Because the knock on effect is that the labels are shitting themselves about profits
and therefore only sign and invest in 'safe bet' acts.

The traditional model was 'sign fucking loads of bands most of whom will make a loss but the ones that don't make so much that this is OK'. That's not great but at least some risky signings can be made, and an artist with one successful record might be given a bit of time to make another one and be 'forgiven' a non-hit here and there. If you remove the cash input from the label's successes they can't spend money on 'developing' other artists.

This is not good for music in general. Even if I think it's all a load of toss.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:30, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

So piracy indirectly leads to more Bieber and One Dire Erection??
Why the fuck don't they put that on the anti-piracy ads instead of all that funding terrists stuff?

Surely that would kill it overnight?
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:36, Reply)

But the rise of "piracy" and mp3 sales have caused independant lables to have the biggest market share they've ever seen.
It's about 25% of album sales now.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:37, Reply)

25% of fuck all though

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:40, Reply)

Bollocks total album sales rose 5% in 2011

(PsychoChomp, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:43, Reply)

whatevs, I'm fucking bored of this argument

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:44, Reply)

I know what you mean.
Especially as there is a much more entertaining one just up there ^
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:46, Reply)

Wilf's been at the 'angry pills' again

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 16:05, Reply)

People seem to think that because the sale of CD's have diminished that music is dying, when in reality online downloads are plentiful

( GeordieJay Bummers are deaf, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:45, Reply)

The big 4 lost 52% of their profits from recorded music between 2000 and 2010
which is what they always quote.

However what they fail to mention is that is only in the US, a lot of that profit transfered to iTunes (who were big enough to have a decent contracts with the big 4) didn't count the increase in profits from live acts. And the fact that halving a profit still gives you a profit.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 18 Dec 2012, 15:49, Reply)