On a serious note, it's no different then the attack on the tab sites for guitar. They have incredibly annoying ads. Maybe if the publishers had official tabs (not combo books of "best guesses" as some are, or full album books which some are accurate, some are again best guesses) available in PDF format for a reasonable price, like $1, people would buy them instead of $20 - $40 for a full book.
Lyrics sites are full of annoying ads as well. But when was there a published book full of official song lyrics? Usually those are bundled with sheet music and sold at a higher price. If one only wanted to remember the 2nd verse of a song, or needed a refresher, the lyric sites are helpful.
They don't drive piracy.
What's next, liner notes? Sue wikipedia because they post who produced the album and which tracks are listed, and maybe even some production notes?
Fuck yeah, let's lock everything up because that so helps culture!
And why am I not surprised Lowery is ranting about this?
Fuck, while we're at it, let's kill the radio, people *might* turn the station during a commercial and artists (labels) won't get paid.
Re: Here's a new tagline that covers the Silly-con Valley:
Not consuming (ie: not paying) == not buying in terms of bottom lines!
Products someone else made? Oh you mean like instruments the musicians didn't make, or the transatlantic cable the musicians didn't make, or the computer hardware they didn't make to record their art, or the motor vehicles that drove the printed recordings to the buildings containing the stores that were not created or built by the artists ... Works both ways buddy! And before you say anything about paying for those things, the artists now have free distribution, no cuts, as a result of technology. They have reduced their costs, so have the labels, so overhead is now reduced, one would think profits would increase!
Of course you could look at the demographics and that is most bought CD's to REPLACE cassettes and vinyl. What percentages of new releases each year in each format (from cassette, vinyl, cd, online) for albums are out there? Where's that data? Right, hidden! Why would someone show that people bought replacements when they are trying to say no one is buying anything new?
And once the replacements have been purchased, why the fuck would they buy it again in digital format where they can only play it on certain devices? Or even unrestricted, if you have a damn CD, why buy the digital version from iTunes? That is idiotic and only an idiot would think such things.
Again, where's the demographic data showing details of the album sale drops? Hidden!
Finally, digital sales are naturally lower because people are buying less albums because the albums released for many years kept dropping in quality for a large portion of popular music. They were not concepts, entities themselves, they were individual tracks, no meaning, just thrown together, some good and some bad. That's it. That's like random notes on the piano and trying to use all the theory you can to give it a chord name.
Maybe the digital sales that were around the past 10 years where the ACTUAL new release levels, what people wanted, though you can't really prove that because a-la-carte was not available before at the level it is today. It was selected singles or album, not consumer choice of single to purchase.
So you cannot even compare such things.
Now with streaming, people just don't want to have to transfer files or carry multiple devices around (iPod vs phone vs CD...) they just want one spot where they can get it all. No device required, just Internet access.
Again, reducing costs, no need to store the files on servers in multiple stores or produce varied devices, just produce one device and one data centre - so less license issues too as you don't need to cover iTunes, Amazon, etc... Though you do have multiple streaming sites, but they allow anywhere on any device!
That's cheaper for the consumer, so new devices allow such services on them, whether it is a laptop or cell/smart phone or tablet.
The labels were simply loan sharks who targeted artists because few banks would help them. They didn't create the art, they packaged and delivered it. Now someone else is doing that and some artists are touting the lines of the former packagers.
The new packagers are not fucking grifters! They offer cheaper means of packaging and delivery, much like email to letter mail.
Adapt and move on.
And thanks to Technology, artists can do MORE and have MORE REVENUE STREAMS available, even when some are paying less than the forced-album (if you want to buy it - shy from recording off the radio which the industry tried to kill as well) purchasing.
And finally, more competition is good. Yes good! Cream rises to the top. If you have good art, no one is going to hold you back. It is up to you though to do it yourself or partner with a company that isn't a media-conglomerate-profit-focused-exploitation-expert.
And don't forget, your also competing in the live arena against oldies that are not releasing new items, can't seem to find new fans as a result, are falling into obscurity, and thus have to tour to keep food on their tables. Those are already established artists would could benefit from working with that and networking and trying to become relevant, but that also means creating new art (eg: Matthew Good, Rush).
Or you could just complain and separate yourself from systems that try to help you (eg: Thom Yorke, David Lowery)
Could also be that they haven't really figured out what they really are. They think they are media companies, as in creators of content. They are not artists, who are the creators of content. They were distributors, but they also thought of themselves as gate-keepers, ensuring only "quality" is released.
It means it is not a big deal that the public is in danger. Because that danger is the erosion of civil liberties under the false-veil of security.
If Clapper really wanted to make America safe, he'd get control of the corporations whom are exploiting countries around the world, using US soldiers and diplomats as their proxy. Of course it's all in the name of profits. Profits for military equipment, profits for security companies, profits for natural resource companies (oil, metals, etc..), agricultural via food services (McD's harvests cows on their farms in Africa, or at least they used to), etc..
Stop that and you'll stop the terrorist threats. Seriously, do you think Osama would have wanted to attack the US if they were not meddling in Middle Eastern affairs? Some would say "they hate we are free" but that's total bullshit. They hate your interference!
That's how you can have security and liberty co-existing, by NOT giving a reason for security in the first place!
Edward is an epileptic. If that's true, then that's what will happen. There will be some "oversight" committee established, a lot of hoop-la from Congress and the Senate, even the Prez will change his tune. However, before he can testify, or maybe before they even do the grand jury, Edward will pass away in Hong Kong from a seizure.
How? That's obvious. An asset will poison his food, he has to order it in, they'll get to it while in transit or have someone cook it into the food. The autopsy will be faked or twisted and he'll be cremated or something like that.
Then the masses who might just be waking up will fall back asleep with the next reality show.
The CIA's greatest play was manipulating the people of their own country of origin, using the apathy program.
You can't lump Amazon's cloud service in with NetFlix (which isn't a cloud service - a cloud service provides storage space, and in some cases like Azure, VM's, VN's, websites, SQL services, CRM services, or you can host them on VM's within VN's if you like).
Don't conflate technologies.
The filelockers/cyberlockers/cybershares/vaults etc.. you are referring to are USING cloud services (which is really just a bunch of servers acting together in a farm, using load balancing, hosting multiple machines). And the industry created that DRM-like functionality and are pushing harder for more control.
What pissed people off about DRM was it failed to let gamers play the games. It failed to let people BUY from iTunes and then transfer those files to their non-iPod device.
That's what DRM did. That's why iTunes, Amazon and the like offered DRM-free items - because they saw people getting pissed and sales dropping, in terms of adoption rates not yearly sales - don't conflate that shit either.
Said companies dropped DRM because they know consumers want to burn it to a CD for the car, listen on their OWN portable music device (not be device restricted) and they noticed MORE sales (increase in rate of sales) when consumers can access the fucking content they paid to access in a way they want to access.
That's why DRM is harmful. Many artists get that. Many artists groups have come out against DRM for that very reason. That includes the author groups.
Only "groups" or organizations made up of lawyers support DRM and that's been proven here when articles expose said members for what the organization really is.
What Mike has said was:
1) Don't give it away and pray (despite you saying he says that)
2) Don't rely on digital sales alone, give more, fans want more, offer packages that are more than just a digital download
3) Don't try to force a scarcity upon something that isn't scarce
There are "hundreds" more, but I'm not going to type them all out, I know you won't read them.
Re: AND DESPITE Mike and his pirate band, you've NOT affected the "dinosaur" business model!
Maybe if you understood this sites assertions (non-abuse use of laws) you'd understand just how foolish you look when you comment as you do.
Quote this site where it endorses "sticking it to the man" via filesharing? Find it!
You won't, not from people who endorse this site.
You're just pulling the same old RIAA-based strawman arguments that only stupid musicians like Gene Simmons believe. It's almost as bad as the CastleLowery cherry-picking quotes and constant attacks on Google when not understanding what's really happening (all while using an "appeal to authority" fallacy saying he's a techy and a musician).
Re: So, CREATE your own content, and "innovate" with IT all you want!
First and second sentences are wrong, you've been proven this already.
Second "paragraph" is not the same as what is happening. Even if such a service existed, where it was fast, easy and simple and didn't permit label music on it (for fear of lawsuits) it would be sued out of existence by RIAA/Label lawyers. Already happened.
Third paragraph: But why would you want competition when you can squash it and offer the sheep only what you deem salesworthy!
Our most expensive electricity bill was for using just over a kWh (1.08kWh) for an entire month. I could easily handle that with solar panels on our garage and bury a 6AWG cable through to the main panel. But I'd only zero out the usage, not make a profit.
Re: Mike NEVER deals with the morality of Napster.
The Industry NEVER delivers what customers want. They just present barely usable services while using legal and financial resources to kill any innovative service that delivers what the customer wants and pays the artist.
Take an acid trip through distorted reality of trichordist.com and riaa.com, it makes Alice in Wonderland seem like Forest Gump
Where they'll march over the cliff dragging our Governments with them, while we stand on the edge and watch.