• 11-28-2010, 03:46 PM
    basite
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I am very familar with ESATA, that is now my drives are connected to my media center. Once again, what is easy for you and I, is not easy for average joe.If it was, they would be doing it already. It is certainly easier for somebody to rent or buy a disc, pop it in the player, and press play than it is to manage a media center and several terabyte hard drives.

    I don't see how Esata is more difficult than USB, after all, it's just a connector, which goes into a port..., it just looks different than USB, but I don't see a problem there...
    and while some media centers are REALLY complicated (I do give you credit on that point), others are not. Not at all actually, and can easily be made even simpler to use. As a matter of fact, I don't know on how digital TV is evolving there, but we can buy or rent movies here on our TV, which are then stored on the "digibox" (that's the name they give it here... media center, tv tuner, radio, recorder,... provided by our distributor) both in SD as HD (well, as you say, compressed in some way, but this is also just a matter of time before uncompressed material will be streaming here...) even the smallest kid can handle the interface...



    When my kids were three, they could load a laser disc into the player, and press play. Training is a wonderful thing. I still have those disc, so every kid is not clumsy and clueless.

    True, and I bet that when my kids reach the age of three later, they'll be able to load a blu ray disc (or whatever the standard is then), and press play too, but then again I'm an audio nut, and Audio & video will probably be my job later (filmschool student here :) ), but most peoples kids won't be able to properly load a disc and press play, heck, I think even some of their parents will have difficulties doing that...

    Not trying to be disrespectful, but you comments are BS. I have had two drives fail, and I still have the discs just as pristine as the day I bought them. Maybe you haven't heard about the durabiltiy of the Bluray disc. There is nothing a kid can do to make the disc unplayable. Check out this demo to see how tough the disc is.

    and I can say the opposite. the way I see it, this is just my word against yours.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxyiA...eature=related

    Here is another with a pretty scratched up disc, and guess what, it still plays!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1un6h...eature=related

    So much for the scratch argument!

    I'm impressed, really, but kids do have an unfortunate capability to be able to destroy pretty much everything you put in their hands, but still, I'm impressed...

    There is no way I would call a hard drive software. The drive can fail(and will), but you can scratch and damage a Bluray disc, and it will still play. Why reinvent the copy protection wheel when the one if place is already working? Doesn't make much sense to me.


    sorry, I didn't mean the hard drive was "software", sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant files on the hard drive. Yes, a simple file is not really copy protected, but it could work as a program (software), which could be copy protected.


    Wow, you have not been keeping up little brother. You can take your Bluray music with you, I do all of the time. Let me introduce you to the Bluray portable player.

    http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMP-.../dp/B001VYZVBC

    While it is not as small as a Ipod, it does give you portability(so an ipod doesnt?), and you can watch Bluray movies on it to boot. Try that with a Ipod! It is lightweight(only 2.4lbs with the battery) (which is heavy, compared to an ipod) which means you can pop it over your shoulder in its carrier and be on your way (oh, really portable). I can play all of my high resolution music discs on it(try that with an Ipod) while on the go.
    (if you have them with you, just like a portable cd player, YEARS ago...)

    I knew about that, but that thing is still a handicap. while "I might not keeping up" (which I am, btw), you are definitely not up to date with any sort of fashion, not to offense the invention, but that thing is about as useful as a friggin walkman! and it's too big.

    while it's great for viewing movies on the train or something, it only holds one disc, it's WAY to big, WAY to expensive and the battery is dead after only 2,5 hours of use...

    thanks, but no thanks, i'd take a laptop instead...

    and yes, the Ipod might not play the high resolution uncompressed audio & video from a blu ray disc, but it does sound reasonably good, more than good enough for most peoples uses, and it's actually portable (I don't know your interpretation of "portable", but for most people, a "portable media player", is only "portable" if it fits in one's pocket, not in a bag for over your shoulder), it costs about one third of the portable blu ray player, looks better, and it actually can hold more than one album at the time. (yes, your portable blu ray player can do that too, if you have a separate bag for your blu ray discs..., and even then, after one long movie, the battery is dead anyway)

    btw, I find that thing very similar to the portable DVD players, great for your kids in a car, which is about the only place I've ever seen any, btw, and most of them were built in the vehicle itself... didn't really catch on...



    Ummm, no Bert, you are copying an already recorded album. Yes it is degraded, but no more so than a MP3 file or the files you get from Itunes. And no, you cannot copy a Bluray disc that way. You may be able to get it on the drive, but if you try and play it back, it is a no go. The BD+ and BD watermark will look for the handshake protocols, and if they are not there, it will not play.

    if I get a blu ray player, connect the analog line out, to the analog line in on my PC, and I press "record" on the pc, or on something else, a CDR recorder, for example, or basically, everything that records, IT WILL RECORD, nothing you can do about it, and it will play. This is the exact method as you are using with copying vinyl too. I wanna see you hide that protocol in an analog signal...

    the method you are explaining for the BR copy, would be making a physical copy of the vinyl record, and I wanna see you do that...

    .....
  • 11-28-2010, 03:48 PM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I thought we were talking about high resolution audio, not low resolution audio. If we are talking MP3, then I have no comment on the price or players. I am not interested in discussing that at all.

    What is a low price? How can you define that without knowing the cost of production and marketing? Have you ever recorded and album and had to release it? Have you ever incurred the cost of marketing and distribution? Probably not, hence why you think folks can just offer a product for a "low price".

    Low price has never deterred piracy. A single song costs 69 -99 cents on Itunes, but you still have people trading them on peer to peer networks. So what do we do, just give away our tunes for free? Do we just swallow the costs of recording, marketing and distribution, then practically give away the song for free just to curb piracy? That does not make good business sense at all. DRM is here to protect the value of the product, if even for a short window of time. There is a balance that must be struck here, and since you are not familiar with the costs of production, you are not going to find that balance with a diffusive couple of words like "low price".


    It would have been more reasonable to just admit that you were wrong than to pretend that in a discussion about the price of downloading albums versus piracy, that you we were discussing solely high resolution content... That is just ridiculous. You have mentioned iTunes (even after this post) in your discussion with Feanor... iTunes does not sell high resolution content... So I am at a total loss as to why you would think we could be discussing only high res... High res is a tick on a dog's backside in a discussion of downloading and piracy of music...

    Also, the same DRM related costs you keep preaching about would apply just as much to lossy files as high resolution ones... Your argument about the state of hardware is applicable to both... and the fact that the hardware is Mature for low res, makes it clear that your assertion about hardware is incorrect...

    You know many things about recording and movies but you are still wrong on this issue.. Hardware is not the issue... High prices are...

    Also, the assertion that digital copies are more expensive to produce than physical ones is preposterous... The only reason would be self-imposed DRM related nonsense... Since I could distribute unlimited digital copies of my album at virtually no cost to me, whereas selling actual CDs would definitely cost me money, then no amount of arguments about us not being in the industry will work...

    The truth is that most persons don't trust the music industry to be even remotely honest about cost... and for good reason... Why should the industry admit that songs on iTunes should only cost about 30C each (if that is the case) when they can charge 99C...

    As for the argument about how Google/Apple make money, here's a thought:

    Performance royalties - allow Google and Apple to offer unlimited streaming services to consumers. Then simply charge a REASONABLE amount for performance royalties for each time an artist's song is played... Both Google and Apple are more than capable of keeping track of that... It eliminates the need for persons owning and pirating the music and arguments about the cost of songs... The same system would apply to Google, Apple or anyone else who wanted to offer free unlimited streaming... they would make their revenue from advertising, but the music industry would still be paid by performance royalties...

    It's not that complicated for everyone to benefit, but it requires ditching tired old ways of thinking... Too bad those with the power to make change have no interest in doing so...
  • 11-29-2010, 01:25 AM
    audio amateur
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Bert, if it is not revolutionary, can you name another format that can store 1080p film images, 24/192khz audio(and every other variation as well) 3D, and 4K images all on the same disc? Can you name another consumer disc format with 50GB of storage with the ability to grow to 200GB and playable on today's player? While you may downplay Bluray's significance, quite a few others do not. Would you not agree that your perspective is yours, but not everyones?

    Nope, it's merely an evolution. You can call it what you want, but technically, it's nothing more than an evolution. I will agree however, that it is a good one.

    I had heard about the capacity increase, but i'm wondering if it's really going to happen, and to what capacity.
  • 11-29-2010, 02:44 AM
    poppachubby
    I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?
  • 11-29-2010, 04:11 AM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poppachubby
    I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?

    That basic theory assumes a real "free market" as Sir T claims... Is that really so for music and especially downloads?

    Even if the retailers wanted to charge a reasonable amount, they still have to cover any excessive DRM related costs, imposed on them by the music industry, first...

    Essentially DRM related costs means that legitimate customers pay a premium to cover what the music industry believes to be lost sales due to piracy... The problem being that such a scheme merely gives legitimate customers a reason not to want pay.... We have similar problems with income tax and electricity bills in Jamaica, where the legitimate tax payers have to pay more tax to cover the lost revenue from non tax payers... It just makes persons even more hostile towards paying any tax... the solution is to develop a more sensible tax scheme, not to jack up taxes on the existing tax payers... the music industry is taking the same ridiculous approach of punishing legitimate customers, rather than trying to figure out a new business model....
  • 11-29-2010, 05:14 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poppachubby
    I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?

    No ... at least, not in a competitive market environment.

    In the first place, consumer demand depends on price, low price = high demand and vice versa. "Flexibility" of demand means that there is relatively more change in demand with change in price. Thus if consumer demand for downloadable music is "flexible", it means if you lower the price a lot more people will download rather than just a few more.

    Secondly, in a competitive market, generally higher consumer demand will (a) bring more producers into the market, and (b) in turn cause, original producers to improve their efficiency. These factors will result in lower prices in response to higher demand.

    But of course there in zero competition in the case of music! Yes, of course, there might be multiple, competing sellers, (iTunes, Amazon, Google), but, as we have established, most of the price is licenses/royalties, not production or distribution cost. Ultimately there is no competition for a given song; each song has its copywriter holder who sets its basic price by setting the license fee.
  • 11-29-2010, 05:30 AM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    No ... at least, no in a competitive market environment.

    In the first place, consumer demand depends on price, low price = high demand and vice versa. "Flexibility" of demand means that there is relatively more change in demand with change in price. Thus if consumer demand for downloadable music is "flexible", it means if you lower the price a lot more people will download rather than just a few more.

    Secondly, in a competitive market, generally higher consumer demand will (a) bring more producers into the market, and (b) in turn cause, original producers to improve their efficiency. These factors will result in lower prices in response to higher demand.

    But of course there in zero competition in the case of music! Yes, of course, there might be multiple, competing sellers, (iTunes, Amazon, Google), but, as we have established, most of the price is licenses/royalties, not production or distribution cost. Ultimately there is no competition for a given song; each song has its copywriter holder who sets its basic price by setting the license fee.

    :thumbsup:

    To add to the point that low price = higher demand (unless you are referring to luxury goods like some HiFi equipment, but definitely not music), consider that since free downloads have been widely available more people have massive song collections than ever before...

    How many people had hundreds of cassettes or LPs back in the day? I'm sure it was only a relatively small percentage of the population... Now finding someone with thousands of songs on their computer/iPod is easy... When I was an early teen and had hundreds of cassettes I was the only one in my class, a few years later when Napster hit big almost everyone my age had a massive collection of downloads. Those persons were not buying 2 or 3 albums a week like I was, before napster...
  • 11-29-2010, 09:00 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ajani
    It would have been more reasonable to just admit that you were wrong than to pretend that in a discussion about the price of downloading albums versus piracy, that you we were discussing solely high resolution content... That is just ridiculous. You have mentioned iTunes (even after this post) in your discussion with Feanor... iTunes does not sell high resolution content... So I am at a total loss as to why you would think we could be discussing only high res... High res is a tick on a dog's backside in a discussion of downloading and piracy of music...

    Sorry Ajani, but I have no interest in low rez music PERIOD! Perhaps I thought we were talking about high resolution music because the title of the thread is "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" What the hell does that have to do with a lossy file from Itunes?

    Quote:

    Also, the same DRM related costs you keep preaching about would apply just as much to lossy files as high resolution ones... Your argument about the state of hardware is applicable to both... and the fact that the hardware is Mature for low res, makes it clear that your assertion about hardware is incorrect...
    When I was talking about the cost of hardware, I was referring to high resolution music not lossy low rez music files. As I have said before, I have no interest in discussing low rez lossy audio files, and if that were the topic at hand, you would not have seen my name in the thread.

    Quote:

    You know many things about recording and movies but you are still wrong on this issue.. Hardware is not the issue... High prices are...
    That is your opinion, and like a$$es...well you know what I mean

    In the context of talking about "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" not"Why are downloads so expensive" I am quite right about high resolution downloads hardware. Keep the title of the thread in your head, that way we are all on the same page here.

    Quote:

    Also, the assertion that digital copies are more expensive to produce than physical ones is preposterous... The only reason would be self-imposed DRM related nonsense... Since I could distribute unlimited digital copies of my album at virtually no cost to me, whereas selling actual CDs would definitely cost me money, then no amount of arguments about us not being in the industry will work...
    The album costs you to make didn't it? Studio time wasn't free was it? The audio engineer wasn't free was it? The mastering engineer wasn't free was it? The master file wasn't free was it? The whole process extends a bit farther than the edge of your nose Ajani. Keeping in mind all of those things, what price do you charge for that file?

    The truth is that most persons don't trust the music industry to be even remotely honest about cost... and for good reason... Why should the industry admit that songs on iTunes should only cost about 30C each (if that is the case) when they can charge 99C...

    Quote:

    As for the argument about how Google/Apple make money, here's a thought:

    Performance royalties - allow Google and Apple to offer unlimited streaming services to consumers. Then simply charge a REASONABLE amount for performance royalties for each time an artist's song is played... Both Google and Apple are more than capable of keeping track of that... It eliminates the need for persons owning and pirating the music and arguments about the cost of songs... The same system would apply to Google, Apple or anyone else who wanted to offer free unlimited streaming... they would make their revenue from advertising, but the music industry would still be paid by performance royalties...
    Who decides what is REASONABLE? You? Hell no I am not going to allow just anyone to decide the value of my work. Besides, hasn't anyone heard of Pandora???

    Quote:

    It's not that complicated for everyone to benefit, but it requires ditching tired old ways of thinking... Too bad those with the power to make change have no interest in doing so...
    It's even worse that people want something for nothing.

    The bottom line here is that you have no idea what it cost to produce an album. Until you do, your opinion is an uneducated one. The cost to produce the digital file has not dropped, so it might be a little early to talk about cutting the price of the end product.
  • 11-29-2010, 09:18 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    No ... at least, not in a competitive market environment.

    In the first place, consumer demand depends on price, low price = high demand and vice versa. "Flexibility" of demand means that there is relatively more change in demand with change in price. Thus if consumer demand for downloadable music is "flexible", it means if you lower the price a lot more people will download rather than just a few more.

    Secondly, in a competitive market, generally higher consumer demand will (a) bring more producers into the market, and (b) in turn cause, original producers to improve their efficiency. These factors will result in lower prices in response to higher demand.

    But of course there in zero competition in the case of music! Yes, of course, there might be multiple, competing sellers, (iTunes, Amazon, Google), but, as we have established, most of the price is licenses/royalties, not production or distribution cost. Ultimately there is no competition for a given song; each song has its copywriter holder who sets its basic price by setting the license fee.

    Just a few points here. The price of production is not insignificant, that is for sure. Licensing fees are negotiated by BMG or ASCAP, not the copy write holder.
  • 11-29-2010, 10:14 AM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Sorry Ajani, but I have no interest in low rez music PERIOD! Perhaps I thought we were talking about high resolution music because the title of the thread is "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" What the hell does that have to do with a lossy file from Itunes?



    When I was talking about the cost of hardware, I was referring to high resolution music not lossy low rez music files. As I have said before, I have no interest in discussing low rez lossy audio files, and if that were the topic at hand, you would not have seen my name in the thread.



    That is your opinion, and like a$$es...well you know what I mean

    In the context of talking about "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" not"Why are downloads so expensive" I am quite right about high resolution downloads hardware. Keep the title of the thread in your head, that way we are all on the same page here.



    The album costs you to make didn't it? Studio time wasn't free was it? The audio engineer wasn't free was it? The mastering engineer wasn't free was it? The master file wasn't free was it? The whole process extends a bit farther than the edge of your nose Ajani. Keeping in mind all of those things, what price do you charge for that file?

    The truth is that most persons don't trust the music industry to be even remotely honest about cost... and for good reason... Why should the industry admit that songs on iTunes should only cost about 30C each (if that is the case) when they can charge 99C...



    Who decides what is REASONABLE? You? Hell no I am not going to allow just anyone to decide the value of my work. Besides, hasn't anyone heard of Pandora???



    It's even worse that people want something for nothing.

    The bottom line here is that you have no idea what it cost to produce an album. Until you do, your opinion is an uneducated one. The cost to produce the digital file has not dropped, so it might be a little early to talk about cutting the price of the end product.

    First off, the title of the thread includes CD not just SACD/DVDA, so it is not limited to high resolution as CD is clearly not high res. Also your desire to limit the discussion of downloading to only high res makes no sense as there is no significant difference in the business model for high res versus AAC/MP3… so the fact that an abundance of hardware has not dropped the price of AAC/MP3s should clearly show you that suddenly having an abundance of high res iPods/streamers will not drop the price of high res downloads… The price won’t drop because the Music Industry does not want it to…

    No one has ever said that the TOTAL price to produce an album is not significant... Here's the problem: total price is comprised of fixed and variable costs. The costs to distribute electronic copies or burn a CD or LP are variable... All the studio costs to produce an album are fixed and hence don't vary with sales... So the obvious truth is that the studios need to cover the variable cost of the downloads (which is minimal), and then calculate a contribution margin (sales price - variable costs) and multiply it by the units sold, to cover fixed costs and a healthy profit...

    So essentially the total cost of producing a single copy of an album depends on the number of units sold... So the more you sell, the lower the cost becomes (never below variable costs)... If the Music Industry reduces price they will sell more downloads... I doubt even you would disagree with that... The more downloads they sell means the lower the cost to produce each download...

    Also, the whole argument that only industry insiders have any idea of cost is untrue... The debate about prices has been raging for well over a decade... When I was buying CDs and cassettes in the early 90s, CDs costed quite a bit more than cassettes.... what was the reason? was it cost? Nope... CD burners soon became available and consumers realized it was actually cheaper and easier to burn a CD than record a cassette, yet the music industry still charged a heavy premium for CDs... So consumers don't believe that the music industry pricing is even remotely legit...

    As for Pandora: why has the industry not allowed Apple or Google to do similar schemes? The industry would rather claim their costs are high and piracy is destroying their livelihood, than embrace change...
  • 11-29-2010, 11:00 AM
    RGA
    The thing with all the music formats is that at some point the market demand will rule. And that market is young people 13 to 25 or so who don't pay a single penny for any music. I'm a teacher and the kids all download their tunes from the likes of bittorent for free. They don't care about quality since everyone listens to iPods and not $40,000 stereo systems - and even if daddy owns such a beast they connect their iPod up to it with 128bit resolution(or lack of resolution as the case may be).

    Part of that is because there is an extreme wealth discrepency in North America where the CEO makes a billion in salary and everyone else gets as little as is humanly possible. So of course the McDonalds employees are not spending $25 on a SACD or even $9 on a regular CD because that is 1-2 hours gross pay for most people. And there are video games to buy.

    3 years ago I was told by a Sony rep that they were considering dumping the SACD format - both hardware and software. So I never really bothered with it because I\ve already bought into dead formats (Laser Disc was a rather costly mistake).

    I am far more confident in Blu-Ray sticking and since you get one when you buy a PS3 Sony has done it right this time by getting the young people into the technology via selling them the video game - and giving them a good quality one to boot. Really rather brilliant of Sony this time around. They tried doing it with SACD by throwing the converter into all of their entry level DVD players and mega changers but the software pricing is far higher and frankly most people don't have good enough stereo systems to really take advantage of superior sounding recordings. Not to mention the total lack of artists that mainstream listeners listen to. Mozart is great if you're 50+ (even then I dunno - iot's probably 65+) but superior recordings probably need to be done with the likes of NickelBack, Pearl Jam, Lady Gaga, Avril Lavigne, Justin Beber or the like if you want to cinvince younger people with better hearing to buy into better formats on sound quality.

    But when the Sony rep is telling me they were planning to dump it it is really tough to go out and spend $4,000 on a dedicated good SACD machine and buy 3-4 more high level speakers and a surround sound amp (with high damping factor and negative feedback) for discs that may stop being produced and worse machines that may stop being produced. Sure it's fine if you are "rich" and can buy anything regardless of cost to tell others they should buy it because it sounds better but why bother when a couple years later you know Blu-Ray will crush SACD or DVD-A in both sound quality, and title selection and will very likely have far longer future success and support.
  • 11-29-2010, 11:52 AM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    The thing with all the music formats is that at some point the market demand will rule. And that market is young people 13 to 25 or so who don't pay a single penny for any music. I'm a teacher and the kids all download their tunes from the likes of bittorent for free. They don't care about quality since everyone listens to iPods and not $40,000 stereo systems - and even if daddy owns such a beast they connect their iPod up to it with 128bit resolution(or lack of resolution as the case may be).

    Part of that is because there is an extreme wealth discrepency in North America where the CEO makes a billion in salary and everyone else gets as little as is humanly possible. So of course the McDonalds employees are not spending $25 on a SACD or even $9 on a regular CD because that is 1-2 hours gross pay for most people. And there are video games to buy.

    3 years ago I was told by a Sony rep that they were considering dumping the SACD format - both hardware and software. So I never really bothered with it because I\ve already bought into dead formats (Laser Disc was a rather costly mistake).

    I am far more confident in Blu-Ray sticking and since you get one when you buy a PS3 Sony has done it right this time by getting the young people into the technology via selling them the video game - and giving them a good quality one to boot. Really rather brilliant of Sony this time around. They tried doing it with SACD by throwing the converter into all of their entry level DVD players and mega changers but the software pricing is far higher and frankly most people don't have good enough stereo systems to really take advantage of superior sounding recordings. Not to mention the total lack of artists that mainstream listeners listen to. Mozart is great if you're 50+ (even then I dunno - iot's probably 65+) but superior recordings probably need to be done with the likes of NickelBack, Pearl Jam, Lady Gaga, Avril Lavigne, Justin Beber or the like if you want to cinvince younger people with better hearing to buy into better formats on sound quality.

    But when the Sony rep is telling me they were planning to dump it it is really tough to go out and spend $4,000 on a dedicated good SACD machine and buy 3-4 more high level speakers and a surround sound amp (with high damping factor and negative feedback) for discs that may stop being produced and worse machines that may stop being produced. Sure it's fine if you are "rich" and can buy anything regardless of cost to tell others they should buy it because it sounds better but why bother when a couple years later you know Blu-Ray will crush SACD or DVD-A in both sound quality, and title selection and will very likely have far longer future success and support.

    The sooner the music industry recognizes that, the better... The 'genius' strategy of jacking up prices on legitimate customers, with DRM related fees, will only last so long...

    As for SACD/DVDA/BluRayA; the issue is whether there is sufficient content that you want to listen to available... If the current catalogs are enough to justify purchasing the hardware, then why not? If however, much of the music you want to listen to is not available, then I wouldn't suggest buying hardware for any of those formats...
  • 11-29-2010, 12:11 PM
    GMichael
    Blu-Ray baby.....
  • 11-29-2010, 01:25 PM
    3LB
    most art, societal progress, sometimes even technological progress, will eventually get crushed by the heel of convenience
  • 11-29-2010, 01:48 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by basite
    I don't see how Esata is more difficult than USB, after all, it's just a connector, which goes into a port..., it just looks different than USB, but I don't see a problem there...
    and while some media centers are REALLY complicated (I do give you credit on that point), others are not. Not at all actually, and can easily be made even simpler to use. As a matter of fact, I don't know on how digital TV is evolving there, but we can buy or rent movies here on our TV, which are then stored on the "digibox" (that's the name they give it here... media center, tv tuner, radio, recorder,... provided by our distributor) both in SD as HD (well, as you say, compressed in some way, but this is also just a matter of time before uncompressed material will be streaming here...) even the smallest kid can handle the interface.......

    I wasn't talking about the connector, I was talking about the process. Once again, it is far easier to just pop in a disc and press play than it is to manage a hard drive based audio or video connected to an A/V system. It may seem easy to you and I, but it is too much hassle for a great many people. We have DVR's here, but since I don't use one, I cannot speak to ease of use, but it is probably a very simple process.

    There is no way anyone will ever see uncompressed video, the file are too large to store(a single movie is over 10 terabytes), and it requires a HUGE pipeline for distribution, something that no country on this planet has(not even South Korea).

    Quote:

    True, and I bet that when my kids reach the age of three later, they'll be able to load a blu ray disc (or whatever the standard is then), and press play too, but then again I'm an audio nut, and Audio & video will probably be my job later (filmschool student here ), but most peoples kids won't be able to properly load a disc and press play, heck, I think even some of their parents will have difficulties doing that...
    I have never heard of a person unable to use a disc player of any kind, even my grandparents know how to use a DVD/Bluray player, and their DVR. When the see my media server based system, their eyes roll back, their skin gets white as a sheet, and they look light headed. LOL.

    Now that I think of it, all of my 8 god children, all of my nieces and nephews, and most of my friends children can operate a DVD/Bluray player.

    Quote:

    sorry, I didn't mean the hard drive was "software", sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant files on the hard drive. Yes, a simple file is not really copy protected, but it could work as a program (software), which could be copy protected.
    Here is the problem with this. It is far easier to crack software on a drive or disc, than it is to crack copy protection protocol between two components. This is why BD+ and BD watermark use communications between two components, as opposed to CSS copy protection which is on the disc itself.

    Quote:

    while it's great for viewing movies on the train or something, it only holds one disc, it's WAY to big, WAY to expensive and the battery is dead after only 2,5 hours of use...

    thanks, but no thanks, i'd take a laptop instead...
    Oh come on! I used it all of the time, it is not heavy(you don't even feel the weight), and it really is not that big. Besides, there is a backup battery you can buy with it that extends its operation to 5 hours, just long enough to fly from LA to Orlando. Laptops are too big!

    Quote:

    and yes, the Ipod might not play the high resolution uncompressed audio & video from a blu ray disc, but it does sound reasonably good, more than good enough for most peoples uses, and it's actually portable (I don't know your interpretation of "portable", but for most people, a "portable media player", is only "portable" if it fits in one's pocket, not in a bag for over your shoulder), it costs about one third of the portable blu ray player, looks better, and it actually can hold more than one album at the time. (yes, your portable blu ray player can do that too, if you have a separate bag for your blu ray discs..., and even then, after one long movie, the battery is dead anyway)
    Bert, portable is portable. The definition does not mean "it fits in your pocket". Portable means it is easily moved from one place to the next, and that describes a "portable" Bluray player. An Ipod may be cheaper, but it can only play low rez music, and low rez video. Let's not mention that it is really too small for video viewing.

    Once again, the battery extender you can buy it lightweight, and extends the operation of the player another 2.5-3.5 hours.

    Quote:

    btw, I find that thing very similar to the portable DVD players, great for your kids in a car, which is about the only place I've ever seen any, btw, and most of them were built in the vehicle itself... didn't really catch on...
    Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but here in California they are popular as hell. I have one built in my hybrid SUV

    Quote:

    if I get a blu ray player, connect the analog line out, to the analog line in on my PC, and I press "record" on the pc, or on something else, a CDR recorder, for example, or basically, everything that records, IT WILL RECORD, nothing you can do about it, and it will play. This is the exact method as you are using with copying vinyl too. I wanna see you hide that protocol in an analog signal...
    You won't get HD video in this case, you will just get a 480i signal from that output.

    Quote:

    the method you are explaining for the BR copy, would be making a physical copy of the vinyl record, and I wanna see you do that...
    Been there done that! I even did a blind listening test with my kids(who by the way have excellent ears). They could not tell the vinyl from the digital copy of it. That is the power of 24/192khz audio.

    Great discussion by the way!
  • 11-29-2010, 02:15 PM
    pixelthis
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poppachubby
    I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?

    because they are basically limitless, so DRM is the only cost.
    When Gutenberg invented the printing press, it changed the world, because now
    anyone could get a book. CHEAP BIBLES brought about the protestant movement
    when it was discovered that the Catholic church was basically lying about what it said.
    And that was only one thing caused by cheap books.
    Now the "net" has occured, and the effect will be even greater, nobodies figured out
    how great creating millions of copies of not only books but music and even video
    instantly will change things, but they know it will.
    Its already killed the video store, the music industry is in trouble, and the music
    store is on the endangered list. And that is just the start.:1:
  • 11-29-2010, 02:38 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ajani
    First off, the title of the thread includes CD not just SACD/DVDA, so it is not limited to high resolution as CD is clearly not high res. Also your desire to limit the discussion of downloading to only high res makes no sense as there is no significant difference in the business model for high res versus AAC/MP3… so the fact that an abundance of hardware has not dropped the price of AAC/MP3s should clearly show you that suddenly having an abundance of high res iPods/streamers will not drop the price of high res downloads… The price won’t drop because the Music Industry does not want it to…

    So as I thought, a low rez digital download is not apart of this discussion based on this response.

    You are wrong Ajani, their is a huge difference between the marketing of high resolution downloads versus lossy low resolution downloads. First, there is no model for low resolution downloads outside of the loss leader model. Nobody is selling digital files just to sell music, they are selling hardware, and the low resolution digital file is the loss leader that sells it. This is the only model we have seen since the Itunes store began. Microsoft entry into digital downloads was to push the Zune, and Amazon their MP3 players. Not one of these companies values the musical file, they value the hardware and heavily subsidize the digital file, hence why nobody is making any money on MP3 downloads.

    High resolution download sites do not use the music as a loss leader, which is why it is so expensive, much more so than Itunes. They are selling the music, not some piece of hardware to play the music on. These two approaches are in total contrast to one another, so any talk of no significant marketing difference is just plain hogwash.

    Quote:

    No one has ever said that the TOTAL price to produce an album is not significant... Here's the problem: total price is comprised of fixed and variable costs. The costs to distribute electronic copies or burn a CD or LP are variable... All the studio costs to produce an album are fixed and hence don't vary with sales... So the obvious truth is that the studios need to cover the variable cost of the downloads (which is minimal), and then calculate a contribution margin (sales price - variable costs) and multiply it by the units sold, to cover fixed costs and a healthy profit...
    It is VERY apparent by this statement that you are clueless about getting an album from conception to distribution. There is no such thing as a fixed cost in production. Studio costs are not fixed as you state, they are quite variable. No studio charges the same hourly charge, and no audio engineer charges the same rate. No master engineer charges the same rate, and nobody knows how long it will take to master the music. The cost of the product is determined long before a single unit is sold, so your whole cost calculation is mud. Profit is determined after enough units sold covers the cost of production, marketing, distribution(or host costs) and other extraneous costs. Whatever is left, that is the profit. The record company puts out a suggestion retail cost based on what the market will bare, and allows the store or host company decide their actual sell cost. The record company does not determine what the store or host will charge for the final product.

    Quote:

    So essentially the total cost of producing a single copy of an album depends on the number of units sold... So the more you sell, the lower the cost becomes (never below variable costs)... If the Music Industry reduces price they will sell more downloads... I doubt even you would disagree with that... The more downloads they sell means the lower the cost to produce each download..
    The total cost of producing an album is not tied to sales of that album. Those costs are determined long before the album even hits the shelves. The "music industry" does not set sales prices, the retailer does. The record company tells the retailer what they will pay for the product, and the retailer has to determine how much they charge the consumer so they can make a profit. You have this whole process completely twisted.

    Quote:

    Also, the whole argument that only industry insiders have any idea of cost is untrue... The debate about prices has been raging for well over a decade..
    Well, since you think everyone knows what the cost is, tell me how much does it cost to produce an the typical amount of songs on a R&B, jazz, or classical music project? Since you state everyone knows, then you should not have any problem giving me a close ballpark figure. This would include studio or live room rental, audio engineering charges, mastering charges, disc stamping charges, the tapes or hard drive, and distribution charges. This is what I mean by knowing how much the total cost of production and distribution.

    How much does it cost to host a typical song on digital file on a server?

    Quote:

    . When I was buying CDs and cassettes in the early 90s, CDs costed quite a bit more than cassettes.... what was the reason? was it cost? Nope...
    You were still paying CD R&D costs in the early nineties. You were paying for infrastructure expansion in the early nineties. You were paying for the increase costs of digital equipment for production in the early nineties. Cassettes had long paid for these setup and expansion costs. Materials and duplication costs were long recovered, along with efficiencies developed by mass production over the years.


    CD burners soon became available and consumers realized it was actually cheaper and easier to burn a CD than record a cassette, yet the music industry still charged a heavy premium for CDs... So consumers don't believe that the music industry pricing is even remotely legit...

    Quote:

    As for Pandora: why has the industry not allowed Apple or Google to do similar schemes? The industry would rather claim their costs are high and piracy is destroying their livelihood, than embrace change...
    Nobody is stopping either company from doing what Pandora is already doing. They can do what Pandora is doing any time they feel like it, it is their decision. But selling music is not their core business.Apple sells computers, phones and music playback hardware, and the music store ensures they have content for those players. Google sells online ads, not music.

    Why does apple sell music at all? I'll tell you..look at what happened to Google TV. They have a product, but they have no content control so they can sell their product. Now they have a pretty aborted rollout, and are stuck with inventory, R&D costs, and have disappointed their manufacturers. Apple does not want that to happen to them, hence the Itunes music store.
  • 11-29-2010, 03:32 PM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    So as I thought, a low rez digital download is not apart of this discussion based on this response.

    You are wrong Ajani, their is a huge difference between the marketing of high resolution downloads versus lossy low resolution downloads. First, there is no model for low resolution downloads outside of the loss leader model. Nobody is selling digital files just to sell music, they are selling hardware, and the low resolution digital file is the loss leader that sells it. This is the only model we have seen since the Itunes store began. Microsoft entry into digital downloads was to push the Zune, and Amazon their MP3 players. Not one of these companies values the musical file, they value the hardware and heavily subsidize the digital file, hence why nobody is making any money on MP3 downloads.

    High resolution download sites do not use the music as a loss leader, which is why it is so expensive, much more so than Itunes. They are selling the music, not some piece of hardware to play the music on. These two approaches are in total contrast to one another, so any talk of no significant marketing difference is just plain hogwash.



    It is VERY apparent by this statement that you are clueless about getting an album from conception to distribution. There is no such thing as a fixed cost in production. Studio costs are not fixed as you state, they are quite variable. No studio charges the same hourly charge, and no audio engineer charges the same rate. No master engineer charges the same rate, and nobody knows how long it will take to master the music. The cost of the product is determined long before a single unit is sold, so your whole cost calculation is mud. Profit is determined after enough units sold covers the cost of production, marketing, distribution(or host costs) and other extraneous costs. Whatever is left, that is the profit. The record company puts out a suggestion retail cost based on what the market will bare, and allows the store or host company decide their actual sell cost. The record company does not determine what the store or host will charge for the final product.



    The total cost of producing an album is not tied to sales of that album. Those costs are determined long before the album even hits the shelves. The "music industry" does not set sales prices, the retailer does. The record company tells the retailer what they will pay for the product, and the retailer has to determine how much they charge the consumer so they can make a profit. You have this whole process completely twisted.



    Well, since you think everyone knows what the cost is, tell me how much does it cost to produce an the typical amount of songs on a R&B, jazz, or classical music project? Since you state everyone knows, then you should not have any problem giving me a close ballpark figure. This would include studio or live room rental, audio engineering charges, mastering charges, disc stamping charges, the tapes or hard drive, and distribution charges. This is what I mean by knowing how much the total cost of production and distribution.

    How much does it cost to host a typical song on digital file on a server?



    You were still paying CD R&D costs in the early nineties. You were paying for infrastructure expansion in the early nineties. You were paying for the increase costs of digital equipment for production in the early nineties. Cassettes had long paid for these setup and expansion costs. Materials and duplication costs were long recovered, along with efficiencies developed by mass production over the years.


    CD burners soon became available and consumers realized it was actually cheaper and easier to burn a CD than record a cassette, yet the music industry still charged a heavy premium for CDs... So consumers don't believe that the music industry pricing is even remotely legit...



    Nobody is stopping either company from doing what Pandora is already doing. They can do what Pandora is doing any time they feel like it, it is their decision. But selling music is not their core business.Apple sells computers, phones and music playback hardware, and the music store ensures they have content for those players. Google sells online ads, not music.

    Why does apple sell music at all? I'll tell you..look at what happened to Google TV. They have a product, but they have no content control so they can sell their product. Now they have a pretty aborted rollout, and are stuck with inventory, R&D costs, and have disappointed their manufacturers. Apple does not want that to happen to them, hence the Itunes music store.

    Clearly you have no knowledge of either cost accounting or economics, which is why you did not understand my reference to the cost of producing an album as a fixed cost... Fixed cost does not mean that all albums cost $1M to make... Michael Jackson spent a hell of a lot more money producing albums than most artists in the industry... fixed costs means that the cost does not change in relation to the number of units sold... So if I spent $200,000 to produce an album, then whether I sell 500 or 5M units, that cost won't change... Variable costs are the cost that change with the number of units I produce; so for a CD, the actual disc, the jewel case and packaging would be variable costs. So if I sell 500 CDs then I'd need 500 discs and 500 jewel cases, while if I sell 1M CD then I'd need 1M discs and 1M jewel cases. Hence the cost varies with sales (production). So what I said still stands, but to understand it you'd need to research the difference between fixed and variable costs... Anyway, that's my fault for forgetting that we are not all accountants on this site...

    Since all reports are that both Apple and Google have been negotiating for months with the music labels to get streaming services out, then clearly there is a hold up and it is not as simple as you think. The hold up most likely being the desire of the music industry to jack up the prices with DRM costs. DRM related costs are unnecessary and just greedy for a streaming service, as users don't download anything (hence they can't copy it).

    So since Apple merely sells downloads to push hardware, then what hardware does Amazon push? If Apple is subsidizing the cost of downloads then that should tell you that the price is way beyond what the market will bear. Meaning the music industry is being too greedy...
  • 11-29-2010, 03:51 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Fortunately for BD+ and BD watermark it is not a static copy protection like CSS on DVD, or any other copy protection used in the past. It can be altered on the fly, just ask Slysoft about that.

    Does that explain the decidedly inconvenient need to download the latest firmware in order to play a particular BR disc?

    rw
  • 11-29-2010, 04:20 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ajani
    Clearly you have no knowledge of cost accounting, which is why you did not understand my reference to the cost of producing an album as a fixed cost... Fixed cost does not mean that all albums cost $1M to make... Michael Jackson spent a hell of a lot more money producing albums than most artists in the industry... fixed costs means that the cost does not change in relation to the number of units sold... So if I spent $200,000 to produce an album, then whether I sell 500 or 5M units, that cost won't change... Variable costs are the cost that change with the number of units I produce; so for a CD, the actual disc, the jewel case and packaging would be variable costs. So if I sell 500 CDs then I'd need 500 discs and 500 jewel cases, while if I sell 1M CD then I'd need 1M discs and 1M jewel cases. Hence the cost varies with sales (production). So what I said still stands, but to understand it you'd need to research the difference between fixed and variable costs... Anyway, that's my fault for forgetting that we are not all accountants on this site...

    I am not a accountant, that is for sure!

    Quote:

    Since all reports are that both Apple and Google have been negotiating for months with the music labels to get streaming services out, then clearly there is a hold up and it is not as simple as you think.
    Nothing is simple, but you don't know what or who the hold up is. Is it Google, Apple, or the record companies. I would have to rule out the record companies because there are so many music streaming services already out there, so it must be Apple and Google. Look at it from another angle - how come Pandora,Grooveshark, lala, and Spotify can do it seemingly so easy, and companies the size of Google and Apple can't make it happen easily? All you have to do is pay for the cost of licensing, and that is all that is required. I used to have a online radio station called Drum Corps live on live365. The only thing it took for me to get that streaming service going was pay for the licensing and performance rights for the music, Live365 provided everything else.

    The devil is in the detail, and the record companies are not always the devil. We blame everything on them except what they are truly responsible for. They have become the whipping boy for everything that is wrong with the music industry. They are guilty is some cases, and other segments within the industry are guilty in others. The average Joe is clueless to who is responsible for what, so they just blame the most visible entity because it is easy to do.

    Quote:

    The hold up most likely being the desire of the music industry to jack up the prices with DRM costs. DRM related costs are unnecessary and just greedy for a streaming service, as users don't download anything (hence they can't copy it).
    You make my point above right in this paragraph. The record companies don't put DRM on streamed music, the streaming service does. The record companies only require you HAVE DRM, it is up to the streaming service to decide which DRM is effective and financially feasible(or they design their own). Rhapsody's DRM is different than Pandora's, Grooveshark's is different from Spotify's etc.


    So since Apple merely sells downloads to push hardware, then what hardware does Amazon push? If Apple is subsidizing the cost of downloads then that should tell you that the price is way beyond what the market will bear. Meaning the music industry is being too greedy...[/QUOTE]

    Amazon sells MP3 players.

    You still don't understand Apple's motivations. They make far more of a profit selling their hardware than they would selling a digital file. They subsidize to keep costs constant and predictable so they can keep selling hardware. If the price goes up, they sell less music and fewer players as well.

    Since you don't know what the music industry charges Apple, then you cannot say who is being greedy and who is being smart. If Apple does not like the amount the music industry charges them, they do not have to accept the product. They negotiated the price, and signed the contract, and one has to believe that the threat of piracy gives them a strong hand.

    You really have to stop blaming the music industry for everything under the sun, they are not always the blame for everything. Retailers are just as responsible as the music industry in many issues.
  • 11-29-2010, 04:22 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Does that explain the decidedly inconvenient need to download the latest firmware in order to play a particular BR disc?

    rw

    Ralph, 99% of the time that is a authoring issue, not a BD+ or BD watermark issue. If it was BD+ or BD watermark, no disc would play instead of a few of them.
  • 11-29-2010, 04:43 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    99% of the time that is a authoring issue, not a BD+ or BD watermark issue.

    Sorry for the dumb question. It would certainly be a sort of a "nuclear option" that would not be very popular. :)

    So the fault lies with disc itself requiring a player based workaround? While I'm all about the quality of the format, such never occurred in the DVD world.

    rw
  • 11-29-2010, 05:10 PM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I am not a accountant, that is for sure!



    Nothing is simple, but you don't know what or who the hold up is. Is it Google, Apple, or the record companies. I would have to rule out the record companies because there are so many music streaming services already out there, so it must be Apple and Google. Look at it from another angle - how come Pandora,Grooveshark, lala, and Spotify can do it seemingly so easy, and companies the size of Google and Apple can't make it happen easily? All you have to do is pay for the cost of licensing, and that is all that is required. I used to have a online radio station called Drum Corps live on live365. The only thing it took for me to get that streaming service going was pay for the licensing and performance rights for the music, Live365 provided everything else.

    The devil is in the detail, and the record companies are not always the devil. We blame everything on them except what they are truly responsible for. They have become the whipping boy for everything that is wrong with the music industry. They are guilty is some cases, and other segments within the industry are guilty in others. The average Joe is clueless to who is responsible for what, so they just blame the most visible entity because it is easy to do.



    You make my point above right in this paragraph. The record companies don't put DRM on streamed music, the streaming service does. The record companies only require you HAVE DRM, it is up to the streaming service to decide which DRM is effective and financially feasible(or they design their own). Rhapsody's DRM is different than Pandora's, Grooveshark's is different from Spotify's etc.

    Amazon sells MP3 players.

    You still don't understand Apple's motivations. They make far more of a profit selling their hardware than they would selling a digital file. They subsidize to keep costs constant and predictable so they can keep selling hardware. If the price goes up, they sell less music and fewer players as well.

    Since you don't know what the music industry charges Apple, then you cannot say who is being greedy and who is being smart. If Apple does not like the amount the music industry charges them, they do not have to accept the product. They negotiated the price, and signed the contract, and one has to believe that the threat of piracy gives them a strong hand.

    You really have to stop blaming the music industry for everything under the sun, they are not always the blame for everything. Retailers are just as responsible as the music industry in many issues.

    Grooveshark is a great example as they have been unable to negotiate a streaming deal with the labels despite years of trying... How Grooveshark works is that they allow users to post any content on their site, and then Grooveshark contacts the labels and negotiates to pay some kind of royalties rather than being taken to court... Most persons are still amazed that Grooveshark has survived so long... So as I said, it is not a simple matter to negotiate a streaming deal... Apple acquired Lala (a streaming service over a year ago) and was not able to use Lala's licenses, but instead has to negotiate new ones with the labels...

    It's not just consumer who blame the industry, try Cnet and the other major tech sites who talk about the streaming issue...

    I understand that Apple makes most of it's money from hardware... Consider this: the new AppleTV has no internal storage, so clearly it is designed to offer streaming services and not downloads... Also Apple moved from large amounts of storage (iPod Classic) to minimal amounts on the Touch, iPhone & iPad... clearly having a load of downloads is not their plan... the aim is to stream... much like with the TV industry giving Apple and Google hell in bringing streaming TV content to AppleTV & GoogleTV, the music industry has been holding them up with music...

    Why has Hulu had a TV streaming service for so long, yet Apple and Google can't work out a deal? Nothing I've read on the issues, whether from Cnet, PCWorld, Techradar, etc have pointed to the bottleneck being at Apple or Google... They would both benefit from having streaming music and tv services, the industry are the ones afraid of the change, as they don't trust Apple or Google...
  • 11-30-2010, 03:30 AM
    poppachubby
    I have no idea really, but one thought comes to mind regarding Apple and Google "working out deals".

    They are too big!!!

    These are 2 companies with the potential (capital) to overtake or wipe out the very companies which they seek these deals with. That has to be a scary proposition for those who actually hold the keys to the doors.

    Just a guess.

    I will also add that bands nowadays have changed their view on the product of music. I don't think any group expects to make money on a release unless you're a super star. It's more about gaining exposure and fans so that when you pull into town, the venue is full and you can sell merch, etc.

    The reality of being an average band today is that you are constantly on the road in order to pay the bills. Plain and simple. This is however a good thing for music lovers because it means the group of your choice will be tighter than a drum.

    The days of releasing albums and not touring are long over. Perhaps dance music types don't need to, but there's not enough ecstacy in the world to keep me listening to that vapid crap.
  • 11-30-2010, 06:12 AM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poppachubby
    I have no idea really, but one thought comes to mind regarding Apple and Google "working out deals".

    They are too big!!!

    These are 2 companies with the potential (capital) to overtake or wipe out the very companies which they seek these deals with. That has to be a scary proposition for those who actually hold the keys to the doors.

    Just a guess.

    That's probably a very good guess it is exactly what I've read in articles on this issue... The music and TV industries appear to be afraid of the size and power of Apple and Google... Pandora, Hulu and Spotify just aren't powerful enough to frighten the industry so it's much safer to make some kind of deal with them...

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poppachubby
    I will also add that bands nowadays have changed their view on the product of music. I don't think any group expects to make money on a release unless you're a super star. It's more about gaining exposure and fans so that when you pull into town, the venue is full and you can sell merch, etc.

    The reality of being an average band today is that you are constantly on the road in order to pay the bills. Plain and simple. This is however a good thing for music lovers because it means the group of your choice will be tighter than a drum.

    The days of releasing albums and not touring are long over. Perhaps dance music types don't need to, but there's not enough ecstacy in the world to keep me listening to that vapid crap.

    I think that moving to a streaming system would actually allow small artists to make money without touring... As I said in an earlier post: if Apple, Google, etc develops unlimited streaming services (either flat fee or free with advertising), then the artists would be paid performance royalties every time their song is played (the way radio stations work)... So once people start listening to your tunes, you start making money... So you don't need to sell any albums nor worry about pirates downloading illegal copies....

    I honestly think streaming is the best solution for the Music Industry problem... As long as there are not a whole lot of unnecessary DRM related legal costs passed on to Google/Apple and just standard performance royalties...