Members dmguitar0 Posted January 6, 2007 Author Members Share Posted January 6, 2007 ^to JBR69^ your first suggestion is interesting, because what Canada has done has taxed the burners and media for sale in their country, and placed the money somewhere until a certain date in the year. then when that date comes along, the money is distributed to the artists in a manner which is fair to their market share in the music industry. this is done to simulate the loss in album sales due to burning and filesharing. it isnt a perfect system and doesnt cover all the losses that a band might incur, nor does it take into account that some bands might get their music stolen more often than others, but its a great start nonetheless! i definitely think the system they have in place is one of the easiest ways to get some of the money back into the pockets of highly burnt artists. the other problem with downloading is more complex. something would actually need to happen to the nature and design of the market. right now, the most common choices to obtain music are limited to (1) download illegally (its free!!! this presents the biggest flaw in the system for obvious reasons!!!), (2) downloading legally through sites like iTunes, and (3) purchasing through a retailer. i see the biggest reasons that option 3 is ignored so much, as being (a) cost, (b) ease of access with comparison to options 1 and 2, and © very little incentive to choose this option over options 1 and 2 option 2 will never take hold as long as free downloading exists..unless theres something else added which free downloading cant offer if you're still reading JBR69 or anyone else, hopefully you're still with me. anyways by providing a fourth option as a source of music, which addresses some or all of these reasons in a better way then the all the other options, i think that there can be a shift in the industry which will benefit us all. my idea is not a novel one, in fact i came across a derivitive of it elsewhere. my idea is to have a site/agency/organization (hopefully run by the right people = those with very little conflict of interest) that will provide a way for bands to start a sort of band subscription service. when someone buys one of these so called subscriptions, he or she doesnt just get music downloads, but also gets access to cheaper merchandise (made possible by the elimination of the hated middleman, the record industry), better seats at concerts, early album purchases, entries to contests that might enable that person to get to hang with the band for a day, or get backstage passes for him or her and like 3 friends. stuff like that. offer them somethign that will only bring the bands closer to the fans, and give them things the fans want. the music would be just as available as option 2 mentioned above, but with added incentive to actually pay. the cost would have to be only slightly higher than iTunes-esque downloads is per song - but all that money goes right to the artist. also, it would surpass option 3's appeal because it would not only get them more stuff for their lesser investment, but get the money to the band directly, or at least in a much greater percentage (this i found to be a reason people stopped buying albums in-store, because they know most of the money goes to pay the industry). to make it more appealing than option 1 would be difficult. there are benefits that illegal downloading dont offer that this 4th proposal would, but without some other facotrs involved not many would care so much. so thats where some form of media compression would have to take hold. the media rights protection today is a joke, and so something more secure needs to be effected. and lastly there needs to be a form of crackdown on the file sharing services out there. if we can get the tax applied (note that the tax hike used in Canada is not substantial, like less than a dollar per 10 cds or something), and effect the system for distribution along with better rights management, and get bands to go for it, then the crackdown might be the final nail to illegal file-sharing's coffin this is a very idealistic view i know. but i think it could work if set into motion correctly so everyone whos reading...put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. tell me whatcha think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dmguitar0 Posted January 6, 2007 Author Members Share Posted January 6, 2007 anyone out there, please dont complain about my huge post - its long for a reason!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jazzbluesrock69 Posted January 6, 2007 Members Share Posted January 6, 2007 the tax idea is interesting, but i think it needs to be a global effort- in canada it's not as though you can't just order stuff from the US... I definitely think my idea of changing broadband connections is an important one- surely if people have to pay lots to get the amount of downloads they need to download stuff illegally, then it won't happen as much? Parents won't be able to afford it/don't want to because they don't see why they need unlimited (unaware of childrens' activities) and the kids will be stuck. oh and do you know exactly how these filesharing companies are able to exist? Are they actually breaking the law or is it one of those situations where they say "do not use our website/program for illegal activity", knowing full well that that is exactly what people use it for? Or is there actually a legal loophole which could be closed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jazzbluesrock69 Posted January 6, 2007 Members Share Posted January 6, 2007 also, the idea about burning CDs is not all that great because i think that not that many people actually burn the CDs, but put them on their mp3/other media players. most people my age listen to music on their computers and on their ipods etc rather than forking out for CDs etc... Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted January 7, 2007 Members Share Posted January 7, 2007 Originally posted by Micky Z Bull{censored}. It's exactly, directly relevant. It speaks directly to the aspect of stealing someone else's property, solely based on your desire for it. Self-control and fear of prosecution are the primary deterents to stealing cars, and should be the same deterents to stealing someone's livelihood in music, but you say you can't control yourself, and imply that enforcement of copyright law is not a consideration. Bull{censored}. Stealing music is stealing just as much as stealing cars or anything else. Can't live without stolen (something)? Learn to live with disapppointment, buddy. I know the point of an analogy is to take something different and make it a point of comparison, I just think it's a weak analogy on account of the fact .mp3's are copies of a product which come in big numbers and cost piss-all in and of themselves, whereas a car is a huge singular expensive physical object. When you 'steal' an .mp3 you're essentially stealing what's inside the packaging, would be like stealing the insides of a car and leaving all the external bits just sitting there. Not only that but the insides are a copy anyways. It's just hard to see much comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheLuxLife Posted January 7, 2007 Members Share Posted January 7, 2007 Originally posted by Staticnz I know the point of an analogy is to take something different and make it a point of comparison, I just think it's a weak analogy on account of the fact .mp3's are copies of a product which come in big numbers and cost piss-all in and of themselves, whereas a car is a huge singular expensive physical object. When you 'steal' an .mp3 you're essentially stealing what's inside the packaging, would be like stealing the insides of a car and leaving all the external bits just sitting there. Not only that but the insides are a copy anyways. It's just hard to see much comparison. Dense any? How about people(like me) have to pay to record what's inside the packaging. You know that what you're saying is bull{censored}. Studio time isn't free. People spend money to record what's on the CD. It isn't the physical cd that's expensice. You're being charged for the cost to record what's on the CD. So, just because you aren't physically stealing the CD doesn't mean that there aren't hard costs associated to record each particular song you steal. You just don't make any sense. -J.P. LUX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Staticnz Posted January 7, 2007 Members Share Posted January 7, 2007 Fair point, still don't like that analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Poker99 Posted January 7, 2007 Members Share Posted January 7, 2007 Whatever system you use or will use in the future, artists won't get more money. That's the feeling I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 8, 2007 Members Share Posted January 8, 2007 Originally posted by Poker99 Whatever system you use or will use in the future, artists won't get more money. That's the feeling I have. I share your sentiment. Once the means exists for anyone and everyone to record their own music and distribute it for free, as well as other people's, the market becomes flooded as demand remains the same or diminishes. Music has become a cheap commodity, as common as lightbulbs. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.