>In the music industry there are multiple >competiting suppliers, but only a few have huge and >cozy distribution chains.
and its those very supply chains that the media companies want to protect. The record companies are in the business of selling plastic, not music.
That's why they want to make the price of mp3s higher than cd's because they have no interest in seeing electronic distribution succeed. It's reducing the value of their plastic distribution business.
Here's a good review of bluetooth product that allows you transmit audio to a small receiver box that could easily be mounted with a powered speaker. Now you just need wireless power and you're set.
A few months ago I was looking into the legal requirements of setting up my own streaming MP3 station. While I was trudging through all the legal information one must consider while starting such a venture I came across an interesting fact. The licensing restrictions that are placed on music varies greatly depending on whether the music is considered to be Public Broadcast or Individual Use. Broadcast licenses, such as one used by the FM/AM radio stations and MP3 stream operators are relatively inexpensive and easy to get, especially in non-profit environments.
However the industry is throwing a tantrum about individual use licenses, as seen with P2P controversy and debate over a 'fair' price for music purchased online.
This is because when you go to a retailer and purchase a cd you're not only buying music, you are also buying the plastic jewel case and CD the music is distributed on. The record companies have spent many years streamlining the manufacture and distribution systems of these products; and now due to many deals with the manufacturers of all these physical products the recording companies make money at nearly every link in the music supply chain.
I believe this fact goes a long way towards explaining not only the effort the RIAA has put towards stopping P2P music distribution, but also the complete lack of effort the industry has put into electronic distribution of individual use music.
If the music industry was at all interested in providing a better service to it's customers we would be seeing online music stores with more complete music catalogs and perhaps even 'print on demand' style music retailers which could sell music at a fraction of the cost of current music. To me all of this controversy is in effect 'Innovation v. RIAA', I am interested to see who wins.
A few months ago I was looking into the legal requirements of setting up my own streaming MP3 station. While I was trudging through all the legal information one must consider while starting such a venture I came across an interesting fact. The licensing restrictions that are placed on music varies greatly depending on whether the music is considered to be Public Broadcast or Individual Use. Broadcast licenses, such as one used by the FM/AM radio stations and MP3 stream operators are relatively inexpensive and easy to get, especially in non-profit environments.
However the industry is throwing a tantrum about individual use licenses, as seen with P2P controversy and debate over a 'fair' price for music purchased online.
This is because when you go to a retailer and purchase a cd you're not only buying music, you are also buying the plastic jewel case and CD the music is distributed on. The record companies have spent many years streamlining the manufacture and distribution systems of these products; and now due to many deals with the manufacturers of all these physical products the recording companies make money at nearly every link in the music supply chain.
I believe this fact goes a long way towards explaining not only the effort the RIAA has put towards stopping P2P music distribution, but also the complete lack of effort the industry has put into electronic distribution of individual use music. If the music industry was at all interested in providing a better service to it's customers we would be seeing online music stores with more complete music catalogs and perhaps even 'print on demand' style music retailers which could sell music at a fraction of the cost of current music.
To me all of this controversy is in effect 'Innovation v. RIAA' I am interested to see who wins.
Slashdot Mirror
all future versions of windows are going to come with .net bundled in the OS anyway - just like mfc and com
>In the music industry there are multiple
>competiting suppliers, but only a few have huge and
>cozy distribution chains.
and its those very supply chains that the media companies want to protect. The record companies are in the business of selling plastic, not music.
That's why they want to make the price of mp3s higher than cd's because they have no interest in seeing electronic distribution succeed. It's reducing the value of their plastic distribution business.
Here's a good review of bluetooth product that allows you transmit audio to a small receiver box that could easily be mounted with a powered speaker. Now you just need wireless power and you're set.
1 24
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=3
However the industry is throwing a tantrum about individual use licenses, as seen with P2P controversy and debate over a 'fair' price for music purchased online.
This is because when you go to a retailer and purchase a cd you're not only buying music, you are also buying the plastic jewel case and CD the music is distributed on. The record companies have spent many years streamlining the manufacture and distribution systems of these products; and now due to many deals with the manufacturers of all these physical products the recording companies make money at nearly every link in the music supply chain.
I believe this fact goes a long way towards explaining not only the effort the RIAA has put towards stopping P2P music distribution, but also the complete lack of effort the industry has put into electronic distribution of individual use music.
If the music industry was at all interested in providing a better service to it's customers we would be seeing online music stores with more complete music catalogs and perhaps even 'print on demand' style music retailers which could sell music at a fraction of the cost of current music. To me all of this controversy is in effect 'Innovation v. RIAA', I am interested to see who wins.
A few months ago I was looking into the legal requirements of setting up my own streaming MP3 station. While I was trudging through all the legal information one must consider while starting such a venture I came across an interesting fact. The licensing restrictions that are placed on music varies greatly depending on whether the music is considered to be Public Broadcast or Individual Use. Broadcast licenses, such as one used by the FM/AM radio stations and MP3 stream operators are relatively inexpensive and easy to get, especially in non-profit environments. However the industry is throwing a tantrum about individual use licenses, as seen with P2P controversy and debate over a 'fair' price for music purchased online. This is because when you go to a retailer and purchase a cd you're not only buying music, you are also buying the plastic jewel case and CD the music is distributed on. The record companies have spent many years streamlining the manufacture and distribution systems of these products; and now due to many deals with the manufacturers of all these physical products the recording companies make money at nearly every link in the music supply chain. I believe this fact goes a long way towards explaining not only the effort the RIAA has put towards stopping P2P music distribution, but also the complete lack of effort the industry has put into electronic distribution of individual use music. If the music industry was at all interested in providing a better service to it's customers we would be seeing online music stores with more complete music catalogs and perhaps even 'print on demand' style music retailers which could sell music at a fraction of the cost of current music. To me all of this controversy is in effect 'Innovation v. RIAA' I am interested to see who wins.