plugging the leaks

[smiler]

Maurice E pointed out earlier in other thread that sadly Morrissey's international artist profile is sliding.

In Japan birth rate is declining which also one of factors heavily affects on whole entertainment industry.

Say what??

If Morrissey's international artist profile is sliding (as you say) all the more reason to support him

Why not just say what you really think - come on Kewpie spit it out?

Do you remember Bod Dylan output in the 80's? - nobody does - and yet here he sits atop the charts.

 

[dunya]

I am saying the onus should be on everyone -

Solo could have maintained radio silence - instead they promoted the link on the front page.

Its not the sites job - but it could be their conviction - it doesn't even really take a lot of effort

Is it right to conclude that your argument is that Solo should be run differently, that leaks should be suppressed in order to maximise sales to the artistic and financial benefit of Morrissey and the record company?
Since they worked at producing and promoting the material, and financially backed it, then it seems a reasonable case. Why should the worker not benefit from their work?

But you are trying to promote a moral argument to those who do not share your views, while admitting you also downloaded.

The issue is not as simple as you imply. Respect for the record industry was lost long ago, as consumers realised they were being ripped off by high prices and excessive profits, much of which did not go to the artist anyway.
Also the refusal of the music industry to adopt new business models in a fast-changing economic environment, but instead relying of heavy-handed legal threats and prosecutions served to alienate the consumer further.

Now the horse has bolted and instead of bullying the consumer the record companies need to charm them with reasonably priced products available for download and in physical forms at the time of release.

The record companies could help themselves by adopting some of the tactics you described for Bob Dylan to prevent leaks. But I get the impression allowing leaks is a tactic sometimes used in the hope of hyping a new album beyond the core fanbase. Now that festivals, live performance and merchandise are more profitable comparably to album sales, free distribution of the product by enthusiastic supporters may do more benefit that harm?? Maybe.

Illegal downloading does affect sales. So does a poor quality product, poor distribution and poor promotion. YOR was unavailable in many record shops in the week of release due to distribution problems.

Illegal downloads are a part of the problem, but taping and illegal burning of CD's were before too. The poor performance of YOR cannot be attributed to that alone.

As a poster above commented, look at sales figures and price in a year's time to compare how well YOR has fared compared to other contemporaneous releases.

 

[smiler]

Is it right to conclude that your argument is that Solo should be run differently, that leaks should be suppressed in order to maximise sales to the artistic and financial benefit of Morrissey and the record company?
Since they worked at producing and promoting the material, and financially backed it, then it seems a reasonable case. Why should the worker not benefit from their work?

But you are trying to promote a moral argument to those who do not share your views, while admitting you also downloaded.

The issue is not as simple as you imply. Respect for the record industry was lost long ago, as consumers realised they were being ripped off by high prices and excessive profits, much of which did not go to the artist anyway.
Also the refusal of the music industry to adopt new business models in a fast-changing economic environment, but instead relying of heavy-handed legal threats and prosecutions served to alienate the consumer further.

Now the horse has bolted and instead of bullying the consumer the record companies need to charm them with reasonably priced products available for download and in physical forms at the time of release.

The record companies could help themselves by adopting some of the tactics you described for Bob Dylan to prevent leaks. But I get the impression allowing leaks is a tactic sometimes used in the hope of hyping a new album beyond the core fanbase. Now that festivals, live performance and merchandise are more profitable comparably to album sales, free distribution of the product by enthusiastic supporters may do more benefit that harm?? Maybe.

Illegal downloading does affect sales. So does a poor quality product, poor distribution and poor promotion. YOR was unavailable in many record shops in the week of release due to distribution problems.

Illegal downloads are a part of the problem, but taping and illegal burning of CD's were before too. The poor performance of YOR cannot be attributed to that alone.

As a poster above commented, look at sales figures and price in a year's time to compare how well YOR has fared compared to other contemporaneous releases.

We can go over and over these points without getting anywhere - in reality it isn't about maximizing sales or morals or the state of moden music or me downloading the album or even Morrissey own contribution to his problems - these things are all red herrings

I'll spelling out for you again:

Should a leak be front page news? - isn't that an aggressive stance for a fan website? - it doesn't have to be like that you know - it isn't handled like that on other sites

 

[thepoet1745]

I didn't know that about Japan. LOL But what I'm interested in here are Jaffa cakes! LOL Anyway, all of this seems a bit redundant. I couldn't keep myself from listening to the new album once it was out there but I just went to Moz's MySpace page and listened to the album there. I have software that records streams but the end quality is poor so I listened online and patiently waited for the German import I ordered. And the physical beauty of the packaging blew me away. I don't think we'll ever know how much the internet costs musicians- it's up to the record companies to get on board with the rest of the world. Sounds like it's time for a new business model for the record execs which IMHO is great because it will likely get the execs more and more out of the artist's way. I do think Radiohead ran a great experiment releasing In Rainbows on the internet. Who knows? Maybe we'll see more of that. In the meantime... maybe the Japanese will procreate more and I'll see what I can do about finding one of these Jaffa cakes.

 

[9 x Fined]

Bob Dylan is still alive?

 

[EPbabe]

I didn't know that about Japan. LOL But what I'm interested in here are Jaffa cakes! LOL Anyway, all of this seems a bit redundant. I couldn't keep myself from listening to the new album once it was out there but I just went to Moz's MySpace page and listened to the album there. I have software that records streams but the end quality is poor so I listened online and patiently waited for the German import I ordered. And the physical beauty of the packaging blew me away. I don't think we'll ever know how much the internet costs musicians- it's up to the record companies to get on board with the rest of the world. Sounds like it's time for a new business model for the record execs which IMHO is great because it will likely get the execs more and more out of the artist's way. I do think Radiohead ran a great experiment releasing In Rainbows on the internet. Who knows? Maybe we'll see more of that. In the meantime... maybe the Japanese will procreate more and I'll see what I can do about finding one of these Jaffa cakes.

As outraged as I was when the album leaked, and as much as I prefer physical copies of records instead of the virtual ones, I do agree with you that it's the age of the internet, and artists need to start adapting. Copyright fees are already included in the price of blank cds, dvds, and there are plans to do the same with pendrives and mp3 players (if I remember correctly).

 

[Dave]

We can go over and over these points without getting anywhere - in reality it isn't about maximizing sales or morals or the state of moden music or me downloading the album or even Morrissey own contribution to his problems - these things are all red herrings

I'll spelling out for you again:

Should a leak be front page news? - isn't that an aggressive stance for a fan website? - it doesn't have to be like that you know - it isn't handled like that on other sites

Alright, the posts are getting shorter now. You can make the part after "I'll spelling out for you again:" your signature.

 

[smiler]

Alright, the posts are getting shorter now. You can make the part after "I'll spelling out for you again:" your signature.

Why not just answer the question Dave - tell us all what you think?

 

[smiler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes

 

[dunya]

We can go over and over these points without getting anywhere - in reality it isn't about maximizing sales or morals or the state of moden music or me downloading the album or even Morrissey own contribution to his problems - these things are all red herrings

These things are not red herrings, they are part of the bigger picture. You have no need to "spell things" out as your post was clear enough. I chose to give my opinion on my own terms, not on yours.

So how is publishing news of a leak on the front page NOT about these things? As I said before, the artist deserves to make an income from their work, and that is why I chose not to download illegally when I had the opportunity. Personally I would rather the news had not been on the front page, but I'm not in a position to tell Davidt what to do. I would like to see a fairer system where artists are properly rewarded for their work. Change is needed. If people can get something, somewhere for free they will.

Should a leak be front page news? - isn't that an aggressive stance for a fan website? - it doesn't have to be like that you know - it isn't handled like that on other sites

There is not yet one workable law for all. It currently depends on the measures the record company, the artist and official websites want to pursue. Bob Dylan has historically kept a very tight control of the use of his material. No change in this instance. What goes on here on Solo is typical of fan sites worldwide. I don't think it is an aggressive stance. To label it "aggressive" implies an intention to harm, when in fact this site has done a lot to promote Morrissey. Lacking in deference maybe, but consistent with Davidt's free speech beliefs.

I would rather people lacked deference than idolise and obsess over someone who is unlikely to be aware of their existance beyond album sales and concert audiences. But here I do digress. That is another issue.

 

[Black Cloud]

If Morrissey gave away a packet of Jaffa Cakes with each copy of the latest release, would sales figures have been higher?

Is smiler's use of one sentence paragraphs some kind of statement?

 

[smiler]

These things are not red herrings, they are part of the bigger picture. You have no need to "spell things" out as your post was clear enough. I chose to give my opinion on my own terms, not on yours.

You didn't actually give your opinion that was the problem.

So how is publishing news of a leak on the front page NOT about these things? As I said before, the artist deserves to make an income from their work, and that is why I chose not to download illegally when I had the opportunity.

Because we can discuss these complex things all day - there will be no correct answer and nothing will change. Its actually much simpler than that

Personally I would rather the news had not been on the front page, but I'm not in a position to tell Davidt what to do.

At last - thank you - but i think its worth while letting davidt know how you feel - maybe if enough people feel strongly....?

Intresting that the moderators don't seem to feel in a position to give their honest opinion on the subject - kewpie? and the rest of you - its a simple question - step forward mods and regular posters..

I don't think it is an aggressive stance. To label it "aggressive" implies an intention to harm, when in fact this site has done a lot to promote Morrissey. Lacking in deference maybe, but consistent with Davidt's free speech beliefs.

We disagree on this - I think its aggressive - the free speech thing is another red herring - people already get banned from here for saying the wrong things - threads already get removed.

 

[Uncleskinny]

These things are not red herrings, they are part of the bigger picture. You have no need to "spell things" out as your post was clear enough. I chose to give my opinion on my own terms, not on yours.

So how is publishing news of a leak on the front page NOT about these things? As I said before, the artist deserves to make an income from their work, and that is why I chose not to download illegally when I had the opportunity. Personally I would rather the news had not been on the front page, but I'm not in a position to tell Davidt what to do. I would like to see a fairer system where artists are properly rewarded for their work. Change is needed. If people can get something, somewhere for free they will.



There is not yet one workable law for all. It currently depends on the measures the record company, the artist and official websites want to pursue. Bob Dylan has historically kept a very tight control of the use of his material. No change in this instance. What goes on here on Solo is typical of fan sites worldwide. I don't think it is an aggressive stance. To label it "aggressive" implies an intention to harm, when in fact this site has done a lot to promote Morrissey. Lacking in deference maybe, but consistent with Davidt's free speech beliefs.

I would rather people lacked deference than idolise and obsess over someone who is unlikely to be aware of their existance beyond album sales and concert audiences. But here I do digress. That is another issue.

I agree with everything in this post. Well put.

Peter

 

[smiler]

I agree with everything in this post. Well put.

Peter

Hi Peter

So you agree with this:

"I would rather the news had not been on the front page"

 

[Uncleskinny]

Hi Peter

So you agree with this:

"I would rather the news had not been on the front page"

My comment has not changed in the last 15 minutes. Now I'm off for a kip.

Peter

 

[smiler]

My comment has not changed in the last 15 minutes. Now I'm off for a kip.

Peter

bit twitchy Peter? - so thats a simple yes then - you do agree - thank you

Any other regular posters/brave ones want to add their voice to this growing cause? - kewpie?

 

[davidt]

i agree with you dave. it can only be seen as an aggressive stance if there is an assumed understanding that one part of this site's purpose is to protect morrissey's interests.

as far as i know davidt runs this site independently; financially and editorially, and so therefore the record leaking is news.

This is correct.

I often get comments such as 'why is this on the front page? it's not news'. What's on the front page is not always necessarily news, it is what I find interesting and/or what others I think may find interesting. The leak was huge news, it would almost be irresponsible not to report it.

If the sole purpose of the site was to make the album chart as high as possible, I would not mention the leak. I'd remove any submissions or comments that were seen as 'negative' also. That would probably cause too much trouble so I would have to disable comments altogether. Forget about anything slightly off-topic or Smiths-related, the focus should be on the new album. Basically you would have a site similar to the official site.

The removal of links the Dylan fansite is their choice but in my opinion it is censorship.

Also, music labels have different strategies. Maybe they actually wanted it to leak to generate a positive buzz. Who are any of us to speak for them or Morrissey? If they wanted links to be removed there is a procedure which all labels are familiar with and would probably take less than a few minutes. I got 0 requests for YOR link removals.

 

[smiler]

This is correct.

I often get comments such as 'why is this on the front page? it's not news'. What's on the front page is not always necessarily news, it is what I find interesting and/or what others I think may find interesting. The leak was huge news, it would almost be irresponsible not to report it.

If the sole purpose of the site was to make the album chart as high as possible, I would not mention the leak. I'd remove any submissions or comments that were seen as 'negative' also. That would probably cause too much trouble so I would have to disable comments altogether. Forget about anything slightly off-topic or Smiths-related, the focus should be on the new album. Basically you would have a site similar to the official site.

The removal of links the Dylan fansite is their choice but in my opinion it is censorship.

Also, music labels have different strategies. Maybe they actually wanted it to leak to generate a positive buzz. Who are any of us to speak for them or Morrissey? If they wanted links to be removed there is a procedure which all labels are familiar with and would probably take less than a few minutes. I got 0 requests for YOR link removals.

Thanks for replying David:

I don't think what the dylan site did was censorship - that is too strong a word - if you are using such a strict definition then this site must guilty of the same - you have moderators - people can banned - threads get removed.

Dylan fans would not have reacted well to censorship - yet the site is very popular and remains so - i didn't feel it was censorship.

I am sure you act responsibly in some ways David - Would Morrissey's address/telephone number be "news" if it found its way on to the public domain via a leak - would you distribute it on the front page? - I am sure there are countless examples where you have drawn the line in the past.

I think its a subtle change David - not one that has to damage or contradict your philosophy.

As for the record companies response - maybe they felt the damage was done and the procedure would be too long winded (especially if their copywrite was challenged) - or maybe they feared you would post their request on the front page and cause a public spat - its all speculation

I think deep down you know the albums wasn't realeased early as part of "promo campaign."

All I'm asking is that you consider a different approach next time - perhaps following the Dylan sites example - its not clear cut - but give it some thought.

 

[davidt]

I think you are mixing up the ideas of censorship, the examples you give are not really meaningful. I would not post Morrissey's phone number and yes, mods do remove spam and personal info posted by abusers but they do not remove content.

I understand what you are saying, the openness of some policies on the site, on the surface, may be viewed as damaging. I personally disagree.

No, I do not know for certain what the labels thought about the leaks as no one contacted me about them. As you may recall, the files were not actually on the site, just links to them. Maybe the labels found the links and asked them to be removed at the source. Either way, the site is the messenger, don't shoot or otherwise try to suppress it.

Thanks for replying David:

I don't think what the dylan site did was censorship - that is too strong a word - if you are using such a strict definition then this site must guilty of the same - you have moderators - people can banned - threads get removed.

Dylan fans would not have reacted well to censorship - yet the site is very popular and remains so - i didn't feel it was censorship.

I am sure you act responsibly in some ways David - Would Morrissey's address/telephone number be "news" if it found its way on to the public domain via a leak - would you distribute it on the front page? - I am sure there are countless examples where you have drawn the line in the past.

I think its a subtle change David - not one that has to damage or contradict your philosophy.

As for the record companies response - maybe they felt the damage was done and the procedure would be too long winded (especially if their copywrite was challenged) - or maybe they feared you would post their request on the front page and cause a public spat - its all speculation

I think deep down you know the albums wasn't realeased early as part of "promo campaign."

All I'm asking is that you consider a different approach next time - perhaps following the Dylan sites example - its not clear cut - but give it some thought.

 

[Mozza220559]

morrissey is like a jaffa cake:

not one thing nor the other

misunderstod

soft in the middle

but seriously

its when jaffa cakes are made instantly available and promoted on the internet that the problems start - its the distrubution issue..... - did i stretch the metaphor too far? -

I thought you were just on about Jaffa cakes at the last bit.