Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
clause 18 is surely the worrying part
Secretary of State for Business can now block any site which “the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright". That pretty much rules out YouTube, The Hype Machine, SoundCloud, etc... Won't this legislation just ensure that 'illegal downloaders' get even more internet-savvy and encrypt their file-sharing or use proxy-servers? Even kids at my school know how to get round the internet restrictions on the school server so what's to stop this happening on a national scale?
"Recently, the UK government passed The Digital Economy Act which included many, perhaps draconian, measures to combat online music piracy (including withdrawing broadband access for persistent pirates).
Much was proclaimed about how these new laws would protect musicians and artists revenue and livelihoods.
But how much money do musicians really get paid in this new digital marketplace?"
just highlights to me musicians were always paid a pittance from sales and are probably better off from larger audiences at gigs
They've a symbiotic relationship - bands play to big crowds live because they have labels bankrolling and promoting them. I still don't really see how its possible to get a large live audience without a substantial promotional investment, be that on putting out records or a more web two.woah way.
Plus, bands would always sell 10x as many CDs as live tickets. Oasis played to 250,000 at Knebworth in 1996 but by that point What's The Story had sold something like 2m copies, and there you're talking about the highest profile shows of the year.
but smaller bands less so. I'd agree the ceiling for gig sales is lower than album sales (although in oasis case playing to a quarter of the amount of people who bought an album with one show is pretty impressive, think the amount of gig tickets theyve sold over the course of their career may approach album sales) because bands can never be everywhere at once and capitalise on all the demand.
But I think if there was a circle on that site to represent how many gig tickets a band needs to sell to achieve minimum wage it would be smaller than the comparable circle for album sales. (obviously a band would have had to progress from the breaking even at best stage, but these probably wouldnt have sold albums at this stage either)
I think there is a pretty strong case to be made for a link between people obtaining music for free (through whatever means seems the difference between legal/illegal is negligable) and increased audience attendences.
I remember sean posted that graph a few months back, it showed that artists earnings from album sales was down but on the whole artists earnings were actually up due to live revenue. Sean dismissed it because it would be skewed by the mega artist multi day residence at the O2 types, but I think that same skew for the huge artists would have been present on past album sales (maybe even more so if album sales did out number gig sales) so think they are comparable. You only have to look at atp going from once a year at pontins to atleast 4 times a year at butlins to see there has been a huge increase in the appetite for live music, I really wouldnt be surprised if that was down to the ease of access to music over the past decade. I think once a band gets to a certain level they would be worse off than in the past (the point where they reach the ceiling of gig tickets but the albums sales arent what they would have been) but to the smaller bands the larger audiences gained from free music atleast offsets the loss in sales.
I think in the past you had a winner take all situation where relatively few bands hit the big time (whilst the underground stalwarts just plugged away), where as nowadays that kind of success isn't possible (too many bands for one to get that market share)but it is alot easier for more bands to achieve moderate success Dis' bread and butter) and think thats kinda preferable. If free music was eradicated people would only be able to hear what their limited funds allowed them a lot of bands fanbases would wither away
I know record companies are a bit stuck but I dont think they are that important anymore, anyone can afford adequate recording equiptment compared to how much it used to cost to sound half ok, and promotion is alot easier than it used to be since the rise of the internet, record companies will always have a role to produce physical copies that there will always be a demand for but I dont think they are as important for supporting music as they used to be.
I think I always come across really stupid in these threads but I truly believe that the last decade was the best decade of music ever and that file sharing was part of the mass proliferation of great music
even though record revenue is down, but there's one serious problem... in the days when record sales were everything, record labels would pump money into new bands, in the hope that they'd make it back off sales later. at the moment this doesn't work with live revenue: there isn't a typical way for someone to provide money upfront (as tour support) in the hope of getting it back later (as live revenue).
Most support tours won't pay anything like enough to cover expenses, let alone live on. Historically record labels would pay for small upcoming acts to get support gigs with bigger acts to gain exposure but obviously there's less incentive for them to do that tehse days.
Whenever we've supported we've got between £50 and £200 (the latter being the higher end of the specrtrum, even if you're supporting a reasonably known band), which sounds pretty decent but when you factor in petrol, potentially van hire, food (even if you get a meal at the gig you still have to eat the rest of the day!), etc. it quickly gets eaten up. And that's before you even get onto the fact that you're not making any kind of wage from that and you've probably got a house you're renting back home and bills you need to pay. Plus if you're touring regularly you probably aren't gonna have a regular job so might have periods of not working when you're not touring.
So bands do need an initial investment.
The thing is, no one has figured out a smart business model to monetize what is essentially social media, yet. This isn't it either.
I guess the difference between this and the old system is it used to be that the labels, managers and publishers ripped the bands off so they could take all the money whereas now these websites are doing it 'cos they don't have any money either...