I wonder how many people who claim that they would pay for media if only it were "reasonably priced" and made "easily available" actually do so when those conditions are satisfied.

Exactly. I know that many people download TV episodes (for example) without paying for them but I would hope that not all of those people feel that they have a right to do so at the expense of the people who make the TV shows.

Again, I agree. I don't expect NIN to tour the Ghosts album that was just released.

This argument is somewhat futile because no matter how content (apps, games, music, movies, TV shows) is made available there will always be a large number of people who will just keep making excuses and keep pirating. Content will never be made freely available with no DRM, no advertisements, high quality, etc. and so BT will always be a more attractive option for those who don't consider respect for the artists, writers, developers, etc. to be something actually worth considering.

Yes.

Ok... here's your chance BT freaks: write you own rules. How would you ideal situation work?

Wait, what?

I'm not dictating anything, it's quite simple. Bands perform. This isn't even a question. There are no groups that create an album then do nothing for the next year, and release a second one, and expect income.

What a stupid argument.

As for the Trent Reznor argument, fine, we'll use a much less popular artist, Harvey Danger. They released an album for free download off their site. After hearing about that, I went to iTunes to see the rest of his catalogue, saw it was on sale, and snapped up another two albums.

That was good marketing. I would have otherwise never even heard of them.

Err, many artists don't tour. They make albums and live off the earnings. Many just have a home studio and love dabbling and want to make some cash off that.

The Beatles for example never toured after their first few albums. It's a bad example - they did it because they were too famous to leave the studio, but you get the idea. Musicians shouldn't have to play live to make money if they don't want to.

They would be in the vast, vast minority.

And I don't mean massive international tours necessarily, State-wide shows, national tours, and even pub gigs. Yes, there will be the obscure avante-garde dark synth pop diva, but for the majority, a group or artist will perform for their audience.

YES IT IS!!!

Most of my iTunes library is from people who "don't perform". Some kinda of music don't lend themselves to public performance. There's also plenty of bands that make good studio music but are very shaky live... do you condemn them to a life with no income because they suck live? You make no sense at all.

If you create something that a lot of people decide to enjoy, then yes, you should expect some income from that.

Good on them. However, it's their choice to give their music away for promo, not yours.

They've clearly decided they be more successful by doing so. That kind of thing can't be kept up indefinitely though. If you want to pay the rent you'll have to sell something at some point.

LOL. Pub gigs.

Dude, you gots no idea how things work. A big generalisation, but most artists make most of their money in this order: publishing, mechanicals, then touring. The first two relate to physical and online sales.

Yes, I clearly have no idea how it works; the current industry model is excelling in growth and popularity.

Wait, no, it isn't.

You can argue over my opinion until you're blue in the face. It doesn't change anything.

As for laughing at my example, if you could take a moment to descend from your pedestal of pomposity, I was saying that no matter how insignificant, bands are performing, and are gathering an audience.

I'll admit i dont know how much you know about the industry but trust me marc knows how the industry works. Its got nothing to do with being pompous

Phase, I don't think anyone here is arguing in support of the record companies current methods of distribution.

EDIT: To be more precise, I should say that no one is arguing that the record companies shouldn't embrace new distribution methods and tatics.

But, the fact of the matter is that acquiring and distributing copyrighted material without the copyright owners consent is illegal.

That is the law and nothing gives you the right to break that law. Any argument you come up with does not change this fact nor does it justify piracy.

If you don't agree with the law, then lobby the government to change it.

Your problem is that you're talking about "bands". Since when were "bands" the entire spectrum of recorded music?

And yes, I realise that things need to change and the ways of the past can't keep going, but I don't see anyone providing a good solution, especially people download lots.

P2P has been proven to be great promo sometimes, but that doesn't mean giving everything away for free is a workable business model.

I certainly agree with you, I fully understand the legality of the issue, and do not for a second deny music piracy is anything less than illegal.

Working in a copyright industry (photography), I would say I have a higher-than-normal understanding of copyright law and intellectual properties, but that doesn't mean I don't oppose strongly the current distribution methods and pricing (in Australia at least).

I think in the next few years, more and more bands will be taking advantage of self distribution, and in my eyes it's something to be encouraged.

well the enormous success of allofmp3 suggests many of us would happily pay around US$2 per album.

trust me, everyone can make a very healthy profit from that sort of pricing model. but its hard to see the fat cat pirates of the recording industry giving up their current obsene margins.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear and I'm not actually taking up a contrary position, I'm asking a question. You first sentence is what I am saying, but in addition, why is more content not on these easy to use sites like ITMS and Amazon?

I usually buy DVD's at Kmart, BigW, Amazon or EzyDVD. I would MUCH prefer to instead buy and download a Movie file online, legally, but there just isnt much available for Australians. Why not?

Via the Internet, studios and distributors can deliver directly into our homes, but they just seem to be making it difficult. I don't understand why.

People can easily rip a DVD and share that, so I don't believe it's because DVD is a harder to pirate format.

AllofMP3 is an illegal site selling pirated music. They don't have the permission of the artists and they don't pay artists. It exists because of loopholes in Russian law.

Please find a better example.

How can you make a claim like that? The "if the price was cheaper everyone would buy" argument doesn't work unless the asking price is way too high. It's the same argument for software and other services. Basically you have a potential market size and it can't go beyond that. You selling for a 10th of the price means you have to sell 10x as much to be in the same position financially. The numbers just don't add up.

They already are! The guys you're downloading are probably mostly distributed by smaller distributors... you probably just didn't notice.

It may sound like I'm siding with the RIAA / MPAA... I'm not. Surely you understand that with no method for making any money from this stuff, society will suffer.

Everyone seems to have avoided this.

its a perfect example, i was asked what price people would be prepared to pay - allofmp3 shows people would happily pay around US$2 per album. people who otherwise would have found free sources to download the same content.


thats the point exactly, the current price is obscenely too high, as one who has worked in the industry, there simply is no justification - other than price gouging.

i dont think we have avoided it, but for the record. reasonably priced content, easily accessible, without DRM, and they are on a winner.

there is no way on earth i will pay say $40 for a TV series that i will only watch once, and could have watched on FTA or PayTV - i will just use Channel BT/Usenet.

but if the price were reasonable, say $5 or less then i would happily pay, especially if the content were on a user friendly system like iTunes.

ultimately it seems to me the model for the future is one where the control is moved from the large corporate pirates that control the industry now and individual artists and production houses make their content available to services like iTunes for marketing - and actually see a reasonable proportion of the download fee.