I was a part of it for around 15. I'm not going to sit here and cry that I can't make a living selling music anymore. Nobody can control it now that it's out of the bag. The best that you can do is figure out how to move on and continue to make a living from music or move on.
But I have a feeling this will be an ongoing discussion forever.
Soon, the only rap releases at Best Buy are going to be Bow Wow (for kids) and Common (for Rosie O'Donnel viewers).
This is why Chris Brown's sales have been so crazy.
Get a free Chris Brown exclusive download w/ your McDonald's Happy Meal.
Isnt Starbucks starting a label?
How would you pay your engineer?
You're not. Not even close.
They put out the latest Brand New Heavies album... music for old people that think they're buying music for young people. Perfect.
1. Access -- having the technology that makes it possible to consume the product, like an iPod, DVD player, PC, etc. That includes storage costs like external USB drives.
2. Time -- it takes time to find, download and check stuff out
... then the question is should you really expect the consumer to be willing to pay anything more? The artistry, all the effort that goes into creating a piece of music such as an album or compilation, is it possible any more to put a price on it?
Most consumers, I think, don't put much of a premium on the stuff that's important to a musician or producer or DJ or compilation producer, or whoever you might be.
So then, how do other industries handle these kinds of issues? maybe folks here can think of exmaples, but I'm hard pressed to think of industries that deal with intangible stuff where the real price of obtaining said stuff is approaching zero.
I think licensing your original music to TV, film, commercials is probably the only way you'll be able to make money in the future, especially if you're an independent. Every other transaction will essentially be free.
what's the name of Danno's comp?
Si Para Usted
I think the problem with this argument is that while the transaction cost of the work approaches zero, the cost of producing the work remains relatively high. A major purpose of copyright is to ensure the production of future works; when copyright is ignored by the consumer, as in your argument, no future works are created. I think the logical conclusion of your argument is a world where pre-existing works are freely transferred but almost no new works are created. There will always be people who produce new works at their own expense and those that rely on live performance to support their art, but outside of this minority it will no longer be viable to support oneself in music. My guess is that this is not what people want, consumers included.
An alternative is the Cuban system of the 70s where the government simply gave musicians a living wage and released their music on the national label. Personally, I don't want the government playing that kind of role in our culture.
You just answered the question yourself. American... Not world copyrights. That's why you don't see the US RIAA suing in other countries. You see their counterparts in those countries suing.
According to the laws in my country, I'm not breaking the law. Hence why nobody is getting sued.
Yes Starbucks did start their own label but I am not really sure if that was a smart move in this climate. Although with thousands of retail points across the US, I guess it would make sense.
The only other option I can see for the labels is cashing in on some of the ad revenue that sites like frogster or wahtever it wa that popped up a few months ago will be craeting with their download in exchange for watching an ad model. Though i am not sure if that will work out.
On the flip side, though I think it may provide a nice loophole for Mixes to be an outlet if the labels/RIAA finall give up the whole muic trading issues.
And anyone or any study that says DLing has not hurt music is completely batshit crazy.
I have to agree with the poster above that this is a morally dubious defense of the practice.
If artists' merit is judged solely on their live performances then this has the potential to be a positive consequence..
??? if you're really really into seeing 'bands' i guess
Especially in the smug manner it is being presented.
The message seems to be "I'm Canadian - and since it's
legal here, my conscience is clean as I fuck artists and
labels out of money"
Yeah those Canadians are all the same with their beady little eyes and flapping heads..