- 02-01-2007, 02:56 AM #26
- 02-01-2007, 07:11 AM #27
- 02-01-2007, 08:21 AM #28
* It bugs me that up until very recently, the entire history of recorded music was focused on improving sound quality, getting closer and closer to "live" music. But since the advent of digital music players (both portable and computer programs), the focus has been on making the files smaller, while "trying to minimize" the impact on sound quality. Dammit, with 80 GB in an iPod, and 500 GB hard disks becoming affordable, I want the option to download completely uncompressed music files which at least equal the sound of CDs.
- 02-01-2007, 08:44 AM #29
Nettwerk, the label of people like Bare Naked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavinge and Delirium will sell you lossless FLAC files for cheaper than the price of the CD online to download.
I really don't know why these sites do not get publicized even more. People complain so much about DRM, but I don't think we reward enough the ones who do not practice it, saying e.g. Itunes suck, but Nettwerk is cool, and you should try and buy there before you go to Itunes (like I just did )
- 02-01-2007, 05:35 PM #30
I am in the music industry, and still plenty of my friends do it. I know a few people who have iPods that will "borrow" CDs from people whenever they find one that they don't have, so that they can upload it to their iPod. That is illegal. And while such violations will never be widely prosecuted since they cannot be monitored, there will continue to be a push towards ways of preventing this through the digital encoding process.
If you have any ideas as to how the record companies can prevent such theft and make sure that only the person who paid for the music can make copies, then I'm sure they will be glad to hear.
- 02-01-2007, 06:49 PM #31
Not to mention those millions of thieves who recorded music from the Radio. Thats clearly illegal, and simply taking the food from the mouth of the babies of our musicians. Not.
The most successful music outfit next to Itunes in Europe was allofmp3.com. They sold un-drm'd mp3' or even flac's at very cheap prices, and captured a huge part of the market. Maybe the music industry should be using their lobbies to remove the barriers to digital distribution, instead of using it to create new laws. Instead of lobbying Russia to create new restrictive laws, why not smooth out the worldwide licensing nightmare which means i cant legally buy music from Yahoo USA while in Europe?
Despite what you imagine, what you are facing is nothing new. How about learning from history on this occasion.
BTW, there is nothing obvious about your assertion.
Ask yourself this simple little question - Is there anything stopping me from uploading the content of my CD to the web. Not really, is there. Yet you are still releasing your music on CD. If you sell me an mp3 directly, you are only increasing my convenience, and not protecting your music ANY LESS.
Is cutting out the ripping step (which everyone with Ipods do) really that big a deal?
- 02-01-2007, 09:21 PM #32
- 02-01-2007, 11:54 PM #33
Of course there has always been theft, but convenience means everything. If it is convenient to steal, more people will do it. The goal here is to make it inconvenient. And yes, having to rip the CD is an inconvenience.
As I said before, music sales steadily increased until several years ago, and since then they have steadily decreased. Care to explain why this sudden change? Is listening to music becomming less popular in the last few years? I don't think so.
And as far as certain companies making it easier while others do not, I could care less about who does what. Whether one music store sells more or the other does, it makes no difference in my bottom line. If you buy a CD from a store, download the song from one online store, or from a different online store, I still make the same 9.1 cents for that song. I don't care who you buy it from, or in what format. My royalty is the same.
What I care about is that the total volume of the market is on the decline, and that means less total revenue. And this is because some people who would normally buy the music, are instead now copying the music from someone else who purchased it. And the only way to make this lost revenue up, is for publishers to receive more money for each sale. Is it not my right to say what I will charge for my own music?
- 02-02-2007, 01:34 AM #34
Re drop in music sales, there have been a variety of reasons postulated, including completing CD collections, a la carte models vs having to buy the whole CD, competition from other media such as DVDs and games, economic issues after 'the long boom' not being so long after all, and media shift itself. The sales of tapes is down, yet this is not a sign of the crash of the music market.
When CD's came along they were enthusiastically embraced by the music industry. The same is not happening with the current digital media, which is hampering the take of of the area. At the same time Itunes is apparently growing very very well.
The more restrictions you place on people BUYING your music, the less people will buy it, and the more will circumvent it. Recently a large label said they would stop trying to DRM CD's because nearly 70% of people were just ripping the CD's for use with their Ipod, and these people were complaining like mad because they were making it difficult to do (e.g. by introducing errors on the CD). Another executive said they did not believe there would be any DRM in 5 years time.
Record companies have stopped protecting audio CD's with DRM, which makes copying music a lot easier.
In 2002 Bretelsmann (record companies BMG, Arista and RCA) were the first to use DRM. Initially this was done on CD's that were sent out as promotion to music stores, radio stations and music reporters.
Later on all CD's from those companies were DRM'ed so people could not play the CD's on their computer anymore.
Computers running Windows even crashed when people attempted to play such CD's. The objective was that people could not easily copy CD's at home to sell to friends or distribute through the internet.
Other record companies also started using DRM but over time, one after the other stopped DRM'ing their CD's, according to NVPI, the Dutch branche organisation for the music industry.
On her website the organisation reports that EMI is the last publisher to abolish DRM. "The costs of DRM do not measure up to the results".
The DRM software has to be renewed constantly to fight cracking. In addition it didn't work very well.
Protected CD's could sometimes not be played on devices that were supposed to play them, such as some car CD players.
There was more criticism on the security. In 2005 Sony BMG had to recall millions of CD's due to it's DRM technology. When people would try to play it's protected CD's on their computers, it would install software without notification or confirmation.
Virus writers used Sony's DRM technology weak spots and could even open up back doors into a user's computer, giving full access to hackers.
Another complaint came from consumer rights organisations. They complained that people could not copy CD's for their own private use while that is legally allowed [in The Netherlands].
By abolishing DRM it has become easier to publish mp3's on the internet. Yet, Brein [Dutch RIAA] does not worry about an increase in illegal mp3 distribution.
According to Tim Kuijk from Brein DRM had no effect at all on the ammount of mp3's published on the internet. "Uploading and downloading of mp3's is here to stay, unless DRM technology is improved".
"Honest people will always be honest people and DRM doesn't stop people who have ill intentions anyway".
Your problems with the music industry is obviously separate from this issue (mandatory licensing) but you are trying to squeeze the wrong people. How about lobbying the government to change these restrictive laws?
- 02-02-2007, 04:20 AM #35
Sorry.. i "steal" for several reasons
1. got tired of buying albums that only had 2 good songs on it and wasting money that could be put to better use
2. no itunes-like internet service in the 3rd world until recently (and file sharing was years ahead of that)
3. once you start it becomes a habit - why buy something when I can borrow it for free (net or in person from friends) and then listen myself? I usually buy an album once I deem it's quality but not before unless I REALLY like that artist
4. DRM p*sses me off..I buy it but can't use it to its fullest? No thanks
I feel for the artists (well the SMALL ones that is) but when see those CEOs i know there's still a lot of money being made that just doesn't trickle down...same in any business.
EDIT: tbh I always bought music (tapes CDs) until i realised what a schmuck i was being played for by record artists...even in the states it's easier as stores do allow listening b4 purchasing..that is still not a practice in many developing countries so it's a lotto at times. If the industry had just accepted piracy as a necessary evil and not actively tried to curtail the purchaser's rights less ppl would pirate things...
but as it is now I'd rather go dload a 256 KBps mp3 of a song for FREE than pay $0.99 cents for of lesser quality which i still would have to dload and not be able to share it with others or move it from PC to PC, etc.
- 02-02-2007, 04:57 AM #36
How about this article.
DRM blamed for music's seven-year slump 10:30AM
With global music sales down for a seventh straight year, the talk at an annual industry meeting in Cannes, France, has become heated over how to develop digital sales against competition from the dreaded F word - free.
Global sales are expected to be down again for 2006 despite digital sales almost doubling to $2 billion and the popularity of music being as strong as ever.
Critics of the major players in the industry argue that they have been distracted by the fight against piracy and in doing so, hindered the growth of the legal business. In response, the accused argue that they had little choice.
"Many people around the world tell me that we've handled our problems in an incorrect manner but no one tells me what we should have done," said John Kennedy, the head of the industry's trade body IFPI. "Free is just impossible to compete with".
Much of the debate at the gathering on the French coast has centered around the concept of digital rights management (DRM), which can restrict the use of music bought online and was introduced in a bid to contain piracy. Its supporters say DRM also offers alternative methods such as subscription or advertising-supported services as the music cannot then be offered onto peer-to-peer networks.
But one result of DRM is that tracks bought legally from websites such as Rhapsody cannot be used on the market-leading iPod as they are not compatible, potentially restricting the growth of legal sales.
"DRM is like polonium to some people," Kennedy said. "Digital rights management is exactly that, it's the management of digital rights and if we weren't managing it the headlines would be 'irresponsible music industry ... creates anarchy.'"
Industry in turmoil
But not everyone agrees. David Pakman is chief executive of eMusic, the second biggest service after iTunes in the US market, and an ardent critic of DRM.
His service is the only one on a large scale delivering tracks in the MP3 format, meaning they can be played on any portable music player, including the iPod.
That stance however has resulted in none of the four major labels, who are responsible for around two thirds of the world's music, supplying to the service. "It's the same model that was used for the CD and DVD, universal compatibility, and we think it's the principal thing holding back the growth of digital today," he said.
Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired magazine, argues that some form of piracy should simply be accepted. "You cannot have zero piracy and if you try to get to zero piracy you will make the experience of consuming music so painful you'll have zero industry."
Among the many music executives discussing the alternatives at Cannes was Terry McBride, the chief executive of Canada's Nettwerk Music Group which manages such acts as Avril Lavigne.
Among McBride's many ideas was the plan to tap into the peer-to-peer market where fans could recommend a track, and receive a small percentage of the sales if the track was purchased. "We are now entering the era where the socialisation of the internet is happening," he said. "Why not truly harness the power of peer to peer?"
But despite the many issues created by digital, the industry is united and excited by its potential. Barney Wragg, the head of digital for EMI Music, said that digital was revolutionising the way they work. "I was just talking to [British singer] Joss Stone who is very excited about the opportunities this offers," he said. "We're not constrained to the plastic CD box any more. It offers the possibility to do things that could never be done before."
Warner is also looking at new ways to develop. "As an industry we really need to innovate, and bring new products and services to the market," head of digital strategy Alex Zubillaga told reporters in London last week.
"We at Warner have put out a series of premium products and... we immediately doubled the amount of digital albums that we were selling by just attaching a video, attaching some special lyrics or a photo gallery.
"We weren't selling twice as many by selling them for less. We were selling twice as many by selling them for significantly more money."
Or simply try this google news search for a look at the way the world is moving. The search terms are simply mp3 drm cd
- 02-02-2007, 10:39 AM #37
I'm not sure how knowledgable you are about the music industry in general, but the United States is very unique compared to other countries.
In just about all other industrialized countries, there is a government mandated mechanical socity and performance society (in some countries, the same socity handles both). These socities then set the rates for all licensing whether it be mechanical, syncronization, or performance rights.
In the United States, for performance licensing we have 2 societies, BMI and ASCAP (actually three if you count SEASAC, but they are very tiny).
With regard to mechanical and syncronization, most publishers do the licensing themselves, although there is the privately run Harry Fox Agency which does serve as a non-exclusive society and represents most publishers non-exclusively (meaning you can either deal with them or license direct fom the publisher). The Harry Fox Agency handles mechanical licensing only.
While the government does set mechanical rates as discussed above, the government does not set any other rates. Performance rates are determined independently by the performance societies and are based on how much money they are able to negotiate from the broadcasters. Syncronization rights are set by the individual publisher and are usually negotiated. Yet for some odd reason, we are not allowed to do this for mechanical rights.
I would be the last person to object to a standardized system as is used in most European countries, but here it is the most unorganizaed mess there ever was. If the publishers are expected to do their own licensing, then they should be able to set their own rates. If the government wants to set the rates, then they should handle the licensing as well. This is how it is done in other countries. And it is no surprise that songwriters and publishers in other countries do much better than their counterparts in the United States, considering the size of our market compared to theirs.
- 02-02-2007, 10:43 AM #38
- 02-02-2007, 12:58 PM #39
I support the artists (including the song writers) getting compensated, and I hope a way if found to circumvent the middle-men who seem to be sucking up the bulk of the fees for music. The internet can be helpful here, vs being the enemy.
- 02-02-2007, 05:13 PM #40
- 02-09-2007, 04:09 AM #41
Yes, DRM has to go. Get something like Quick Time fair use program at least allows you to strip DRM, but it may not be legal. But then again, it may be. I hate defending the record companies, but they have to pay for all the bands that fail -- that's millions of dollars in producing, advertising, and overhead that the sucessful acthave to subsidize. Many performers see the most money early on from touring, not their royalties. That said, the record companies certainly force new performers into draconian contracts.
- 02-09-2007, 04:47 AM #42
- 02-09-2007, 06:15 AM #43
- 02-09-2007, 06:34 AM #44
It's hard to ignore the fact that the decline has coincided with the switch from a medium that (mostly) has unrestricted copying (CD) to one that makes copying much more difficult (DRMed AAC, MP3s, WMA). I'm not saying that I know that this is the reason for the sales decline, but it is at least a plausible explanation. Since you seem certain that you know the cause of the decline, perhaps you could explain how you know that the limitation on copying isn't a factor in reduced sales.
- 02-09-2007, 06:44 AM #45
- 03-23-2007, 02:00 AM #47