SOPA, PIPA, ACTA & SOPA Ireland - Only Thread Please!

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Well to give you an example... Music box proposed free MP3 downloads for it's users that were paid for by advertising directly to the artist. Cut out the middle man.

This has never been a successful way to distribute music as the music no longer has a value. It's given away. There's no incentive to use it if I can still download music elsewhere without watching the ads. Most attempts to go this route - mainly by record labels - have been a flop.

The middle man does a lot - why would you cut him out?

Brian, you can buy biros for one cent in some cases from china. We are talking about bulk. There is a big difference at selling an MP3 for say 25c and giving it away for free. If you look at Rihanna for example. Most of her top selling singles sell 60+ million copies. At 25c that's 15 million dollars. But of course the music industry wouldn't be happy with 15 million when they can scab 60 million. They could potentially reap the same reward by reducing cost because more people will be willing to purchase the MP3. So you could be looking at 120 million copies sold at 25c.

If you can produce a biro for 1c and make money on it then go for it! I can also hijack a truck of 1c biros and give them out for free. However, the value of a creative work is not just the cost of the piece of plastic it's on or the cost of encoding and distributing a digital file. There is a value to the creative work that you see or hear.

I read there today that Whitney Huston's best selling album was raised in price from 4.99 to 7.99, just hours, no just minutes after he death! Who was to blame? Sony records! Explain that to me Brian?

Why not put it up? Perhaps it was on sale or a slow seller beforehand. I don't see the relevance. When it comes to pricing it's up to the artists and their labels to decide what gives. However, even at 5c a track you can't compete against free. At that price, becoming a musician would be an unsustainable option for most people. How could you recoup the costs of recording, marketing ....

gavmcg92 wrote: »

So you are suggesting that musicians and record labels are struggling to pay for these things you mention? Don't be ridiculous. Their bathing in money.

As for the Whitney Huston price rise... do you think, within your moral fibre, that it is right to raise the price of a CD 30 minutes after the artist has died. How could someone be so spineless as to try and make a profit from someone's tragic death. And you have questioned me for bringing it up. I brought it up as proof that record labels only care about the money. They are ruining what is so great about music.

I'm quite perplexed by your final comment. "becoming a musician would be an unsustainable option for most people". Music is not meant to be about money. It shouldn't be. Music has been alive, thriving for centuries. People shouldn't look at being a musician as a job.

I think it has become quite obvious that we see the music industry in different light.

EDIT: We have strayed far enough from the topic at hand and thus I will not be replying.

You don't know a struggling musician? The ones on the other end of the scale to Beyonce and all the ones in between. How can I be creative if I can't afford to clothe and feed myself? Unfortunately, there are far too many people including yourself who tend to cherry pick parts of this debate e.g. all record companies are evil without looking at the full picture.

As for the Whitney Houston, I would be inclined to agree that it was certainly opportunistic (too put it mildly) but also to bear in mind that, I'm sure, she also has an estate that will benefit. An inheritance of sorts,