Hard News: Another nail in the coffin of music DRM
691 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 21 22 23 24 25 … 28 Newer→ Last
-
And the boogie man isn't biting as much as some would have you think. It's good to have a boogie man though, no?
-
so ... does anyone know of any filesharing systems that can download to iTunes? (Apart from the 99ยข Apple Store?) I just wasted alot of time downloading childrens party songs via Limewire, only to find you can't import the mp3 files to iTunes.
It's good to have a boogie man though, no?
Can't start a War On Anything without one!
-
I just wasted alot of time downloading childrens party songs via Limewire, only to find you can't import the mp3 files to iTunes.
What version of itunes are you on? I downloaded some live Moxy Fruvous to 7.6 on my mac on Friday and they imported fine - file > import from itunes.
-
er ... I'll have to check (my home computer) ... but I'm trying to export from Limewire to iTunes ... yesterday iTunes said it would not recognise the file...
-
any MP3 file should play in iTunes. If iTunes is your default mp3 player just click the file and it should import automatically.
If not they're likely corrupted.
-
Can't start a War On Anything without one!
I hear Paul McGuiness has evidence that Steve Jobs has been sourcing yellowcakeMP3s in Niger.
-
What version of itunes are you on? I downloaded some live Moxy Fruvous to 7.6 on my mac on Friday and they imported fine - file > import from itunes.
On a Mac, it's easiest to just to select all the files and drag them from the Finder to the iTunes icon in the Dock. Then you can ditch the originals.
-
yesterday iTunes said it would not recognise the file...
I have come across files that will not load to itunes that say they are mp3 files. they will however load to quicktime and export as a .mov, which will then load to itunes and can be converted to mp3.
not sure what that will do to quality of sound.I think it's possible that there are some variations on mp3 encoding that produce files not supported by mac itunes. (don't quote me on that as I haven't put the effort into figuring out what exactly is going on but instead opt for the quickest work around)
-
so everyone is happy again...it worked
I think this is more of a case of somene trying to tag their music onto the name of radiohead in order to expand their own career and sell records, and radiohead were obviously not keen to have someone else profit from their brand hence the cease and desist, but were quite generous in letting them market their music as radiohead remixes.
or maybe they think they'll get some crossover expoure from the hippity hop market. who knows.
I'm sure it all goes toward the "radiohead as benevolent saints" image.
maybe they can get the piracy figures for their next album down to 50/50. -
I hear Paul McGuiness has evidence that Steve Jobs has been sourcing yellowcakeMP3s in Niger.
gee you really don't like mr McGuinness do you. was it just this speech or have you had a life long loathing for him?
-
gee you really don't like mr McGuinness do you. was it just this speech or have you had a life long loathing for him?
a) it was a joke but I guess there is some substance in the claim that downloading is killing music is the rough equivalent to the claim that Saddam has WMDS. It's hot air to further an end
b) heaven knows where you got the idea that I hate the man. Having read through I said nothing to imply such. Disagreeing with someone (and outside the BPI and you it seems most people do) does not come close to 'loathe' and I would suggest that Paul's comments have slightly more to do with positioning for U2's expiring contract, and the fact that the last U2 collection was a bonafide turkey.and radiohead were obviously not keen to have someone else profit from their brand hence the cease and desist,
ah, no, the C&D didn't come from Radiohead it came from Warner-Chappell who in turn were told by R/H to cease and desist their cease and desisting. Incidently in two recent interviews R/H have said the figure you are quoting is way way off.
This is getting rather pointless, going round and round.
-
it was a joke but I guess there is some substance in the claim that downloading is killing music is the rough equivalent to the claim that Saddam has WMDS. It's hot air to further an end
you're comparing a businessman's comments on the industry he works in, for a group that is known for its earnest and honest approach to their art (however much you might loath that) to a corrupt govt who went out of their way to ignore facts and lie their way into a businessman's war of first resort? that's a bit of a stretch don't you think.
Mc Guinness has extensive experience in the industry and has a rep for being a straight up honest businessman (although I'd be happy to read links to reputable documents refuting this if you can provide them)you're poo pooing the opinions of a guy who is critical of the current state in music based on what? if its your opinion thats fine but you'll have to do better than just say the words, you'll have to let us know where your getting your info from, and back it up with links and authoritative sources. who are these other people that disagree with Paul's informed position which you have dismissed as smoke and mirrors. concerned skateboarder of ponsonby?, car enthusiast of gore? If you're going to dismis the man then it should be based on people working in the industry right now. everyone's got an opinion but that doesn't make everyone's opinion valid. it all depends what you're basing it on. you know what I base mine on.
You're saying the current state of music of the music industry is shiny and bright based on what?
I personally like and respect you and your achievements as you know but I've got to wonder where you're getting your glossy view of modern music models from. I've lost touch with your recent activities but are you still distributing music and if so how are your views reflected in your current projects?
if not where are you getting your hard facts from?
The reason I question you on this is cos as you know I do still participate in music and its distribution and I have seen and heard first hand the massive change in the production of music and the collapse of the business model that sustained it. I haven't seen any wide spread successful stable response to it. on the contrary I've seen it collapse from passably viable to not worth the effort. first hand based on many many artists of a variety of ages, although I do note that the new entrants are prepared to do it for the love for the first go, but even that is dying off much quicker with the massively diminished returns. they simply can't sustain the hobby.
You've got to understand why I question people who are contradicting what I see with my own eyes every day. I initially question Russell cos as a music participator I'm concerned that he gets set up as an authority on things that he has marginal experience in (referring to music making, distro, on many levels etc, not journalism and internet where I acknowledge his experience).
you on the other hand have had extensive experience in most facets of music distribution, although I'm not sure of your current experience in it as the whole game has changed in the last 3 years.
why does it matter? well people read this stuff and believe it and although its only a shitty blog from nz word spreads, joins other mis info and becomes fact.
and people mack comments like this from a recent discussion on music purchasing.
But seriously what kind of moron *buys* music?
and radiohead and their experiment.
Incidently in two recent interviews R/H have said the figure you are quoting is way way off.
what exactly did radiohead say the freeloader portion of their audience was? cos its been inferred that it wasn't 80% and closer to 65% and now its not 65% either, even though the original high figure was from an independent body with no interest in downplaying the success or other of radioheads project. they simply monitored hits didn't they?
Not that I want to disbelieve Saint Radiohead but to believe what they're saying we're going to have to have independently audited results to believe that people are not taking music for free where they can, (in complete contradiction to what were see around us).
And what they finally do tell us should be tempered against all the people who didn't go anywhere near radioheads site and whipped it off limewire or bit torrent.
Why is this a point worth arguing? cos seeing radioheads experiment as a success softens the reality of the music distribution situation."Radiohead made money, everything's ok we can stop thinking about it" doesn't do justice to the situation. Problem is not solved.
music it for free until someone makes us stop taking it, simple as that. That govts are taking steps to make people stop taking it (and movie files, however unsuccessful that may be) shouldn't come as a surprise. It makes getting into a hissy fit about drm look kinda stupid in comparison.
I'd personally rather have DRM than IPs inspecting my traffic, but that's just cos I've got something to hide :) -
although I'm not sure of your current experience in it as the whole game has changed in the last 3 years.
reasonably extensive actually as I have several joint venture deals, am consulting on recording contracts in 4 countries and I talk to people all over the world in the recording industry daily..does that count?
Why is it healthy..because vastly more music is being made and consumed than ever before, thanks to technology. We all have access to so much more. The labels system which meant that so few options were available to the consumer is being broken down, and the per sale return to the act is hugely increased. One NZ musician I know recorded his album last year, released it himself via all forms of distribution, and 4000 sales later (it didn't even chart..that's the old system) he is in profit and moving ahead. There are tens of thousands of acts around the world doing the same. It's very very healthy. Labels like Domino in the UK do a 50/50 cost/return split with their acts.
The big labels, as they merged slowly committed suicide as they reduced the amount (ie the music on offer) from themselves proportionally and reduced their relevancy. And their increasing reliance on immediate hits as a result was self defeating. In the current atmosphere a major label would be unlikely to deliver a nutured act like Pink Floyd, or Bob Marley (although he came out of Island, an indie). The majors have lost track of A&R.
Also people have ipods with many thousands of tracks on them (yes many downloaded but since most folk had less than a hundred or so albums in the vinyl / CD era is very hard to argue those are lost sales).
Paul McGuinness..no I'm talking about industry response..commentators, music industry forums and the like. It was fairly dismissive to my eyes.
But as I said Rob, this is going around in circles...I'm happy to leave it.
-
because vastly more music is being made
not necessarily a good thing, as I'm sure you're well aware. some really really bad stuff clogging the circuits that should never have got out of someones head let alone their bedroom and into the wider world.
That said the concept of label as gatekeeper authority was shown to be flawed cos the gate is only as good as the keeper and many gate keepers had taste in their arse,
-
One NZ musician I know
only one?
I can point you to hundreds that would have broken even who haven't in the current climate reputedly healthy or not. -
Paul McGuinness..no I'm talking about industry response..commentators, music industry forums and the like. It was fairly dismissive to my eyes.
I saw lots of people saying don't like it but I can see where he's coming from. I did see people being dismissive but they were from the why pay for music people, not really informed people as such. As someone involved in the meat and potatoes of music making and experience with distribution I hope you give me credit for my insider knowledge and the right to disagree. You're opinion is always valid but I have found it hard to see how you've arrived at some of your conclusions,
-
But as I said Rob, this is going around in circles...I'm happy to leave it.
come on mate, page 30 is just over the next hill.
chat when you feel like it though, as you may have noticed I took some real world time at the end of last week,
-
reasonably extensive actually as I have several joint venture deals, am consulting on recording contracts in 4 countries and I talk to people all over the world in the recording industry daily..does that count?
sure does,
I consult with artists on a daily basis, extensively discuss how their making their projects break even and how they're making things work for themselves, I work with and for musicians every day at the coal face and get extensive insider views of how many cds, downloads etc actually get sold, and how much money is coming in and going where,
its literally hundreds of musicians a year, and you know I'm a nosey bugger so I ask lots of questions,
that aside from my own personal experience etc,does that count?
-
only one?
I can point you to hundreds that would have broken even who haven't in the current climate reputedly healthy or not.I wonder what percentage of acts never saw a cent from the labels system. There was a good thread on the velvet Rope last year about acts that had never recouped and hence not been paid a cent, primarily because they system was stacked to recover all costs from the 5 or so percent due to the act after packaging deductions and every other deduction. Some of the acts on that list were amazing.
The point about the act I mentioned was that he had made one album in NZ for a major and it sold about 2-3000 copies more than the one he released himself. Because of the system he was way off recoupment. Doing it himself (same recording budget more or less) he was in profit. Easy lesson there.
-
I wonder what percentage of acts never saw a cent from the labels system.
I think you misunderstand me on this point, i'm not pro label,
I'm saying laxed attitude to piracy based on resentment of the old system is clouding the issue.
all levels are hurt by it, and I'm seeing it in indie artists who don't make back anything, where as they would have covered their costs, it now costs them, and that's unsustainable, as I'm seeing with many, although there is always the 'one' artists who bobs up it is not the trend, one bobs up, many bob down, that's the trend.Failing majors is just the tip of the building, the whole thing is unstable.
Easy lesson there.
yeah, I get the math, you don't have to tell me that coming from one indie to another, but the point is its exception and rule.
radiohead and your one guy are the exceptions used to sell a false belief in forward motion. there may well be a forward motion waiting in the wings but it isn't here yet. -
about acts that had never recouped and hence not been paid a cent
yeah and you being one of those guys that makes records and knows the costs and losses understand why some of em don't get any money, and the plus side for those people is they don't have to fork out for it either. they don't lose money on the process. now its moved more towards the 'well if you want to make a recording its going to cost you the artist personally', you're the bank, not some label
Part of the cross purposes we've been talking over too. a lot of your reference points and experiences have been where the major label was treated like a bank, they loaned the artist start up cash, essentially loan sharks.
a lot of artists don't work like that (salmonella dub for one who pay for all their own recordings which puts them in a much better negotiating position). Of course you're going to get much darker tails when recounting dealings with loan sharks. no one's happy coming from that position.Most of the artists I'm talking about come from different position, self funded etc. those people are getting hurt much worse than if some label was flicking up the cash for their art.
-
NZ food distribution is by and large controlled by two supermarket chains. This means they have the ability to dictate to food producers how their products are sold. Producers now not only have to produce the food, they have to also pay to have their product displayed on a shelf.
At my local supermarket they don't stock the brand of frozen lasagne my daughter likes. This is presumably because [a] they've discovered they don't sell enough of this brand to make money, or [b] the producer of this brand isn't paying them enough to stock (promote/sell) it, or [c] a combination of both. There's also option [d] - the food producer won't supply the supermarket because they can't make a profit at the price the Supermarket is willing to buy at.
The other Supermarket chain is too far away for me, so my daughter has to miss out on her favourite brand of lasagne. (I've tried making it myself but she doesn't like it). Unlike some other produce, I can't buy this lasagne at the Farm gate, or a Farmers Market. I am dependent on the Supermarket chains to distribute this lasagne, or go without.
The sooner I can download lasagne to my iPod the better, I say.
-
The sooner I can download lasagne to my iPod the better, I say.
interesting details on produce there.I didn't know it was so marfia.
are there really only 2 chains? fresh choice, woolworth, pack n save, count down, new world, 4 square, super value, some obviously owned by the same people.the sooner they get a viable secure business model for you to download lasagna the better. otherwise the producers will go out of business and stop making it.
-
are there really only 2 chains?
Yes, there's Progressive Enterprises who own Foodtown, Woolworths, and Countdown; and Foodstuffs NZ who own New World, Pak n Save, and Four Square.
Progressive were able to buy the Woolworths chain because they convinced the Commerce Commission that a duopoly would NOT be created because Foodstuffs controlled 55% of the market. But they included the Four Square corner stores/superettes in that percentage.
IMO that does not compare apples with apples vis a vis the Supermarket market, but hey, the Commerce Commish bought it so progressive got to buy Woollies. Funny then that the Commerce Commish is now digging it's heels in over efforts by both Progressive and Foodstuffs to buy The Warehouse (which would see an end to The Warehouse Extra supermarkets - which only have 4% of the market).
With all due respect to musicians, I put it to you that more kiwi's are negatively affected by this Supermarket duopoly than music piracy.
NB: Wikipedia have good detail on the change of ownership 'shenanigans' of NZ supermarkets.
-
With all due respect to musicians, I put it to you that more kiwi's are negatively affected by this Supermarket duopoly than music piracy.
good thing its not a competition between supermarkets and piracy then.
personally I liked the big fresh chain and did notice and resent them being bought out and changed,
that said there is sizable difference in the management and presentation of the different markets, new world is very different from pack n save, but this is reasonably off thread I suppose.
My thinking is if a company has enough money to buy up half of all supermarkets in a country then they have too much money.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.