![]() Just for the record, record labels (even the majors) are not sinister, are not only interested in marketing strategies and increased profit margins and are not a bunch of fucking retards. Record labels, and especially major record labels, are seen as sinister corporates only interested in marketing strategies and increased profit margins and now, thanks to Thom Yorke, as "a bunch of fucking retards". Because I don't believe they would be (which is why it's a waste of money to try).īut does it matter that the record industry issues these kind of statements just because I don't believe them? Actually, I think it does.įirstly because the music industry, and especially the record industry, has an incredibly poor reputation amongst its consumer base - ie music fans. ![]() But it is misleading to say that the music industry would be financially better off if only P2P file sharing could be stopped. P2P users may be nicking music, and that may be ethically as well as legally wrong, and content owners may have a duty to do something about it. But to be honest, that's because record labels aren't writing the right contracts when they sign their artists. The record labels will argue that doesn't help because they don't get any income off ticket sales or non realtone ringtone sales. And where exactly do those teenagers find the money to buy all those three quid a time ringtones? Consumers may be spending less on CDs, but I'm not convinced they are spending less on music. You might have noticed that the live sector is booming. But even if they weren't, that still doesn't mean people are spending less money on music. The record labels may point to declining record sales as proof that they are, though that's harder in the UK where record sales are actually quite healthy. But does that mean they are spending less money on music? Yes, because of P2P music fans may have a larger collection of 'nicked music' (though as I remember it, most of my school friends managed to build pretty extensive collections of nicked music without the assistance of P2P - taped off the radio or mates' CDs). ![]() money that, if only P2P didn't exist, would be sitting in record labels' bank accounts funding the development of aspiring artists and young bands. The problem with statements like this is that there is an implication that someone somewhere is sitting on a big mountain of cash. The BPI might argue that that's not exactly what they were saying when they issued their latest report on online music piracy yesterday, but their conclusion was a variation on the same theme - that file sharing has cost the music industry £1.1 billion in the last three years, which is £1.1 billion that could have been invested in new music. Or this one - "we sold x less CDs last year, which we reckon is down to P2P, therefore P2P is costing us x pounds". The statement is this one - "x billion tracks were illegally download last year, each of which could have been sold for x pence, therefore the music industry is x pounds worse off". But then if the record industry will keep on issuing the same stupid statement, then I'll have to keep on giving the same response, however predictable that might be. And it's not as if this particular point I'm about to raise hasn't been discussed before. Well, with all those new research reports doing the rounds criticising the music industry, I feel a bit bad joining in - especially when Thom Yorke is going round calling all you record label types "retards". Buble advertises Juno win before the win Single review: Nobody & Mystic Chords Of Memory - Broaden A New Sound Live review: Big Strides/Whiskycats at the Lumiere Audio Bullys, Daft Punk for Global Gathering TuneTribe announce partnership with Last.fm ![]() BPI reckon file-sharing cost UK industry £1.1billion since 2003 Suge Knight applies for bankruptcy protection CMU Daily - on the inside Wednesday 5th April
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |