Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Media Companies' Best Customers: Those Who Steal Their Content

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Media Companies' Best Customers: Those Who Steal Their Content
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like to see a bigger study, where they do a better job of controlling for P2P use/actual piracy, but interesting results.

Advertising Age

quote:
Now, we do lots of research at Frank N. Magid Associates to take the pulse of various media channels for customers, and recently a P2P company, Vuze, hired us to find out how its users' media habits compare with those of the average internet user. When we did, we found that those media execs may not have cause for all the quaking. (While we conducted the study on behalf of a client, I assure you we used the same sound, time-tested methods we use for any of our in-house, proprietary research.)

We compared a random set of Vuze users with a national sample of internet users ages 18 to 44, and results revealed that users of P2P technology spend considerable money on traditional media and entertainment. They are, in fact, important and valued customers of the traditional media companies. Our survey shows that the P2P user attends 34% more movies in theaters, purchases 34% more DVDs and rents 24% more movies than the average internet user. The P2P user owns more HDTVs and is more likely to own a high-def-DVD player, too.


Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shoplifters might be among the Gap's best customers - would this mean that Gap should look the other way?

Yes, I know about all the non-equivalencies. But the bottom line is that the article suggests that the p2p drives their consumer behaviour, where I'd say it is just as likely that they have a voracious demand for the products which drives them to not pay for some of what they would otherwise consume.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty fluent in P2P... and it looks to me like the struggle against P2P users is a futile one. Anytime a legal victory is scored against a popular site, two more spring up to take its place. Any attempt to actually take legal action against the users would be nearly impossibly complex.
If anything, this data suggests that the smartest thing to do for a media business is to learn how to roll with the times.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
File-sharing of copywritten material is so it's almost legal.

Anyway, all ye legal moralist: how WILL you bell that cat? Now that it's out of the bag?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I'm pretty fluent in P2P... and it looks to me like the struggle against P2P users is a futile one. Anytime a legal victory is scored against a popular site, two more spring up to take its place. Any attempt to actually take legal action against the users would be nearly impossibly complex.
If anything, this data suggests that the smartest thing to do for a media business is to learn how to roll with the times.

I agree that things are heading that way, and that legal or technological remedies will probably be partially or wholly futile on a long timeline.

So how would you propose that media companies roll with the times? Accept a lower profit margin? Invest more in live performances?

If p2p were left unchallenged, then their rights to the content would be diminished. It might allow for wholesale copying and distribution.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I used napster way the heck back in the day, I purchased a ton of music that I only purchased because I would never have purchased without the ability to download the music ahead of time. People would say to me "Check out so and so," and I would download a bunch of music, like it, and go buy the CD. Prior to napster, I never bought music that way. I bought only what I heard and liked on the radio. I would not be surprised if other people of my approximate age behaved in much the same way. I did not want to waste money on music I didn't like, so I only bought it if I new I liked it. Since I purchased more than half my music collection after downloading the music, I'm fairly comfortable in asserting that record companies made more money off of me than they would have had napster, and later variants, not existed.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So how would you propose that media companies roll with the times?
Frankly, I'm not sure they can. At least not in the music industry. And I don't really feel sorry for them. Record companies exist because they can get their clients media play, and can afford the initial outlay to get bulk records produced and packaged. None of this matters as much as it did 20 years ago, and will matter even less 20 years from now. The record companies have always made obscene amounts of profit while adding almost no value to the products, so I won't be sad when they finally die out.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm pretty fluent in P2P... and it looks to me like the struggle against P2P users is a futile one. Anytime a legal victory is scored against a popular site, two more spring up to take its place. Any attempt to actually take legal action against the users would be nearly impossibly complex.
If anything, this data suggests that the smartest thing to do for a media business is to learn how to roll with the times.

This is a common enough argument, but I'm not completely convinced. Past experience tells me that it is possible to curb piracy. When Napster died it really was a blow to music piracy. It became significantly harder to find free music online. The market for illegal music quickly rebounded, but nevertheless, a temporary dent was made. When the music companies began to flood Kazaa with dummy files I noticed the difference too. I tried to make a music compilation for my grandmother and found it very difficult to do so because half the files I was downloading were bogus. That may have changed and things may be status quo again, but the tactic worked at least temporarily.

Right now, movies, music and tv shows are easily downloadable thanks to the combination of the de-centralized bittorrent system along with easily accessible centralized torrent search engines like Pirate's Bay and bttorrent. Knock over one of those pillars and piracy will be banished again from the mainstream and be forced back into the shadows like it was in the pre-Napster days. That pillar is vulnerable, as the recent prosecution in Sweden demonstrates. These centralized sites can be shut down. It's only a matter of time before they do get shut down.

And of course there's the third pillar, the consumers themselves. Josh says that it's impractical to prosecute them, but with cooperation of universities, ISP's and others I do not think that he's right about that. You don't need to prosecute all of them, just enough to scare the bejesus out of most of them. Seriously Josh, if there was even a 1% chance that you could be prosecuted for illegally downloading music, would you still do it? Would you risk getting sued or dragged into court to save a couple bucks on music?

It's going to be a long battle, but if the music industry stays the course with a combination of aggressive prosecution of the big fish, and more targetted but broad-reaching prosecution (and example-making) of the little fish, I predict that music / movie piracy will be brought under control. It won't end completely, but this particular cat can and will be forced at least partly back in the bag.

[ August 31, 2009, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It won't end completely, but this particular cat can and will be forced at least partly back in the bag.
To the detriment of the consumer.

From the business standpoint of the record industry, it would be great if limewire and other such services were legally restricted far more than they currently are. But I'm really not sure that this results in a better quality of product, a better variety of product, happier consumers, or happier and wealthier artists. There are entire new avenues into business success for artists, and that means a wider variety of art is available to the consumer. Sure, maybe piracy will eventually mean the downfall of the mega-bands and performers, but I'm not sure even that is a strong possibility.

Honestly, the only people I see benefiting from anti-piracy legal activity are lawyers and record company business executives.

If I take that as true, then why should I, as a voter and consumer, want to see those record companies succeed in stamping out piracy?

Alternatively, can you demonstrate that there is less variety for the consumer to choose from now as compared to prior to napster et al?

Perhaps a better way of putting this: What value do record companies, and similar companies in other media, add to the market? And if they subtract value, should not our duty as voters and citizens be to make sure that the record companies cannot win legal battles? Isn't the point of intellectual property laws to encourage the arts, and if the laws are not doing that, shouldn't they be changed?

[ August 31, 2009, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I take that as true, then why should I, as a voter and consumer, want to see those record companies succeed in stamping out piracy?
It's not about what you want, it's about what I believe will happen.

quote:
Perhaps a better way of putting this: What value do record companies, and similar companies in other media, add to the market? And if they subtract value, should not our duty as voters and citizens be to make sure that the record companies cannot win legal battles? Isn't the point of intellectual property laws to encourage the arts, and if the laws are not doing that, shouldn't they be changed?
I think you're misunderstanding the question here. It's not about what "value" they bring to the market.

Let's look at this objectively: these guys have the cash and the resources to fight this out in the long run. The law is on their side, and they have the lobbyists and the cash to make sure that it stays on their side.

It's true that most consumers would not agree with them, but there isn't the political will to organize grassroots opposition to these giants. People don't care enough about music to organize a credible legal / legislative opposition to them.

So basically it comes down to the simple question of whether or not you think it's technically / legally feasible to curb piracy. In the long run, I believe it is.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It won't end completely, but this particular cat can and will be forced at least partly back in the bag."

Rather, a new bag will arise via technology and is cultural evolution, that will remove the need for the cat as it is currently configured. The micve have *already* changed; it is the cat's burden now to change.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
This is a common enough argument, but I'm not completely convinced. Past experience tells me that it is possible to curb piracy. When Napster died it really was a blow to music piracy. It became significantly harder to find free music online. The market for illegal music quickly rebounded, but nevertheless, a temporary dent was made. When the music companies began to flood Kazaa with dummy files I noticed the difference too. I tried to make a music compilation for my grandmother and found it very difficult to do so because half the files I was downloading were bogus. That may have changed and things may be status quo again, but the tactic worked at least temporarily.

Right now, movies, music and tv shows are easily downloadable thanks to the combination of the de-centralized bittorrent system along with easily accessible centralized torrent search engines like Pirate's Bay and bttorrent. Knock over one of those pillars and piracy will be banished again from the mainstream and be forced back into the shadows like it was in the pre-Napster days. That pillar is vulnerable, as the recent prosecution in Sweden demonstrates. These centralized sites can be shut down. It's only a matter of time before they do get shut down.

And of course there's the third pillar, the consumers themselves. Josh says that it's impractical to prosecute them, but with cooperation of universities, ISP's and others I do not think that he's right about that. You don't need to prosecute all of them, just enough to scare the bejesus out of most of them. Seriously Josh, if there was even a 1% chance that you could be prosecuted for illegally downloading music, would you still do it? Would you risk getting sued or dragged into court to save a couple bucks on music?

It's going to be a long battle, but if the music industry stays the course with a combination of aggressive prosecution of the big fish, and more targetted but broad-reaching prosecution (and example-making) of the little fish, I predict that music / movie piracy will be brought under control. It won't end completely, but this particular cat can and will be forced at least partly back in the bag.

I think you're wrong, and I think a very pointed analogy I would make is the "war on drugs". Certainly, when a drug warlord gets too successful for his own good, he can be busted... this is what happens periodically with big, lumbering behemoths like Napster and ThePirateBay (which is still operating, by the way). But I recall a smaller, more enthusiastic service called "Oink" that I used to use - it was busted, and within a week there were TWO replacements for it that copied its web layout almost exactly.

This is why I feel like the recording industry has about as much chance of seriously curtailing music downloading as the US government has of successfully winning a war on drugs.

Case in point - I have had no trouble in my musical quest so far finding, on command and for free, the complete discography of every artist alphabetically of whom I possessed any song. I don't run into "fakes" since I use a peer-reviewed source. You might say I'm exceptional as a tech-savvy "enthusiast", but I'd say a significant proportion of the younger generation is at ease with the process I used.

Moreover, it's a matter of time until there is no "centralization". Google itself will be the culprit. The very nature of the Internet will make decentralizing and indexing information such as "where is a link to this torrent" easy and eliminate even the need for a "head" to the beast like an identifiable website.

... as for suing the users - the RIAA had better hope they don't all turn out like this one. And frankly, 1% is exaggerating things... if I knew the risk was 0.01%, which is probably more accurate, than yes, my music is worth that risk to me.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rather, a new bag will arise via technology and is cultural evolution, that will remove the need for the cat as it is currently configured. The micve have *already* changed; it is the cat's burden now to change.
The new cat is already here. It takes the form of all-digital content sites like Itunes and even digital options now widely offered on sites like Amazon.com. This will eventually replace compact discs, just as on-demand services (on digital cable and the internet) will eventually replace traditional brick and mortar video stores.

However, the fundamental question is whether or not people are going to continue taking for granted the availability of free movies and music, or if they are going to expect to pay for that content. I think that the illegal sites are going to get driven back out of the mainstream and that piracy is going to return largely to the back-alleys of the internet. The era of flagrant piracy on mainstream sites like Pirate's Bay is going to come to an end.

To me, the key is making the pay sites more convenient than the pirate sites. Websites like Napster and Kazaa (and now Bittorrent sites) thrived because not only was the content free, but it was more convenient and more widely available than it's pay equivalent. I disagree with the assumption that people value money above all else. I think they value time and convenience even more. Never underestimate the power of laziness. All the record companies need to do is make it slightly less convenient to illegally download versus buy legitimate, and the illegal option will be doomed to obscurity.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think you're wrong, and I think a very pointed analogy I would make is the "war on drugs". Certainly, when a drug warlord gets too successful for his own good, he can be busted... this is what happens periodically with big, lumbering behemoths like Napster and ThePirateBay (which is still operating, by the way). But I recall a smaller, more enthusiastic service called "Oink" that I used to use - it was busted, and within a week there were TWO replacements for it that copied its web layout almost exactly.
The key difference is that drug dealers satisfy a demand that cannot be met by anyone else (due to legal restrictions) so as long as the need remains, they cannot be stamped out. If you sold drugs in every corner convenience store, even for a significant premium, I guarantee you'd wipe out most dealers almost immediately. So the analogy does not hold because (as mentioned above) the legal options will soon equal the illegal ones, and once the hassle of locating and downloading music illegally makes it less convenient than just paying for it on a legitimate music site like Itunes, piracy's days as a mainstream activity will be numbered.

quote:
Case in point - I have had no trouble in my musical quest so far finding, on command and for free, the complete discography of every artist alphabetically of whom I possessed any song. I don't run into "fakes" since I use a peer-reviewed source. You might say I'm exceptional as a tech-savvy "enthusiast", but I'd say a significant proportion of the younger generation is at ease with the process I used.
I disagree. I think that you overestimate the majority of consumers, who are not savvy urban professionals, but lumbering Walmart consumers who have only rudimentary skill and even less patience when it comes to navigating the ins and outs of back-alley sites.

quote:
Moreover, it's a matter of time until there is no "centralization". Google itself will be the culprit. The very nature of the Internet will make decentralizing and indexing information such as "where is a link to this torrent" easy and eliminate even the need for a "head" to the beast like an identifiable website.
ISPs are already able to track, block and regulate torrent traffic. Operating systems like Windows XP already block or cap torrent traffic. Of course tech savy users can circumvent these with some effort, but the more companies like Microsoft and ISP's and government and law enforcement, the tighter the noose is going to get. There is going to be a tipping point where the skill required to circumvent the protections will be greater than the average person is willing to expend, and that's when piracy is going to lose its mainstream status.

quote:
... as for suing the users - the RIAA had better hope they don't all turn out like this one. And frankly, 1% is exaggerating things... if I knew the risk was 0.01%, which is probably more accurate, than yes, my music is worth that risk to me.
Well I can tell you right now that I'd rather pay or watch less movies than risk being prosecuted. But maybe that's just me.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Operating systems like Windows XP already block or cap torrent traffic.

Really?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tend to agree with jasonr on this one though I think that part of increasing convenience for consumers will involve lowering prices. I think that one of the causes for widespread piracy is that people want to have access to a large collection of music for cheap. They don't want to listen to every song 100s of time but they want to do what they want with every song they own (ex: burn as many times as they want, copy as many times as they want, play on all of their electronic devices). This is a hard demand to accomplish without significant price cuts. One solution would be to charge a small fee for every song played/copied/burned/etc., but that would require incredibly intrusive DRM (probably inevitable at some point).

[ August 31, 2009, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: threads ]

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Operating systems like Windows XP already block or cap torrent traffic.

Really?
Perhaps jasonr is talking about firewall rules which by default block all incoming ports, which in turn hamstrings the software's ability to connect with peers. I think it's a bit misleading to describe this as XP capping or blocking torrent traffic, though, even if XP's built in firewall is blocking the ports - because it's actually blocking all incoming requests on those ports by default, not specifically targeting torrent traffic.

[ August 31, 2009, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think you're misunderstanding the question here.
I didn't misunderstand the question. I asked a new question which I believe is more important.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps jasonr is talking about firewall rules which by default block all incoming ports, which in turn hamstrings the software's ability to connect with peers. I think it's a bit misleading to describe this as XP capping or blocking torrent traffic, though, even if XP's built in firewall is blocking the ports - because it's actually blocking all incoming requests on those ports by default, not specifically targeting torrent traffic.
I'm actually referring to Microsoft capping the number of connections at 10, which basically hobbles torrent traffic. They say it's to curb virus traffic, but why make it so difficult to disable? Why do you need to download a third party patch to change this setting?

Not to sounds Darumian, but it sounds like a roundabout way for Microsoft to throw a monkey-wrench in bittorrent.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
I tend to agree with jasonr on this one though I think that part of increasing convenience for consumers will involve lowering prices. I think that one of the causes for widespread piracy is that people want to have access to a large collection of music for cheap. They don't want to listen to every song 100s of time but they want to do what they want with every song they own (ex: burn as many times as they want, copy as many times as they want, play on all of their electronic devices). This is a hard demand to accomplish without significant price cuts. One solution would be to charge a small fee for every song played/copied/burned/etc., but that would require incredibly intrusive DRM (probably inevitable at some point).

I think that the one important qualification here is that technology is beginning to make the major recording companies obsolete at the basic level. They're trying to blame their decline on piracy, but it's more the fact that anyone with a little skill can now make a recording, publicize it, and even find people with ears to broadcast it to.

And the big thing there is that many of those people are giving it out for free. Admittiedly that's a high price for a fair portion of it, but still the direction in which things are moving.

Technology is forcing the model to change. Fighting piracy will help it last a little longer, but not much, because fighting it will mostly serve to cause their customers to look toward less antagonistic suppliers.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Perhaps jasonr is talking about firewall rules which by default block all incoming ports, which in turn hamstrings the software's ability to connect with peers. I think it's a bit misleading to describe this as XP capping or blocking torrent traffic, though, even if XP's built in firewall is blocking the ports - because it's actually blocking all incoming requests on those ports by default, not specifically targeting torrent traffic.
I'm actually referring to Microsoft capping the number of connections at 10, which basically hobbles torrent traffic. They say it's to curb virus traffic, but why make it so difficult to disable? Why do you need to download a third party patch to change this setting?
That's to make a larger market for their server product and prevent people from getting away with using cheaper system products to handle more than verly limited operations, especially since consumer hardware is robust enough by far to handle such these days.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:

And of course there's the third pillar, the consumers themselves. Josh says that it's impractical to prosecute them, but with cooperation of universities, ISP's and others I do not think that he's right about that. You don't need to prosecute all of them, just enough to scare the bejesus out of most of them. Seriously Josh, if there was even a 1% chance that you could be prosecuted for illegally downloading music, would you still do it? Would you risk getting sued or dragged into court to save a couple bucks on music?

Um... what planet are you guys living on? The RIAA has been using punitive lawsuits against individual users as part of its anti-piracy strategy for years now, to the point where the phenomenon's become as newsworthy as the RIAA's efforts to shut down P2P networks.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've just found this very provocative book called Against Intellectual Monopoly written by economists (and the authors put the book online for free). They have a pretty compelling case as to why Napster was right. I'm becoming convinced that Intellectual Property will be mostly irrelevant in our lifetimes.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eh... my two cents, as part of the new generation of tech-savvy people, is that in my own case, many of the things I eventually buy, I only find out about because I sample them beforehand, like watching tv shows on youtube. I won't say what I get or don't get on torrents and websites like rapidshare, though. [Big Grin]
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
I tend to agree with jasonr on this one though I think that part of increasing convenience for consumers will involve lowering prices. I think that one of the causes for widespread piracy is that people want to have access to a large collection of music for cheap. They don't want to listen to every song 100s of time but they want to do what they want with every song they own (ex: burn as many times as they want, copy as many times as they want, play on all of their electronic devices). This is a hard demand to accomplish without significant price cuts. One solution would be to charge a small fee for every song played/copied/burned/etc., but that would require incredibly intrusive DRM (probably inevitable at some point).

I think that the one important qualification here is that technology is beginning to make the major recording companies obsolete at the basic level. They're trying to blame their decline on piracy, but it's more the fact that anyone with a little skill can now make a recording, publicize it, and even find people with ears to broadcast it to.

And the big thing there is that many of those people are giving it out for free. Admittiedly that's a high price for a fair portion of it, but still the direction in which things are moving.

Technology is forcing the model to change. Fighting piracy will help it last a little longer, but not much, because fighting it will mostly serve to cause their customers to look toward less antagonistic suppliers.

Technology will hopefully just eliminate the need for recording studios altogether so that artists can produce "production quality" songs on their own. This would allow them to sell their songs for much cheaper and still make more money than they would with a recording contract. As far as I can tell, this is already happening.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
threads touched on something crucial. Increasingly, recorded music is homemade.

Omeg touched on another: increasingly music/media are advertised through free samples are distributed through YouTube/Google seek/find modes.

Record companies can't touch this unless they become this, and they're way behind already. The result: music sold for a fraction of its former price but without the middlemen that used to be, so the producing artists make more even though it's sold for ten cents on the former dollar.

Meanwhile, piracy is here to stay for those who prefer to take what's plainly available for the taking.

Instead of being priced and sold on a scarcity basis, music will support its producing artists more for reasons of loyalty, devotion, gratitude, and desire to encourage more of the same.

SONY produces mostly crap and sells it on a scarcity basis. Customer loyalty is dwindling thereby. Suing folks only further erodes this.

This is true of ALL media. Scarcity is now based solely on talent and effort, not exclusive broadcast/distribution rights.

SONY's catalog is losing value every day.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Add to that a push back toward live music being a primary revenue stream, rather than a record promotion tactic. Cheap and free music becomes advertizing and enticment to come to live shows of your favorite artists.

And even there, once again, technology is makeing it esier for artists and venues to find each other and advertize events without leaning on the record companies and promoters who, in their times of monopoly over the system worked out how to essentially nickle and dime bands out of any profit- you'd hear about millions of dollars in deals for records or tours, but on the back end, the bands would easily end up in debt to the labels thorugh all the fees and expenses tacked on after the fact.

The recording industry is trying to scramble to hold together a busniess modle that depended on it having full control of the market. It refuses to let go of that model and blames external forces for it's flaws rather than adapting to the shift in the market and that's mostly because it wold have to sacrifice executive profit in favor of more fair distribution of proceeds to better match what bands are able to make on their own.

We've got to deal with a lot of crap in their death throes here, but every attempt to punish their consumers instead of adapting to them helps to seal their fate even more.

The movie and computer game industries are a bit more interesting because, as yet, the amount of coordination and upfront investment to be a notable player is still out of the reach of most people. Piracy is defiintely a bigger issue there, but even then not the worst of their concerns at the moment (in as much as money recovered from preventing piracy is not likely, as they're currently structured to result in lowered consumer prices or better pay for content providers.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In fairness, you must recognize that the record companies add a ton of value to many performers' product. Their marketing is solely responsible for turning mediocre products like Britney Spears and the many boy bands into megastars, which surely would not have happened if they had to rise through some kind of peer-to-peer ranking system (which is the most likely alternative).

Many content producers and carriers in the other industries are coping better than the music industry. Comcast coupled with F/X provide shows like Rescue Me through On Demand services. Hulu coupled with NBC provide the Tonight Show through streaming internet delivery.

They generally hold back the free on-demand versions one or more days, so if you want to keep up with your water-cooler buddies, blogs, and other content delivery - you will watch it over the air and with commercials.

Also, music can't do what movies, TV, and video games can do to shift their revenue generation. Each of those other media can do product placement within the content, while opportunities in music are largely limited to Crystal, Hennesy, luxury automobiles, and other products often rapped about.

TV will also always have live programming like sporting events, but also news channels, etc. Few people want to P2P last week's news.

Movies clearly have bigger problems, but can generally keep control of their high-quality product prior to general DVD release. They can get their theatre receipts and Pay-Per-View fees prior to that point, and p2p will always represent a relatively small segment of the population since it still requires some technical savvy and a home theatre setup conducive to watching downloaded movies. The DVD also has value-added features that are not generally available in P2P distribution, like commentary tracks. Blu-Ray has even more opportunity for enhanced content.

The interesting thing is, where will the money wind up in the value chain? Some people in this thread are envisioning prices dropping to fractions, and the performers receiving the lion's share. Call me simple, but "free" is infinitely better than "almost free" - why would p2p users suddenly care about the artist's copyright once prices drop?

It seems to me the music industry, and musicians, must almost certainly fall back to a model where they only make money from live performances, memorabilia, and selling limited rights to movie, TV, and advertising agencies.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Their marketing is solely responsible for turning mediocre products like Britney Spears and the many boy bands into megastars, which surely would not have happened if they had to rise through some kind of peer-to-peer ranking system (which is the most likely alternative)."

Adding value to the pockets of a few is not the value listeners seek.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Cheap and free music becomes advertizing and enticment to come to live shows of your favorite artists."

True but the same tech is making virtual live entertainment available for free. I don't want to be in a crowd of howlers to see an artist I admire. I want someone with enhanced recording tech to record the concert and upload it to YouTube.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Also, music can't do what movies, TV, and video games can do to shift their revenue generation. Each of those other media can do product placement within the content, while opportunities in music are largely limited to Crystal, Hennesy, luxury automobiles, and other products often rapped about."

Thank God! I can't wait for the piggyback advertising revenue as the main profit model for media to decline into a minor role.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I echo some of Drake's comments, insofar as clearly the movie and tv and game industries are not comparable to the music industry. You cannot produce The Dark Knight in your basement as of yet, and while distribution of pirated movies is getting easier thanks to greater bandwidth, the greater file size is acting as a much-needed buffer for the industry to adapt to new business models like on-demand and internet streaming.

As an interesting aside, while I doubt mainstream blockbuster movies will ever be replicated at home any time soon, I do note an interesting phenomenon of some pretty low-budget but highly entertaining internet products.

For example, I have been watching alot of Angry Videogame Nerd and Nostalgia Critic videos. These guys are hilarious, and the production values are probably non-existent.

Admittedly they're pretty much a niche product, but it does make me wonder if the traditionally lower budget forms of entertainment are headed towards a more democratic model of distribution over the net. Will we see an age of start-up / do-it-yourself comedy shows and sit-coms broadcast for free over the net?

Personally, I'd rather watch the Nostalgia Critic rant about old movies than watch the latest piece of **** sitcom on TV.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its interesting to note that nearly ALL successful webcomics (meaning, webcomics that provide a full time income for their creators) are available completely free. Its simply a more profitable business model (for comics, though I think many of the same principles apply to music).

The operative fact is that people can and will pay for content, but its no longer necessary to pay anyone else. Record companies used to serve a function, now they don't. Its only a matter of time before the market eliminates them. Right now they are hiding behind our absurd copyright laws (which is basically a form of corporate welfare), but that won't last forever. Even sites like iTunes are just a temporary adaptation; the internet makes distributors unnecessary, so people are not going to keep paying them a percentage. Digg-type sites are already better for sorting though content quality. What exactly do distributors add?

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I echo some of Drake's comments, insofar as clearly the movie and tv and game industries are not comparable to the music industry. You cannot produce The Dark Knight in your basement as of yet, and while distribution of pirated movies is getting easier thanks to greater bandwidth, the greater file size is acting as a much-needed buffer for the industry to adapt to new business models like on-demand and internet streaming.

Where you're going to see the biggest tension in the movie industry is theatre vs. home theatre.

Unless the distributors make some effort to reduce overhead costs on movies, ticket prices are going to start driving people to wait now that they can get a nearly identical experince at home.

I imagine that we'll see a few attempts to put harsher restricitons on what people can do with commecial movies on their home system, but I think, if they're smart, they'll drop the fees that theatres have to pay so ticket prices can drop and make it up with merchandise and media sales (especially because they've firmly established that people will pay for the same content over and over if you keep wrapping it with new goodies)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1