5 ms·

There are two fundamental problems: 1) What's good for the consumer isn't necessarily good for the creators. In other words, they have an incentive to fight th

by dkfmn 11y ago

There are two fundamental problems: 1) What's good for the consumer isn't necessarily good for the creators. In other words, they have an incentive to fight the future rather than embrace it. 2) The extra efficiency of distribution created by technology is hell on legacy business models. Streaming media is an example of disruption shrinking the whole pie. Craigslist wrecked the classifieds business and became wildly successful but it did so NOT by moving 90% of the industry's revenue to Craigslist; it did so by capturing 10% of the revenue and destroying the rest.

mkesper 11y ago
Creators != content industry
- dkfmn 11y ago
  I tend to agree but this is really a separate conversation. These days, the struggling musician will give away music for extra exposure in the hopes of becoming famous so they can make money touring. That's the best they can do because nobody sells 50 million vinyl records anymore, although that's probably more likely than selling 50 million CDs (note I didn't say albums). Still, regardless of where these dollars flow, to creators or the "industry," it's fewer dollars.
  - makapuf 11y ago
    well, digital sales only (which are still less than CD and I think streaming/radio + public performance make much more now than by then) are currently worth more than total music sales in the seventies, which I don't think were a particularly bad time for music creativity. (http://publicradio2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/02/units-vs-dollars-riaa.jpg http://publicradio2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/02/un...)
    - amouat 11y ago
      1) I don't think that graph is adjusted for inflation. 2) I haven't done it, but I'd be willing to put a few quid on the 1970s having the largest proportion of albums in the best of lists e.g. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-... Also 1970s rockstars seemed to have a lot more money than their 2010s equivalents.
    - dkfmn 11y ago
      This chart is comparing dollars (CD sales) to units (digital singles, which probably avg less than $1.29 each). So at their peak CD sales were worth >10x what digital singles sales are now. It's not even close, and if this chart were inflation-adjusted the difference would be much larger. Forgetting about the Musician's share, all the streaming/satellite radio revenue collectively wouldn't cover the shortfall (terrestrial radio doesn't pay). I can't comment on public performance but it's certainly become the definitive way musicians make money now and their share has always been high in this category.
  - deepnet 11y ago
    > These days In the past struggling musicians were handed cash by benificent record cartels. /s In the past the struggle was to even get any distribution or publicity, radio play was sewn up so artists accepted terrible terms from the distribution monopolies. Musicians typically got 0-2% of revenues. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ The past sucked way more for musicians & fans.
    - dkfmn 11y ago
      We agree. It's more possible than ever to succeed without a label or big company behind you. That doesn't mean there's more money in selling music media.
      - deepnet 11y ago
        There is more money if the 98% monopoly cut is removed. I cite Drummond & Cauty's The Manual, how to have a number one and make a million quid * as the KLF they did just this, repeatedly & using pseudonyms. That was in the 'bad old days', Cauty & Drummond proved that without a record company bleeding them dry artists could make a lifetime's cash with a single hit. Todays 'problem' is everyone wants to create, sample, share, remix, transcode, &c but copyright maximalism largely prevents this. I believe that a distribution scheme could pay creatives directly, just as a little extra, they can still sell stuff - my thesis is without the 98% loss due to the cartels this is workable and everyone can play & innovate. Ireland does this in reverse, artists don't pay tax there & get tax credits (~£50 per week). Also restore copyright back to 20-40 years putting the 20th century in the public domain where it belongs and destroying the back-catalogue leverage the monopolists abuse. * http://freshonthenet.co.uk/the-manual-by-the-klf/ http://freshonthenet.co.uk/the-manual-by-the-klf/ Nearly anything would be better than suing fans & killing innovation.
        dkfmn 11y ago
        So your argument is that the artist's slice of the pie is larger than it once was? That may be true, I don't have an informed perspective. However, for the industry, my original points stand.
  - larrik 11y ago
    The funny thing is that no one ever really sold that many copies of an album. The music industry, for all its reach and visibility, is tiny compared to a single 'blockbuster' movie. I mean, a "gold record" which is pretty rare and often takes months or years for an album to reach is 500k sales. Compare that to movie tickets (which are now about the same price each, and are only a single viewing!), where 500k sales can be a disastrous failure.
- chongli 11y ago
  This distinction is a lot more obvious with music and books than it is with television.
ploxiln 11y ago
alternatively: the whole US can now post and find local classified ads at 10% of the previous cost! That's huge!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
sheepmullet 11y ago
> Streaming media is an example of disruption shrinking the whole pie. Is that really the case for movies/tv shows though? "Back in the day" I used to get Netflix to ship me DVDs for around the same cost per month that I now pay for streaming. And they had all the latest titles available. Surely at least as much money is going back to the content creators as it was then?
- ams6110 11y ago
  I thought that the content creators got their money when Netflix bought the DVDs. After that, Netflix kept the rental profits.
- dkfmn 11y ago
  Yes. Netflix is causing a similar shrinking to the RENTAL market that Craigslist did to classifieds, albeit less severe. However, the SALES of Physical Media (DVDs/Blu-Rays) are down huge over the last ten years and there hasn't been anything to replace that revenue. Essentially selling 30 DVDs to you and all your friends was replaced by selling 1 DVD to Netflix. One more piece of history that you may already know: in the prime days of the rental market companies like Blockbuster paid ~$100 per movie and had access to the titles before a consumer could purchase them. Netflix didn't play ball, rather than pay those prices they'd wait until the DVDs were generally available and buy at consumer/bulk prices. I wouldn't shed any tears for the industry though, they'll survive. Besides, just to be clear, I love Netflix, they're great. More info: http://press.ihs.com/press-release/technology/spending-movies-and-tv-shows-declines-once-netflix-available-ihs-says http://press.ihs.com/press-release/technology/spending-movie...
anon4 11y ago
Look at it from another angle - haven't we already made all the music and movies we can possibly need? What do we stand to gain from having one more song when we already have several million of them. Just let the music and movie industry die and have people exchange the stuff that's already available. There are already more movies than you can watch in a lifetime.

by dkfmn 11y ago

mkesper 11y ago

Creators != content industry

dkfmn 11y ago
I tend to agree but this is really a separate conversation. These days, the struggling musician will give away music for extra exposure in the hopes of becoming famous so they can make money touring. That's the best they can do because nobody sells 50 million vinyl records anymore, although that's probably more likely than selling 50 million CDs (note I didn't say albums). Still, regardless of where these dollars flow, to creators or the "industry," it's fewer dollars.
- makapuf 11y ago
  well, digital sales only (which are still less than CD and I think streaming/radio + public performance make much more now than by then) are currently worth more than total music sales in the seventies, which I don't think were a particularly bad time for music creativity. (http://publicradio2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/02/units-vs-dollars-riaa.jpg http://publicradio2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/02/un...)
  - amouat 11y ago
    1) I don't think that graph is adjusted for inflation. 2) I haven't done it, but I'd be willing to put a few quid on the 1970s having the largest proportion of albums in the best of lists e.g. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-... Also 1970s rockstars seemed to have a lot more money than their 2010s equivalents.
  - dkfmn 11y ago
    This chart is comparing dollars (CD sales) to units (digital singles, which probably avg less than $1.29 each). So at their peak CD sales were worth >10x what digital singles sales are now. It's not even close, and if this chart were inflation-adjusted the difference would be much larger. Forgetting about the Musician's share, all the streaming/satellite radio revenue collectively wouldn't cover the shortfall (terrestrial radio doesn't pay). I can't comment on public performance but it's certainly become the definitive way musicians make money now and their share has always been high in this category.
- deepnet 11y ago
  > These days In the past struggling musicians were handed cash by benificent record cartels. /s In the past the struggle was to even get any distribution or publicity, radio play was sewn up so artists accepted terrible terms from the distribution monopolies. Musicians typically got 0-2% of revenues. http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ The past sucked way more for musicians & fans.
  - dkfmn 11y ago
    We agree. It's more possible than ever to succeed without a label or big company behind you. That doesn't mean there's more money in selling music media.
    - deepnet 11y ago
      There is more money if the 98% monopoly cut is removed. I cite Drummond & Cauty's The Manual, how to have a number one and make a million quid * as the KLF they did just this, repeatedly & using pseudonyms. That was in the 'bad old days', Cauty & Drummond proved that without a record company bleeding them dry artists could make a lifetime's cash with a single hit. Todays 'problem' is everyone wants to create, sample, share, remix, transcode, &c but copyright maximalism largely prevents this. I believe that a distribution scheme could pay creatives directly, just as a little extra, they can still sell stuff - my thesis is without the 98% loss due to the cartels this is workable and everyone can play & innovate. Ireland does this in reverse, artists don't pay tax there & get tax credits (~£50 per week). Also restore copyright back to 20-40 years putting the 20th century in the public domain where it belongs and destroying the back-catalogue leverage the monopolists abuse. * http://freshonthenet.co.uk/the-manual-by-the-klf/ http://freshonthenet.co.uk/the-manual-by-the-klf/ Nearly anything would be better than suing fans & killing innovation.
      - dkfmn 11y ago
        So your argument is that the artist's slice of the pie is larger than it once was? That may be true, I don't have an informed perspective. However, for the industry, my original points stand.
- larrik 11y ago
  The funny thing is that no one ever really sold that many copies of an album. The music industry, for all its reach and visibility, is tiny compared to a single 'blockbuster' movie. I mean, a "gold record" which is pretty rare and often takes months or years for an album to reach is 500k sales. Compare that to movie tickets (which are now about the same price each, and are only a single viewing!), where 500k sales can be a disastrous failure.
chongli 11y ago
This distinction is a lot more obvious with music and books than it is with television.

ploxiln 11y ago

alternatively: the whole US can now post and find local classified ads at 10% of the previous cost! That's huge!

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

sheepmullet 11y ago

> Streaming media is an example of disruption shrinking the whole pie. Is that really the case for movies/tv shows though? "Back in the day" I used to get Netflix to ship me DVDs for around the same cost per month that I now pay for streaming. And they had all the latest titles available. Surely at least as much money is going back to the content creators as it was then?

ams6110 11y ago
I thought that the content creators got their money when Netflix bought the DVDs. After that, Netflix kept the rental profits.
dkfmn 11y ago
Yes. Netflix is causing a similar shrinking to the RENTAL market that Craigslist did to classifieds, albeit less severe. However, the SALES of Physical Media (DVDs/Blu-Rays) are down huge over the last ten years and there hasn't been anything to replace that revenue. Essentially selling 30 DVDs to you and all your friends was replaced by selling 1 DVD to Netflix. One more piece of history that you may already know: in the prime days of the rental market companies like Blockbuster paid ~$100 per movie and had access to the titles before a consumer could purchase them. Netflix didn't play ball, rather than pay those prices they'd wait until the DVDs were generally available and buy at consumer/bulk prices. I wouldn't shed any tears for the industry though, they'll survive. Besides, just to be clear, I love Netflix, they're great. More info: http://press.ihs.com/press-release/technology/spending-movies-and-tv-shows-declines-once-netflix-available-ihs-says http://press.ihs.com/press-release/technology/spending-movie...

anon4 11y ago

Look at it from another angle - haven't we already made all the music and movies we can possibly need? What do we stand to gain from having one more song when we already have several million of them. Just let the music and movie industry die and have people exchange the stuff that's already available. There are already more movies than you can watch in a lifetime.