OFCOM speaks on Anti-piracy measures.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Or they could embrace the e-system. You reminded me of something.

Nine Inch Nails - Ghosts I-IV and Slip - both released under the creative commons license. DRM Free downloads available free of charge for both albums. Paid versions also available. I bought the Ghosts I-IV mid-level version, DRM free download with boxed CD set when it came out with additional extras.

As for Slip - Well, given that the Billboard 100 is like the UK Charts, and records the SALE of music. Slip made number 18.

The Slip made its Billboard debut at No.13. That said, and as foreverwar has pointed out, the rights assignments under creative commons were determined by the artist, not the public.

It's worthy of note that even dear old Trent had to rely on conventional distribution through RED for the physical product - so he went some way to proving that part of the business model isn't as flawed as the freetards would have us believe.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Therein lies the problem Angua. The big picture is "the millions with access to the web" and the levels of access and exposure to supposedly "free" material which they can avail of just because somebody, somewhere thinks they are doing an artist a "favour" by making their material available for free without asking the artist if they'd like them to do that "favour".

Maggy, "websites about art,music,films,comics,photography,books,blogs and such" which give away copyright material where they have no right or express permission to do so are not "fans", they are part of the problem whether they do it for profit / personal gain or not.

Fans buy things to support the creative endeavours of those artists they support. This is exactly what Imogen is saying. Effectively her fans are being denied access to her because the illegal free distribution of her recorded material has had an adverse impact on finances which she ordinarily might use to afford them access by way of touring etc.

It is a vicious circle but the bottom line is that if someone is going to promote an artist as a fan in the true sense then they should seek their permission to do so rather than elect to share material at their own volition.

Most artists I know would gladly interact with their fans on that basis and would be only too willing to engage them in the promotion / distribution of select materials.

We cannot, however, have a "fan" exemption when it come to infringement.

I think you misread me.I'm suggesting that websites devoted to an artist or whatever subject that DO NOT GIVE OUT COPYRIGHTED products not belonging to them shouldn't necessarily be chased for the occasional use of promotional material.As for seeking approval to do so when did that become a requirement?

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The Slip made its Billboard debut at No.13. That said, and as foreverwar has pointed out, the rights assignments under creative commons were determined by the artist, not the public.

It's worthy of note that even dear old Trent had to rely on conventional distribution through RED for the physical product - so he went some way to proving that part of the business model isn't as flawed as the freetards would have us believe.

No-one said that the distribution process was flawed, only that the concept of free distribution of non-physical media as destroying physical sales was flawed.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

No-one said that the distribution process was flawed, only that the concept of free distribution of non-physical media as destroying physical sales was flawed.

You miss the point.

Conventional wisdom, indeed even your own post free download activities in relation to these releases, says otherwise.

Reznor elected to release the digital format under creative commons five months in advance of the (vastly overpriced) "limited editions" of the physical format (dependant on the old distribution model).

Week one of his physical release of The Slip saw a Billboard debut resulting from only 29,000 sales out of 250,000 pressings. Compare that to the published independant sales figures of physical NIN sales of releases (week one) prior to that endeavour and it is clear that the free distribution of non-physical media impacts adversely on end sales of physical media - hence the requirement on Reznors part for overly inflated point of sale product post release.

Common sense dictates that if you have an opportunity to listen to something illegally for free and, on that premise, decide that you don't like it and would not spend money to buy the physical product then that is a lost sale in what is ordinarily a speculatitve market whereby a legitimate listening / evaluation would involve a purchase.

---------- Post added at 01:30 ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I think you misread me.I'm suggesting that websites devoted to an artist or whatever subject that DO NOT GIVE OUT COPYRIGHTED products not belonging to them shouldn't necessarily be chased for the occasional use of promotional material.As for seeking approval to do so when did that become a requirement?

"occasional use of promotional material" where such use is unlicensed or carried out without the permission of the originating artist (or copyright holder), whether for the purposes of promotion or not, is illegal.

There is no such thing as well intentioned infringement as far as copyright is concerned.

Seeking approval for the reproduction or use of (in part or otherwise) copyrighted artistic works has always been a matter of course.

[Lord Nikon]

Bear in mind also though that The Slip was released without any prior promotion. That in itself would affect sales adversely.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I think you misread me.I'm suggesting that websites devoted to an artist or whatever subject that DO NOT GIVE OUT COPYRIGHTED products not belonging to them shouldn't necessarily be chased for the occasional use of promotional material.As for seeking approval to do so when did that become a requirement?

In addition such fan sites are giving FREE promotion to their band, actor, film, book or whatever. They do not ask for any money toward running the site and the numbers they reach are probably minuscule in the grand scheme of things.

It is the out of proportion power given to a few big companies (these are the only ones who have the spare cash to go chasing the minnows) that I find so bizarre. If they went after people who are making money out of their product first and foremost I would have a lot more sympathy for them.

This appears no different to changing the rules for all benefit claimants to target the career scroungers. Which will only catch the innocent who are in genuine need.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Bear in mind also though that The Slip was released without any prior promotion. That in itself would affect sales adversely.

This is not necessarily true in certain regards. It is true to say that there were no bill posters, magazine advertisements or what might be considered conventional placements in advance of the album release there was, however, one of the biggest pre-release pushes to radio in modern history for an independant (by then definition rather than career history) artist for the single "Discipline".

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Angua

In addition such fan sites are giving FREE promotion to their band, actor, film, book or whatever. They do not ask for any money toward running the site and the numbers they reach are probably minuscule in the grand scheme of things.

Nobody has an issue with this - providing they have the permission / blessing of the artist(s) / copyright holders to do so. If they are using material(s) already legitimately and legally in the public domain then there is no issue whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Angua

It is the out of proportion power given to a few big companies (these are the only ones who have the spare cash to go chasing the minnows) that I find so bizarre. If they went after people who are making money out of their product first and foremost I would have a lot more sympathy for them.

These companies also invest out of proportion money to help promote and produce artists which they are legally entitled to recover. A cursory browse of Google will show that they are going after those who make money first and foremost. If that were not the case then there would be literally millions of cases clogging up the UK legal system. Nobody is asking for your or anyone elses sympathy, they are asking that people obey the law.

Originally Posted by Angua

This appears no different to changing the rules for all benefit claimants to target the career scroungers. Which will only catch the innocent who are in genuine need.

You analogy is interesting in that you'd think people would learn.

The issue is that the freeloaders in the guise of career scroungers place an unweildy burden on resources which would otherwise be spent on the needy / deserving (or in this analogy new music).

If people turn a blind eye to it then it will become the norm (as has been the case with the benefit system). You've seen / identified what happens in such a situation - it is unsustainable.

It is the "career scroungers" and freetards who have necessitated these rule changes which may affect the innocent - it is they who you have to thank rather than Government and business, that is a fact.

I think we should all, myself included, try to stay on topic rather than wandering off.

Agreed about topic drift.That is a whole other thread.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Damien

Interesting Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...s/10220002.stm

had a read, so shes selling out but just has bad business sense.

her costs been higher than her turnover.

so she could probably increase prices.
cut down her costs.
sell online tickets, (people watch over stream)
look at bigger venues which may be more cost effective for larger audiences.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

had a read, so shes selling out but just has bad business sense.

Nowhere does she say she is selling out venues. In fact quite the opposite - from the original (much more indepth and factual article) which appeared in the Guardian.

"Heap's tour page - showing the gruelling schedule she's going through - suggests she's not managing many sellouts; tickets appear available for lots of the venues."

It's her good business sense which is telling her that touring is not cost effective in its current guise.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

her costs been higher than her turnover.

Through no fault of hers but of the venue owners (Live Nation / Ticketmaster)

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so she could probably increase prices.

Hardly likely - you must have missed this bit "Some fans have been unable or unwilling to pay $40 (£27) a ticket for her current tour, and she blames venue owners, ticket agencies and promoters for bumping up the fees."

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

cut down her costs.
sell online tickets, (people watch over stream)

See above, she is "tied in" she cannot, willy nilly, offer streaming as an option when it can be "ripped" and not monetized.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

look at bigger venues which may be more cost effective for larger audiences.

Not if you put your ticket prices beyond the reach of the average fan as per your suggestion above.

[Chrysalis]

I give her a thumbs up of course for at least not blaming piracy.

It does state in the article her strongpoint is her fanbase and she is indeed selling out.

Obviously the bigger venue idea and increasing prices probably do not go hand in hand and it would be one or the other.

Note promoters is one of her blame's. Who is the promoter I wonder.

[peanut]

Maybe she's just not very watchable in concert. I haven't heard of her, or downloaded any tracks of hers. Maybe if more people did download her tracks regardless of legality they might then pay to see her in concert.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I give her a thumbs up of course for at least not blaming piracy.

Yes, of course that would appeal to your sensibilities - were it true.

Did you miss the part where she is quoted as saying ""record sales low (across the industry) really impacting me".

The clue is in there if you look for it.

If you need more of a clue try here from last November where you'll find:

“I think that people who maybe have grown up in an environment, people who are younger than me, where it’s just not normal to go out and spend money on an album… It’s absolutely ridiculous and they know it’s illegal but they’re like ‘so what. I can get it for free. I’ll go to the gigs and I’ll talk about her’. To them it’s not – they don’t understand that maybe it is quite damaging.”

Illegal downloading is a subject that Imogen talks passionately about. She simply doesn’t understand how some music fans can justify stealing music:

“I don’t make money through record sales… Maybe some people think ‘oh, £10 for all that effort’ but it’s not really asking a lot. It’s skipping dinner with a friend so they can afford it. It seems ridiculous to see it like that, when you think it’s only a couple of drinks at the bar. That’s all it is at the end of the day.”

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

It does state in the article her strongpoint is her fanbase and she is indeed selling out.

One sell out show in Jakarta - neither a constant nor frequent occurrance.

Her tour itinerary and ticket availability say otherwise (as does the Guardian article)

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Obviously the bigger venue idea and increasing prices probably do not go hand in hand and it would be one or the other.

No, according to her business sense it's neither - I thought you said you read the article.

Some of the more interesting points from the Guardian piece:

"You remember how people have been telling us that musicians shouldn't worry about their songs being spread all over file-sharing networks because the real money is to be made in touring? Especially, if memory serves, people who like getting music for free off file-sharing networks?
Turns out the real money isn't necessarily in touring."


.....


"Which leads us back to the key question. If an artist like Heap - adored by her fans, making copious use of social media such as Twitter, Flickr and MySpace - can't make it work in the modern world despite touring like a Trojan, and having devoted fans, but without selling truckloads of CDs or getting major label investment, might that really mean that the big labels - so reviled in so many corners - actually are needed?"