"Bono calls for control over internet downloads"

[Niceman]

I agree with pretty much every point that Niceman has made, I would hate the subscription model.

What happens if you run into, say, a 6 month period where money becomes very tight, and you can't afford to spend money on music? Now, I'd still have my cds/purchased files to listen to. I guess with the subscription model, I'd be SOL.

Thanks!

Here's a thought: Morality aside: if I'm not going to own a physical copy, why should I pay for it???

And if you say, but you can't put morality completely aside, I suggest a consumer society does exactly that and it is the engine by which it moves forward - a few dollars for charity aside.

 

[ultraviolet353]

I love the subscription model. I've subscribed to Rhapsody for several years, and there are so many advantages to it. I've discovered so many more bands than I was ever able to before. Almost any band I can think of, I can find their albums on Rhapsody. (There are a few exceptions; the Beatles aren't on there yet, and Bruce Springsteen used to be, but isn't anymore. Most of Peter Gabriel's stuff isn't on there, thought it used to be. Still, almost any band someone names, I can almost always go check out their stuff. Love it.)

I love to check out peoples' lists of favorite music in the Just the Bang and the Clatter section here, and develop playlists in Rhapsody. I've learned about so much great music that way.

I can still buy physical copies of the stuff that I really like.

I'm excited to see what Apple comes up with now that it looks like they're ready to dip into the subscription model.

$10 or $15 a month is an incredible bargain to have access to millions of songs.

'

--and what I am talking about would be 100 times better--every artist, every song--bootlegs, rarities, VIDEO. Played on all your devices as if it were a cd. A music community--I am sure they would also offer to own a few tracks per month as some services do now. The movie industry has seen the light with Hulu. It is only the beginning. As for tight times, you could pay in advance for a year at a price much less than what you would pay for overpriced CD's throughout the year. I am sure there will always be some avenue towards ownership but it will be at a premium price.

I can't tell you how many of my peers constantly ask about where to find new music. There is no outlet--that's why I fault radio way more than file sharing. This can be done--the public is starving for the killer music app.

If it's to be done--I hope Apple will spearhead it--They are the only company that I feel confident could do it right--I think their "Genius" feature could be applied to this new model in an incredibly rewarding user experience.

 

[SeattleVertigo]

'
If it's to be done--I hope Apple will spearhead it--They are the only company that I feel confident could do it right--I think their "Genius" feature could be applied to this new model in an incredibly rewarding user experience.

Yeah. Lately I've been using the Genius sidebar, where Apple encourages me to buy songs for a buck based on the artists I like, to go to Rhapsody and create playlists with new bands that they recommend. It's a lot of fun.

I'm pretty loyal to Rhapsody, but if Apple puts out a superior product, I'll be very excited.

 

[toscano]

"Unprecedented massive invasion of privacy"? No, I haven't supported anything of the kind.

So because there are new bands being signed right now, there is no problem?

Show me empirical data that there IS a problem

I mean, people SAY there's a problem and all.......

Like I said, the day of Pearl Jams, Radiohead, etc will soon be gone.

Who's going to win the BCS and by how much ? Or does your crystal ball not extend into sports ?

The death of new and interesting music has been predicted since the early days of Napster, and yet, still seems to be going strong.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day I guess.

 

[BVS]

Show me empirical data that there IS a problem

I mean, people SAY there's a problem and all.......



Who's going to win the BCS and by how much ? Or does your crystal ball not extend into sports ?

The death of new and interesting music has been predicted since the early days of Napster, and yet, still seems to be going strong.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day I guess.

Just look at overall sales number in the last 4 years, it's dramatic. And common sense says it will only get worse for the only demographics that are buying albums are those that grew up in previous generations and young children(because their parents of previous generations are buying them).

We can forgo all common sense and bury our heads in the sands all we want, but if future bands like Arcade Fire can't fund their tours then they won't be able to leave their hometowns. And how are they going to fund tours? Sales are dropping, indie labels are disappearing and touring is becoming more expensive...

 

[popshopper]

Funny enough, since everyone is a thief, that Hollywood just had it's biggest ever year in the box office, while home blu ray and dvd sales remain strong. Just what are they doing right that the music industry isn't?

 

[ramblin rose]

People still like to see movies on a really large screen, not everyone has tons of hard drive space to store HD movie files or the technological expertise to set up their PC as a HD/SD media player?

 

[ultraviolet353]

Funny enough, since everyone is a thief, that Hollywood just had it's biggest ever year in the box office, while home blu ray and dvd sales remain strong. Just what are they doing right that the music industry isn't?

Music is easily shared at "official, store bought quality." Video is so much more difficult. The stuff floating around is sub-par compared to even DVD. Good quality--yes. Not DVD--and it's a pain in the ass to download those huge files. The movie industry also has the benefits of an emerging infrastructure
that offers it's products at a very desirable price point. DVDs are dirt cheap. Netflix is amazing. Hulu is free. There is an outlet.

With music--it's basically overpriced CD's or file-sharing to get what you want.

Again, there is a need for a new model--bands liks U2 should be advocating this rather than complaining about filesharing. And yes, that is all the music biz is doing--complaining, instead of building a new way.

 

[toscano]

Just look at overall sales number in the last 4 years,

Yes, sales of current bands, I thought we were talking about the supposed demise of new bands not being signed ?

We can forgo all common sense and bury our heads in the sands all we want, but if future bands like Arcade Fire can't fund their tours then they won't be able to leave their hometowns. And how are they going to fund tours? Sales are dropping, indie labels are disappearing and touring is becoming more expensive...

Lots of ifs, lots of suppositions, assumptions, speculation, but still nothing to show that new bands are not being signed to any less of a degree than 10, 20, 30 years ago.

Look, I KNOW sales are shit for bands already signed, but just as overall sales have plummeted, concert tix have gone sky high, even when adjusting for inflation. So revenue IS being generated.

The established bands are making plenty of money.

And if illegal downloading were stamped out tomorrow you can be sure that concert prices wouldn't change now that the markets have been set.

I've long lost my old ticket stubs, but IIRC I paid something like $15 for JT tour tix, and the R+H filming tix were $5

 

[toscano]

Music is easily shared at "official, store bought quality." Video is so much more difficult. The stuff floating around is sub-par compared to even DVD. Good quality--yes. Not DVD--and it's a pain in the ass to download those huge files. The movie industry also has the benefits of an emerging infrastructure
that offers it's products at a very desirable price point. DVDs are dirt cheap. Netflix is amazing. Hulu is free. There is an outlet.

With music--it's basically overpriced CD's or file-sharing to get what you want.

Again, there is a need for a new model--bands liks U2 should be advocating this rather than complaining about filesharing. And yes, that is all the music biz is doing--complaining, instead of building a new way.

Well said. Adding isp user fees or trying to get these, what was it Bono called them ? "rich corporations" (ummm, livenation, Apple, RIM anyone ? ) , to police the entire internet are both ridiculous, unfair and unmanageable, or all 3.

The sale of music (in whatever format) needs to somehow add content that one can't get for free.

I buy vinyl mostly, I like the artwork, being able to read the lyrics, and get better sound quality. It has value I can't get for free.

Buying a shitty mp3 from itunes doesn't get me, "me" being a typical consumer, anything I can't get for free.

These guys need to make the purchase of music something that has VALUE, and rightly or wrongly the general public has become conditioned to believe there is no value to buying songs or CDs.

Whether it be concert ticket discounts, added multi-media, or some other brilliant marketing scheme / idea, the consumer needs to believe they are buying something of worth.

That's how Blu-Ray has become successful, yes most people had/have a DVD player already, but this one is worth getting because it offers something the older one didn't. Same with the disc. Obviously the technological hurdles keep the general public from embracing the free download of movies / TV shows on the same scale as music, but there is more to it than that. I downloaded/watched season 5 of Lost a few months ago, but then went out and bought the DVD set when it was released as it had something I wanted. Bonus features, improved picture quality.

What the answer for music is I obviously don't know, but I know what it's NOT.

It's not adding isp fees and it's not policing the internet.

 

[BVS]

Funny enough, since everyone is a thief, that Hollywood just had it's biggest ever year in the box office, while home blu ray and dvd sales remain strong. Just what are they doing right that the music industry isn't?

You can't be serious?!

 

[BVS]

The established bands are making plenty of money.

This statement here shows clearly that you are being completely oblivious to my point. Try answering this, if PJ signed today, how do you think they would make a living?

 

[toscano]

This statement here shows clearly that you are being completely oblivious to my point. Try answering this, if PJ signed today, how do you think they would make a living?

You keep changing your point.

One minute is it's "there's not going to be any decent new bands", then it's "sales suck", now it's changing again.

Still, back to your topic of the minute, how would PJ make a living ?

Well, as an example let's take a relatively recent new band; Airborne toxic event.

They apparently make a living by selling music and playing concerts.

So, how would PJ make a living ? Hmmm....selling music and playing concerts ???

 

[ultraviolet353]

I disagree about Blu-ray taking off. I do not see it being as successful as DVD because as soon as the price point reaches the DVD price points we have today--(something that would signal mass adoption)--HD VOD will probably be quite prevalent, and Blu-Ray will fizzle. In fact, the main reason people are buying Blu-ray players now is the networking capabilities and video streaming from Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon (and many others coming online). Plus, people still LOVE their DVD's--While BD is amazing it is less of a step up than VHS to DVD.

 

[toscano]

I disagree about Blu-ray taking off.

full article here, snippet below

Blu-ray.com - DEG: Consumers Spent $1.5 Billion on Blu-ray in 2009 (Update)


According to figures released today by the Digital Entertainment Group, spending on Blu-ray sales and rentals was up 67% to 1.5 billion. Homes with Blu-ray Disc players rose to 17 million, up 76% over 2008. In the fourth quarter alone, Blu-ray enjoyed title sales in excess of $500 million, representing 13.4 percent of all sell-through sales versus 8% percent for each of the prior three quarters.

Blu-ray new release sales in the fourth quarter rose 17% while catalog title sales doubled from a year ago. Five Blu-ray Disc releases saw sales in excess of one million units in 2009.

Sales of Blu-ray Disc playback devices – including set-top box and game consoles – sold through 17.3 million units since launch. Some 4.5 million devices sold in the fourth quarter alone, bringing total units sold to nearly 8 million in calendar 2009, according to numbers compiled by the DEG with input from retail tracking sources.

 

[ultraviolet353]

Growth of relatively new (to the masses) product is expected--DVD is still the 800 pound gorilla. I do not doubt it is doing "well," but I do not see it taking off the way DVD did--also I believe most Blu-ray players will eventually morph into network set top boxes that stream HD content.

 

[BVS]

You keep changing your point.

One minute is it's "there's not going to be any decent new bands", then it's "sales suck", now it's changing again.

Once again you're being purposely obtuse. I never said anything about not having any new decent bands. It's always been the same, you will no longer see any Radioheads or Pearl Jams, bands that do things on their own terms yet can maintain strong audiences. Future bands that want to make a living will have to sell their songs in order to fund touring, it's pretty simple. And yes, sales has everything to do with it, it's basic economics.

Still, back to your topic of the minute, how would PJ make a living ?

Well, as an example let's take a relatively recent new band; Airborne toxic event.

They apparently make a living by selling music and playing concerts.

So, how would PJ make a living ? Hmmm....selling music and playing concerts ???

The Airborne Toxic Event are signed to a major label(so they are able to tour), plus they sold their songs to movies and video games. But if bands can't sell because no one is buying(which is the case) then labels aren't going to sign them, common sense. But nice try.

 

[VintagePunk]

The Airborne Toxic Event are signed to a major label(so they are able to tour), plus they sold their songs to movies and video games. But if bands can't sell because no one is buying(which is the case) then labels aren't going to sign them, common sense. But nice try.

But surely the fact that some are doing it proves that it can be done...?

I think that throughout the history of rock music, there have always been worthy bands that never got the recognition they perhaps deserved. Maybe they didn't have that extra X factor that pushed them over the top, maybe they didn't have the right connections, maybe they weren't in the right place at the right time. It could be any of a number of things.

There are a number of bands that have been signed and risen to popularity during the downloading age, so I don't think that's solely the reason that bands are unable to achieve popularity. What I would think is more the issue is that the internet age has allowed some bands we might never otherwise have heard of to achieve cult followings due to the internet, not despite the internet. Music has become so diversified that not everyone can be popular, it's more spread out now.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[BVS]

But surely the fact that some are doing it proves that it can be done...?

I think that throughout the history of rock music, there have always been worthy bands that never got the recognition they perhaps deserved. Maybe they didn't have that extra X factor that pushed them over the top, maybe they didn't have the right connections, maybe they weren't in the right place at the right time. It could be any of a number of things.

There are a number of bands that have been signed and risen to popularity during the downloading age, so I don't think that's solely the reason that bands are unable to achieve popularity. What I would think is more the issue is that the internet age has allowed some bands we might never otherwise have heard of to achieve cult followings due to the internet, not despite the internet. Music has become so diversified that not everyone can be popular, it's more spread out now.

Just a few thoughts.

Yes, there are still some doing it right now, but I don't think we're at the low point. But if nothing changes in 5 years, I think we're talking a whole new scenario. The changes just in the last 5 years have been drastic and Napster started in 99, so the change has taken time but it's been exponential. Bands will still make it but very few just on album and touring alone, we'll see a lot more sponsorships, selling to commercials, etc pretty much all the things most people in this forum hate

 

[Niceman]

One thing that may be being missed in this conversation is the thought that the future may have more than one answer.

Some people will use rental models

Some people will use digital purchase models

Some will use physical models.

There seems to be a false evolutionary model being used. You can rent, he can download, I can buy. I see no reason why all of the above won't be viable.

Blue Ray will continue to grow until a better physical model replaces it. Also, downloading and streaming will continue to grow. The question of which path is the future is a false choice.

 

[VintagePunk]

One thing that may be being missed in this conversation is the thought that the future may have more than one answer.

Some people will use rental models

Some people will use digital purchase models

Some will use physical models.

There seems to be a false evolutionary model being used. You can rent, he can download, I can buy. I see no reason why all of the above won't be viable.

Blue Ray will continue to grow until a better physical model replaces it. Also, downloading and streaming will continue to grow. The question of which path is the future is a false choice.

 

[ultraviolet353]

One thing that may be being missed in this conversation is the thought that the future may have more than one answer.

Some people will use rental models

Some people will use digital purchase models

Some will use physical models.

There seems to be a false evolutionary model being used. You can rent, he can download, I can buy. I see no reason why all of the above won't be viable.

Blue Ray will continue to grow until a better physical model replaces it. Also, downloading and streaming will continue to grow. The question of which path is the future is a false choice.

Yes, but the discussion, IMO, revolves around a business model that will work. The current model of Jim rents, Sally buys, Bill steals...is KILLING the business. There will always be the option of owning, but the sub model will be the center of the biz.

 

[digitize]

Plus, people still LOVE their DVD's--While BD is amazing it is less of a step up than VHS to DVD.

That's not really true. In the sense of resolution - quality in the most basic sense - the difference from VHS to DVD was nothing (they're both standard NTSC or PAL or SECAM), but it's rather massive to go from 480i (sometimes 480p) with DVDs to 1080p with Blu-ray. The big difference between DVD and VHS is that DVD doesn't degenerate over time.

 

[toscano]

Once again you're being purposely obtuse. I never said anything about not having any new decent bands. It's always been the same, you will no longer see any Radioheads or Pearl Jams, bands that do things on their own terms yet can maintain strong audiences. Future bands that want to make a living will have to sell their songs in order to fund touring, it's pretty simple. And yes, sales has everything to do with it, it's basic economics.




The Airborne Toxic Event are signed to a major label(so they are able to tour), plus they sold their songs to movies and video games. But if bands can't sell because no one is buying(which is the case) then labels aren't going to sign them, common sense. But nice try.

One minute you're asking how new bands would get signed, and that we'd only be stuck with local bands, then you ask how, if signed they would support themselves and then you refute that point by pointing out that the example I used is signed.

you're going around in ever decreasing circles

 

[toscano]

That's not really true. In the sense of resolution - quality in the most basic sense - the difference from VHS to DVD was nothing (they're both standard NTSC or PAL or SECAM), but it's rather massive to go from 480i (sometimes 480p) with DVDs to 1080p with Blu-ray. The big difference between DVD and VHS is that DVD doesn't degenerate over time.

If you have a 1080p TV it's a rather startling difference between Blu-Ray and DVD, ASSUMING the transfer has been done properly.

As for upscaling DVDs, they are a poor substitute for true 1080p

Watch the raid on the Hong Kong building at night scene of The Dark Knight in both and you'll see what I mean.

 

[ultraviolet353]

wow--DVD's look incredible on my 1080p HDTV--VHS looks horrible. While the specs may be similar in "the step up" from VHS-DVD the user experience is vastly different.

In fact, I work in the industry and many will tell you the sales pitch for BD is a very tough sell due to the fact that people love their DVD's--Just look at their taglines:

"Perfect picture, perfect sound" (?????--what does that mean?)

"The best way to watch movies--huh?"

Even Bill Mechanic, one of the most respected execs of the past 20 years said recently:

"Like much of the bad decision making that has helped take a lot of the profit out of the business, the air was let out of the tires by the studios themselves. No top management of a studio really cared what was going on over the past few years other than was their budget being met.

No one asked whether their units should be pushing Blu-Ray in the face of an economic melt-down or even whether or not Blu-Ray was going to be the next big ap to the general consumer. They simply accepted the idea that they could resell their libraries at higher prices.

So no one asked what impact dropping the price on their existing DVD’s would have. I mean if I can buy TITANIC for under $5 in some stores, why am I so eager then to rush out to pay $30 or so when it’s released on Blu Ray? Is the quality difference that great? How many formats are yet to come?"

In other words DVD is still killing BD--and I know this to be true. Is the step up worth paying 50-200% more? not in my opinion. Do not get me wrong, BD is amazing--I just do not think it's a home run for the industry--and most people I speak to feel the same way.

 

[VintagePunk]

In other words DVD is still killing BD--and I know this to be true. Is the step up worth paying 50-200% more? not in my opinion.

That's the way I feel, too. I won't be upgrading till they drop a hell of a lot more in price. The quality jump isn't worth it.

 

[BVS]

One minute you're asking how new bands would get signed, and that we'd only be stuck with local bands, then you ask how, if signed they would support themselves and then you refute that point by pointing out that the example I used is signed.

you're going around in ever decreasing circles

I never asked "if signed" how will they support themselves. If labels are going to sign bands they are going to want their money back, so in 5 years they won't be signing bands that are purely live acts, so bands like PJ will not be signed in the future. They're only going to sign bands that are willing to sell songs or except sponsorships. The model of surviving purely on touring will soon be too difficult for unknown bands.

 

[toscano]

wow--DVD's look incredible on my 1080p HDTV--VHS looks horrible. While the specs may be similar in "the step up" from VHS-DVD the user experience is vastly different.

In fact, I work in the industry and many will tell you the sales pitch for BD is a very tough sell due to the fact that people love their DVD's--Just look at their taglines:

"Perfect picture, perfect sound" (?????--what does that mean?)

"The best way to watch movies--huh?"

Even Bill Mechanic, one of the most respected execs of the past 20 years said recently:

"Like much of the bad decision making that has helped take a lot of the profit out of the business, the air was let out of the tires by the studios themselves. No top management of a studio really cared what was going on over the past few years other than was their budget being met.

No one asked whether their units should be pushing Blu-Ray in the face of an economic melt-down or even whether or not Blu-Ray was going to be the next big ap to the general consumer. They simply accepted the idea that they could resell their libraries at higher prices.

So no one asked what impact dropping the price on their existing DVD’s would have. I mean if I can buy TITANIC for under $5 in some stores, why am I so eager then to rush out to pay $30 or so when it’s released on Blu Ray? Is the quality difference that great? How many formats are yet to come?"

In other words DVD is still killing BD--and I know this to be true. Is the step up worth paying 50-200% more? not in my opinion. Do not get me wrong, BD is amazing--I just do not think it's a home run for the industry--and most people I speak to feel the same way.

Where are you getting 50-200% more from ?

The last few discs I bought:

District 9 - $2 more expensive, about 10%
Hangover - Same price
Lost Fifth Season - $5 CHEAPER !

Maybe back catalogs are 50-200%, or maybe I'm just lucky, but I'm finding most new releases to be comparably priced, typically 20% higher for Blu-Ray.

It may not be a home run, but at the rate they are discounting players and discs, and increasing shelf space being given to blu-ray at best buy type places I think it will be where std DVDs are now before too long.

 

[toscano]

I never asked "if signed" how will they support themselves.

"if PJ signed today, how do you think they would make a living"

They're only going to sign bands that are willing to sell songs or except sponsorships. The model of surviving purely on touring will soon be too difficult for unknown bands.

Oh, now we're talking about surviving purely on touring ?

You're quite the spinmeister, but since your way forward time machine seems to be working so well I really want to know who you're picking tonight and is it against the spread ?