| Author |
Thread |
|
Yoko
Average Member
United States
173 posts
Joined: Dec, 2005
|
 Posted - 2009/06/12 : 05:56:14
Oh, and Filesharing . . . sure it has some impact but it is not why the industry has gone down like it has. I fileshare for samples and such in my production, other than that not much. But like Sami said, stuff that is out of production, share that stuff up, who are you stealing money from when the people that put it out 5 years ago went out of business 2 years ago? Who? The artist's royalities? Nope, those are done by the label, and if its out of business, then tough luck.
__________________________________
After 8 years, I finally made "Average Member"
Alert moderator 
|
Meathead
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
4,217 posts
Joined: Sep, 2006
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 10:33:48
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
i think what meathead is more or less trying to get at, (and i agree with him) is that this is turning too much into a "should filesharing be legal, what do we think we should be allowed to file share" *yawn* topic
not quite, it was just mentioned, but it's propably the reason why i didnt want to mention it anymore.
Andy_Influx, Isn't once enough? I'd understand it if you actually did said it in different posts, and he kept saying that, but all in the same go?
The man has a point. Influx: Why do you set out your post so that by the time you get to your second point youre assuming ive read the first, before youve actually posted it? Makes it seem very patronising, like im still not getting the message and youre having to drive it home repeatedly like your talking to a child with down-syndrome who stumbled upon a computer and smashed his fist on the keyboard, which im not really. That aswell as the explaining in lamest terms how a forum works makes you come accross as a bit of a belittling nob in some of your posts. Ive seen that you are actually an ok bloke, you wished me a happy birthday a few eeks back which i was greatful for, so i know youre not in fact a nob. But you dont come accoss too well when you set your posts out like that.
i get aggressive when people tell me points are invalid. Which you did.
Then when i actually took the time to explain it, you told me you didn't even read it.
I've explained my view on how filesharing really DOES in fact, affect up and comers. Especially considering as i've had some of my tracks fileshared and it almost cost me a vinyl signing. So don't tell me it has nothing to do with it, when you really don't know the perspective of an up and comer, yeah?
I don't have anything against you at all, i actually think you're a solid bloke, but you instantly dismissing my point without understanding it makes YOU a knob, not me.
I do apologize for being condescending though.
I said the point was invalid becuase imo it was. Youre right i dont have the perspective of an up and comer so why not tell me WHY the point IS valid? If someone is in the wrong educate them as to why. I believed it wasnt valid, i didnt see a logical connection so why not fill me in rather than just tell me im wrong and it is valid without actually telling me why? If you look again i did actually read your post in its entirety. Im sorry that filesharing has already had its impact on you, genuinely, it sucks. But me dismissing your point without understanding it fully (which i had no way of understanding fully at first) doesnt make me a nob. It makes me ignorant to what is going definitely, but not a nob. I accept your apology like i sadi you seem like a decent bloke and i hope you accept mine, here goes. You have a valid point, filesharing is an issue, a big one, it may not be the only cause for labels/compilations ignoring up and coming producers but its there so im sorry. And sorry for calling you a nob.
__________________________________
"Music creates order out of chaos; for rhythm imposes unanimity upon the divergent, melody imposes continuity upon the disjointed, and harmony imposes compatibility upon the incongruous." -Sir Yehudi Menuhin
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 12:14:54
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
i think what meathead is more or less trying to get at, (and i agree with him) is that this is turning too much into a "should filesharing be legal, what do we think we should be allowed to file share" *yawn* topic
not quite, it was just mentioned, but it's propably the reason why i didnt want to mention it anymore.
Andy_Influx, Isn't once enough? I'd understand it if you actually did said it in different posts, and he kept saying that, but all in the same go?
The man has a point. Influx: Why do you set out your post so that by the time you get to your second point youre assuming ive read the first, before youve actually posted it? Makes it seem very patronising, like im still not getting the message and youre having to drive it home repeatedly like your talking to a child with down-syndrome who stumbled upon a computer and smashed his fist on the keyboard, which im not really. That aswell as the explaining in lamest terms how a forum works makes you come accross as a bit of a belittling nob in some of your posts. Ive seen that you are actually an ok bloke, you wished me a happy birthday a few eeks back which i was greatful for, so i know youre not in fact a nob. But you dont come accoss too well when you set your posts out like that.
i get aggressive when people tell me points are invalid. Which you did.
Then when i actually took the time to explain it, you told me you didn't even read it.
I've explained my view on how filesharing really DOES in fact, affect up and comers. Especially considering as i've had some of my tracks fileshared and it almost cost me a vinyl signing. So don't tell me it has nothing to do with it, when you really don't know the perspective of an up and comer, yeah?
I don't have anything against you at all, i actually think you're a solid bloke, but you instantly dismissing my point without understanding it makes YOU a knob, not me.
I do apologize for being condescending though.
I said the point was invalid becuase imo it was. Youre right i dont have the perspective of an up and comer so why not tell me WHY the point IS valid? If someone is in the wrong educate them as to why. I believed it wasnt valid, i didnt see a logical connection so why not fill me in rather than just tell me im wrong and it is valid without actually telling me why? If you look again i did actually read your post in its entirety. Im sorry that filesharing has already had its impact on you, genuinely, it sucks. But me dismissing your point without understanding it fully (which i had no way of understanding fully at first) doesnt make me a nob. It makes me ignorant to what is going definitely, but not a nob. I accept your apology like i sadi you seem like a decent bloke and i hope you accept mine, here goes. You have a valid point, filesharing is an issue, a big one, it may not be the only cause for labels/compilations ignoring up and coming producers but its there so im sorry. And sorry for calling you a nob.
Thing is man, i did explain it to you... Albeit in a very condescending way, but i did. Probably shouldn't have explained it in the tone i did, but the information was there :)
My post was in complete relevance to labels ignoring up and comers because they're making such minimal profit from their own tracks (an established name) that there is no point taking a chance on a newbie. When most large vinyl labels are producing hardcore for a profession, it's not in their best interest to do anything that won't push their label further. With the current finaincial situation in regards to hardcore, an up and comer won't do this - therefore a lot of people get overlooked.
If there was a lot more money in it and big labels werent SCRAPING by, then there would be no harm in signing a no-name. And let's be honest, filesharing is a BIG reason why there isn't so much money in hardcore anymore - and music in general.
I know there will be some responses saying "it shouldn't be about te money anyway" but labels are a business, and businesses need money to stay afloat. Fact of reality.
The argument that started about filesharing and the music industry and general and about it "killing teh scene" wasn't started by me. JUst because i mentioned the word "filesharing" does not mean i'm responsible for what everyone says after my post.
I guess that's all i have to say about it.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
Eufeion
Senior Member
United Kingdom
435 posts
Joined: Mar, 2004
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 12:22:38
I'll tell you what it is....
It's people like myself, Darwin, Fracus & co what work n work to try an bring new music to this industry but not given the light of day for event bookings to air our music enough.
I for one have a handfull of booking for the entire year!!
Kinda sux when you put so much effot into making music for a scene where a lot of new people only see the day in day out headliners at big events.
Alert moderator
|
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 12:24:46
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
i think what meathead is more or less trying to get at, (and i agree with him) is that this is turning too much into a "should filesharing be legal, what do we think we should be allowed to file share" *yawn* topic
not quite, it was just mentioned, but it's propably the reason why i didnt want to mention it anymore.
Andy_Influx, Isn't once enough? I'd understand it if you actually did said it in different posts, and he kept saying that, but all in the same go?
The man has a point. Influx: Why do you set out your post so that by the time you get to your second point youre assuming ive read the first, before youve actually posted it? Makes it seem very patronising, like im still not getting the message and youre having to drive it home repeatedly like your talking to a child with down-syndrome who stumbled upon a computer and smashed his fist on the keyboard, which im not really. That aswell as the explaining in lamest terms how a forum works makes you come accross as a bit of a belittling nob in some of your posts. Ive seen that you are actually an ok bloke, you wished me a happy birthday a few eeks back which i was greatful for, so i know youre not in fact a nob. But you dont come accoss too well when you set your posts out like that.
i get aggressive when people tell me points are invalid. Which you did.
Then when i actually took the time to explain it, you told me you didn't even read it.
I've explained my view on how filesharing really DOES in fact, affect up and comers. Especially considering as i've had some of my tracks fileshared and it almost cost me a vinyl signing. So don't tell me it has nothing to do with it, when you really don't know the perspective of an up and comer, yeah?
I don't have anything against you at all, i actually think you're a solid bloke, but you instantly dismissing my point without understanding it makes YOU a knob, not me.
I do apologize for being condescending though.
I said the point was invalid becuase imo it was. Youre right i dont have the perspective of an up and comer so why not tell me WHY the point IS valid? If someone is in the wrong educate them as to why. I believed it wasnt valid, i didnt see a logical connection so why not fill me in rather than just tell me im wrong and it is valid without actually telling me why? If you look again i did actually read your post in its entirety. Im sorry that filesharing has already had its impact on you, genuinely, it sucks. But me dismissing your point without understanding it fully (which i had no way of understanding fully at first) doesnt make me a nob. It makes me ignorant to what is going definitely, but not a nob. I accept your apology like i sadi you seem like a decent bloke and i hope you accept mine, here goes. You have a valid point, filesharing is an issue, a big one, it may not be the only cause for labels/compilations ignoring up and coming producers but its there so im sorry. And sorry for calling you a nob.
Thing is man, i did explain it to you... Albeit in a very condescending way, but i did. Probably shouldn't have explained it in the tone i did, but the information was there :)
My post was in complete relevance to labels ignoring up and comers because they're making such minimal profit from their own tracks (an established name) that there is no point taking a chance on a newbie. When most large vinyl labels are producing hardcore for a profession, it's not in their best interest to do anything that won't push their label further. With the current finaincial situation in regards to hardcore, an up and comer won't do this - therefore a lot of people get overlooked.
If there was a lot more money in it and big labels werent SCRAPING by, then there would be no harm in signing a no-name. And let's be honest, filesharing is a BIG reason why there isn't so much money in hardcore anymore - and music in general.
I know there will be some responses saying "it shouldn't be about te money anyway" but labels are a business, and businesses need money to stay afloat. Fact of reality.
The argument that started about filesharing and the music industry and general and about it "killing teh scene" wasn't started by me. JUst because i mentioned the word "filesharing" does not mean i'm responsible for what everyone says after my post.
I guess that's all i have to say about it.
there's a torr3nt on one site containing a big chunk of scott browns discography.
10,000 downloads...
I think filesharing has a slight impact because that'd have been like £8,000 in revenue for scott if they tracks were being sold at 79p or whatever each..
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,170 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 18:29:03
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
i think what meathead is more or less trying to get at, (and i agree with him) is that this is turning too much into a "should filesharing be legal, what do we think we should be allowed to file share" *yawn* topic
not quite, it was just mentioned, but it's propably the reason why i didnt want to mention it anymore.
Andy_Influx, Isn't once enough? I'd understand it if you actually did said it in different posts, and he kept saying that, but all in the same go?
The man has a point. Influx: Why do you set out your post so that by the time you get to your second point youre assuming ive read the first, before youve actually posted it? Makes it seem very patronising, like im still not getting the message and youre having to drive it home repeatedly like your talking to a child with down-syndrome who stumbled upon a computer and smashed his fist on the keyboard, which im not really. That aswell as the explaining in lamest terms how a forum works makes you come accross as a bit of a belittling nob in some of your posts. Ive seen that you are actually an ok bloke, you wished me a happy birthday a few eeks back which i was greatful for, so i know youre not in fact a nob. But you dont come accoss too well when you set your posts out like that.
i get aggressive when people tell me points are invalid. Which you did.
Then when i actually took the time to explain it, you told me you didn't even read it.
I've explained my view on how filesharing really DOES in fact, affect up and comers. Especially considering as i've had some of my tracks fileshared and it almost cost me a vinyl signing. So don't tell me it has nothing to do with it, when you really don't know the perspective of an up and comer, yeah?
I don't have anything against you at all, i actually think you're a solid bloke, but you instantly dismissing my point without understanding it makes YOU a knob, not me.
I do apologize for being condescending though.
I said the point was invalid becuase imo it was. Youre right i dont have the perspective of an up and comer so why not tell me WHY the point IS valid? If someone is in the wrong educate them as to why. I believed it wasnt valid, i didnt see a logical connection so why not fill me in rather than just tell me im wrong and it is valid without actually telling me why? If you look again i did actually read your post in its entirety. Im sorry that filesharing has already had its impact on you, genuinely, it sucks. But me dismissing your point without understanding it fully (which i had no way of understanding fully at first) doesnt make me a nob. It makes me ignorant to what is going definitely, but not a nob. I accept your apology like i sadi you seem like a decent bloke and i hope you accept mine, here goes. You have a valid point, filesharing is an issue, a big one, it may not be the only cause for labels/compilations ignoring up and coming producers but its there so im sorry. And sorry for calling you a nob.
Thing is man, i did explain it to you... Albeit in a very condescending way, but i did. Probably shouldn't have explained it in the tone i did, but the information was there :)
My post was in complete relevance to labels ignoring up and comers because they're making such minimal profit from their own tracks (an established name) that there is no point taking a chance on a newbie. When most large vinyl labels are producing hardcore for a profession, it's not in their best interest to do anything that won't push their label further. With the current finaincial situation in regards to hardcore, an up and comer won't do this - therefore a lot of people get overlooked.
If there was a lot more money in it and big labels werent SCRAPING by, then there would be no harm in signing a no-name. And let's be honest, filesharing is a BIG reason why there isn't so much money in hardcore anymore - and music in general.
I know there will be some responses saying "it shouldn't be about te money anyway" but labels are a business, and businesses need money to stay afloat. Fact of reality.
The argument that started about filesharing and the music industry and general and about it "killing teh scene" wasn't started by me. JUst because i mentioned the word "filesharing" does not mean i'm responsible for what everyone says after my post.
I guess that's all i have to say about it.
there's a torr3nt on one site containing a big chunk of scott browns discography.
10,000 downloads...
I think filesharing has a slight impact because that'd have been like £8,000 in revenue for scott if they tracks were being sold at 79p or whatever each..
That revenue doesn't EXIST! since Scott Brown have stopped dealing with digital downloads, how can you say he'd earn that at all?
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
|
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 22:40:24
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Andy_Influx:
quote:
Originally posted by Meathead:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
i think what meathead is more or less trying to get at, (and i agree with him) is that this is turning too much into a "should filesharing be legal, what do we think we should be allowed to file share" *yawn* topic
not quite, it was just mentioned, but it's propably the reason why i didnt want to mention it anymore.
Andy_Influx, Isn't once enough? I'd understand it if you actually did said it in different posts, and he kept saying that, but all in the same go?
The man has a point. Influx: Why do you set out your post so that by the time you get to your second point youre assuming ive read the first, before youve actually posted it? Makes it seem very patronising, like im still not getting the message and youre having to drive it home repeatedly like your talking to a child with down-syndrome who stumbled upon a computer and smashed his fist on the keyboard, which im not really. That aswell as the explaining in lamest terms how a forum works makes you come accross as a bit of a belittling nob in some of your posts. Ive seen that you are actually an ok bloke, you wished me a happy birthday a few eeks back which i was greatful for, so i know youre not in fact a nob. But you dont come accoss too well when you set your posts out like that.
i get aggressive when people tell me points are invalid. Which you did.
Then when i actually took the time to explain it, you told me you didn't even read it.
I've explained my view on how filesharing really DOES in fact, affect up and comers. Especially considering as i've had some of my tracks fileshared and it almost cost me a vinyl signing. So don't tell me it has nothing to do with it, when you really don't know the perspective of an up and comer, yeah?
I don't have anything against you at all, i actually think you're a solid bloke, but you instantly dismissing my point without understanding it makes YOU a knob, not me.
I do apologize for being condescending though.
I said the point was invalid becuase imo it was. Youre right i dont have the perspective of an up and comer so why not tell me WHY the point IS valid? If someone is in the wrong educate them as to why. I believed it wasnt valid, i didnt see a logical connection so why not fill me in rather than just tell me im wrong and it is valid without actually telling me why? If you look again i did actually read your post in its entirety. Im sorry that filesharing has already had its impact on you, genuinely, it sucks. But me dismissing your point without understanding it fully (which i had no way of understanding fully at first) doesnt make me a nob. It makes me ignorant to what is going definitely, but not a nob. I accept your apology like i sadi you seem like a decent bloke and i hope you accept mine, here goes. You have a valid point, filesharing is an issue, a big one, it may not be the only cause for labels/compilations ignoring up and coming producers but its there so im sorry. And sorry for calling you a nob.
Thing is man, i did explain it to you... Albeit in a very condescending way, but i did. Probably shouldn't have explained it in the tone i did, but the information was there :)
My post was in complete relevance to labels ignoring up and comers because they're making such minimal profit from their own tracks (an established name) that there is no point taking a chance on a newbie. When most large vinyl labels are producing hardcore for a profession, it's not in their best interest to do anything that won't push their label further. With the current finaincial situation in regards to hardcore, an up and comer won't do this - therefore a lot of people get overlooked.
If there was a lot more money in it and big labels werent SCRAPING by, then there would be no harm in signing a no-name. And let's be honest, filesharing is a BIG reason why there isn't so much money in hardcore anymore - and music in general.
I know there will be some responses saying "it shouldn't be about te money anyway" but labels are a business, and businesses need money to stay afloat. Fact of reality.
The argument that started about filesharing and the music industry and general and about it "killing teh scene" wasn't started by me. JUst because i mentioned the word "filesharing" does not mean i'm responsible for what everyone says after my post.
I guess that's all i have to say about it.
there's a torr3nt on one site containing a big chunk of scott browns discography.
10,000 downloads...
I think filesharing has a slight impact because that'd have been like £8,000 in revenue for scott if they tracks were being sold at 79p or whatever each..
That revenue doesn't EXIST! since Scott Brown have stopped dealing with digital downloads, how can you say he'd earn that at all?
If they were bought legally, he'd have made that much revenue..
do you even know what revenue means???
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,170 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 22:48:40
If Scott Brown had a legal site for downloading his song, then he would have earned those £8.000 for those 100.000 downloads.
But since he doesn't have one, he haven't earned any.
How can he have lost revenue if he's not selling any digital downloads?
To my understand, revenue is the winnings you get from incomes subracted with costs.
so, how does this equation go ->
£0 income - £0 expenses = £-8000 revenue?
£0 in income since he haven't sold any of the tracks, and £0 in expenses since he didnt do the work of putting them online.
Artists and labels need to think anew. You can't keep on doing the same thing all the time. You can't force us consumers to do what you wan't because you want to stay in the same way always. People have always evolved, why shouldn't buisness plans evolve too?
I salut Luna-C, the freedom fighter.
... maybe the mods should just delete everyone's posts excepts kenamasters & Eufi's
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
Edited by - Samination on 2009/06/12 23:01:31 |
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 23:07:18
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
If Scott Brown had a legal site for downloading his song, then he would have earned those £8.000 for those 100.000 downloads.
But since he doesn't have one, he haven't earned any.
How can he have lost revenue if he's not selling any digital downloads?
To my understand, revenue is the winnings you get from incomes subracted with costs.
so, how does this equation go ->
£0 income - £0 expenses = £-8000 revenue?
£0 in income since he haven't sold any of the tracks, and £0 in expenses since he didnt do the work of putting them online.
Artists and labels need to think anew. You can't keep on doing the same thing all the time. You can't force us consumers to do what you wan't because you want to stay in the same way always. People have always evolved, why shouldn't buisness plans evolve too?
I salut Luna-C, the freedom fighter.
... maybe the mods should just delete everyone's posts excepts kenamasters & Eufi's
You are referring to profit... Revenue is the money you get in only with NOTHING subtracted.
and is this not scott browns store? http://www.evolutionrecords.co.uk/
If scott brown can make money from his tracks, but isn't, then its opprtunity cost, whereby, he's losing money that he could have earnt.
In fact, most songs are sold at £2, meaning its £20,000 he could have made if they were bought legally..
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Nav
New Member
United States
76 posts
Joined: Nov, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 23:47:19
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
In fact, most songs are sold at £2, meaning its £20,000 he could have made if they were bought legally..
I can safely tell you that Scott Brown has probably made more from that ******* than if he had a digital download store. Know why? Because if he had a digital store, a few people would buy it, and the rest would leak onto ******* sites.
However, since people are downloading the mp3s, they are hearing the music. If they hear the music and like what they hear, they go out and BUY it, meaning on a CD or on Vinyl. However, I seriously doubt that EVERY user who downloaded the ******* downloaded EVERY track or even SOME of the tracks, and I doubt even more than everyone who downloaded a track would have bought it instead had a download been available.
This argument of calculating losses has been going on for years. The RIAA and other copyright industries are incorrect: artists do not lose the full sum of all the files people have downloaded. I can safely say that without filesharing, I would not have put near as much money into Hardcore as I have today.
Alert moderator
|
Jimouk
Banned
United Kingdom
317 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/12 : 23:57:56
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
If Scott Brown had a legal site for downloading his song, then he would have earned those £8.000 for those 100.000 downloads.
But since he doesn't have one, he haven't earned any.
How can he have lost revenue if he's not selling any digital downloads?
To my understand, revenue is the winnings you get from incomes subracted with costs.
so, how does this equation go ->
£0 income - £0 expenses = £-8000 revenue?
£0 in income since he haven't sold any of the tracks, and £0 in expenses since he didnt do the work of putting them online.
Artists and labels need to think anew. You can't keep on doing the same thing all the time. You can't force us consumers to do what you wan't because you want to stay in the same way always. People have always evolved, why shouldn't buisness plans evolve too?
I salut Luna-C, the freedom fighter.
... maybe the mods should just delete everyone's posts excepts kenamasters & Eufi's
You are referring to profit... Revenue is the money you get in only with NOTHING subtracted.
and is this not scott browns store? http://www.evolutionrecords.co.uk/
If scott brown can make money from his tracks, but isn't, then its opprtunity cost, whereby, he's losing money that he could have earnt.
In fact, most songs are sold at £2, meaning its £20,000 he could have made if they were bought legally..
So Scott Brown needs that £20,000 to continue producing? Right?
Alert moderator
|
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/13 : 01:00:13
quote:
Originally posted by Jimouk:
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
If Scott Brown had a legal site for downloading his song, then he would have earned those £8.000 for those 100.000 downloads.
But since he doesn't have one, he haven't earned any.
How can he have lost revenue if he's not selling any digital downloads?
To my understand, revenue is the winnings you get from incomes subracted with costs.
so, how does this equation go ->
£0 income - £0 expenses = £-8000 revenue?
£0 in income since he haven't sold any of the tracks, and £0 in expenses since he didnt do the work of putting them online.
Artists and labels need to think anew. You can't keep on doing the same thing all the time. You can't force us consumers to do what you wan't because you want to stay in the same way always. People have always evolved, why shouldn't buisness plans evolve too?
I salut Luna-C, the freedom fighter.
... maybe the mods should just delete everyone's posts excepts kenamasters & Eufi's
You are referring to profit... Revenue is the money you get in only with NOTHING subtracted.
and is this not scott browns store? http://www.evolutionrecords.co.uk/
If scott brown can make money from his tracks, but isn't, then its opprtunity cost, whereby, he's losing money that he could have earnt.
In fact, most songs are sold at £2, meaning its £20,000 he could have made if they were bought legally..
So Scott Brown needs that £20,000 to continue producing? Right?
who suggested that? I'm sure he's just pissed off.. I would be...
and i doubt people would download a huge chunk of his music, then buy them legally...
once an illegal downloader, always an illegal downloader
a cheetah can't change it's spots
can't teach a dog new tricks
water under the bridge
dont leap before you look
rollercoaster ride
... i forgot my point quite a while ago...
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Nav
New Member
United States
76 posts
Joined: Nov, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/13 : 02:34:41
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
and i doubt people would download a huge chunk of his music, then buy them legally...
I doubt that they would buy ANY had they not stumbled upon that illegal download.
Alert moderator
|
acidfluxxbass
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
5,000 posts
Joined: Apr, 2008
|
Posted - 2009/06/13 : 03:06:33
quote:
Originally posted by Nav:
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
and i doubt people would download a huge chunk of his music, then buy them legally...
I doubt that they would buy ANY had they not stumbled upon that illegal download.
well, there are different methods of discovery, but you dont get illegal downloaders suddenly decide to use actual mp3 stores rather than torr3nt..
i dunno really.. its not my area of expertise at all.. all i know, is that it has a large effect on producers, while not devastating..
__________________________________
Aka Archefluxx
Soundcloud: http://soundcloud.com/archefluxx
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/afbofficial
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/archefluxxuk
Alert moderator
|
Samination
Advanced Member
Sweden
13,170 posts
Joined: Jul, 2004
195 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2009/06/13 : 08:07:56
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
You are referring to profit... Revenue is the money you get in only with NOTHING subtracted.
and is this not scott browns store? http://www.evolutionrecords.co.uk/
If scott brown can make money from his tracks, but isn't, then its opprtunity cost, whereby, he's losing money that he could have earnt.
In fact, most songs are sold at £2, meaning its £20,000 he could have made if they were bought legally..
I might have gotten that backwords, thank you.
And yes, Scott Brown has a mp3 store on his site, but it contains just about 1% of his total backcatalaogue, and it was last updated late 2005. If We indid counted those from the downloads, even if they're £2 each (which is overpay for 192kbps nowadays), it would still not get close to those £8000 in loss
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
once an illegal downloader, always an illegal downloader
... i forgot my point quite a while ago...
Right, so I don't spend atleast £2000 on Hardcore yearly? naah, I just download my hardcore illegally, because I started out illegal, i will always be illegal... wtf?
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
well, there are different methods of discovery, but you dont get illegal downloaders suddenly decide to use actual mp3 stores rather than torr3nt..
i dunno really.. its not my area of expertise at all.. all i know, is that it has a large effect on producers, while not devastating..
If you don't have any expertise in the area, why are making such big claims that those who download illegally wouldnt buy if they can. what do you think happened to me?
Not many, but i do atleast know of 2 who also started out illegally but ended up legal (more legal than me to quote), and one of them are even more known than me
__________________________________
---------------------------------------------
Samination, Swedish Hardcore DJ
Happy, UK Hardcore, Freeform, Makina and Gabber
http://samination.se/
---------------------------------------------
Alert moderator
Edited by - Samination on 2009/06/13 08:17:24 |
|
Printer friendly
