Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Would u pay $5/month to download as much music as you like from anywhere u like?
Trauma-san:
Horrible idea for a musician. You wouldn't get paid shit, $5.00 a month and you can download as much as you want? LOL you've got to be fucking kidding me. So let me get this straight. For $5.00 a month, Sony music offers unlimited bandwith to me. I can download gigagigs or whatever the hell the biggest measure of bandwith is, because after all, I can download whatever I want as often as I want. Sony alone would go out of business paying the bandwith charges.
Now, multiply that by every available record company, and then tell me what's left over for the artists. This shit was drawn up by kids with absolutely no common sense. Sure it'd be great for people jacking files off the net for free... but for anybody in the business of music it would put them OUT of the business of music.
coola:
^^ $5 is'nt really fair... but it's better than the artists/record label getting nothing at all... a realistic cost would be like 30$ p/m with like a 500mb limit...
Don Rizzle:
--- Quote from: Trauma on February 26, 2006, 06:20:36 PM ---Horrible idea for a musician. You wouldn't get paid shit, $5.00 a month and you can download as much as you want? LOL you've got to be fucking kidding me. So let me get this straight. For $5.00 a month, Sony music offers unlimited bandwith to me. I can download gigagigs or whatever the hell the biggest measure of bandwith is, because after all, I can download whatever I want as often as I want. Sony alone would go out of business paying the bandwith charges.
Now, multiply that by every available record company, and then tell me what's left over for the artists. This shit was drawn up by kids with absolutely no common sense. Sure it'd be great for people jacking files off the net for free... but for anybody in the business of music it would put them OUT of the business of music.
--- End quote ---
did u even read the article? record companies wouldn't have to host the files themselves, although they could if they wanted too. The idea is decrimilising things like p2p let the users share files and it doesn't cost them a penny turning the internet into the equivilant of radio, even with all the litigation thats gone on in the last few years people still download more, record companies could take the opportunity to net 3 billion a year in pure profit and that would only grow as more people start using the internet as its still in its growth stage, and then you've other countries joining up which just adds to it all..........
for an artists its brilliant they don't even need a record label, distributors, shops to take away the lions share of the revenues from their product, you know u can have a platinum record and still be broke as an artist? because of the way contracts are drawn up u have to recoup the record label costs before u make any money, so say they spent 200k on production, promotion ettc. and the artist generally recoups at about 15% so the record company would have to make about 1.5 million off the record before the artist gets any money
Noname:
Fuck that i aint payin shit. These mothafuckers makin enough money already.
Trauma-san:
--- Quote from: Don Rizzle on February 27, 2006, 02:22:41 AM ---
--- Quote from: Trauma on February 26, 2006, 06:20:36 PM ---Horrible idea for a musician. You wouldn't get paid shit, $5.00 a month and you can download as much as you want? LOL you've got to be fucking kidding me. So let me get this straight. For $5.00 a month, Sony music offers unlimited bandwith to me. I can download gigagigs or whatever the hell the biggest measure of bandwith is, because after all, I can download whatever I want as often as I want. Sony alone would go out of business paying the bandwith charges.
Now, multiply that by every available record company, and then tell me what's left over for the artists. This shit was drawn up by kids with absolutely no common sense. Sure it'd be great for people jacking files off the net for free... but for anybody in the business of music it would put them OUT of the business of music.
--- End quote ---
did u even read the article? record companies wouldn't have to host the files themselves, although they could if they wanted too. The idea is decrimilising things like p2p let the users share files and it doesn't cost them a penny turning the internet into the equivilant of radio, even with all the litigation thats gone on in the last few years people still download more, record companies could take the opportunity to net 3 billion a year in pure profit and that would only grow as more people start using the internet as its still in its growth stage, and then you've other countries joining up which just adds to it all..........
for an artists its brilliant they don't even need a record label, distributors, shops to take away the lions share of the revenues from their product, you know u can have a platinum record and still be broke as an artist? because of the way contracts are drawn up u have to recoup the record label costs before u make any money, so say they spent 200k on production, promotion ettc. and the artist generally recoups at about 15% so the record company would have to make about 1.5 million off the record before the artist gets any money
--- End quote ---
If the record company didn't host the file, they would have no idea what got downloaded. Just like it is right now. So basically you're theorizing you should pay 5 bucks to get the law off your back. Come on man, think about it a little bit. Don't just be in it for what's good for you. You must be a horrible fuck, i'll ask your girlfriend.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version