Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
-
(Firefox 3.0.3, Windows 2000 SP4, if anyone has any ideas to help ...)
Get a Mac. ;-)
(sorry, but someone had to say it) -
Mark, those Zeiman figures are from 2002 and with respect, in the music industry it is a lifetime ago, as is the 2003 50 Cent example pointed to in your Napster opinion piece ( and I agree with much of Fader's piece).
Read further down the page for more current information.
The fact is record sales are down enormously and a big part of that must be due to piracy
must?? You say so, but let's see some evidence. My point (and Ziemann's, incidentally, as well as the Ars article) is that the industry is pulling these figures out of their arse with no evidence.
"Sales are down!!! OMG!! Must be pirates because it couldn't be anything like we don't know how to manage our business anymore!!"
(although I'm not aware of any bogus specific figures touted by the industry that attribute actual losses to piracy, the ones you have already quoted seem not to relate specificaly to that..can you give me some from an industry body?).
One credible analysis by the Institute for Policy Innovation concludes that global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes.
The Institute for Policy Innovation is describes by Sourcewatch as:
"__a think tank based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey to "research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today's public policy problems."The conservative Capital Research Center ranked IPI as amongst the most conservative groups in the US, scoring it as an eight on a scale of one to eight.
[...]
The IPI was solicited by tobacco companies in 1995 to submit comments in response to proposed federal regulations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration restricting the marketing of tobcco products. IP responded by sending comments in favor of the industry to the FDA__"Wikipedia refers to it as "libertarian". I'd call them "guns for hire" but YMMV
"Music Industry is facing losses of about 50 per cent due to piracy...the industry is trying to keep its head above water as we are fighting to retain the industry," Secretary General of IMI, a consortium of more than 140 music labels, Savio D'Souza told reporters here after a seminar on piracy for police officials.
IFPI:
IFPI estimates the trade of pirate discs was worth US$4.5 billion globally in 2005. At the same time, almost 20 billion tracks were illegally swapped or downloaded on the internet in 2005.
This is from the 2006 Piracy PDF, the latest published.
Interestingly, in a google on "Music industry" piracy losses , the first 20 results give 10 arguing against the idea, 4 neutral and 6 in favour, all of which are industry bodies.
If anyone has actual statistics and dollar values, especially for NZ, I'd really love to see them, honestly.
You said:
However, as an aside I'm also very wary of atrributing one of those to be what I think of as an old fart factor...the music isn't as good as it used to be, they don't sign the acts anymore, that sort of thing..that's a nonesense but it's often repeated...record companies both big and small sign the same ratio of pulp and non-pulp that they always have, with a variety of provisos that should be added concerning changing artist developement and such which would take this conversation off into another direction.
I don't think 47 is that old, actually. ;-)
Apart from indies, who by their nature have always gone their own ways, the mainstream industry has been turning out formulaic stuff for the best part of 20 years. Stock Aitken Waterman are a prime example. There has always been pap, I'll agree, and the symbiotic nature of Tin Pan Ally and the recording industry has always meant a pile of dross for each gem. Hell, go back to Chinn and Chapman in the 70s for examples of that.
But the SAW assembly line produced more crap than most (and I promise that link's not a rick-roll, although they did that one too).
<opinion>The industry saw the acts as "product", to be ground out and marketed like toothpaste and soap. They even started creating their own product - Spice Girls. Westlife, Take5, etc. It's no wonder the fans have lost faith and stopped buying. The ones with a spark, like Blur, or Oasis, stand out all the more, though technical analysis of their stuff shows nothing special. No Pete Townsend or Lennon/McCartney going on there. </opinion>
Meanwhile iTunes has grabbed the online market, as Fader points out. The dynamic has changed, and the industry no longer dictates the terms. Thus, their sales slip and they blame the pirates. But they state these losses without providing evidence of them. None of the individual artists who are supposedly affected have come forward to state "I have lost $x to music piracy, and here's how I know". Instead we get anecdotes of finding burned CDs in people's bags.
Look, I'm not denying that piracy exists, and that some people make a lot of money out of it. I just don't think it must be the cause of slipping sales, and I suspect it's not even the major contributing factor.
Look at where the money is. Young people only have credit card debt and student loans - the current "old farts" have the disposable income. And we're not buying "youf music" because we don't like it.
Has anyone correlated the "boomer bulge" against record sales? I'm not aware of it but it might make an interesting academic piece (lookin' at you, Sacha :-)
Around 7 years ago, I turned 40, and I'm reckoned to be about the last year or so of the boomer generation. I've bought sod all produced in the last 10 years, focussing on filling gaps in existing stuff, and older generational stuff like early jazz, ragtime and the like. I honestly couldn't give a crap about the Kurt Cobains and other grunge stuff.
And the inanity that is music radio these days just turns me right off. Where once, the Beatles or ABBA might have reached a wide audience through the few stations that existed, radio these days is balkanized into little niches, so it's more difficult than ever to get that wide appeal going.
Really, there's lots of reasons for the music industry's decline. Look past piracy and really analyze where your business is going.
Of course, but certain sorts of records need to be made in a studio, otherwise they likely suffer badly (and the odd exception doesn't break that trusim).
Wouldn't argue there
But there are probaly more NZ records being made now that ever before and that's a fact too.
That's my feeling too, so I really struggle to understand Tizard's logic.
-
it'll make a difference to me. for a start we won't have to use the concept of 'the crown' which just feels plain weird (shiver) in this day and age of independence. That whole "cos we allow you to" argument can fuck right off and we can get down to "cos this is fair and right"
Completely off-topic but it won't make a blind bit of difference. It's still the State that "allows" you to do stuff, whether it's topped with a crown or "Hail to the Chief".
-
The downturn in music sales is easily accessed data. The jobs lost are a fact. I personally know quite a few. But exactly why is another thing. Does piracy play a big part...only a food would deny that but there is more to the picture.
I don't deny that there is a downturn in mainstream music sales. I don't deny that there is piracy. I do have trouble with the music industry's automatic assumption that the former is solely caused by the latter. And I'm not a food, despite what some may think ;-)
Personally, I think it has as much to do with some crap formulaic content, brutish enforcement behaviour, reduced disposable income (cost of living has been rising for over a decade) and a economy that has been out of whack globally for some time.
George Ziemann has some interesting stats and discussion. Wharton Professor Peter Fader has an equally interesting analysis of the Napster phenomenon, charging that sales were actually better while Napster was running. It's fair to say that there's as many analysts who disagree with the music industry's position as there are those who agree.
I agree that jobs are disappearing and it seems a little callous to say "that's life, get over it" but it's true. The revolution isn't about "free content"; it's about abundance and control moving from the supply side to the demand side, and this is thanks to digital technology.
Judith Tizard cites reduced demand for services at York Studio as evidence of piracy damaging the industry, but is it really? Is it not more that artistes have an increasing range of technology available to them in their homes and less cash to lay in front of a production team? Granted, they're missing out on a lot when they DIY in terms of expertise and experience - a good editor can protect a creator from their own excesses - but that's their choice and they can only learn from each experience (we hope).
The nature of the music business has changed, and the industry has not caught up. That's what I mean when I talk about failed business models.
That link is a little irrelevant though to this discussion at least. The story relates to piracy in general
Not confined to music, true, but relevant all the same, as the music industry continues to cite these bogus figures. Not comprehensively relevant to s92A, I agree, but hugely relevant to it's big brother, ACTA, which appears to be peeking round the corner.
-
Is this an argument that people use in relation to software/dvd piracy? That people wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't have gotten it for free?
I've seen it a fair bit in relation to music, does it get play in other similar fields?
The opposite is used as a basis for estimating the impact in the software industry, and the arguments from the MPAA are pretty much the same as the RIAA. And, as I said to Simon above (but forgot to link to) the figures are not reliable.
I know a few people who have downloaded copies of photoshop ($12-1600NZ) and the like who would never go near it if it had to be paid for. Once, I used a copy of Photoshop that was paid for, but not by me. Now I use the GIMP on the Mac and PaintshopPro on windows, when I must (and is paid for) and don't miss Photoshop at all.
When I'm looking for new software, I lok first in the open source area, then the shareware and finally, if I can't find anything else, at commercial software. Partly because I'm cheap and much software is way overpriced, but more and more because open source is so good these days, with hundreds of developers working to improve and extend it in order to meet their own needs and then sharing it with others.
-
Mark, are you talking NZ or internationally? If the latter, the evidence is not hard to find, although I'd add the provisos that a) I think the losses are grossly overstated by the recording industry, partially because of b) the tumble in sales cannot soley be attributed to piracy or downloading, there being a number of factors not least of which is the way the recording industry has alienated the consumer on so many levels
I am talking about both. The figures from overseas come from god knows where and are not reputable. I have yet to see any artists post figures showing how much piracy has cost them. Even Metallica's tirade back in the day lacked actual numbers.
If talking the former the losses are harder to quantify if only for the simple fact that most NZ music is fairly hard to find online to steal even if you wanted to.
Then why did the industry feel the need to persuade Tizard that s92a was necessary?
If you have a computer it's much easier now to buy much NZ music than it was historically to buy the physical form for many New Zealanders.
Well, that's pretty much my point, Simon. The current copyright regime has allowed new business models to emerge that provide greater access for creators and consumers. Why, then, did it have to be "fixed"?
-
I can understand why people (artists) may feel that they are getting the short end of the stick.
I'm seeing figures posted by the 'industry' but I'm not seeing artists putting their hands up and saying "we're losing money to piracy' with evidence to back it up.
Anyone got any?
-
jon_knox
Wikipedia actually discusses it quite well. But for a "guy who was there" view, check out Larry Lessig's perspective at http://www.dig-mar.com/Commentaries/lessicCC.htmPerhaps because CC started from a legal perspective, looking at how the Internet affected a point of law that was established and not being questioned, there was less of the backwards and forwards that has characterized this thread. It was started by people who felt that the law didn't adequately account for a medium where copying is how it works. And decided that more and stricter legislation wasn't going to help. Instead, they tried to build something that reflected the Internet way of doing things, which has generally been characterized by sharing information, software and communication.
This, I submit, is foreign to the legal mindset that underlies traditional commerce. From my perspective, commerce is about managing supply and demand to create value. An essential part of the equation is managed scarcity, as a glut on the market drives price down and, therefore, reduces value. And the Internet, by its nature reduces scarcity.
Lessig puts it like this:
If copyright regulates "copies," then while a tiny portion of the uses of culture off the net involves making "copies," every use of culture on the net begins by making a copy. In the physical world, if you read a book, that's an act unregulated by the law of copyright, because in the physical world, reading a book doesn't make a copy. On the Internet, the same act triggers the law of copyright, because to read a book in a digital world is always to make a "copy." Thus, as the world moves online, many of the freedoms (in the sense of life left unregulated by the law of copyright) disappear. Every use of copyrighted content at least presumptively triggers a requirement of permission. The failure to secure permission places a cloud of uncertainty over the legality of the use.
Creative Commons thus relies on copyright law for its function of establishing right of control over a work, and then allows specific use and re-use permissions as the default, without the audience having to seek them in each and every instance.
Does that help?
-
Simon
Maybe it's terminology we're having a problem with. What is it that you mean when you say "the master"? Is it a physical spool of tape? Or something similar?