Hard News: Another nail in the coffin of music DRM
691 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 28 Newer→ Last
-
Instead I was just pointing out the one blatant screaming moment of hypocrisy,
other than 4 very key years in development in technology had passed. does time and change make any dent on the hypocrisy meter?
-
And apparently Boney M at least performed their live music
I've actually been hanging out a fair bit in recent months with one of Moroder / Farian's in-house musicians (who has some incredible stories and photos as you'd expect). All the recorded music was done by Farian, and indeed much of the MV album was an unreleased Boney M album.
Live, bits and pieces were real but only the lead vocals for most of the pre-90s. It was, for all intents and purposes 100% Farian's creation.
-
BTW Radiohead have said they made more out of the current album than then entire EMI catalogue to date. I guess it worked for them.
I think the point was that given the chance to take something for nothing in the honest box system a screaming large proportion took advantage of the artist and didn't pay, many of whom grabbed it off bit torrent and filesharing sites even though the band offered it free on their site.
The same attitude applied to roadside vege stalls and newspaper boxes etc. That's the horrifying thing in their example.
lets also not forget that their experiment was the big show off example of its kind. after people get bored with the novelty of it results will be much much worse for others on that trail.and for those who say a lot of the people were unfamiliar with radioheads music so it was fair they should pay nothing to trial it,
give me a break, If you managed to track the band down then you surf the indie circles....how can you not know what radiohead sound like, and trial on their myspace if you like, or there's radio and mtv who have never been shy of their stuff. pretty lame argument for not dropping a schekle in the bands begging cup. -
other than 4 very key years in development in technology had passed. does time and change make any dent on the hypocrisy meter?
you mean apart from the lawsuits being handing down by the RIAA at the beginning of 2004 for file sharing and the fact that the iPod was three years old in 2004 and being widely vilified as the repository of much of this shared data at the time U2 signed their deal (and they were criticised in the industry rather strongly for doing so as you'll recall), no.
I wonder if Paul's comments have much to do with the sales disaster that was the last U2 hits album everywhere apart from NZ?
-
u managed to track the band down then you surf the indie circles....how can you not know what radiohead sound like, and trial on their myspace if you like, or there's radio and mtv who have never been shy of their stuff. pretty lame argument for not dropping a schekle in the bands begging cup.
But Rob, it worked for them..anyway you look at it, it was a resounding success for Radiohead.
Bands are making much more money by opting out of the system and the contractual binds that that system entails..and its not just Radiohead, its a raft of acts across all sorts of genres. Contrary to major label spin the music industry is actually coming through all this quite well.
U2s problem is that they are a part of a system whose time has passed and they simply are reacting against that.
-
a) its all frigging manufactured pop, its just the degree.
well that's just the point isn't it simon. people here are decrying the manufacture fake assed crims of music, then you drop in an article from one of the key manipulators, the man who was behind the men behind milli vanilli ffs, and pit his tainted words against the manager of one of rocks most pompously earnest (love or hate their music you can't doubt there over the top earnestness in what they do).
I know who I'd trust in a card game and it wouldn't be mr 5 million tax fraud. He may have done some good in the good old days but his work since then has tainted his legacy, he put the fake in fake music. -
it worked for them..anyway you look at it, it was a resounding success for Radiohead.
That's lovely for them but you again ignore the point. if you put out an honesty box to pimp your wares and people nicked 65 percent of your product, you'd probably look at a different way of delivering. not really a success, although a comparative success to previous dealings its still a massive failure on its own level.
-
U2s problem is that they are a part of a system whose time has passed and they simply are reacting against that.
think you've got a bit of a 'dire straits' blinkers issue on U2, which is kinda funny cos one of your biggest bands was a U2 clone for the first part of their life, even had similar haircuts.
but loath for their music aside his (and he's their manager, not the band) comments come from a stable and informed background. they're worth considering no matter how much you might hate the pompously earnest creatures he has in his pen. -
He may have done some good in the good old days but his work since then has tainted his legacy, he put the fake in fake music.
Are you talking about Farian or Napier-Bell now? I'm confused and really can't see what your point has to do with anything. I don't want to play cards with any of them to be frank.
If you are talking MV? Really, the joke in all that was on the American industry..who gave them a grammy for gods sake...I mean everyone else knew, right? Arista in the US even added vocal credits to an album that had none, much to the surprise of everyone concerned.
-
Libraries?
libraries do charge for content, or some do. new releases get $1-3 charge.
and you don't get to own the finished product in a libraries case,
you could say that book stores with scores of people infornt of the mag section are an inequivalent but do you get pissed at the store owner when he says are you going to buy that, no then please put it back for someone who is. you get his point. -
although a comparative success to previous dealings its still a massive failure on its own level.
I wish you'd point out how. You seem to be the only one saying that, everyone else is smiling.
think you've got a bit of a 'dire straits' blinkers issue on U2, which is kinda funny cos one of your biggest bands was a U2 clone for the first part of their life, even had similar haircuts.
which is relevant how? The criticism of Paul's comments has been both wide and voracious and none of the rest of them managed The Screaming Meemees for heaven's sake.
My only point was to his hypocrisy, which still stands. U2s support of the iPod gave it a massive boost at a time when the industry was already making big noises about what was on them.
-
I'd like to give some revisionist props to Boney M.
I'd love to discuss the merits of boney m but my gag reflex isn't strong enough to get past the cover shots let alone the content.
are we going to discuss the joys of eighties synth bands next, culture club perhaps? isn't this why you hate majors?
I think there's some conflicting emotions going on here. you hate the majors, but you love how they made you love their shit. -
I wish you'd point out how. You seem to be the only one saying that, everyone else is smiling.
how are you not getting it. 65 % of people thought so little of the band that they refused to give em even a dollar. RB goes on and on about contempt for the consumer ad nauseam but what about contempt for the artist. 65% were unfamiliar with the works of Radiohead to the point that a dollar wasn't worth investing to find out. yeah right.
lets dumb the numbers down a bit to say where the 50th band to try the honest box approach. total downloads 10,000
65% stolen, band makes a loss on its recording and site admin costs -
That's lovely for them but you again ignore the point. if you put out an honesty box to pimp your wares and people nicked 65 percent of your product, you'd probably look at a different way of delivering. not really a success, although a comparative success to previous dealings its still a massive failure on its own level.
Actually I think the point which you're ignoring, is if Radiohead are happy, and the music consumer is happy, then there actually isn't anyone in the equation that needs to be happy.
All retail businesses have an element to them of stock which they lose without getting compensation. If Radiohead are happy with their take, and a heap more people got the music, and they were obviously happy with whatever price they paid, who is anyone else to say it was wrong? Sounds like a win-win to me.
-
isn't this why you hate majors?
who hates majors? I certainly don't
lets dumb the numbers down a bit to say where the 50th band to try the honest box approach. total downloads 10,000
65% stolen, band makes a loss on its recording and site admin costsif the 50th band tries this and looses then they are the dumb ones. Simple as that. That band shoulkd be as smart as radiohead and adjust the system to suit.
And Radiohead invited people to take it fore nothing if they wished. It wasn't stolen, it was gifted. With that they made more money and had their biggest album for yonks and still managed a US #1 album.
These are actually very good times in the music industry..its a time of renewal, of revolution..its what we needed. More please.....
-
My only point was to his hypocrisy, which still stands.
no it doesn't. I've already said 4 years and massive changes in technology have happened in the mean time.
I don't think the ipod is the corner stone of piracy anyway. its a one way device, files go in but not out.
as he said broadband internet, and the easy flow of files between strangers coupled with computer technology and the mp3 those are the main factors. the player is just that, and its a more secure device than a computer for the music content.I'm not reading the hypocrisy meter as high as you.
-
who hates majors? I certainly don't
A large part of the pro piracy argument has been majors are evil and have been ripping off customers etc.
you weighed in on that with they are inherently evil and didn't really go into details on your personal dealings with them. -
his other main point and I think a few on here will agree is that there will most likely be a move to a subscription based library of music. access to all music ever for 14.95 a month. the only problem with that is that you may not own it. you just play it off a shared library base.
-
A large part of the pro piracy argument has been majors are evil and have been ripping off customers etc.
you weighed in on that with they are inherently evil and didn't really go into details on your personal dealings with them.Has anyone in this argument has advocated piracy? Or stated that majors are inherently evil? I haven't seen it except in your counter arguments. Everyone wants musicians to be rewarded Rob, we all recognise the moral dilemma there. We just disagree about the economics of restrictions on digital content. You seem to have a bit of a straw man factory going on here.
-
You seem to have a bit of a straw man factory going on here.
And here I was thinking that making straw men was more of a craft industry. Oh well, a change in technology fundamentally alters the cultural landscape yet again.
-
A large part of the pro piracy argument has been majors are evil and have been ripping off customers etc.
you weighed in on that with they are inherently evil and didn't really go into details on your personal dealings with them.a) I'm not going to discuss things like that on a public forum
b) my argument was that the standard recording contract is inherently unfair, not that majors are evil. I don't think I'm alone in suggesting that. A couple of minutes perusing a standard contract circa 2005 would lead pretty much all observers to that conclusion. But as one major player in a NZ major said to me about five years ago..of course they are are unfair but we have the power so take it or leave it. The power has now shifted and leaving it has become a viable option...perhaps the best option.This could go on and on..best we leave it.
-
A large part of the pro piracy argument has been majors are evil and have been ripping off customers etc.
you weighed in on that with they are inherently evil and didn't really go into details on your personal dealings with them.Robb, you really need to get over this.
No one in this discussion has stated that. It is a long long time since I have heard anyone justifying their piracy with such a statement. It WILL get mentioned again, since we are discusssing the evolution of the industry all such pros and cons will come up again and again. When I mention it it's normally to point out that some good will come from this shake up of the industry, not justifying anything.As for the Radiohead thing. They WANTED lots of people to download it for free, expected many to pay a little. It really doesnt have much to do with 'piracy' at all.
-
then there actually isn't anyone in the equation that needs to be happy.
only other people looking for new business models who don't happen to be radiohead with their large fan base and the advantage of being the novelty first.
-
only other people looking for new business models who don't happen to be radiohead with their large fan base and the advantage of being the novelty first.
That's like saying that the first band to cut an album broke it for everyone else once the novelty wore off. People are still going to buy other bands, they're not going to stop doing so just because Radiohead/Prince/Whoever else made the first move.
-
hat's like saying that the first band to cut an album broke it for everyone else once the novelty wore off.
no that's like saying in the search for the new business model for music a system of honesty box which managed to turn one of the biggest indie bands around a profit but had a 65% no pay portion, it might pay not to put too much faith in that approach once the novelty of it has died down.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.