N
Nord20
Perfect example to prove MY point. The estate agent example is ideal: the market works well, everyone sees the point of what they do and Estate Agents are very much NOT monopolies!
Also, you don't pay the Estate agent a fee every month for the joy of living in the house they helped you purchase. You don't license your house.
Licensing is really where the scam lies. Really, I go into a shop and buy a CD. I physical have it in my hands, but I have to pay every time I use it because I didn't buy it, "I licensed it". Absolute con and the fact that this thread is so emotive with so many people commenting rather suggests your dismissal of our complaints is both arrogant and short sighted.
We are your customers and we resent and hate the system you force upon us. Something will give and I strongly suspect that will not be to the betterment of music creators.
"People truly believe they shouldn't have to pay, so this impacts on their reasoning. "
This is a straw man argument intended to take the light from the real issue. People have sound countless times in this thread alone that they are not adverse to paying for music. We are simply adverse to it being an ongoing cost when what has really happened is a one time purchase.
Of course PRS are a monopoly! For goodness sake - have you never heard of individuals or groups using agents to carry out services they are unable or unwilling to do?
Yes, I have. The fact that there are Agents (i.e. more than one) suggests, again, not a monopoly. To turn it around - can you name another industry that has a forced monopoly artificially layered over the top that requires the entire industry to do its bidding (both on the supply and demand side)?
"People truly believe they shouldn't have to pay, so this impacts on their reasoning. Of course PRS are a monopoly! For goodness sake - have you never heard of individuals or groups using agents to carry out services they are unable or unwilling to do? You use an estate agent to handle a house sale because you really would struggle to market your property on your own. They get you your sales fee, and keep some of it."
"The buyers mainly run dance schools, so are 'nice' people, yet one person spends fifteen quid, and then tries to give it free to her friends. When the download link fails, they no doubt send it to each other as mp3s!"
This is an alarm bell that the music industry has been raising every 30 years or so since the dawn of recorded music. Every single time a new innovation comes about, it's the end of the music industry (records, cassettes, cds, now streaming).
You must take a little responsibility for accepting the massive reduction in production costs (selling 1000 MP3 downloads costs you precisely the same as selling 100), in that it necessarily makes it far easier, and consequently far more likely, for people to abuse the system. I have it in my hand. I can make a copy with a single click of a button. The barriers to copying, a system created entirely by the music industry to save costs of its own, are too low. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it is the music industry that created, and encouraged people to copy by creating and distributing the tools with which to do so.
And by charging them well over the odds, every single time they play a song, obviously.
Something is clearly not right in an industry where (and I'm guessing a little, but I'm not far off) 7% of the participants command 90% of the proceeds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
