Megaupload just got kablammed.

[Access Denied]

I downloaded a pirated copy of Skyrim. I liked it. I bought it. That's why a lot of people download movies/music/games. I'm not willing to spend money on something I potentially will not like.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah that's a reason for many. Ironic as it is, as anti-piracy stuff has gone forward, demoing games has gone downhill. It's like they want you to buy your stuff, but force people to pirate because there's no demo out

 

[DaGaffer]

Job, you're missing the fact there's so much more choice out there these days. Access to music used to be very restricted. Now you have instant access to whatever music you want and the money gets spread around a hell of a lot more.
I'd like to see some figure that reflect the total world wide turnover of the music industry.
You need fewer sales to get into the charts these days because there's a greater choice.

Depends what you mean by "total worldwide turnover"; if you mean revenue from all sources (sales, touring, licensing, merchandising, etc.) - its an incredibly difficult question to answer, but from observation:

• the labels are definitely suffering; witness EMI and the fact that the others aren't snapping up their repertoire.

• The biggest bands are doing OK, especially if they have a strong touring ethic, as they've been able to offset loss of royalty payments, and the ones with smart management are good at merchandising and licencing (tv companies - the Who get paid everytime CSI:Wherever airs, ad campaigns etc.)

• Bands and artists that have split up, even if they owned their own material, have seen a massive drop in revenue as their royalties have evaporated. The Stone Roses aren't doing those shows next year for love, ditto Steps (*shudder*) and all those 80s revivals; they're touring because they have to; problem with that is lack of venues, which is having a knock on effect on new bands

• Collection agencies around the world are seeing double digit drops in money brought in per year (some countries like Denmark have basically given up), I've had this from the horses' mouth from the UK and Irish agencies.

• Retail is fucked (obviously), although supermarkets have grown CD sales because they just punt them as a footfall driver.
  
• There are very few artists who can genuinely claim to be making more money now than they were five years ago, but one track in the background of an ad campaign can be incredibly lucrative in the right market, so some bands are still making a decent living.
  
• Apple and Amazon are doing rather well, Spotify and the streaming companies aren't (ignoring their market caps - which feel like the dotcom silliness of ten years ago); they are getting the customers, but not monetizing them as well as they'd hoped (not enough ad revenue to go around is one problem, which is why Warners won't licence to any new ad-funded streaming services for example)
  
• There are still plenty of middlemen taking a cut between audience and artist, its just a different set of middlemen, the artist himself rarely sees the benefit, even though a lot are now recognising the labels no longer hold the keys to their future (especially as the days of advances, signing on bonuses and all that stuff are long gone; there'll be no more Robbie Williams' "I'm rich!" speeches from artists signing up to a label)

 

[TdC]

As payment I demand sofa surfing rights for two nights in the spring at your place.

sure thing bro

 

[Scouse]

The Stone Roses aren't doing those shows next year for love...[and]...there'll be no more Robbie Williams' "I'm rich!" speeches

Good. The rest of us have to work for a living and the Stone Roses released two albums eighteen years ago. In that time my sisters kid has grown old enough to vote. They can start playing to audiences for more cash than they got from their very well selling albums.

As for robbie williams. Well, he was always a cunt and 80 million quid for a fat dancer is more than he deserved.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Well, let's be honest here. They could easily still be living off the money they earned if they hadn't spunked it all away on drugs in the 90s.

It's THEIR failing they didn't look after their finances, not the music industry's, or piracy, or anything else.

 

[DaGaffer]

Good. The rest of us have to work for a living and the Stone Roses released two albums eighteen years ago. In that time my sisters kid has grown old enough to vote. They can start playing to audiences for more cash than they got from their very well selling albums.

As for robbie williams. Well, he was always a cunt and 80 million quid for a fat dancer is more than he deserved.

That wasn't what my answer was about; I was responding to a financial/economic question, not the morality of living off royalties for past efforts (although I completely disagree with you about that in fact).

Well, let's be honest here. They could easily still be living off the money they earned if they hadn't spunked it all away on drugs in the 90s.

It's THEIR failing they didn't look after their finances, not the music industry's, or piracy, or anything else.

You're missing the point; the advice artists will have received from their financial advisors from the 1950s to the 1990s was "royalities are regular income, but they'll eventually dry up, so reinvest some of your royalty income for when they go", and the accountants would have been able to predict fairly well the longevity and decline of an artists' royalty stream (down to individual track level). From the early 2000s those calculations have been blown out of the water. Lots and lots of artists did reinvest their money wisely, but royalties still made up a significant part of their regular income (because hardly anyone will have reinvested it all, that doesn't make sense from a tax perspective), and just like you or I, they factored that money into their regular incomings. Then it disappeared, and frankly an awful lot of people then started to make post facto moral judgements in a desperate attempt to justify their desire for free shit, but I'm not going to make moral judgements (ooh no), just point out that most artists have lost a revenue stream they used to have.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

So musicians, unlike the rest of the world, shouldn't have been more responsible with their money in the boom era just because they thought it would continue?

Sorry, but the rest of the world don't live like that. Every sensible person plans for the future and plans for things to fuck up. If you're too careless or stupid to think about bleaker times ahead you'll end up reforming your shitty band, or going bankrupt because of your unsustainable debts. It's pretty much the same as the global recession: those who spent like pricks got fucked over.

 

[Embattle]

I downloaded a pirated copy of Skyrim. I liked it. I bought it. That's why a lot of people download movies/music/games. I'm not willing to spend money on something I potentially will not like.

It holds some truth but in reality I think this is a small minority in reality.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Absolutely, it's why most games release demos don't you know.

 

[Ch3tan]

Absolutely, it's why most games release demos don't you know.

Although very often not before release, sometimes not till far after release.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yeah that is stupid. We don't do it that way of course

 

[Ch3tan]

And a lot of the time the same games too fearful to give their product to reviewers (or more likely, not willing to buy lots of ad space for a good review)

 

[Himse]

For big artists now, the tour is what makes you the money, the tracks are just a bit on the side almost.

Mac Miller for example, has come up on his own, like him or not, he's had no major, just an indie & his own team, the kid is 18/19 and worth like 1.5mil net now, it's not much, but he's still not even hit the big time.

Labels need to change focus, most are still stuck in trying to sell records when people won't buy them. As somebody said earlier, i'd rather not pay £15 for something that has 1 song on I liked before, and the rest is utter shit.

I think things like 'pay what you feel like' is a pretty good idea, most normal people will pay a reasonable amount.

I for one just pay for Spotify, it's got 95% of the music I want and I can have it all synced to my phone, it just works for me! It saves me spending ages downloading it all too!

 

[Job]

One in a million, you might as well invest in the lottery as try to make money from music.

 

[Himse]

One in a million, you might as well invest in the lottery as try to make money from music.

Yeah, it's definitely hard to get noticed, alot of people seem to do it through Facebook / YouTube.

Or go on the XFactor, make 1 song for christmas nr1 and never be heard again.

 

[ECA]

Yeah, it's definitely hard to get noticed, alot of people seem to do it through Facebook / YouTube.

Or go on the XFactor, make 1 song for christmas nr1 and never be heard again.

And just for getting shown on a random ep, sign away 20-30% of all future music earnings to Mr Cowell >.>

 

[Himse]

And just for getting shown on a random ep, sign away 20-30% of all future music earnings to Mr Cowell >.>

Yeah, the guy is fucking clever, hate him or not!

Every single from Boyzone I think it was, he put a triangle in at points in the track, you couldn't even hear it, but he got royalties from every song! (not 100% sure this is true, but wouldn't shock me!)

Every new XFactor show / Pop Idol whatever, he laughs all the way to the bank. It's crazy.

 

[Scouse]

That wasn't what my answer was about; I was responding to a financial/economic question, not the morality of living off royalties for past efforts (although I completely disagree with you about that in fact).

I don't really mind that they want to live off royalties - but lets face it - how many Stone Roses albums are going to be sold nowadays?

If I ask any of the kiddies who the Stone Roses are do you honestly think that they'll know? Maybe the "cool" ones, but even then that's a small proportion of the buying population.

But even if your point is true about the royalties disappearing in the 2000's (and tbfh I've no reason to dispute it) then the point that if the record companies didn't take such a massive great whack when they were released, just for payment to "shareholders" who wouldn't even be able to describe a musical instrument, never mind play one, then they'd probably still be sitting pretty now, is even more pertinent

It's all well and good having a pop at pirates - but have a pop at the shitty corrupt system that's been stealing artists wealth ever since intellectual property laws were invented to do just that.

 

[Raven]

I think it's a good thing that big record companies go under, the more the better. It would help bring creativity and individuality back, instead of brand after brand.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think it's a good thing that big record companies go under, the more the better. It would help bring creativity and individuality back, instead of brand after brand.

You've actually got no evidence to support that; this is a standard trope trotted out time and again as a defence for file sharing but its wishful thinking; when the labels go they'll be replaced by other corporate middlemen; different but not necessarily better.

 

[Scouse]

At least the cash gets spread around then...

 

[Raven]

You've actually got no evidence to support that; this is a standard trope trotted out time and again as a defence for file sharing but its wishful thinking; when the labels go they'll be replaced by other corporate middlemen; different but not necessarily better.

Actually. My comments have nothing at all to do with file sharing but everything to do people releasing their own music on their own website. Yeah sure there may be large websites set up specifically for this kind of thing but they wont hold as much power as current record labels and they certainly wont take as much of a cut. Social media is becoming more and more important, there is little room for large exclusive corporations.

 

[Wij]

Actually the decline in back-catalogue revenues might be more to do with industry favourite Apple rather than industry baddies who despise copyright. Crazy talk you say!!!!

Maybe it's just me but I've bought four copies of Hemispheres by Rush because I either lost it or scratched it. Similar with Blessed Are The Sick and Beneath The Remains. Now it's all ripped, the CDs sit in a cupboard where only rot can get them. If I fork out for iTunes match then even a hd failure won't be a problem. No back catalogue royalties for you lot any more from my own stupidity and carelessness

 

[DaGaffer]

Actually. My comments have nothing at all to do with file sharing but everything to do people releasing their own music on their own website. Yeah sure there may be large websites set up specifically for this kind of thing but they wont hold as much power as current record labels and they certainly wont take as much of a cut. Social media is becoming more and more important, there is little room for large exclusive corporations.

Artists have been able to promote themselves directly to customers for a long time now.; most still end up with a label (or a pseudo-label like Merlin) because believe it or not, labels aren't just worthless accountants there to separate the poor struggling artists from hospital money. This whole "we can do it ourselves" thing is a myth for most artists. Same in other media like books; there's the odd successful self-publisher but it doesn't work for the majority who actually want to make a living.

 

[Job]

Musicians started off as Mincers (OMG DAOC reference) and wandered around from village to village telling tales and singing songs for money, or is that an urban myth?
Anyway they started recording and selling the songs so they could stay home all warm and dry, now that gravy train is drying up, it's time to get back on the road again!

 

[Raven]

I don't think you live in this reality.

 

[Ctuchik]

I downloaded a pirated copy of Skyrim. I liked it. I bought it. That's why a lot of people download movies/music/games. I'm not willing to spend money on something I potentially will not like.

No, a lot of people CLAIM they pirate a game and then buy it if they like it. But the absolute vast majority does not end up buying the game. They find something minor at some point in the playthrough and use that as an excuse not to pay.

 

[Access Denied]

Well that's been the case with everyone I know. Obviously the people you know are less scrupulous.

 

[Deebs]

Ah those were the days....

http://kotaku.com/5878337/arrested-megaupload-boss-cheated-his-way-to-video-game-glory-opponents-say

Well to be fair not for me as Q2 was ghey, much like TedTheDog, TdC and anyone else who played the game....