GEN
Active topics
  1. I didn't read the article as it's just too long. But all of your comments were an interesting read, to see different angles and opinions on the subject.

    Besides - as someone suggested earlier - nuking the system and starting again, the only good solution I could think of is cheaper albums. For instance the Xmas before last, I got my mum Duffy's album and she was complaining to me that it was too short! in fact I think it was only 35 minutes long and the Record Store - HMV - had the cheek to charge full price: £10!!. IMO That is outrageous. Even worse if it turns out your friend was wrong and you don't like the album - has happened to me a few times .
    I think that the best solution for entertainment - TV Shows, Movies and Music - would be to sell it online for a lower price.

    I am not rich, so I am not happy paying the full £35 for a single season of 24. Especially as, when the show ends, I get frak all for it - recently my DVD's were sold for £1 per movie. But if they sold it to me to be downloaded, at a cheaper price I would be more likely to buy it as I like the show and I am happy to keep it going - like how Family Guy was brought back on DVD sales - and yes, I realize this was a music discussion, but IMO, movies, Music, TV Series, they are all the same.

    The only problem with making the Music downloadable, would be that it is safer to have a physical copy and how would they secure it? to stop u from torrenting. iTunes idea of using your stuff on a max of 5 computers is a good idea, but they do not let you download the music again and I have heard that once you reach 5 PC's you are screwed.

    Steam's way with Games is also good, where you can download as many times as you need, but you need to be online with the game at 1 point, so not sure how that would work with Music.
    The other issue with Downloading stuff, is that whoever is selling the Music, can charge whatever they want, so they might decide never to do a sale and drop the price of stuff - as seen by Sony and their Downloadable PSP games that, no matter how old they are, never/very rarely drop in price .

    So yeah, that sounded like a good idea in my head at first... but there would be a lot of "bumps" to smooth out lol!.

    I also liked the idea that CD's / DVD's of, for instance U2, should come with some bonus stuff. If a CD came with 2 music videos and some interviews with the story of the album I would be more likely to buy it! Rather than the sky high prices I am never going to pay for the "Exclusive Edition", especially if I can download it for free!.

    I also agree that, smaller bands will never make it in a world where, fake nonsense like Kesha is on the radio often and the smaller, far far better, more innovative artists never get noticed!. Something also needs to be done about that, it's terrible.

    And sorry, I just love Music/TV/Movies/Games lol!

    Edit; Oh and just to add in, I like to hear music before I buy too and love it when Bands/Musicians allow you to download the first single for free (Kasabian & Prodigy did this) so I think that a "free single" from the album is a must for all Musicians now! So people know what to expect and whether they will like it.
    But then, as you say Get on your boots was an atrocious choice by U2! - Moment of Surrender would have been better - and a lot of people would have been put off by it. So then there's another issue... Maybe the band could pick their "favourite" song from the album?
  2. Taylor Swift, Paul McCartney and U2 lead YouTube backlash: Stars sign petition claiming Google's site is a 'safe harbor' for stolen music
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3650957/Taylor-Swift-Paul-McCartney-U2-hit-YouTube-Stars-sign-petition-claiming-Google-s-site-safe-harbor-stolen-music.html


    I like and always have liked the idea of a more regulated website that effectively fights piracy, but I think whoever wants to listen/download music for free will eventually find the way. Mixed thoughts about this. What about you?
  3. useful recurring attempt. right or wrong it's a lost battle since napster(?), partially lessen with spotify and co
  4. Yes, it's a battle lost beforehand, but something needs to be done. And increasing (more) the price of live tickets so artists can survive is not the solution.
  5. However, YouTube hit back at the comments, and told Dailymail.com:
    "The overwhelming majority of labels and publishers have licensing agreements in place with YouTube
    to leave fan videos up on the platform and earn revenue from them.
    Today the revenue from fan uploaded content accounts for roughly 50 percent of the music industry's
    YouTube revenue. Any assertion that this content is largely unlicensed is false.
    To date, we have paid out over $3 billion to the music industry – and that number is growing year on year."

    To me it is unclear which artist has such a licensing agreement (via their record label/publisher) and how much they receive.

    In any case it is wise to reflect upon one's own actions and ponder about their moral consequences.
    To me it seems that social and geographical conditions should also be taken into account of such ethical equations.
    It's not all about the money, that's what I think.
  6. Originally posted by BigGiRL:However, YouTube hit back at the comments, and told Dailymail.com:
    "The overwhelming majority of labels and publishers have licensing agreements in place with YouTube
    to leave fan videos up on the platform and earn revenue from them.
    Today the revenue from fan uploaded content accounts for roughly 50 percent of the music industry's
    YouTube revenue. Any assertion that this content is largely unlicensed is false.
    To date, we have paid out over $3 billion to the music industry – and that number is growing year on year."

    To me it is unclear which artist has such a licensing agreement (via their record label/publisher) and how much they receive.

    In any case it is wise to reflect upon one's own actions and ponder about their moral consequences.
    To me it seems that social and geographical conditions should also be taken into account of such ethical equations.
    It's not all about the money, that's what I think.
    Where have you been?
  7. Under that metaphoric rock?
    Suffering from the worst case of hay fever I have ever had?
    (or bicycle crashes?)

    Well, some of that but basically recovering from an overdose of U2...
  8. Originally posted by LikeASong:Yes, it's a battle lost beforehand, but something needs to be done. And increasing (more) the price of live tickets so artists can survive is not the solution.
    As one who used to work at a label, they should have embraced the future and gotten on board and partnered with Napster in the beginning instead of spending endless time and resources fighting them... While it will never be cut and dry, I think the industry's short-sightedness and arrogance to see the future right in front of them is partly to blame for this. They have gotten on board with licensing agreements with all these new technologies, but if they had done so in the beginning, I believe (IMHO) that this would not be quite the issue it is today. And, while I feel for the artists, they have always made their money on touring and merchandise, because most probably get paid more royalties from streaming than from their royalties from the hostage takers that signed them their deals...
  9. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    As one who used to work at a label, they should have embraced the future and gotten on board and partnered with Napster in the beginning instead of spending endless time and resources fighting them... While it will never be cut and dry, I think the industry's short-sightedness and arrogance to see the future right in front of them is partly to blame for this. They have gotten on board with licensing agreements with all these new technologies, but if they had done so in the beginning, I believe (IMHO) that this would not be quite the issue it is today. And, while I feel for the artists, they have always made their money on touring and merchandise, because most probably get paid more royalties from streaming than from their royalties from the hostage takers that signed them their deals...
    The bands (well, at least huge bands like U2, Michael Jackson, Oasis, Pink Floyd, just to name a few of big selling acts from different decades) used to make a LOT of money from album & single sales until internet appeared. LOTS of money. Quite probably, that will never be the case again, but I think the industry's position was quite understandable back in 1999-2000 (the big Napster boom). They felt like people downloading music illegally was going to translate in the loss of thousands of millions - which eventually did.

    Surely it's already 16 years too late to face this problem properly, and if the industry had known what they know today, they probably would have acted in a different way. But they didn't, and now there is a big problem waiting to be solved, and if blocking and deleting non-revenuable (?) music from Youtube seems like a partial solution, totally go for it.
  10. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    The bands (well, at least huge bands like U2, Michael Jackson, Oasis, Pink Floyd, just to name a few of big selling acts from different decades) used to make a LOT of money from album & single sales until internet appeared. LOTS of money. Quite probably, that will never be the case again, but I think the industry's position was quite understandable back in 1999-2000 (the big Napster boom). They felt like people downloading music illegally was going to translate in the loss of thousands of millions - which eventually did.

    Surely it's already 16 years too late to face this problem properly, and if the industry had known what they know today, they probably would have acted in a different way. But they didn't, and now there is a big problem waiting to be solved, and if blocking and deleting non-revenuable (?) music from Youtube seems like a partial solution, totally go for it.
    Yes. My point was kind of that. If the industry had the visionaries (instead of the old fat cats trying to keep their pockets lined doing it old school - another part of why the industry fell apart, but that's another story.) to see the future, they may have nipped the problem in the bud. But they wanted to be greedy (greed... yet another story to put in the grand plot) and didn't want to share revenue in a lucrative partnership. And part of the reason huge bands made lots of money when people still bought physical was because they had paid off their initial debt to the labels and gained leverage over them.

    And I agree, they should try doing what they can. But who wins and who loses? I happen to still discover a shitload of great music on YouTube and Spotify. So who wins and who loses? It's quite the conundrum. I get it, I do. Every artist should be paid for their craft. But you have to be noticed to be paid. And you need to put out a full album of decent content.

    I remember getting so frustrated when I worked at the label. We would have weekly calls to listen to new talent and fresh new artists that were deemed "a top priority" by the powers that be. Then, guess what, they chose to release said new, unheard "top priority" on the same day they released Madonna, or Tim McGraw, or Faith Hill... and guess what they spent all their resources promoting? And the worlod got pumped with billboards and ads for those records they already knew were coming and the world never got to hear that awesome "top priority" new band because it's flame had flickered before it was even lit.

    So, anyway... I get it. I see both sides. But if their were more visionaries running the music industry, they might have found a solution before it got too late. Now, for the DIY artists, this type of medium is how they get discovered and heard. I think the labels should block or delete their content as an experiment. See where it leads...

    Ok. That was a long rant... Sorry. I have no answers, only opinions.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.