Does deal between the BPI, UK government and ISPs deal with all the issues?
By Jakomi Mathews on Jul 24, 2008 with Comments 6
Firstly, let me applaud this agreement as a step in the right direction. Let me ask all these file sharers screaming that the Radiohead business model worked so f*$k the labels and all artists should follow that Radiohead route. Why do you think the recent Radiohead business model was a success? Radiohead already had a high profile, thanks to many years of a large major label-marketing budget. If bands do not have access to marketing budgets such as Radiohead and Prince did, it will be down to short-sighted people like you and your fellow file sharers.
What these rampant file sharers profess is fine for large already established acts. It is not a viable business model for new and upcoming artists. Simple! Ask these new up and coming artists how they feel about that…
Delving deeper, does this agreement between the BPI, the UK government and ISPs address the key issues regarding reasons for file sharing? Sadly I think not. A large percentage of illegal file sharing is undertaken by teens that do not have access to credit cards, which are the predominant method of legally purchasing music in the digital realm. I do not buy into views that these kids parents can provide iTunes accounts for their kids. For starters kids/tweens and teens do not want their parents knowing what music they purchase or listen to (think back to when you were a teenager). So that is a non-starter.
Yes kids can purchase iTunes gift cards with their pocket money at physical shops, but they are time short and from a demographic that wants it instantly, where and how they demand, without the delay of having to go to a physical shop. It is not and I repeat is not like the golden days when a physical record shop was a cool place to hang out and go discover and purchase music when people like my parents or myself were growing up. And anyway 98% of songs on an iPod have been side-loaded.
Furthermore, purchasing an iTunes gift card still necessitates a credit card requirement because to have an iTunes account you need to input credit card details. Are we really happy with a further propping up of what is in reality a digital music monopoly in the form of iTunes? What about more ideas like Playlouder MSP where unlimited file sharing is included in your broadband ISP subscription? Yet would that also require having credit cards and therefore parents involved?
Many kids do have a mobile phone, once again this is usually paid for by their parents with strict limits on purchasing content, and even if it were not, would we be happy with our kids paying over the odds, as mobile content consumption is more expensive if data charges for MP3 downloads are taken into account. Going a step further despite the higher EUP (end user price) of digital music purchase via mobile than online, content owners receive less gross and net income from operators. How about a re-calibration of this fact?
To enable a barrier less entry to legal music consumption in the digital realm we require an in-depth analysis of content payment options in the digital realm, which do not require access to credit cards. This would no doubt open the floodgates to kids legally consuming music in the digital realm. So is the ad—funded model the way forward as it costs the young consumer nothing to consume the music they want?
Obviously it would not stop illegal file sharing in its tracks as kids generally do state that they use P2P activity to listen before they purchase as the industry and lets be honest with ourselves here, we do put out a lot of absolute crap. We only have ourselves, and the music industry we all work in and love so much to blame for this predicament.
Lets be really honest with ourselves. The recorded music industry has been responsible for some atrocious rip-offs of the artists they rely on. In some respects comments from file sharer about record labels ripping off their artists are entirely justifiable. To adequately defend these charges the industry needs to commit to transparent and equitable reporting and royalty rates. If we want to hold the moral high ground the recorded music industry rightly must address these issues as well.
On a final note this new agreement is still criminalising our industries consumers. Should we not also be examining how to monetise illegal file sharing especially the marketing and usage data which in itself is worth millions especially if labels are going to be successful in their pursuit of D2C operations…
Other readers also read:
Music Biz Warns: Piracy Is Not Just About P2p
Filed Under: Business Models • Online • Uncategorized
Comments (6)
Leave a Reply
-
Billboard.biz- Billboard.biz Q&A: Verizon Biz Dev Director Ed Ruth February 8, 2010
- UMG Veteran Bronikowski Headed To Yahoo Music February 8, 2010
- Part 2: Is Twitter the Next Second Life? February 8, 2010
- Business Matters: EMI, Citi, Suzanne Vega, Tunewiki and More February 8, 2010
- Is Twitter The Next Second Life? February 8, 2010
- RealWire
- Myriad Brings 3x Faster Applications, Richer Game Graphics and Better Battery Life to Android February 8, 2010
- 18MP, 1080p HD Movies, ISO 6400: Canon redefines the boundaries of the consumer DSLR with the EOS 550D February 8, 2010
- Movenda and RealVNC launch complete solution for remote management of mobile handsets February 8, 2010
- JunglePay from txtNation offers better billing February 8, 2010
- Vesta's New Mobile Payment Platform Delivers Innovative, Secure Payment Features for Mobile Operators February 8, 2010
With all the hype surrounding Apple’s iPad launch last week TMV thought it about time to dig a bit deeper and look at Apple and the reliability of its devices. Whilst Apple products for the last decade from powerbooks to the iPod and iMacs have been both iconic and look...
This weekend whilst catching up on current news and recovering from the whirlwind of networking, meetings and elevator pitching that is Midem, I once again took stock of just how inescapable technology as a theme has become to the entertainment industry.
This was my first time at Midem, and I was...
Firstly two wrongs do not make a right!
Secondly, I in no way whatsoever support the fact labels have continuously fucked over their artists. I used to be an artist manager and an artist myself.
But just because someone rips someone else does not it make it right to then go and rip that person off who was the original person ripping of an artist?
Instead, labels do need to be more transparent and perhaps they need to be embarassed into being so. This is slowly being achieved by people stating that the arguments about file sharing used by labels are null and void because the labels themselves rip off their own artists…tagging leaves no room for cheating…
Yes bugger all money has gone back to the artist from the Napster and P2P court settlements. The industry seriously fucked up its relationship with the RIAA and IFPI’s suing our own customers. This does need to change and payments need to be made to artists from these settlements and industry bodies need to stop suing their customers.
Hey you will never have a career if you are stupid enough to rely on getting £65 quid for every 100,000 plays of your song – you are not being ripped off by a label you are instead allowing an online social network to rip you off. Being ripped of is being ripped off whether it be a label or a social networking site. Have a good think about that…
I’d rather be ripped off by having a nice advance paid to me first and a decent marketing budget to build my profile so I can launch a Prince or Radiohead model afterwards. Whereas on your social network model you would get none of that and be a stupid sucker buying into social network propaganda – social networks won’t and don’t put money into you as an artist to build your audience they will use your content to sell advertising and give you a pittence for the pleasure of raping your art by displaying ads you have no control over whether you have a moral objection to that advertisers company or not.
You are confused. You cannot equate the way labels have relentlessly screwed artists for the past 40-50 years to the way in which some kid chooses to get their music. Are you really saying there is a moral equivalence?
How many labels get sued for big bucks for the way they treat artists? Not enough to make them fundamentally change their behaviour – they are large multi nationals and can easliy absorb the costs. Now think about the kids getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars by the RIAA and BPI- they don’t have a team of highly paid lawyers on their side. They don’t have the backing of a an extremly influential industry, or the US government. Not really a fair fight is it?
And of the money that the RIAA/BPI do manage to suck out of the ‘illegal downloader’, how much of that do you reckon will go back to the artist?
Tell me another industry that is so intent on persecuting its consumers. The RIAA and BPI aren’r exactly creating a lot of god PR for themselves by chasing after their own consumers are they?
Maybe labels will still be around in one form or another, but that doesn’t mean they will wield so much power and influence over artists and consumers as they have for the past few decades. And that can only be a good thing. Less control and less dominance by Universal, Warner et al will lead to greater creative expression and more choice.
Oh and if i’m an unsigned artist, there is no way i will go to a major label, sign away my rights and let them screw up my career. I’ll make more money by doing things myself, with my own team. I’ll keep all the £65 for 100,000 streams – there will be no major label to take their hefty cut thank you very much….
I’m n no way confused. Yes labels my rip of artists and by default so do file sharers.
Either way ripping of the artist is not a good thing and I condone neither, whereas you seem to bitch about the labels whilst advocate ripping of the artist.
Labels will always be here in some form or another. Are you stating that they current £65 quid for 100,000 streams is equitable (al la Last.fm)? I’d rather a deal with a major label thanks…
Cheers,
Jakomi
I’ll never buy any music from the iTunes store. Not while they expect you to install their software before you can even browse the releases. Imagine if every online store did that! Anyway, the last five albums I bought were purchased directly from the artist’s own site. So, I don’t need iTunes to buy great music online, and new/upcoming musicians can sell directly to their audience, keeping all the profit. More and more independant artists are realizing they don’t need a record label (unless they want to form their own) and they sure don’t want the BPI representing them (it’s not cool to hang with bullies).
i think you are a little confused, jakomi.
You start of by saying that file sharers are naive in that they think the radiohead/prince model can work for all artists and for not understanding that labels help bands make it big becuase of marketing. Yet you end by stating that record companies sometimes rip off artists. Not sometimes, Jakomi, nearly always.
Bands can sell millions of records and still not make decent money (see Snow Patrol, for example). Its this kind of behaviour from labels that pisses people (not just artists) off and encourages file sharing and ‘illegal’ downloading of music. You can’t have one without the other.
And do yoou seriously think the industry is going to commit to anything like equitable royalty rates for artists? of course not. Large record labels traditionally base their entire business around screwing artists for every single penny they can, and not paying them. They would be stupid to, as you say, ‘address’ these issues.
Record labels are dead in the water, and they know it. They are all drastically reducing their artists rosters and staff counts.
There’s no point in trying to help them back to life, to resusitate them. Lets move on and form new types of businesses that can better respond to the needs of artists and consumers alike in the digital age.
Another great post Jakomi,
A solution to the itunes/credit card point you brought up is an online debit/interact payment option. I’ve seen it before, but I can’t remember where. I don’t know if itunes will go for something like that (but the companies who want to really compete with them should).
I”m not sure how it works in the U.K, but here in Canada, we got debit cards when we were really young! We definitely had them in high school and I bought many a CD via debit card back in the day.
I still think if a mobile phone company could make it cheap enough and/or bundle the music into their plans, people would see no reason to risk getting a virus from the P2P networks/torrents anymore AND possibly switch mobile providers.
One company could do it to gain a competitive advantage (short lived if it’s successful), or the mobile industry could come together to build it. It would then be up to the individual companies to get creative to offer the best value to consumers.
Artist compensation details would be needed to ironed out of course.
I don’t think government intervention or ridiculous litigation will solve piracy, but a profit motive that benefits all involved (digital music retailers, labels/artists, and consumers/fans) does stand a chance.
Cheers
Hoover
http://NewRockstarPhilosophy.com