Exactly. All 3 have value, but the value is displaced. Spotify is generally cheaper, but you're buying into the service not a specific artists or track. An iTunes purchase has value that makes it more expensive (for example, you're buying what should be permanent access to that song, no DRM should mean that you keep it even if the label removes itself for iTunes whereas you lose access if they go from Spotify). But, it lacks the additional value that a more expensive physical CD might have (such as the printed sleeve notes and ability to resell).
It's the inherent value of each format that's driven the price, it's also the downside of each format that's driven the tendency for people to go for the cheaper services (for example, an album CD is vastly overpriced if you only want a couple of tracks, while an iTunes purchase is overpriced if you only play it a couple of times). The real problem for the music recording industry is that people understand these values and have largely chosen to pay for the access that's least directly profitable for them.
The AC above is presumably in the camp where he's happy to access Spotify for free and doesn't value ownership as much as he values access to a wide catalogue. Which is fine as an opinion, but it's really just the mirror image of the "Spotify are stealing from us because streams don't make as much as purchases" rubbish.
Re: People tend to want to defend their revenue streams...
"The sorts like Prince or Roger Waters or Gene Simmons who actually made their bank are the exceptions"
The funniest thing about Prince being included in the conversation is how publicly he battled with the label he was signed to in the 90s. If the likes of Prince and George Michael had to fight to get the terms and compensation they felt were fair, imagine what other acts were subjected to without their kind of leverage. It's been written very publicly by veterans of that era how bad it was for most. Yet, that era is defended as if it was a utopia for artists. It boggles the mind.
"I have bought more music in the past year **because** of Youtube and Google than I have over the past decade."
Back in the Napster days, I bought plenty of music as a direct result of tracks I discovered there, not to mention gig tickets and merchandise.
Once legal services became available (first eMusic, then after the majors killed everything that made that useful, a Spotify subscription), I've consistently been spending more money on music than the average purchaser did during the CD era (no time to check for citations right now, but IIRC the average person bought 3-4 CDs per year, while my current subscription costs about the same as 1 CD per month).
But, according to these morons, none of my Napster era purchases counted because there were some pirate tracks as well, and the current subscriptions don't count because they want to whine about the ad-supported platforms and so conveniently ignore people like me.
It's no wonder these people are so consistently scared and wrong - they create a fantasy universe for themselves to live in that bears no relation to reality.
Now that childish moron has launched a false personal attack, would he furnish us with facts that he disagrees with rather than expecting everyone to read a link, made untrustworthy by his obvious bias? Go on, tell us what you disagree with rather than acting the idiot... You might be in danger of an adult debate
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
Sunspots and volcanoes have been widely considered and the evidence still shows an acceleration due to human activity. This not a new discussion and has been brought up ad nauseum by "sceptics" who are usually just repeating the same old debunked myths. It's not a new idea, but at least it's better than the thermodynamic rule fallacy, for example, which falls apart as soon as you understand the rule referred to.
"If it is, shouldn't we be cutting back on fossil fuel use?"
We should be doing that anyway. You only have to look at cities in China and tales of old London to see how horrible overuse of fossil fuels can be. Technology development, costs, etc. are holding it back but there need not be a global catastrophe to switch over, it's a good idea even if nothing bad was happening to the environment long term.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: former FCC boss turned slimy cable lobbyist is right!
"ask what their evidence for their position is"
In my experience, climate change deniers fall in the same camp as creationists - they don't have any. That's why some of their arguments tend to overlap ("were you there?" seems to be a favourite of both camps, for example, without realising that it also discredits their own claims)
"If not, admit you're wrong."
Wrong about what? The scientific method? The evidence that you yourself listed?
Out of curiosity, what's your standard for being allowed to be offended by something? Clearly the dying moments of a murdered relative isn't offensive enough for you, so what's the bar where someone might be genuinely offended enough in your mind?
Good strategy. As presented, it's utterly ridiculous but there could be more to the story. I'd hope there's a lot more if the photographer is indeed being held accountable for actions that took place after she sold the photo, but you never know.
Yes, the disconnect is inevitable - but having grown up seeing the lies and distortions clearly present in the UK gutter press I find the cries of "free press" rather naive. There are some real problems, the silly "right to be forgotten" and this law may not be the answer, but it has to be admitted that giving the press full reign actually destroys people if those reporting lack morals. I agree with the concept that the press needs to be there in part to keep the government in check, but if all they're doing is printing gossip and ruining innocent people, what's the step to prevent that without muzzling them when they're needed?
"the photographer and VSD violated the law by publishing the Bataclan photo on a double-page spread, and by not blurring out Cedric's face"
French law is rather silly at times, but how exactly is the photographer responsible for either of those things? They seem to be stating that if a photographer sells a photo, then they're directly responsible for any future usage, including the text and editorial positioning. That's insane.
"the law which was aimed at keeping news publications from publishing photographs of those accused of crimes if they were wearing handcuffs or in scenes where it might somehow indicate a presumption of guilt. That in itself is a silly bit of control exerted by government over what might otherwise be a free press"
Hmmm... I'm not sure if I agree with the application but I can see where the sentiment comes from. The problem with a "free press" is that it's only a good thing if they're fighting to publish the truth. I'm not sure of the standard of French publications, but I can think of many occasions where British tabloids have exploited innocent people with such photos. Lives have been destroyed because front pages carry photos of the accused for days, often with lies to back up a narrative, then nary a word once it's found they were innocent.
I'm not sure this kind of law is the right way to do it, but if the press is literally destroying people by misuse of its freedom then who steps in to prevent that?