Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:07 PM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

Guys, check out pg. 18 of this report from the IFPI.

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2009.pdf

At the least, it will provide some good fodder for conversation.


A good counterargument to the weight of piracy at first sight, but the IFPI is not an independent authority on this, they represent the recording industry and for instance the argument they bring up of piracy preventing new artists to get work or signed is in my opinion biased, as many new artists are focusing on new means of distribution, cutting out the middle man that is the label and releasing content and doing promotion themselves.

It does mention the growth of online sales, another factor I attributed to retail stores missing out on, as I know for instance Ministry of Sound (famous dance label in London) have a steady increase of their online sales in the last decade.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:20 PM   
 By:   MMM   (Member)

If only all the people who work inside the soundtrack industry knew as much as the people who don't work inside the industry. I for one feel absolutely idiotic because people who have no idea what they're talking about know so much more than I do... Well, maybe in another 20 years if I continue to spend every waking hour working within the industry I will one day have as much knowledge as people who know next to nuthin'... And since my Mother taught me not to beat a dead horse, or to beat a deadbeat, or to speak hoarsely to a beaten dead person, I will exit this thread knowing that one cannot convince a crook that he's a crook if he has set his mind on being a crook.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:27 PM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

If only all the people who work inside the soundtrack industry knew as much as the people who don't work inside the industry.

... Again you are making this a personal issue. We are not debating the soundtrack labels here sir. We are debating retail stores who miss out on revenue thanks to IMO illegal downloading as well as online CD sales, Itunes, competitive pricing policies.

The soundtrack industry is a whole different animal. You can't compare a 2000 or 3000 quantity with major labels.

I for one feel absolutely idiotic because people who have no idea what they're talking about know so much more than I do... Well, maybe in another 20 years if I continue to spend every waking hour working within the industry I will one day have as much knowledge as people who know next to nuthin'...

I don't claim to know more than you, I offer my opinion and don't attack you for offering yours as long as its at least civil. I have released two albums myself in the last two years, the first one a print and the second via download only (Itunes, Amazon) both with profit. It doesn't make me an authority but I feel I can have my say.

I will exit this thread knowing that one cannot convince a crook that he's a crook if he has set his mind on being a crook.

Good riddance and go pester some kids on the street.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:34 PM   
 By:   MerM   (Member)

I'd just like to add that 'a' is my favorite Andy Warhol book.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:38 PM   
 By:   soop.broth   (Member)

The way scoresalot has been treated in this thread by the two classic internet bullies LeHah and MMM is repulsive. God forbid the man offers a contrary opinion and backs it up with evidence. You two barking assholes simply lambaste him with personal attacks and attribute crimes to him for no particular reason.

If anyone on this board has ever been owed an apology, this is it...

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:43 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

The way scoresalot has been treated in this thread by the two classic internet bullies... You two barking assholes...

Because this proves your point <3

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:46 PM   
 By:   Steve Johnson   (Member)

While I don't agree that "barking assholes" is an apt assessment of the two thus charged, I rather like the way it sounds. Let me use that in the future....

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:47 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

My question is this. Are music execs , vocalists and bands making less money than they did 10 or 20 years ago or more?

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 6:51 PM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

My question is this. Are music execs , vocalists and bands making less money than they did 10 or 20 years ago or more?

From my very unscientific sampling of the three people I know in your categories (one exec, two members of different bands), they are making much less.

Then again, who isn't these days?

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 7:20 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

My question is this. Are music execs , vocalists and bands making less money than they did 10 or 20 years ago or more?

From my very unscientific sampling of the three people I know in your categories (one exec, two members of different bands), they are making much less.

Then again, who isn't these days?


Well I guess I should clarify. Are you talking about established people in the business or newbies/small time operations? The economy and the times are hard on everyone. No one makes what they used to 20 years ago.

Specifically are rappers, execs say to mega record labels or James Horner making less money?
If so fair enough then illegal downloading is legitimately hurting their profit margins.

However it has also been noted, if the record labels dropped the price of their CD's to say $10 dollars (like the said they would years ago) each they would generate more sales.

The point is I don't think illegal downloading is the only reason for a drop in the profit margin as noted. It could be pirating, lower wages, unemployment, execs taking more of the bands profits, etc.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 7:55 PM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

The point is I don't think illegal downloading is the only reason for a drop in the profit margin as noted. It could be pirating, lower wages, unemployment, execs taking more of the bands profits, etc.

All true. That said, piracy doesn't become okay just because it's merely one factor in many leading to the demise of the labels. (I don't think you were saying otherwise, but I think it's worth saying.) The examples I cited (not that I think it matters) were established for years. One, who is in a well-known band, told me recently he's astonished when fans tell him how much they love his music, but don't feel any shame in saying that they downloaded it free from piracy sites. This is his passion, and he's happy people enjoy his music, but it's also how he pays for his mortgage, and to send his kids to school!

People justify piracy in many, many ways -- people who steal also buy, the labels priced their products too high, and on and on -- but none of it makes stealing okay.

But I actually think the original point of this thread, before it became merely "a," was why brick-and-mortar stores were dying, wasn't it? It's pretty much impossible for stores to have the selection a huge warehouse (like Amazon) has, and for a polished store paying rent in a mall or a nice section of town to be able to underprice a website with the low overhead of a dingy warehouse in the middle of nowhere. That's just the nature of the beast, isn't it?

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 8:15 PM   
 By:   antipodean   (Member)

Question... is this study limited to Britain, or does it encompass the worldwide market? Because I know many people who haven't paid a dime for music in years.

I'm not challenging anyone here (yet) - just curious.


Talking about "haven't paid a dime"... how about people who borrow books, CDs and DVDs from libraries? I can (and have) sign up for a library card, borrow as many books, music and movies as my quota allows, enjoy them for free repeatedly, with the authors/publishers/labels getting a royalty once, when the library purchases that copy, and thereafter not getting a single cent from the repeated consumption of their works. Or if I lend a book, CD or DVD to a friend who reads/listens/watches it and returns it to me without having spent a cent on that title - have I acted criminally and deprived the author/publisher of a purchase?

Libraries (and people lending friends stuff) have been around for a very long time, yet nobody makes a fuss about it. I do realize some libraries these days do pay royalties to authors on the basis of the loans of their books - and rightly so - but for a long time, there was no "loan royalties" system at all.)

I would also add that this "free consumption" is important in the way that an audience is built up in the long run: they allow entire generations of readers (especially young people and students) to explore and discover authors (and musicians and filmmakers) at low (or no) cost and risk. Many fans (especially of science fiction and fantasy), myself included, developed their love of the genre as teenagers through libraries, because there is no way we could have afforded to own all those wonderful titles at the time.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 8:18 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

The point is I don't think illegal downloading is the only reason for a drop in the profit margin as noted. It could be pirating, lower wages, unemployment, execs taking more of the bands profits, etc.

All true. That said, piracy doesn't become okay just because it's merely one factor in many leading to the demise of the labels. (I don't think you were saying otherwise, but I think it's worth saying.) The examples I cited (not that I think it matters) were established for years. One, who is in a well-known band, told me recently he's astonished when fans tell him how much they love his music, but don't feel any shame in saying that they downloaded it free from piracy sites. This is his passion, and he's happy people enjoy his music, but it's also how he pays for his mortgage, and to send his kids to school!

People justify piracy in many, many ways -- people who steal also buy, the labels priced their products too high, and on and on -- but none of it makes stealing okay.

But I actually think the original point of this thread, before it became merely "a," was why brick-and-mortar stores were dying, wasn't it? It's pretty much impossible for stores to have the selection a huge warehouse (like Amazon) has, and for a polished store paying rent in a mall or a nice section of town to be able to underprice a website with the low overhead of a dingy warehouse in the middle of nowhere. That's just the nature of the beast, isn't it?


Oh sorry didn't realize the subject of this post had changed from brick and mortar stores closing into a "discussion" of piracy and the ethics or non-ethics of it. As you said the title of this thread has become non-descriptive.

I totally agree with you, on two fronts. Stores are closing because of the economy, (and all aspects of it) and I don't support "fans" who do not purchase an artists works. (that after all is the circle of life economy wise) Your also right many of use can debate the piracy issue to death but I don't think any two sides with find a common ground. I have my own feelings on the matter but will keep it to myself.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 8:32 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

Talking about "haven't paid a dime"... how about people who borrow books, CDs and DVDs from libraries?

As I Understand It: The key to libraries is that they're a public service (like the police) funded by the town/state/federal government/your tax dollars to supply to the public material to *borrow*.

It is on *loan*. You do not *own it*. You do not have any *rights* to it. The common stupid assumes you do because you hold it in your hand. This is bullshit. You do not own it anymore than you own an apartment you rent. A library can request material be returned at any point in time under the same ways they can prevent people from getting their hands on rare volumes, banned books or the like.

The difference between this and e-stealing is subtle but important: you have to RETURN IT at some point. And if you make a copy of that book or that CD, thats producing something - a previously nonexisting copy - which the artist or author or company doesn't see a cent for.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 8:48 PM   
 By:   haineshisway   (Member)

I must say that after perusing this thread, I really don't see why scoresalot has been excoriated - he was not (at least in these posts in this thread) advocating free and/or illegal downloading. He was asking a question and opened a topic for debate. Unless I misread something - and I'm happy to be shown I did if someone could simply quote what I missed.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 8:56 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

I must say that after perusing this thread, I really don't see why scoresalot has been excoriated - he was not (at least in these posts in this thread) advocating free and/or illegal downloading.

It was his resistance to illegal downloading being a centerpiece to the original situation of why physical stores no longer exist. Once he started citing nebulous examples of why people illegally downloading were buying more CDs somehow, it became a situation.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 9:10 PM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

I must say that after perusing this thread, I really don't see why scoresalot has been excoriated - he was not (at least in these posts in this thread) advocating free and/or illegal downloading. He was asking a question and opened a topic for debate. Unless I misread something - and I'm happy to be shown I did if someone could simply quote what I missed.

My preferred method of rhetoric is to make up my opponent's argument so I can easily win the debate. Therefore, let me now say that I think that Scoresalot's insistence that all CDs should be two feet long and triangular is truly shameful, no matter how he tries to justify it.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 9:42 PM   
 By:   haineshisway   (Member)

I must say that after perusing this thread, I really don't see why scoresalot has been excoriated - he was not (at least in these posts in this thread) advocating free and/or illegal downloading.

It was his resistance to illegal downloading being a centerpiece to the original situation of why physical stores no longer exist. Once he started citing nebulous examples of why people illegally downloading were buying more CDs somehow, it became a situation.


Of course, that argument has been around since the whole thing started with illegal downloading, and I simply don't believe it. People who do the illegal downloading don't buy more music - that's just a load of hooey. I think part of the brick and mortar demise is that people have become very lazy, as well as a new generation has come up that simply has no idea what real shopping is - the thrill of finding something new by seeing a CD or cover or book or whatever that you didn't know existed or that looks interesting. It was fun to go to a record store, and I discovered many of my most cherished albums simply because I liked a cover or the album sounded interesting. That doesn't happen so much anymore. I hate that most mom and pop bookstores have closed - it's not the same buying a book on amazon - it just feels wrong to me. I know one can get it cheaper - that's the amazon and Internet way and it's what's kiled the stores. It reminds me when Crown and all those types of places came into being and everything became a loss leader to them - just to beat the competition and the mom and pops. They killed them and then they themselves were killed by the same thing happening on the Internet. It's like everyone's eating themselves.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 10:14 PM   
 By:   Josh   (Member)

Wow, I almost forgot about Crown Books. I applied for a job there when I was in high school and had an interview, but didn't get hired. I really wanted to work there, too, since I've always loved books. Now I'm a librarian. I sure showed them!

A few days ago I went into a local Borders store, just to browse the shelves (and with the slight hope that I'd find a cool CD for a decent price), and although I saw a few interesting titles, the sticker price was over double that for which I could purchase the same exact CDs in the same condition through ebay or amazon marketplace. For example, the HARRY POTTER and STAR WARS (prequel) scores were marked at $18.99 apiece. Really?!? I love, love, love browsing the shelves in a "real" store, and support my local non-chain CD/LP shops (well, the ONE that still remains in San Diego County as of this posting, "Lou's Records") as much as possible, but I'm neither so stupid nor so rich that I don't care about throwing money away. I miss the days when I would hop from one used CD shop to another, all over San Diego, never knowing what I'd find each time and coming home with all sorts of surprises. C'est la vie.

 
 Posted:   Mar 27, 2010 - 10:24 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

And to stay on topic. Its just easier to purchase online. Can I find all my wish list purchases at one brick and mortar store? Probably not. Can I get all the latest releases on SAE? Yes. Will I find that bargain CD at my local used CD shop? Probably not. Will I find a bargain soundtrack I want on Amazon, more than likely yes. Shopping online, saves time, gas money, not to mention, traffic, waiting in line, among other things.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2025 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.