I am in Ireland, I wanted 1 single track (apparently there is no such thing as music shops or singles anymore, i feel old)
So I went to Amazon.com found the track for $0.99 and went to pay, guess what "your credit card has to be issued by US bank" error, despite me having positive amazon.com gift balance with no need to use credit card.
Fine so I went to amazon.co.uk, same track GBP 1.00 (notice the markup) and similar error once again despite me having credit on UK site and buying for years electronics and just about everything else for myself.
So in end I went to google and found what I wanted on mp3juices.is or something like that.
These music companies deserve to go extinct for wasting half an hour of a prospective customers time and putting up silly barriers.
> These music companies deserve to go extinct for wasting half an hour of a prospective customers time and putting up silly barriers.
Let's face it, they don't want your type. Ownership is dying. It is much more profitable to renegotiate with the consumers that fear losing "their" music collection the price of a subscription service every once in a while.
Subscriptions don't work well for the long tail, artists that aren't extremely popular get pennies and people in SF and LA live in some sort of bubble, as subscriptions aren't that popular compared to personal music collections. IMHO, it's a passing trend, just like CDs and iPods. And don't get me wrong, as subscriptions are somewhat convenient, problem is they are convenient for personal usage and listening to music is often a group activity, with sharing without barriers and taking things offline being the norm.
Do you know why YouTube is so popular for listening to music? It's because of things like http://www.youtube-mp3.org/
It's not much more profitable to move to subscription model. According to Billboard's new measuring mechanisms, 1500 streams = 1 album sale. By that measure, only a handful of artists have gone 'platinum' in the streaming sense.
Music is never going back to the cassette/CD golden age of sales, but streaming seems like the best way to salvage the few paying customers left.
This is so true. I find it the same with BBC IPlayer - I live in the UK but travel home regularly, and have a 3 hour train journey. Despite having an active Sky subscription in the UK, and paying a TV licence in the UK, if I want to watch a show hosted on iPlayer there isn't any way to do it from Ireland. I normally end up having to download them before I go from other sources, which I hate doing..
I believe the BBC should hand out a username/password with the license fee for access to their online services. Maybe this would require a change to their charter.
Also, for anyone wondering why the parent poster didn't just use an Irish regional version of Amazon - there isn't one. amazon.ie is just a redirect to amazon.co.uk, and the UK site has been for Irish customers too for a long time (including options for euro currency, free delivery etc)
Belgium has similar problems. Frankly, the is the one place I want to see the EU actually take action and remove national sovereignty. This is supposed to be one marketplace so the EU needs to actually enforce some sort common market for digital goods. "You may not sell a product or service in one member state without the product or service being available to all member states."
In fairness, I would say that this is an issue with money/banking/credit cards and the various regulatory frameworks in this area.
It is remarkably difficult to just trade money in exchange for goods and services online. Between fraud, transaction costs, anti-"money laundering" requirements and general complexity the systems that actually exist are just not very good. If you fall outside the realm of a simple money-in-exchange-for-stuff paradigm, you are screwed.
Actual online retailers interfacing with customers need to make this mess as invisible as possible, but they are working with crappy inputs.
I increasingly suspect that the banking industry is the biggest economic bottleneck in advanced economies.
> this is an issue with money/banking/credit cards and the various regulatory frameworks in this area
No, this is an issue with streams of bits being considered goods that have to be traded differently depending on the region, and that responsibility lies entirely with music distributors. If there was a single global license for selling a given piece of music, it wouldn't matter what you're buying, how you're buying it or where from.
Actually in this case I had a positive USD credit/balance on amazon.com account due to giftcards I bought with bitcoin via gyft.com, same with amazon.co.uk with giftcard bought via giftoff.com using Bitcoin again.
3-4 year old amazon account with long history of purchases going into 6 digits, no chargebacks (not possible obviously) and my Irish debit card also on file with them.
The risk of fraud/charback to Amazon (either US or UK branch) was exactly zero with me.
Situation in Germany:
- GEMA causes video blocking on youtube
- there is the GEMA-Vermutung (it is assumed that if you play music in public, it is from a GEMA member and you have to pay a fee or prove that the music was from non-GEMA-members)
- there is a Pauschalabgabe fee for storage media (and devices) for the potential use as backup/storage for the music I already paid for (but I am not allowed to crack copy "protection" on media).
- there is a monthly fee for GEZ/Rundfunkbeitrag for state "independent" media bound to just living in a flat/house even if there is no device capable of playing media and not bound to actual use of their service. Most media on their online platforms is available for a short period of time (~1 week) and gets deleted after this, they use flash player and there are 3rd party tools [0] necessary so just search through all the media / get a direct link to feed into mplayer
Should I throw even more money on these unfair systems by buying music/media?
Piracy is the reason that labels license their content to streaming services like Spotify. Without the threat of piracy, they would happily maintain the CD-era pricing.
How about the idea that technology is the reason, not piracy?
As the article mentions, there's a broadly accepted argument that fans have been ripped off for years before the internet came along. It's not about "Napster" coming along, it's about the internet arriving and giving us new ways to get media. CD-era comes to an end regardless of legal status of any particular online resource.
As more artists chose to upload their own music, the big-wig artists looked on, dwindling sales infringed upon by... what's this, indie bands previously only seen at local pubs? The horror!
Access > Granted is defined as "piracy" too often, but I'm not saying piracy isn't a thing, it's just not the whole picture.
I can't believe I'm paying for Netflix, but then again, no ads, HD quality. As for music.... hmmm. TO be honest I'd appreciate Netflix getting into music and offering me a good deal on their add-on music service. I'd prefer not to pay another whole $10-ish per month for music. I want package deals because my wallet wants that.
I wonder how many people will pirate Taylor Swift's music since she's exclusively linked to Apple Music? I'm willing to bet a lot of Spotify users will dust off uTorrent (or whatever people are using for torrents nowadays) and just download the album she has restricted her fans from listening to legally.
It's all about ease of access, surely? The introduction of Apple Music is good for music, but if it means that Spotify and Apple Music are going to further fragment accessible libraries of music then piracy will probably rise.
> ...the album she has restricted her fans from listening to legally.
Well, she is still making her music available online against a fair price. If you mean restriction in the sense of any restriction, then, yes, it's restricted. But so is Spotify, because for every service there is another one you don't publish on.
Miss Swift was not happy with Spotify's negotiating terms. Her not playing ball with Spotify should not automatically be considered "restricting her fans from listening to her music legally," even though that's a side-effect.
I'm not privy to the details of the negotiation, I don't know who's being unreasonable, if anyone. But just saying that she restricts her fans from listening to it, that implies it's her own fault and that people are in the right for just pirating it then.
While she's entitled to share her music with whoever she pleases, fans aren't going to see it that way. They'll see a greedy artist that wants more money, and is happy to restrict what is essentially uploading a bunch of music files to a server as a ransom for not getting that money. Given the way she immediately backtracked, I think most people see her move as nothing more than a publicity stunt between her and Apple to promote both her new album and Apple's new service.
Spotify works because you're safe in the knowledge that you can listen to pretty much anything you want. With Apple Music in the picture, piracy will almost definitely rise, should artists decide to lock themselves onto specific platforms like Swift has chosen to.
I don't know if this is still true or not, but they make (made) damn sure their offer was so ridiculous people would actively try to go around it.
The devices limitation? Who the fuck came up with this idea thinking it will be good? Greedy kids I won't cry if they disappear, which probably won't happen anytime soon.
It's simple, people will go for the easiest solution.
I barely know anyone illegally downloading videogames since Steam became the go to, and steam is like a big DRM but so easy to use, always download at max speed etc, people just use it, including myself.
I legally download all the music I want for free without any effort. Because here we "pay for that music by buying a device". Too bad the wrong people receive that money. So I can't say that I like it, but on the other hand I barely download any music. It's maybe one track per month.
My guess would be that music downloaders are slowing down/dropping out because they already have more music than they could ever listen to.
From what I hear, a lot of music sharing has moved to sneakernet amongst friends. A palm-sized 2TB hard drive carries around 4 years worth of 192K mp3 audio.
I bet you'd see a correlation between bandwidth availability as a function of the average media file size and lobbying activity - which is another way to say the RIAA fought when it happened, mostly lost, and took the best of the available bad options that eventually emerged. Film was safer for a while due to the relatively huge file sizes for video, plus film has some slightly different industry dynamics.
FTA: But the music industry is still trying to recover from piracy's heyday. Last year, total music industry revenue was about $15 billion worldwide, well below the 1999 peak of $38 billion.
Ouch - think about that, seeing >60% of your industry revenue go up in smoke. And please don't give me the old line about labels ripping off artists - big labels did, somewhat, but they weren't nearly as bad as Courtney Love made out, and meantime tons of small labels went to the wall because they didn't have the revenue cushion that the big ones did. I was a DJ back in the 90s (and I was probably spending a couple of thousand $ a year on music at the time) and it was a much more economically diverse industry pre-Napster. I can't say I regard the commodification of music as an improvement, really.
Sure, you can say 'ouch, 60% of your industry' - but you could say the same about the guys breeding horses when cars came along (or whatever) - times change. Of course it hurts when the golden goose stops laying eggs, but if you don't adapt to the world, how do you expect to survive? The labels (majors especially) spent so long and so much trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle when they could have been adapting to the new landscape.
As for the indie labels - it's a massive shame, I agree, although many adapted and survived. But I'd argue indie artists have it easier than before - you can record and distribute an album for basically the cost of your time these days. (Although, that in itself is both a good, and bad thing.)
Haha, not incredibly - it was the first thing that came in to my head - but you got what I meant! I'm sure there's a better one :-)
The major labels (certainly), controlled the distribution channels (and I know a lot of indies used a major for distribution, when it was all physical media) - and they don't, so much, anymore. My point was they chose to fight the future rather than adapt to it, so other people came and stole the new business. There's what - 4 big labels? Had they come together they could have sewn up digital distribution before other companies (iTunes, then Spotify, etc etc) came and stole their revenues. Sure music industry profits may be down, but that money is probably just being made elsewhere.
I guess change is hard. The 50 something record exec behind the big desk in the year 1999 who's never sent an email, getting told by some 20 year old kid in a winamp t-shirt that 'MP3s are the future' is probably going to laugh him out the office. When he realises people are taking music for free, in bulk, his reaction is(/was??!) probably - that's stealing, not 'how can we monetize this?'
It's disingenuous to suggest the difference in revenue is because of piracy.
1970s and 1980s era record labels would sign an artist, throw development money at him or her, give them a fair try in the market with at least a couple of albums, and only drop them if they were going nowhere.
Then the emphasis shifted to the show-me-the-money insta-hit act, and manufactured waxwork acts like Justin Bieber. Music got a lot less interesting, and people found other things to do with their time. So sales crashed.
There's actually more good music being made than ever, but most of it lives on microlabels only hipsters know about, and the people making it all have day jobs. Even some of the better known names in dance/trance have day jobs.
This is bad, because some of them are very talented and would easily have made a career out of it 30 years ago.
Pop literally ate itself. The pirates just picked over the bones.
So I went to Amazon.com found the track for $0.99 and went to pay, guess what "your credit card has to be issued by US bank" error, despite me having positive amazon.com gift balance with no need to use credit card. Fine so I went to amazon.co.uk, same track GBP 1.00 (notice the markup) and similar error once again despite me having credit on UK site and buying for years electronics and just about everything else for myself.
So in end I went to google and found what I wanted on mp3juices.is or something like that.
These music companies deserve to go extinct for wasting half an hour of a prospective customers time and putting up silly barriers.