KVR Audio

4damind · Post by **4damind** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:47 pm

Some interesting study with some data about the growing sales in the entertainment business.

http://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/

SampleScience · Post by **SampleScience** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:12 pm

I thought it was going down for music!

hagever · Post by **hagever** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:28 pm

SampleScience wrote:I thought it was going down for music!

That is what they want you to believe...

A.M. Gold · Post by **A.M. Gold** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:05 am

OTOH, the tech sector and its proponents have always put the most positive spin they can possibly conjure up on the state of the media based industries since the file sharing issues came into play in the internet age. E.G. something like Wired would be among my least trusted sources for information about the true "health" of the entertainment industry. I don't know about "techdirt" but I'm very wary.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:53 am

I only see that source as a piece of the puzzle really. It really does depend on technology to drive a lot of the entertainment sector...and, if they are feeling good about what is going on then there just might be something to it. I mean, really, if it was going down big time like some in the industry said awhile back then the tech sector would be doing the debbie downer dance...

I think it may not be as good as all that but I doubt very much that the entire entertainment sector is going bust....

A.M. Gold · Post by **A.M. Gold** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:47 am

Tech journals and websites/blogs have perpetuated too many myths for too long about how beautiful of a world we now live in due to the advent of file sharing. Their current info may in fact reflect a truth about the turnaround of the entertainment industry but I remain skeptical and would certainly seek more reliable sources before believing it.

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:57 am

Some people are actively criticising these tech sites (an article with similar findings was published on Ars Technica recently) because these tech sites apparently have a vested interest in maintaining the current laws so they can profit from copyright infringement.

What this fails to take in to account is that sites like Ars, Wired and similar also benefit from copyright laws ... otherwise anyone could set up a new site calls Stars Technica, copy the content from Ars whole sale as soon as it's published and claim it as their their own. Pretty sure that's not happening now.

What they are generally promoting is sane copyright terms (say 5, 10 or 20 years) as opposed to date of work plus 75 years (or whatever we have now).

Peace,
Andy.

dalor · Post by **dalor** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:00 am

A.M. Gold wrote:Tech journals and websites/blogs have perpetuated too many myths for too long about how beautiful of a world we now live in due to the advent of file sharing. Their current info may in fact reflect a truth about the turnaround of the entertainment industry but I remain skeptical and would certainly seek more reliable sources before believing it.

+1! There is no doubt the world is producing more digital content and entertainment. But there's no doubt distrubuters have cuts due to piracy. So I'd be question this report too.

A.M. Gold · Post by **A.M. Gold** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:03 am

I don't agree that 5 years describes a "sane" copyright term, maybe 20.

As to your first statement---that just points up the fact that these tech interests are conflicted. True, the magazines like Wired can suffer greatly from file sharing, but they base their reporting around a sector that has always had a massive vested interest in maintaining a digital content free-for-all. The hardware makers and telecoms can only benefit from as much freely traded content as possible.

EDIT: actually I have to amend that last statement. Much of the tech sector, in very short sighted fashion, thinks it will benefit from a forced free-content world, but in the long run they will indeed suffer from any collapse of the content creation sectors. Legitimate freeware, Soundcloud, and YouTube will not be enough to hold together the digital universe.

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:15 am

A.M. Gold wrote:I don't agree that 5 years describes a "sane" copyright term, maybe 20.

I reckon 5 years is way to short also, was just using it as an example.

EDIT: actually I have to amend that last statement. Much of the tech sector, in very short sighted fashion, thinks it will benefit from a forced free-content world, but in the long run they will indeed suffer from any collapse of the content creation sectors. Legitimate freeware, Soundcloud, and YouTube will not be enough to hold together the digital universe.

No one other than the most hard-core copyright infringers, and least of all these various tech sites, is asking for or expecting "a forced free-content world". It's just another part of the hysteria surrounding this topic.

People are calling for a sane copyright law, where works are allowed to fall naturally in to the public domain after copyright expires. An obvious example is Mickey Mouse. Whatever the original terms were, they've expired now ... but obviously the mouse is far too profitable to let go ...

Which perhaps explains why Disney et al lobby congress to have the rights extended ... ? Well, no to ways about it - that is exactly what they are doing!

Peace,
Andy.

abstractcats · Post by **abstractcats** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:47 am

ZenPunkHippy wrote:
What they are generally promoting is sane copyright terms (say 5, 10 or 20 years) as opposed to date of work plus 75 years (or whatever we have now).

I believe, its something like, for music in the US any way, copyright is until 2020+ 60 years, I cant remember the exact but I believe, I'm close. And, if I remember, Sonny Bono added the +60.

Sound from movies is another matter

A.M. Gold · Post by **A.M. Gold** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:35 am

ZenPunkHippy wrote: No one other than the most hard-core copyright infringers, and least of all these various tech sites, is asking for or expecting "a forced free-content world". It's just another part of the hysteria surrounding this topic.

Again, not sure I agree with this. "Calling for" is too bold of a way of putting it, but editorialists and bloggers have, in the past, strongly suggested that free trading of copyrighted material is somehow a good thing, and their tech connections make the idea of ulterior motives not a big stretch.

ZenPunkHippy wrote:
People are calling for a sane copyright law, where works are allowed to fall naturally in to the public domain after copyright expires. An obvious example is Mickey Mouse. Whatever the original terms were, they've expired now ... but obviously the mouse is far too profitable to let go ...

Again, "sane" is an intensely subjective term. Some people do think five years qualifies as "sane", others just argue that the current law is way overblown.

As I stated, in the past it was not unknown for tech related writers to sing the praises of the pre-court order Napster, which is hardly a call for sane copyright laws, unless no copyright laws whatsoever are the only sane ones. I'm not making a blanket accusation, since I know this wasn't a universal Silicon Valley position, but it was one point of view that was put forward by the tech press, and I'm not entirely sure they've abandoned it 100% even today.

ZenPunkHippy wrote:Which perhaps explains why Disney et al lobby congress to have the rights extended ... ? Well, no to ways about it - that is exactly what they are doing!

Of course, because it is a game of defending one's primary interests. Apple created iTunes to try to legitimize the phenomenon of the mp3 (and make a heap of cash), but before that they helped create the problem of mass music sharing, since they popularized the idea that people had a sensible reason to require 2,000 or more songs and to get them quickly to fill the capacity of their iPod drives.

Comcast only can hope that people pay their whopping $70 a month for cable internet, and then get just about anything they want for free beyond that through a massively free and open internet, since it does much more to strengthen their market position versus an internet where you have to pay for all content individually in addition to your significant access bill.

The writers belong to this culture, so they tend to favor its whims---it is, as they say, the side that their bread is buttered on.

justin3am · Post by **justin3am** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:42 am

I like pretty graphs.

justin3am · Post by **justin3am** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:46 am

The arrows make me feel positive in regard to video games, music, books, film and video.

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:44 am

A.M. Gold wrote:Apple created iTunes to try to legitimize the phenomenon of the mp3 (and make a heap of cash), but before that they helped create the problem of mass music sharing, since they popularized the idea that people had a sensible reason to require 2,000 or more songs and to get them quickly to fill the capacity of their iPod drives.

... the end result of which is a thriving economy for MP3 files.

If the media giants had their way all MP3 related activity would have been curtailed. Even ripping your own legally purchased CD's to disk for use in the iPod would have been made illegal (actually, it may still be illegal in some places ...?).

Innovation / evolution / whatever you want to call it is taking place now, while certain companies are trying to prevent it.

But this is just the tip of the (future) iceberg. The latest generation of 3D printers can do amazing things. It is not a stretch to imagine someone is 10 years time downloading and printing the latest Porsche design or similar. It's already happening with models of movie characters now ...

Peace,
Andy.

The music business is booming!