Record Companies Give Up! We win!

[Dean Roddey]

 

Nevertheless, you can't turn illegal downloading into the Salem witch hunting trials. The people downloading are using technology that's perfectly legal. And we can't prove what their intentions are. They might very well go out and purchase the singles or albums they downloaded. Or go to one of the artists' shows and buy their merch.

 

 

Well, it's pretty proveable that people are downloading orders of magnitude more than they are buying. Even conservative estimates would indicate that many times more tracks are downloaded than purchased. And since p2p systems, AFAIK, are not browsing systems, i.e. you have to search for what you want download, I don't believe that this can be attributed to people randomly downloading stuff and deciding they don't want to keep it. And, though anecdotal evidence isn't definitive, so many people know people like your friend that at some point it becomes pretty good evidence that this is not at all an exception, but the rule.

[sabriel9v]

That's the same logic that says we can't prosecute murderers because they shot someone with a legally purchased firearm. If someone steals music using any software, legal or not, they have just demonstrated what their intentions are, haven't they?

 

Not completely true. Using the software proves that a person intended on downloading, but it doesn't reveal the multi faceted nature of their intentions. They might want to download some songs and then buy the albums afterwards.

 

As for nowhere bands that give stuff away, that's just a simple problem of management and logistics. It wouldn't matter if it was rampant downloading or anything else that might suck away from one's revenue stream. But giving away a few tracks doesn't hurt. The Mars Volta leaked three of the tracks from their album and I just bought it today. I'm buying Radiohead's album too once I get the money. It's just providing a service for your fans. I'm not an advocate of turning yourself into a complete music slut. But why not leak a couple tracks? Especially if there's a high demand for your product. I'm also in favor of artists putting live performances of their new material on youtube and myspace tv. It's just a way to show your fans that you're accessible and want to provide them service.

 

A lot of factors are contributing to the "decline" of the record industry now. For instance, I went to the store today to buy a cd, lo and behold, I see many of the new cd releases were priced at 15.99 and 16.99. I was at a smaller retail store, but to me that's crazy to charge $17 for a new release. I remember the days of spending no more than $10 when a new cd came out. Here's another one... I'd get up in the morning getting ready for work or school and I'd see a music video on tv...how about that ? An actual music video on MTV. And they were good videos. Some of those videos even featured live performances and artists were interviewed...the whole gamut . You can't expect people to give you the same level of attention even after you've lowered your personal standards. That same 16 yr. old kid out there is not going to have an initiative to go out there and buy a product that's not well promoted. You have to admit, there's not the same level of hype and promotion as there used to be. However...itunes does a great job of marketing their stuff. Hip commercials, cool artists are signing on...they've taken the role that MTV, MTV2, VH1, and countless other tv stations, radio stations, magazines, and media outlets have abandoned.

[Dean Roddey]

 

A lot of factors are contributing to the "decline" of the record industry now. For instance, I went to the store today to buy a cd, lo and behold, I see many of the new cd releases were priced at 15.99 and 16.99. I was at a smaller retail store, but to me that's crazy to charge $17 for a new release.

 

 

And, as has been pointed out, about two thirds of that never gets back to the labels. It's downstream costs. While the cost of making music and pressing CDs has gone down, inflation has gone up considerably and B&M stores have high overhead that hasn't gone down like the other costs. The labels cannot really do anything about how much the B&M stores markup the product.

 

And, of course, anything you come up with has to have been different before in order to really be taken too seriously. What has fundamentally changed since 1999/2000, other than people started stealing on a widescale basis? The industry just hasn't changed that much, the price of CDs has changed that much, the music hasn't changed that much, kids haven't changed that much in terms of how much they like music, the kinds of music targeting kids hasn't changed probably all that much.

[sabriel9v]

 

Most 'musicians' who are for free downloads aren't killing their future, because they know deep down that they aren't ever going to sell anything. It's almost as if they have a perverse pleasure in the idea that if they aren't ever going to get paid, no one else should, either. Almost all human shortcomings can be traced back to laziness, greed, pride, or envy.

 

 

Bluestrat, I also want to tell you that I'm coming from the vantage point of someone who can record for free, if not very cheap. So little to no financial resources are going into the recording. Hence, any and all profit is ours...

 

If we were to spend $5000 on our demo, I think my views would be a little bit different.

[BlueStrat]

But why not leak a couple tracks?

 

I have no issue with that. It's actually a good idea. But like I said, that isn't the guys I'm talking about.

 

A lot of factors are contributing to the "decline" of the record industry now. For instance, I went to the store today to buy a cd, lo and behold, I see many of the new cd releases were priced at 15.99 and 16.99. I was at a smaller retail store, but to me that's crazy to charge $17 for a new release.

 

Well, it might be crazy by some standards, but let's go back to comparisons of cost vs buying power.

 

In 1970, I bought a Rolling Stones 12" vinyl LP for $3.50. That was an album that was about 22 minutes a side. All that money for a 10 cent dollop of pressed vinyl and a printed cardboard sleeve.

 

In 2008 dollars, that record would cost about 28-38 dollars. CDs are half that, and generally contain at least an hour's worth of material, or 30% more than a vinyl record. And it's arguably better quality, or at least in a format that won't pop, hiss, or skip if kept clean. In other words, the idea that music is incredibly expensive these days just isn't true. It's cheaper today that in ever was in current dollar buying power.

 

The second point is that value isn't always assigned to something based on how much it costs to produce. In fact concerning art, it almost never is. Cost is based on demand. Your argument seems to be that it is the quantity of music available today that ought to determine price, and quality is largely irrelevant. Since there is a glut of music available, and others are willing to sell their product for 5 or 10 dollars or even give it away, then no one should charge more than that. Content seems to not matter.

 

Bluestrat, I also want to tell you that I'm coming from the vantage point of someone who can record for free, if not very cheap. So little to no financial resources are going into the recording. Hence, any and all profit is ours...

 

That's probably a great model for business if you're selling widgets made in China. Art, not so much (I went through this already above). I can assure you, though, that you aren't going to get an airplay quality record for free.

 

But that isn't the point. It's great that many bands like ours can record cheap and sell cheap. But it hurts the better guys, because they can't record cheap nor sell cheap. But the public is convinced they can, in no small part thanks to guys like us who are reinforcing the notion of cheap music in the minds of the (formerly) buying public. I find it most insidious that it is low level 'musicians' leading the charge to make sure music has no value, all in an attempt to get heard. You'll keep hearing the misinformed mantra "the real money is in touring." This is always said by guys who either have never toured or never toured at a pro level. But consider this:

 

The average music listener doesn't make a distinction between what it costs you to make a record and what is costs Radiohead. They don't seem to be aware that unlike you and me, Radiohead (as an example) has an army of people to pay-lawyers, accountants, publishers, producers, graphic artists, managers, publicists, agents, road crew, equipment and bus drivers, transportation and lodging costs, sound guys, lighting engineers, personal assistants, instrument techs, etc etc. Therefore, in their minds since you can sell your records for 5 bucks and make a profit, why can't they?

[sabriel9v]

Bluestrat, when you say, "In 1970, I bought a Rolling Stones 12" vinyl LP for $3.50. That was an album that was about 22 minutes a side. All that money for a 10 cent dollop of pressed vinyl and a printed cardboard sleeve.

 

In 2008 dollars, that record would cost about 28-38 dollars. CDs are half that, and generally contain at least an hour's worth of material, or 30% more than a vinyl record. And it's arguably better quality, or at least in a format that won't pop, hiss, or skip if kept clean."

 

I'm not sure if I can back this claim. In 1970, a record would have been the standard or medium for high technology. In other words, there was no alternative which produced better quality and didn't pop, hiss, and skip. The amount of money that you spent on a record would have been reasonable considering the quality you received. Its the same for cds now in 2008 (if you discount blu-ray discs). However, you do have other alternatives which can produce the same quality if not better, but for a cheaper price. Consumers can now access the individual files put onto a cd. You couldn't do that in 1970.

 

I used to feel it was up to the listener to understand how much blood, sweat,tears, and money goes into a recording. I don't have those exact same expectations now. I feel it's up to the artist to provide a service for their loyal fanbases. If their fans cannot fathom the costs associated with creating the product...thats fine. As long as they understand that the product has to be valued to some extent. That value is largely dictated by the artist and whatever label may represent them. If certain fans cannot accept that fact that an artist wants money for their product, skip them. They wouldn't pay in the first place. I don't assume that 90% of the world's population downloads material for free. Hell, 90% doesn't even have computers. You have to carefully target certain markets as an artist and not look at whole and very general fields. Attacking various subsections and genres is the most effective strategy.

 

Overall, I feel that taking an overtly anti-downloading and file-sharing stance at this moment is way too antiquated. It's rejecting new technology and somebody will pass you. It's bound to happen.

[coyote-1]

Talent will indeed be heard. That is, provided it can sell enough product to avoid flipping burgers for a living.

 

Talent speaks for itself and if you make the right moves, you will be heard. After watching that Jimmy Iovine interview, I realized how many good points he made. Consumers want good service, bottom line. It doesn't matter if it comes from the labels, online music providers, the musicians themselves, whoever. We have to upgrade the level of service in the record industry in order for it to be healthy and survive. Itunes has been so smart about their marketing and making things easy for their customers. Rhapsody too. Hell, Tunecore reps are all this site because they care about the level of service they provide to the customer. Can you say the same thing about some of your favorite artists and labels?

 

'Service'??? You spend countless hours in a recording studio, you hire graphic artists to create packaging, you tour constantly to bring the music directly to the people. All they have to do is the same thing they've always done: go buy the record. And that can be done in myriad ways, as it's always been.

 

You know, the ability to steal music has always existed too! It was pretty easy to simply pop a cassette into the recorder when your fave band's concert was about to be broadcast on radio. The diff is that now, the technology has made that theft an on-demand service. A few major artists have done "honor system" Web releases, only to find millions of downloads with perhaps a few dozen payments... sorry, but putting it on the labels and artists for somehow "not providing enough 'service' " is absolute BULL{censored}.

 

Yeah, you win. You who see no problem with outright theft, you win.

You who are lacking in morals, you win.

You who have the character of a criminal, you win.

You who cheat and lie and steal your way through life, you win!

You who are unprincipled, you win.

You who are bereft of values, you win.

 

When the music doesn't matter anymore even to musicians.... we lose. Go celebrate your 'victory', assholes.

[sabriel9v]

 

Talent will indeed be heard. That is, provided it can sell enough product to avoid flipping burgers for a living. 'Service'??? You spend countless hours in a recording studio, you hire graphic artists to create packaging, you tour constantly to bring the music directly to the people. All they have to do is the same thing they've always done: go buy the record. And that can be done in myriad ways, as it's always been. You know, the ability to steal music has always existed too! It was pretty easy to simply pop a cassette into the recorder when your fave band's concert was about to be broadcast on radio. The diff is that now, the technology has made that theft an on-demand service . A few major artists have done "honor system" Web releases, only to find millions of downloads with perhaps a few dozen payments... sorry, but putting it on the labels and artists for somehow "not providing enough 'service' " is absolute BULL{censored}. Yeah, you win . You who see no problem with outright theft, you win. You who are lacking in morals, you win. You who have the character of a criminal, you win. You who cheat and lie and steal your way through life, you win! You who are unprincipled, you win. You who are bereft of values, you win. When the music doesn't matter anymore even to musicians.... we lose. Go celebrate your 'victory', assholes.

 

 

 

Did you read all of the points I made about service? I didnt strip the fans of any and all accountability for their actions.

[Poker99]

 

Not completely true. Using the software proves that a person intended on downloading, but it doesn't reveal the multi faceted nature of their intentions. They might want to download some songs and then buy the albums afterwards.

 

 

I don't know how old you are or on which planet you live, but right here, right now, you have to be either brain dead or really naive if you think most kids buy the music they dump on their iPods.

 

The majority of them all don't care about the business or artists, they just want some music. They don't care about your problems and the problems of the industry.

[Dean Roddey]

Be careful. Based on his picture, he could have you whacked for that.

[sabriel9v]

 

I don't know how old you are or on which planet you live, but right here, right now, you have to be either brain dead or really naive if you think most kids buy the music they dump on their iPods. The majority of them all don't care about the business or artists, they just want some music. They don't care about your problems and the problems of the industry.

 

 

Poker99, I see where you coming from and you're right to some extent. But you'd really need hard statistics and facts to fully prove your point. You don't have either. And if these kids don't care about our problems, then we need to talk about things in a solution based fashion instead of griping about downloading. Did you get the memo about downloading being abolished and dying today? If you did, show it to me cause I haven't seen it. Business is business. The ones who can adapt in hard times will survive. The ones who complain and cling to the old model will freeze in the cold.

[sabriel9v]

I suppose one thing I really wanna work on for myself Poker is to throw out solutions to the problems we discuss in this forum. Otherwise we get nowhere and our homework as artists/quasibusinessmen stays unfinished. I allude to seeing hard stats and facts...because I really want to know what they are. Opinion can only carry you for so long. I might see one thing and all of these other crazy trends are happening underneath my nose.

[Trodden]

just one note about illegal downloading... it often leads people to be far more open to giving new artists a shot.. it used to be that you heard one good song and had to hope the rest of the album was good, and you lost probably most of the time.. a lot of bands have prospered from ticket and merchandise sales from people that would have never heard them if they couldn't download their music without the risk of blowing 10-20 bucks on something they hate.. say what you will about that, but its the reality of downloading and one reason why it is so appealing.

[BlueStrat]

 

just one note about illegal downloading... it often leads people to be far more open to giving new artists a shot.. it used to be that you heard one good song and had to hope the rest of the album was good, and you lost probably most of the time.. a lot of bands have prospered from ticket and merchandise sales from people that would have never heard them if they couldn't download their music without the risk of blowing 10-20 bucks on something they hate.. say what you will about that, but its the reality of downloading and one reason why it is so appealing.

 

 

 

You're right. I'm gonnal go hotwire my neighbor's Lexus tonight and take if for a spin, maybe keep it for a month or so, to see if I like it enough to go buy one.

[BlueStrat]

 

I'm not sure if I can back this claim. In 1970, a record would have been the standard or medium for high technology. In other words, there was no alternative which produced better quality and didn't pop, hiss, and skip. The amount of money that you spent on a record would have been reasonable considering the quality you received. Its the same for cds now in 2008 (if you discount blu-ray discs). However, you do have other alternatives which can produce the same quality if not better, but for a cheaper price. Consumers can now access the individual files put onto a cd. You couldn't do that in 1970.

 

 

That may be true, but it misses the point. Cost is one of the more common excuses given to justify stealing. "15 bucks is too much! The record companies are greedy! Screw them, I'm taking it!" My point is that today's music is half of what we paid for it in 1970. That is simply inarguable.

 

The second point is this: You seem to be assessing value to music based on the cost of duplicating it, rather than the demand for it. In almost every other economic situation, it is the supplier, not the consumer, who sets the price initially for a product. Demand then regulates the price. In music, it is the consumer who sets the price out of the gate, based solely on their ability to take it for nothing if they don't like what it costs. Therefore, producers have to either stop producing it, produce a lesser quality product, or rely on volume to maybe make a fraction of the profit they could have, had demand actually driven the price absent the ability of the public to steal it.

 

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the point that seems to be missed in all this: the notion that's taken root in our culture that some things ought to be free simply because we can take them without fear of getting caught, and because lots of people are doing it. There is no regard for the consumer-producer relationship, no regard for ethics, no regard for what it costs someone else to produce what they're stealing. That tells us a lot. It tells us that a generation of people are coming up to take over who seem to have an innate sense of entitlement and who seem to possess no regard for the rights of others to profit off their work. It tells me that if technology ever comes up with way to make people invisible, people will begin driving Mercedes and Porsche off the lots and stripping shelves in stores, simply because they can, without getting caught. Until we reverse that, nothing will change, because as long as a way to steal music remains, it will never, ever be profitable again.

 

I have to laugh my ass off sometimes at the irony I see here daily, of guys posting about copyrighting their songs or trademarking their band so they don't get ripped off, but many of these same guys don't think twice about stealing someone else's music for their own enjoyment.

 

I'm not against technology. I like technology. I'm against using it to steal, pure and simple. The argument isn't about embracing the technology, and guys like me being Luddites because we seem to be resistant. It's about guys like me urging others to grasp some sort of moral compass and quit using technology to take what doesn't belong to you simply because you can.

 

The internet has brought us many great things, but it has also held a mirror up to ourselves, and guess what? Pogo was right: we have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us.

[Dean Roddey]

Hey, can someone check and make sure I was really asleep when he posted that? I want to make sure I'm not sleep-posting under another guise.

[sabriel9v]

"Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the point that seems to be missed in all this: the notion that's taken root in our culture that some things ought to be free simply because we can take them without fear of getting caught, and because lots of people are doing it. There is no regard for the consumer-producer relationship, no regard for ethics, no regard for what it costs someone else to produce what they're stealing. That tells us a lot. It tells us that a generation of people are coming up to take over who seem to have an innate sense of entitlement and who seem to possess no regard for the rights of others to profit off their work. It tells me that if technology ever comes up with way to make people invisible, people will begin driving Mercedes and Porsche off the lots and stripping shelves in stores, simply because they can, without getting caught. Until we reverse that, nothing will change, because as long as a way to steal music remains, it will never, ever be profitable again."

 

I don't know if you can ever get fully rid the industry of downloading. I was talking to my friend about it and her solution was to make downloading less appealing. How you do that, I don't know...but it's possible. In the meantime, keep pushing those t-shirt and sticker release parties And if you're really trying to promote your new album, you could set up a listening party at someone's house and then use that to push your upcoming t-shirt release party...hopefully somebody will get the geist and purchase your damn album

[HKSblade1]

I just love this {censored} when it goes back to artists having to make money off concerts and merchandising. WTF??? Unless you are already a Superstar it ain't happening! unless you have $$$$$ capital to toss out and buy your merch to sell It ain't happening!

 

Endorsing file sharing as a gray area from an artist point of view is worse than going against the illegal activity. It puts no value on your work. It emphasizes the majority of thieves (that's what they are) are above protected law of the artist, their material, or the industry ownership of those rights. If an artist was too stupid to not get rights to their music, can't help that.

 

I don't know where most come from with this CONCERT stuff, but that isn't happening either. Fewer tours than EVER besides Hanna Montana ! Coliseums use to be booked weekly. Now it's one a month if lucky. There is no real capital investments to launch mega tours. Selling coffe cups and T shirts is bull{censored} and I can guarantee no file sharer has endorsed this for every file they stole from any artist.

 

Wrong is wrong. If the labels or artists have to endorse an anti piracy file, more power to them. Post one on a server with a nasty virus or an FBI warning and watch the illegal dude one his PC freak out like he just got spyware.

 

If an artist want to be like radiohead, let them. That's a choice. To use a well known LABEL CREATED model as a representative of a viable solution is bull{censored} too. Radiohead already had a following from previous LABEL sponsorships. Artists not endorsing theft or not taking a stand against piracy just says their craft has no value.

 

Letting Apple take advantage of the file sharing is another can of worms. Fact is most ipods have more than 2/3 of the songs pirated. That just says I bought a few so I'm good. WRONG! It says you are a thief! Plain simple terms.

 

Technology has to have limits and some legality to follow law. To suggest otherwise just makes things worse. It started with Music, then Software, now Movies and other media forms are as targeted. The industry should have slammed the door on this a long time ago, and so should have the law makers.

 

Dirty viruses would have been an deterrent to some, especially if FORMATTING YOUR HDD popped up after hitting PLAY! Do you think that would have had some immediate word spreading on the internet??

 

Sure! Mut$$^%&ing download just formatted my drive! Now all my {censored} is gone!! Now, that music would have been very LOUD!

 

Radio edits of the past were not only created for time saving, but created as teasers so if you want to hear all 7 minutes, buy the record.

 

A friend of mine was a Radio DJ for years. One of the requirements was to TALK through song intro's so that made it less of an appeal for johnny cassette recorder to get the full song without an intro or song ending cuts. After doing that, they found record sales to go up since you could not predict whether a DJ was going to give a traffic update over your song intro.

 

Whether people copied cassettes from albums was not as damaging as todays downloading. Copying a album took time, not 10 seconds. That was sort of its own deterrent. When cassettes were cheaper to buy, most did. A decent machine wasn't cheap. Maxell XLII's were $10 for a three pack. Not like a .10 cent CD that stores 300 or more songs, or an ipod that holds 1000 or more. So with me, the old cassette copying argument does not stand.

 

If it took an hour to download an album, less would. Today its too easy to be a thief!

[Dean Roddey]

 

Dirty viruses would have been an deterrent to some, especially if FORMATTING YOUR HDD popped up after hitting PLAY! Do you think that would have had some immediate word spreading on the internet??

 

 

That wouldn't really work. Well, for one thing, two wrongs don't make a right. But, further, any means of attacking your machine when you play illegally downloaded material could be used to attack your machine when you play legally downloaded material, or just clicked on a web site that started media playback. So I don't think we want to trade our own system's security in return for whacking illegal downloaders. Of course it could be just outright obvious attacks, but that would only catch the most naive users since most of them probably use virus scanners.

[HKSblade1]

I'm not suggesting it would. I'm just saying fight fire with fire! I would not have a problem if the industry did that.

 

Some cases of torrents and other P2P's I have read that Sony had added some bleeps into music and hosted file servers on sharing sites 24/7. odds are if someone grabbed that portion, the playback after 10 seconds had this annoying beeps to it. Others have links embedded that take the pirateer to CDUNIVERSE or some other site suggestion to BUY this song.

 

I like that idea too, and it's not that expensive for them to use.

 

I'm just pissed that my Software DAWS and plugins I always buy, are more expensive since the whole torrent mess! I don't want to see the vendors having to go full hardware or added licensing measures like dongles etc. Imagine having to have a USB dongle with every plugin. Not convenient!

 

Artists and Software Media companies have to take a stand and make the pirating less convenient to thieves, not their licensed users!

[Dean Roddey]

You'd only generally need one dongle, not multiples (though it depends on how the vendors do it.) A lot of them use iLok, so you only need one iLok dongle for any iLok enabled products. It's not really that bad. The Waves stuff uses one, and it has the advantage of not mattering how many systems you install the software on, you just put the dongle into that machine and you are ready to go. But of course the dongles are hackable also. There's really no way to have solid copy protection without support at the CPU level and a verifiable boot image so that it can't be hacked. That could be done, but it's not there now and probably won't be.

 

Basically, there would be support in the CPU so that it would verify a hash on the most basic bootloader program of the OS, so that it cannot be modified. Once you have that boostrapping mechanism, that loader can confirm that any subsequent modules have not be tampered with, for the fundamental system services. And there would be a dongle-like DRM system built into the chip set, so that it can't be intercepted because the verification happens purely at the hardware level, not at the software level, and it would verify a hash of the excutable so you couldn't just use a debugger to hack around those instructions that call the authentication mechanisms.

 

But there's little likelihood that that's going to happen, so really all the system out there now are mostly to keep the honest people honest.

[BlueStrat]

 

t-shirt release party...

 

 

You just made me spew diet Pepsi all over my monitor!

[diablosrising]

 

Anybody shop at Walmart? You know they get their clothes from countries who run sweatshops, and abuse their workers, many of whom are children. It's how they are able to keep their prices low. By shopping there, you are supporting this practice. So after reading this, are you going to stop shopping there now? That's what I thought. You immoral heathens.

 

 

I've stopped shopping there years ago, partly because of the reasons you mentioned, but partly because my job(which I hate) is deeply rooted in Wal Mart, so by doing my part to try and make Wal Mart fail, I'm screwing my company over, too. Anyway, ALL retail stores sell imported crap anyway, so what's the point in boycotting only Wal Mart? So, we can buy stuff made in sweatshops, as long as K-Mart or Target sell it?

 

As for music, I don't think consumers are uneducated, they just don't care. I don't think if consumers read up on the music industry they would all of the sudden stop downloading.

 

The majority of consumers are not professional recording artists. Therefore, this problem does not affect them. Therefore, they will continue to not give a sh_t about it.

[BlueStrat]

 

So, we can buy stuff made in sweatshops, as long as K-Mart or Target sell it?

 

 

I just bought some clothes at Macy's and Old Navy. Everthing was made in Sri Lanka, Mexico, Pakistan or Viet Nam.

[diablosrising]

 

I just bought some clothes at Macy's and Old Navy. Everthing was made in Sri Lanka, Mexico, Pakistan or Viet Nam.

 

 

Are you sure NONE of it was made in China? They're making everything these days . . .

 

 

Oh, and

 

"They might want to download some songs and then buy the albums afterwards."

 

I'm pretty sure every relevant band(and millions of crappy ones) have myspace pages. I'm also pretty sure, on those myspace pages, they have 4 or more songs posted that you can listen to for free before you buy anything.

 

That kind of makes the whole "try before you buy" excuse dissolve.