The reason music retailers in general are hurting is because of the high price of CDs. No one wants to pay the same price for a music CD as they would for a DVD.
However, there is a huge demand for music. Most people I know would buy endless amounts of music if CDs were between $6 and $9 regularly. Even many good independent titles cost over $12 to buy. This is absurd when most DVDs cost $10-$20.
But, record stores can do nothing about this because of the current distribution model. Record stores will perish if many of the current middlemen in the industry aren't cut out.
Of course, it is hard for labels to sell directly to every retailer, but it seems prices could be cut by doing this. I know of many strong independent labels that sell directly from their website, skipping the whole distribution process altogether!
There are also other ways to keep music stores open. For one, they need to get away from being "just" record stores. Many sell clothing. Another way for small, independent stores to get a regular customer base is to setup shop in a place that has a small venue so bands can play there. Do free(or cheap) shows, and people will buy things while they are there.
Many other ideas in this thread are good too. Setup terminals so people can research music. Make the store a "hip" spot to go to. Get involved with the local music scene. Sell used CDs as cheap as possible.
I am personally tired of hearing little record stores bitch about how downloads hurt their business. The business has changed. Either adapt, or perish. It is really rather simple.
Wow. Slashdot people are pretty amazing. People arguing back and forth over what is insightful and what isn't. Arguing about what is a good question and what isn't. Hell, I didn't even ask a question, so there was no original question!
I am so confused.
mp3.com used to be a great way to find independent music. After all of the law suits and site changes, it turned into a steaming pile of poo. I found many, many cool artists there back in the day.
Now there are sites like Ampcast that offer a great service, but everything is so spread out, it is hard to find artists like I could back in the good days of mp3.com.
I will be glad to see mp3.com gone. I would love to see one of the alternative sites become a strong hub for connecting independent musicians with an audience.
Actually, I agree. I think they should release the extend DVD the same time as the orginal cut DVD. I didn't buy the original Two Towers DVD when it came out, opting to wait for the extended version.
What amazes me is that these studios do this sort of thing, and wonder why piracy is an issue.
Local warming of the climate is to blame, they said -- adding that they did not have the evidence needed to link the melting ice to the steady, planet-wide climate change known as global warming.
Currently, it seems the cause is unrelated to "global warming".
No one is stealing music. That can't be done. You can call this a semantical debate, and I'll call your dismissal a reductive fallacy.
Theft implies the removal of property. When something is copied, the owner still retains the original. Their property is still intact. All that has occured is the devaluation of the original copy. Is devaluing something against the law, or morally wrong? No, of course not. This sort of thing occurs all around us. If devaluing things were illegal, a boycott would be illegal. Advertising for a competing brand would be illegal. So, saying music sharing is theft is preposterous.
The purpose of copyright law was not to make artists rich. The purpose was to make culture rich with art. When works of an artist could be produced and sold without paying the artists, there was no incentive for artists to create. People were profiting off of the artist's work while the artist remained poor. Copyright laws should be in place to prevent people from wrongfully profiting off of someone else's work, not to prevent someone from enjoying the art.
Music sharing helps art flourish. It increases awareness of art and music, while also creating a more level playing field for less known artists. The current infrastructure encourages superstars rather than encouraging innovation, which is culturally harmful, IMO.
Money can still be made, but it will require investors to reassess their marketing strategies. Many businesses have to reassess their marketing strategies due to uncontrollable trends on a regular basis. An auto repair shop will order less airconditioners in the winter, for example. Change occurs and is unavoidable. In the case of music being more accessible, I think the change is positive. I can do without rockstars.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason music retailers in general are hurting is because of the high price of CDs. No one wants to pay the same price for a music CD as they would for a DVD. However, there is a huge demand for music. Most people I know would buy endless amounts of music if CDs were between $6 and $9 regularly. Even many good independent titles cost over $12 to buy. This is absurd when most DVDs cost $10-$20. But, record stores can do nothing about this because of the current distribution model. Record stores will perish if many of the current middlemen in the industry aren't cut out. Of course, it is hard for labels to sell directly to every retailer, but it seems prices could be cut by doing this. I know of many strong independent labels that sell directly from their website, skipping the whole distribution process altogether! There are also other ways to keep music stores open. For one, they need to get away from being "just" record stores. Many sell clothing. Another way for small, independent stores to get a regular customer base is to setup shop in a place that has a small venue so bands can play there. Do free(or cheap) shows, and people will buy things while they are there. Many other ideas in this thread are good too. Setup terminals so people can research music. Make the store a "hip" spot to go to. Get involved with the local music scene. Sell used CDs as cheap as possible. I am personally tired of hearing little record stores bitch about how downloads hurt their business. The business has changed. Either adapt, or perish. It is really rather simple.
Who needs a cell phone that awkwardly plays Tetris or Space Imvaders when you have Gameboy Advance SP?
It is clearly based on the Discordian Law of Fives.
All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to five.
This makes MAME the only cool thing that the NGage does that I'd be interested in. $199 for a portable MAME isn't worth it.
Wow. Slashdot people are pretty amazing. People arguing back and forth over what is insightful and what isn't. Arguing about what is a good question and what isn't. Hell, I didn't even ask a question, so there was no original question! I am so confused.
Yeah. Shit. I posted it, and I am confused.
I'll be curious to see what comes of this case.
mp3.com used to be a great way to find independent music. After all of the law suits and site changes, it turned into a steaming pile of poo. I found many, many cool artists there back in the day. Now there are sites like Ampcast that offer a great service, but everything is so spread out, it is hard to find artists like I could back in the good days of mp3.com. I will be glad to see mp3.com gone. I would love to see one of the alternative sites become a strong hub for connecting independent musicians with an audience.
Actually, I agree. I think they should release the extend DVD the same time as the orginal cut DVD. I didn't buy the original Two Towers DVD when it came out, opting to wait for the extended version. What amazes me is that these studios do this sort of thing, and wonder why piracy is an issue.
From the cnn.com article:
Local warming of the climate is to blame, they said -- adding that they did not have the evidence needed to link the melting ice to the steady, planet-wide climate change known as global warming.
Currently, it seems the cause is unrelated to "global warming".
No one is stealing music. That can't be done. You can call this a semantical debate, and I'll call your dismissal a reductive fallacy. Theft implies the removal of property. When something is copied, the owner still retains the original. Their property is still intact. All that has occured is the devaluation of the original copy. Is devaluing something against the law, or morally wrong? No, of course not. This sort of thing occurs all around us. If devaluing things were illegal, a boycott would be illegal. Advertising for a competing brand would be illegal. So, saying music sharing is theft is preposterous. The purpose of copyright law was not to make artists rich. The purpose was to make culture rich with art. When works of an artist could be produced and sold without paying the artists, there was no incentive for artists to create. People were profiting off of the artist's work while the artist remained poor. Copyright laws should be in place to prevent people from wrongfully profiting off of someone else's work, not to prevent someone from enjoying the art. Music sharing helps art flourish. It increases awareness of art and music, while also creating a more level playing field for less known artists. The current infrastructure encourages superstars rather than encouraging innovation, which is culturally harmful, IMO. Money can still be made, but it will require investors to reassess their marketing strategies. Many businesses have to reassess their marketing strategies due to uncontrollable trends on a regular basis. An auto repair shop will order less airconditioners in the winter, for example. Change occurs and is unavoidable. In the case of music being more accessible, I think the change is positive. I can do without rockstars.