#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This thread is not "off track" and it certainly isn't "pointless." Did you not understand why the OP presented the idea of the lottery? Does it completely escape your comprehension what that has to do with declining music sales and revenues? Can't you see that the entire idea was to create an alternative way for a musician we admire to make money? And so a general discussion of the realities of the music business is completely on target? Nor is anyone "battling to the death." If you think that Lefty and I have ever behaved towards one another with the slightest degree of animosity, you're completely wrong. We don't even seriously disagree here, and although I remain convinced that the future of the music business just as in publishing is both digital and decentralized, I am inclined to bow to his superior knowledge of the realities of making music as it exists right at this moment. You're the one who's off-track here, not the thread.
__________________
Même si tu es au loin, mon coeur sait que tu es avec moi The Stairway To Nowhere (FREE): http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/8357 The Child of Paradox: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/27019 The Golden Game: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/56716 |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1)yes i'm young and this is probably why I look stupid to you. 2)I guess I'm translating this thread in the wrong way. 3)You can ask any of the regular guys like Plaz,Jung,Joey,Uni on chat that I have the weirdest/Totally exaggerated ways of saying what things are like. So yah sorry that "battling to the death." was the wrong choice of words. 4)Maybe I got lost in your guys earlier posts so thats why the whole Lottery all the way to the future of the music business just as in publishing is both digital and decentralized thing. 5)But yah your right, I'm not even contributing to this thread so I'll go, and I have no idea why or how I got in here haha. Sorry If I messed things up, O and I'm really tired and thats the reason I usually write stupid pointless stuff
__________________
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
@aaroniu31, it's cool, don't worry about it. As Deep said, we are hardly arguing. As a matter of fact we are in pretty much total agreement on the main points of the discussion. I'm just adding a few details from my perspective for informational purposes only. But those details still support Deep's conclusions.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/lefty12357 |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
yah I guess I just take fact-stating as arguing sometimes haha
__________________
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Recording industry number analyses
Quote:
Quote:
"Legitimate digital sources accounted for [only] 27 percent of recording industry REVENUE." (NOT UNITS) Assumptions: CD-equivalent units purchased per year (N) constant CD prices (P) constant Define: D as the number of non-CD units now sold per year d as the fraction of non-CD units sold now = D/N r is the ratio of the non-CD to CD price for a unit Original revenue R(0) = NP Current revenue R(t) = (N-D)P+D(rP) Stipulating R(t) = (1-0.55=0.45)R(0) meaning [1] (N-D)P+DrP = 0.45NP and stipulating [2] DrP = 0.27((N-D)P+DrP) Divide [1] & [2] by P [3] (N-D)+Dr = 0.45N [4] Dr = 0.27((N-D)+Dr) Divide [3] & [4] by N [5] (1-d)+dr = 0.45 [6] dr = 0.27((1-d)+dr) Solving [5] for d in terms of r [7] 0.55 + d(r-1) = 0 [8] d = 0.55/(1-r) Note d<=1 so therefore r<=0.45 Note r>=0 so therefore d>=0.55 Simplifying [6] [9] 0.73dr = 0.27(1-d) Substitute d from [8] into [9] [10] (0.73x0.55)r/(1-r) = 0.27(1-0.55/(1-r)) Multiply [10] by (1-r) [11] (0.73x0.55)r = 0.27(1-r) - (0.27x0.55) And solve for r [12] (0.73x0.55+0.27)r = 0.27(1-0.55) [13] r = (0.27x0.45)/(0.73x0.55+0.27) = 0.18[0938198064035740878629932985853] Use [8] to obtain d [14] d = 0.6715 To account for the stipulations and assumptions, in round numbers, About 2 of 3 sales have to be non-CD And a non-CD price must be 1/5 of the CD equivalent But aren't ACTUAL non-CD prices always MUCH closer to CD prices? (See below for some documentation of this.) (One interesting possibility is this: Did buyers who liked only one song on a CD always buy the whole CD anyway? If so, then by selling pro rata by the song via non-CD means, sales can fall a lot even in the absence of any displacement by piracy.) ======= For fun I dug out and looked at numbers directly from the RIAA here: http://76.74.24.142/1D212C0E-408B-F7...F5871C369D.pdf as cited at http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...75f2b49bfe450c See the file for subtleties. Note also some slight differences from some previously reported numbers. (in millions) year 2008 Digital Download Album (Units Shipped) 56.9 (Dollar Value) 568.9 => Average price $10.00 (sales of singles are about double in size) Physical Compact Disk (Units Shipped) 384.7 (Dollar Value) 5,471.3 => Average price $14.22 Non-CD album prices are 70% of CD prices (NOT 18% as in the simple model calculation above) Physical (CD-like) units (in millions) by year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 847.0 938.9 942.5 881.9 803.3 746.0 767.0 705.4 619.7 511.1 384.7 CD units in 2008, relative to 1999, are down to 41% (NOT 33% as in the simple model calculation above) % of Shipments (value, not units - RF) 2005 2006 2007 2008 Physical 91% 84% 77% 68% Digital 9% 16% 23% 32% ======= Deep, in fact I do very much appreciate your point about the potential input savings in non-CD distribution. But consumer prices are not very different, as noted above. That was NOT the case for encyclopedias, as I discussed several years ago here: Libraries in transition from paper to electronics And since you are an e-book guy, Deep, you might enjoy the new page I just assembled here: A very incomplete history (500-2010) of intellectual property law, the codex and the e-book ======= Aside: Note when I asked... Would you pay to watch an Alizée video on YouTube? I got some answers like these: "kinda pointless... these days movies, music, etc leak even before they are finished..." "They say that time is money. Considering the time I've spent watching Alizée videos, I would say I've already paid quite a bit." Do you think these answers would make the RIAA feel better? <G> ======= Of course, now there is another challenge facing people who want to earn income creating new art which is entertaining, but not especially of our times. With digital storage and communication now so dirt cheap, ALL of culture from all eras is coming online for instant gratification - some of it free, some ad-supported and some fee-based. The Wall Street Journal has an interesting perspective piece here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126136236068199631.html It notes that now that anyone with a laptop has near-instant access to a near-infinite array of art objects, it's becoming harder for anyone to sculpt the tastes of millions of people into anything remotely resembling a lemming-like consensus. Thus one will compete for the attention of people with damn near everything that has EVER been created - including almost limitless amounts of virtually free stuff out of copyright! Last edited by FanDeAliFee; 01-30-2010 at 11:10 AM.. Reason: Mention: now forever in print |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
wow
Quote:
__________________
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Moi... Lolita, the coloring book?!!!
Quote:
But another revenue stream exists for <i>celebrated</i> artists as well. Long before <i>YouTube</i> and other free video hosting sites threatened the legitimate marketing of movies, a wiseman named <i>Yogurt</i> explained the way forward: <center><object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvmZ9SPcTzU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1&showinfo= 0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xvmZ9SPcTzU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1&showinfo= 0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object></center> Last edited by FanDeAliFee; 02-17-2010 at 07:59 PM.. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Heh. I would totally buy Alizée, The Breakfast Cereal.
__________________
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Eating well to grow BIG?
Evil people trying to wreck Alizée's business prospects have suggested that consuming same would give you WIND. I don't buy it, do you?
By the way, some woman named Ensler or something like that encouraged me to ask you: What would <i>Alizée, The Breakfast Cereal</i> taste like? A brief answer will suffice; there's no need for a whole soliloquy! And you do know that John Harvey Kellogg, MD, invented Corn Flakes™ (the breakfast cereal) to <a href="http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/02/20/100-years-of-fighting-masturbation-one-spoonful-at-a-time.htm">help curb</a> the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#.22Warfare_with_passion.22">"d readed affliction of onanism,"</a> right? (Gosh - and here I had thought that supposedly <i>idle hands were the Devil's instruments</i> - go figure!) Do you think the proposed product would prove at all useful in this regard? P.S. See also <a href="http://alizeeamerica.com/forums/showthread.php?p=149857"><i> Alizée, good enough to eat!</i></a> |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Making money in a "post-Napster" world
Quote:
|
Tags |
lottery, lunch, skype, videoconference |
|
|