E M I R I P
Great post by Hans Ebert over at we-enhance:
http://www.helloaudience.com/cgi-bin/mailview.pl?id=385868_hMuE60
Our sentiments entirely.
Losers.
Thanks to PS for the heads up 
Music plonkerisation
Our friends at Resonance Blog posted a wonderful rant:
The Fundamental Issues Surrounding The Entertainment Industry
Read the full post here on Jonathan MacDonald dot com
Excerpt below:
1. The licensing bodies demand fees that are extraordinarily challenging (read: totally impossible) to cover with ‘advertising’ as we know it today – Why? Because:
2. The ‘advertising’ model commonly adopted (pre-roll, post-roll, ham-roll, banners and buttons), is mainly tolerated by people who want free stuff – rather than who want to communicate with brands – hence advertising is remarkably inefficient regardless of what metric is used to cover the tracks (sorry, ‘prove effectiveness’)
3. ‘UK Music’ and several other organisations are unwilling to accept the way the entertainment industry actually is – the manifesto of which you can read in full here
4. We live in a world where those with the loudest voice, sadly, are those who have absolutely no link to reality and come up with utterly ridiculous notions such as thinking a distribution channel (like YouTube) is somehow ‘unfair’ in rebelling against a bloated and greedy industry, clinging onto its 1987 Porsche Targa by its charlie-ridden fingernails
5. Ek (Spotify), Purdham (We7)n and Arora (Google) just wanna find a way of legally allowing people to access the music they love, yet the music industry is unwilling to work symbiotically to make this happen – meaning, ultimately, music lovers lose out
6. This drives more services out of business and more music lovers to seek other access points – in many cases, illegal
7. As services show that ad-funding can’t cover fees, the advertisers become more skeptical and less willing to invest heavily meaning that issue #1 is even more true…
…and the vortex continues to perpetuate.
EMI has a new spin?
Sunday Times Business today – page 7 – James Ashton writes about Eliols ‘fresh business model’.
This, it must be said, is in light of Guy Hands’s write off of half the £2.3BILLION he invested, accepting he is likely to make a loss on the deal.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
The ‘fresh approach’ is apparently so position EMI as the content provider and let all others (Spotify are mentioned), monetize in their new revolutionary ways (translation: try desperately to ad-fund tracks + place a premium if you want to avoid the ads)
All is well for EMI then….so long as the other models can financially support the license fees on the music.
All is well, according to Elio, in terms of piracy, so long as the Government legislates and ISPs abide by said legislation.
It seems there is a total lack of personal accountability here.
You can sit around waiting for everyone else to ’sort it out’ or record companies can be pro-active and find new ways collaboratively – including talking about the elephant in the room that is the vast majority of people who share music ‘illegally’ and will continue to do so, regardless of legislation.
The nanosecond cassette players had two decks, one with a record and play function, the industry as we knew it, died.
Will the likes of EMI ever read and understand the Manifesto?
We doubt it.
Will the industry work out like Terra Firma would like it to?
Absolutely categorically not.
–
But then I guess, we shouldn’t judge a man until we have walked a mile in his shoes.
Mind you – by then, you can judge, PLUS you are a mile away, AND still have his shoes.