Dubstepforum.com

AllNightDayDream wrote:Sorry in advance, but you're assuming you aren't making money because people are dling instead of buying it, not taking into account that maybe people just don't wanna buy your tunes. No offense, but someone who would come across small artists like yourself would almost definitely be willing to purchase good music (i'm one of them and I actually bought your synesthaesia release).

Plus, all this is anecdotal evidence. Here's one of many proofs otherwise...

David Blackburn of Harvard study wrote:Further inspection, however, reveals that it is unrealistic to believe that the effects of
file sharing are constant across all artists as the costs and benefits of file sharing differ with
the ex ante popularity of the artist. This suggest that ex ante unknown artists are likely to
see more positive overall effects of file sharing than ex ante popular artists are. By adopting
an estimation procedure which allows for the effect to vary according to measures of artist
popularity, I find that file sharing has had strong effects on the sales of music. In particular,
new artists and ex ante relatively unknown artists are seen to benefit from the existence of
their songs on file sharing networks, while ex ante popular artists suffer for it.

...

Furthermore, the differential effect of file sharing on the sales of artists of different
levels of ex ante popularity has led to a dramatic shift in the distribution of sales among
artists, as new and less popular artists are now selling more records while star artists have
seen their sales shrink, compacting the distribution of outcomes. It remains an open ques-
tion, left for future work, what effect this distributional change has had or will have on the
investment in new talent and the distribution of returns to that talent in the recorded music
industry.

Torrenting music is just a part of something much greater and profound.

oh i understand that there are people who won't want to buy it but with exposure of that tune in question being on a fabric live cd alone should warrant some sales alone if ya get me
just one of many examples
i'd be stoked if people pirated releases, say hey i dig this, then go out and buy it (hell i think that's one of the best arguments for torrents, i'm pro try before you buy)
the direction i was debating going in with my own stuff is just put everything out there, full tunes etc @ 192khz and charging for higher quality bitrate versions, flac or wav as hey if you just want to listen casually there you go, or even a subscription model where that way the artist directly sees the $ and the subscriber gets sent tunes directly
at the end of the day the guys who purely pirate and will never buy stuff will always do that and come up with all sorts of legitimization arguments (prolly causer they know they are wrong)

deadly habit wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:Sorry in advance, but you're assuming you aren't making money because people are dling instead of buying it, not taking into account that maybe people just don't wanna buy your tunes. No offense, but someone who would come across small artists like yourself would almost definitely be willing to purchase good music (i'm one of them and I actually bought your synesthaesia release).

Plus, all this is anecdotal evidence. Here's one of many proofs otherwise...

David Blackburn of Harvard study wrote:Further inspection, however, reveals that it is unrealistic to believe that the effects of
file sharing are constant across all artists as the costs and benefits of file sharing differ with
the ex ante popularity of the artist. This suggest that ex ante unknown artists are likely to
see more positive overall effects of file sharing than ex ante popular artists are. By adopting
an estimation procedure which allows for the effect to vary according to measures of artist
popularity, I find that file sharing has had strong effects on the sales of music. In particular,
new artists and ex ante relatively unknown artists are seen to benefit from the existence of
their songs on file sharing networks, while ex ante popular artists suffer for it.

...

Furthermore, the differential effect of file sharing on the sales of artists of different
levels of ex ante popularity has led to a dramatic shift in the distribution of sales among
artists, as new and less popular artists are now selling more records while star artists have
seen their sales shrink, compacting the distribution of outcomes. It remains an open ques-
tion, left for future work, what effect this distributional change has had or will have on the
investment in new talent and the distribution of returns to that talent in the recorded music
industry.

Torrenting music is just a part of something much greater and profound.

oh i understand that there are people who won't want to buy it but with exposure of that tune in question being on a fabric live cd alone should warrant some sales alone if ya get me
just one of many examples
i'd be stoked if people pirated releases, say hey i dig this, then go out and buy it (hell i think that's one of the best arguments for torrents, i'm pro try before you buy)
the direction i was debating going in with my own stuff is just put everything out there, full tunes etc @ 192khz and charging for higher quality bitrate versions, flac or wav as hey if you just want to listen casually there you go, or even a subscription model where that way the artist directly sees the $ and the subscriber gets sent tunes directly
at the end of the day the guys who purely pirate and will never buy stuff will always do that and come up with all sorts of legitimization arguments (prolly causer they know they are wrong)

Definitely, I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue downloading ALL of their music vs. buying it, that's just ridiculous. That would piss me off. Maybe if you're constantly seeing shows every week, since that's where the real money is. I personally owe A LOT to piracy, been in it for a while and it's only enriched my life and made me realize some shit is just not worth the money and some things are worth more than the money, when just buying it isn't enough.

The subscription thing sounds interesting... I wonder if there are any hosts for that kind of thing? And your model is exactly like the Bandcamp model, which seems to be the forward-thinking way of going about things.

i love all the justifications by some people in this thread. they just get better worded every year, but at the core, its the same selfish, self-serving bullshit.

deadly habit wrote:
now in order to stick with quality control things like mastering should be being done for releases and those services cost money, so what incentive do i have to put out releases and invest cash from my pocket if i see no return on the investment. yea i make music because i'm passionate about it, but why bother making it public and release a sub standard product if i'm constantly losing money on it?

okay, this does make alot of sense.

not to mention (i don't use one myself) digital distro services which is how a lot of the labels that are digi only are so prevalent across many sites take a cut
so lets do what a digital sale equals - split with site it's on/split with digital distro/split with label/label recovering mastering costs (see this in some contracts) and you have to see a monetary quota before some sites release your earning = final cut for artist
and most of the time the digital downloads are only a couple bucks if that for a full release (prolly less than most people on here spend on coffee in a day or fast food)

deadly habit wrote:not to mention (i don't use one myself) digital distro services which is how a lot of the labels that are digi only are so prevalent across many sites take a cut
so lets do what a digital sale equals - split with site it's on/split with digital distro/split with label/label recovering mastering costs (see this in some contracts) and you have to see a monetary quota before some sites release your earning = final cut for artist
and most of the time the digital downloads are only a couple bucks if that for a full release (prolly less than most people on here spend on coffee in a day or fast food)

sounds like it makes it a lot harder for the producers to do their thing.

deadly habit wrote:the key is not discussing it it always goes on, you latest gen just make it too damn public you fucking attention whores
ffs ed ruish and op did h20 etching on thge low you kids now scream from the highest mountain ehy piracy gets legal ramifications you fucking morons

Im not sure if i understood any of that.
Im sure it was contributing to this discussion in a positive way tho

Redderious wrote:

deadly habit wrote:not to mention (i don't use one myself) digital distro services which is how a lot of the labels that are digi only are so prevalent across many sites take a cut
so lets do what a digital sale equals - split with site it's on/split with digital distro/split with label/label recovering mastering costs (see this in some contracts) and you have to see a monetary quota before some sites release your earning = final cut for artist
and most of the time the digital downloads are only a couple bucks if that for a full release (prolly less than most people on here spend on coffee in a day or fast food)

sounds like it makes it a lot harder for the producers to do their thing.

Init when you think you get a disposable item, though a useful one, for less than a tune that puts it in perspective how cheap music is really but that tune can be resold many times so maybe it should be less than the cup of coffee etc?

test recordings wrote:

Redderious wrote:

deadly habit wrote:not to mention (i don't use one myself) digital distro services which is how a lot of the labels that are digi only are so prevalent across many sites take a cut
so lets do what a digital sale equals - split with site it's on/split with digital distro/split with label/label recovering mastering costs (see this in some contracts) and you have to see a monetary quota before some sites release your earning = final cut for artist
and most of the time the digital downloads are only a couple bucks if that for a full release (prolly less than most people on here spend on coffee in a day or fast food)

sounds like it makes it a lot harder for the producers to do their thing.

Init when you think you get a disposable item, though a useful one, for less than a tune that puts it in perspective how cheap music is really but that tune can be resold many times so maybe it should be less than the cup of coffee etc?

I do like itunes better for the fact that their tunes are only 99c. But the problem is the selection. When im shopping through beatport, the tunes may be more costly but honestly if i find a track that i like alot and i would want to drop it in a mix il pay for it whether its 50 c or 2$.

Redderious wrote:heres a cool helpful story about why torrents aren't the worst things in the world:

About 2-3 weeks ago i purchased Circus One

seckle wrote:i love all the justifications by some people in this thread. they just get better worded every year, but at the core, its the same selfish, self-serving bullshit.

You're forgetting something. No one gives a fuck what you think because you're probably the most hated person on this board, you nasty little shit.

firky wrote:

seckle wrote: No one gives a fuck what you think

yet you're replying to my post? did my post say attn : firky? the over emotional commentary puts all your cards on the table.

so much hate on this forum

i hope they find a watermarking device thats un-hackable. all this digital narcissism involved in people defending their hard drives is so boring. people have to start connecting the concept of property with the internet. this attack on creativity thats been going on for more than a decade, has a toll. we're going to have a new generation of kids growing up thinking everything is free. remember that RIAA's plans for tackling napster early on, were planning for the next two decades. they see that napster had a generational effect, and the toll is that now the importance of music is based on how you can perform it (live nation), rather than the older paradigm of putting all the focus on the "album" and the songwriter. why do you think that singles are on the rise, and albums are on the decline? why do you think all of pop music essentially sounds the same? because the major record companies have no money to take risks. they have no money to spend on art; only commerce.

DZA wrote:so much hate on this forum

very little hate at all. its usually the same handful of people that need attention, and when they don't get it, the pacifier comes out and anything is said for an audience.

AntlionUK wrote:

Redderious wrote:heres a cool helpful story about why torrents aren't the worst things in the world:

About 2-3 weeks ago i purchased Circus One

funny, yeah?

someone should lock this thread. poeple obviously can't have even 'somewhat' civil conversations about this topic and the trolls are schemin on it.

seckle wrote:i hope they find a watermarking device thats un-hackable. all this digital narcissism involved in people defending their hard drives is so boring. people have to start connecting the concept of property with the internet. this attack on creativity thats been going on for more than a decade, has a toll. we're going to have a new generation of kids growing up thinking everything is free.

A watermarking device would be rendered useless for those who rip vinyl to wav quality.

It has had no effect on my creativity, nor that of other producers still putting out amazing music.

We're going to have? Surely you mean we already have?

arktrix wrote:

seckle wrote:i hope they find a watermarking device thats un-hackable. all this digital narcissism involved in people defending their hard drives is so boring. people have to start connecting the concept of property with the internet. this attack on creativity thats been going on for more than a decade, has a toll. we're going to have a new generation of kids growing up thinking everything is free.

A watermarking device would be rendered useless for those who rip vinyl to wav quality.

It has had no effect on my creativity, nor that of other producers still putting out amazing music.

We're going to have? Surely you mean we already have?

well, the issue of audio watermarking has always been stalled on who handles licences and patents rights for mp3, and the watermarking converter itself. all the patents for mp3 expire in the next six years, and will be open domain. this is why everyone and their uncle went mad over drm a few years back, because these content conglomerates know that it will all go open domain soon. they need to make their money fast.

scroll down to licensing and patents..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

when the world agrees on one universal digital audio converter, and agrees to pay for its license, then audio watermarking will work. up till now, none of the manufacturers can agree on one standard, for the obvious profit motive. they all want to make money on the conversion itself.

the issue of ripping vinyl won't matter very much because the original audio would have its own digital signature and the structure that RIAA has been considering is that the player (your computer, cd player, psp, ipod,serato,etc) will only let you play that audio signature if you've paid for it. if you didn't, the player would give you the option of paying for it, otherwise the audio file, no matter how you converted it, wouldn't play. you'd have to pay something; even $1 or less to play the audio. now, of course this is pretty idealistic, but remember that RIAA and hollywood are spending millions and lobbying congress to get something like this done asap.

whatever the case, when the patents expire, things will change.

^