[img:$uid]http://i51.tinypic.com/wi95bs.jpg[/img:$uid]

Link

December 16, 2010

The number of people downloading music illegally is rising in the UK, according to new figures.

A new report commissioned by the British Recorded Music Industry (BPI) states that around 7.7 million people in the UK choose not to buy their music legally, with a total of 1.2 billion tracks illegally downloaded in 2010.

Speaking about the results of the report, BPI Chief Executive Geoff Taylor called illegal downloading a "parasite that threatens to deprive a generation of talented young people of their chance to make a career in music".

He added that new legislation is "urgently needed" over the matter, reports BBC News.

However, earlier this year the BPI revealed that the amount of money the music industry made from legal downloads was also on the rise. This year sales were at £154M ($240M) compared with £101.5M ($158M) in 2008.

According to the new report the amount of illegal downloads in 2010 has cost the UK music industry £219M ($342M).

What's funny about that? Explain yourself.

Good.

Might force a re-think on the business model.

I saw a story on the news the other day of fans buying into bands, buying shares in them. One guy put 5k into some act on their website, they hit number one somewhere or other and this person got a return of 90k. Can't remember much more than that, but it was mildly interesting.

I suppose with other people's money in the mix it might inspire bands to put out decent music. But can't see established bands going that route.

Would a website/service where people could download music for free & legally, be the solution to the problem of people downloading music illegally?. Obviously the company providing the service and the artist(s)/record labels would have to make money from it for it to be a viable idea, but maybe they could bring in big name advertisers to help fund it, at least that way the artists would be making money.

Another thing would be reducing the price of singles/albums in digital format as I've noticed some albums are more expensive in digital format than in physical format (CD). Although even if they did reduce prices, I think there still be a problem with piracy (I remember back in the day the 'Home taping is killing music' logo in cassette tapes) so maybe a free & legal download service would be the most logical way to put an end to illegal downloading.

What planet are you on? Your idea would cheapen music to the point of worthlessness. And any advertisers stupid enough to support such a service would only contribute enough money to keep the site going, not for it to make a profit or the artists/songwriters to make a profit.

Just buy the bloody music.

Funny...I've yet to hear anyone complaining about the cost of a coffee in Starbucks even though it costs about 7 cents to make...

thetimefan said:

Would a website/service where people could download music for free & legally, be the solution to the problem of people downloading music illegally?. Obviously the company providing the service and the artist(s)/record labels would have to make money from it for it to be a viable idea, but maybe they could bring in big name advertisers to help fund it, at least that way the artists would be making money.

Another thing would be reducing the price of singles/albums in digital format as I've noticed some albums are more expensive in digital format than in physical format (CD). Although even if they did reduce prices, I think there still be a problem with piracy (I remember back in the day the 'Home taping is killing music' logo in cassette tapes) so maybe a free & legal download service would be the most logical way to put an end to illegal downloading.

the fact that its so easy to do is why its spreading it has nothing to do with the quality of artists or even the pricing, because if you compare albums back in the day and pricing and the cost of things, nothing has changed, they werent "cheap" back then and suddenly expensive, people dont wanna pay and its basically easy to steal the music, shit, type a song into google and throw "filestube" at the end of the title and you get about a million sources for your music download, all free and all illegal. People feel its on the net, its my right to have it and my right to not have to pay for it, thats the way of thinking that will NOT change, so i dont care what scheme and new business model is introduced, my suggestion to all artists is get off a label, do it from your own site, learn the business, and learn how to write and play and tour, because THAT is your social security

Mong said:

What planet are you on? Your idea would cheapen music to the point of worthlessness. And any advertisers stupid enough to support such a service would only contribute enough money to keep the site going, not for it to make a profit or the artists/songwriters to make a profit.

Just buy the bloody music.

Funny...I've yet to hear anyone complaining about the cost of a coffee in Starbucks even though it costs about 7 cents to make...

You've never heard anyone complain about the cost of Starbucks, really?? Really? Seriously??

You've never, ever heard those complaints? Ever???

CallMeCarrie said:

Mong said:

What planet are you on? Your idea would cheapen music to the point of worthlessness. And any advertisers stupid enough to support such a service would only contribute enough money to keep the site going, not for it to make a profit or the artists/songwriters to make a profit.

Just buy the bloody music.

Funny...I've yet to hear anyone complaining about the cost of a coffee in Starbucks even though it costs about 7 cents to make...

You've never heard anyone complain about the cost of Starbucks, really?? Really? Seriously??

You've never, ever heard those complaints? Ever???

yeah but they have the business still regardless, and people arent downloading coffee or making the shit at home, they still go in and pay for it buy the truck loads, plus in reality its not the coffee that is expensive, its when you get speciality drinks, their coffee is just about the same as the deli on the corner. The thing is people arent downloading illegally because of cost or even the talent, they do it because they CAN with ease, if people can get something for free, they will.

Somehow Steve Jobs is still getting rich off of music

lastdecember said:

CallMeCarrie said:

You've never heard anyone complain about the cost of Starbucks, really?? Really? Seriously??

You've never, ever heard those complaints? Ever???

yeah but they have the business still regardless, and people arent downloading coffee or making the shit at home, they still go in and pay for it buy the truck loads, plus in reality its not the coffee that is expensive, its when you get speciality drinks, their coffee is just about the same as the deli on the corner. The thing is people arent downloading illegally because of cost or even the talent, they do it because they CAN with ease, if people can get something for free, they will.

Funny article on yahoo a while back told people a few ways that they can get over on starbucks to save money. Instead of ordering an iced latte $4, order a shot of espresso $2 and ask for a glass of ice (free). Go over to the condiment stand and toss your espresso into the ice along with the free milk...and viola` - you just ripped off starbucks!

You're right - people download music for free because they can. But this will never be reversed. So it is now up to the industry to discover new ways to make money. Any ideas?

Doesn't suprise me about this happening in Britain. We are being particularly shafted by the US record labels.

For years, we were told that the reason we pay more is because of the distribution costs to the UK. Along comes digital / free distribution, and we still get charge more on itunes that the US and Eurozone. Apple are asked why.....there answer? "No comment".

The thing is, the whole industry is still a rip off. Why do pop stars need be millionaires? Who defined that? It was the labels, who were earning so much they decided they better throw the artists a bone to keep the gravy train on the track.

I think the industry NEEDS to crash, build up fairer. Otherwise it will be nothing but Cowell dross and bland mid atlantic Pop RnB drivel.

NDRU said:

Somehow Steve Jobs is still getting rich off of music

well thats because he cashed in on the idea, he set up the "place for artists" but lets be real, hes not there for artists and all that, hes there to make money first and foremost, for artists its just another hand in their pocket

SquirrelMeat said:

Doesn't suprise me about this happening in Britain. We are being particularly shafted by the US record labels.

For years, we were told that the reason we pay more is because of the distribution costs to the UK. Along comes digital / free distribution, and we still get charge more on itunes that the US and Eurozone. Apple are asked why.....there answer? "No comment".

The thing is, the whole industry is still a rip off. Why do pop stars need be millionaires? Who defined that? It was the labels, who were earning so much they decided they better throw the artists a bone to keep the gravy train on the track.

I think the industry NEEDS to crash, build up fairer. Otherwise it will be nothing but Cowell dross and bland mid atlantic Pop RnB drivel.

yeah i mean steve jobs at apple can make a laptop that fits in the palm of your hand and an ipod touch that can hold 7 million songs, and YET if i want a new cd by an artist that isnt distributed in america, i cant get through the itunes store, or the amazon store, due to currency exchange issues, so why should people deal with that and not go to a site like maxalbums and download all the stuff they cant get from other countries just because steve jobs hasnt figured out how to rip off the market this way yet.

CallMeCarrie said:

lastdecember said:

yeah but they have the business still regardless, and people arent downloading coffee or making the shit at home, they still go in and pay for it buy the truck loads, plus in reality its not the coffee that is expensive, its when you get speciality drinks, their coffee is just about the same as the deli on the corner. The thing is people arent downloading illegally because of cost or even the talent, they do it because they CAN with ease, if people can get something for free, they will.

Funny article on yahoo a while back told people a few ways that they can get over on starbucks to save money. Instead of ordering an iced latte $4, order a shot of espresso $2 and ask for a glass of ice (free). Go over to the condiment stand and toss your espresso into the ice along with the free milk...and viola` - you just ripped off starbucks!

You're right - people download music for free because they can. But this will never be reversed. So it is now up to the industry to discover new ways to make money. Any ideas?

oh they have, labels are still getting paid, i mean they make millions off say a song like a Kesha single download from iTunes or wherever, the artist is getting about 2cents per download if they are lucky, the majority goes to labels and itunes, so u do the math on that say Kesha has 3million downloads at a buck and she gets about 00000002 pct of that, whos getting paid? this is the business model, now they sign her for a record, milk her, own everything she has, promote for her, but get most of what she makes

lastdecember said:

NDRU said:

Somehow Steve Jobs is still getting rich off of music

well thats because he cashed in on the idea, he set up the "place for artists" but lets be real, hes not there for artists and all that, hes there to make money first and foremost, for artists its just another hand in their pocket

that's no different from what the record companies have been doing.

I'm only suggesting he managed to come up with a model that gets people to purchase music, and it works

NDRU said:

lastdecember said:

well thats because he cashed in on the idea, he set up the "place for artists" but lets be real, hes not there for artists and all that, hes there to make money first and foremost, for artists its just another hand in their pocket

that's no different from what the record companies have been doing.

I'm only suggesting he managed to come up with a model that gets people to purchase music, and it works

Oh it works i know that, im just saying some believe that he set it up with the concerns of artists, and i think we can say thats not true, hes a salesman first and foremost, I mean that would be like saying Baseball Owners really care about the "game" of baseball.

lastdecember said:

NDRU said:

that's no different from what the record companies have been doing.

I'm only suggesting he managed to come up with a model that gets people to purchase music, and it works

Oh it works i know that, im just saying some believe that he set it up with the concerns of artists, and i think we can say thats not true, hes a salesman first and foremost, I mean that would be like saying Baseball Owners really care about the "game" of baseball.

yeah I am not holding him up as a crusader for the artist, certainly, I just think record companies should stop whining and figure out something that works.

They are not going to geet people to stop illegal downloads by appealing to their consciences, they need to market music well, like Apple has done.

yeah, yeah . . we know, the sky is falling.

Mong said:

What planet are you on? Your idea would cheapen music to the point of worthlessness. And any advertisers stupid enough to support such a service would only contribute enough money to keep the site going, not for it to make a profit or the artists/songwriters to make a profit.

Just buy the bloody music.

Funny...I've yet to hear anyone complaining about the cost of a coffee in Starbucks even though it costs about 7 cents to make...

I'm on Planet Earth but good point about music being cheapened. As music is being downloaded, for free, it's arguably being cheapened to the lowest possible level right now. The point I was making is, if people want to get music for free, why not give them a free & legal option to do so, when artists (and labels etc.) would be profiting. Obviously the business model on how to provide such a service like that would have to be worked on a great deal for it to be viable but then over time people could be re-educated again that music should be paid for, like it was back in the day before the internet.

Illegal downloads are the best thing to happen to the music industry in the last 20 years. It's the only thing that's going to eventually drive the bullshit out of style. Download on motherfuckers, download on! Don't stop until the record label executives go so broke that they have to live in the ghetto among the thugs they helped to raise with their shit hop bullshit.

thetimefan said:

Mong said:

What planet are you on? Your idea would cheapen music to the point of worthlessness. And any advertisers stupid enough to support such a service would only contribute enough money to keep the site going, not for it to make a profit or the artists/songwriters to make a profit.

Just buy the bloody music.

Funny...I've yet to hear anyone complaining about the cost of a coffee in Starbucks even though it costs about 7 cents to make...

I'm on Planet Earth but good point about music being cheapened. As music is being downloaded, for free, it's arguably being cheapened to the lowest possible level right now. The point I was making is, if people want to get music for free, why not give them a free & legal option to do so, when artists (and labels etc.) would be profiting. Obviously the business model on how to provide such a service like that would have to be worked on a great deal for it to be viable but then over time people could be re-educated again that music should be paid for, like it was back in the day before the internet.

Such a service is not viable. There is a service in the UK called Spotify. The artist royalty statements are a joke.

vainandy said:

Illegal downloads are the best thing to happen to the music industry in the last 20 years. It's the only thing that's going to eventually drive the bullshit out of style. Download on motherfuckers, download on! Don't stop until the record label executives go so broke that they have to live in the ghetto among the thugs they helped to raise with their shit hop bullshit.

What a stupid thing to say.

the record labels are reaping what they sow they ripped off 100s of artist NOW THEY'RE getting ripped off....

i personally don't care.... honestly why should music artist be millionares... there jobs arent any harder then every day people who work 40 hours a week.... so NO i don't care... it will humble a lot of celebrities....

TotalAlisa said:

i personally don't care.... honestly why should music artist be millionares... there jobs arent any harder then every day people who work 40 hours a week.... so NO i don't care... it will humble a lot of celebrities....

It's not an issue of how hard or how much someone works, it's how much they sell. The person who sells the most Mary Kay cosmetics gets a pink car. A very low percentage of performers are millionaires or rich. There's thousands of performers who don't sell or only play in clubs doing covers. At any job, there's people at the bottom who's doing the most work for little money, then there's the people at the top who's rich and doesn't do the labor. Then they pass the money down to their offspring, who did nothing at all. That's how capitalism works.

People talking about stealing songs because the record company doesn't pay the acts anyway, will still buy $150 Nike sneakers, Persian rugs, diamonds, and other products made in sweatshops or with slave labor. They don't say "I'm not going to buy fruit at the store, but steal it because it was picked by undocumented workers for way less than minimum wage." People don't complain about the overpriced stuff at stores like Neiman Marcus, where you're just paying for someone's name. What's so special about a $900 shirt? It's cloth like a $2 shirt.

[Edited 12/17/10 18:42pm]

Out of 60 million people 7.7 million are illegally downloading.

Yep, the sky is falling.

Mong said:

vainandy said:

Illegal downloads are the best thing to happen to the music industry in the last 20 years. It's the only thing that's going to eventually drive the bullshit out of style. Download on motherfuckers, download on! Don't stop until the record label executives go so broke that they have to live in the ghetto among the thugs they helped to raise with their shit hop bullshit.

What a stupid thing to say.

Stupid? Have you got a better idea of how to kill shit hop? Nothing else has worked so far. Like I said before, download on motherfuckers, download on!

MickyDolenz said:

TotalAlisa said:

i personally don't care.... honestly why should music artist be millionares... there jobs arent any harder then every day people who work 40 hours a week.... so NO i don't care... it will humble a lot of celebrities....

It's not an issue of how hard or how much someone works, it's how much they sell. The person who sells the most Mary Kay cosmetics gets a pink car. A very low percentage of performers are millionaires or rich. There's thousands of performers who don't sell or only play in clubs doing covers. At any job, there's people at the bottom who's doing the most work for little money, then there's the people at the top who's rich and doesn't do the labor. Then they pass the money down to their offspring, who did nothing at all. That's how capitalism works.

People talking about stealing songs because the record company doesn't pay the acts anyway, will still buy $150 Nike sneakers, Persian rugs, diamonds, and other products made in sweatshops or with slave labor. They don't say "I'm not going to buy fruit at the store, but steal it because it was picked by undocumented workers for way less than minimum wage." People don't complain about the overpriced stuff at stores like Neiman Marcus, where you're just paying for someone's name. What's so special about a $900 shirt? It's cloth like a $2 shirt.

[Edited 12/17/10 18:42pm]

Hey i would NEVER spend 900 dollars on a shirt... nor 150 on sneakers... and you don't see the owners of the companies acting arrogant or all over tv....

but i do understand what you mean... but at the end of the day... i don't care, because these celebrities think the world evovles around them... and its too bad.....

TotalAlisa said:

MickyDolenz said:

It's not an issue of how hard or how much someone works, it's how much they sell. The person who sells the most Mary Kay cosmetics gets a pink car. A very low percentage of performers are millionaires or rich. There's thousands of performers who don't sell or only play in clubs doing covers. At any job, there's people at the bottom who's doing the most work for little money, then there's the people at the top who's rich and doesn't do the labor. Then they pass the money down to their offspring, who did nothing at all. That's how capitalism works.

People talking about stealing songs because the record company doesn't pay the acts anyway, will still buy $150 Nike sneakers, Persian rugs, diamonds, and other products made in sweatshops or with slave labor. They don't say "I'm not going to buy fruit at the store, but steal it because it was picked by undocumented workers for way less than minimum wage." People don't complain about the overpriced stuff at stores like Neiman Marcus, where you're just paying for someone's name. What's so special about a $900 shirt? It's cloth like a $2 shirt.

[Edited 12/17/10 18:42pm]

Hey i would NEVER spend 900 dollars on a shirt... nor 150 on sneakers... and you don't see the owners of the companies acting arrogant or all over tv....

but i do understand what you mean... but at the end of the day... i don't care, because these celebrities think the world evovles around them... and its too bad.....

They own the TV, like Ted Turner, Rubert Murdoch, etc. They're not known to be modest. If you read about the CEO's of companies, they generally are arrogant. They didn't get where they are by being nice and kind.

MickyDolenz said:

TotalAlisa said:

Hey i would NEVER spend 900 dollars on a shirt... nor 150 on sneakers... and you don't see the owners of the companies acting arrogant or all over tv....

but i do understand what you mean... but at the end of the day... i don't care, because these celebrities think the world evovles around them... and its too bad.....

They own the TV, like Ted Turner, Rubert Murdoch, etc. They're not known to be modest. If you read about the CEO's of companies, they generally are arrogant. They didn't get where they are by being nice and kind.

okay..... okay...... maybe those guys are arrogant...... but

i just dont feel sorry for the celebs who sing about how much power, money, cars, and diamonds they have