TeenRevenue Sues RedTube for $40M

[griffin8r]

The part of your statement about cookie cutter bullshit also shows how young you are. They have been doing this since the 50s. I don't know about before because I'm only 58.

1) I'm not as young as you think I am.
2) I'm a music history and music theory buff, and play several instruments. I recognize cookie cutter bullshit everywhere in rock music. Chord progressions that have been beaten into the ground, melodies that are anything but, bands that self-copy (Nickelback, anyone?), bands that copy other bands (Def Leppard/Nazareth ripoff back in 1988), it goes on, and on, and on, and on.

Your post is one of the typical ones to justify theft. The reason people steal is because they think they can get away with it. They never care about the people they hurt. Recently a friend of mine lost his job in the music industry, because of piracy, he also is now bankrupt and has lost his house. Is that his fault or the people who decided to steal instead of buy?

Slow down there, partner, I'm not advocating theft of intellectual property. The piracy issue is a whole separate issue, and one that the industry could have dealt with swiftly back when it first started cropping up - not by suing everyone, but by embracing the digital delivery system and implementing legal pay-for-download sites back when MP3.com and Napster were still in their infancy.

The culture of illegal downloading developed back then because people were sick of buying CDs because of a single they heard, and finding out that single was the only song worth hearing on the CD. There were no other options for checking out the album beforehand in the mid 90's, unless you were lucky enough to have a local record shop that still accepted returns.

Again, I don't condone it, but I see why it happened.

Also many of the greatest bands of the 20th Century are suffering from piracy. So it seems thieves don't just steal the bad, they steal the great as well.

Sure, and it's absolutely wrong. However, thieves also steal and hack software regularly, some of the biggest names in the software industry (Adobe CS4 anyone?) and yet the software industry goes on, undaunted, because they continue to make quality products that professionals buy. The music industry could take a lesson from this.

The power of the consumer is in the fact that he can direct and shape and industry by buying what he likes. When he stops buying he has no say in what direction that industry takes to keep as many people in work as possible.

You are absolutely correct. Personally, I prefer to do my shopping for music in the underground scene - better variety, better prices on CD's, production might be a bit shaky from time to time, but the songwriting and stylistic approaches in many cases are more honest. There's something inherently satisfying about listening to a raw recording of an honest songwriter, versus a slicked-up production of someone who can't sing without electronic help trying to sing a song they didn't write, over music they didn't produce. (Barbara Mason, anyone?)

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by griffin8r

1) I'm not as young as you think I am.
2) I'm a music history and music theory buff, and play several instruments. I recognize cookie cutter bullshit everywhere in rock music. Chord progressions that have been beaten into the ground, melodies that are anything but, bands that self-copy (Nickelback, anyone?), bands that copy other bands (Def Leppard/Nazareth ripoff back in 1988), it goes on, and on, and on, and on.

Then you would know that pop and rock music has been copying each other for 50 years. Do you think people stealing the music gives them any power to shape an industry?

Slow down there, partner, I'm not advocating theft of intellectual property. The piracy issue is a whole separate issue, and one that the industry could have dealt with swiftly back when it first started cropping up - not by suing everyone, but by embracing the digital delivery system and implementing legal pay-for-download sites back when MP3.com and Napster were still in their infancy.

The culture of illegal downloading developed back then because people were sick of buying CDs because of a single they heard, and finding out that single was the only song worth hearing on the CD. There were no other options for checking out the album beforehand in the mid 90's, unless you were lucky enough to have a local record shop that still accepted returns.

Again, I don't condone it, but I see why it happened.

Again another weak excuse. You won't sell me what I want at the price I want it so I will steal it. Tell that to a judge or someone who lost his job through piracy. If you don't like it don't buy it, then they will change.

Sure, and it's absolutely wrong. However, thieves also steal and hack software regularly, some of the biggest names in the software industry (Adobe CS4 anyone?) and yet the software industry goes on, undaunted, because they continue to make quality products that professionals buy. The music industry could take a lesson from this.

Maybe you could tell the lesson that's to be taken. Besides sell it for a fraction. Not that this would stop them from stealing. It's a cultural thing. They do it because they think they are right, but in truth it's because they won't get caught. Catch more, sue more and bugger the bad publicity. Or just take their Internet connection away. If you can't use a toll properly you should not complain if it's taken away.

You are absolutely correct. Personally, I prefer to do my shopping for music in the underground scene - better variety, better prices on CD's, production might be a bit shaky from time to time, but the songwriting and stylistic approaches in many cases are more honest. There's something inherently satisfying about listening to a raw recording of an honest songwriter, versus a slicked-up production of someone who can't sing without electronic help trying to sing a song they didn't write, over music they didn't produce. (Barbara Mason, anyone?)

If more buy more, the market will develop more.

Just because an industry does not produce what some want and for the price they want it does not give them the right to steal it. It's too easy to say "This is not worth buying, so I will steal it to teach them a lesson." Because the proof is the opposite. As a musical historian you will know that some of the best Rock music was produced in the late 60s and 70s. But these titles are still being stolen. They steal the best and does that "It's not worth it." excuse include some of the greatest rock stars ever?

Yes industries carry on and that was glib. Come and say that to my friends face. He lost his job and home because for the industry to carry on it had to trim down. He would love to hear your excuses.

[Paul Markham]

And if it's right for people to steal, or in your words can see how it happened, it's also right for the pirates to be tracked down and sued. When hundreds of them are getting letters in the post asking them to appear in court or pay a fine, which is funnelled back to sue more, then piracy will decrease.

When companies are sued for advertising on sites that promote theft they will stop advertising and the problem will diminish. Because the piracy industry is not just a bunch kids trying to get a free record, program or what ever. It's an industry making money. From Paypal, to Brazzers, to AFF. Try and steal off them and see how they would like it.

It will diminish because with out the companies behind them to pay for the sites the sites will diminish.

[miz_wright]

Paul, Griffin:

I think you both have valid points, but I also think you both have some things wrong. The RIAA did a lot of its own damage, in part because it has LONG pushed mediocrity to the top (payola scandals, anyone?) and freely engages in cultural appropriation with little to no regard for the culture from which it sprang (see: mountain folk, delta blues, and Harlem jazz for early examples of US music industry identity theft; musical progression and exploitation of founders is fairly prevalent and easily recogniseable). Combine this historical approach with a late-80s determination to grab consumer funds at the highest possible rate by doing away with singles at a reasonable price point (and blaming it on technology costs due to the advent of the CD-era), and you have a receipt for eminent disaster.

There are a lot of similarities between the industries - from respective consumer missteps (though on markedly different time lines) and reactions to alleviate self-perpetuating problems.

Paul, you do good stuff. You have an amazing portfolio, and your tenure in the industry is remarkable. For the last two years, though< I have seen you have an almost word-for-word knee-jerk reaction to problems plaguing us. We can't take the approach that we must change the consumer's thinking - that never works. What we must do is begin thinking in a new way, to provide the consumer something s/he is willing to buy.

Sure, the content itself is commoditised almost to the point of being worthless - and we have ourselves to blame to some degree here (HellPuppy and others have made excellent points on this same board about entry costs). The question isn't how do we limit the content at this point - it's not possible, because even if we, as an industry,wrap our material in DRM from here til doomsday there is still a girl out there that's taking pix with her $50 digital camera and posting them online 'cos it gets her off.

The question is where do we shift our thinking to make it worth the consumer's hard-earned dollar?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

We can't take the approach that we must change the consumer's thinking - that never works. What we must do is begin thinking in a new way, to provide the consumer something s/he is willing to buy.


The question is where do we shift our thinking to make it worth the consumer's hard-earned dollar?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

Paul, Griffin:

I think you both have valid points, but I also think you both have some things wrong. The RIAA did a lot of its own damage, in part because it has LONG pushed mediocrity to the top (payola scandals, anyone?) and freely engages in cultural appropriation with little to no regard for the culture from which it sprang (see: mountain folk, delta blues, and Harlem jazz for early examples of US music industry identity theft; musical progression and exploitation of founders is fairly prevalent and easily recogniseable). Combine this historical approach with a late-80s determination to grab consumer funds at the highest possible rate by doing away with singles at a reasonable price point (and blaming it on technology costs due to the advent of the CD-era), and you have a receipt for eminent disaster.

There are a lot of similarities between the industries - from respective consumer missteps (though on markedly different time lines) and reactions to alleviate self-perpetuating problems.

Agreed, but the music industry rarely understood it's product and saw the easy money in churning out pulp. From the boy or girl bands of today and back to singers like Mary Poppins. The problem is it was easy money. The public bought them. but it makes no difference, the theft would still carry on, until it's stopped.

Paul, you do good stuff. You have an amazing portfolio, and your tenure in the industry is remarkable. For the last two years, though< I have seen you have an almost word-for-word knee-jerk reaction to problems plaguing us. We can't take the approach that we must change the consumer's thinking - that never works. What we must do is begin thinking in a new way, to provide the consumer something s/he is willing to buy.

Thank you. Can I suggest you go read my replies about fitting our industry more to the customers to win more back. Try the Zoo today. The problem will be some will never buy if they can steal. It's cultural, but if you remove the profit margin you diminish the problem. (Another knee jerk. LOL)

Sure, the content itself is commoditised almost to the point of being worthless - and we have ourselves to blame to some degree here (HellPuppy and others have made excellent points on this same board about entry costs). The question isn't how do we limit the content at this point - it's not possible, because even if we, as an industry,wrap our material in DRM from here til doomsday there is still a girl out there that's taking pix with her $50 digital camera and posting them online 'cos it gets her off.

And read the countless posts where I have warned that most dumbed down the content we sell to a level where there is little point in buying from one site or the next. The level of content production has never been so bad. We are just as bad as the music industry and suffering from it.

The question is where do we shift our thinking to make it worth the consumer's hard-earned dollar?

This one is simple. We spend less on shifting traffic around and more on the content of a members area. We don't stop spending on traffic, we just re adjust the amounts.

The problem today is few sites are really worth joining. They are just points to download video content from. There is little to distinguish one site from the next and often one scene from the next. The main reason Tubes get more traffic is they are free. They are also better for the surfer. No joining, no risking your CC details, no spam, no lengthy joins, you can come and grab it when you like and if you don't like one scene go for another, an immense selection in the same niche and genre from different producers.

We have been infatuated with the myth that it had to be exclusive and recently it has to be HD. Truth is the opposite. The customers we are losing don't have the patience to see everything, they want 1-3 scenes to get off and get on with the day, they don't care if it's HD. They want the selection and choice.

The problem is we don't know how to compete, in general we dream Tubes will close.

Yes you are spot on saying we have to find what the customers will buy. I have opened my site and give away a free one hour live show every night. I'm adapting.

[griffin8r]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And if it's right for people to steal, or in your words can see how it happened, it's also right for the pirates to be tracked down and sued. When hundreds of them are getting letters in the post asking them to appear in court or pay a fine, which is funnelled back to sue more, then piracy will decrease.

When companies are sued for advertising on sites that promote theft they will stop advertising and the problem will diminish. Because the piracy industry is not just a bunch kids trying to get a free record, program or what ever. It's an industry making money. From Paypal, to Brazzers, to AFF. Try and steal off them and see how they would like it.

It will diminish because with out the companies behind them to pay for the sites the sites will diminish.

I appreciate the fact that the downturn in the recording industry has touched a friend of yours. The downturn in the insurance industry touched me directly - I'm out of a job right now because of it.

But I would greatly appreciate it if you'd quit with the straw man here. As I already stated, I am vehemently anti-piracy. It does hurt the industries it touches, whether that be record companies, porn producers, software developers, or movie studios.

Being able to objectively analyze the situation and go "yeah, I get how this happened and why it came to this" is not the same as supporting the end result.

For fuck's sake, dude, I'm a musician. I've released records with several bands before I got out of the gigging thing, and it irritates the hell out of me that we barely recouped the cost of recording because some chucklehead handed out copies to his friends rather than encourage them to buy their own.

But it's been going on since the advent of cassette tapes. It's more prolific now, but it's nothing new. You adapt to the state of the marketplace, you survive, you don't, you die.