[X] makes some decent points so instead, of a good rebuttal you attack the person, pretty jellyfish of you. Can you maybe find and rub two braincells together and at least give it a try .
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Bono Calls for Tougher Download Controls
- Thread starter Terry Olaes
- Start date
[X] makes some decent points so instead, of a good rebuttal you attack the person, pretty jellyfish of you. Can you maybe find and rub two braincells together and at least give it a try .
No, they were reasons he would not want to buy music. That has no place in a discussion on piracy. If he doesn't like it then he shouldn't buy it. Using those excuses to justify why he's ok with other people stealing is BS.
"Good points" such as distribution being limited to vinyl, cassette, or CD before the rise of mp3 only has relevance in terms of how slow the music business was to jump into online distribution. It still doesn't justify the theft of media to me. The film business is being more proactive in this regard, but I still believe that file size is the main thing that has prevented it from being as prevalent as music piracy. Despite all that it is still really common.
madmat
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,372
Funny but the undiscovered and fledgling songwriters and artists are the ones that are out there openly sharing their stuff so that it gets heard. It seems that the ones crying about the hit to their pocketbooks are the ones like Bono that already have all the money to begin with. Maybe this assclown needs to talk to Trent Reznor.
Just one more reason to dislike Bono and his shit band.
Yes, we do, because we're the consumers buying it. That's called supply and demand; anything else is called price fixing and is subject to investigation for antitrust.
...and how they love to lock those poor, fledgeling new artists into shitty contracts on their labels, perpetuating the bullshit further.
Yup, and they either eventually get signed with a label, they subsist on touring (which usually leads to a record deal anyway), or they eventually go away because they can't support their music careers on freely giving out their music away and getting nothing in return. That's the point, the next Beatles, Rolling Stones, U2, would have a much tougher time to be given the freedom to create music since their work wouldn't be generating any income. It was that income in their formative years that made the difference between then continuing on to greater things and just going away because they couldn't afford it anymore because they weren't making a living.
And God forbid a recording artist makes any income, those greedy artists.
As nilepez said earlier, bands like Radiohead and NIN don't count since they already have absolutely massive global brand names. There's a difference between a fledgling band with talent and an established band with decades of work and multiple platinum albums behind them. Platinum albums that are still generating massive amounts of residual income, btw...
nathancipher
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 322
Intellectual property. Just mull that phrase over for a moment. Really think about it for a bit. Intellectual property. What is intellectual property at its' root? Information. Information that can be broken down into a series of ones and zeros. Information that can be transmitted over wires, radio waves, a fucking flashlight could theoretically send binary for fucks' sake.
Now, my question for you all is this. Can you really and truly own any information in the year 2010? Is it even really a viable option? Let's not mince words about how the law says you can own it -- I mean from a strictly practical standpoint.
Is it possible to truly maintain ownership of information in the digital age? I would go so far as to postulate that the answer is no unless you kept said information under wraps and didn't make it available to the general public at all.
Do I have a solution? No, but I'd sure hope that these multi-billion dollar industries could figure out a way to rework their business models to operate in the market of today.
They blame flagging sales on their thieving customer base, alienating potential and current customers alike. Without proper figures that can be trusted no one can say for sure. As it stands the media companies can just release figures regarding piracy. I have to suspect that these numbers are grossly inflated to buy them some grace from the shareholders who always want more profits.
Piracy may be wrong, but the changes these companies -- and mouthpieces like Bono -- would like to make regarding privacy on the internet are downright horrifying.
Now, my question for you all is this. Can you really and truly own any information in the year 2010? Is it even really a viable option? Let's not mince words about how the law says you can own it -- I mean from a strictly practical standpoint.
Is it possible to truly maintain ownership of information in the digital age? I would go so far as to postulate that the answer is no unless you kept said information under wraps and didn't make it available to the general public at all.
Do I have a solution? No, but I'd sure hope that these multi-billion dollar industries could figure out a way to rework their business models to operate in the market of today.
They blame flagging sales on their thieving customer base, alienating potential and current customers alike. Without proper figures that can be trusted no one can say for sure. As it stands the media companies can just release figures regarding piracy. I have to suspect that these numbers are grossly inflated to buy them some grace from the shareholders who always want more profits.
Piracy may be wrong, but the changes these companies -- and mouthpieces like Bono -- would like to make regarding privacy on the internet are downright horrifying.
Name one (real) artist who's made most of their money off record sales. Go for it. And when you realize the number, shove your head back in the sand.
I pirate bands I don't know, If they're good I grow to like them, and I support bands I like.
@Serpico
Actually my post was a response to someone ELSE's justification for record labels. In this day and age the only thing a label does is impede an artist, drive up costs, and actually, IMHO, often force the artists to compromise their art. Do you think that all musicians share a collective conscience that direct them to magically have their art fit into a 3-4 minute box? Do they have some universal sense on how to make their music 'Radio Friendly'. I'm just saying that where a Label's place is, is in accomodating the artists, not the other way around. And on another front, I come from a time when I actually owned the vinyl versions of a large percentage of any music I have obtained digitally. Why should I have to pay for it again when the royalties have already been paid and there is no physical medium involved. If I listen to Dark Side 30 times would I have to pay for it again and again? Answer: no. Why? The artist got my money 25 years ago. And again 15 years later when I bought the CD. I'm done paying the label a back-end when they provide me nothing and very little to the artist, who, I must reiterate, already got paid...TWICE. I've never been paid twice for hanging a sheet of drywall. So in essence, you're right- Fuck The Man.
QFT, another post aside from nilepez's that I can agree with.
Monetizing IP without making things difficult for consumers is really the trick, isn't it? Steam is doing a good job of it with games, despite its DRM, and I'm happy buying Blu Ray for movies since its image and audio quality far exceeds anything else out there. I deal with the incredibly restrictive DRM of the Amazon Kindle because their cloud service and the device itself are so solid. I buy CDs and download legit music from Amazon or iTunes because its the "right" thing to do, but that obviously has the least incentive for me to go legal compared to movies, e-books, and games.
Either way, even if IP are just "ones and zeroes", it doesn't really matter because piracy has a very real effect on our economy. Media is one of the few exports that the US still has that we lead the world in. Film goes one step further in that it is one of the few major manufacturing industries the US still has that it leads in. If the effect of piracy on these industries continues to accelerate then it will have a significant impact on the US GDP, no question.
Hopefully solutions are found that will be good for everyone. I personally deal with DRM on Steam or Amazon Kindle, and deal with the "physical" DRM that things like Blu Ray has. Some people will always have issues with them, and I really don't know what to say to that except that stealing is still not the right way to go.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
Actually, he had very good points, and nowhere did he say he was downloading it instead of simply not buying it. You're pulling your own concerns out of other people's words, now.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
Hey Bono, I'm a conservatory trained classical pianist and people pirating and sharing my music is the best thing that can possibly happen to me. Those of us struggling to survive off of our art need exposure since the competition industry that awards the recording contracts is incredibly rigged.
If people pirate my music, that means they are listening to it. It also means they know who I am and will buy tickets to see me play and that's where we make money - our engagement fee is directly tied to how many people we bring to the venue. Royalties from CD's are jack shit.
If people pirate my music, that means they are listening to it. It also means they know who I am and will buy tickets to see me play and that's where we make money - our engagement fee is directly tied to how many people we bring to the venue. Royalties from CD's are jack shit.
I don't have access to their books, sorry. Obviously touring and selling of things like t-shirts are a large source of income, but its disingenuous to say that albums that have gone gold or platinum don't resulted in income for the artist, even after the other thieves in the chain have taken their cut. They do, and taking that one thing away is one less revenue stream for them.
Working in film production, I do know "indie" people that work in web video. They're actually big successes in that area (Dr Horrible, The Guild, etc), but the bulk of their actual income are from sales on iTunes and DVD on Amazon. Everything else, all the free streaming on Hulu or MSN or their websites for example, gets them very little in comparison.
I hope you support them by buying their music and merchandise and going to their shows. You know, real support, not putting their sticker on your car and posting on a message board that you "support" them.
[X];1035137457 said:
You know, from this POV I agree with you. Its common knowledge that record labels are an impedance for artists, especially these days when artistic risk is frowned upon because everyone is so goddamn scared about declining sales (which results in boring music nobody wants, etc etc).
That said, labels are unfortunately the way that music gets out there. Even if an artist gets going via grassroots effort, they will eventually sign with a label to break through to the next level.
Grizzly Bear is a band that immediately comes to mind. They built a steady following over years via Myspace and touring, then they signed with Warp. Someone needs to handle the marketing and distribution side of things. I can't think of another solution, can you?
As for paying again to listen on a different format, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't necessarily agree with it in my personal life.
I used to own movies on Laserdisc. When DVD came out I ended up upgrading my collection because the convenience of size made sense. When Blu Ray came out I upgraded to that because the massive leap in image quality justified that.
The same thing with games and Steam. I actually sold my CD copy of Company Of Heroes at a loss and bought it again on Steam because the convenience of the autopatching system, as well as no more CDs or CD keys, made the cost worth it.
The media itself, whether it is via improved fidelity or added convenience (which may justify you upgrading your vinyl copy of Dark Side), provides value to some people. Clearly not for you, but in that case Fuck The Man.
One last thing, you already bought Dark Side on CD, something that's justified because it will last longer than your vinyl copy would. That's the last copy you'll ever need, especially since you can just rip it to an mp3 or AAC and call it a day. I don't see anyone forcing you to buy Dark Side again digitally, or anyone keeping you from making your own digital copy. Nobody is suggesting or forcing you to do otherwise. Business between you and the label is done as far as Dark Side goes, so I don't see what the problem is.
Let's say all my shit is destroyed in a fire. What do I do about my Dark Side needs? Easy, I call my buddy in New York, have him make me a private torrent and bingo, I've got my album back, that I already paid for... Twice. No harm, no foul... and oh yeah- Fuck The Man
temujin987
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,351
bono should ask his record label where all the money is going.
and besides that, it makes me sick to see james hetfield (metallica) with an armani bag while they rant how many millions they lose because of file sharing. i've grown up with their old stuff. the new albums are total garbage, but death magnetic sounded promising (and hooray, the old logo is back) when i downloaded it (yea i actually use this way to test and then buy). so i bought the supadupa edition that came in a white coffin. it cost 100 euros and guess what. it doesn't even say "metallica" on it. and what was inside was of such cheap quality, it's worth 40 bucks at best. should i ever meet james in person i'd love to ask him what cool stuff he bought at armani with the money i wasted on that box of junk.
the same goes to folks like bono. he's rolling in money, flies around in his own jet, but talks about preserving the environment or poor people and now poor artists. come on, representatives of the music and movie industry, just admit you want more money. wait, did i just see another sales record of some avatar movie? aww
i love collecting original cds and i got close to 700 now, but this "omg we are so poor" attitude makes me sick.
and besides that, it makes me sick to see james hetfield (metallica) with an armani bag while they rant how many millions they lose because of file sharing. i've grown up with their old stuff. the new albums are total garbage, but death magnetic sounded promising (and hooray, the old logo is back) when i downloaded it (yea i actually use this way to test and then buy). so i bought the supadupa edition that came in a white coffin. it cost 100 euros and guess what. it doesn't even say "metallica" on it. and what was inside was of such cheap quality, it's worth 40 bucks at best. should i ever meet james in person i'd love to ask him what cool stuff he bought at armani with the money i wasted on that box of junk.
the same goes to folks like bono. he's rolling in money, flies around in his own jet, but talks about preserving the environment or poor people and now poor artists. come on, representatives of the music and movie industry, just admit you want more money. wait, did i just see another sales record of some avatar movie? aww
i love collecting original cds and i got close to 700 now, but this "omg we are so poor" attitude makes me sick.
In the early 80's, games generally sold for at least 40 or 50, but many games sold for 99.99 or more. Most of them were war games, but I also recall that Sierra Online sold Time Zone for roughly $100.00.
And people do complain about game prices. I will say there are times that labels/bands screw up. I look at the Genesis live box set as a prime example. There are, at most, 2 albums that I want in the set and one of those doesn't have a 5.1 mix. Supposedly that is on the live DVD set, which has one or 2 shows that I'm semi-interested in, but not enough to buy the set.
All of that would be fine, if they'd sell them as separate sets, but they haven't for some reason. It seems like a money grab, but I can live without them and I will. Eventually, they'll release Seconds Out separately...or someone will sell the set used for next to nothing.
You can't get the Avatar experience at home. For that matter, i can't imagine a movie less suitable for filming with a camcorder and watching at home.
Regardless, sales of music has plummeted in the last 10 years. Yes, part of that is because the baby boomers had finally replaced all of their vinyl albums with CDs, but mostly what happened was an entire generation has grown up believing that it's OK to download music via P2P for free.
Anyone that doesn't acknowledge that is either disingenuous or completely out of touch with reality. I watch co-workers who have upper 5 figure salaries that pass around burned dvds and Cds all of the time. None of them bought any of them. They talk about how great this album is or that albums is, but not one spends a dime on those albums or those movies.
It's not because the price is too high. It's because virtually any price is too much vs downloading it for free....or better still getting a burned copy from someone else who downloaded it for free.
Oh it has.. just not for the artist, the labels make out like bandits.
This classic always comes to mind! .. man the memories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y
nathancipher
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 322
But it is OK! Most of the good stuff coming out these days is put out for free in the first place. At least so far as the music I listen to is concerned. The real issue isn't necessarily
that an entire generation steals music, they just don't care to buy the overpriced junk that record labels push while real artists are giving better product away for free. I haven't bought an album from any major label in probably 10 years, and I have pirated exactly 0 albums from these major labels. They can keep pushing their garbage but I'm not going to listen to it. I don't even own a single device that will receive an FM signal anymore. I hardly ever have to deal with their cookie cutter over the top loudly mastered garbage. Thankfully.
[X];1035137250 said:
Oh you mean those guys who had rich benefactors who paid them to write music, paint and so on? Those kings, princes and churches were the labels of their day. I have no idea why you have Van Gogh in your list. It's not like he sold a ton of paintings while he was a live. The vast majority are owned by his family and you generally have to travel to the Netherlands to see them.
And who are you to decide who is a true artist? FYI, the labels were important, because they could market albums. They were important, because they could nurture a band like Pink Floyd for almost 10 years, before they finally became the huge big selling artists that they became.
The labels are guilty of many things, but they also spent lots of money developing artists. Most of them will never generate a profit. There's no way to know what art will sell and what will not.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Here's a way you can protect your intellectual property... stop putting it on a medium that is digital.
It wasn't much of a deal when your had everything over the radio and the best copies you could make usually had the talk in from the DJ that played the music, but noooooooo we want all this fancy digital stuff and no one to easily copy it.
Better yet... STOP ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO HEAR YOUR MUSIC (either paying for it, or listening to it) IF YOU CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT YOUR GOD DAMN PRECIOUS IP!
It wasn't much of a deal when your had everything over the radio and the best copies you could make usually had the talk in from the DJ that played the music, but noooooooo we want all this fancy digital stuff and no one to easily copy it.
Better yet... STOP ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO HEAR YOUR MUSIC (either paying for it, or listening to it) IF YOU CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT YOUR GOD DAMN PRECIOUS IP!
This may have changed since music sales went into the shitter, but Hip Hop artists (who I'm sure all of these guys will come back an scream how they aren't artists) traditionally made the bulk of their money from record sales.
Others that made almost all of it from sales and airplay include The Beatles, Cat Stevens, Carly Simon (suffers from Stage fright). I suspect the Police made the bulk of their money from Sales/Airplay. More than likely, Michael Jackson made most of his money from sales.
In case you guys didn't know it, until 15 or 20 years ago, artists largely toured to promote albums, which generated sales. Pink Floyd broke even on the Wall Tour. U2 barely broke even on Zoo TV, despite the fact that the tour sold out most venues.
The era of big money for most touring artists happened after Napster. And frankly folks, the price of concert tickets is far more outrageous than CD prices. A ticket to see a band in 1980, adjusted for inflation, typically cost less than 45.00. The most expensive ticket at that time was likely Pink Floyd's wall shows, and they were around $15.00, which is less than $40.00 in 2008 dollars (the most recent info I could find). If Pink Floyd still existed, a ticket would start at somewhere north of $100.00....probably more than $200.00
The most downloaded music isn't typically indie bands that are giving way their music for free. Most of what is downloaded is stolen. Nobody is arguing that a band shouldn't be allowed to give it's music away if it chooses to do so.
Music piracy does hurt major labels that used to spend a lot on developing acts. I don't see how it's been hurting the indie scenes though. It does make the world more hostile for a lot of talent out there. Songwriters are hurt in a big way. There's less performers out there to play and record their music for the big labels. Without that environment to help the songwriters, pop music is going to get worse and more sparse.
To me it just means the industry is changing. Time to diversify, change modes or do something different to make a dollar. Hopefully the indie scenes and creative individuals out there will help us get out of this music slump. Even if things do get better, it's really hurt a large part of the business, which is the songwriter business. Although, I think with technology there's likely songwriters/composers doing more of the work out there. Let's not forget all the virtual instruments being used putting all sorts of performers and recording artists out of work. It's a scary time for many musicians and artists. Still, it's also very exciting. People can record albums from their bedrooms and market themselves for nearly free.
On the other end of this is performing with your original act. It can be expensive to tour and make enough money to thrive or just survive. Also, online royalties can be sparse if nonexistent for a livings' sake.
Ultimately, it's hard for my to say piracy should be hunted down and killed like the RIAA thinks it can be. I used to rip CDs to tapes back in the day, or copy tapes... make mix tapes. I do have much more music than I used to since the internet has been so friendly to finding music. Much of is bought (eMusic), but a lot of it is not. I try to afford what I can, but still...
Should there be better protection for property holders? Maybe. I think good bands will move up the ranks and get noticed and make a good living. It's gotta be kind of hard to make it anyway. Right?
TV shows though... whatever. 99% of modern TV is not worth watching. Movies... they made more money this year than last year. I don't believe they're hurting when investments can be doubled if a movie is a decent movie. I'm not sure what Bono is defending really. Online TV hopefully will fill the void that piracy would fill in the imaginary Bono future. #2!
To me it just means the industry is changing. Time to diversify, change modes or do something different to make a dollar. Hopefully the indie scenes and creative individuals out there will help us get out of this music slump. Even if things do get better, it's really hurt a large part of the business, which is the songwriter business. Although, I think with technology there's likely songwriters/composers doing more of the work out there. Let's not forget all the virtual instruments being used putting all sorts of performers and recording artists out of work. It's a scary time for many musicians and artists. Still, it's also very exciting. People can record albums from their bedrooms and market themselves for nearly free.
On the other end of this is performing with your original act. It can be expensive to tour and make enough money to thrive or just survive. Also, online royalties can be sparse if nonexistent for a livings' sake.
Ultimately, it's hard for my to say piracy should be hunted down and killed like the RIAA thinks it can be. I used to rip CDs to tapes back in the day, or copy tapes... make mix tapes. I do have much more music than I used to since the internet has been so friendly to finding music. Much of is bought (eMusic), but a lot of it is not. I try to afford what I can, but still...
Should there be better protection for property holders? Maybe. I think good bands will move up the ranks and get noticed and make a good living. It's gotta be kind of hard to make it anyway. Right?
TV shows though... whatever. 99% of modern TV is not worth watching. Movies... they made more money this year than last year. I don't believe they're hurting when investments can be doubled if a movie is a decent movie. I'm not sure what Bono is defending really. Online TV hopefully will fill the void that piracy would fill in the imaginary Bono future. #2!
nathancipher
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 322
I hate to argue for the sake of it, but do you have any metrics to back this up?
Orinthical
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,635
QFT. /thread
DONT dare try and tell the populace that illegal downloads are destroying the music industry when last I checked, both industries the RIAA and MPAA fight for had record years last year.
Oh yea and Bono, last I checked, there's a thriving local music scene in just about every city, especially major ones and guess what - many of the better bands do better for themselves without a major record label sucking up all the profits. But hey if you're referring to the junior upstarts getting signed to major labels recently, maybe they aren't selling so well because many of us are tired of the Britney Spears, Jay-Z or Metallica clones.
As for songwriters, they are a commodity who need to do a better job of selling themselves and their talent - just like every writer. When's the last time anyone heard of a writer getting a good deal? Oh yea, George Lucas!
The industries themselves are to blame and the industries are the ones who need to fix themselves. Both the RIAA and MPAA rely upon sad MBA-style math that assumes the industry is in peril because they aren't earning a $10 commission on each of the pirated DVDs sold, rather than looking at the actual increase in domestic and overseas sales over the last ten years. This leads to silly business practices like trying to beat the pirates by selling Superman DVDs for $3 in China while everywhere else it's still $20+.
Seriously - the kind of math they are basing their entire argument on is thus:
Sam is a theater employee who routinely sees movies for free. Perk of the job, he thinks and why not since he has to deal with what the other consumers leave behind. Yet because Sam sees ten movies for free this month, the MPAA counts that they lost $50 in profit. Compound that by thousands of employees across America and you've got a very large number to scream about; BUT compare that to the paying customers and it's somewhere between deciding whether or not to buy the $40 set of wheel locks for a $200,000 classic luxury car or whether to buy new underwear to go with your brand-new $15,000 suit.
But whatever. I buy my music from Amazon where it's DRM-free and will continue to do so, so long as it remains free of content restrictions. Being able to legitimately purchase music and media is the best thing to happen to the industry since sliced bread and they have seen countless times how DRM negatively affects the market but hey Bono, why not.
MisterSparkle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,077
High quality is my main gripe with online music these days. I pay cash to buy a song/album, not a song/album that's had some it's musical information lost due to lossy audio codecs.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
Uhm. The market. And right now, the market says it's too high. Period.
Stardusted
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 389
I find most of [X]'s comments to be really insightful and valid. For an example, some say we wouldn't have some major bands if large distribution companies and labels were not. Now, you may have ended up with others, maybe even better ones (if anyone could use the word better for art) or different ones, or even the same ones!
You can't really know these things, you can only guess, and guessing in my book is not a valid arguement.
So let's talk facts. Bono says cds are what makes or breaks an artists payroll. That's is just not true, and anyone ever involved in the business should know better. In fact i'm sure Bono does know better.
Music industry is focusing on fighting piracy, when they are not using it that is (shocking news? they do), but what they seem to ignore is how many customers and followers they are losing due to reasons other than their dreadful enemy. I have stopped buying cds since I was 24, that would be for 4 years now.
I just load up youtube and listen to the songs I want. That's not because I can't afford to buy, or because I am boycotting or anything. I just find it not worthy of my time not my money. And time is much much more important. They made it that way.
Ending my post, I would like to underline again something [X] said, and I believe many didnt really pay attention to. The 3-4 minutes duration the industry forces down the artist's throat. Now, I already said I do value facts over guessing, but I think I will make my own guess here.
I guess we already have lost many great pieces of music that didnt fit within their time limits.
Or their trends. Or their marketing policy.
You can't really know these things, you can only guess, and guessing in my book is not a valid arguement.
So let's talk facts. Bono says cds are what makes or breaks an artists payroll. That's is just not true, and anyone ever involved in the business should know better. In fact i'm sure Bono does know better.
Music industry is focusing on fighting piracy, when they are not using it that is (shocking news? they do), but what they seem to ignore is how many customers and followers they are losing due to reasons other than their dreadful enemy. I have stopped buying cds since I was 24, that would be for 4 years now.
I just load up youtube and listen to the songs I want. That's not because I can't afford to buy, or because I am boycotting or anything. I just find it not worthy of my time not my money. And time is much much more important. They made it that way.
Ending my post, I would like to underline again something [X] said, and I believe many didnt really pay attention to. The 3-4 minutes duration the industry forces down the artist's throat. Now, I already said I do value facts over guessing, but I think I will make my own guess here.
I guess we already have lost many great pieces of music that didnt fit within their time limits.
Or their trends. Or their marketing policy.