REVscene Automotive Forum - View Single Post

Gridlock · 01-30-2012, 08:31 AM

I'm going to preface everything I say here by saying I don't know jack about the music industry(or music really for that matter).

I get why people are pissed.

First, whenever I see "the plan" for the music industry presented by those outside the industry as being music is free, and you make money on live performances, that would piss me off.

I used to create an album. Then I'd go on tour to promote it. I'd make some from the tour and see most on the backend through sales. Now you are telling me that I need to work for my supper. Tours would be hell! I've got a great house! But I never see it. Bought a new car! Never drive it.

I see why people all have opinions. Music lovers were abused in the system before Napster. The one story that always sticks out is that of Nine Inch Nails asking why their album was priced higher than Britney Spears. They were told that they have a loyal fan base that will pay more for their product. Nice! I actually go out of my way to listen to you, and get gouged to do so.

What I don't get is how the artists continue to go for the old system. Distribution is highly irrelevant now. There has to be enough artists with enough money to start a direct supply model. I know many start their own labels, but they all distribute through the same old companies.

The only reason I can think of, is they are still stuck sucking the teat of the same old companies and are going to have a problem going into direct competition with their cash cow.

So it needs to be outside money. Apple took it on, but they only replaced the pressing of cd's. A little promotion within their system, but are still fed by the same old companies.

The companies, through the RIAA and MPAA all want to go back to a system that puts them right back in the middle of a system that for the most part doesn't need them anymore.

But that brings me back to my original point. Everyone looks to live performances as a carrot to dangle in front of people.

"Yeah, we stole your shit. Oops. You sued us, it didn't work. iTunes kinda converted a few people back to paying, but now your 'cd pressing' company gets a cut per track. But hey! You can still sing and dance for me live!"

What if, just what if, I developed a way to pirate a live performance? Sneak 30,000 people into an arena. Eventually people are going to call for live performances to be free too, right? I mean, I already sneak into Black Eyed Peas for free, so it should be everybody.

Dangling live performances as that carrot is like a concession prize for people, after you went through and ransacked the store.

I fully believe that they need to adapt to the new system. As I said, suing didn't work. Going after website after website is like fighting weeds. They still come. But asking these companies to adapt to a system where the customer calls the shots and dictates what you can charge them for isn't the best answer.

01-30-2012, 08:31 AM	#4
Gridlock Banned By Establishment Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: New West Posts: 3,997 Thanked 2,982 Times in 1,135 Posts Failed 284 Times in 109 Posts	I'm going to preface everything I say here by saying I don't know jack about the music industry(or music really for that matter). I get why people are pissed. First, whenever I see "the plan" for the music industry presented by those outside the industry as being music is free, and you make money on live performances, that would piss me off. I used to create an album. Then I'd go on tour to promote it. I'd make some from the tour and see most on the backend through sales. Now you are telling me that I need to work for my supper. Tours would be hell! I've got a great house! But I never see it. Bought a new car! Never drive it. I see why people all have opinions. Music lovers were abused in the system before Napster. The one story that always sticks out is that of Nine Inch Nails asking why their album was priced higher than Britney Spears. They were told that they have a loyal fan base that will pay more for their product. Nice! I actually go out of my way to listen to you, and get gouged to do so. What I don't get is how the artists continue to go for the old system. Distribution is highly irrelevant now. There has to be enough artists with enough money to start a direct supply model. I know many start their own labels, but they all distribute through the same old companies. The only reason I can think of, is they are still stuck sucking the teat of the same old companies and are going to have a problem going into direct competition with their cash cow. So it needs to be outside money. Apple took it on, but they only replaced the pressing of cd's. A little promotion within their system, but are still fed by the same old companies. The companies, through the RIAA and MPAA all want to go back to a system that puts them right back in the middle of a system that for the most part doesn't need them anymore. But that brings me back to my original point. Everyone looks to live performances as a carrot to dangle in front of people. "Yeah, we stole your shit. Oops. You sued us, it didn't work. iTunes kinda converted a few people back to paying, but now your 'cd pressing' company gets a cut per track. But hey! You can still sing and dance for me live!" What if, just what if, I developed a way to pirate a live performance? Sneak 30,000 people into an arena. Eventually people are going to call for live performances to be free too, right? I mean, I already sneak into Black Eyed Peas for free, so it should be everybody. Dangling live performances as that carrot is like a concession prize for people, after you went through and ransacked the store. I fully believe that they need to adapt to the new system. As I said, suing didn't work. Going after website after website is like fighting weeds. They still come. But asking these companies to adapt to a system where the customer calls the shots and dictates what you can charge them for isn't the best answer.