Thread removed and its reference removed

[cambridgeshire canary 6,718]

3 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

Is Bill the hacker known as 4Chan?

Only know photo of Bill, taken sometimes in the 80's

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

22 minutes ago, king canary said:

The industry realisd they couldn't stop the pirating so they ended up agreeing to the spotify model that gives artists such a pitiful share of the profits. 

Is it pitiful though?

You get a whopping £10.98 per minute for a song played on BBC Radio 1.  

And as many just discover music from playlists, so its effectively a discovery tool (like the radio), it can lead to digital album purchases.

I highly doubt that streaming services closing tomorrow would result in people returning to physical music. 

Those who moan that their 500,000 listens is only worth whatever money are not factoring in that without streaming services they wouldn't have got those listeners. Its not a direct comparable to album sales, its not the same as 50,000 people buying an album and playing each of the 10 songs once. 

Ed Sheeran made £7m in royalties streaming one new album last year (just from Spotify, he'll also make from other services and YouTube views of the official video).

It would have taken him selling 700,000 physical copies of his album in 1998 to gross that. Urban Hymes was the 6th biggest selling UK album that year with about 1 million sales. 

But that's just spotify alone.One album. One year. Not factoring in back catalogue plays, and the fact that he's got about 45 years of royalties left before he pegs it. Spotify revenues for one year for one album matching 700,000 physical album sales in all retailers in 1998.

Name an act, I'll estimate their spotify revenue. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[The Real Buh 3,432]

Just now, cambridgeshire canary said:

Only know photo of Bill, taken sometimes in the 80's

Footage of Bill hacking the whole internet

 

I obtained the footage by hacking

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

53 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Nothing as ambiguous as charging £60 for a shirt made by someone in a foreign land and then quoting morals.

Lets not forget the £50 premium membership con, 5 illegal streams to repay that. 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

6 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

Is Bill the hacker known as 4Chan?

I think he's  known as 4skin to his family and friend.

[king canary 7,606]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Is it pitiful though?

You get a whopping £10.98 per minute for a song played on BBC Radio 1.  

And as many just discover music from playlists, so its effectively a discovery tool (like the radio), it can lead to digital album purchases.

I highly doubt that streaming services closing tomorrow would result in people returning to physical music. 

Those who moan that their 500,000 listens is only worth whatever money are not factoring in that without streaming services they wouldn't have got those listeners. Its not a direct comparable to album sales, its not the same as 50,000 people buying an album and playing each of the 10 songs once. 

Ed Sheeran made £7m in royalties streaming one new album last year (just from Spotify, he'll also make from other services and YouTube views of the official video).

It would have taken him selling 700,000 physical copies of his album in 1998 to gross that. Urban Hymes was the 6th biggest selling UK album that year with about 1 million sales. 

But that's just spotify alone.One album. One year. Matching 700,000 physical album sales in all retailers in 1998.

Name an act, I'll estimate their spotify revenue. 

So far you've only mentioned James Blunt and Ed Sheerhan- two big time artists with large labels behind them and from what I've read your understanding of how the money is dsitributed isn't correct.

From an article by Nadine Shah in the Guardian today....

"

Streaming only really works for superstars and super record labels. Instead of receiving a direct amount per sale, as with downloads or physical purchases, it’s a “winner-takes-all” system. The way it works is the combined revenue of every streaming subscriber is divided by by “market share”. For example, suppose Bruno Mars releases an album and – rightly, because he’s amazing – Bruno appears on the surface of every phone, on every playlist, pushed by every algorithm. He could potentially end up with 5% of the whole world’s streaming money. Or, to be accurate, his record label will pocket that 5%. Bruno might see about 20% of that if, and only if, he’s repaid his recording costs. Pre-digital artists may be on pre-digital deals, so they may see nothing.

Even before Covid, the major labels were making almost $20m a day from streaming. And this year has seen a a huge increase in streaming subscriptions, as fans turn to platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify to help ease their locked-down minds. The three major music groups, Sony, Warner and Universal own about three-quarters of the music ever made so, by this system, they’ll pocket about three-quarters of streaming revenue every month. Independent or self-releasing artists share the rest.

For all the promise of digital democratisation of music, the opposite appears to be happening. For an independent artist with a dedicated audience, the system doesn’t work. And neither does it work for loyal fans. If you are a dance fan, jazz fan, or metal fan, the artists you love and listen to are unlikely to see a penny of your subscription."

[Mello Yello 2,293]

BILL POSTERS WILL BE PROSECUTED!

NO WAY BECAUSE BILL POSTERS IS INNOCENT!

[shefcanary 2,408]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

Interesting point, where is the quote from? I don't really follow the logic entirely. Surely any TV deals are going to be negotiated based on the revenue the TV companies expect - suggesting that illegal streams definitively and substantially reduce this revenue doesn't seem to make logical sense to me.

It's a bit like saying that the TV companies have reduced monies because people have gone round their mates' to watch the match, but would be very interesting to see further justification round it.

 

It is standard business practise (well in the real world of business) to budget for, say, if you are in retail for leakage (shoplifting, stock damage etc.).  In other businesses you would budget for some of your customers never actually paying for the services it provides.  So I would assume NCFC as a self financing club would do likewise as would any other well run club. 

Again, the issue is that the income from streams, after the broadcasters cut is deducted, is relatively small.  The bigger moral issue is access to the EPL's broadcasting revenues.  They gave to realise without the rest of the football pyramid, their business would collapse.

Just look at todays news about the so called "rescue" package from the EPL.  Championship clubs get an interest free loan, but can't see Norwich benefitting from that (I doubt they would qualify anyway) as recent pronouncements suggest cash flow has been covered by parachute payments.  For others it may cover things in the short term, but long term saving grace.  The support for League's 1 & 2 is full of it's, but's and maybe's.  And again is a one off.  Bah humbug! 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

Some interesting responses:

It's OK to watch illegal streams whenever.

It's not OK to watch illegal streams ever and I never have done.

It's not OK to watch illegal streams ever but I have done.

It's OK if you've watched illegal streams before, but not this year.

It's OK if you've paid for a legal stream, but it's not worked, so you've watched an illegal stream instead.

It's OK to watch illegal streams if the games not on Sky, ifollow or BT.

It's OK to watch illegal streams as long as you don't post the links to those streams on here.

It's OK to watch illegal streams if you get naked, cover yourself in yellow and green paint and stick an inflatable canary up your ring-piece while chanting, 'LEE, LEE, LEE, POWER!"

Any more?

OTBC

Edited December 3, 2020 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[ricardo 7,395]

43 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

Name an act, I'll estimate their spotify revenue. 

The Puppet Man?

[hogesar 9,673]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Ok, the Coventry match then. 

I watched both on iFollow.  Although both of those were free because of the club's offering to Season Ticket holders. 

This thread is a little depressing in that people who are objecting to theft are apparently, according to some, in the wrong to do so yet no-one has given a sensible reason why.

Fundamentally, for me, the difference right now is we support a football club and we all want that football club to sign players and be the best it can be. It's been said before but some of the guys on this thread have complained about our spending and in the same breath won't contribute to the club to watch a match online, instead deciding to use an illegal stream. That sort of hypocrisy stinks.

Anyway, if people privately decided they were never going to use iFollow and pay so went for an illegal stream - well, there's little we can do about it.

What we can do, however, is not allow threads which publically advertise and encourage our fans to both break the law and disadvantage our club. That's why it really shouldn't be surprising the thread was taken down.

[ron obvious 1,502]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

Can I repeat that it IS illegal to watch them. It's just that legally, they'll primarily target those providing the streams. It is 100% illegal to watch illegal streams, shockingly.

 

Where does that leave any device able to access the internet then?

 the EU Court of Justice ruled that not only was selling devices allowing access to copyrighted content illegal, but using one to stream TV, sports or films without an official subscription is also breaking the law.

Edited December 3, 2020 by ron obvious

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

What we can do, however, is not allow threads which publically advertise and encourage our fans to both break the law and disadvantage our club. That's why it really shouldn't be surprising the thread was taken down.

The 2nd thread that Wooster is referring to had no links to illegal streams and was solely a discussion about streams in general. Why was that taken down? Why hasn't this one, as it is exactly the same?

Why haven't previous threads with stream links on them been taken down for previous games and seasons? I'm guessing because someone on here complained; probably someone who in the past benefited from those same illegal links in previous seasons.

13 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Fundamentally, for me, the difference right now is we support a football club and we all want that football club to sign players and be the best it can be. It's been said before but some of the guys on this thread have complained about our spending and in the same breath won't contribute to the club to watch a match online, instead deciding to use an illegal stream. That sort of hypocrisy stinks.

Have you ever watched an illegal stream before Hoggy? 

OTBC

[king canary 7,606]

53 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Some interesting responses:

It's OK to watch illegal streams whenever.

It's not OK to watch illegal streams ever and I never have done.

It's not OK to watch illegal streams ever but I have done.

It's OK if you've watched illegal streams before, but not this year.

It's OK if you've paid for a legal stream, but it's not worked, so you've watched an illegal stream instead.

It's OK to watch illegal streams if the games not on Sky, ifollow or BT.

It's OK to watch illegal streams as long as you don't post the links to those streams on here.

It's OK to watch illegal streams if you get naked, cover yourself in yellow and green paint and stick an inflatable canary up your ring-piece while chanting, 'LEE, LEE, LEE, POWER!"

Any more?

OTBC

Yes, you've successfully cracked that different people have different opinions on things.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

36 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I watched both on iFollow.  Although both of those were free because of the club's offering to Season Ticket holders. 

This thread is a little depressing in that people who are objecting to theft are apparently, according to some, in the wrong to do so yet no-one has given a sensible reason why.

Fundamentally, for me, the difference right now is we support a football club and we all want that football club to sign players and be the best it can be. It's been said before but some of the guys on this thread have complained about our spending and in the same breath won't contribute to the club to watch a match online, instead deciding to use an illegal stream. That sort of hypocrisy stinks.

Anyway, if people privately decided they were never going to use iFollow and pay so went for an illegal stream - well, there's little we can do about it.

What we can do, however, is not allow threads which publically advertise and encourage our fans to both break the law and disadvantage our club. That's why it really shouldn't be surprising the thread was taken down.

But if the club never had the money in the first place then it hasn't lost anything.

No-one is saying anyone objecting is wrong but its wrong to call it theft. 

As usual, its the British attitude of the bus is half empty so double the fares. Instead of halving them and getting double the amount.

iFollow doubled overnight. Some might say its only a tenner. But it was the attitude of expecting once again, the ailments of football to be sorted by extra money rather than consensus.

 

[hogesar 9,673]

21 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

The 2nd thread that Wooster is referring to had no links to illegal streams and was solely a discussion about streams in general. Why was that taken down? Why hasn't this one, as it is exactly the same?

Why haven't previous threads with stream links on them been taken down for previous games and seasons? I'm guessing because someone on here complained; probably someone who in the past benefited from those same illegal links in previous seasons.

Have you ever watched an illegal stream before Hoggy? 

OTBC

Ah, I have no idea why that one had been taken down. Going on past experiences, someone probably said something unacceptable and a fight ensued, but I have no idea! It was no different to this thread when I last looked.

I'm guessing the mods on here aren't mega-active so rely a lot on reports so that's probably why the last one was taken down when others before haven't.

I've watched illegal streams in the past when we have been in the Premier League, although only if there wasn't a way to watch via paid means. I'm a season ticket holder so would normally attend every home game so it would be the occasional away 3pm match i'd watch. Like I said in my post, for the most part if people go about and do it themselves there's not much we can do but I certainly agree that a Norwich City fan forum shouldn't allow threads with links to illegal streams to stay on the forum when the club is offering the service itself, in a time where football finances are difficult at best to go with it.

[zema abbey football genius 36]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

I wonder if someone robbed your house you'd think it would be self righteous to say it was wrong. 

 Yawn

[TIL 1010 4,746]

My laptop gave up the ghost yesterday afternoon so thank goodness for the red button and only in the last hour or so have i managed to set up ( with considerable help i must admit ) a new laptop and catch up on all this. Looks like i have missed all this thread deletion talk  but i am sure City1st will point the finger in my direction as he claims i follow him around the forum. 😛

Edited December 3, 2020 by TIL 1010

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

So far you've only mentioned James Blunt and Ed Sheerhan- two big time artists with large labels behind them and from what I've read your understanding of how the money is dsitributed isn't correct.

From an article by Nadine Shah in the Guardian today....

"

Streaming only really works for superstars and super record labels. Instead of receiving a direct amount per sale, as with downloads or physical purchases, it’s a “winner-takes-all” system. The way it works is the combined revenue of every streaming subscriber is divided by by “market share”. For example, suppose Bruno Mars releases an album and – rightly, because he’s amazing – Bruno appears on the surface of every phone, on every playlist, pushed by every algorithm. He could potentially end up with 5% of the whole world’s streaming money. Or, to be accurate, his record label will pocket that 5%. Bruno might see about 20% of that if, and only if, he’s repaid his recording costs. Pre-digital artists may be on pre-digital deals, so they may see nothing.

Even before Covid, the major labels were making almost $20m a day from streaming. And this year has seen a a huge increase in streaming subscriptions, as fans turn to platforms such as Apple Music and Spotify to help ease their locked-down minds. The three major music groups, Sony, Warner and Universal own about three-quarters of the music ever made so, by this system, they’ll pocket about three-quarters of streaming revenue every month. Independent or self-releasing artists share the rest.

For all the promise of digital democratisation of music, the opposite appears to be happening. For an independent artist with a dedicated audience, the system doesn’t work. And neither does it work for loyal fans. If you are a dance fan, jazz fan, or metal fan, the artists you love and listen to are unlikely to see a penny of your subscription."

 

Right..... but this in recent times has worked out as about $3 to $4 per 1000 plays. Its proportionate, calculated according to Spotify's revenue. 

As for smaller artists, haven't they always been skint? 

Leave school, start a band, 0.5% make it, 1.5% do alright for a few years, 98% fail completely.

I knew the bassist in a well known and successful indie band from the noughties who weren't exactly a flash in the pan, he was pulling pints when they weren't on tour. Come out of it all owning a nice little pad in London.... but even the Blur drummer had to get a grown up job (solicitor).

Most artists die poor, always been that way. 

As for record labels, well you'd have to be a bit silly to even have one these days. All of this distribution can be done independently, music industry more accessible than ever. 

Look at grime artists. JME and Skepta just started a ltd company and published their music. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Better_Know

As for 80-20 deals, Rough Trade has been 50-50 since day one and most independent labels worth their salt are 50-50. You can't criticise me for using big name artists as examples and then throw out major label terms of contract in support.

Most bands fail to make money, always been that way, its because most bands aren't very good. Just like most academy players don't become footballers. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

When itunes started, why was it 79 cents per song in the US and 79p in the UK?

And there are enough music platforms out there for bands to market themselves.

The demise of pubs and places to play is one of the reasons there may be less chance to make money at the lower end.

And there is only so much room in a shrinking market.

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

Let he who has never watched an illegal stream cast the first stone. 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

18 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes, you've successfully cracked that different people have different opinions on things.

Hello King,

Alas, you've missed the point my friend.

All I've successfully cracked is that a lot of posters appear to be very hypocritical with inconsistent views on this matter. Happy to watch illegal streams when needed...but happy to tell others not to when it suits? 

As Daniel would no doubt agree, "Man kann nicht auf zwei Hochzeiten tanzen."

OTBC

[king canary 7,606]

6 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Hello King,

Alas, you've missed the point my friend.

All I've successfully cracked is that a lot of posters appear to be very hypocritical with inconsistent views on this matter. Happy to watch illegal streams when needed...but happy to tell others not to when it suits? 

As Daniel would no doubt agree, "Man kann nicht auf zwei Hochzeiten tanzen."

OTBC

No, you've very subtly made that point by asking everyone who has said that using illegal streams instead of iFollow is questionable 'have you ever watched a stream???' as if people are incapable of changing opinions.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

No, you've very subtly made that point by asking everyone who has said that using illegal streams instead of iFollow is questionable 'have you ever watched a stream???' as if people are incapable of changing opinions.

Indeed! Some people seem to change their opinion on a game per game basis! They must be a nightmare when it comes to food shopping.

OTBC

[king canary 7,606]

26 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

Right..... but this in recent times has worked out as about $3 to $4 per 1000 plays. Its proportionate, calculated according to Spotify's revenue. 

As for smaller artists, haven't they always been skint? 

Leave school, start a band, 0.5% make it, 1.5% do alright for a few years, 98% fail completely.

I knew the bassist in a well known and successful indie band from the noughties who weren't exactly a flash in the pan, he was pulling pints when they weren't on tour. Come out of it all owning a nice little pad in London.... but even the Blur drummer had to get a grown up job (solicitor).

Most artists die poor, always been that way. 

As for record labels, well you'd have to be a bit silly to even have one these days. All of this distribution can be done independently, music industry more accessible than ever. 

Look at grime artists. JME and Skepta just started a ltd company and published their music. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Better_Know

As for 80-20 deals, Rough Trade has been 50-50 since day one and most independent labels worth their salt are 50-50. You can't criticise me for using big name artists as examples and then throw out major label terms of contract in support.

Most bands fail to make money, always been that way, its because most bands aren't very good. Just like most academy players don't become footballers. 

But $3-4 per 1000 plays is crap.

According to here you'd need to get 3,000,000 streams a year to live above the US poverty line.

I get the mystique of the starving artist but you can basically only make money by touring at this point. 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

All these posts...ultimately just to defend Bill. God I feel dirty.

OTBC

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

5 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

To say the club is losing money isn't right because they never had it in the first place . 

I’m not in the indignant camp and certainly not interested in the posts themselves . Morality is not a good topic for a football fans forum

 It is worth saying that The club do lose money , because they receive an income from iFollow based on numbers watching the service , and these numbers would probably be higher if there was no “free” alternative . Sponsors too are encouraged to continue their support because of the iFollow advertising 
 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

20 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Let he who has never watched an illegal stream cast the first stone. 

Surely that should be Chromecast the first stone ? 

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

Wait until the adult industry start chasing up lost revenue due to dodgy viewing. 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

4 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Wait until the adult industry start chasing up lost revenue due to dodgy viewing. 

Should that not be doggy (style) viewing?

OTBC