Anti-piracy

[JumpingAnaconda]

They say that movie/music piracy costs the industry billions blah blah blah. Does it fuck cost them that much as there's no way people would go to see the movies at the cinema or buy the music. Provide a service at reasonable cost and some will pay rather than piss about. Netflix is raking it in now as they have millions of subscribers worldwide now yet if they and many other streaming services weren't available then the movie/music industries wouldn't be generating as much cash.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...oint-for-music-industry-with-revenues-of-15bn
Second year of growth after recording 40% decline over previous 15 years, with streaming hailed as revitalising sector

That is completely wrong. The music industry is pretty much dead and buried. The streaming revenues are minuscule compared to the revenues physical media sales were generating prior to mp3 becoming widely used. Every layer of the music industry has seen its income devastated, with the biggest impact on those who the bulk of income previously came from royalties, i.e. the actual performers and songwriters. Even top performers are making very little from new releases these days. For example, the recent Lindsay Buckingham/Chrissie McVie duo album (effectively a closet Fleetwood Mac album) sold only 22,000 physical units in the US in its first week, and diminished from there. That is a front line line, top drawer act where there is high demand for new product and where the audience are going to be much more inclined towards physical formats than the younger market. Yet they are still selling in numbers that would be considered a complete flop for a mid to lower billed band 20 years ago. How are you meant to pay all the costs of production of the material and then manufacture and distribute the music and still walk away with anything in your pocket after that? How are any new talented bands meant to come through? What happens is that the music industry ends up downsizing everything, and relying on the most bland, mediocre artists and groups and then they promote them like crazy to try and capture the largest possible audience.

The movie industry is in utter turmoil. Again, they resort to blander and blander concepts. The companies are amalgamating and eating each other because they can no longer afford to stand alone. Disney is buying up anything that moves. There is a pool of about 15 actors that are the only ones that the industry dares to put on larger budget products. Companies like Sony Pictures are on their knees. Remember, Sony Pictures owns Columbia, Tri-Star, MGM, Lorimar, Screen Gems and many other media interests, constituting a massive share of the world media production industry.

The problem is that the physical media and the medium has become vulnerable to exploitation and it is being exploited. The argument about music and cinema costing too much is wrong. The proof is in the fact that the content is suffering. If it cost too much then you would still be getting the great variety in talent and you would still have artists able to break through without going bankrupt. I have heard the argument for years that CD's should cost a pound, because that is what it costs to make the medium. That argument works about as well as arguing that a plumber should only charge for parts when fitting a boiler. The problem is that if something is available for free, even it is illegal, most people will do it even if they think they will not be caught. It would be exactly the same if it there was a way to take food without paying for it. The food industry would collapse and people would probably say "oh well, if the food was cheaper and the greedy producers did not want to get rich, then we would happily pay for it". But they would still take it for free no matter what price it was. You have to pay to make the music and films. You have to pay for insurance. You have to pay for transport. You have to pay for tapes and hard disks. Have you to pay for camera lenses. You have to pay for distribution. You have to pay for the things that are not immediately profitable. You have to pay for royalties. You have to pay for shops and the staff. Lots of people have to make a living off of such things in order for it to exist.

 

[pavarotti1980]

That is completely wrong. The music industry is pretty much dead and buried. The streaming revenues are minuscule compared to the revenues physical media sales were generating prior to mp3 becoming widely used. Every layer of the music industry has seen its income devastated, with the biggest impact on those who the bulk of income previously came from royalties, i.e. the actual performers and songwriters. Even top performers are making very little from new releases these days. For example, the recent Lindsay Buckingham/Chrissie McVie duo album (effectively a closet Fleetwood Mac album) sold only 22,000 physical units in the US in its first week, and diminished from there. That is a front line line, top drawer act where there is high demand for new product and where the audience are going to be much more inclined towards physical formats than the younger market. Yet they are still selling in numbers that would be considered a complete flop for a mid to lower billed band 20 years ago. How are you meant to pay all the costs of production of the material and then manufacture and distribute the music and still walk away with anything in your pocket after that? How are any new talented bands meant to come through? What happens is that the music industry ends up downsizing everything, and relying on the most bland, mediocre artists and groups and then they promote them like crazy to try and capture the largest possible audience.

The movie industry is in utter turmoil. Again, they resort to blander and blander concepts. The companies are amalgamating and eating each other because they can no longer afford to stand alone. Disney is buying up anything that moves. There is a pool of about 15 actors that are the only ones that the industry dares to put on larger budget products. Companies like Sony Pictures are on their knees. Remember, Sony Pictures owns Columbia, Tri-Star, MGM, Lorimar, Screen Gems and many other media interests, constituting a massive share of the world media production industry.

The problem is that the physical media and the medium has become vulnerable to exploitation and it is being exploited. The argument about music and cinema costing too much is wrong. The proof is in the fact that the content is suffering. If it cost too much then you would still be getting the great variety in talent and you would still have artists able to break through without going bankrupt. I have heard the argument for years that CD's should cost a pound, because that is what it costs to make the medium. That argument works about as well as arguing that a plumber should only charge for parts when fitting a boiler. The problem is that if something is available for free, even it is illegal, most people will do it even if they think they will not be caught. It would be exactly the same if it there was a way to take food without paying for it. The food industry would collapse and people would probably say "oh well, if the food was cheaper and the greedy producers did not want to get rich, then we would happily pay for it". But they would still take it for free no matter what price it was. You have to pay to make the music and films. You have to pay for insurance. You have to pay for transport. You have to pay for tapes and hard disks. Have you to pay for camera lenses. You have to pay for distribution. You have to pay for the things that are not immediately profitable. You have to pay for royalties. You have to pay for shops and the staff. Lots of people have to make a living off of such things in order for it to exist.

You could argue the same for any sector which the internet allows a presence. Shopping for example, Amazon has destroyed the high street or at least has sped the process.

 

[FIVE]

What sky dont seem to understand is that the 2 in 3 fans who watch "kodi" will never EVER translate into sky customers if they are stopped.
They watch because its free......not sm obviously.....but they would just give it a miss if they had to pay.

 

[andyj73]

What sky dont seem to understand is that the 2 in 3 fans who watch "kodi" will never EVER translate into sky customers if they are stopped.
They watch because its free......not sm obviously.....but they would just give it a miss if they had to pay.

.. Spot on. I watch more than I usually would because it is easy accessible. I wouldn't pay to watch it though ..

 

[the jackel]

I use Private Internet Access and it's been really good for a couple of years. No idea if it's the best, but was recommended by the IT lads at work. About A$30 a year. BBC iPlayer not accessible anymore as need to get free membership with U.K. license Solution via PM always welcome.

used private internet access for a few years but seen the speeds slow right down. i have used ipvanish for the last 2 years and it is the best vpn i have used by none. doesn't slow you down

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

You could argue the same for any sector which the internet allows a presence. Shopping for example, Amazon has destroyed the high street or at least has sped the process.

No, it is not comparable. Whether you buy a toaster from the high street, or if you buy it from Amazon, you are still paying for the toaster, just as if you buy music from the high street or Amazon. It is not like toasters as a commodity have become compromised so that you can side step the purchasing aspect of getting the value out of the product. You can not download a toaster for free from Pirate Bay. If you buy from Amazon the producer of the toaster is probably still receiving a similar amount of the money to selling to the high street shop. Everybody down the chain of production is still getting paid for their labour and investment. Amazon sells for less where it does because they avoid the costs of running bricks and mortar stores, and so do not always need to impose the same mark-ups as high street stores.

 

[Brian Griffin]

So in short, do I need to use a VPN this season to access Sports Mania?

 

[FIVE]

Nope.....were all around to hanks house.

.......hes getting the full sky package next season.

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

What sky dont seem to understand is that the 2 in 3 fans who watch "kodi" will never EVER translate into sky customers if they are stopped.
They watch because its free......not sm obviously.....but they would just give it a miss if they had to pay.

But it is the one in three that are causing the financial problem. Sky have seemed to work on a traditional retail pricing system for the last few years. They have a core of loyal customers that pay the full premium. They cover their costs and make some profit out of them. Everybody else they can keep signed up is like printing money no matter what they get from them. The problem is so many of those premium customers have gone that they are at risk of not breaking even. So at present they are trying to give the appearance of reducing the premium cost of their packages (even though they are arguably not) to try and stem the flow of customers out of the system. Once customers have gone and have got used to using illegitimate free services I can not see how they can easily attract them back, although the internet services may give them a toe in the door. BT have been a lot smarter by bundling their sports services at greatly reduced cost with their internet and phone services.

 

[pavarotti1980]

No, it is not comparable. Whether you buy a toaster from the high street, or if you buy it from Amazon, you are still paying for the toaster, just as if you buy music from the high street or Amazon. It is not like toasters as a commodity have become compromised so that you can side step the purchasing aspect of getting the value out of the product. You can not download a toaster for free from Pirate Bay. If you buy from Amazon the producer of the toaster is probably still receiving a similar amount of the money to selling to the high street shop. Everybody down the chain of production is still getting paid for their labour and investment. Amazon sells for less where it does because they avoid the costs of running bricks and mortar stores, and so do not always need to impose the same mark-ups as high street stores.

Im not saying its a direct comparison but the internet is repsonsible for an awful lot of sectors struglling.

 

[Deleted member 6694]

That is completely wrong. The music industry is pretty much dead and buried. The streaming revenues are minuscule compared to the revenues physical media sales were generating prior to mp3 becoming widely used.

Is it? A quick Google image search for global music revenue turns up this.

Logon or register to see this image

Downloads and streaming is growing year upon year so how can it be dead and buried? It's stopped the slump and as you can see overall it has grown in recent years, albeit slowly. The revenue for the music market was exaggerated in the late 90s/2000s due to the higher cost to buy the music.

Cinema admissions have also gone up but again that will partially be due to the monthly passes so that people can see more movie for less cost per movie. This attracts a potential bigger audience that compensates for the loss of the single ticket market. Google images for global cinema revenue shows many graphs and here's one showing revenue is still on the climb so is this market also dying?

Logon or register to see this image

Every layer of the music industry has seen its income devastated, with the biggest impact on those who the bulk of income previously came from royalties, i.e. the actual performers and songwriters

It had become devastated, in some areas more than others but that was also due to vastly over inflated prices and the greed involved taking advantage of the demand but eventually the consumer got sick. Does this sound familiar to Sky and also the Premier League scenario?

They did drop the prices of physical sales but consumers had also started looking elsewhere due to the technology available. I used to spend a fortune on music and have 100's of records and even more CDs but I gave up my collection eventually when the prices got stupid. Add in the fact that downloading/streaming have far less costs involved so the net profit percentage will be higher. Take a look here and see the market has stopped the revenue slump and is now recovering.

http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php
In 2016, the global recorded music market grew by 5.9%, the fastest rate of growth since IFPI began tracking the market in 1997. This was a second consecutive year of global growth for the industry with revenue increasing in the vast majority of markets, including nine of the top ten. This growth, however, should be viewed in the context of the industry losing nearly 40% of its revenues in the preceding 15 years.

So this 'loss' in revenue wasn't all down to piracy, it was also partially down to the greater than inflation price increases year upon year of CDs/records and the eventual fuss the masses made driving prices back down again. Was it not the likes of Asda etc that sold albums cheaper etc and it started the price war to drive prices down again with albums under a tenner and singles and sales went up? A quick google turns up this link. This is obviously UK related, not global, as I even recall buying Region 1 DVDs etc as they were far cheaper than the 'ripoff' marked up prices in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3158767.stm - This is from 2003

Even top performers are making very little from new releases these days. For example, the recent Lindsay Buckingham/Chrissie McVie duo album (effectively a closet Fleetwood Mac album) sold only 22,000 physical units in the US in its first week, and diminished from there. That is a front line line, top drawer act where there is high demand for new product and where the audience are going to be much more inclined towards physical formats than the younger market. Yet they are still selling in numbers that would be considered a complete flop for a mid to lower billed band 20 years ago.

Whee? It's 2017 ya knar You can't use that as an example and 22,000 as a percentage of the physical market is probably a good figure in my opinion. You can't compare 22,000 like for like physical sales in 2017 to 22,000 physical sales in 1997 as the overall physical sales in the 2 years would be vastly different. So is the percentage of that album in relation to overall weekly sales then is it really as bad as you are trying to make out? Hmmmm, after typing that sentence, I just googled the album and it seems that 22,000 is just the US sales so you're ignoring the UK and global sales it seems!

How are you meant to pay all the costs of production of the material and then manufacture and distribute the music and still walk away with anything in your pocket after that? How are any new talented bands meant to come through? What happens is that the music industry ends up downsizing everything, and relying on the most bland, mediocre artists and groups and then they promote them like crazy to try and capture the largest possible audience.

The majority of 'sales' are now a non physical market. Shall they not just bring back cassette tapes instead? You can't play a record/CD on your phone or in your car now can you? You are limited as to the places you can play them. That's what has also helped kill physical sales. Just this morning I had my phone connected to a bluetooth speaker and had the freedom to move around doing the garden front and back without dragging out an extension for the old portable CD/Radio.

The problem is that the physical media and the medium has become vulnerable to exploitation and it is being exploited. The argument about music and cinema costing too much is wrong.

It's not, they kept hoying up the price way above inflation. If they'd kept going at the rate prices were increasing then an album would be ower £30 by now. That would kill the market as people would be very selective as to which album they buy and how many would just stick to listening to a radio instead? With the availability of being able to purchase at reasonable prices and/or streaming they've opened the market up for 10,000s of artists worldwide to be able to make money rather than the mainstream artists/groups. The revenue you are comparing against is the time when the music industry (and Movie with DVDs) took the piss and increased prices year upon year way above inflation/

The proof is in the fact that the content is suffering. If it cost too much then you would still be getting the great variety in talent and you would still have artists able to break through without going bankrupt.

Content isn't suffering at all and on the flip side, if the download/streaming service didn't exist, you'd also be losing quite a lot potential talent simply because they couldn't generate the revenue in physical sales. I'm basing that on an album probably being over £20 if a non physical service wasn't available and the industry still taking the piss slightly with prices. That means the attraction for a budding artist/group to keep going would be less attractive whereas now summit can be hoyed online for sownload/streaming and they get summit back with minimal costs compared to having to produce a physical copy.

I have heard the argument for years that CD's should cost a pound, because that is what it costs to make the medium.

It was cheap to manufacture them but the problem was the greedy bastards kept putting up the price as I've said, literally printing extra money at the same time. Even the masses and die hard fans started to get sick as they then knew how cheap you could buy blanks for. It was simply too much to buy various singles and the albums of your favourite bands or new stuff regularly and 'better value' to buy 5 dodgy copies for the price of one original. The same goes for football and the constant price rises and clubs taking the piss with away fans. There was an outcry and they've responded with lower and fairer prices.

That argument works about as well as arguing that a plumber should only charge for parts when fitting a boiler. The problem is that if something is available for free, even it is illegal, most people will do it even if they think they will not be caught. It would be exactly the same if it there was a way to take food without paying for it. The food industry would collapse and people would probably say "oh well, if the food was cheaper and the greedy producers did not want to get rich, then we would happily pay for it". But they would still take it for free no matter what price it was.

Food is available at most budget levels. Obviously there are foods that cost more but at least there are cheap options whereas with music and movies it was normally a fixed price minimum (unless in a sale or old stock). I don't mind paying for a plumber (or any other service) but then you get those who take the piss with huge markup prices and then you get others who still make a good living but charge prices that are very reasonable for both parties. You only have to get garden work quotes to see some of the rip off merchants in action for a few hours work!

Why the fuck have I just posted all that? I guess it's because it you but that will be last I post in this thread as I can't even be arsed to proof read as I'll have made mistakes plus as I'll be wasting my breath anyway if I reply to you again!

 

[Lambchops]

.. Spot on. I watch more than I usually would because it is easy accessible. I wouldn't pay to watch it though ..

I wouldn't pay for it like - we've the equivalent over here, full package and its 30quid a month

 

[MCFC]

North Korea and China? We aren't a Communist state.

You´ll find blocks all over the country.. Schools, Airports, workplaces etc

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

Is it? A quick Google image search for global music revenue turns up this.

Logon or register to see this image

Downloads and streaming is growing year upon year so how can it be dead and buried? It's stopped the slump and as you can see overall it has grown in recent years, albeit slowly. The revenue for the music market was exaggerated in the late 90s/2000s due to the higher cost to buy the music.

Cinema admissions have also gone up but again that will partially be due to the monthly passes so that people can see more movie for less cost per movie. This attracts a potential bigger audience that compensates for the loss of the single ticket market. Google images for global cinema revenue shows many graphs and here's one showing revenue is still on the climb so is this market also dying?

Logon or register to see this image

It had become devastated, in some areas more than others but that was also due to vastly over inflated prices and the greed involved taking advantage of the demand but eventually the consumer got sick. Does this sound familiar to Sky and also the Premier League scenario?

They did drop the prices of physical sales but consumers had also started looking elsewhere due to the technology available. I used to spend a fortune on music and have 100's of records and even more CDs but I gave up my collection eventually when the prices got stupid. Add in the fact that downloading/streaming have far less costs involved so the net profit percentage will be higher. Take a look here and see the market has stopped the revenue slump and is now recovering.

http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php
In 2016, the global recorded music market grew by 5.9%, the fastest rate of growth since IFPI began tracking the market in 1997. This was a second consecutive year of global growth for the industry with revenue increasing in the vast majority of markets, including nine of the top ten. This growth, however, should be viewed in the context of the industry losing nearly 40% of its revenues in the preceding 15 years.

So this 'loss' in revenue wasn't all down to piracy, it was also partially down to the greater than inflation price increases year upon year of CDs/records and the eventual fuss the masses made driving prices back down again. Was it not the likes of Asda etc that sold albums cheaper etc and it started the price war to drive prices down again with albums under a tenner and singles and sales went up? A quick google turns up this link. This is obviously UK related, not global, as I even recall buying Region 1 DVDs etc as they were far cheaper than the 'ripoff' marked up prices in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3158767.stm - This is from 2003



Whee? It's 2017 ya knar You can't use that as an example and 22,000 as a percentage of the physical market is probably a good figure in my opinion. You can't compare 22,000 like for like physical sales in 2017 to 22,000 physical sales in 1997 as the overall physical sales in the 2 years would be vastly different. So is the percentage of that album in relation to overall weekly sales then is it really as bad as you are trying to make out? Hmmmm, after typing that sentence, I just googled the album and it seems that 22,000 is just the US sales so you're ignoring the UK and global sales it seems!



The majority of 'sales' are now a non physical market. Shall they not just bring back cassette tapes instead? You can't play a record/CD on your phone or in your car now can you? You are limited as to the places you can play them. That's what has also helped kill physical sales. Just this morning I had my phone connected to a bluetooth speaker and had the freedom to move around doing the garden front and back without dragging out an extension for the old portable CD/Radio.


It's not, they kept hoying up the price way above inflation. If they'd kept going at the rate prices were increasing then an album would be ower £30 by now. That would kill the market as people would be very selective as to which album they buy and how many would just stick to listening to a radio instead? With the availability of being able to purchase at reasonable prices and/or streaming they've opened the market up for 10,000s of artists worldwide to be able to make money rather than the mainstream artists/groups. The revenue you are comparing against is the time when the music industry (and Movie with DVDs) took the piss and increased prices year upon year way above inflation/


Content isn't suffering at all and on the flip side, if the download/streaming service didn't exist, you'd also be losing quite a lot potential talent simply because they couldn't generate the revenue in physical sales. I'm basing that on an album probably being over £20 if a non physical service wasn't available and the industry still taking the piss slightly with prices. That means the attraction for a budding artist/group to keep going would be less attractive whereas now summit can be hoyed online for sownload/streaming and they get summit back with minimal costs compared to having to produce a physical copy.


It was cheap to manufacture them but the problem was the greedy bastards kept putting up the price as I've said, literally printing extra money at the same time. Even the masses and die hard fans started to get sick as they then knew how cheap you could buy blanks for. It was simply too much to buy various singles and the albums of your favourite bands or new stuff regularly and 'better value' to buy 5 dodgy copies for the price of one original. The same goes for football and the constant price rises and clubs taking the piss with away fans. There was an outcry and they've responded with lower and fairer prices.


Food is available at most budget levels. Obviously there are foods that cost more but at least there are cheap options whereas with music and movies it was normally a fixed price minimum (unless in a sale or old stock). I don't mind paying for a plumber (or any other service) but then you get those who take the piss with huge markup prices and then you get others who still make a good living but charge prices that are very reasonable for both parties. You only have to get garden work quotes to see some of the rip off merchants in action for a few hours work!

Why the fuck have I just posted all that? I guess it's because it you but that will be last I post in this thread as I can't even be arsed to proof read as I'll have made mistakes plus as I'll be wasting my breath anyway if I reply to you again!

It is people like you that are the reason that the music industry is in complete collapse. Your reasoning completely ignored all of the points I made. We are not in an industry of yesteryear which was ready to take a 5 album spin artists that started off completely unprofitable like David Bowie or Neil Young. We are in an industry with a very narrow roster of artists which are more PR than talent. The time where smaller bands could release albums and make a living out of it are gone. The front like artists, the top billers, are making only marginal amounts off of their music sales. This may be hard for your to understand, but diminished money is not making to the artists, and that is because the money is not there. And because the money is not getting to the artists, they are not making the music they would otherwise make. We don't have a new David Bowie, or John Lennon because the industry does not have room for them any more. How can you read the comments I made about too many people thinking the cost of music is the physical CD and ignoring the costs of actually producing and stocking the music, and then go ahead and make that same ignorant point? It is just wrong to ignore the many other costs involved. It is wrong to ignore how many artists and records labels invested money into which never recouped anything. To pick on the music industry for wanting to make a profit makes no sense unless you yourself are ready to work for no money and would be happy to have your own labour and investments stolen for somebody else's free enjoyment. It also completely ignores the fact that pricing was falling in the industry and had been BELOW inflation for years at the time mp3s appeared.

The music industry of today is about trying to maximise the revenue it can get off of a narrowing pool of 'artists' in a climate of diminishing licensing returns, which means that it has to produce ever blander material of wider appeal. You clearly know absolutely nothing about music revenues if you start talking about streaming, where I shall repeat the revenues and royalties are a fraction of those from physical releases. If you are number one on the UK singles charts for 20 weeks, where most of the numbers come from streaming services, if your were both the artist and the composer you will be lucky to make £10,000 in royalties. in fact you will probably make a lot less than that. Does that sound right for the person that is in theory the one who should be earning more than anybody else in singles earnings? Does that sound right to you? Because then what is the guy who is number 5 in the charts going to get? How is he going to pay his bills and what security does he have? You keep convincing yourself that everything is fine and wonderful, and enjoy listening to your Ed Sheeran and Coldplay because that is all you have got.

 

[Deleted member 6694]

It is people like you that are the reason that the music industry is in complete collapse.

If the greedy f***ing twats didn't charge inflated prices at the time then maybe they wouldn't have suffered so much.

Your reasoning completely ignored all of the points I made. We are not in an industry of yesteryear which was ready to take a 5 album spin artists that started off completely unprofitable like David Bowie or Neil Young. We are in an industry with a very narrow roster of artists which are more PR than talent. The time where smaller bands could release albums and make a living out of it are gone. The front like artists, the top billers, are making only marginal amounts off of their music sales. This may be hard for your to understand, but diminished money is not making to the artists, and that is because the money is not there. And because the money is not getting to the artists, they are not making the music they would otherwise make. We don't have a new David Bowie, or John Lennon because the industry does not have room for them any more. How can you read the comments I made about too many people thinking the cost of music is the physical CD and ignoring the costs of actually producing and stocking the music, and then go ahead and make that same ignorant point? It is just wrong to ignore the many other costs involved. It is wrong to ignore how many artists and records labels invested money into which never recouped anything. To pick on the music industry for wanting to make a profit makes no sense unless you yourself are ready to work for no money and would be happy to have your own labour and investments stolen for somebody else's free enjoyment. It also completely ignores the fact that pricing was falling in the industry and had been BELOW inflation for years at the time mp3s appeared.

The music industry of today is about trying to maximise the revenue it can get off of a narrowing pool of 'artists' in a climate of diminishing licensing returns, which means that it has to produce ever blander material of wider appeal. You clearly know absolutely nothing about music revenues if you start talking about streaming, where I shall repeat the revenues and royalties are a fraction of those from physical releases.

If you are number one on the UK singles charts for 20 weeks, where most of the numbers come from streaming services, if your were both the artist and the composer you will be lucky to make £10,000 in royalties. in fact you will probably make a lot less than that.

Does that sound right for the person that is in theory the one who should be earning more than anybody else in singles earnings? Does that sound right to you? Because then what is the guy who is number 5 in the charts going to get? How is he going to pay his bills and what security does he have? You keep convincing yourself that everything is fine and wonderful, and enjoy listening to your Ed Sheeran and Coldplay because that is all you have got. If you are number one on the UK singles charts for 20 weeks, where most of the numbers come from streaming services, if your were both the artist and the composer you will be lucky to make £10,000 in royalties. in fact you will probably make a lot less than that.

I didn't ignore it all but I see you've ignored your incorrect 22,000 sales example by 2 pensioners from a band who are in no way as big a draw as they were in just the US market. You ignored that it got to number 5 in the UK so no doubt sold a few physical copies anarl and no doubt sold a few elsewhere in the world.

I know fuck all about royalties and can't be arsed to Google but that £10,000 has to be bullshit as you are saying they'd make £500 a week in royalties over the 20 weeks! Songs at #1 will also sell as downloads (you are just bleating on about streaming and physical for some reason) and even at 5p per download (which is probably less than what they get), they'd only have to sell about 1,000 downloads a week to get £500. If that gets to #1 for 20 weeks on those sales then @tunstall birdman could probably get to #1 hoying a bit music behind his poems.

If the money was as bad as you are failing to make out by getting to #1 then what about the person at #5 getting even less, or someone who never even charts, why the fuck do they bother making music? All these wannabe artists, songwriters etc should just do summit else as there's plenty of music out there now to last any kid just starting to listen to music for a lifetime.

 

[pavarotti1980]

It is people like you that are the reason that the music industry is in complete collapse. Your reasoning completely ignored all of the points I made. We are not in an industry of yesteryear which was ready to take a 5 album spin artists that started off completely unprofitable like David Bowie or Neil Young. We are in an industry with a very narrow roster of artists which are more PR than talent. The time where smaller bands could release albums and make a living out of it are gone. The front like artists, the top billers, are making only marginal amounts off of their music sales. This may be hard for your to understand, but diminished money is not making to the artists, and that is because the money is not there. And because the money is not getting to the artists, they are not making the music they would otherwise make. We don't have a new David Bowie, or John Lennon because the industry does not have room for them any more. How can you read the comments I made about too many people thinking the cost of music is the physical CD and ignoring the costs of actually producing and stocking the music, and then go ahead and make that same ignorant point? It is just wrong to ignore the many other costs involved. It is wrong to ignore how many artists and records labels invested money into which never recouped anything. To pick on the music industry for wanting to make a profit makes no sense unless you yourself are ready to work for no money and would be happy to have your own labour and investments stolen for somebody else's free enjoyment. It also completely ignores the fact that pricing was falling in the industry and had been BELOW inflation for years at the time mp3s appeared.

The music industry of today is about trying to maximise the revenue it can get off of a narrowing pool of 'artists' in a climate of diminishing licensing returns, which means that it has to produce ever blander material of wider appeal. You clearly know absolutely nothing about music revenues if you start talking about streaming, where I shall repeat the revenues and royalties are a fraction of those from physical releases. If you are number one on the UK singles charts for 20 weeks, where most of the numbers come from streaming services, if your were both the artist and the composer you will be lucky to make £10,000 in royalties. in fact you will probably make a lot less than that. Does that sound right for the person that is in theory the one who should be earning more than anybody else in singles earnings? Does that sound right to you? Because then what is the guy who is number 5 in the charts going to get? How is he going to pay his bills and what security does he have? You keep convincing yourself that everything is fine and wonderful, and enjoy listening to your Ed Sheeran and Coldplay because that is all you have got.

There is another option, find a job not in the music industry that pays what you think you are worth and stop moaning.

 

[hank williams]

What gets me about this why don't they try to block the streams all the time not just the football

Been currently watching the cricket & darts later on yet nowt get mentioned about these

 

[Mean Machine 1981]

What gets me about this why don't they try to block the streams all the time not just the football

Been currently watching the cricket & darts later on yet nowt get mentioned about these

If I was to sign up to Sportsmania would I need a VPN or is that just for hiding my isp?

 

[JumpingAnaconda]

There is another option, find a job not in the music industry that pays what you think you are worth and stop moaning.

Which is the exact point I am making. This is why the industry is producing very little of merit at present. Most people don't even go into the industry, and there is certainly very little artistry around now. I do not understand how this difficult for people to grasp. The great records are simply not getting made because the talent never comes through because the industry does not have the option to develop talent any more. It just invests in PR'ing anyone they think they can market for the biggest possible push and to get the best possible return from minimum outlay. It is not that hard to see what is happening.

 

[hank williams]

If I was to sign up to Sportsmania would I need a VPN or is that just for hiding my isp?

No for Sm yes for your ISP

Mind sm are not taking new customers you have to sign up for their mania services which I think is bascailly sky plus all the sport