Posts by robbery

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    Fail

    apologies, something munted my url.

    I thought you built the internet don?
    surely a seasoned pro like yourself could have typed anna coddington into the search bar of that site and found the correct page.
    this page.

    Next time I'm up in wellington I'll pop in and give you a one hour tutorial on how to work around the occasional muffed and munted link. url editing and problem solving. anything to help out.

    those things at the bottom of the article are the new non bitorrent file sharing method of choice. free file hosting sites.
    you won't see peoples ISP addresses on those babies, but there might be some other way of detecting them.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    text

    nz doesn't hit the pirate networks??

    anna coddington gets robbed

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    Arthur Baysting at the supermarket a while ago and he was enthusing that APRA had just signed off its best year ever,

    this is the guy who brags about his new expensive offices built from apra income in front of a ragged bunch of local chch musicians, while dishing out free drinks and gourmet platters of snacks which according to the venue putting the meeting on are bloody expensive.
    All this while the average yearly apra income of probably everyone present was under the cost of one of those platters.

    I requested some important figures from apra and I still haven't received them.
    although I did receive the number on the $500 plus list. there are aprox 400 nz resident apra members earning $500 or more which entitles them to an extra vote. Make of that what you will.

    other questions I asked were
    1) what is the total take of money from nz?
    2) how much of that is returned to NZ residents?
    its been a few months now and they still can't give me those figures. Apart from that being pretty pathetic one wonders what kind of local branch of an organisation doesn't know what the cash flow though its books is, or even thought to look into it before.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    by the way simon you are a hero for your early propeller work. the fact those 2 albums were done the way they were put you in my admire books forever. that was pioneering spirit.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    of those you disparage as having "misappropriated their employers money".

    I don't disparage them, I just think the people who did it with their own money were more heroes than people who do it with others, I'm all for abusing the system to make a worthwhile project happen.

    90% of the acts who released records in NZ over that period would be keen to know how it was done

    it was indeed possible

    The trick was to know your market.
    The bats did 2 albums which clocked up over 130,000 a piece with international producers getting $40,000. They've Never paid that off.
    The chills blew money out their arse at the end there. it almost killed martin.

    I'm pretty sure Carter never paid off his SJF bill, and Headless Chickens finally came into the black a mere 10 years after they broke up.

    Aside from those ridiculous cases that should never have been playing on the level they were billed at there were a lot of bands who covered their costs, just, cos they did it at a level suitable for the income they could return. ie they recorded at a level that didn't shame themselves and manufactured at that level.
    The problem now is that where as sales usedto return on average 1000 - 500 in a certain league they now max out at 200.
    200 or under doesn't cover production costs, so the choice is do it and pay or don't do it and put the money toward your own life.
    the possibility of 15 cent a song on emusic is infact better than nothing, but doing nothing is better than losing money, so doing nothing is now the surer bet than nothing, if that makes sense.
    And I just got to say it was rich of jake to take a dig at me re emusic when mr internet hasn't even bothered to put his own catalogue on there. I'm the skeptical one remember. I need to know that average income are more than the phone calls and effort it takes to put stuff up there. if its 10 copies downloads I wouldn't bother but then no one could actually give me details of average happenings on any download site. I know the figures for amplifier and I'm still deciding whether to spend it on a 2 scoop boysenberry ice cream or 2 peanut slabs.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    Seriously Rob, don't be so bloody arrogant.

    I said

    when you were on the street directly hawking records Simon.

    I also said

    And I do make the distinction between hit record commerce and everyday music commerce.

    ie street level versus board room level.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    If only we hadn't coded up the pesky internet thing

    if only you hadn't done such a shit job of it.

    that turns clients into criminals

    oh, right, it's the laws fault that you're breaking the law.
    The law has been there all along, it's just been unenforced. that you've got comfortable with copyright breach through filesharing and downloading doesn't make it now ok.
    does that excuse work in a court of law?
    "I knew it was wrong but cos I got away with it for so long I thought it was ok"

    that go way beyond the gains the recording industry hope to make.

    divide and conquer eh don,
    it's not the recording industry, it's the media industry, including film, music, games, software, books and anything else under copyright law, where the creators and rights owners choose not to distribute for free, and that can be digitised and slipped through the presently un policed waters of the internet

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    So essentially then, nothing has really changed. I think the oft quoted figure in the US was that 1 act in 20 recouped

    Actually gradually a lot has changed from the 80's and 90s when you were on the street directly hawking records Simon. And I do make the distinction between hit record commerce and everyday music commerce.

    Firstly you have to define recoup.
    Is recoup (1) paying everyone for everything toward the project at professional rates, or is it (2) covering the bare minimum financial outlay ie the cold hard cash laid down using favours and mates rates to make a recording and manufacturing it into some kind of end product.

    In my experience over a 25 year period, up until aprox ten years ago it was indeed possible to recoup cash outlay on a fairly consistent basis, but no one really made any money for their time. That is a sustainable scenario. In the last 15 years we've seen the belt tighten but we've also seen costs of recording and manufacturing come down to meet with the reduced income over time, take up the slack so for a bit, till we hit maybe 8 years ago and it approached the line.

    As we hit filesharing peak we've hit a scenario where we're seeing the possibility of close to zero income, which will not cover the base costs of doing it at all, so it completely changes the ball game. Now an artist is faced with the decision, "I want to do my music but it will cost me personally to do so", ie on top of devoting their talent and time for nothing they will now be paying for other people to consume their music be it a partial subsidy or footing the whole bill.
    So no, not same as usual. Something has really changed, the tourniquet has tightened to below the crucial point and an artist is faced with a different decision to consider ie "do I really want to do this recording cos it will hurt me in my own pocket". I know it's been a while since you've been out there on the street balancing books doing these things but it's a definite change that I've seen bands have to consider.

    There are always people who will bite that bitter pill cos they believe in some outside possibility of recoup, or those that are so hopelessly in love with their own music they just go ahead anyway.

    As you say, someone has to cover the shortfalls, and in the past it's often been a record label.

    that's the main change and I'm guessing why you personally sit on the sidelines. Why would anyone in their right minds put money into a corrupted game that is not supported by the actual enforcement of the laws that protect it. So its up to the artists to take the increased risk. I've seen big indie labels requiring artists to cover the costs of cd production, and most expect the artist to present a finished recording without any financial input from the label.

    It is a myth to imply that all of a sudden, because of some ogre of file sharing this has changed and an industry has been destroyed

    it might look like a myth from the sundeck of a beach front bali apartment, but it's misleading to package the issue like that. Filesharing is an important portion of the picture, but it is not the whole picture.
    Filesharing is responsible for changing people's perception of IP as a commodity that you pay for. In peoples minds it's not hurting anyone if just me does it, it's normal, not crime. So no, not a sudden change but a gradual erosion. As wrong as it is to black and whitely say filesharing is doing it all by itself, it's wrong to say filesharing plays no part,that's the myth part of it.

    Adam Holt, Jerry Wise, Tim Murdoch, Chris Caddick and the others have quietly let slip away, often hidden from their corporate masters

    My heroes of that period aren't the people who misappropriated their employers money but those that fronted their own, indie indie indie. Brian Wafer, Roger Shepherd, that guy at propeller, ripper, John Doe, michael alexander, sausage records, jayrem, and the multitude of people who did it by themselves.

    (maybe it's me but I'm having trouble actually finding much NZ music on the p2p networks).

    I put links up for a site or 2 that offer full currently available albums of some quite left field stuff, but as I said the filesharing in by itself is not solely responsible. It's the erosion of respect for ip that is facilitated by unaddressed copyright infringement, in my opinion. Not everyone is p2p-ing, but many many are not paying for it in some other way, as a trickle down from mates who do p2p or rip, burn. but its a victimless crime right?

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    There was more music released commercially in the US in 2008 than in any other year ever and the UK is currently undergoing a flurry of fresh innovative grassroots bands and acts.

    that's half of the picture, now all you need is the other half that shows those projects breaking even, and if they don't break even where the money comes from to cover those short falls.
    The short falls I'm seeing are picked up by the artists or person they managed to con into fronting for said projects.

    I haven't seen many with the skills to navigate a simple route to sustainability yet.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

  • Speaker: Copyright Must Change,

    Hilarious.

    far be it from you to provoke.
    :) why didn't you just obey mark. you don't want to make him angry. you wouldn't like him when he's angry. Waikanae's own bruce banner.

    new zealand • Since May 2007 • 1882 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 17 18 19 20 21 188 Older→ First