This link will take you to an article talking about how BMG, Beyonce's label, has just removed music videos from Beyonce's official YouTube channel for copyright infringement. I cannot confirm how many videos were on the channel before this happened (it's my damn ears that keeps me away) but it appears only one actual video is still up. I'm not going to go into a long, drawn-out, math-filled rant about how ridiculous this is. Because that's pretty obvious. I'm simply going to ask some questions and get out of the way.
How does Beyonce putting up her own videos cause harm to BMG?
Would this not be considered incredibly cheap advertising?
Why would a company want to hinder their artist from reaching new fans?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Ridiculousness of the RIAA
I just read yet another article about how file-sharing is destroying music and movies. This gem of a quote came from the walking.....well....there's really no concise word for hypocritical, ego-maniacal, over-hyped, self-important, blow-hard, douchebag....I guess I'll just call him by his name (which I'm sure is his real name) Bono. I would rather listen to Bozo
sing Bavarian creme pie opera for about four days straight before I would voluntarily listen to Bono spout his earth-shattering revelations about saving the world.
He claims that file-sharing hurts the creators and gives huge profits to the ISPs. Did I miss a part of the conversation where people were paying their ISPs for the music they were illegally downloading? How does someone downloading, say, a U2 album, turn into profit for the ISP? That part of the statement is ludicrous (not Ludacris. I'm sure he's one of the affected artists). But the portion about artists being hurt is more debatable. I understand that it would be taking the MASSIVE 5-10% per CD profit that they might see, eventually. But that's not the only way artists make money.
Let's do the math. You buy a CD for $15. Crazy price, but roll with me. Let's say the artist gets 10%. That's $1.50.....before taxes and God knows what else. (Check out this blog post by Steve Albini, the producer for Nirvana's In Utero album. 10% is probably being super generous unless they've already sold a ton of copies.) Multiply that by 1 Million downloads, and subtract the taxes, and you're right around $1 Million being supposedly taken from them. But suppose that 10% of these people really enjoy the music and want to support the artist. That's 100,000 people. Some of them may use P2P as an on-demand radio; scanning through albums to see if they like it and then heading to Best Buy or iTunes to buy the album. We'll get to these people in a moment. But let's say they don't even do that. Let's say they go with the "Screw them. I already have the music. Why would a pay for it again?" mantra. What happens when the person wants to see the artist live? Or have a great concert t-shirt? Are they going to be able to log onto The Pirate Bay and download a ticket? Absolutely not. Let's get back to the 100,000 on-demand radio people. Of the 100,000 file-sharers, let's say 1% actually go see the artist live. I'm assuming tickets would be around $30. (Way, WAY, low for some artists, I know.) That would be $30,000. Not a ton of money but's it's $30,000 more than they would have seen if that evil, malicious file-sharing scum hadn't illegally obtained the music.
Let's back up for just a second. The music and movie industry likes to pretend that every illegal download equals one less sale. Get real. You're telling me that someone who downloads the entire U2 discography (I'm sticking with the metaphor here) would have bought all 12 "mind-expanding" masterpieces? I think not. More than likely it robbed them of four or five of their most popular songs from iTunes. So rather than robbing the artist of $180 per discography (12 albums at $15 a piece), they're realistically losing about five bucks.
I don't want to sound like someone who doesn't care about the artist. As a musician myself, I think about these things quite often. Ideally, each artist would be well compensated for their art. But if I had to choose between getting screwed out of money by a huge conglomerate-style record company and having someone who might actually care about the music getting it illegally, I would honestly take the latter. If we take one last look at the math we'll see that the artist could actually come out better that way. 1,000 album sales might net the artist $80 or so. But if two people, out of 1,000 illegal downloads, buy $30 concert tickets for them and a friend, that's $120. Probably a net of $100, maybe $110.
Obviously, the record company might not want to finance the recording of another album if the artist didn't bring them money. But if a band became popular through this newest iteration of bootleg cassette tapes then they would make plenty of money for the record company through other means. I'm obviously speaking in ideals here. But I honestly don't see this as a huge erosion of the music industry. If anything else, the record companies have spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to shove the next big thing down our throat, whether we want it or not. Is it any wonder that album sales are down when the Black Eyed Peas won THREE Grammies this year? THREE? What a joke.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: The sky is not falling. The bottom has not fallen out of the music sales barrel. Pirates are not ruining the music industry.
Support the artists, give us better music, and give us more opportunities to legally obtain that music. This is my request for the music industry.
I eagerly await your unified and unanimous response.
Love, Andy
sing Bavarian He claims that file-sharing hurts the creators and gives huge profits to the ISPs. Did I miss a part of the conversation where people were paying their ISPs for the music they were illegally downloading? How does someone downloading, say, a U2 album, turn into profit for the ISP? That part of the statement is ludicrous (not Ludacris. I'm sure he's one of the affected artists). But the portion about artists being hurt is more debatable. I understand that it would be taking the MASSIVE 5-10% per CD profit that they might see, eventually. But that's not the only way artists make money.
Let's do the math. You buy a CD for $15. Crazy price, but roll with me. Let's say the artist gets 10%. That's $1.50.....before taxes and God knows what else. (Check out this blog post by Steve Albini, the producer for Nirvana's In Utero album. 10% is probably being super generous unless they've already sold a ton of copies.) Multiply that by 1 Million downloads, and subtract the taxes, and you're right around $1 Million being supposedly taken from them. But suppose that 10% of these people really enjoy the music and want to support the artist. That's 100,000 people. Some of them may use P2P as an on-demand radio; scanning through albums to see if they like it and then heading to Best Buy or iTunes to buy the album. We'll get to these people in a moment. But let's say they don't even do that. Let's say they go with the "Screw them. I already have the music. Why would a pay for it again?" mantra. What happens when the person wants to see the artist live? Or have a great concert t-shirt? Are they going to be able to log onto The Pirate Bay and download a ticket? Absolutely not. Let's get back to the 100,000 on-demand radio people. Of the 100,000 file-sharers, let's say 1% actually go see the artist live. I'm assuming tickets would be around $30. (Way, WAY, low for some artists, I know.) That would be $30,000. Not a ton of money but's it's $30,000 more than they would have seen if that evil, malicious file-sharing scum hadn't illegally obtained the music.
Let's back up for just a second. The music and movie industry likes to pretend that every illegal download equals one less sale. Get real. You're telling me that someone who downloads the entire U2 discography (I'm sticking with the metaphor here) would have bought all 12 "mind-expanding" masterpieces? I think not. More than likely it robbed them of four or five of their most popular songs from iTunes. So rather than robbing the artist of $180 per discography (12 albums at $15 a piece), they're realistically losing about five bucks.
I don't want to sound like someone who doesn't care about the artist. As a musician myself, I think about these things quite often. Ideally, each artist would be well compensated for their art. But if I had to choose between getting screwed out of money by a huge conglomerate-style record company and having someone who might actually care about the music getting it illegally, I would honestly take the latter. If we take one last look at the math we'll see that the artist could actually come out better that way. 1,000 album sales might net the artist $80 or so. But if two people, out of 1,000 illegal downloads, buy $30 concert tickets for them and a friend, that's $120. Probably a net of $100, maybe $110.
Obviously, the record company might not want to finance the recording of another album if the artist didn't bring them money. But if a band became popular through this newest iteration of bootleg cassette tapes then they would make plenty of money for the record company through other means. I'm obviously speaking in ideals here. But I honestly don't see this as a huge erosion of the music industry. If anything else, the record companies have spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to shove the next big thing down our throat, whether we want it or not. Is it any wonder that album sales are down when the Black Eyed Peas won THREE Grammies this year? THREE? What a joke.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: The sky is not falling. The bottom has not fallen out of the music sales barrel. Pirates are not ruining the music industry.
Support the artists, give us better music, and give us more opportunities to legally obtain that music. This is my request for the music industry.
I eagerly await your unified and unanimous response.
Love, Andy
Monday, January 18, 2010
ESPN on the XBOX
If this rumor about ESPN streaming live sporting events to the XBOX is true, then I officially have no reason to pay for cable. Right now, I could be perfectly happy with cable on Saturdays and Sundays (and select Mondays and Thursdays (stupid midweek football)) from September through February. That's all I need. I would be willing to wait for the DVDs of my favorite shows to come out before I watched them. And if Netflix continues improving the options for streaming content, then a simple $9 subscription could net me a season's-worth of catch-up (not ketchup) for my scripted sci-fi (or SyFy...Hey, I'm Imagining Greater) sweet-tooth. (That last sentence was really difficult to say for an ex-Blockbuster employee)
Random Thoughts
This link will take you to a page with actual Pat Robertson quotes. After reading these ten gems, how can anyone stand behind this man? He stands in his immaculate conception studio spouting his bigoted hate-speech and people listen to him, and agree with him, because he invokes God? I don't wish ill to anyone, but if this man would have personally experienced any of the situations that he has trivialized over the years, I dare say he might keep his mouth shut.
Haitians worship the devil? Hurricanes are a response for homosexuality? Liberal media is worse than the Holocaust? Feminists "leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians"? This guy is perfect for some dick-wad suit on The Office. But for someone who is supposed to be living a promoting Christianity I think he's been severely miscast. Like Hayden Christensen as Anakin bad. (and I actually liked the prequels, just not Hayden's acting)
Haitians worship the devil? Hurricanes are a response for homosexuality? Liberal media is worse than the Holocaust? Feminists "leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians"? This guy is perfect for some dick-wad suit on The Office. But for someone who is supposed to be living a promoting Christianity I think he's been severely miscast. Like Hayden Christensen as Anakin bad. (and I actually liked the prequels, just not Hayden's acting)
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Conan
Am I the only person who thinks that Jay Leno is massively over-rated? (that's rhetorical by the way) For my money, Conan O'Brien is the funniest, most entertaining, most engaging late night host I've personally watched. I say this having never actually watched Jimmy Fallon's show. I enjoy most of what he's done and love the fact that he treats video game releases and nerd website editors like other shows treat movie releases and reality TV stars. (plus - THE ROOTS!!!) I just can't bring myself to stay up until 12:30 when I have to get up early the next morning to go solve world hunger reset some guy's password.
I'm sure Leno didn't have the massive following that he ended with when he first started. (also known as people who fell asleep watching E.R. or their late local news) Could any late night host be any farther from the legend Leno replaced? But NBC stuck with him because they just completely screwed the guy who should have taken over (this guy, who, by the way, is way funnier than Leno). Pulling the plug before he got a chance to carve out his place in late night would be premature and inappropriate.
Flash forward (not FlashForward, that's ABC) 17 years and NBC is in a similar situation. Except they've compounded the problem by hanging onto one guy too long, giving up on one guy too soon, and wanting to push a third guy even later into the morning. Giving Leno a show at 11:35 and pushing Conan and Fallon back a half hour would be a terrible move. What happens in five years when Leno wants to retire? Does NBC replace him with some other half hour comedy and keep the new air-times? Or do the revert back to the timeslots that were good enough for the show's first seven decades and try to pretend like they didn't completely screw everyone involved? (Yes, 2010 marks the beginning of the seventh decade to see the Tonight Show)
I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest Comedy Central as a remedy to this corporate clusterfuck. Apparently Stephen Colbert even offered Conan his timeslot last night. I'm not sure whether he was serious or not (and honestly, sometimes it's hard to tell with Colbert) but I think it's a brilliant idea. Move the Colbert Report to 10:30, keep the Daily Show at 11:00, and give Conan the 11:30 timeslot on a network that knows how to stick behind talent. I would gladly watch this two hour block of comedy gold on a nightly basis. (Okay, let's be honest. I would probably fall asleep with my TV on that station. But does it really matter to the network whether anyone is actually watching the TV that's tuned to their station? I think not. In fact, wouldn't they rather the person be asleep so that they wouldn't be temped to change the channel when a commercial comes on? I think yes.) With this late night block in place, Comedy Central would absolutely dominate that two hour block with the 18-35 demographic.
I don't want to hear about it being a cable network. Just look at the last several years' Emmy and Golden Globe nominees and winners. Plenty of cable networks there.
I just think this is the best way for NBC to get Leno back on the Tonight Show (everyone knows that's what they both want anyway). And it's also a way for Conan to tell them to shove their new timeslot and go steal a ton of viewers in the process. And did anyone see when these three appeared on each others shows? It was a large portion of the afore mentioned Comedy Gold.
Conan, please accept this open letter as a formal request to prove, finally, that talented, charasmatic people can triumph in the face of safe, overly politically correct, corporate homogenization.
I'm sure Leno didn't have the massive following that he ended with when he first started. (also known as people who fell asleep watching E.R. or their late local news) Could any late night host be any farther from the legend Leno replaced? But NBC stuck with him because they just completely screwed the guy who should have taken over (this guy, who, by the way, is way funnier than Leno). Pulling the plug before he got a chance to carve out his place in late night would be premature and inappropriate.
Flash forward (not FlashForward, that's ABC) 17 years and NBC is in a similar situation. Except they've compounded the problem by hanging onto one guy too long, giving up on one guy too soon, and wanting to push a third guy even later into the morning. Giving Leno a show at 11:35 and pushing Conan and Fallon back a half hour would be a terrible move. What happens in five years when Leno wants to retire? Does NBC replace him with some other half hour comedy and keep the new air-times? Or do the revert back to the timeslots that were good enough for the show's first seven decades and try to pretend like they didn't completely screw everyone involved? (Yes, 2010 marks the beginning of the seventh decade to see the Tonight Show)
I'm sure I'm not the first person to suggest Comedy Central as a remedy to this corporate clusterfuck. Apparently Stephen Colbert even offered Conan his timeslot last night. I'm not sure whether he was serious or not (and honestly, sometimes it's hard to tell with Colbert) but I think it's a brilliant idea. Move the Colbert Report to 10:30, keep the Daily Show at 11:00, and give Conan the 11:30 timeslot on a network that knows how to stick behind talent. I would gladly watch this two hour block of comedy gold on a nightly basis. (Okay, let's be honest. I would probably fall asleep with my TV on that station. But does it really matter to the network whether anyone is actually watching the TV that's tuned to their station? I think not. In fact, wouldn't they rather the person be asleep so that they wouldn't be temped to change the channel when a commercial comes on? I think yes.) With this late night block in place, Comedy Central would absolutely dominate that two hour block with the 18-35 demographic.
I don't want to hear about it being a cable network. Just look at the last several years' Emmy and Golden Globe nominees and winners. Plenty of cable networks there.
I just think this is the best way for NBC to get Leno back on the Tonight Show (everyone knows that's what they both want anyway). And it's also a way for Conan to tell them to shove their new timeslot and go steal a ton of viewers in the process. And did anyone see when these three appeared on each others shows? It was a large portion of the afore mentioned Comedy Gold.
Conan, please accept this open letter as a formal request to prove, finally, that talented, charasmatic people can triumph in the face of safe, overly politically correct, corporate homogenization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)