The illegal download/piracy/legal download/music business in 2011 thread

My 2 cents, well it turned out a bit longer than I expected, so its more than just 2 cents but I hope it will help visualize one thing or another.

1.Back in the middle ages, people sold their music and reached fans by giving a concert. That was the only way a musician could sell his music.
2.Then we got radio, people stayed in their houses, since that was, what television and internet is now and that medium is still up and running.
3. And lastly we got records, tapes, dvd’s etc. Up to not so long ago, there wasn’t a real way to share music on data-holders.
Unless you consider tapes being one, but the industry kept that in control by putting an extra surcharge on blank tapes, so they would get money even if blank tapes where sold to put music on.

Those are about the 3 ages that the music industry went through and now we are in number 4, the internet age.
A big rise is shown now in internet radio. People don’t need to “own” music anymore that much, they just want it to be available that’s it.

Same goes for sharing with torrents, who doesn’t have an ipod nowadays? (well I don’t ok, but I am talking about the youth, I am old)
buying a cd album is only trouble, if all you want is to get it on your mp3 players.
Downloading is a lot easier, then it’s already on the pc that you connect with your ipod all the time. With an album you’d need to rip it first.

Don’t get me wrong, I grew up as a headbanger in the 80’s and I think it’s a God’s sin to download music.
I love old LP records, the way they sound, smell and the space on the covers on which the most cool covers where drawn and almost make the music come alive before you even listened to it. 3
Even the new PQ cover, man, just imagine how that would look on a big LP cover. Not to forget the warm way music sounds on LP’s in stead of on overproduced cd’s, well I am getting carried away, more on topic:

Here an interesting interview about it from Richard Conlon, of New Media Licensing. In which he talks about the future as mentioned above.



And here is an interesting arctile which could be an eyeopener. It’s about how a band called Trent Reznor deals with new opportunities in stead of only looking at the downsides of nowadays music industry.

http://vimeo.com/4244922

I think that one of the good things that comes with the internet as well is that in the future you will not need distributors anymore.
And a way to win this is to go with the developments and walk ahead of the crowds, not to follow all the way in the back because yes, then you will have no other option but to complain about people downloading your music and you did nothing about it.

I would love to see the industry keeping itself alive with cool albums and without torrents, but the industry evolves, just as any other thing in life and you can either think back about the good old days or make a good old day today to talk about later on.

By the way, respect for the people that say honestly they download music. I like the way people discuss here on the PQ forum with each other in respect in stead of flaming like on other bandforums.
And face it, downloaders are more represented than the 1% of people that don’t. So everyone saying they don’t download music, would be hypocrite anyways :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great comments Mr NOT! Very well put indeed.

I do think it's a lot easier to address and conquer these issues if you are coming from a financially already successful background. It's the smaller bands who face the biggest problems in many respects.

You and I must be the only 2 without an iPod around these parts though lol!
 
Great comments Mr NOT! Very well put indeed.

I do think it's a lot easier to address and conquer these issues if you are coming from a financially already successful background. It's the smaller bands who face the biggest problems in many respects.

You and I must be the only 2 without an iPod around these parts though lol!

:)

Well, I do think that both sides of the coin have an advantage. Older bands with less money do have the advantage that they for some reason have a more solid fan-base. Especially regionally. The bands that go digitally with a shitload of money on the spot to reach the world have bigger chances of drowning in an ocean of other bands trying the same thing anyways. And during the region gigs, is when you start building up your network of reporters, fans, etc. etc. Doing that via the internet is a lot harder than just having a beer with a bandmember and seeing he is a cool dude of which you want to buy the music from. Both rich and poor have a downside and an upside to it, I prefer to see a half full glass in stead of an half empty one.

Look at Sepultura for example, their music is based on the poverty side of Rio, where Angra is the band of spoiled brats coming from the richer side of town. It's both exploitable.

Yep money does a lot, but it is not the most important thing in making music. Networking still is the nr 1 !
 
Me neither:)Think there's more people then u expect that doesn't own an ipod:p

They're too expensive for me, plus, seems kinda unnecessary(or however that's spelled:p)
 
I have a portable player that is not an iPod, but functions like an iPod....

Does that mean I have an ipod????
 
^ Ipod, mp3 player, I don't think it makes a difference to the conversation :p I have a non-Ipod mp3 player too.
 
^ Ipod, mp3 player, I don't think it makes a difference to the conversation :p I have a non-Ipod mp3 player too.
Eh, I meant that because mine isn't an iPod, it would make me sixth in the context they were talking about(where steve said that him and the guy are the only ones around without an ipod).
 
"iPod" is the same as an mp3 player to most people - so yea, you basically have one.
 
really? on my mp3 player there's "Sansa" logo on the front of it and on the back it says SAnDisk corporation. never knew these are ipods companies...........
 
Yes, it is a Sansa MP3 player, but not an actual iPod. However, they function the same way, especially since that looks identical to an iPod. For all intents and purposes in this discussion... same thing.
 
oh

when i was at the store where i bought it i've also seen an ipod there that was way more expensive but looked nearly the same and the guy at the store said its indeed the same but more expensive because its a better company.
 
Great comments Mr NOT! Very well put indeed.

I do think it's a lot easier to address and conquer these issues if you are coming from a financially already successful background. It's the smaller bands who face the biggest problems in many respects.

You and I must be the only 2 without an iPod around these parts though lol!



i don't have an ipod either :kickass:
 
hey guys i've just realized.

the company behind ipod is Apple....lol what a stupid name for a company....they like to eat apples or something lol?
 
hey guys i've just realized.

the company behind ipod is Apple....lol what a stupid name for a company....they like to eat apples or something lol?

Apple — for the favourite fruit of co-founder Steve Jobs and/or for the time he worked at an apple orchard. Apple wanted to distance itself from the cold, unapproachable, complicated imagery created by other computer companies at the time — which had names such as IBM, DEC, Cincom and Tesseract — in order to get people to use them at home. They looked for a name that supported a brand positioning strategy that was to be perceived as simple, warm, human, approachable and different. Note: Apple had to get approval from the Beatle's Apple Corps to use the name 'Apple' and paid a one-time royalty of $100,000 to McIntosh Laboratory, Inc., a maker of high-end audio equipment, to use the derivative name 'Macintosh' ('Mac').

So ehm myeah, maybe not so stupid. Don't judge a book by it's cover mate ;)