Isp's to Target illegal downloading

weegie.geek

normanmark wrote: »

Coming from someone who works in the music industry i wouldn't read too much into those artists who release their 'tracks' for free via their websites. It'll never work as a business model just purely because they have such a huge fan base in order to make free stunt releases successful.[

Saul Williams has a large fanbase? Most people have never heard of the guy.

I'm not sure I follow your logic though. You say it'll never work as a business model, but what part of a band getting to keep more of the profits is bad for them? Sounds like a good business model to me. Radiohead made more from online sales of In Rainbows than from online sales of their entire back catalogue before it. They own it completely, and can do what they want with it. They're not forced into tacky best of complilations or anything else.

I know several smaller bands who're doing pretty well from online sales as well, so it's not just a case of the big bands with massive fanbases doing it.

There's a donation based record label called Quote Unquote records. They're not a big label, and neither are their artists, but it's the start of a movement. Download the album. Like it? Donate what you think it's worth. They still sell vinyl and CDs if you want solid copies, but

We're not talking about just the odd track here and there, we're talking full length and good quality albums. Not offcuts and rejects. Saul Williams's Niggy Tardust album in particular is fantastic. Bomb The Music Industry's "To Leave Or Die In Long Island" as well, it's pretty good, rivalling the output from any of the "mainstream" ska-punk bands like Less Than Jake, bands who're pretty successful.

However applauded i don't think they should, they're not doing anything new because they want to, they're just doing it because it makes them different. Nothing more.

Which is what I'd expect someone with a vested interest in artists NOT making their stuff available for free to say.

The record label's days are numbered. The time will come when it'll only be manufactured overhyped rubbish that makes it onto major labels IMO. The stuff that needs the money behind it to make it successful.

It's pretty easy to make good quality recordings for very little money, and distribution and marketing, which was always the drawback, are easy and more or less free.

As for the ISP's cracking down, it was only a matter of time. Any argument people put forward as to why file sharing of copyrighted material is ok doesn't carry any substance unfortunately. Long overdue imo.

I mostly disagree with piracy as well, but you sound like you think the announcement was more than just a publicity stunt to scare people. Fact of the matter is the ISPs can't stop it. They physically can't. Not without impacting perfectly legal stuff too, which their customers would never let them away with.

normanmark

weegie.geek wrote: »

Saul Williams has a large fanbase? Most people have never heard of the guy.

I'm not sure I follow your logic though. You say it'll never work as a business model, but what part of a band getting to keep more of the profits is bad for them? Sounds like a good business model to me. Radiohead made more from online sales of In Rainbows than from online sales of their entire back catalogue before it. They own it completely, and can do what they want with it. They're not forced into tacky best of complilations or anything else.

For a future business model offering music for simply free just won't sustain for artists who are looking to push themselves to the big stage. Radiohead did those sales simply on their reputation alone.

Whilst you criticise the 'best of' compilations they're one of the biggest earners for artists these days. Whether you think the content is worthy or not is besides the point, labels are business' and are there to make money like any other business.

weegie.geek wrote: »

I know several smaller bands who're doing pretty well from online sales as well, so it's not just a case of the big bands with massive fanbases doing it.

Online sales have little or no margin of profit. The only people who make money from online sales is the distributors who own the online stores. Artists make around 25% tops of whatever track is sold. So lets say your smaller band makes 1000 sales, they're only looking at £250 for a release. Say they release 3 tracks a year & then divide between 4 band members. I'm looking at this as a business model, not on the artistic merits which i'm sure we'd all love to look at. Simply as a business model its extremely difficult to offer the music for free & still expect a living wage to do it as a full time career. Whilst most of the people who quite freely expect music to be free, will expect the artist not to be rewarded for the work they put in. Whilst they're doing well in their books, on a wider scale they're not making any head way.

weegie.geek wrote: »

There's a donation based record label called Quote Unquote records. They're not a big label, and neither are their artists, but it's the start of a movement. Download the album. Like it? Donate what you think it's worth. They still sell vinyl and CDs if you want solid copies, but

We're not talking about just the odd track here and there, we're talking full length and good quality albums. Not offcuts and rejects. Saul Williams's Niggy Tardust album in particular is fantastic. Bomb The Music Industry's "To Leave Or Die In Long Island" as well, it's pretty good, rivalling the output from any of the "mainstream" ska-punk bands like Less Than Jake, bands who're pretty successful.

Thats great, like i said, I'm not majorly looking at the content of the music, i'm purely looking at this from a business aspect. Something that you're failing to understand from my point.

weegie.geek wrote: »

Which is what I'd expect someone with a vested interest in artists NOT making their stuff available for free to say.

The record label's days are numbered. The time will come when it'll only be manufactured overhyped rubbish that makes it onto major labels IMO. The stuff that needs the money behind it to make it successful.

It's pretty easy to make good quality recordings for very little money, and distribution and marketing, which was always the drawback, are easy and more or less free.

Sorry but your view of label days outnumbered is nothing more than tosh. We dealt with that view nearly 4 years ago when people were saying record labels were now defunct. Record labels will be around for many years to come, the promotion that these labels provider is what drives artists to move from the the 'independent' stage to start making more money for themselves. Distribution & marketing is the most important stages of the sale, however classing it as easy or free just reeks of nievety from someone whose not even done the job. The tools are there, yes, but to suggest its easy is an insult to those who work on those areas. Yes you're entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately you're only seeing it from the technological view.

weegie.geek wrote: »

I mostly disagree with piracy as well, but you sound like you think the announcement was more than just a publicity stunt to scare people. Fact of the matter is the ISPs can't stop it. They physically can't. Not without impacting perfectly legal stuff too, which their customers would never let them away with.

Well they do it already for looking out for paedophiles on the net, to say its a huge task to simply apply this to people who are doing more of their fair share of getting illegal material wouldn't be too hard to get away with. With regards to privacy etc, i honestly think it won't be too long before T&C's reflect the right for ISP's to monitor at least some traffic (not in a way that the phorm idea is suggesting). At the end of the day they're offering the service & the consumer needs to abide by it, or look to seek service with someone else.

weegie.geek

normanmark wrote: »

For a future business model offering music for simply free just won't sustain for artists who are looking to push themselves to the big stage. Radiohead did those sales simply on their reputation alone.

Like I said, the music that needs money behind it to be successful will still need record labels. Even if record labels don't die completely I can imagine a time when bands sign to labels to jump start their careers, then go it alone once they're a little better known, after an album or two.

Whilst you criticise the 'best of' compilations they're one of the biggest earners for artists these days. Whether you think the content is worthy or not is besides the point, labels are business' and are there to make money like any other business.

Absolutely it's a business thing but it all just seems pretty cynical to me, especially when a best of is released at the end of a band's contract with a particular label, or when there are a half dozen different "best of" albums for an artist.

I don't blame the labels for doing it, it's just greed and greed's what will bring them to their knees.

They have to adapt, and at least the film industry is starting to, with R5. Piracy was rife in russia/africa/india because people couldn't afford to buy the films, so they sell lower quality versions (but still much better quality than the pirated ones) earlier there for less money. Simple way to reduce piracy.

I'm not sure what the music equivalent would be. Maybe free (or very cheap) lower than CD quality songs, and cd quality (or better) to buy?

Online sales have little or no margin of profit. The only people who make money from online sales is the distributors who own the online stores. Artists make around 25% tops of whatever track is sold. So lets say your smaller band makes 1000 sales, they're only looking at £250 for a release. Say they release 3 tracks a year & then divide between 4 band members. I'm looking at this as a business model, not on the artistic merits which i'm sure we'd all love to look at. Simply as a business model its extremely difficult to offer the music for free & still expect a living wage to do it as a full time career. Whilst most of the people who quite freely expect music to be free, will expect the artist not to be rewarded for the work they put in. Whilst they're doing well in their books, on a wider scale they're not making any head way.

25% of revenue is better than a label would offer though, no? I know there's value in a label's marketing abilities etc, but not all music needs marketed. Not all music suits being marketed. Not all artists want to be a product.

They can also write something, record it and have it available to fans minutes after it's mixed.

Thats great, like i said, I'm not majorly looking at the content of the music, i'm purely looking at this from a business aspect. Something that you're failing to understand from my point

Sorry but your view of label days outnumbered is nothing more than tosh. We dealt with that view nearly 4 years ago when people were saying record labels were now defunct. Record labels will be around for many years to come, the promotion that these labels provider is what drives artists to move from the the 'independent' stage to start making more money for themselves. Distribution & marketing is the most important stages of the sale, however classing it as easy or free just reeks of nievety from someone whose not even done the job. The tools are there, yes, but to suggest its easy is an insult to those who work on those areas. Yes you're entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately you're only seeing it from the technological view.

If a track is up for download, the up-front distribution costs are zero, or incredibly close to it.

There are a lot of bands who do well with little or no marketing. Hell, there are whole genres that receive almost no marketing. None of the artists are millionaires, but they make a living doing what they want to do.

It can be done, and it's getting easier and cheaper.

Well they do it already for looking out for paedophiles on the net, to say its a huge task to simply apply this to people who are doing more of their fair share of getting illegal material wouldn't be too hard to get away with. With regards to privacy etc, i honestly think it won't be too long before T&C's reflect the right for ISP's to monitor at least some traffic (not in a way that the phorm idea is suggesting). At the end of the day they're offering the service & the consumer needs to abide by it, or look to seek service with someone else.

You're not equating paedos with pirates are you? I hope not.

Busting paedophile rings online is a massive operation involving the co-operation of many different countries' police forces. Millions are spent busting rings of dozens of people.

It's money very well spent, and it involves infiltrating very tight and paranoid circles of people.

Now make those dozens thousands, or hundreds of thousands. Per torrent site. Of which there are thousands.

Torrent sites you can start with the littlest of effort in literally a few hours.

I'd like to think taxpayer's money isn't being spent on that. There are far larger problems in society than an album leaking several months before retail and being downloaded a million times. It's something that should be addressed for sure, but it's not the goverment's responsibility and it's not the ISP's responsibility. The film and movie industry would also be treated with far less contempt if they weren't completely abhorrent organisations.

Every effort should be made to bust torrent sites, especially ones who make a profit by accepting donations. That's where the record/film industry should be concentrating their efforts, not sending legal notices to individuals, and not hassling ISPs over pointless "monitoring".

Like I said, the ISPs are powerless to stop it. They can monitor all the encrypted traffic they like, but without the keys to decrypt it they're wasting time and money.

The solution isn't to make the average person stop piracy by threatening them with legal action. That'll just make most people pirate smarter, with encryption, tighter-knit circles and the like.

The solution is to make piracy an unattractive option.

BritBrat

I think bans will make their money from gigs not records in the future.

Getting themselfs out there buy giving the sounds away and accepting dontations will get them known at very little cost.

Stephenbw

piggeh wrote: »

TBH if they didnt rip the UK public off so much in the first place I doubt so many people would fileshare

I never understand this rip off argument.

Recorded music is cheaper to buy now than it's ever been.

I have vinyl albums from the 70s that cost more then than CDs do now; and that is ignoring inflation over the last 30 years!

In the mid 80s CDs cost £12, which is £30 in today's money, but what do they actually cost now? £8.98 on Amazon.

Comparing costs of CDs in the UK with those in the USA, as many do, is spurious, unless you also compare incomes and other living costs.

del1001

Stephenbw wrote: »

Comparing costs of CDs in the UK with those in the USA, as many do, is spurious, unless you also compare incomes and other living costs.

I don't quite understand where you're going saying that, CD's & DVD's are cheaper in the USA, and generally they are better off than us regards cost of living and earning's.

Stephenbw

del1001 wrote: »

I don't quite understand where you're going saying that, CD's & DVD's are cheaper in the USA, and generally they are better off than us regards cost of living and earning's.

What I'm saying is that it is comparing the price of particular items, in this case CDs and DVDs, doesn't make any sense.

This is how long you have to work to buy certain items:

. . . . . . USA . . . . . . . . . . UK

Car = 1459 hours . . . . . . 956 hours

Fridge = 29 hours . . . . . . 45 hours

Bread = 14 minutes . . . . . 4 minutes

Chicken = 12 minutes. . . . . 24 minutes

Milk = 3 minutes . . . . . . 3 minutes

Fish = 58 minutes . . . . . 55 minutes


As you can see it is 'cheaper' to buy a car, bread and fish in the UK, and cheaper to buy a fridge, and a chicken in the USA. Milk is the same 'price'.

As for USA vs UK earnings

Median weekly earnings of the nation’s 107.1 million full-time wage and salary workers were $719 in the second quarter of 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

The results of the 2007 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) show that median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK grew by 2.9 per cent in the year to April 2007 to reach £457.

So that's USA $719 per week and UK $909 per week.

Oh, and of course we don't have to pay for healthcare and have a much better welfare system. But then of course they have cheaper fuel.

Do you see what I mean? Just because some items are cheaper in the USA, or anywhere else, it doesn't mean that they should be the equivalent price in the UK.

del1001

Stephenbw wrote: »

Do you see what I mean?

no, not really, as Benjamin Disraeli once said "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I appreciate you going to such much trouble compiling your reply, but it would have to be a lot more in depth in order to resemble anything meaningful, everything would have to be totally like for like, and just for example, we all know that an American fridge is far larger than a UK fridge.

C_Ronaldo

del1001 wrote: »

no, not really, as Benjamin Disraeli once said "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I appreciate you going to such much trouble compiling your reply, but it would have to be a lot more in depth in order to resemble anything meaningful, everything would have to be totally like for like, and just for example, we all know that an American fridge is far larger than a UK fridge.

and why is the US fridge large ? because the americans want to store alot of food which clogs up they're arteries

tank1234

Can someone please tell me if something like btguard would work .bt guard is a proxy service that reroutes your BitTorrent downloads thru our servers in canada, does anyone know anything about this company and any info that would help ?