shining_dark Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Your point being? umm lol no idea really - just at how obsessive we all are when it comes to matt i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niky_e Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 you know matt could create a thread that just says 'hi' - and there would be 200 posts in an hour Yes that's so true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nohopeinfear Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 umm lol no idea really - just at how obsessive we all are when it comes to matt i guess Your point being?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 An article I read in The Times outlined how over the past 10-15 years bands have gone from doing loss making tours to sell records towards giving music away for free to drum up interest in their tours. The main victims of the downloading will be the record companies and promoters that heavily engage in manufacturing 'pop bands' purely to sell music to impressionable youths. Bands like Muse have large fan bases who don't mind paying for their albums, will go see them on tour and may even buy singles. I doubt the same can be said for your stereotypical Girls Aloud fan (about Girls Aloud, not Muse ). Basically, Simon Cowell is the loser in all this. yeah i think the record companies will be the losers because they've failed to move forward into the digital age because they were too happy with their out of date, exploitative model of the past. i think really any popular artist can make money its just a case of knowing your target audience i imagine with a band like muse people will probably pay more for a cool package etc whereas girls aloud people would probably pay for convenience of access, i can't really your stereotypical girls aloud fan downloading them off a torrent more, just itunes. ha i wonder if a girls aloud fan will come and be offended Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o0oCroinao0o Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 umm lol no idea really - just at how obsessive we all are when it comes to matt i guess and is this a bad thing?i think not...i mean look at it bringing us all together :LOL: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shining_dark Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Your point being?? lol piss off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 You imply that Morgan is actually fallible. Haha what a crazy notion He did an alright job. Obviously nothing compared to the genius of the Nicholls. did he have to suffer the cabasa indignity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
absolutionamethyst Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Okay we need some big L'Oreal hair product controversy so we can get Dom to post on the board next to clarify his view. :LOL: Or we could say there's a sale on overly camp clothes this week at New Look? Supremely tight green trousers 69% off! After Matt's post - these two are clearly the best on this thread! This has made my day!!!!!!:LOL: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sade Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That's because the Ads aren't optimized to their best use. If google has proved anything it's that ads are the best form of revenue because they can be tailored to specific demographics. If spotify's ads reflected the music's target demographics then it'd be a whole new ballgame. That combined with the portability of the iphone app and the potential for subscription fees the possibilities of having free media is really viable. I'm curious though, do you really want to turn Internet into some advertising wasteland ? I personally hate pop-up ads, ugly layouts with bunch of ads and contents that are accessible "if you fill in this survey" etc. I would actually be happy to pay more for ad-free content, but as per rules of capitalism many people would take the free content (and after a while, start a complaint about being force-fed ads). I personally would not like to be subjected to it. Then again, ad revenues are being considered- I think it was in the news that some high profile artists will start printing ads on the CD booklets etc. I personally find this a rather sad development. It kind of emphasizes the fact that music is nothing more that a commercial commodity. Also, it is true that more bands are looking into touring as the better alternative in making money. What will this lead to? Yes, increased ticket prices. Which will lead to? Complaints about overpriced tickets and many people not being able to afford concerts. Oh and it's not only bands, btw. I believe it's more and more common for record labels to take a hefty cut of the touring profit as well. EDIT: Also, I think Google is one of the very few sites actually making profit by advertisement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkshineskitty Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I thought it would be cool flying from my tent at Glastonbury. Although if I don't get a ticket then that plan will kinda backfire! That's actually a pretty cool idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allypap Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 yeah i think the record companies will be the losers because they've failed to move forward into the digital age because they were too happy with their out of date, exploitative model of the past. i think really any popular artist can make money its just a case of knowing your target audience i imagine with a band like muse people will probably pay more for a cool package etc whereas girls aloud people would probably pay for convenience of access, i can't really your stereotypical girls aloud fan downloading them off a torrent more, just itunes. ha i wonder if a girls aloud fan will come and be offended Sorry, had to quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 yeah i think the record companies will be the losers because they've failed to move forward into the digital age because they were too happy with their out of date, exploitative model of the past. i think really any popular artist can make money its just a case of knowing your target audience i imagine with a band like muse people will probably pay more for a cool package etc whereas girls aloud people would probably pay for convenience of access, i can't really your stereotypical girls aloud fan downloading them off a torrent more, just itunes. ha i wonder if a girls aloud fan will come and be offended Cheryl Cole will make an account and have a go at me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shining_dark Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Sorry, had to quote Oh dear what has this come to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josefine Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 He did an alright job. Obviously nothing compared to the genius of the Nicholls. No one shakes a cabasa like Morgan i think he should sign it too yes? Since I blame him personally - yes I thought it would be cool flying from my tent at Glastonbury. Although if I don't get a ticket then that plan will kinda backfire! Pfft, just saying that to cover up your fangirly-ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I thought it would be cool flying from my tent at Glastonbury. Although if I don't get a ticket then that plan will kinda backfire! I think I might just have to do that now if I get a ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josefine Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Cheryl Cole will make an account and have a go at me If she does, Olly will SPAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrieB Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Awww Matt, you really didn't need to come on here and justify yourself. A couple of people just overreacted rather stupidly. Will however read with interest later! x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Dear Matt Can you play Bliss at one of the O2 dates? you never play it at gigs I go to anymore You're 346603th biggest fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozza Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 If she does, Olly will SPAFF Dirty PMs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popey Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I'm curious though, do you really want to turn Internet into some wasteland advertising? I personally hate pop-up ads, ugly layouts with bunch of ads and contents that are accessible "if you fill in this survey" etc. I would actually be happy to pay more for ad-free content, but as per rules of capitalism many people would take the free content (and after a while, start a complaint about being force-fed ads). I personally would not like to be subjected to it. Then again, ad revenues are being considered- I think it was in the news that some high profile artists will start printing ads on the CD booklets etc. I personally find this a rather sad development. It kind of emphasizes the fact that music is nothing more that a commercial commodity. Also, it is true that more bands are looking into touring as the better alternative in making money. What will this lead to? Yes, increased ticket prices. Which will lead to? Complaints about overpriced tickets and many people not being able to afford concerts. Oh and it's not only bands, btw. I believe it's more and more common for record labels to take a hefty cut of the touring profit as well. EDIT: Also, I think Google is one of the very few sites actually making profit by advertisement. The internet wouldn't be anymore cluttered than it already is. Adverts would only be heard if you elect to stream, no different than if you were to listen to the radio or watch television. If you wanted to buy it and not see ads then you buy the media itself. Simples Shockingly enough media is a commodity. Artists can claim creativity shouldn't be marred with business but if that was the case then they wouldn't complain about piracy. They don't have a leg to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucidity Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Dear Matt Can you play Bliss at one of the O2 dates? you never play it at gigs I go to anymore You're 346603th biggest fan Let the requests begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingardium LevioSIA Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I went on Matt's profile randomly to see if he'd ever posted, and then I was like "ooh, he has! TODAY." But yeah, I thought that was pretty interesting. Realistically, it would probably be a bureaucratic nightmare though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazzie Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 A few clarifications are needed! (Some of you think this was well thought out, but I swear I wrote it in 10 minutes after a few drinks without going too deep!): - When I say tax I don't mean governmental tax, I mean a new law where ISPs have to pay copyright owners a share of the revenue that is generated from broadband subscriptions in acknowledgement of the value that the sharing of copyrighted content online has to those subscriptions and the profitability of the ISPs. - When I say 'creative industries' I also meant to include all original content creators, including content by people who have no record label or representation of any kind. E.g. If someone decides to make a DIY film or song with no budget which then goes viral to 20m people, there should be some universal method in place (like a bar code) where that person can trace how their film/song etc has been used and potentially claim some money back from the ISPs who will be gaining from such activity. If revenue could be generated (however small) for all content creators, it would be extremely liberating as many people would find not only mass recognition, but also a potential income without needing to sign their rights away to record companies, publishers and Hollywood production companies first. This could also reduce the 'creative bottle neck' that some writers and artists have to go through to impress the boards of directors of corporate companies and encourage a wider range of content and views to be expressed with independent budgets generated (increasing quality) due to the fact that most big investors in creative content (both music and film) tend to avoid anything politically controversial. - Regarding usage, obviously I didn't factor in that people exchange enormous amounts of legal data through FTPs etc. for work purposes. What I meant to say was that it may be worth devising a method to create a charge for ISPs based on the downloading of digitally labelled data only. Everybody is familiar with paying more or less for things like electricity, heating and telephone based on usage and these are also services associated with modern basic human rights. It cannot be ignored that billions of gigs of copyright owned (and independently created) data are being exchanged, bringing in large gains for ISPs which for some reason the ISPs do not have to pay for. All emails, browsing websites, work etc of course should always be included in a LOWER overall monthly subscription charge. Of course, if ISPs were forced to pay independent collection agencies like PRS (who would trace ONLY labelled or coded files) the result would almost certainly be this cost being passed on to the consumer, but personally, if we were talking pennies per MB usage for music added on to an already lowered ISP subscription (as opposed to 79p per track for every download), I would be all for it, and I am sure the millions of up and coming artists out there who at the moment cannot get a record deal without signing away all of their rights (including merch, publishing and touring) would be interested too. - Anyway, I just wanted to throw in an alternative view. Original quote below... My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed. Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more). We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast! If I agree can I get tickets to the 13th O2 gig please? As much as I love your funky dancing, Im not paying a tout to see it.. So yeh, I agree *waits* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingardium LevioSIA Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Oh, also, fanboy mode: BE MY FRIEND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josefine Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Dirty PMs? Blates Olly will make her Love Boat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.