Slashdot Mirror
The Virtual Tip Jar
kemokid writes: "At last, an example of what Courtney Love was talking about. Fairtunes is a site set up to allow users to tip musicians directly. You can read the Music Dish news story about it." $269 and change donated so far, I'm interested to see where this one goes.
I have to wonder though: What do the artist's contracts look like? Do they have to split these tips with their labels because they are revenues generated from jointly produced work?
There's no proof that you are paying them for the albums that have been produced on their current label. You might only like their earlier stuff on a different label, or, in theory, you might be paying them for the enjoyment that you got out of seeing them live before they ever released anything. So I don't see how their current record label has any claim to the money. If you were tipping for a particular album, then things would probably be different.
I wish that it were easier for people that distribute their own music to open merchant accounts with credit card companies... this should be doable by individuals who could define their own rates and not have to worry about how big of a pie slice they've recieved or if the accounting is accurate. I know that when you put cd's out on consignment to stores that it can be like pulling teeth to get the right amount from the merchant - if the artist could _easily_ be enpowered it would be so much better.
As it is, most music sites set up an alliance deal with amazon and have to sell the whole cd and don't sell all that much... it would be great to have like 45 seconds to a minute of each song on a relase with a checkbox next to it and a credit card form beneath and charge like 35 cents or whatever a song. Yeah, I know there are some sites that do this for multiple artists, I just would like to cut the entities down to artist, consumer, credit card company, and make it easy for the artist to set up....
Bravo, /. for a job well done.
I think the basic argument in support of Iintellectual Property is beginning to fail. One cannot expect that a finite amount of effort like creating a digital recorded music source for a given song should be rewarded in perpetuity. Artists should be paid for performance not for recording, and recordings should be made only to promote and support the artists performace.
A final thought do you really believe that anyone undermining another companies business model deserves to be sued? Should Barnes and Noble sue Amazon.com?
Richard
Clearly you've never been a waiter. Originally, back say 50 years ago, tips were an optional way to say thank you to somebody who was paid fairly well by a company. Today however, waiters and other "tipped" jobs get no money from the establishment. Before becoming successful, I was a waiter at a resataurant in a resort town. THe establishment paid $2.33 an hour at a time when minimum wage was $5.15. Restaurants are allowed to pay below minimum wages because a 10% minimum tip is considered mandatory by the government. Usually my paychecks didn't even cover the tax on my real wages, the tips. Hence, my paychecks read like this: "$0.00--Non-negotiable". How would you like to get that on your paycheck when there are assholes out there who are expected to give at least 10% and stiff you on it? Essentially, waiters are NOT paid to do their job. THey rely on tips to pay their rent.
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
the world would be a much better place without the promotion. we wouldn't have crappy artists like britney spears dimonating the airwaves. people would listen to music based on the talent of the artist, not the spending habits of their distributor. and we can't "take our business elsewhere" because the RIAA has a monopoly, the same way that Microsoft does. sites like fairtunes are all about destroying that monopoly. the sooner the RIAA caeses to exist, the better off we all will be.
Heh-heh-heh-heh.... That's ingenious. Thanks!!
OK, just a remark :
You can't have a company managing it.
A company is seeking profit that it'll even take from the artist' revenue.
If the goal is to deliver art that'd directly benefit its creators, then the system has to be managed by a non-profit organization.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
People pay much less attention to the artist than the actual music.
Then why did so many smash their Milli Vanilli records?
Did the music suddenly sound different because it was two fat guys singing?
e-gold looks interesting. However, what is needed is a standard for micropayments, otherwise buyers and sellers will both have to use the same e-currency provider in order to trade.
Fortunately the World Wide Web Consortium has one cooking.
I'm not being naive. I know how the industry works. $20 for a daggon CD is still unreasonble. Saying "we would prefer you not to use napster" is a little bit less extreme than making a lawsuit over it.
What would the reason for being an AC be?
Eh...
Okay then, s/MTA/"MailThingie"/
=)
Bitchslapped. Neat.
It's still under development but all open source. They have a site on SourceForge.
Burris
With the anonymity the web provides, there is nobody to stigmatize those who don't pay. As you said, tipping is done far more often when there are social pressures. Without anybody to see you, the social influence is greatly diminished. That's not to say banner ads etc. won't eventually work, but they probably won't be as powerful as you suggest without public recognition of those who do/don't contribute.
Not if you are listening to 24 bit audio ;-)
From what I'm told, digital @ 16bits can suck, but if its done correctly, it can be good as well.
However, digital at 24 bits is very good, beyond the range of human hearing.
For example, why hasnt anyone developed better than 24 bit color? Because its pointless...
Then again, with crappy 16 bit systems you can really screw up the music...
As for mp3s, they really do sound crappier. But then again, I built my own Vacuum Tube amp, built speaker cables from cat5 (is there anything it cant do?)...
"Killing the RIAA" will not only not decrease the amoung of teen pop music produced, but it will significantly increase the amount of teen pop music produced. Here's why: when artists start selling direct, they get to keep ALL of their profits, instead of having most of the money skimmed off in order to pay for unprofitable artists. Britney Spears sold 12 million copies of her first album, but probably got very little royalties from it (probably less than $10 million). If she sold direct, she could have $120,000,000.00 or maybe even more. She could re-invest this money into promoting herself even further, and become even more pervasive. Today only 10% of artists make money, but they are subsidized by the profitable artists (through the record company). When the record companies disappear, so will 90% of artists, the artists who can't make money.
There are various other reasons why teen music will be so successful: artists will be forced to impress listeners with short, catchy snippets, and teen pop music is the only kind of music which is catchy. Moreover, in "online distribution" there is much more emphasis on hit singles (which is the realm of the top 40 teen singer), instead of actual albums. All of this tells me that top 40 teen music will be extremely successful after the record companies go out of business, and that almost nothing else will be produced.
I think the egotism and the individual arrogance of these recent posts is pathetic. A waiter's job (just like anybody's job) is his or her JOB, not his SOUL. Some customers are sure that since they control the waiter's TIP that they control the PERSON. Those are the people that get on waiters' nerves. No person is any other person's "GOD" to quote the last post. Rather, they are just other people, on the other side of the transaction. Tips are an expected part of the price of eating out, and people who can not afford to tip properly should not go out to eat. Your 15% WILL help the waiter pay your rent; it WILL NOT leave the waiter eternally grateful to you or forever in your debt. Right or wrong, most waiters have very little stake in the restaurant itself. They work as independent agents. As the restaurant essentially pays them nothing, the restaurant is really only providing them with a place in which to do their business, much like an office building provides companies with a place to do their business. The customer's only power over the waiter is the tip. Hence, if you, the customer, piss off the waiter, he/she has the right to make the choice that your pathetic tip isn't worth dealing with your lording over them. Once they have made the decision to forego your tip, you have no control over them, and no amount of bitching to their managers will change that. Hence, if you want good service, you need to be courteous and understanding, and give a generous tip, just as you expecting them to be courteous and understanding and provide you with good service. It IS a two-way street, and the power-dynamics go both ways. All you are to the server is a possible revenue stream. All they are to you is a go-between with the chefs.
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
It is unclear how the tipping system will really work with the anonymity of the internet, i.e. we do not know that small bands will get paid. I think there has been some research which showed that people tip waiters and waitresses to make themselves look good.. and not to get better future service. This means systems like fairtunes should try to make people who tip look good, i.e. publish your handle on a list of people who contribute to this artists AND give a message to the artist for you---the artist will tend to give your message a short read when it has money attached.
Actually, it might be possible to implement a tipping system based on email.. if you had one of those attach money to your emails things that people sometimes talk about.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I would use something like this to give kudos to my favorite artists. If this tip jar idea is properly implemented, MP3 could still revolutionize the way music is distributed, and the artists would still get paid. And Lars might just shut the hell up.:)
On a somewhat unrelated note, MP3s have been outlawed at my company. They're doing company-wide scans and are threatening some pretty ugly repurcussions if someone is caught with MP3s on their hard drive.
I had to blow away a gig of them yesterday... *sigh* Anyone else experiencing anything similar, as a result of the Napster debacle?
Considering how many years labels have been selling CD's for far more than the cost of production and distribution
It's called a Profit. It's what companies are in business for. If you're looking for freebies, go to a soup kitchen or your local Salvation Army. Don't go looking for it in the Corporate world. If you do, you'll be disappointed.
Tell me the truth, if you were a record industry Exec(or any Exec for that matter), you wouldn't try to make as much money as you can? If you had millions of suckers paying $17.00 for a product that costs a percentage of that, you'd be happy as a pig in sh*t. Admit it, you'll feel better once you do.
Moderators, this isn't flamebait, it's my opinion.
How do the Record Companies get Paid? This is still unfair to them.
Considering how many years labels have been selling CD's for far more than the cost of production and distribution, a scheme like this ought to even things out in a decade or so.
SO, when does the revelution against the cereal companies start? They are selling their cereal for a lot more than the cost of production and distribution. Face it, the record companies aren't doing anything that any other industry is doing. They are maximizing profits. The are shelling out a lot of money to make and advertise records, and they want to get a lot of money back for that investment. When you spend a lot, you expect to make a lot.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
In my experience, small amounts of cash + Visa = skimming.
You're correct, but not because of the nature of administrators IMO. Even honest administration can't get around the fact that Visa makes very small transactions un-economic, and makes person to non-merchant-person transactions impossible.
Fairtunes is interesting, and anything's better than the RIAA as a middleman, but if Courtney Love would ever-in-hell listen to me about e-gold some really interesting things could happen. Yes, if e-gold is the tip jar, there's a small spend fee & storage fee, and you have to get used to a market with lots of merchants who have different bid/ask spreads. If Fairtunes uses e-gold properly, it should be good for both artists and me (just a guy who likes art).
It's easy to do things like my Dutch friends did with "The Plant" by Steven King even if artists have never even heard of e-gold (Thanks for covering only hype, instead of fundamentals, news media of the planet!).
JMR
(Ok, I'll try to stop posting on this subject.)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Don't you mean:
One MTA to rule them all, one MTA to find them
One MTA to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Bitchslapped. Neat.
I really wish I could believe that. In many cases it may be true but it is obvious that the modern "record industry" is trying to sell the artist rather than the music. That's why we see all this crap like "Making the band", "The personality behind Britney Spears", "The legal battle between Eminem and his mom" etc. And people like that. If I meet one more gossip hog.... (well that's another story).
It's not about the music, it's about being famous and making rich people even richer (and obviously I don't mean the artists). And since so much is put into this people pay attention. How many die hard Beatles fans ONLY listened to their music and didn't try and get all the intimate details of every band member's life?
Well this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
--
Garett Spencley
Put up some obscure dotcom somewhere which 99.999% of Napstering music fans have never heard about, and then when (not if) the idea doesn't fly blame the "darn pirates".
/.'d so I can't get there. But tell me, how else to pay except with a credit card? What if I don't live in a credit card -based consumer culture (ie. USA)? What will I use to pay in that case?
Sigh.
The site is
Prehaps you are referring to the works of Marx? I believe he espoused that there is no natural right for profit from ownership. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Marx profess that work for profit is wrong? I can see where you would get Marx and Locke confused, what with their completely inconsistent ideologies and all.
Perhaps you do not think that information is the product of work and therefore can be owned? What about those that build houses. Is one capable of owning a house (the product of work and information and raw materials)? Is the house not worth more than the raw materials and work involved? If the house is not worth more than the raw materials and work, then why is there variable "property value?" This is an intangible that can be owned. The intangible revolves around aestheitcs and neighborhood, both of which are being purchased with a house. Otherwise, why would poorer people live in horrible sections of cities with less desireable homes? So it is possible to own an intangible and profit from it--whether it be safer neighborhoods or cash in the wallet.
On a pressing that has large appeal (appeal being your hypothetical limiting factor), media cost is negligable compared with production and promotion costs.
I agree, it's a pain. Furthermore, the credit card part is also a pain. I mean, I haven't memorized my flippin' numbers. Have you memorised yours?
What if there was an X.com (PayPal) tie-in, where all you need to remember is your email address? Even better, I think.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
(Score 4, Interesting), huh?
If I were moderating at the moment it would be more likely to be
(Score -1, Blatant Spam)
but then I guess there's no accounting for taste.
deus does not exist but if he does
I think that ever since the basis of trade moved away from direct barter, there has been a middleman interjecting into the transaction. Historically, you look at the merchant (read middleman) class as those who supply goods and services, streamlining the channels of supply from supplier to customer.
With the record industry, there are two problems that circumvent this theoretical model:
1. The product has the ability to vocalise thier grievances
2. The customer, nowadays, doesn't necessarily have to pay for the goods that they use.
The model has broken down. In order for the customer to understand that the only way that he/she may continue to enjoy the product offerings of the (artist/service/product) in question is to voluntarily, out of the goodness of their own hearts, pay people for what they produce.
This must set the recording industry on edge, as they have made gods out of their icons (to suit thier own nefarious purposes) for 100 years.
Are we to constantly swallow this? I don't think so. I honestly believe, simply because I espouse a vaguely libertarian philosophy, that it is my right to hear what I choose, and pay for it if it is valuable to me.
Maybe, the record industry has to climb off its high horse, recognise that both the artists and its customers don't need them anymore, and perhaps get a life.
I think my brain is dribbling out down the back of my legs
don't own most of this music the RIAA will still complain about it and be exposed for the bastards they are. At least this is what I hope will happen.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
You go girl!
Here's a link to an article at liberzine (originally posted at ars-technica). It's a good read. For those too lazy to follow the link here's the quote posted at ars:
The artist once again known as Prince was onto something when he sold his five-CD set "Crystal Ball" exclusively on the Web without the help of record companies, distributors, or record stores. On his website, he advertised the album and told his fans he would release not one song until he had 100,000 pre-orders for the entire record. He sold 250,000 copies and kept 95 percent of the revenue which industry experts estimate at $5 million.
Because recording artists only get 10 to 12 percent of a CD's retail price, selling directly to the fans is a boon to them. "We got paid!" Prince said, "More than for the last five to six albums on Warner. It's straight-up money, and the check's on time, not quarterly."
-- we'll eat the fat ones first
Why do I know the site will now feel the slashdot effect, but not the tip jar?
Also with the shopping cart model you can send money to multiple artists on one invoice and the .23 cents is spread across all of those 'tips'.
Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes
...between those, we're looking at what? 40% of the total? Maybe 30%? It's a big chunk, but that's not the main difference.
Promotion does not benefit the end user in any way. It just sticks stuff in your face whether you want it or not. It's a hostile act and if I can avoid paying for it, I will.
Promotion is often a much larger cost than production, too. When things are freely available on the internet, people find the good ones whether someone's spending lots of money pushing them or not. "Promotion" costs, like "distribution" costs, are really control costs. If you give up control, these things take care of themselves.
The internet is as much a more responsive and convenient a distribution system than retail CDs as email is a faster and convenient a way of sending messages than paper mail. With the support of the producers, it would be as convenient as radio with more choice than retail CDs.
So now we're down to production cost. No agents, no "label", no printer, no retailer, nothing. Production costs, hand it off to a fan site, and it's in everybody's home who wants it.
Add in the ability for anybody, anywhere to donate money in various automated, convenient ways, and there's your advantage.
If people are willing to make the donations, they'd only have to pay about 5-20% what they'd pay for CDs. That is the advantage of buskware. More money for producers, less money out of the users' pockets, no money for parasitic middlemen. Everybody who counts is happy, and the others can go do some honest work.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
NO MORE BRITNEY SPEARS!
I never eat a sig cuz my sig is a crock...
Sig it.
...would have better luck methinks. There people give them money for several reasons. In the case of tipping our musicans though, most of the public (I fear, but hopefully I'm wrong) is still going to think that these musicans have made their money, blah, blah, blah. The exception of course is for the people who do understand the ongoing battle against RIAA and support it.
I always find it disturbing that people seem to belive that because companies exist to make profit they are under no obligation to act with any morality or fairness whatsoever. It seems by this reasoning its ok to treat your wokers like slaves or make unsafe products because, hey, they are motivated by the almighty dollar and thats it.
I am not saying that every corporation should become a charity. But I feel corporations have (almost) as much responsibility as citizens to benefit their community. Otherwise you get situations like we have now, where they will grab as much power and money as they can, with no concern for how it affects consumers, or how good a value they really provide in their product. I guess thats what bugs me, I would like companies to be motivated by providing the better value (the best, or the cheapest or however they judge it), and not by forming cartels and spreading FUD.
For an example of this, look at travel agents. They used to just book airline tickets for you, and hold them until you came and picked them up. But ETKT and airline websites made that business model obsolete. So now a good travel agent offers services over and above, like itinerary planning, locale-specific advice, emergency assistance services, etc, thereby adding value to the transaction.
The same thing happens in any commoditized marketplace, and despite what that fool Lars Ulrich says, music is a commodity (altho' it's not fungible).
But one thing that keeps getting forgotten is that the music industry is like the venture capital industry or the pharmaceutical industry: for every huge success, there are many, many expensive failures. Do you honestly believe that if word of mouth was all an artist had, your favourites would be heard above the hubbub? The music industry does need brokers.
Maybe they decided to do this because of the runaway success of PayLars.com... :-)
--
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
The Street Performer Protocol has little relation to the operating procedure of street performers (a.k.a. buskers): a price is set and must be matched. Have you ever seen a busker with a sign, "I'm only playing the first half of this song, if there isn't $10 in my hat by the end of the first half, I won't play the second half."? It doesn't fit the analogy at all.
I'd instead try "I'm going to keep doing this annoying street mime until there's $10 in the hat. The quicker you pay me, the quicker I move on."
:)
deus does not exist but if he does
Also the "paying...for the enjoyment that you get out of seeing them live" is the same the ticket price--which ALSO largely goes to the label.
I don't believe that's correct. Labels rarely get a piece of the revenue produced by ticket sales at live performances. That's one of the main arguments one could make against Courtney Love's claims that the artists are slaves to the label: The artists can make money from touring. (I still don't think it's fair for the label to keep the lion's share of the revenue from CD sales, but that's another issue.)
Do they really need more money? Doesn't the x amount of millions they have already amount to enough???
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
I don't really trust any of these things. Partly because there are a number of charities that request money, etc., but after a lot of "administrative" costs, the end-receiver does not get the main chunk of cash. Maybe this is different, but I don't know. In my experience, small amounts of cash + Visa = skimming.
Also, the fact that my Visa card bank has a minimum charge of £5 means that I will pay more to the bank than to the actual company or artists!
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
Yes, I'd like to make a withdraw. Everyone who sold out or backstabbed their listeners owes me $5 each. Also, if you suck and get played on the radio all of the daggon time because you are what the companies want me to hear, that's $15. Eminem... The Real SlimShady will be $50. Not that I don't like the song, it's just been marketted to death... I liked it the first 50 times I heard it, but when I had to suffer it being played every 3 songs while driving through New Jersey, your daggon company just went too far, bill it to them. Also, RIAA, for being a bunch of pricks, and destroying the industry's dignity and all that was right with it... And for all of the illegal things that you have done... And just because I don't like you... 15 million dollars, and I want you to sign a contract with some bands that don't suck. I have a list of them over here, including the ones that I like that you can keep, and the ones that you keep turning down that you should pick up, come and pick it up any time.
Eh...
The revolution begins when joe bloggs unveils the free cereal duplicating machine that copies and distributes the cereal for free and the cereal companies begin to sue everyone in sight in the interests of protecting the farmer, when the farmer has signed a contract along the lines of
The farmer borrows lots of money to buy and produce the cereal
The farmer only get 5% of the sale price of the cereal
When, and only when the loan has been paid off is the farmer allowed to receive any of the profits
The cereal company still owns the farm and relevant equipment, and, should the farmer ever try and start a new cereal business the cereal company owns that too.
Then we backlash against the cereal companies
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
There's no proof that you are paying them for the albums that have been produced on their current label.
I guess you didn't visit the site. There a form to fill out where you can specify an album or title you especially like. In any case, some artists have no previous label. Also the "paying...for the enjoyment that you get out of seeing them live" is the same the ticket price--which ALSO largely goes to the label.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
That would account for the high death rate in the Country music arena.
Amen, Brother Dirk.
If you check the "Coder's Corner" section of the fairtunes website you will notice that they're looking for people to code up interfaces for XMMS & Winamp etc. to allow for seamless payments as you suggest.
They've even published an open XML format to facilitate this type of thing.
Ummmm... www.fairtunes.com/dev.jsp states that Fairtunes is looking for developers "to help with development of a plugin for Winamp, XMMS and whatever other players/platforms interest you." Yes, the fact that they're looking for coders doesn't fix the problem, but the fact that they're looking for coders does mean they're aware of the inconvenience of looking up each artist from their website and paying them individually. They even go so far as to say this:
:p~~~
"This kind of software would have to be open-source so everyone could see that it isn't secretly sending information about the users listening habits to us or any other company."
Even though I'm not an open-source fanatic myself, I do think that Fairtunes is being quite noble in asking for outside help. There you have it, people: get down and dirty and make open-source work. Easier said than done, of course, but hey...
Burris
King's popularity is mostly a function of his career with big-publishing and especially their marketing department. He can get away with the dollar a chapter deal because he's a big name. I really don't think nobodies, talented or otherwise, could pull off the same trick.
Besides, if you could find the specific album, that would be admitting Napster is designed for publishing ripped off records rather than designed for unsigned bands and home DJs to publish their own Napster Public Radio shows.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I feel a song coming on. But my Paypal # is 1234567.....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Please log in. I can hardly take a few anonymous words seriously........they call you people cowards for a reason.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
I think you're much more likely to know if a small band gets paid because for the most part they're running their own websites and are much easier to get a hold of. I've emailed with numerous small independent artists but have yet to talk to a single 'big name'. And I'm sure that these independent artists are going to post how much they've been recieving on their websites as a way of 'independent audit'. Some are even going so far as to send CDs to everyone who donates.
This means systems like fairtunes should try to make people who tip look good, i.e. publish your handle on a list of people who contribute to this artists AND give a message to the artist for you---
We definetly do this. Check out www.fairtunes.com/stats.jsp now that things have sorted themselves out on our end :).
Matt
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com
What the fairtunes guys are trying to achieve is extremely close to what we have been describing <a href="http://www.potlatch.net">here</a> as a potlatch network. A few comments:
<P>
1. Musicians desperately need this. Music-on-the-internet desperately needs this.
<P>
2. This has to be a system that nobody owns, but that everyone can agree is in their mutual interest to maintain and develop, <i>just like the internet.</i>
<P>
3. The system needs to reach a critical mass, and reach it in record time, if it is to take full advantage of the moment. Everything depends on simple, elegant methods: XML over HTTP is the key.
<P>
4. Artists need to be able to create and maintain a registry of the music that they create, including detailed track and session information, along with an "account" that anyone is free to make deposits into. This registry needs to develop into a "world outline" that contains information about every piece of music ever recorded.
<P>
5. Artists need to be able to release "definitive versions" of digital files in various formats. These files can be digitally signed, but also MD5 checksums or other validation tests can be set up to allow fans to verify that any given file is what it is supposed to be, and to ensure that payment is going to the right place. This is where ideas like <a href="http://tipster.weblogs.com">tipster</a> fit in.
<P>
6. Payment must be voluntary, but must also be rewarded (voluntarily) in turn. The more people pay, the more time and money the artists can put into their art. Contributions should be logged and a system of incentives established to encourage participation.
<P>
7. From the point of view of the user/audience, participation needs to be both easy and cheap. And it needs to be fun...
<P>
Thanks for the kind words. Naturally, like all internet startups, the Flying Rat project seeks money and -- while keeping to its .org roots -- would like to become a .com with a LOT more services, including (perhaps) an information and rating service. Contact me for details if interested & wealthy. :^)
JMR
(BTW. Blatant self-interest -- especially when I admit my own greed -- != "spam" if my avarice is more-or-less on-topic, as it was, whether or not it elicited a fine whine!)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
I have yet to see a non-profit organization move as quickly as a for profit one. If we left this up to some organization or group it would take them years to get it done and at the end of the day it would probably only be available to people who belonged to that group.
Whereas a for profit (we certainly don't have any profit!) organization can move much quicker. There is no bureaucracy or red tape. Someone wants a feature added, we add it. And we make it accessible to everyone.
Matt
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com
That wasn't really what I was getting at. My comment was more along the lines of: this is what I would think about doing if I were in charge at one of the major labels. I should have also mentioned in the benefits to the major labels that it would probably stifle online "piracy". A recent survey of Napster users indicated that many of them were willing to pay $15 for the service. Comparing the quality of the Napster to something the majors could provide indicates to me that a lot of people would go for it... and hence have no need for Napster.
Ultimately, I don't think that a subscription model will work for unsigned/unknown bands. It especially won't work when it's faced with competition like the type I described. Who wants to pay $50/mo for unlimited downloading of unknown bands (the implicit assumption being: they're unknown because they're not any good), when you can pay $30/month for the artists you know? The only option that unknown bands have is to give their music away free, hope that they can start to build a reputation for themselves, and hope to make money selling CDs eventually.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
And either have the hits (till today).
Matt Goyer
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com
Ultimately, I don't think that a subscription model will work for unsigned/unknown bands.
Of course, subscription would only concern access to notorious artists' works, like Courtney Love or any other that escaped a vampiring contract.
I bet this system could also represent a viable opportunity for them.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I'm a little worried about the site. I've always felt that the reason Napster is getting sued is because it destroys the monopoly the music industry has on music. They know it helps, but MP3s prevent them from charging whatever they want because we can just download it.
Now there's a way to pay the artists for their songs without going through the music industry. If this site takes off we're probably going to see a lot of music released on MP3 with requests for donations rather than on CD, especially by new bands.
It's a great idea, and a way to finally give the musicians the money they deserve for creating the music we love so much. Currently, they only get a very small percentage of the price of a CD. With this, I could download a new album and donate $10 directly to the band.
Unfortunately, the music industry isn't going to let their advantage go with out a fight (Napster). I just hope they don't try to find reasons to close the site. If they put up links to artists homepages to download songs (I couldn't load the site, sorry if this is already there), the music industry could go after them once they're done with Napster.
That is their problem I would say. If this system works any band in it's right mind will adopt this system instead of the "traditional" system of selling your soul. This would mean that only the prearanged (boy/girlband/thingybritneyspearsandthelot) would be with major record labels and might actualy disapear (positive thinking here).
I wasn't whining.
I was stating a fact, which you just agreed with in a half-arsed sort of way.
At a guess I'd say the important point is that you are tipping, not paying them, it is a personal gift from you to them. (can't get to the site right now for some strannnggg reason).
...spend it on food .... please?"
Kinda like if you met them in the street, "Hey! Wow! Cool! Wizard! [musician's name]!, I love your stuff, especially [album name]. Here's a tenner, and
~ppppppppö
If anyone thinks that the purpose of record companies is to make/distribute records, or Microsoft to make software, or Ford or GM to make cars, then they are sadly mistaken. If their purpose was to do this, then they would sell at cost.
They are in business to make money. Products and services are just something they exploit en route to the ultimate goal of having a fat wallet.
luckman
luckman
I don't involve myself with flames, much less know how to bait one.
Actually we have been slapped on the wrist for some credit card contract violations so far in terms of what we disclose. ...So read the FAQ while you can!
What do the artist's contracts look like?
And that is the million dollar question! We are working very hard to ensure that the artist gets their entire tip. ..Even to the point where we're prepared to have our lawyers go up against any record label. I also think there would be a large public outcry if artists aren't allowed to accept tips for their work. Who knows maybe I actually bought their album and then tipped.
Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes
===== From AP Wire Story =====
Tiger, which is owned by toy giant Hasbro Inc., has the Yahoo! HitClips Downloader ($20). Kids can plug the unit into the speaker jack of their computer, play any music or audio they want online and record up to 60 seconds of the sound on a computer chip in the downloader. The recorded selection then can be played on the transportable downloader or on any of Tiger's HitClip products, including an alarm clock ($15), a boom box ($11) and a personal audio player ($8) -- none of which are linked to the computer.
============================
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
True enough.. But we are Canadian and PayPal doesn't accept Canadian users or businesses. We're working on establishing a US presence to circumvent this but it'll take some time.
Matt
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com
I'm sorry, but *I* tip at least *20%*. I wouldn't want their job, and I go to a restaurant so as NOT to have to serve myself. I appreciate the fact that they are waiting on me, and all I have to do is sit there. The fact that I know what they really make helps. Just because it's someone's job doesn't mean that they don't either want to be compensated well for it, and having been a waitress before, I *did* feel good when someone gave me a larger than usual tip. It wasn't just the money (although I wasn't complaining..that was tuition money). When you are too lazy to get in the car and pick up your pizza, or too tired to cook for yourself, it's well worth my 20% to get the extra service. My pizza place's delivery drivers fight over who delivers *our* pizzas, and we get better service because they know us. And the tips are what do it. I'm happy, they're happy.
I agree. I am VERY excited about the tipjar concept. Since the first MP3s I downloaded, back in late '96, I realized what this would do to the record industy. If you understand business, the service the labels provide is distrubtion. With MP3s, the artist has the power to control distribution themselves, and the record company niche vanishes.
:) )
I'm also a firm believer in the "try before you buy" concept. Most of my favorite bands, bands I've bought more than 1 CD of, I've downloaded several MP3s first. Portishead, Placebo, Fiona Apple, K's Choice, etc. I've wondered how things would go, knowing that any system which leaves the record co's involved would retain inneffeciency, and they would still control who becomes popular and sold, and dictate what those bands say, do, wear, etc.
So the idea I had way back then was sort of a shareware concept. It worked in the 80's. Many programmers became millionaires, and many more made thousands of dollars, by giving away fully-functional programs, and asking for a donation. Everyone knew that tons of people were using the software without paying. I didn't register any programs, but I felt guilty for not doing so. I knew the programmer deserved the money. (At the time, I was poor. I register things now though.. most of the time
Until the tipjar idea, I really hadn't seen it talked about, and it did have technical problems. Like, I think $1-5 is fair for a bunch of mp3s. (It's more than the band is getting from their lable already!!). But with such a small dollar sum, how do you get it to the artist without a hassle?
The tips jar service solves that right away. It's a wonderful idea.
And sure people won't pay. They'll all have reasons. Some people will be selfish, grabbing free music for the sake of free music. Some people are financially drained. The reason I didn't buy many CDs back in '96 was because I was still poor. I WANTED to, but I COULDN'T.
Most people are fairly honest. Most people I've talked to in this whole Napster thing agree that the artist should get compensation.
Don't forget that it does cost money to make a CD. There are NO material costs to make an MP3 cost. Yes, there are studio fees. Yes, there is the time of the artists. But compared to the cost of printing, stamping, mastering, labeling, jewel cases, inserts, the rest is nothing.
If you're a really small band, and 5,000 people hear your music, and 2,000 of them like you, and 1,500 download more than one of your mp3s, and 500 of those thing you're worth $2, you've just made $1000. You didn't have to print 100 CDs (spending $250-$500 out-of-pocket risk) to get this. It doesn't matter that 1000 people downloaded more than one mp3 and liked you without paying! Those 500 paying are a LOT more than if you'd've relied upon CD sales at the door of the concert.
I think that's a good deal. Think of what that number would be if you were Metallica or Barenaked Ladies or Blink!
What struck me about Coutrney Love's interview was that so much of her concept of an artist is derived from the manner in which hollywood and the recording industry treat artists.
When she uses terms like "creative person", or talks about how good recording execs are at masssaging the egos of their "talent", she's revealing how much she has bought into the whole system of maintaining stables of "talent". I mean really, who says artists have to be treated like gods, or treated by fans, distributors, managers in the manner the recording industry treats them? What Courtney Love is really saying, is that she likes the way the recording industry execs treats her, and wants internet content companies to massage her ego in the same way. Whether this is how all artists want to be treated is a different matter altogether.
The nonsense about the sound quality of MP3s preventing someone from enjoying the performance is another strawman. The problem generally is that someone used a bad encoder, or a damaged recording to make the MP3. If one does it appropriately, MP3s have very good sound quality. If you're listening to something interesting, even an LP makes for an interesting listen. If you're listening to bad music, using a better format won't change anything.
This attitude towards technology is not surprising at all. It feeds in perfectly with the strategy of the recording industries, where increasingly bad content (and yeah, I'll call it content if I want to Courtney, little of the mass entertainment produced by the music industry counts as art in my book) is released using increasingly sophisticated technology. Witness the quality of films produced by Hollywood, it has been steadily declining, as the quality of special effects and distribution media becomes better. Something most people have seen occur on the web, flashy sites, dumb content, high co-ordination with the point when LA become home to web-development companies.
In sum, I think Courtney makes some great points in the essay. The distribution system used by the music industry is broken, and serves only their own purposes. It would be great to see an independent distribution mechanism arise which is efficient, and capable of rewarding the people who are most important to a music recording (or a book for that matter). Some of them may well require managers, or editors, to guide them (clearly Courtney excepts to have someone like this), but this fucntion should not be foisted on the distribution company. Why should artists who are mature enough to handle themselves, have to see some of their earnings diverted towards paying psychologist-managers to look after enfant terribles? Why should consumers have to pay more either? If the artist requires therapy, they should foot their own bill.
The problem is, pop artists rely more on a cult of personality than their art. The recording industry loves it because they control the media that creates personalities (Hansen, Britney Spears, Jenifer Lopez, Leonardo DiCaprio). I'm more interested in the substance. So I'm not particularly interested in what Courtney Love does, but rather what she produces.
-- Equity lord of the Trill Consortium
I don't purchase CD's.
Eh...
TipJar.com sets up accounts based solely on e-mail addresses. You can cover your tips via check, or through PayPal. There is no charge for the service. For more on this subject, see Busking as a Form of Online Compensation.
Steam Powered Studio
We're both arguing pretty much the same point.
Eh...
So if we try to cut out the middle man in these transactions, aren't we in fact taking money away from our fellow workers' pockets?
Honestly, I have no problem with people making money by acting as a middle man. I used to work for a Value Added Reseller as a Systems Engineer--and I continually try to get people to purchase from VARs as opposed to mail order computer companies.
The reason is that the VARs actually add value--in the form of support, etc. So basically, I don't have any problem with the middle man. The middle man can add a lot of value. But currently the only value the middle man in the music industry provides is by having the 'product' on hand, and sometimes they add direct value by reducing price. With the Internet, inventory is free and so all the music resellers are suddenly finding themselves without anything to offer their customers. Price is never that good of a value, especially when competition is greater (which is surely is on the Internet). Being the least cost provider doesn't get you very far in the long run--as there can be only one least cost provider.
Essentially MP3.com has taken a look at the problem of value add on the Internet and have done an admirable job. They have shown that you can add value to MP3s and make some money.
Now it is up to the rest of the middle men to follow suit--only they don't really want to. Like any business, they prefer their priveledged position and don't want additional competition. Bad for them, good for the consumer.
-k
I will give a krispy one-dollar bill to any artist listed with this site every time I download a song I keep more than a week.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
As Courtney Love pointed out, there will still be room for the RIAA members to provide the marketting. Marketting may, in fact, become more expensive for the artist, because the distribution used-to-be cash cow will no longer exists (Now someone will say that let the artists do what the Blair Witch Project people did, but that won't work for 100 artists doing it, let alone 100 000).
sigh
Does that mean that if you find someone with a truely hideous mullet either into your music or in your field or profession you have to kill yoursef??
That's it for me, then!
BOOM!!
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
MojoNation (http://www.mojonation.net),
an anonymous micropayment distribution network,
also has a "Tip Lars" feature that works in
a similar way.
You can. I believe it's MasterCard that sells pre-paid small-amount charge cards (as opposed to credit cards) that validate like a regular card.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
He is not sueing because...:
"It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
Lars Ulrich,
Metallica Drummer
Yes, in a competative market that is true, but there is evidence of price fixing by the record labels, which happends to be currently landing them in court. I wish I had the link
People imagine themselves to be generous, but few of us are as generous as we imagine.
BTW, $269 wouldn't even pay for the 2" tape used to record one album...
The solution has some appeal to me. Although I would not see this solution as a final one. One fundamental reason is. It is a company making money, they grow and how can we be assured such company/service will not just replace RIAA.
I would rather see a non-commercial organisation doing this. Here one could argue, that non-commercial organisation sometimes for get the 'non' word in their status. But with the right construction, this could be the service that liberates.
Personally I have no feelings for RIAA, noone but themselves should have, they have proved their right to peoples support wrong. And who are their customers in the long run, the people! (although one could argue its the record companies, but history reveals, its the people who pays)!
Imagine the wealth of information about actual listener responses a working tip system would collect.
I would suggest that this information be available to everyone- listeners, performers and middle men.
For more on this subject, see Busking as a Form of Online Compensation at InSound.com.
Steam Powered Studio
Considering that the metaphorical progenitor (as it were) of handing a talented performer some small measure of money is a busker or street performer, wouldn't this more properly be termed the virtual guitar case? ;)
-TBHiX-
A dollar is a good gesture, but its only that -- a gesture. That doesn't pay bills, keep food on the table, or make it worth the hassle for the artist to keep on creating."
I imagine a lot of these people make music because they love it. But hey, maybe we've been marketed so hard for so long we've lost sight of that. I agree to pay $1 to any artist listed in this service for any song I download and keep for a week. This means that if I downloaded 8 *great* songs - a mark that has only been hit a few times in a single album (IMHO, read; Crystal Method's "Vegas", Boston's "Boston" and Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms") then they'd make 8 bucks. Quite a bit more than they'd get from a label.
I disagree with a previous /. reader who said that people primarly tip to look good. Look good to who? When I tip a street performer, who the heck to I look good to? Another guy walking past at the same time? I can't speak for others, but when I tip it's because I appreciate the effort and the break in my day. I appreciate the sounds. And that's why I'll support this service.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
What you're really concerned with is a usability issue. Fairtunes has pretty crappy usability, it's true, but the underlying idea is good.
There's nothing to prevent individual bands from setting up paypal accounts, but this is a clunky method -- probably, people would only tip bands they really like, since it takes effort to go to a band's website, find their paypal email address, and then paypal the money over.
However, something like Qpass would be super, especially if it were integrated with gnutella or winamp & there were a match-as-you-type interface. You type in the artist name the server gives you feedback to make sure you enter the artist's name correctly, then tip with as little or as much as you want. your whole qpass account gets charged to your credit card at the end of the month, so you could pay britney spears $0.01 (probably more than she's worth) for your mp3 of "Baby One More Time".
In fact, every website should hook up with qpass to allow for microtips, particularly super ones like slashdot.
When Slashdot published the "news" concerning the RIAA's success over Napster in court, this topic was brought up by a fellow Slashdot reader and discussed.
I thought we had gone over this already, or am I missing something? Or was the post just a bit too far down for the moderators to find?
I'm not being rude, but this was *news* several weeks ago. Still, judging by the thread to this topic, several people either:
A) Didn't read the initial discussion, or
B) Like to rant on and on about the same old stuff..
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
As long as the system is set up this way, he has every right to bitch about patrons who stiff. They are depriving him of income. Just because he bitches doesn't mean he isn't working towards changing it. Plus, I don't see how you can equate his polite response to you to a bad work ethic. BTW, have you actively supported changing laws so servers get paid? If not, you shouldn't be bitching about tipping.
I've seen the statement "we don't want all the money going to the middle man" tossed around here quite a bit, and it got me thinking... I bet most of us here who have jobs end up working for some sort of "middle man". So if we try to cut out the middle man in these transactions, aren't we in fact taking money away from our fellow workers' pockets? (i.e. the middle men will see a decline in revenue, have to cut wages/jobs, etc.)
But a fair number of us are running full steam towards making ourselves obsolete as it is. Think about it, scientists are working on the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, programmers are writing programs that write programs, everything is moving towards making the business of living not involve people on a daily basis. Soon we'll be able to buy a car without dealing with a salesman(oops, done that already), buy a book without going to a bookstore(damn, done that too),
or listen to live music without leaving our chairs(fsck! another thing we can do already).
Every time someone discovers how something works, there is one less thing to find out in the universe. Sure, the universe is huge, but this is happening at a phenomenal rate in the IT field. People write code that writes more code, people build computers that design and build better computers. Everywhere you look the middleman _and_ the bottom man is being replaced. On top we have lusers who click pretty widgets. When something goes wrong, they click some other pretty widget and it fixes it.
I write programs with maximum useability in mind, code re-use, portability, and flexibility to be used in multiple areas. The day is fast coming when someone can just take my code and do small easy modifications to it by clicking a couple pretty widgets and solve their problem. Where does that leave me? (hopefully retired early, but this obviously won't happen for everyone)
I think this may be foreshadowing. Right now the producers control the means of production, but we're producing means for others to control the means of production. The RIAA is going the way of the dinosaur as connectivity between consumers and artists increases. Will IT people be next as we develop more and more ways for joe blow to do what we used to do?
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
you need to STFU , and stop being such a tight ass, cheap bastard
What if you're a runaway success? You can't raise your price and not expect your customers to feel betrayed.
One possible way:
You think: I need $2000, and I have ~4000 listeners.
You say: "I need about one dollar from each of you."
Later, you think: I want to make five times as much, and I have ~40,000 listeners
You say: "Now, just 50 cents per person!"
In today's business model, it doesn't cost much more to listen to the most popular musicians (with the exception of live shows, and I'm not sure how much of that is venue-gouging). A CD is a CD, and the extra profit comes from volume.
- Michael Cohn
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
There is nothing compelling about the internet that makes people more willing to give away any meaningful amount of money to musicians (who are all rich, right? yeah - whatever.)
Yup, I think it is. So let's say you download 25 songs by 15 different artists on napster one night. And you actually like, say, 5 of them enough to tip. So you're going to jump over to fairtunes.com and individually search through the database 5 times to find your artists and go throught the rigamarole of tipping them?
Sure, if you're really committed. But it's a pain! What there needs to be is some kind of tie-in with, yes, napster or [insert p2p sharing system here] that collects info on what you've downloaded in a session, and provides an easy-to-click dialog saying "You've heard these 10 artists tonight. Check a box next to the ones you'd like to tip."
Then, if you were subscribed to the service (or had a cookie set or something, whatever) it could even fill in a default amount for each and your credit card number. Click! You just used 1-click (tm) tipping online. Okay, better make it 2 clicks to avoid patent infringement :)
I agree,
Musicians in general have been, for the lack of a better word, raped and stabbed in the back by the record companies. Hell, the artists don't even have the rights to their own songs after they sign those contracts. Many musicians were taken in by the big labels because they fit the sound of the month and then dumped again. Today those musicians are either out of the music business or struggling to survive.
This "tip-jar" method, while by no means perfect, is a move in the right direction. I will personally download my favorite artists mp3's and then send a tip. It may not be much, but whatever it is, it's not going to a greedy record label!
I think that fairtunes is a wonderful concept, and would love to watch it suceed as I dance through a meadow with faieries and leprechauns, but really........(sarcastic tone intended to imply that for the most part good natured, kind hearted people don't exist, Stephen King fans aside).
As dougman said, I read about this two weeks ago and the money hasn't exactly been rolling in.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
They pretty much do, at least in this state. The minimum wage for tip-based jobs is rather lower than the normal minimum wage because, well, it's expected that you'll get tips to cover the difference. And if you're good, it'll probably get you a bit more.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Wow, you summed up my feelings about Metallica beautifully.
I think the point though was that could a business like this one really support an artist without the RIAA? Right now, no, of course not. But once the word gets out, who knows? I'm all for it, let's see where it goes!
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
- You go on an MP3 site and they charge you, say...
- 5$ a month for limited downloads,
- 10$ for unlimited radio-like broadcasts (you are only allowed to make a selection amongst a selection to which you contribute by vote)
- or 50$ for unlimited downloads (whatever there is, you can accees it and download it).
- Regularly, statistics are gathered and artists get a percentage for what they got heard.
Of course,this is a draft so it might sound incomplete, so, instead of [flames ¦ moderation], juste contribute and suggest.Some remarks before I click the Submit button
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
(I'm playing the devil's advocate, by the way, so please don't moderate this as flame bait)
I've seen the statement "we don't want all the money going to the middle man" tossed around here quite a bit, and it got me thinking... I bet most of us here who have jobs end up working for some sort of "middle man". So if we try to cut out the middle man in these transactions, aren't we in fact taking money away from our fellow workers' pockets? (i.e. the middle men will see a decline in revenue, have to cut wages/jobs, etc.)
Okay, I'm done playing the advocate, I know that the above doesn't take into account all of the variables, but the fact is that for most products, middle men are necessary. There aren't a whole lot of CD manufacturing plants that have walk-up counters with cashiers, ready to take our orders. And our economic system seems to be built on the idea of having tons of distributors and resellers and retailers and whatnot, which in turn gives lots of people a job and food on their tables.
Just something I thought that people might want to think about.
- Mike
The question is what do the RIAA companies bring to the table? Historically they provided a means of distribution that was unavailable to the artists themselves. They had the studios, etc. to record and produce music that could be sold around the world - and they got paid (fairly?) for it. But now, with MP3's, the distribution costs nothing and can be done by those who are creating the music. Why pay the record company when they are not adding value to the process of getting the music from the artist to the audience?
Nonperiodic Central Trajectory
I don't know of many waitresses that get more than that. Most of them DO rely on tips, and end up doing far better than I who make $7/hr. It is possible to make a good living on the kindness of strangers, but the strangers have to have it in their heads to be kind in the first place. After all, would you tip at restaurants if it wasn't expected of you? If this sort of model is to work, there has to be a re-thinking of the entire entertainment industry.
Most artists would make more money working at McDonalds than recording and selling CDs, at least until they've had a good number of big hits.
The way the system works, the recording company gives you an advance for recording the album, say, $250,000. They you record it, they manufacture it, market it, pay promotions people to bribe radio to play it, and so on, which costs the best part of a million.
The CDs go on sale. In a typical major-label contract, the artist gets 50c-$1 for each one sold. That is, after they've paid off their advance, marketing expenses, producers' fees, returns, breakages, &c. Which means that you don't see any money from CD sales until you've sold several million units, and then see only a trickle. Meanwhile, the recording company sees money from the first CD sold. They're not the ones who have to pay for the whole thing, after all. In his book Confessions of a Record Producer, Moses Avalon estimated that this is equivalent to a loan at 66% interest.
If you're a big-name artist, say, Metallica or someone, you can negotiate a cushier deal; say, $2 per CD, with the company footing parts of the bill, and you owning the copyright. After all, it's in their interest to sign you. However, if you're just a young band, star-struck that Warner or someone would be interested in them, no dice. If you don't sign on their terms, one of the young bands in the line behind you will.
2 weeks ago, 60 bucks.
So, that's tipping at a rate of 100 dollars at week. That's actually more than I had expected. Call me cynical, but this sort thing is only really going to happen when the artists says "Here, try this. If you like it...." and _then_ it might get more attention.
Pay Lars has collected 500 dollars, and it's been going a lot longer than five weeks.
This could be somthing worth watching.
And if I don't like my work, I find a new job.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You've got a mullet... haven't you?
Touched a nerve did it?
Wow, you're right, I've been in a fantasy world. Except, Metallica ACTUALLY USED TO CARE. Ok? They did, I know. I still like their old stuff. I still like their new stuff. I just don't like how they are marketted. I realize that the recording industry is a business. Gee, I thought that they were just trying to get my drug money. At any rate. I go to real clubs and concerts where the bands DO care that I am there... clubs where afterwards, I hang out with the bands and have a beer or two. I got up on stage and sang with The DropKick Murphys. They actually let their fans come up on stage and sing with them at the end of the show. Unwritten Law thanked everyone, genuinely, for hanging out to listen to them at The Warped Tour, which only cost me $16 and is more memorable than any CD that I own. Oh yeah, these are GOOD BANDS with BIG FOLLOWINGS. Listen to some of UL's stuff and tell me that it isn't better than most of the crap on the radio. BTW, when I am in a car with a CD player, I usually do listen to my CDs.
If you wanna cry and defend Metallica, go ahead. Heck, I gotta tell ya, I still listen to them, I like them, I just wish that they would act cool again, so do a lot of people. At least I don't express my opinions it as an AC.
Eh...
An AC wrote: How do the Record Companies get Paid? This is still unfair to them.
CmdrNacho wrote: If you're looking for freebies, go to a soup kitchen or your local Salvation Army.
Well, that's exactly what we keep trying to tell them, but they don't listen! Buncha lazy good-for-nothing bums! They think they can get stuff for free -- that just because they've always got things for free in the past they have a right to continue this practice indefinitely!
It's time for the record companies to wake up. Their free ride is over. Their welfare state -- created and empowered by a government-granted monopoly on an infinite resource -- is being destroyed.
The world -- or at least a small part of it -- is finally beginning to realize that "intellectual property" is a crock of shit. Just because someone has a funny little C-with-a-circle-around it and their name on something, that doesn't mean that they have a natural right to make money from it. In fact, there is no natural right to make money at all. That's what a free market means -- you may make money, or you may not. You spin the wheel, you take your chance.
Now all we have to do is survive the mercenaries they're likely to send to kill us. (Hint: they're the ones with the red-white-and-blue flags on their uniforms. Bought and paid for by the RIAA using the money that you spent on CDs. You didn't think all that money went to the artist, didya?) At least the second amendment isn't completely dead yet. We still have some hope of living through this with both lives and freedom intact.
(Sorry, I'm in a bad mood this morning.)
- Can see total contribs to date for entire site
- Can see total contribs to date for individual artists
- Can contribute via credit card
- Marketspeak free (the fine print re: credit card fees is refreshingly clear and frank)
- Tip amounts are free-form entry (i.e. no "$10, $100 or $1000" drop down)
- Can leave message to send to artist (of course proof that they read it is missing, but whaddya gonna do)
- Very simple and fast site
Some of the music I own is so good I'd be willing to use a site like this to tip even after buying the album.I have to wonder though: What do the artist's contracts look like? Do they have to split these tips with their labels because they are revenues generated from jointly produced work? I can see how they'd get around this if I were tipping a band member (just a person-to-person transaction). But I'm tipping by band name--not really the same thing.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Interesting interpretation of Locke..
I didn't interpret anything. I just posted some random thoughts that were percolating through my head yesterday morning. It's an opinion, not some damned Bachelor-of-Arts philosophical paper.
Prehaps you are referring to the works of Marx?
Hell no. I've never even read Marx.
I can see where you would get Marx and Locke confused, [...]
You're operating under the assumption that I was regurgitating the thoughts of some dead guy. This is probably the source of your confusion. ;-)
(Which is not to say that my thoughts don't owe anything to the thoughts of people who came before me. Of course they do. But any Marxian thoughts in my head arrived there after being filtered and interpreted by many, many other people.)
Perhaps you do not think that information is the product of work and therefore can be owned?
This is one of those trick questions, isn't it? Your question boils down to this: "A implies B. Do you think B implies C?" Any answer I give can be construed as support for your initial assumption (A -> B).
I don't think that property rights derive from any "product of work" crap. Property rights derive from the threat (or use) of force. You own something exactly insofar as you can prevent other people from taking it away from you. Whether this is by defending it yourself, or by calling upon a government to do so, it comes down to the same thing in the end.
So it doesn't matter whether I think information is the product of work. That has nothing at all to do with the real issues.
Is one capable of owning a house
Yes.
(the product of work and information and raw materials)?
Red herring. A house is a house. It doesn't matter how it came into existence. You could own a house even if a genie from a bottle zapped it into existence with magical powers.
So it is possible to own an intangible and profit from it
These are two separate statements. I agree with one but not the other. It's not possible to own an intangible, except insofar as the government is willing to use force to perpetuate the illusion of "intellectual property". (Granted, they've been putting forth a valiant effort so far. We're hoping to change that.) But it is possible to profit from an intangible. People have been doing so for centuries now. Even without "intellectual property".
And to the person who questioned the moderators: you're right. I didn't think my original post was all that interesting, which is why I elected not to use my +1 bonus. I wrote it fairly quickly, without a great deal of thought or organization. I was quite surprised to see it had been moderated up twice. But it wasn't a troll -- at least, not intentionally.
I completely support artists getting compensated for their works. I think voluntary donations are a great way to do so. But I don't see any way at all that this could possibly be a viable business model.
$269 is a good gesture, but its only that -- a gesture. That doesn't pay bills, keep food on the table, or make it worth the hassle for the artist to keep on creating. (He could do better working at McDonald's) An argument might run that an true artist doesn't really need to be rich if he really loves his job, but we have to face reality, artists need money -- real money.
I think this is a good first step, but we need to improve on this idea. You can't really count on the generosity of others to make a living. What if waitresses didn't get a salary but instead relied entirely on tips?
Actually, that analogy is flawed, because in the case of the artist and MP3s, you don't really see the artist's face being polite to you trying to win your favor like a waitress does. People pay much less attention to the artist than the actual music. How do convince people that they are ethically obligated to donate money into this tip jar? Maybe they'll get about 20,000 Slashdot folk to do it, but there are hundreds of millions in the US alone that need convincing.
Would I pay buy the minute instead of by the chapter?
As in real life, I suspect there are a great many poseurs and anti-TheMan pretenders out there. You want alternate, you have alternate.
Now put up or shut your pie hole.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I have seen something like this elsewhere, TipTheHat.com. They haven't done much yet, but it seems to be the same idea. You can tip artists that post their work through the site, and you can tip other artists if you download their song off of whatever Napster clone you are using.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
My point was that people buy it and therefore the record companies will not change the formula of this production intensive music until people stop buying.
You jumped on you high horse and started getting all high and mightly about "old peoples" music and people picking on poor old Britney Spears. (I'm assuming this is the same person since you keep posting AC)
Since (as a Britney fan) you're probably only about 14 I guess this is to be expected.
You're not very good at arguing are you?
And why are you asking me if I'm not good at arguing? Making statements that are couched as questions is generally seen as a sign of lack of confidense.
...virtual tip jars and all these damn banner advertisements will disappear. In this framework, someone will not be able to draw profits from an erroneous-traffic-slurping-rant!
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Donating not only supports the producers things you like, enabling them to produce more, it encourages others to produce things you like in the hopes of getting your future donations.
the cost of music IS real world cost. Tape costs money, studio time costs money, rehearsal space costs money, FOOD costs money.
These are fixed investments producing unlimited copies of music. It is a fundamentally different situation than an investment producing transient performed music which can only be heard by a limited audience. It demands a fundamentally different income model.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
or rather: "confidence"
Your prize is a "imagine a beowulf cluster of street performer protocols!" shirt.
sig:
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.
The fact is, tips are part of what these workers are paid, food service is one of the few institutions where you have control over the quality of your next experience by kicking over a couple extra dollars, of course its not strange for a pizza delivery boy at a popular pizzeria to take in close to $150 in a good night, but theres other factors at work here, Most delivery people arent paid gas money or car maintenance money.
Oh, yes they are. They (and other information-selling industries like software) enforce an artificial scarcity on goods (as opposed to the real scarcity of most material objects) in order to make money. It's as if you weren't allowed to breathe unless you buy air from some company. Free-breathers would be called "oxygen infringers" or something.
How do the Record Companies get Paid? This is still unfair to them.
Well, the first thing that came in my mind when reading the article was that the tip system wouldn't work, like shareware in most cases doesn't. But stating that people like to pay Steven King made me realize something. Music, movies, books belong to a certain image we build of ourselves. I would indeed love to pay to f.i. Courtney and be on a published list of record owner. My presence on that list would make it very easy to make the payment move.
I agree with a system that works on the honor system but I also believe that that system should be administered by a company that is set up to partner with the record labels and artists. For now, artists have no recourse but to manage their business dealings through the record labels due to the structure of their contracts.
In the future, perhaps the truly smart musicians will take the opportunity to rework the section of their contract that deals with electronic distribution of music but I don't really see that happening. Record labels will always want a piece of the distribution pie, no matter what the means.
For now, these crude and unorganized efforts are a stab in the right direction but in order for this to truly work and gain mainstream acceptance the record labels will have to be involved in some manner or another. Sorry, but it's the truth.
I propose a unique method of on-line music distribution that would (a) partner with the record labels and/or artists to deliver electronic music, and (b) provide a low-cost solution to users wanting to download a track from a band (a couple cents is all it would require if the system worked and gained a wide audience). A distribution network such as Napster that uses a pay-a-small-fee-per-download system through an intermediary service is the way to go... not subscription services.
Sure, there will always be people who will get this stuff through other means/channels. But this happens right now in the "real" world (thievery, copying of CDs via CD burners, etc)... MOST people will have enough respect for their favorite artist to contribute.
I've actually worked up what I think is a decent business plan for the service and that "intermediary company" but I haven't had the balls to do anything with it.. :)
--- http://www.loudwerkz.com "Music That Rocks Your Lame Ass"
It's unfortunate that they felt they had to take over the metaphor of 'tipping a musician' in this way. My experience has been that tipping a musician is direct contact with the player.
The tunes are nice as you're walking down the street. The player definitely has talent and everyone around you on the sidewalk is steppin' higher because the sound feels good. So you toss a dollar bill in the guitar case, and the musician smiles in response. The tune even picks up a little bit as the guitar player responds to the compliment.
I fail to see how a website soliciting what sounds like an almost insultingly meager amount of money (~$350 for the entire internet???) to 'compensate' people whose music we don't even hear while contributing.... it's a weak metaphor at best, and seems more like a political force trying to take another bit of folk culture away from us and make it a symbol.
Sorry, I'll tip local musicians, thank you.
I was never a fan of the music, image, acting abilities, or miscellaneous talents of Miss Love, but after reading her music industry manifesto I have a whole new opinion. Give it a read........she's no slouch.
As for your joke about Kurt Cobain's death.........grow up.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
I wrote an essay on why I think this is a viable economic model for all IP based on the self-interest of the donor. Personally, I like to call the general concept "mass-market busking" and any such freely-redistributable product "buskware".
In short, the reason you donate is that it sends a message to the world that there is money to be had in making something you like. You aren't donating primarily to support one specific producer, but to reward, and thus encourage, the behavior of making such products and releasing them for free distribution.
The key to making it work is for each buskware producer to give full public disclosure of how much money they receive, with as much information about which product it was for as is available. This is the payoff for the donor, as other people can look at this and think "Hey! He's making money at it, I should try, too!" (conversely, they are discouraged from following the example of people who don't make an adequate profit).
Music is something of a special case, as most music isn't tailored to a particular audience, and people generally don't seem to prefer that it is, but at the very least you are encouraging musicians to believe that they can distribute their music freely, without signing on with a big label.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Perhaps something like Bruce Schneier's Street Performer Protocol would work for sites like this?
--
bgphints - internet routing news, hints and ti
--
This is what Gene Kan of Gnutella was talking about in the "Future of Digital Music" hearing I believe: incentivizing "pirates" to create new legitimate business models. Well here's one. A virtualization of the street performer's protocol. Think of a street performer: some people walk by and drop a coin in a hat, others do nothing, thereby technically "pirating" the performer's music without compensation. The recording industry's answer is to jail everybody who doesn't pay, or create some cumbersome locks on the music so that nobody will want to even listen to it, and the whole business is driven away and dissolves. A protocol like this recognizes that some people *won't* pay, but those with a good heart will. I recognizes you simply can't *stop* people from not paying, but you *can* make it easy for those who want to.
Even better, this money goes *right* to the artist (sounds like it at least) circumventing every middle-man down the line slicing his share off. I think this could turn the tables so that now *artists* are in control, and instead pay for the services of the recording industry.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
A real micropayment system would require a lower base fee. For example, maybe you could set up an account at the site and buy a few dollars worth of tips at a time (thus losing only 4 or 5% to Visa), which you would then distribute as you see fit over time. The other advantage of this system is it minimizes the number of times you need to enter your credit card data (which seems like it would improve security, though I know little on the subject).
I took a look at the e-gold website. Definitely interesting. I'll need to do some more investigation (seeing if there are external ratings and modeling the pricing so I can see what kind of profit level their shooting for), but I may eventually go for it. It seems like a reasonably easy way to invest in precious metals directly while gaining some functionality.
I do worry that it may not scale well. Up to a point, a large user base will only lower costs, but once e-gold rises to the level of major player in the metals market (which may happen if everybody had an account), it could screw itself by having it's own transactions affect the market.
Anyway, enough rambling about e-gold. The most interesting thing I found there was Flying Rat! This is a filtered e-mail account that requires the sender of a piece of e-mail to pay you to read their e-mail! So spammers would have to shell out big bucks to get their ads read! It only looks practical if the e-gold accounts become common, but WOW!
---
We've secretly replaced this mathematician's value of pi with 355/113.
Let's see if he notices!
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
I don't buy many albums, and download much less. Unpaid advert: see & hear Karen Kosowki!
I always equivocate. Well, almost always.
...is that there will have to be centralized money distribution (unless everyone wants to process their own two cent tips).
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
I know exactly what the last few moments of Kurt Cobain's life entailed. It wasn't murder.
*shakes head as he sobers up*
Kurt: "I married WHO?!?! "
*wraps lips round barrel of shotgun*
BOOM!!!
The only reason anyone takes her at all seriously is who she married and the fact that she may have been involved in his death. Other than that, perhaps there are those who are fond of her for crowd surfing in short mini skirts and no knickers.
"Her" idea of tipping artists is more likely as not something which someone else came up with, but I think it's a decent one. If you know that the artist is getting ripped off and you are willing to pay $14 for the CD, if you can afford to drop another $7 to the artist.
*shrug*
But what do I know? I'm going back to sniffing glue.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Metallica lives way more comfy than I do and I still haven't gotten my thank you letter yet. In fact, they lashed out at their fans. I figure that even with the fact that they only get a cut of all of their sales, between myself and a handful of my friends, they have made pretty damned good money all the way since I was in elementary school. Still like their music, just wish that this knife wound in my back would heal... and that they'd stop just saying what they're producers tell them to. The second they cut their hair, the damned record companies saw them as about as markettable as a boy band, already a lot of fans, and they had good music, now the cleaner, safer, more cuddly heavy metal band. Sort of like the "tough guy" from boy bands who looks like any good sized high school jock could break him in 2.
Look mom! We're rebelling!
Eh...
This was covered on The Swindle, uhmm...2 weeks ago. At that time, a whopping 60 dollars had been donated.
I wish Fairtunes the best of luck, tho. I put my money where my mouth is.
There needs to be a method of micropayment available which is secure, resistant to fraud, and easily limited. Ideally I could just go to the store and buy a card worth $20 to $50, like a phone card, and use it until it's gone. Then even if the card is compromised, I'm not out a whole lot.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They do not want away one else stepping on there toes. Or they will get them. They promise them everything and they give them very little. Well that is life. They will get what theirs just dessert soon enough.
HUH?
There would also be no incentive for me to tip at my favorite restaraunt since i am ensured of getting a good meal from any place...
Why do i still do it?
/<WHUMP/>
The sound of logic falling.
>>Easy, bombard people with information about tip sites until they feel socially obligated to do so.
The problem I see with this approach, that is, where it strays from your waiter/waitress model is that no one is standing over you in front of your friends and coworkers when you are donating, or NOT DONATING money. People tip for so many reasons: we tip to be courteous, we tip to be bigshots, we tip to be rich... we tip to impress. We also tip to avoid embarressment. Except for the first, none of these incentives will be factors with the internet tip jar.
Another reason you tip is because the opportunity presents itself every time you go out to a decent restaurant. You never have to go out of your way to find a waiter or waitress.
Bottom line? Tipping (in restaurants) presents itself, tipping is easy, not tipping is hard. None of these things are true on the internet to the same extent that they are true on the internet.
"even an LP makes for an interesting listen. "
Yo dissin my LPs! Stop dissin my LPs! LPs are not dead! LPs will live forever! Long live the vinyl! Long live the circle!
Really, not being a digital format, LPs sound better than CDs and other modern junk. Unfortunately the excellent sound quality degrades too fast.
Analog. It just sounds better.
Digital. It just sounds worse.
In then end though, I end up paying the band, the sound person, security, the hall, etc out of my own pocket.
There's your problem. You're talking about a very limited distribution medium (how far does sound carry?) with a real-world cost.
In that situation, you need a certain minimum average donation, and that's what kills the profit model.
There is no motive for the people to donate more. They gain no advantage by encouraging voluntary admission shows if they pay more at each one. If they were willing to pay $30 for the show, they'd rather it be required and not have to fight for elbow-space with the riffraff that crowds in for free. It is against their interests to subsidize the admission of people who pay less.
There is also the problem that there is only one opportunity to donate. If you have a copy of a song, listen to it often, and the option to pay is always there, you are a lot more likely to decide it's worth paying for at a time when you are able to donate.
Paying voluntary admission is "social donation", people pay because they are in a public place and feel obligated to demonstrate that they're not freeloaders. Naturally, they look at it as a problem in how little they can get away with spending (hmm... what's the recommended minimum?).
It's different when you're paying for freely distributed (whether legally or not) music in private and at your own convenience. Then you stop thinking "how little can I get away with spending" and start thinking "how much do I want to spend on keeping this band around"?
Whether this will work out remains to be seen...
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
That's such crap.
It's not about distribution!! Let me say it again, it's NOT ABOUT DISTRIBUTION.
It's about *promotion*. Why is Britany Spears or whoever people downloaded like crazy on Napster? Because she's all you ever hear about!! Why *isn't* Joe-Schmoe's Garage band being downloaded like crazy? Because you've never heard of it. Odd.. they're both available in this tradition-smashing new internet distribution chanel we call Napster/mp3/gnutella/whatever.
A lot of these artists want to be compensated for their work - with MONEY *gasp*. That means they need to get and audience!
The question is - what is the better way to gain a following? Pay money to promote your music, and then charge ridiculous amounts for the music, or give your music for "micropayments", and hope you win a huge audience in a touchy-feely free-intellectual marketplace?
The record companies are pissed because their business model is the former, while pirates are trying to shove them into the latter (while not compensating them at all by the way).
If you don't like the way RIAA bands do business - then take your business elsewhere. End of story.
Analogy: If you don't like the way GM makes/promotes/sells cars, don't buy one. But if you try to undermine GMs business model - you deserve to be sued.
I agree, I can't say I've heard very much Hole but I respect her for the way she stated herself in that article. Also, I don't really like Nirvana (ok fine I dislike Nirvana) but it's pretty low to make suicide jokes.
Diehard
I really like the idea FairTunes has (I spent $25 there a few days ago), but I'm not so sure it's ever going to be a big hit. When I gave my money to them, I assumed they had been around for a while and had already processed a large number of transactions. It was only *after* I'd finished that I found out they'd received a total of $200. That was a few days ago--by now they're up to just under $300. It looks like only 6 people have contributed since then. Of course, this is probably due to a lack of exposure, but I'm still not convinced that many people would be inclined to voluntarily contribute. American society just isn't geared that way. It shouldn't be hard to convince artists that they would get a bigger percentage without the record companies (only the credit cards get a percentage in this case), but it will be hard to convince them that it will be a large percentage of a reasonable amount if it's only collected on a voluntary basis.
I will use tipping in New York city as an example of how this can be a huge success.
$269 is a good gesture, but its only that -- a gesture. That doesn't pay bills, keep food on the table, or make it worth the hassle for the artist to keep on creating...reality, artists need money -- real money.
Most of my friends in NYC have worked as waiters at one time or the other and currently do so now while in school. One of them is a bright kid who is currently working on Nanotech research at the Rochester Institute of Technology yet he frequently waits tables while in school instead of looking for a better job.
Why is this?
In New York city, everybody tips. There is a social stigma associated with people who do not tip. When Hilary Clinton ate a meal at a restuaraunt and didn't tip, it made front page news in some tabloids. Because of this it is normal for waiters to make anything from $100 to $200 a night depending on how busy the restaurant is. Working five days a week that is comparable to what most people make after a gruelling 4 year degree in college.
I think this is a good first step, but we need to improve on this idea. You can't really count on the generosity of others to make a living. What if waitresses didn't get a salary but instead relied entirely on tips?
They do, most waiters/waitresses make half of minimum wage. Obviously no one is making a living on $80 a week (after taxes) for 40 hours of work.
How do convince people that they are ethically obligated to donate money into this tip jar?
Easy, bombard people with information about tip sites until they feel socially obligated to do so. If all 20 million Napster users suddenly started getting hit with banner ads advocating tipping the artists whose music they were downloading, how many do you think wouldn't? Especially if the payment process was easy. Heck, if I could click a link from Napster everytime I downloaded a good song to throw a dollar or two at the artist I would. Multiply that by a few million and you have a new distribution model that pays artists a lot more than the current butt-fucking that the RIAA gives artists.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
We're working on embedding meta-data into digital content files which will allow for easy voluntary payments and will encourage free distribution. We're using crypto in an attempt to assure consumers that the person they're paying is actually the originator of the content, not an imposter with their hand in the artist's tip jar. The discussion is just getting rolling and we could use some input:
http://tipster.weblogs.com
Courtney: It's not piracy when kids swap music over the Internet using Napster or Gnutella or Freenet or iMesh or beaming their CDs into a My.MP3.com or MyPlay.com music locker
I rest my case. Go go go, Courtney. :)
http://dtum.livejournal.com
Fairtunes strikes me as being a reasonably good step in the right direction. The thing that people aren't realising here is that it needs a lot of donations to work out right, and it's not getting those donations from people are take one look at the site and say "That's not enough to afford XXXX thing for them crazy artists!" or "bwahaha with so little money there's no way to get the puny tip to the artist reasonably!". Well, gee. If you actually made a donation, not only would it help overcome these two factors, but it would entice more people to donate. Unfortunately, this sort of phenomenon plagues anything like this and will probably murder fairtunes before it gets off the ground.
I praise Courtney Love for the opinion she wrote. It indicates that she has a good grasp of where things should be going and why what's happening now is wrong. I can't wait for the day when all it takes is the artist, a credit card commerce outfit, and a web pimp for bands to exist. At that point, costs will be ultra-low for everybody. I'd love to slap $1-5 for an mp3'd album (or whatever compression system is big in 2020 when this actually happens =P ).
Diehard
Maybe a name more like "Ransom Protocol" would be more appropriate, or "Communal Purchase Protocol".
The Street Performer Protocol has little relation to the operating procedure of street performers (a.k.a. buskers): a price is set and must be matched. Have you ever seen a busker with a sign, "I'm only playing the first half of this song, if there isn't $10 in my hat by the end of the first half, I won't play the second half."? It doesn't fit the analogy at all.
I think it is a badly flawed variant of mass market busking (not to suggest that the idea was derived from it, just that MMB is the more general term).
The flaws?
Well, how do you set the price? You know donations are going to drop right off once one the price is reached; when you explain it in terms of influencing this one single producer, people will think of it in those terms and look for the minimum donation they can get away with (and who knows what price you'll set for the next piece? better to hold some back against future increase). So when you set a target, you also set a limit.
What if you're a runaway success? You can't raise your price and not expect your customers to feel betrayed.
What if your sequel isn't as well-received as the first book, even though it pays well enough that you'd like to keep going? You can't lower the price when you see it's not going to be met, or people won't take you seriously at all.
IMHO, it's far better to just let people pay what they will. If you want to make noises about giving up on the project because you're making too little money, fine, but don't try to set a price target/limit before release. Only someone like Stephen King, who has such a loyal following that he can predict demand, can get away with this kind of thing.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
A set-top box (think cable box) that plugs into your stereo and/or a walkman-type device and/or a car stereo, which for $N a month provides you with on-demand access to the entire back catalog of the major labels (and presumably, any indie labels that want to join). Also available: for $M a month, a similar service for music videos. Of course, you also have the option of listening to various commercial-free radio-like broadcasts in whatever genre you want.
Everybody wins in a situation like this:
The consumer gets:
- Convenience. No more CDs to store, get scratched, get stolen, get lost, get melted (in your car), etc.
- More convenience. It's easy to hook up and the walkman version is portable.
- Selection.
The music companies get:Of course, there will be people who sign up for the service, hook the thing up to their computer and record all the stuff they want, then cancel the service. These people will be a negligable minority.
Of course, the big question is how to pick M and N. I'm thinking M in the range of $20-30, and N in the range of $10-20 (contingent upon having the music service, of course).
The service would probably be set up as a for-profit business, jointly owned by the major labels, but held in check by the US govt's anti-trust division.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
Shareware often doesn't work because it is way too expensive. Generally $30 or $40, while hardly having distribution and/or marketing costs.
Shareware used to be cheap (years ago), cheaper than software you'd buy in a store, but nowadays all kind of mediocre or nice-to-have utilities seem to cost as much as, say, Q3A. That is unreasonable.
What a great idea - get your music the way you want - pay the artist directly. Perfect! I think I will spend some 30$ for a few artists that I really liked and could find a CD of!
While this may not end up being the "Business Model of the New Economy" (tm), it's a step in the right direction. Even Stephen King gets it and is trying something. Whether or not it's a virtual tip jar, or "download my book and send me a buck", some business model will emerge that will be fair to the consumer and to the artist/author.
I think this idea has considerable merit. I like it. I do have, however, some concerns about their ability and plans for dealing with "imitations", for lack of a better word.
Just like cyber squatting on domain names, and their similar-looking/sounding names, it seems it's only a matter of time before someone starts registering:
Then there's making web sites that are variations on www.fairtunes.com such as:
I think this sort of thing could have some serious potential.
:-> ) when they know that he is the one getting the money, rather than some middle man.
The thing about these sorts of scheme is that they believe that fundamentally most people are honest, as was demonstrated by King. The record industry (and movie) work on the principal that if people can steal it they will.
I believe that the latter arguement has got human nature fundamentally wrong. I don't mind paying for a CD/Video but what I do mind is the fact that these things cost so much and most of the money goes to the middle men. This is especially true with CDs when the artists get relatively little.
This sort of thing works because most people don't mind paying Steven King 1USD a chapter (as long as there arn't too many chapters
The same could work for music. When we are all downloading music direct from the artists we cercumvent the distibution companies, removing them froom the loop. Most people would be willing to pay a reasonable amount direct to the band on an honour basis, and with costs so low you wouldn't have to ask for much.
I live in York (england) and at the Minster (big church) they don't charge you to look around (partly because they can't), but they do request that everyone make a voluntary donation of a suggested amount, and most people do. Admitidly it being religious probably helps, but I have seen a similar scheme used for other historic buildings. This works because people are generally willing to pay for what they get.
The same is true for musicians, artists, writers, movie makers and software writers. If people like what you have done they will more than likely pay for it because they want more.
What people object to is paying through the nose for a CD only to find out that it is rubbish when they get home.
With the advent of digital distribution for music, books and films (digi projectors and broardband?) we could (eventually) see the sidelining of the distributers, and money going direct to artists on an honour system. At which point piracy becomes moot and everyone is happy (except the RIAA and MPAA of course).
A little utopian (and rather long winded), but we can hope. King has already shown that it can work for the well known artists, it just remains to be seen how it scales down to the up and comming ones who have no publicity machine or well known name. Mabey.
Paul Leader