And this is EXACTLY why Hollywood will NEVER give Apple the vast film/video libraries and why an ATV will never work unless it goes beyond the iTunes jail cell.
Yes, we don't want to confuse the two. With copyright infringement the penalty is much higher. In fact you could go punch the little old lady who lives next to you in the face and you would probably pay less in damages then you would for illegally downloading songs if the labels decided to come after you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stynkfysh
First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference.
Before jumping on Townsend, some of you should read his speech a bit more carefully. While he did call out iTunes for being a digital vampire, he was also suggesting Apple should play a more active role in removing the record labels as middleman. This is not just about whining. He had some good thoughts about evolution of the music industry in the internet age. Shame on those of you making criticisms without reading thoroughly.
That's a good list. Drumasaurus? Any farther back and it would be CDiacaran age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
Hey, the record labels should have told Apple to go straight to hell with their ala carte business model. But no! They hoped on board the yellow submarine like they always do. The record labels are notorious for allowing the tech industry to dictate what medium their music should go on.
This is sarcasm, right? Very good, it threw me for a loop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by santaclas
Got to chime in (first time). I don't really get this - I've always bought the album 'cause it it is a part of the experience discovering new song with the artist you like. They might not be as good as the song(s) that the label chooses to release as a single, but it is the package that counts. I guess no one has the patience or time anymore to actually sit down and just listen so a full album.
In a sense, I agree, there are often other good songs on an album. It seems unfair to not offer any way to listen to them before committing to the whole album though. They run the two singles ragged on the radio, and the rest of the songs on the album are anyone's guess unless you buy it, can borrow it. Even the thirty second samples aren't really enough, it would be nice to listen to the whole thing some how. I understand the reticence because of copying concerns, but if someone's going to copy a song, they'll go and do an illegal download. I do the samples, if I hear something promising in more than half the songs, then I'll hope for the best and get the whole album.
Quote:
For me skipping out on songs from an album is like choosing what scenes you don't want to see in a movie. I guess you don't fast forward in every movie you see.
That argument really only works for concept albums, which is a rare beast and went extinct long before iTunes was an idea. Most albums have a collection of relatively unrelated songs, also evidenced by concert tours where set lists are often rearranged at will. If it were really like skipping parts of a movie, then rearranging songs wouldn't make sense because you have a sequence of events in a movie, the third act cannot be understood well without watching the first and second. Rarely in an album is the whole album a single, connected story, like a novel. It's more like a collection of short stories, skipping story #5 often has no impact on enjoying story #11.
Quote:
I'm not telling you not to just buy the songs you like...just that the package and experience that the album offers to let you hear new songs surprise you is lost. And as it goes for Pete's food metafore I would put it like this: Go into a restaurant you don't ask the waiter to skip the potatoes, gravy or what not because you don't want to pay for it. If you don't like you leave it on the plate but you will pay the same price anyway.
That metaphor falls apart because most restaurants let you choose your sides. Which is not too unlike like burning your own mix CD with tracks from anywhere and everywhere, or buying á la carte and making your own playlist. Still flawed metaphors. But definitely far better than a musician saying that people should pay money every time they hear a song.
"?if music lovers treated music like food, and paid for every helping?",
One shudders to imagine those long-ago family dinners in the Townsend household, where Pete's rabid, insatiable fear of not getting enough originated.
"?rather than only when it suited them?"
Yes dear. We should pay when it suits you. Which is always. How are you enjoying life with the 1%, Petey?
"?Townshend has matured from rockstar to businessman?"
"Matured?" Some of us are old enough to remember when a younger Townsend would have called that "selling out" and spat on what he's become.
"?demolition of established copyright protections?"
Ah, the establishment? The road from artist to "stop worrying and love the bomb" is surprisingly short in addition to being paved with gold.
Can we stop admiring the insatiable greed of the egregiously rich and start calling them what they are? The word "hoarders" strikes me as useful. No matter how much they have, they want more. Putting the label "worth an estimated $75 million" on Townsend's insanity doesn't change the fact that he's no different than some pathetic wreck living in a trailer filled with 20,000 back issues of people magazine. He's neither admirable nor sane.
I was reading some comments here and allot is true especially the fact that if anything iTunes actually helped out the music business. I don't the amount of people that actually buy music now instead of downloading. If you ask me the music business is probably better off then it was before and all that because of iTunes.
Well, what can you expect from a guy who got famous by smashing his instrument?
Now, there is respect for art!
What kind of vampire is it that profits from selling his art to hawk headlights?
Not an enlightened one! (ooh, sorry).
It was precisely to respect artists and avoid piracy, and because subscription and play-control services were so unwieldy and unpopular, that iTunes got its shot.
But who, I ask you, would seriously like to go back to those days?
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.
Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.
I wish I was on the receiving end of the iTunes market. If Pete wants to he can trade places with me. I will take his income and enjoy the money made by people buying my songs on iTunes.
I've found that, the best way to make money as a music artist is to go live. If you can't perform live then... You know the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr1882
It's called America, Peter. Go back tot he UK if you don't like it.
Hey! We don't want him either!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol
And this is EXACTLY why Hollywood will NEVER give Apple the vast film/video libraries and why an ATV will never work unless it goes beyond the iTunes jail cell.
Because some guy from The Who has got Pirate Bay confused with iTunes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.
Is there some kind of arrangement if you're not actually signed up to a record label? I've always wondered this.
First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference. No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, which is required for theft. Not to say that copyright infringement isn't bad, it is - it just isn't stealing.
Second, the recording industry has had a hell of a time adjusting to the fact that they aren't nearly as needed as they once were. The encoding and distribution of an MP3 song is practically free compared to the old days when a record, tape, or CD had to be manufactured and shipped all over the world. Yet, they still want the same profit.
So Pete Townsend - while you are highly respected as a musician, you are missing that it is the record companies are demanding too high of profit relative to their importance in the music distribution process, which I am guessing results in less income for artists. Don't blame the fans, look at your middleman - they are taking too much.
Seems to me that an investor could go out, find talent, promote said talent, and distribute the music for far less than what is even charged on iTunes today, with the artists making more money than they do today, and with a smart investor making good returns.
Lady Gaga's latest album premiered on Amazon for $1. Amazon sells MP3's without copy protection and her album could have easily been distributed by friends after only 1 person bought it. But you know what? Amazon's huge data services couldn't handle the load of people wanting to buy the album, and many MANY people bought it.
There is a price out there people want to pay for an album or song, the music industry just doesn't want to go down to where it is. They had their day in the sun when distribution was hard - but now it is easy and they have failed to adjust to the times and technology.
Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.
If Pete reads any one of these replies, I hope it's this one, you hit the nail on the head, man!
Comments
First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference.
Really?
Gee, I wonder if he was using a Macintosh to do his -- ahh .... "research" on ....
*ahem*
Analogaurus?
Vinyloraptor?
Eight-tracktiopod?
Thats all I got.
That's a good list. Drumasaurus? Any farther back and it would be CDiacaran age.
Hey, the record labels should have told Apple to go straight to hell with their ala carte business model. But no! They hoped on board the yellow submarine like they always do. The record labels are notorious for allowing the tech industry to dictate what medium their music should go on.
This is sarcasm, right? Very good, it threw me for a loop.
Got to chime in (first time). I don't really get this - I've always bought the album 'cause it it is a part of the experience discovering new song with the artist you like. They might not be as good as the song(s) that the label chooses to release as a single, but it is the package that counts. I guess no one has the patience or time anymore to actually sit down and just listen so a full album.
In a sense, I agree, there are often other good songs on an album. It seems unfair to not offer any way to listen to them before committing to the whole album though. They run the two singles ragged on the radio, and the rest of the songs on the album are anyone's guess unless you buy it, can borrow it. Even the thirty second samples aren't really enough, it would be nice to listen to the whole thing some how. I understand the reticence because of copying concerns, but if someone's going to copy a song, they'll go and do an illegal download. I do the samples, if I hear something promising in more than half the songs, then I'll hope for the best and get the whole album.
For me skipping out on songs from an album is like choosing what scenes you don't want to see in a movie. I guess you don't fast forward in every movie you see.
That argument really only works for concept albums, which is a rare beast and went extinct long before iTunes was an idea. Most albums have a collection of relatively unrelated songs, also evidenced by concert tours where set lists are often rearranged at will. If it were really like skipping parts of a movie, then rearranging songs wouldn't make sense because you have a sequence of events in a movie, the third act cannot be understood well without watching the first and second. Rarely in an album is the whole album a single, connected story, like a novel. It's more like a collection of short stories, skipping story #5 often has no impact on enjoying story #11.
I'm not telling you not to just buy the songs you like...just that the package and experience that the album offers to let you hear new songs surprise you is lost. And as it goes for Pete's food metafore I would put it like this: Go into a restaurant you don't ask the waiter to skip the potatoes, gravy or what not because you don't want to pay for it. If you don't like you leave it on the plate but you will pay the same price anyway.
That metaphor falls apart because most restaurants let you choose your sides. Which is not too unlike like burning your own mix CD with tracks from anywhere and everywhere, or buying á la carte and making your own playlist. Still flawed metaphors. But definitely far better than a musician saying that people should pay money every time they hear a song.
The artist does not keep seventy percent. With a ninety nine cent download, the artist gets about nine cents, and the label fifty three cents.
I think he meant if the artist had a direct deal with iTunes, but I don't know if or how many have such a deal.
Better for whom, Pete?
"?if music lovers treated music like food, and paid for every helping?",
One shudders to imagine those long-ago family dinners in the Townsend household, where Pete's rabid, insatiable fear of not getting enough originated.
"?rather than only when it suited them?"
Yes dear. We should pay when it suits you. Which is always. How are you enjoying life with the 1%, Petey?
"?Townshend has matured from rockstar to businessman?"
"Matured?" Some of us are old enough to remember when a younger Townsend would have called that "selling out" and spat on what he's become.
"?demolition of established copyright protections?"
Ah, the establishment? The road from artist to "stop worrying and love the bomb" is surprisingly short in addition to being paved with gold.
Can we stop admiring the insatiable greed of the egregiously rich and start calling them what they are? The word "hoarders" strikes me as useful. No matter how much they have, they want more. Putting the label "worth an estimated $75 million" on Townsend's insanity doesn't change the fact that he's no different than some pathetic wreck living in a trailer filled with 20,000 back issues of people magazine. He's neither admirable nor sane.
Now, there is respect for art!
What kind of vampire is it that profits from selling his art to hawk headlights?
Not an enlightened one! (ooh, sorry).
It was precisely to respect artists and avoid piracy, and because subscription and play-control services were so unwieldy and unpopular, that iTunes got its shot.
But who, I ask you, would seriously like to go back to those days?
Who???
He also neglects to mention that with iTunes, the artist keeps 70% while with a typical label they get a much smaller percentage.
Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.
Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.
I wish I was on the receiving end of the iTunes market. If Pete wants to he can trade places with me. I will take his income and enjoy the money made by people buying my songs on iTunes.
I've found that, the best way to make money as a music artist is to go live. If you can't perform live then... You know the rest.
It's called America, Peter. Go back tot he UK if you don't like it.
Hey! We don't want him either!
And this is EXACTLY why Hollywood will NEVER give Apple the vast film/video libraries and why an ATV will never work unless it goes beyond the iTunes jail cell.
Because some guy from The Who has got Pirate Bay confused with iTunes?
Not even close. Apple doesn't deal directly with artists. They deal with labels/publishers.
Apple keeps 30%.
The label/publisher gets 70%.
The artist gets whatever the contract between artist/label specifies, which is not going to be all of the 70%, even if the label is owned by the artist. The label will get some portion.
Is there some kind of arrangement if you're not actually signed up to a record label? I've always wondered this.
First, people aren't stealing - they are committing copyright infringement. There is a big difference. No one loses something when a song is illegally copied, which is required for theft. Not to say that copyright infringement isn't bad, it is - it just isn't stealing.
Second, the recording industry has had a hell of a time adjusting to the fact that they aren't nearly as needed as they once were. The encoding and distribution of an MP3 song is practically free compared to the old days when a record, tape, or CD had to be manufactured and shipped all over the world. Yet, they still want the same profit.
So Pete Townsend - while you are highly respected as a musician, you are missing that it is the record companies are demanding too high of profit relative to their importance in the music distribution process, which I am guessing results in less income for artists. Don't blame the fans, look at your middleman - they are taking too much.
Seems to me that an investor could go out, find talent, promote said talent, and distribute the music for far less than what is even charged on iTunes today, with the artists making more money than they do today, and with a smart investor making good returns.
Lady Gaga's latest album premiered on Amazon for $1. Amazon sells MP3's without copy protection and her album could have easily been distributed by friends after only 1 person bought it. But you know what? Amazon's huge data services couldn't handle the load of people wanting to buy the album, and many MANY people bought it.
There is a price out there people want to pay for an album or song, the music industry just doesn't want to go down to where it is. They had their day in the sun when distribution was hard - but now it is easy and they have failed to adjust to the times and technology.
Pete Townsend, I am afraid you just don't understand - so please spend your rock God capital on reworking the record company, not the fans - or Apple and iTunes.
If Pete reads any one of these replies, I hope it's this one, you hit the nail on the head, man!
Sounds like Townshend is a digital dinosaur...
"Analog" dinosaur to be precise.