ISPs providing addresses of p2p users to the IRMA? (1 Viewer)

Here's a big Lefsetz whinge about it, he says it better than me

bob lefsetz 21/5/07 said:
EMI/Terra Firma

Upwards of twenty people lost their jobs at Rhino Records last week. Were they doing a bad job? Were they suddenly superfluous? No, Warner Music had to make its numbers work. And in order to do this, the company had to reduce its head count. So losses would decline. On paper. Hell, you don’t need a mastering engineer, you don’t need an art department, just a really sharp accountant.

What?

Warner Music is not A&M Records, the OLD A&M Records, owned by Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss, grown into a powerhouse over twenty five years. From the single to the album, from "The Lonely Bull" to "Frampton Comes Alive". Warner isn’t in it for the long haul, to develop artists, it’s in it for the money.

You see you buy a supposedly undervalued, mismanaged asset. Then you cut overhead, get your investment back, and sell stock in the resulting enterprise to the public. That’s the private equity game. Now we’ve got TWO major labels in the private equity game.

Believe me, EMI’s value isn’t as an ongoing record company releasing new albums by unknown acts. God, that’s a tough business. It’s not much better if you ARE known. That Linkin Park album…it’s going to be a disaster. No, the value of EMI is in its copyrights, what it already owns, what has already been established. The Beatles and the Beach Boys. Along with all those tunes in the EMI Publishing Catalog. At some point in the future, when they figure out how to monetize online music, those assets are going to be worth a fortune. Will Terra Firma still own the company then? Maybe not!

Terra Firma’s purchase is not about the new act business, it’s not about waiting for the marketplace to stabilize, it’s purely about money. About making the books look good, so that financially the company looks robust, so investors will want to own its stock.

This movie is not only already being played out at Warner, a variation is transpiring over at Live Nation. There are fewer arena acts, people aren’t going to many shows, but these problems are not the ones being addressed, rather it’s how can we maximize revenue on what we’ve already got in order to please Wall Street, so we can all make a lot of money.

The apocalypse is finally here. The major labels are going to merge, whether internally or externally, and cut overhead until all you’ve got left are the bean counters and the deal makers. These companies are going to become giant licensing operations. New music? That will be developed by somebody else, someone who doesn’t need the same return on investment.

You’re watching the movie now. Show time isn’t off in the future, the first few reels have already unspooled. There was Napster and MySpace, not only a fumbling of the ball by the major labels, but a sea change in exposure and consumption that their model was not prepared for. One within which the old modes of exhibition, MTV and radio, are calcified, and replaced with pull models, within which no one hears what they don’t want to. If you can’t reach people, if you can’t expose your wares, how are you going to get them to buy your products?

You aren’t. That’s why sales are off so dramatically. Not because people are stealing so much as the fact that everybody wants something different, the mainstream is for wusses, casual buyers. Today’s music has about as much soul as Beanie Babies.

Not only will Linkin Park stiff, but so will Paul McCartney. There are no longer dominant acts that people believe in, only minor ones with relatively small colonies of believers. And if you don’t have believers, you’re fucked. Better off to manage a jam band than to own the masters of a pop group.

Oh, someone will figure it out, someone will give the people what they want, more music for a lower aliquot per track price. But it won’t be the investors running Warner or EMI. They’re not freethinkers, they’re not growers, they’re managers. And the Universal brass is so out of touch, when you go into their offices you see calendars from the ’90s. Sure, they resuscitated this Gwen Stefani record, but they won’t be able to sell the next one, not enough people will care, not enough to justify the cost. And there will be no infrastructure left, no one to do the grunt work, no one to push the button.

And Sony BMG is a joke. Marriages of convenience never work. Lack’s folly will benefit neither. Sony is Chrysler to BMG’s Daimler-Benz. Then again, Sony has got the catalog. Why don’t they just go straight to the finish line, unwind the merger, stop putting out new records and manage the assets, the great tracks of the past. Since this is what they’re going to do in the future anyway. To do otherwise, to try and right the ship, is positively futile. Even Rick Rubin can’t come up with a diamond seller.

Ten years from now, the music business landscape will look completely different. FIVE years from now. Lyor Cohen and Jimmy Iovine will long be gone. They will have retired, not wanting to work so hard for meager returns, superseded by young hungry bucks willing to focus on the music and man to man as opposed to top down marketing. As for the live sphere? A lot more bands playing to fewer people.

We’ve got to grow new stars.

But a star won’t be Kid Rock, certainly not J. Lo or Jessica Simpson, built on mainstream overhype, but something more akin to Peter Frampton. A journeyman who gets lucky when suddenly his hard work pays off, when he releases great product just when enough people have heard of him.

The future doesn’t lie with Thomas H. Lee/Bain, and it’s not with Terra Firma either. They don’t care what’s in the grooves, they just care about the stock price.

It’s a free-for-all, it’s every man for himself. Welcome to the future. It’s happening right now.
 
White Stripes 'Icky Thump' .. biggest selling vinyl single since Wet Wet Wet's cover of 'Love is All Around'.

http://www.nme.com/news/the-white-stripes/29037

Also, the DJ/Hip-Hop communities still shift quite a lot of vinyl, and will continue to do so.


wow! thats mental! Hey I love vinyl so i'm not complaining.

RED(tape)MENACE said:
How are people that steal your products your customers?

Good point, anyone who liked music is their potential customer I would have
thought

RED(tape)MENACE said:
Except that the Linkin Park record did not stiff.
Quite the opposite.

oh yeah? How many copies has it sold?
 
It's sold two and a half million copies AND it was leaked beforehand!
Wow, better hurry up and sue more people cos obviously downloading is affecting Linken Parks sales
 
Is it harder to get caught if you just steal someone else's wireless and download from that? If so, that's the honorable way to go.
 
I wonder what IRMA do with the $$$, I know they track radio play and pay out accordingly, if someone downloaded a Stoat album, amongst others, and got fined £60,000... do IRMA make sure Stoat get their $$$???

huh?

I'd imagine that Stoat's money would go to Westlife instead. All venues that have bands or DJ's playing (or even shops that have music playing in the backround) have to pay an annual subscription fee to IRMA. Years ago DJs and coverbands would compile their setlists after every gig and hand them in behind the bar of the venue they were playing. At the end of the year the venue posted all these setlists up to IMRA. IMRA would then divide up their subscription fees and pay the relevant artists accordingly. If a couple of indie nights played Stoat every week so that at the end of the year 0.001% of all songs played in venues over the year were by Stoat than stoat would get 0.001% of the cash that IMRA played out. After a while they got sick of all the paperwork and scrapped the old system. Now they just divide up the subscription fees in accordance to record sales. So if you're hosting breakcore nights in the Ice Bar your IMRA fee isn't going to Breakcore artists, it's going to James Blunt and Snow Patrol.
 
It's sold two and a half million copies AND it was leaked beforehand!
Wow, better hurry up and sue more people cos obviously downloading is affecting Linken Parks sales

Actually it is, I'm sure that album hasn't stopped selling but their debut album "Hybrid Theory" ended up selling 19 million copies all over the world. Even accounting for a dip in popularity I'm sure they probably could have sold a load more if people weren't downloading it instead of buying it.
 
Hybird Theory came out seven years ago at the height of nu-metal, their new album came out a month ago.
7 years ago was also the height of napster btw.

Look i'm sure downloading does affect cd sales but cd sales affected vinyl sales. I think attempts to stop downloading with legal action is the most shortsighted stupid course of action for record companies. All they're doing is making themselves into the enemy, alienating their own potential customers and making people feel good about themselves for downloading illegally and fucking them over.

Does anyone here honestly approve of suing people who share/steal music off the internet?
 
Hybird Theory came out seven years ago at the height of nu-metal, their new album came out a month ago.
7 years ago was also the height of napster btw.

Look i'm sure downloading does affect cd sales but cd sales affected vinyl sales. I think attempts to stop downloading with legal action is the most shortsighted stupid course of action for record companies. All they're doing is making themselves into the enemy, alienating their own potential customers and making people feel good about themselves for downloading illegally and fucking them over.

Does anyone here honestly approve of suing people who share/steal music off the internet?

Although it was the height of Napster, far more people are downloading music illegally now than then. More people have faster internet connections too. The impact cd sales had on vinyl sales is different from this shift because people still paid for the product/song/work or art/whatever in the new medium. A huge percentage of people will no longer buy music or for that matter any other kind of digitisable (is that a word?) products.
You might think that doesn't matter but alot of artists do and they have the legal right to a payment for their intellectual property. People complain about record companies and cite past grieviances with them but the new media types such as Apple have even less inherent interest in the welfare (financial or otherwise) of the artist. It doesn't matter to Apple how people get their music, they'll still sell iPods.

I don't think it will work suing individuals but I can see why they do it. For want of a better analogy stores hire security to stop shoplifting, it doesn't eliminate it entirely probably but it must put off a significant chunk of people from thieving from the store. When someone is caught shoplifting no-one says "they shouldn't be arresting their customers". I hope this rant makes sense. I'm largely playing devil's advocate here because I have no real sympathy for record companies.

The idea that an artist could sell and communicate directly with fans is a nice one but only works up to a certain level. If I have 100 fans who regularly buy my releases I can do that with no help from anyone else, with a 1000 fans I might need to get friends to help, with 10,000 or 100,000 I would have to involve more and more people. Sure I'd be doing it independently but eventually if ones popularity got to a certain point you would have to take on most or all of the trappings of a record company.
 
Although it was the height of Napster, far more people are downloading music illegally now than then. More people have faster internet connections too.
sure, it's a different era alright, so why are they trying to enforce the rules of the old era upon it?

The impact cd sales had on vinyl sales is different from this shift because people still paid for the product/song/work or art/whatever in the new medium. A huge percentage of people will no longer buy music or for that matter any other kind of digitisable (is that a word?) products.
like I said, it's a different era, the old rules are outdated

You might think that doesn't matter but alot of artists do and they have the legal right to a payment for their intellectual property.
I agree, they do. I think that people are more willing to pay a product by an artist they respect than for one they feel is forced upon them. Although even still I don't think that will stop people downloading either.

People complain about record companies and cite past grieviances with them but the new media types such as Apple have even less inherent interest in the welfare (financial or otherwise) of the artist. It doesn't matter to Apple how people get their music, they'll still sell iPods.
No argument here.

I don't think it will work suing individuals but I can see why they do it. For want of a better analogy stores hire security to stop shoplifting, it doesn't eliminate it entirely probably but it must put off a significant chunk of people from thieving from the store. When someone is caught shoplifting no-one says "they shouldn't be arresting their customers".
true, but maybe the old record store is on the way out. Cd sales are dropping all the time but people aren't listening to less music, so what gives?

The idea that an artist could sell and communicate directly with fans is a nice one but only works up to a certain level. If I have 100 fans who regularly buy my releases I can do that with no help from anyone else, with a 1000 fans I might need to get friends to help, with 10,000 or 100,000 I would have to involve more and more people. Sure I'd be doing it independently but eventually if ones popularity got to a certain point you would have to take on most or all of the trappings of a record company.
Sure but i'm not arguing against selling music, i'm arguing that the major label, as a promoter of new talent, is on the way out, it has less and less relevance in an age where new music is becoming increasingly niche.
 
But filesharing et al also has an impact on Independent labels and artists' ability to operate. There'll probably still be big artists that sell a few million records for the next good while so the majors will continue on their merry albeit emaciated way but smaller independent labels who do care for their artists can find it very difficult to operate above a certain level because given enough exposure everyone goes for the torrent or Soulseek etc.
 
This is true. Suburban Home in the US had to let off a load of staff and cut back on signings, and put it 100% down to people not buying CDs when they can just download stuff for free. G7 Welcoming Comittee (run by Propagandhi, home of The Weakerthans) have stopped pressing physical copies of releases, said the cost isn't worth it anymore, so they're just releasing stuff as MP3s.
 
Yeah but I don't think any of this is being done at the behest of independent labels. I don't know the solution because I still don't know the full situation, if I download an album i'll certainly buy it if I like it but I don't know if that attitude is widespread.
Attempting to stop people from filesharing obviously isn't working though and it certainly isn't wanted. If it's about business then they should be looking for ways to sell people what the people want not sell people what you want them to have.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

M Stevens & The Ghasts + Vega Storm
Wexford Street
Landless: 'Lúireach' Album Launch (Glitterbeat Records)
The Unitarian Church, Stephen's Green
Dublin Unitarian Church, 112 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, D02 YP23, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top