Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It only takes one person to put a copy on the net, tho. You don't seems to get that it's a double problem:
that's a good point and of course I do get it robbie, I'm just arguing the negative (or positive depending on how you look at it) cos most people are stuck on the hype and cliche.
-
So the fact that they've been able to use the network to connect directly with their audience is a bad thing?
who said that?
I'm saying its not quite the success story they'd like to paint it as.
a lot of people didn't get to pay their rent because of the short fall in gross. From CD manufactures in korea, to freight deliver people to shop owners (thieving bastards all of them) to newspapers carrying CD store ads to etc etc.
Radiohead made their slice of the pie and good on them, but less money was spent on the luxury of music, in this 'success' story.I don't know how much you know bout creating a wealthy community but basically wealth is created by people buying shit, paying money for it and those people turn round and pay that money for something else and so on till it comes back to you and you spend it again. if less money is being spent then the community as a whole becomes poorer.
This applies to all industries that get downsized, and thats a good and bad thing depending on where you stand I guess.
I'm just saying the results of the radiohead experiment in my eyes were not glowing praise for the music consuming public.
I'd be embarrassed on behalf of them if I hadn't bought my copy from a thai market for $2. (just kidding, I got it in korea) -
I think if you put out a music player, and I couldn't take CDs I currently own, and put them on it, you'd struggle to sell many units.
sorry, maybe I didn't make the idea clear. I don't think the media player is the selling point. I think you release media only playable on the media player. if you're into my chemical romance and you want the next album, its only available via the new system,
maybe the player is free, has free wireless internet connection inbuilt for downloading tracks, has your user id code all inbuilt. I'm only hypothesizing for those (I'm looking at you finn) who can't envisage a world different from the one we are in right now.
I'm not saying it will work, but it could, if the pressure on the music makers was so bad they had no choice -
I suspect in the world of 'trying to get money for selling music' then this is absolutely the comparison that you have to make, because it's your competition.
you're not factoring the illegality part of it enough. its illegal and currently they're nt pushing policing it much, but they've shown they can.
you can easily shop lift a bar of chocolate, a bit harder now with security cameras and with store owners being wise to it with the general decline in honesty in youth etc (not like it was when milk was 4 cents a pint blah blah blah).
you're not saying that shoplifting is competition for marketing chocolate are you? I get your point but when designing music media delivery its not really a competitive factor cos its illegal,
I get your point but I think you allow it too much strength in the argument. but noted. -
original story on radiohead about the comscore article
radiohead have disputed this but I haven't seem them put forward their freeloader figures.
-
why does a computer have to be your media platform too.
Because the computer connects to the internet and the internet is where everyone's getting their music from.
Which is why if I was a smart media player designer charged with the task of making non piracy players I'd move as far away from computer interactivity as possible and to a stand alone player. (luckily for piracy inc I'm not a media player designer)
-
I think the point is, technology hasn't been able to prevent the copying of legal music to illegal copies for a long time. Or movies etc.
not true, it just hasn't been prepared to take the steps to implement it.
They could do a lot of things that would stem piracy, but they seem to be exhausting all other non abrasive methods first and really they've
been to busy chasing their tails over their PR problems to make many move to stem piracy, but they seem to be getting over that of late (see oscar screener disc steps, extreme law cases, french Internet providers etc) -
You didn't run that software that redirected the computer from looking for the CD to looking in a folder on your hard drive for it? I thought everyone did that.
nope, it was an example of key disc technology, they've got better and worse at this shit now. at the time I didn't bother with redirects etc, it was above my knowledge level back in 95, and that's what it takes to make a big cut in piracy. make it a little bit difficult and you hit 75 % of people. Sure 25% will get round it (figures made up, but you get the idea) but most are not that savvy, and that will be enough of a step up from no obstacle what ever which is where we are if people push this no drm thing. most computer literate people like we all should be will find ways to do our stealing, the rest will comply with the system.
-
At this point, they've done far, far better from this record than any other album they've released.
true, they've personally done better cutting out all middle men etc, but the project as a whole has grossed far less,
its also imporant to note that radiohead are in a far better position than most bands in that they have the money to record their own music to a high level, and set up the infra structure to do what they did. it may be a small cost to them but to most low level bands its out of their reach, -
Actually, 45% of the people who downloaded In Rainbows , or 1.2 million people, paid an average US$6 each.
hmm, who to believe ......
In addition to confirming the physical release, the band's statement also dismissed the results of a recent report issued by comScore, a company that measures online consumer activity. The comScore report suggested that 60 percent of fans who downloaded In Rainbows — which the band offered as a "name-your-own-price" product beginning October 10 — paid nothing for the tracks.
I notice the band don't give the figure for how many did download it for nothing. not that they'd have anything to gain from mis reporting the success of their human nature experiment in relation to their music, would they?
so why would comscore get their figures wrong seeing as its their job to report these things.I read the intital report which is where I got my figures from.