...And filtering the content on your site is far from impossible,...
You have it backwards. Filtering is largely impossible using computers. Computers can't magically determine the copyright status of a piece of media nor the details of contracts between artists, media companies and 3rd party distribution companies.
Sites like YouTube have simply given up and given Media companies access to their systems and given them the ability to delete content themselves. I wouldn't call that a method we want for all sites.
I would pay $20 a month for unlimited no DRM downloading of all of the world's music in flac. I think everyone else on earth would agree. That would give the entire music industry 72 billion dollars a month. Right now they report only 60 billion worldwide revenues per year.
Let's make a Scott to English dictionary. What Scott says in on left and what it means in sane mans world in right. Everyone = Some people Most people = Small amount of people Many = Few You see Scott, you tend to exaggerate when talking about how many people would, could or should do something.
I personally wouldn't pay 20$ in month for all the worlds music. I don't see any need for it. I don't listen that much music and what I listen I have or can get. And paying 20$ for month just because I could maybe want some obscure song doesn't sound too good of a deal.
I pay for Spotify. $5 a month for unlimited listening, $10 a month for unlimited plus mobile. Even that is too much money.
Really? I think it's quite reasonable.
I really don't get how you Americans can be happy with the Spotify pricing. For me just the knowledge of Netflix and it's pricing make the 10€ (13$) a month for just a music seem unreasonable.
You see Scott, you tend to exaggerate when talking about how many people would, could or should do something.
Especially considering that most of the people in the world don't even have an internet connection, let alone any wish for a pay service for downloading or streaming things. In fact, I'd suspect that the majority of people on the planet don't even own a computer.
I pay for Spotify. $5 a month for unlimited listening, $10 a month for unlimited plus mobile. Even that is too much money.
Really? I think it's quite reasonable.
I really don't get how you Americans can be happy with the Spotify pricing. For me just the knowledge of Netflix and it's pricing make the 10€ (13$) a month for just a music seem unreasonable.
Movies are more valuable than music, and Netflix is only slight more than Spotify, making Spotify seem like a bad deal. However, even though I consider Spotify's library to be lacking, Netflix's is anemic.
...And filtering the content on your site is far from impossible,...
You have it backwards. Filtering is largely impossible using computers. Computers can't magically determine the copyright status of a piece of media nor the details of contracts between artists, media companies and 3rd party distribution companies.
Sites like YouTube have simply given up and given Media companies access to their systems and given them the ability to delete content themselves. I wouldn't call that a method we want for all sites.
Yah I was deffo wrong about that, especially given Scott's example of a small scale vid hosting site. I forgot they have that UMG fast track kinda thing going on. The filtering definitely removes a lot of the stuff, though, if you think about youtube before all that! I can't imagine even the media groups think the 'war on piracy' will ever actually result in a total victory, but as I said, I see its merits (only when employed logically and fairly... as is the case w/ Megaupload) in light of foreign piracy and ~these economic timez~
Err also side note, I do actually agree in some ways that $1 is too much for a song... when you take into account the massive cut the label takes home. I think artists are left with something like 10 cents on each song, which they then have to use to cover production costs. On the consumer's end, really I don't think that's too much to ask given how much a person can enjoy a single song. Good 'bang for the buck' kind of thing compared to a movie that can cost $30 and that I'll only really want to watch once. That music model is beginning to wane out, anyway though; record companies are just gonna look like sad little babies in the coming future. iTunes has the distribution, Google and Facebook have the advertising, home recording studios are getting amazingly cheap (and recording standards are getting lower)... where the hell is the need for the labels?
I pay for Spotify. $5 a month for unlimited listening, $10 a month for unlimited plus mobile. Even that is too much money.
Really? I think it's quite reasonable.
I really don't get how you Americans can be happy with the Spotify pricing. For me just the knowledge of Netflix and it's pricing make the 10€ (13$) a month for just a music seem unreasonable.
Movies are more valuable than music, and Netflix is only slight more than Spotify, making Spotify seem like a bad deal. However, even though I consider Spotify's library to be lacking, Netflix's is anemic.
If Hollywood was smart, they would see how wildly successful Netflix is, and change their business model to DRM-free downloads and streaming with a monthly charge for everything ever. I'd pay $30/month for that service, and you'd kill cable TV nearly overnight. Plus, 99% of Americans don't have the pipes or HDs necessary to store huge amounts of content indefinitely, and most don't want to. Tack an extra charge on ($5 per month?) to get raws with lossless audio for creators, and you'd sate the urge of the people who pirate things, forever.
Hollywood doesn't realize that they only stand to gain by giving everyone access to their shit.
Movies are more valuable than music, and Netflix is only slight more than Spotify, making Spotify seem like a bad deal. However, even though I consider Spotify's library to be lacking, Netflix's is anemic.
You see Scott, you tend to exaggerate when talking about how many people would, could or should do something.
Especially considering that most of the people in the world don't even have an internet connection, let alone any wish for a pay service for downloading or streaming things. In fact, I'd suspect that the majority of people on the planet don't even own a computer.
Any wish? How about any ability. Scott, do you have any idea how much $20 a month is to someone in a small developing country?
I already have a substantial music library. I primarily listen to music I already own. On occasion, I buy an album online, but rarely does that end up costing me more than $20 a month. Usually it is less. In fact, it is usually less than $5 a month. I would never pay for Spotify because of that.
...not terribly expensive if you aren't harboring piracy-bred totalistic consumption habits.
Though it's funny cause labels/publishers pounded the "buy buy buy" mentality into the consumer brain, and then we figured out how to get it all for free, so it just grew exponentially from there.
You see Scott, you tend to exaggerate when talking about how many people would, could or should do something.
Especially considering that most of the people in the world don't even have an internet connection, let alone any wish for a pay service for downloading or streaming things. In fact, I'd suspect that the majority of people on the planet don't even own a computer.
Any wish? How about any ability. Scott, do you have any idea how much $20 a month is to someone in a small developing country?
I already have a substantial music library. I primarily listen to music I already own. On occasion, I buy an album online, but rarely does that end up costing me more than $20 a month. Usually it is less. In fact, it is usually less than $5 a month. I would never pay for Spotify because of that.
I constantly listen to new music. My Internet brain seeks novelty. When I find a good new song I'll listen to it a whole bunch for awhile, but soon enough I need to find something else new. Part of the value in Spotify is that so far it has helped me discover more new super awesome music than Pandora/Last.fm ever have. I do go back the old stuff, as we all do, but I mostly want to explore.
Removing the subset of people who will pirate no matter what, piracy comes down to a pretty simple formula, I think.
Where C = monetary cost of a product to the consumer, V = non-monetary value of the product, E = ease of acquisition, and P = risk/punishment of prosecution.
(V + E) - C = total value of legitimately buying content (V + E) - P = total value of pirating content
If the content distributors can get the legit side to outweigh the pirated side, then they win. The problem is that they only seem interested in increasing P to an astronomical value, while simultaneously reducing the legit value of V by adding commercials, DRM, etc. They have made big strides already in reducing E, even matching the pirate value of E in some cases using iTunes and Netflix.
The best they can do is make E equal, and increasing V could become expensive to the content provider or gimmicky - via special features, extras and merchandise packaged with DVDs and the like.
With all that said, they don't have much recourse besides decreasing C or increasing P.
I would pay a good deal more for media if it included a license to use aspects of said media in my own works.
I'd pay a dollar an episode for MLP. I'd pay $5 if I had contractual rights to use said content along with it.
I would pay $5 if it also included the original Flash source files to do even more with it.
I remember once I donated to Creative Commons and I got a Jonathan Coulton USB stick. Not only did it include his greatest hits, at the time, but it also had a folder full of files where each individual track was in its own file. Anyone want just the drums from Code Monkey?
I don't want the $20 all-you-can-download plan either. I just want cheaper prices.
Basically, my ideal would be a music store that has everything where I can download songs as many times as I want at about $0.25 per song. Give me that and you won't see me pirating any music ever.
I pay $10/month for Spotify with mobile access. $10/month doesn't even exist to me. It's essentially free. I already used it to find 5 albums I didn't already have. That's a pretty sweet deal.
Spotify is really too limiting for me to even use the free version. In America, at least, it's basically useless for me. Don't even get me started on the unorganized mess that is Grooveshark.
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
Spotify is really too limiting for me to even use the free version. In America, at least, it's basically useless for me. Don't even get me started on the unorganized mess that is Grooveshark.
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
I believe artists should consider Spotify the same as radio, promotion.
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
All of the artists on Spotify choose to be there. Either that, or they freely chose to give their rights away to a record company. If they make shit off of that, they only have themselves to blame.
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
All of the artists on Spotify choose to be there. Either that, or they freely chose to give their rights away to a record company. If they make shit off of that, they only have themselves to blame.
And yet we complain that there's nothing on Spotify. I wonder why?
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
All of the artists on Spotify choose to be there. Either that, or they freely chose to give their rights away to a record company. If they make shit off of that, they only have themselves to blame.
And yet we complain that there's nothing on Spotify. I wonder why?
There actually is plenty on Spotify from the 12 participating countries. The number of musical groups from those 12 countries I can name that aren't on there can be counted on less than two hands.
The problem is that even with their gigantic library, the library I really want is exponentially bigger. It should contain all of the recorded music throughout all of human history from every country. Everything from wax cylinders to what you recorded on your garage yesterday.
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
All of the artists on Spotify choose to be there. Either that, or they freely chose to give their rights away to a record company. If they make shit off of that, they only have themselves to blame.
And yet we complain that there's nothing on Spotify. I wonder why?
There actually is plenty on Spotify from the 12 participating countries. The number of musical groups from those 12 countries I can name that aren't on there can be counted on less than two hands.
The problem is that even with their gigantic library, the library I really want is exponentially bigger. It should contain all of the recorded music throughout all of human history from every country. Everything from wax cylinders to what you recorded on your garage yesterday.
And you'd pay what for that?
I think your want is amazingly unrealistic. Spotify has an incredible collection of music. Why don't you try getting into bands you've never gotten into before? Try subgenres you didn't know existed?
It's good to dream, but ignoring a functional reality to cling to an unrealistic ideal is...well...yeah. I think you get where I'm going with this.
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
All of the artists on Spotify choose to be there. Either that, or they freely chose to give their rights away to a record company. If they make shit off of that, they only have themselves to blame.
And yet we complain that there's nothing on Spotify. I wonder why?
There actually is plenty on Spotify from the 12 participating countries. The number of musical groups from those 12 countries I can name that aren't on there can be counted on less than two hands.
The problem is that even with their gigantic library, the library I really want is exponentially bigger. It should contain all of the recorded music throughout all of human history from every country. Everything from wax cylinders to what you recorded on your garage yesterday.
And you'd pay what for that?
I think your want is amazingly unrealistic. Spotify has an incredible collection of music. Why don't you try getting into bands you've never gotten into before? Try subgenres you didn't know existed?
It's good to dream, but ignoring a functional reality to cling to an unrealistic ideal is...well...yeah. I think you get where I'm going with this.
It's not unrealistic at all. If you replaced every executive in the recording industry with a technological person, you would have it done in a matter of months. The only thing stopping it is stupid people.
Comments
Sites like YouTube have simply given up and given Media companies access to their systems and given them the ability to delete content themselves. I wouldn't call that a method we want for all sites.
What Scott says in on left and what it means in sane mans world in right.
Everyone = Some people
Most people = Small amount of people
Many = Few
You see Scott, you tend to exaggerate when talking about how many people would, could or should do something.
I personally wouldn't pay 20$ in month for all the worlds music. I don't see any need for it. I don't listen that much music and what I listen I have or can get. And paying 20$ for month just because I could maybe want some obscure song doesn't sound too good of a deal.
My direct music budget (as opposed to when I buy a game that includes music, for example) is $0/year.
Err also side note, I do actually agree in some ways that $1 is too much for a song... when you take into account the massive cut the label takes home. I think artists are left with something like 10 cents on each song, which they then have to use to cover production costs. On the consumer's end, really I don't think that's too much to ask given how much a person can enjoy a single song. Good 'bang for the buck' kind of thing compared to a movie that can cost $30 and that I'll only really want to watch once. That music model is beginning to wane out, anyway though; record companies are just gonna look like sad little babies in the coming future. iTunes has the distribution, Google and Facebook have the advertising, home recording studios are getting amazingly cheap (and recording standards are getting lower)... where the hell is the need for the labels?
Hollywood doesn't realize that they only stand to gain by giving everyone access to their shit.
I already have a substantial music library. I primarily listen to music I already own. On occasion, I buy an album online, but rarely does that end up costing me more than $20 a month. Usually it is less. In fact, it is usually less than $5 a month. I would never pay for Spotify because of that.
Where C = monetary cost of a product to the consumer, V = non-monetary value of the product, E = ease of acquisition, and P = risk/punishment of prosecution.
(V + E) - C = total value of legitimately buying content
(V + E) - P = total value of pirating content
If the content distributors can get the legit side to outweigh the pirated side, then they win. The problem is that they only seem interested in increasing P to an astronomical value, while simultaneously reducing the legit value of V by adding commercials, DRM, etc. They have made big strides already in reducing E, even matching the pirate value of E in some cases using iTunes and Netflix.
The best they can do is make E equal, and increasing V could become expensive to the content provider or gimmicky - via special features, extras and merchandise packaged with DVDs and the like.
With all that said, they don't have much recourse besides decreasing C or increasing P.
I'd pay a dollar an episode for MLP. I'd pay $5 if I had contractual rights to use said content along with it.
I remember once I donated to Creative Commons and I got a Jonathan Coulton USB stick. Not only did it include his greatest hits, at the time, but it also had a folder full of files where each individual track was in its own file. Anyone want just the drums from Code Monkey?
Basically, my ideal would be a music store that has everything where I can download songs as many times as I want at about $0.25 per song. Give me that and you won't see me pirating any music ever.
Also, artists don't get shit from Spotify. It's pretty crappy all the way around.
The problem is that even with their gigantic library, the library I really want is exponentially bigger. It should contain all of the recorded music throughout all of human history from every country. Everything from wax cylinders to what you recorded on your garage yesterday.
I think your want is amazingly unrealistic. Spotify has an incredible collection of music. Why don't you try getting into bands you've never gotten into before? Try subgenres you didn't know existed?
It's good to dream, but ignoring a functional reality to cling to an unrealistic ideal is...well...yeah. I think you get where I'm going with this.
- Skindred
- Anamanaguchi (missing some Summer 2010 Singles)
- Amon Amarth (missing all but one album)
- Korpiklaani (missing all pre-2008 albums)
- Alestorm (missing entirely)
- Diablo Swing Orchestra (missing Butchers Ballroom)
- Finntroll (missing Nifelvind)
- Holy Grail (missing entirely)
- Metallica (missing nearly everything)
- Overkill (missing Ironbound)
- Rammstein (missing nearly everything)
- Turisas (missing entirely)
- Týr (missing entirely)
- Arkona (missing Goi, Rode, Goi!)
Sorry guys, but this is far from "incredible." I guess I'm just a hipster?