Slashdot Mirror
Musicnet Fails to Impress Customers
mcwop writes "A Wall Street Journal story carried on MSNBC chronicles MusicNet's failure as a service before it even gets started. The story contains some funny quotes such as: 'The first offering was too clunky and too consumer unfriendly to hold much hope for its success, says Richard Parsons, AOL Time Warner's incoming chief executive. So we are going to go back, and we will come out with a 2.0 product which will be more consumer friendly, easy to use. ... This is a business of trial and error.' Any consumer could have informed the music titans that their business plan was flawed. Unfortunately, version 2.0 won't be any better unless the music industry is willing to take some risks. One of the more interesting aspects to the story is how the major music companies could hardly be present in the same room for fear that antitrust laws may be broken." A good business-oriented review of Musicnet's operations. With the artists making a quarter-cent per downloaded song, they're probably just as happy to see it fail.
There's an article entitled "Courtney Love does the math" that talks about why Napster isn't the problem; rather, the record companies are screwing the artists. (Worth a read.)
This applies to the above "quarter cent per song" -- which may actually be more than what they get making CDs.
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
I would love to see their evidence for this. I assume it would be the same crap they've been whining about for months, which is that their sales are slightly less record-breaking than they'd hoped. Whooptee... it's a recession. Guess what kind of stuff is the first to get cut from people's budget? Yep, overpriced crappy music.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Prove it. Most people I know actually buy the cds from the artists that they discover on P2P services. They just aren't buying the cds that the record industry is hyping the most. Maybe that's why they have their panties in a wad.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The qoute from the article: "It didn't allow consumers to keep downloaded songs permanently."
:).
pretty much sums why its was doomed for failure.
Lets see.. advantages of buying a CD, I can rip it to mp3/ogg and Ccpy it to my PC for listening to (and upload it to my protable mp3 player). And very importantly, I get to put the CD on my shelf with the rest of my collection.
Oh but wait that make me a priate so I will go spend my money on music that I don't actually get to own... sounds logical to me
more than they got from napster or any of the current junk out there!
Bull *blank*
When napster was in full swing, Many people used it as a music trial service, kind of like our own personal listening booth. Try and buy.
Let us not forget that music sales dropped 9% after Napster took a dirt nap. Many people blame it on economics. I blame it on the fact that exposure was removed from the mainstream.
A quarter of a cent or 9% increase in overall sales. You decide.
And do the math. 1 million sales is a MASSIVE $2500 for the artists. I make more then that in two weeks.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Reading through the MSNBC article, I noticed one thing, references to much fanfare with which these "legal" services were introduced. It all comes down to one aspect. Music industry never intended to make this attempt succeed. They know that they could sell Old CDs at a profit many years from now, and by giving music away at this cost, no one is going to buy these CD's years from now.
They remind me of a pack of dogs fighting over a piece of meat, while someone else gets the most of it.
I for one, is reminded of musician Moby who once said that "If I ever hear that someone on the other end of this world downloaded my songs and listens to them on their computer, then I would be content because that makes me proud of what I do as a musician" or something to that effect.
Rapid Nirvana
its a quarter of a CENT .. not a quarter (like they deserve)
.. isn't it.
4 dls = ~$0.01
8 dls = ~$0.02
1,000,000 dls = ~$2,500.00
sad
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
They got free exposure and that leads to CD sales. They pay a crapload to get exposure from the record labels, and the label takes all the money to pay for that exposure and other costs before the artist sees a penny. Then, and only then, if there is anything left, the artist gets a portion of it. Of course, many artists don't even get any exposure from their label anyway. Either way, P2P doesn't look too bad. It helps to sell CDs. Now if artists could get their shit together and give the fans some support, we could probably make some headway against the record labels. Then they wouldn't be able to hide behind the "we're protecting the artists" bullshit. Artists could probably get a better deal, and fans could get what they want as well. The ability to try before they buy, and the ability to do whatever the hell they want with the music they own.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Were I a recording artist, I would rather see these services fail. Every inadequate business model--and 1/4 cent per song is decidedly inadequate--should fail.
I would rather see a dozen of these fail--to be replaced by one that works, balancing the needs of the consumers and the recording artists. [I can't honestly claim to care much about the needs of the RIAA.]
If this is successful, it will only lend legitimacy to a model which screws the consumers and the artists to support the old-style distribution interests. Such interests should adapt or die.
The real problem here is that record companies are more than just distribution chains. They're also advertising agencies. They're good at making folks want to buy the stuff they're selling (and at going the other way: making what they're selling what folks want to buy...cf Nirvana).
It's the advertising element that makes artists famous. That's also a part of why they sign up. (No fame == no sales. No sales == no money. Plenty of folks are presently distributing music for free online....but you never hear about them since they don't have the advertising budget of the major labels.
Personally, I'd love to see a label split into two parts: a distribution channel and an advertising agency. But it'll never happen. The distribution chain only works because the advertising makes the demand. If there wasn't the advertising-created demand, the distribution chains would be worthless.
The recording industry tells the radio stations what songs to play. They make their own stars, and use the radio to advertise them. They know exactly how well their "artists" are doing, since they decided it in advance. You are correct though in that the radio stations do pay for the privelege of advertising for the RIAA.
Murphy was an optimist.
...with more than one person in the room?
What will happen when the music executives find out about THIS? Oh, those clever, wicked teenagers... they buy ONE copy of a CD, but TWO people get to listen to it!
If they play it on a boom box on the subway, the number of illegal listeners can climb even higher! It's theft, that's what it is! It's just like shoplifting--no, bank robbery!
We need a law requiring every CD player to include a little IR scanner that counts the number of people in the room and shuts down if you haven't purchased the right number of licenses (or charges them to your credit card). This is in our own interest as consumers, because if this isn't done, there won't be any profit in music any more and then there won't be any music. Nope, none at all. How would we like THAT?
(P.S. It's irony, folks)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yeah, there are gigs of music I have that I might never purchase. At the same time, when I used Napster, my CD purchases were 100x what they were before...
Regardless of the legality of those mp3s that I won't buy, I put far more money into buying CDs than I otherwise would have... to the point where I physically COULDN'T spend more money because I ran out. I bought a lot of the best of what I downloaded.
This, to varying degrees, is a definite trend among people who download music. Regardless of the fact that SOME didn't get purchased, much more money went to the artists than under normal circumstances. This doesn't change the legality of it in itself, but it does point toward different motives on behalf of the music company that have more to do with maintaining a monopoly rather than recouping lost sales.
After all, if more money goes TO the labels, it shouldn't matter how much music goes to me, because it cost the labels nothing to put out (please note the difference in what I'm saying from the lame leeching kiddies... I don't think that because the music costs nothing to transmit that it is worth paying nothing for... just that there are no disadvantages to this scenario for the music companies other than the loss of control... I'm more than happy to shell out cash for good music.)
And, most likely, what I'll never see.
1. Cheap downloads of decent quality (160 or 192) MP3s. Maybe US$0.25-$0.30/song. Give me a printable receipt. These are true MP3s, no time sensitivity or DRM. If you want to encode the receipt number into the MP3, I think I can deal with that. Just let me copy it onto my laptop, MP3 player, etc. and keep it for perpetuity.
2. Now, since I've paid less for a lesser quality product, I'd like an upgrade path. Let me use that receipt as a discount coupon on the album I've downloaded. Usable anywhere.
This way, I can legally sample albums for about a buck. If I like it, I'm not out that dollar, It was just a down payment on the stuff I like.
3. (Since I'm already shooting for the moon, why not...) Let me order custom-mixed CDs of MP3s I've purchased. With or without the aforementioned discount. That part I don't care about. If there's 10 or 12 songs I like where the rest of the album's trash (i.e. just about everything released these days) then let me just buy those songs.
4. Access to _every_ label's material, not just two or three.
5. A shopping cart style interface. Something like Amazon will do nicely.
I can't imagine I'm the only person out there that thinks something like this would work.
How the royalties get distributed would naturally need some thinking. It's got to be better then a quarter of a cent per song, though.
How does a song that you don't know, from a band that you've never heard, expose itself to you on any of the P2P programs? The reality, of course, is that it doesn't: The only most people ever hear it is if they pulled a fast one and labelled it "Britney Spears duo with Christina Aguilara.mp3". The P2P networks are all built around searching, meaning that you hear a song on the radio, or in a movie, and you think "Hey! Remind me to download that from Gnutella later!".
So here's a company who invests a million dollars into a group of four guys who have talent.... and no other financial backing (I assume). Then another million dollars is invested into making some music videos for the band. They also invest a lot of money (4.4 million according to courtney) in marketing, publishing, manufacturing etc. She doesn't even mention things like cost of doing business, etc. (Record labels have employees).
So.... the record label has invested 6.4 million dollars into an artist....and they end up profiting 6.6 million.
If you ask me that sounds like the artists are getting a pretty good deal. Where else are they going to get 6.4 million dollars from without any finances of their own? And what happens if they fail? What about contacts, etc.
Not to mention what if that band fails and the record label comes out in the red...it's pretty easy to imagine losing a couple million dollars on an artist.
After putting it into perspective I really don't see what there is to get upset about.... If an artist wants to try it on his own, go for it. But if he wants to make it national, he's going to need lots of money and help.
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
Then you should check out emusic.com. The trial is free.
.rmp song list downloading files and mention linux specifically as being able to use the "one click album downloading" via FreeAmp. I use Tafkar on my Mac.
1.)$10/month for a year subscription. $15/month for 3 month subscription.
2.)All-you-can-download, one click album downloads.
3.)MP3 format.
4.)You own it.
5.)Artists get paid.
6.)Tons of great bands you have and haven't heard of.
The only downside is that the bitrate is a bit low (128). But for my $10 I've gotten about 15-20 albums this month. All nicely organized and ID3 tagged, downloaded in one click. They use
I know I've posted about this a lot, but it seems to address many of the issues that slashdotters have with Musicnet and the new Napster.
This is the best money I've ever spent on music.
Even though I've never heard of many of the artists, emusic's "Picks" tend to be pretty damn good. And if they aren't I just delete them.
--wundabread
P.S. Check out all of Mogwai's stuff, Taking Back Sunday's album "Tell All Your Friends", Firewater's album "Psycoparmacolgy", and Ursula 1000's track "Beat Box Cha-Cha" track.
None of which I had ever heard, nor likely ever would have heard without my subscription.
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
I've done this in the past, and I will do again. You may download music with no intention of buying the CDs, but don't assume everyone else is like you.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
Every time this subject is raised, people holler about cutting out the middle man and sending money direct to the artists through FairTunes or whatever.
Tiny point: most artists signed up to the Big 5 labels have no rights to the music. They either do it as work for hire (in which case they never owned it), or they explicitely agree to sell the rights to a publisher. And that's actual artists, let alone miming meat puppets like Ms Spears who are technically committing breach of copyright if they so much as hum "their" music without prior written consent from their label.
Now, I'm not saying that's right (it's not), but artists have a choice. They can choose to self publish. And those artists deserve support. But most artists choose to take what looks like the easy, lucrative route, let a publisher take the big risk to pay up front to record and promote their music, in return for a smaller reward. And sure, a lot of them get screwed, but they're (mostly) adults, and nobody's making them sign up with the Big 5. I'm not entirely clear on why we should be rewarding them for that... although I'm quite happy with punishing the Big 5 labels for their cartel abuse of the market.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
*Several* bands, including the Smashing Pumpkins have already done this.
It would take a whole lot of major headliners to do this all at the same time before it would make a difference. One or two bands here and there doesn't really tell the RIAA anything...they'll just find the next cookie-cutter band to fill their shoes.
My journal has hot
how NOT true. You can record the music which they offer there WITHOUT even hacking anything in windows..
/dev/dsp. You can use KDE's aRTs or ESD, and play with it, but remember - both VMWare and win4lin (not sure about win4lin) run as setuid root, which means you'll need to run ESD or aRTs as root...
/dev/dsp and press the "play" button on the MusicNet player. When the music ends - stop your /dev/dsp grabber.
Here are few steps which you can do (if you have some linux programming skills, a VMWare [any version] or Win4Lin..)
Instructions are pretty easy - and I'll put it as generic as possible (who knows who reads this...)
You start VMWare with windows as a guest (or win4lin with your windows) and install the client and subscribe to musicNet. Now you're installing their client and making sure that everything works, and that you can hear your music well (with VMWare you might need to play a bit with "renice" command)..
Now - the Linux part. You'll need to write/steal/beg-someone-to write a small wrapper program which simply "records" whats going into
Now the fun parts begins - with your new program, start recording whatever comes out of
Now you have a big WAV file. You can use a simple editor to cut some empty sound seconds, and viola! you got a WAV file ready to be converted into mp3/ogg/wma/whatever - which you can now trade, put in your player, etc...
Enjoy..
Putting monatary and moral issues aside for a moment, why would anyone in their right mind subscribe to these services? They have shitty music selections and massive restrictions on what you can do with the music you download. Even if someone is willing to pay for a music service, there is no way most people would use these when the free alternitives are so much better.
I think it was obvioius to anyone who read about these things before they came out that they would fail. It was certeinly obvious to me. It should of been obvious to the record companys as well. why wasn't it? Becuase they where designed to fail. They realised that when these services failed, they would have ammunition to throw into legislaion. They are going to say that it's a faulty buisness model, and that musicnet is proof. Too bad too, as I am sure that a pay service that was not restrictive and was offered for a decent price would be quite sucsessful.
With the artists making a quarter-cent per downloaded song, they're probably just as happy to see it fail.
When asked about why the actual artist got so little, an RIAA representative answered "The value of the is questionable. The way we see it, we provide all the bandwidth, and without our promotions no one would even know about the artist. We have a lot of costs, so we should get a lot of money."
An RIAA representative was quoted as saying "People need ot [sic] understand that this system is much more akin to a tip jar then a true subscription."
msnbc starts off with a quote claiming that free download services have been cutting into music sales for years. I just don't buy that. Consider:
Music download services have only been around for (at most) a few years (that I am aware of). Long before the introduction of the mp3, people used this funky gadget called an audio tape to exchange music. I don't recall hearing them yell that tapes were going to bankrupt them (although it's possible I was too young to remember such a time).
And yesterday, AP (that's the Assosciated Press) sent a story across the wires saying that Jupiter Media Metrix had hard data that music services actually boosted music sales. I don't have the numbers or a link handy, but they indicated that people with a CD writer who downloaded music were more likely to buy than people without one (among other stats). The other thing the article mentioned is that Napster has become the industry's straw man.
It's no shock to me that customers prefer to download, evaluate, and buy rather than subscribe and rent. I just wish that the music industry megacorporations would drop the FUD and do something productive.
Then again....anyone notice that earthlink started running commercials about how you could download and share music faster on their broadband service and now AOL is making a similar claim about its broadband service? Hmmmmm....
What is your Slash Rating?
Once upon a time, it seems that the phonograph must have threatened the music industry. After all, performers of the time would have made their living from live performances, so the concept of people being able to hear the music without attending a physical performance must have been very scary indeed. But of course, the availability of records just made music more popular and more in the mainstream.
Then when music radio came along, it must have shaken up the music industry of that time. All of a sudden, people didn't even need to buy records to hear the music: they could hear it for free on the radio! But, once again, this just increased the public's love for music.
And here we are again, playing out the same farce. Don't believe it, Internet friends: pop music is in no danger. The artists are as excited about the new frontier of music as the fans are. Let's just try to get through the painful transition period in one piece.
"I'm a rocket man / Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." - Sir Elton John
There's more than one way to find a song on P2P. For example, maybe I hear a song in a movie by Elliot Smith. I like the song. I go to Limewire, I search for Elliot Smith. I probably find lots of the song I heard in the movie, and I download that one. Then I see a song that wasn't in the movie. I download it. Then I see Elliot Smith did a duo with someone else, I search for their songs. Suddenly I'm listening to music by some artist that I had never heard of because I was looking for a song I heard in a movie by Elliot Smith.
Do you ever hear Elliot Smith songs on the radio? I don't.
So maybe I buy an Elliot Smith CD to get the music that's not in the movie, and maybe I buy the other artist's CD because I heard his/her music while searching for stuff on Elliot Smith. I wouldn't have just bought a random Elliot Smith CD because I heard one of his songs in a movie, and without P2P I wouldn't have ever heard of the other artist.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
That'd be a pretty good deal, getting about $50 worth of heroin per download. Where do I sign up?
emusic.com has stayed out of the spotlight this whole time. This may be intentional-- if they actually got popular, their business wouldn't make any sense compared to other offerings out there (not sure how it does now).
They charge 10 bucks a month. With that, you get unlimited downloads in mp3 format. That's right-- you can download that Haujobb CD 8 times if you want. I downloaded 20 CDs in my first three days.
How the hell does it work? How do they make any money (after they pay half to the labels)? I have no idea. On the label side, they don't get the big names. Their biggest are people like TMBG, but most bands are significantly smaller. And if you're looking for cool small, unsigned bands, you won't find 'em either. So it's not the only service you'll need. But at 10 bucks a month, it's a hell of a start on your collection. And it makes MusicNet look downright stupid (well, like that was hard).
P.S. On the antitrust note (how they could hardly be in the same room): well, duh. It's a big fat antitrust violation already, and they're just observing the technicalities to avoid a prosecution. Let's see-- they all collaborate to wipe the other online music services off the face of the planet. Then, they get together and start one of their own. They're a music mafia, but they aren't allowed to get all the families in one room together. No big deal, there are plenty of other ways to communicate.
People are not going to send 25 cents when they get the mp3 from somewhere else.
Yeah, this is why nobody pays for software, right?
Speak for yourself. I'd buy a ton of MP3s if the cartel would sell them to me at a fair price with no ads, expiry dates, copy protection, or other control-freak bullshit.
The real reason is that CDs no longer good value for your entertainment dollar, in a world where a 2 hour DVD can be had for $15-$20 and I can listening to streaming audio (legally) all day long for free.
Try as they might to change the crumbling economics of their situation, technology has moved on and there are better, cheaper options to the CD. The music industry must get over the fact that the goose that laid the golden egg has been slaughtered, and they are never going to be able to make as much money as they once did.
-josh
Is anyone really surprised?
:-)
If the record industry wants to tell us what we can do with music we pay to download from them, of course we're going to tell them what they can do with their lame-brained, greed-inspired scheme-- mainly, to stick it where only Hilary Rosen's proctologist will be able to find it, assuming there are fresh batteries in his flashlight.
Of course, like others have said, MusicNet is probably just a designed-to-fail operation, so they can say, "But we tried to change our business model, and failed! Obviously, the public does not want to buy its music in downloadable format, so we'll just keep selling these plastic thingies for $20 each, and buy some laws to make it a crime to do anything we don't approve of with what's on them."
~Philly
You quoted:
Early last December, three of the world's biggest music companies launched a counterattack against the rampant digital piracy that has gnawed at their sales in recent years.
But you missed this one:
And there are the problematic relationships between the record companies and the rest of the music industry, which make it difficult for MusicNet to offer as much music as the illegal services do.
And this one:
The struggle to create a legitimate commercial online music service goes back years, before there even was a Napster.
And this one:
Yet the industry still feared that creating a legitimate market for music downloads would cut into sales of compact discs.
And this one:
But now, music fans were racing to outlaws such as Napster.
And many others, but you get the point: Not only are we accepting on faith -- and against reams of evidence to the contrary -- that online trading actually hurts sales; but also that any services that aren't set up by the studios are "illegal services," "outlaws" or, at the least, not "legitimate."
Nope, no sig
Chill stuff like Ursula 1000 and Thievery Corporation.
Stompin' trance by Juno Reactor, Kox Box, X-Dream and Timo Maas.
Random stuff by those "no-names" Sasha and Digweed.
Jam bands like Hot Tuna.
Rock outfits like Bush, Rancid, Green Day, Violent Femmes, Mogwai.
Silly shit by Frank Zappa.
Awful music by Elvis Presley.
No-name reggae artists like Bob Marley, Eek-A-Mouse and Black Uhuru.
Classic ragas by Ravi Shankar
Shitty celtic music by Clannad
Brit-shit like Belle and Sebastion, and The Gentle Waves
Old punk favorites like NOFX, Bad Religion and Pennywise.
Hip-hop turntablists like Invisibl Skratch Piklz, Mixmaster Mike and DJ Assault.
Classic Jazz by Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, John Coltrane, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Chet Baker, Count Basie and more
It even has some classical music that's well-performed and recorded.
emusic is a great service, and i think that if you like any genre of music other than 'top 40', you'll be really happy with it. if you like top 40, do us all a favor, and jump off a tall building, ya lemming!
That's right. Until recently, nobody except the people being screwed knew anything about it. And most of the people being reamed didn't think that it could be any other way so they kept quiet about it.
Nowadays, technology has come to the point that the producers of art (for music and literature, at least for now) don't need these parasites to get their stuff out to their customers. They might need someone to play filter/promoter, but they don't need the labels as they currently are to do that- anyone can play that role, incl. independant labels, etc.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I found this link to be far better than Courtney's ramblings. Besides which, I'll take Steve Albini's word over Courtney's any day of the week. Of course, Albini's opinion is pretty set, too, but at least there're more hard figures involved.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
The current "sharing" environment was created by the RIAA and their monopolistic price gouging. They had 50+ years to make a killing and they did so. Perhaps they thought the gravy train would never end--they were able to stick it to the consumer AND to the artists.
Now, alternatives exist. Yes, they're free. No, the RIAA can't and won't be able to compete.
Their price gouging LED to the creation of technologies that circumvent them completely. Perhaps if they had priced reasonably no-one would have bothered; but they gave everyone all the incentive they needed to develop and deploy P2P networks by charging what they've charged us for cassettes and, recently, CDs. Now that P2P exists it's a little late for them to come up with their own digital distribution scheme. It's already been done and, again, yes, IT'S FREE.
Under current copyright law much of the trading that occurs may be illegal. But keep in mind that the RIAA only has a legal leg to stand on because they FORCE their artists to assign their copyrights to the RIAA monopoly. "Ok, yeah, we'll give you a contract. But all your creative works is belong to us."
Am I really supposed to feel bad about sharing music when the only reason the offended parties (RIAA) even have a say in the matter is because they virtually stolen the work from the real creators? "Hey, you P2P can't do that. That's stealing! Only the RIAA is allowed to steal from the artists!"
Puuuhhhlllleeeeasee....
Music is free now. P2P is what radio was, a way to hear music. Free. If artists want to make money then they can tour and we can go to their concerts. No, they aren't going to make millions of dollars by spending a couple of weeks in a recording studio and sitting on their butts collecting royalties. That time has passed...
I drastically decreased the load on my gnutella node by blocking searches on Christina, Britney, and various and sundry 'trash rap' groups.
Try it. You'll like it:)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Now, I work in the music industry, and I can assure you that a viable internet-based distribution model is pretty far off.
Two short reasons why:
1) Cost and Exposure. For all the carping that goes on about how labels pocket about $15 of a $17 sticker price on new cd's, it's not true. Once you take out mechanical royalties, publishing fees, licensing fees, distribution fees, songwriter percentages, producer percentages, miscellaneous finders fees, manufacturing costs (which typically run between $1.50 and $3 per unit depending on configuration), there just isn't that much money left over for labels to play with.
Don't get me wrong, a million-seller still rakes in the cash, but it's not like we're Saudi oil magnates.
Also, please remember that less than 10% of all releases sell more than 10,000 copies. When it costs tens of thousands of dollars to market an album, get it in stores, get a profile, that is usually a dismal failure. And now my point... labels, generally speaking, profit on one out of ten releases or so. That's a pretty poor margin.
Rather than drive labels to try to find more efficient ways to get music into people's hands (and money into artists' and our pockets), it makes them more conservative with their money, and ties them to traditional distribution channels.
2) Most/many labels are still run by boards of directors who don't know ANYTHING about music at all. They are interested in the health of the quarterly balance sheet, and are reluctant for their company to be the first one over the cliff into new, unproven business models. Also, remember, many of the major players in the music business- the rich guys, the guys with the cash to make digital distribution happen-- made their bones in the 1950's and 1960's. Even rich younger guys (...ermm...David Geffen??... Strauss Zelnick?...) learned at the feet of the codgers and adopted their ways.
Don't forget... if a label head tries some crazy new digital distribution scheme, and it goes horribly wrong, it's his or her butt on the line.
Dn't look for a really good digital distribution model from within the music industry any time soon.
And remember... all labels are not evil, and music is everything.
I definitely don't remember it :) ....of course...that's the period when tapes were the big thing and on the way out...and I was kid in school...so such things were the least of my concerns (avoiding my homework, on the other hand...)
What is your Slash Rating?
Why would anyone pay for 128kbps? You'd be better off going to a used music store and buying cassette tapes.. It'd be cheap, and probably about the same sound quality.
128kbps. Pfft. I won't even keep FREE 128kbps tracks.
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
All right, then let's try a slightly different approach. Let's say the recording contract is written up, and the artist makes a record, and the record does fairly well. In fact, let's assume it went gold! The record company spends 5.4 million dollars, and the record pulls in about 7 million. That's a win all around, right? Not quite. See, according to the nicest recording contracts, the artist gets a small percentage of the gross. From that percentage the artist must pay back the record company for the cost of production and promotion, while the huge percentage the company gets is just considered gravy. So, while the artist pays back the 5.4 million, he doesn't get a dime. The artist's cut of the 7 million doesn't begin to cover the 5.4 million dollars he owes. So, now that he's mildly popular and 5.1 MILLION DOLLARS in debt, he either:
1.) goes on tour and pays the debt back over the next several years, or
2.) declares bankruptcy and dissolves the band.
The problem with number one is he can't pay the rent during those touring years, and the problem with number two is that once he declares bankruptcy he's not legally allowed to perform or record under the now-popular name, so the hard-won fame vaporizes. Now, let's do that math:
Original investment: $5.4 million
Profit: $7 million
Amount to artist: $0.00
Amount to record company: $7 million
Value of artist in the market: $0.00
So, in exchange for that one year of fun, he's got no real property, ten years of not being able to get a credit card, and he's got to go back to the 7-11 job, or do the whole thing again. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem to qualify as "a heck of a lot further ahead than he was". This is one of the major contributors to the "one hit wonder" phenomenon, and even the major players have difficulties with it. Glen Campbell has twenty gold records, and he has said that he lost money making every album he recorded.
Virg
You're forgetting about the "over-download fee" which will be charged against the artist's $0.0025 if their song gets downloaded too much. In fact, if you download even more, the artists have to start paying the record company.
OK, so I made this up, but it'd be perfectly in line with the other terms of their contracts.
Freedom: "I won't!"