What are your questions on downloading & copying music legally?

sugarcoma101

adouglasmhor wrote: »

See my post above and apologise for going off half cocked please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8003799.stm

Big_Catastrophe

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

That isn't feasible. Everyone involved in producing that music will not cover their own costs with that margin, especially the artist.

Sugarcoma101, Economies of scale come into play, and you may not be taking that into account (see my earlier post). By reducing the price, you increase sales and there comes a hot spot of price verses sales. I don't think the current price is a hot spot, I think a notably reduced price would be. In fact I believe that by experimenting with price reduction you could both increase revenue and reduce piracy.

Thoughts?

sugarcoma101

Big_Catastrophe wrote: »

Sugarcoma101, Economies of scale come into play, and you may not be taking that into account (see my earlier post). By reducing the price, you increase sales and there comes a hot spot of price verses sales. I don't think the current price is a hot spot, I think a notably reduced price would be. In fact I believe that by experimenting with price reduction you could both increase revenue and reduce piracy.

Thoughts?

You can buy brand new albums for as low as £5 nowadays, whereas 'back in the day' you would be paying three times that. So price reduction HAS happened but the issue is that those that download illegally (and Im not suggesting you do) will always use 'it's too expensive' as justification for stealing music, when in actualy fact, music is more affordable than it's ever been as the music industry has bowed to pressure to lower their prices.

jimbo49

not misinformed at all. you cant shut down one searching site without shutting them all. you already accused torrent sites of having nothing but illegal downloads on them, which is complete rubbish, so you must only want to shut those sites down! i assume you play either in a group/band or do sessions? i also assume that you want people to like your music, enjoy listening to it and want them to buy it? you say above about the cost involved in producing music. i would have thought that the last thing any musician wanted was to drive customers away. i buy music i like and the majority of it is what i heard on the 'net'. i can assure you that if i lose my internet connection at some point, the last thing i would be concerned about is buying music, particularly when it was the music industry's short sightedness that got me kicked off the 'net' in the first place. dont bite the hand that feeds you. it could get extrememly painful!

buzzablinio

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

That isn't feasible. Everyone involved in producing that music will not cover their own costs with that margin, especially the artist.

As per Big Catastrophe states - economies of scale.

By some accounts 95% of downloaded music is illegal. If you can only get 1 out of 20 people to legally pay 79p for a track don't you think its worth trying for 10 out of 20 or even higher by experimenting with 10p a track, 50p an album?

The music industry is too greedy to risk it. They'd rather try and force everyone to pay 79p (which will just never happen) than accept they have grossly overpriced their product. They could potentially sell more for less and so end up actually make more money!

Think about it - who wants to download some dodgy rip and potentially expose themselves to virus or trojans etc if they know they can get a quality legal product straight from the manufacturer for just a few pence, and that they know some of those pence will end up in the pocket of the band/artist whose music they like (or at least a cut of that money)

As I said before, it would be such an easy thing to trial. But, knowing the music industry as I do, if they did go fo such a pricing scheme, they'd probably try and offer some poor quality 60k rip rather than a decent 192k let alone a lossless format. If they could just pause for a moment, take their nose out of the trough and stop looking for someone else to blame, things might improve for both them and the consumer.

sugarcoma101

buzzablinio wrote: »

The music industry is too greedy to risk it. They'd rather try and force everyone to pay 79p (which will just never happen) than accept they have grossly overpriced their product. They could potentially sell more for less and so end up actually make more money!

Think about it - who wants to download some dodgy rip and potentially expose themselves to virus or trojans etc if they know they can get a quality legal product straight from the manufacturer for just a few pence, and that they know some of those pence will end up in the pocket of the band/artist whose music they like (or at least a cut of that money)

As I said before, it would be such an easy thing to trial. But, knowing the music industry as I do, if they did go fo such a pricing scheme, they'd probably try and offer some poor quality 60k rip rather than a decent 192k let alone a lossless format. If they could just pause for a moment, take their nose out of the trough and stop looking for someone else to blame, things might improve for both them and the consumer.

It takes about 150,000 pounds to launch a new artist. That money goes to cover recording costs, studio times, producers, mixers, musicians, equipment hire, travel costs, design costs, photoshoot costs, press costs, promotion costs, radio costs, tv costs, and a million other things, let alone the cash that is paid for a signed artist to live on for a few years while they are recording and promoting their album.

It is not feasible to sell the end product for 50p, simply because the record would have to sell by the truckload (a few hundred thousand copies) in order for anyone to even get a return on their initial investment...and it's not a secret that record labels are a business who invest money in artist and musicians to allow them to pursue their careers in music and for a business to make a profit.

Buzzablinio, the sad truth is that no matter how cheap you make something, the vast majority would rather not pay fairly for something that they can get for free.

I for one am wholly glad that finally, something is being done about it.

sugarcoma101

jimbo49 wrote: »

i also assume that you want people to like your music, enjoy listening to it and want them to buy it? you say above about the cost involved in producing music. i would have thought that the last thing any musician wanted was to drive customers away.

...that is why I am against illegal downloading....someone who downloads without paying is not a customer.

Sorry but I actually dont follow any of your points.

jimbo49 wrote: »

i buy music i like and the majority of it is what i heard on the 'net'.

Why are you worried about getting your net connection cut off if you 'buy music you like'?

Or am I to assume that you illegally download music you DONT like?

Sorry...again not following any of your points.

buzzablinio

sugarcoma101 wrote: »

It is not feasible to sell the end product for 50p, simply because the record would have to sell by the truckload (a few hundred thousand copies) in order for anyone to even get a return on their initial investment...and it's not a secret that record labels are a business who invest money in artist and musicians to allow them to pursue their careers in music and for a business to make a profit.

Buzzablinio, the sad truth is that no matter how cheap you make something, the vast majority would rather not pay fairly for something that they can get for free.
.

You may be right ... but you might not be - as I say - it would be an easy theory to test - also, 50p is a small investment to try a new band - could potentially create a bigger audience/market.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

If the artists weren't being stiffed by the company, the price of legal downloads would be lower and the talent would get some recompense. As it is, the artist ends up paying for most of the costs given as justification for the silly prices charged. As the BIL says, it's mostly on 'overdraft' the majority of the time, expenses on tour and only money in pocket after the tour receipts are totalled and the bills are paid. Then he has to keep the taxman happy, make up to the wife for being away for months at a time, pay the mortgage whilst the sun is shining, send the ex the child maintenance and, if he's lucky, go back to the day job until the festival season starts up in spring.

Much better when the artists run things themselves, it's a lot harder to begrudge them the money.

sugarcoma101

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

If the artists weren't being stiffed by the company, the price of legal downloads would be lower and the talent would get some recompense. As it is, the artist ends up paying for most of the costs given as justification for the silly prices charged. As the BIL says, it's mostly on 'overdraft' the majority of the time, expenses on tour and only money in pocket after the tour receipts are totalled and the bills are paid. Then he has to keep the taxman happy, make up to the wife for being away for months at a time, pay the mortgage whilst the sun is shining, send the ex the child maintenance and, if he's lucky, go back to the day job until the festival season starts up in spring.

Much better when the artists run things themselves, it's a lot harder to begrudge them the money.

None of that information is accurate. It is no jusification to steal music. You would rather pay an artist absolutely nothing for their work then but blame the record label for 'stiffing' them?

It's the illegal downloaders that are doing the stiffing my friend, not the record labels.