Web giants unite against Digital Britain copyright plan

[soicky]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

They used to do it in some of the virgin megastores in the UK aswel.

Also use to do it in WHSmith.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

So you can prove that all of the alleged illegal downloaders would all have purchased a copy of said media if they had not downloaded it can you? I think not.

No Mick, that's not what I'm actually saying or attempting to prove. I'm saying that under the constraints if the exisiting business model in order to have obtained a full copy for the purposes of determining whether it was "any good or not" one (in ones' capacity as a "consumer" as opposed to a reviewer or critic) would have been expected to have purchased a copy of same. That someone elects to get a copy by other, illegal means, means merely that they sought to circumvent the purchasing process to acquire same. Whether they like / liked it or not under normal conventional business circumstances they would have had to buy a copy to arrive at that determination. So, in effect yes - an illegally downloaded copy - for the purposes of "evaluation" is a lost sale.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I suggest that as the number of illegal downloads made is an unknown factor ergo the number who would have purchased if an illegal download was unavailable is equally unknown, as is the number who did purchase after making an illegal download and the sales lost because of reports by critics and illegal downloaders that the product was the usual complete tripe.

Suggest what you want. You are positing the age old excuse of "I only download to see if I like it and then I go and buy it". I have dealt with this position in earlier references to TV, Radio etc and, as you point out in your quote below, there are plenty of alternative sources to provide indicators which completely obviate any need for someone to download.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Your statement is patently untrue. You omit to mention word of mouth from disappointed purchasers, you also omit legitimate reviews from Critics which can be found in the press, on TV and on the Net.

"Patently untrue"? Tell me Mick, since when have "word of mouth from disappointed purchasers....legitimate reviews from Critics which can be found in the press, on TV and on the Net" constituted "a true copy of any quality"? My comment above refers.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's refreshing to hear you freely admit the Industry you support so vociferously hinges so much on deception as a business model. It is therefore unsurprising that so many seem to take so much delight in ripping it off. Sow and Reap come to mind.

I highlighted the practice (business model) I don't believe that I've said anywhere that I supported it.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

There is no need to advocate the illegality of downloading copyrighted media to me as I have never defended it.

I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to make that statement or as to why you thought / felt I was trying to "advocate the illegality" of anything to you or that I assumed that you defended anything that I didn't advocate the illegality of to you. I assumed, from your lack of interaction and argument to the contrary that you understood the premise. Now that you've made it clear that you understand the illegality of it I'm happy to put it to bed.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I am of the opinion that this is just the latest attempt using the latest pretext to roll it out.

Probably right, however my assertion stands - were it not for the wanton illegal pillaging of copyright works the Government would have no legally arguable pretext (beyond terrorism & national security) to roll it out.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Not forgetting of course our Oppressive Regime's tendency to roll over at the slightest behest from Washington.

Beyond dispute.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You have no substantive evidence to quantify that assertion and it is easliy disproven by the almost total collapse of the UK music distribution market.

This isn't necessarily totally true. A lot of the issues have been largely down to retailers' laziness to deal with the labels direct, preferring to deal with one company who supplies them totally, and then deals with the record labels - e.g. Entertainment UK and Zavvi. Whereas a local independent dealer here will order directly from the labels themselves, or their UK distributors, often on personal terms - with a far less turnover than a major retailer, and yet still survive? Why? Mainly because they order what they can sell and don't rely on funding their existing stock on credit. When Zavvi went into administration and it transpired how their business model worked, they were somewhat alarmed they operated in that way.

It's a fine balance, but if you hold small amounts of stock, and order in what you can guarantee to sell, or if you own your stock then your liabilities are more easily tied up in your business than if you don't own the stock - Zavvi didn't own the items in the shops because they hadn't paid EUK for them, hence when EUK went into liquidation, they caused a payment on the assets held by the likes of Zavvi, who since they had little they owned and didn't own the stock could either send the stock back, in which case they had no income, or go through themselves.

It's simple economics, and has little to do with illegal downloading. People have and always will pirate copyrighted material, and a lot of those who do will end up buying it.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nffc

This isn't necessarily totally true. A lot of the issues have been largely down to retailers' laziness to deal with the labels direct, preferring to deal with one company who supplies them totally, and then deals with the record labels - e.g. Entertainment UK and Zavvi.

It's not a matter of "retailers' laziness". The fact of the matter is that major labels do not, by and large, deal directly with retailers.

Originally Posted by nffc

Whereas a local independent dealer here will order directly from the labels themselves, or their UK distributors, often on personal terms - with a far less turnover than a major retailer, and yet still survive? Why? Mainly because they order what they can sell and don't rely on funding their existing stock on credit.

On a point of interest, and I'm genuinely interested in knowing this, which of your local independent dealers don't fund their existing stock on credit / credit lines. I'm sure there are more but the only independent store I'm aware of in Nottingham is The Heavy Sounds and a fair percentile of their turnover is in second hand / used records & CD's.

Most recent figures in relation to local independent dealers suggest an ongoing decline in that sector. From the Guardian, April 2009:

Over a quarter of the UK's independent music stores went out of business last year, according to the Entertainment Retailers Association. In the record store heyday of the 1980s there were 2,200 stores; by 1994 there were 1,200. Today only 305 remain. The shops, and their dwindling number of committed owners, are, however, refusing to go quietly. This Saturday, more than 50 independent record shops from across the UK, and thousands more worldwide, will team up with top independent labels for Record Store Day.

Originally Posted by nffc

When Zavvi went into administration and it transpired how their business model worked, they were somewhat alarmed they operated in that way.

It worked exactly the same way that Tescos arrangement with EUK worked. Did Tescos go under? No. Why? Because music was not their core business.

Originally Posted by nffc

It's a fine balance, but if you hold small amounts of stock, and order in what you can guarantee to sell

If you can predetermine a stock based only on "what you can guarantee to sell" you'd be a good one. If it were so simple and "a fine balance" do you not think that every remaining record store in the UK (independent or otherwise) would have returned their entire existing (unsold) stock and packed out their shelves with copies of "I dreamed a dream"?

Originally Posted by nffc

.. or if you own your stock then your liabilities are more easily tied up in your business than if you don't own the stock - Zavvi didn't own the items in the shops because they hadn't paid EUK for them, hence when EUK went into liquidation, they caused a payment on the assets held by the likes of Zavvi, who since they had little they owned and didn't own the stock could either send the stock back, in which case they had no income, or go through themselves.

See the reference above re: Tescos (which also applies to other major chains at the time). It was never in a distributors nor a labels interest for retailers to outright "own" their own stock as this would have involved greater credit lines based on the sale or return model, breakages, mechanicals, promos etc. People fail to see this. In the end Zavvi ended up with £100 - £106m worth of stock for £40m - not much comfort to those who lost their jobs but certainly no bad thing for a kickstart when they eventually resumed trading.

Originally Posted by nffc

It's simple economics, and has little to do with illegal downloading. People have and always will pirate copyrighted material, and a lot of those who do will end up buying it.

As I've pointed out above it's not as simple as "simple economics" - if only it were. I have already explained, no less than twice, how illegal downloading plays a major part on the bottom line yet people are either in denial or pretend they cannot understand the premise of "buying" something to see what it is like.

Yes, people will always pirate copyrighted material where there is a reasonable opportunity for them to do so. That does not make doing so right, even if they do go out and "end up buying it".

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As I've pointed out above it's not as simple as "simple economics" - if only it were. I have already explained, no less than twice, how illegal downloading plays a major part on the bottom line yet people are either in denial or pretend they cannot understand the premise of "buying" something to see what it is like.

Yes, people will always pirate copyrighted material where there is a reasonable opportunity for them to do so. That does not make doing so right, even if they do go out and "end up buying it".

I'm not denying that illegal downloads play a big part in the bottom line, but it seems to me that you are desperately clinging on to a business model that is about 40 years out of date.

This business model you quote where every illegal download is a lost sale became obsolete when cassette tapes became popular. Before downloading became an option, people were always making tapes for their mates. Quoting your own source here, the heydays of the record shops were in the 80s. Pirating copyrighted materials was rife in the 80s, and it seems record shops did quite well back then. The only thing that has changed is that it has become a lot easier to get hold of pirated material.

Oh, and for the 'record': no I do not condone the widespread pirating of copyrighted material. I reckon 98% of my music collection has been paid for. In fact, hardly anything of it is downloaded at all. It's all hardcopy CDs and LPs.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not denying that illegal downloads play a big part in the bottom line, but it seems to me that you are desperately clinging on to a business model that is about 40 years out of date.

Sorry danielf I'm not clinging on to a dead business model - I'm merely explaining that model.

As I said in my earlier post to Mick "I highlighted the practice (business model) I don't believe that I've said anywhere that I supported it."

Originally Posted by danielf

This business model you quote where every illegal download is a lost sale became obsolete when cassette tapes became popular.

Not really, you'll recall - and I pointed this out earlier - the music businesses made and sold the blank cassette tapes and the mediums by which they were played back - both domestically and personally (Hi-Fi tape deck, portable tape deck and Walkman). Effectively they were making more money due to the required outlay on the part of the consumer to keep up with technology.

If anything the advent and subsequent popularity of the cassette further increased the profits of the music industry, "simple economics" as nffc would put it.

Originally Posted by danielf

Before downloading became an option, people were always making tapes for their mates. Quoting your own source here, the heydays of the record shops were in the 80s. Pirating copyrighted materials was rife in the 80s, and it seems record shops did quite well back then.

See above. Bear in mind also that the 80's saw the introduction of the CD as a medium. Subsequently, and in tandem with the introduction of CD Walkmen and Mini Disks, the demand for vinyl (as a non portable medium) fell.

Originally Posted by danielf

The only thing that has changed is that it has become a lot easier to get hold of pirated material.

See above. Once the transition to the binary (MP3) came about the music businesses were quick to corner the blank cd markets -0nce again they, for the greater part, are the manufacturers of playback and recording machines. It truly "got out of hand" when someone not connected with the music business (Apple) created a stand alone platform.

Originally Posted by danielf

Oh, and for the 'record': no I do not condone the widespread pirating of copyrighted material. I reckon 98% of my music collection has been paid for. In fact, hardly anything of it is downloaded at all. It's all hardcopy CDs and LPs.

Nice pun. Neither do I. I'm just pointing out that taking something for free just because you can does not make it right or OK. It comes at a cost and even if you buy the track / album later as many claim to do, it does not deflect from the fact that you acquired it without paying first.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Not really, you'll recall - and I pointed this out earlier - the music businesses made and sold the blank cassette tapes and the mediums by which they were played back - both domestically and personally (Hi-Fi tape deck, portable tape deck and Walkman). Effectively they were making more money due to the required outlay on the part of the consumer to keep up with technology.

If anything the advent and subsequent popularity of the cassette further increased the profits of the music industry, "simple economics" as nffc would put it.

See above. Bear in mind also that the 80's saw the introduction of the CD as a medium. Subsequently, and in tandem with the introduction of CD Walkmen and Mini Disks, the demand for vinyl (as a non portable medium) fell.

See above. Once the transition to the binary (MP3) came about the music businesses were quick to corner the blank cd markets -0nce again they, for the greater part, are the manufacturers of playback and recording machines. It truly "got out of hand" when someone not connected with the music business (Apple) created a stand alone platform.

Hang on, it seems to me that the players that made money out of the media and the playback equipment overlap with, but certainly don't make up the copyright holders/labels. Sure, Sony, Philips et al. have/had their content branches, but generally, the labels that really lose out on copyright infringement are not part of the media and playback producing industry? Or are you saying that the big guns didn't give a hoot about the losses of the minor players because they were getting their money anyway?

(Incidentally, bakc in the 80s Holland introduced a levy on blank media to recoup some of the lost sales, which I thought was a really good idea)

Nice pun. Neither do I. I'm just pointing out that taking something for free just because you can does not make it right or OK. It comes at a cost and even if you buy the track / album later as many claim to do, it does not deflect from the fact that you acquired it without paying first.

Yes, I do agree there, but I'm also a big fan of the try before you buy concept. It's good to see services like Spotify spring up that allow you to do so legally, because the 'buy in order to try' business model really is outdated imo.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

Hang on, it seems to me that the players that made money out of the media and the playback equipment overlap with, but certainly don't make up the copyright holders/labels. Sure, Sony, Philips et al. have/had their content branches, but generally, the labels that really lose out on copyright infringement are not part of the media and playback producing industry? Or are you saying that the big guns didn't give a hoot about the losses of the minor players because they were getting their money anyway?

More or less - however they eased the pain of the losses suffered by the "minor players" by buying them out in their droves. Suddenly indie labels and publishers were wealthy beyond their wildest dreams but their "kewl" factor was dead in the water once anyone looked at the heraldy (the remaining 50% of Creation records sold to Sony for $30m by way of just one example).

Originally Posted by danielf

(Incidentally, bakc in the 80s Holland introduced a levy on blank media to recoup some of the lost sales, which I thought was a really good idea)

Yes, this is still in place until 2010/11 as far as I'm aware - it constitutes a small "offset" but the move to harddrive based devices has all but abolished any benefits.

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, I do agree there, but I'm also a big fan of the try before you buy concept. It's good to see services like Spotify spring up that allow you to do so legally, because the 'buy in order to try' business model really is outdated imo.

I agree.

Spotify, whilst good, still needs to prove its worth from a musicians point of view.

Whilst the potential is ENORMOUS the revenue streams generated are of little or no consequence and that needs to change. Currently those organizations charged with negotiating and collecting such things are not keen to progress the debate because they have realized that their doing so is the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas.

I'd be happy to elaborate further by pm should you wish to do so.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

More or less - however they eased the pain of the losses suffered by the "minor players" by buying them out in their droves. Suddenly indie labels and publishers were wealthy beyond their wildest dreams but their "kewl" factor was dead in the water once anyone looked at the heraldy (the remaining 50% of Creation records sold to Sony for $30m by way of just one example).

Cheers for that.

(I have a mint copy of CRE012. I wonder how much that's worth)

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by danielf

Cheers for that.

(I have a mint copy of CRE012. I wonder how much that's worth)

Depending on the colour scheme and assuming the sleeve is also mint you'd be looking at anything up to $40.00 0r 25 Euros.