First of all, I'll add my 2 cents to the "same price for less... and I pay for the bandwidth?? No way!!". Done.
Now, to my point. What would make sense to me, is a model similar to the cable/satellite TV: you pay a monthly fee for downloadable music/movies/TV series. That's it. Maybe you'll need to pay an extra fee for some "special channels", much in the way you actually pay for HBO or Cinemax today; as well as an equivalent to "pay per view" for special events. For example, I would definitely pay an extra fee for an "only for DJs" channel, or "pay per download" a recent concert, or a recent blockbuster movie (given that the "standard" content is really worth the price, otherwise, it would be just pretending; they would be charging a montly fee for worthless content, and leaving all the interesting stuff in "pay per download" format).
For a "decent" monthly rate I would gladly share my bandwidth and happily download lots of music and possibly videos and movies. What is "decent"? Well, for satellite TV I pay US$30 a month; + decoder rental US$16 - this in Mexico City. Only that I'd be using my own computer and sharing my bandwidth, so there would be no hardware to buy or pay a rent for.
What's in it for us, users? * An interesting price * The opportunity to try new music/series/movies without the "what if I don't like it?" that stops us from buying quite often.
What's in it for corporations? * An lowered cost of operation, as the distribution cost is largely supported by the user base * A somehow predictable income: say "one month for US$35, one year for US$28/month", many users will go for the yearly contract. You'll KNOW what minimum income you'll get, guys! * US$30 equals 1 song purchase a day, for the current 99 cents per song standard. From how many of your customers can you claim that? * A COMMUNITY (see below)
BTW: This would only work with standard, fine quality, non-DRM files. mp3 (LAME, standard VBR) for audio, for example. The message is "we want to build a community with you, our dearest customers; make this deal a win-win agreement". Current message seems to be "customer: you are a potential thieve; I must be protected from you, and take legal action when needed (and hook some spyware in your computer while we do it)". I dont want to do business with people who treat me like a criminal.
Just opened a café (well, small restaurant that I bought to someone else, to turn it into a "nicer" café). Right now (just one month from opening) we (my wife and I) are not really making any real profit yet, but that's how it starts.
This week we'll have the new audio equipment (instead of the nasty boom-box coming from the kitchen), and in about a month or less we'll be getting the coffee machine, so we are expecting to see it making good money soon.
In the meanwhile, with an IT company going through a severe crisis, I'm certainly questioning myself about how good it does coming to a place I'm not certain I'll get my next check on the expected date, or 2 days later, or 10, or 30... Really awful!
Why do RIAA and friends insist on wasting time on copy-protecting, sueing, prosecuting, etc? The business model is there, tried and tested, and it's the one cable TV follows:
1. You pay a monthly fee, and have full access. There are access levels, for example: you get 20,40,60 channels for a different price), and there are special channels you need to pay extra, and of course, pay-per-view events.
2. TECHNICALLY speaking (please, no flame-war on legal issues), you can record whatever you want, and pass it around. Of course, you dont record and share that much because:
a) Your friends also have cable TV
b) You can buy each time more and more DVDs from worthwhile shows, with bonus material, at a reasonable price.
In a nutshell, you dont record and share because it's illegal, but because it MAKES NO SENSE anymore. Yes: the right business model can beat most of the legal problems. An excess of legal issues is a sign of an erroneous business model.
3. Each channel specializes in something. In the end, there are channels you watch a lot, and channels you simply could ignore.
Translating this to music, I would think of the following:
1. You pay per month, not per download. This way I wouldn't think twice to download a song of an artist I dont know; I'll just get it, hear it, and possibly love it (and buy stuff from it, go to concerts, recommend it...). In this same way I dont ask my wallet every time there's a new sit-com; I just watch it once or twice if I feel like; I might as well like it.
2. MP3, FLAC, AAC, even WAV, possibly. No DRM. What for? I wont need to tell my friend "here, copy this mp3-filled CD and listen", I'll just hand him some URL (or whatever the name of the reference to the song/artist/genre/playlist) and s/he (a paying customer also) would go and get it. What??? You're not a customer, you lamer??? In the end, the (happy) customer base is your best PR.
3. For mainstream audience, a label generally doesn't mean much. But once you go deeper, you tend to recognize labels and seek for (or avoid) their releases. Quite probably, with such an online store, labels would make more sense to the general audience.
The closest to this that I know is EMusic.com. But nowadays they limit you the number of downloads per month (they didn't use to). 90 songs per month is a bit low for me (and that's their Premium service), but it's not that bad. At US$19.99, the price is certainly interesting.
They are focused on independent labels, so you'll certainly not find everything (mainstream) there. But there are some fine choices around. Choices I would have to pay quite much more if I bought the import CD. They are completely legal, no DRM involved, you keep your files even if you cancel your membership, good quality MP3s. Very interesting. There's even a free trial period.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, I'll add my 2 cents to the "same price for less... and I pay for the bandwidth?? No way!!". Done.
Now, to my point. What would make sense to me, is a model similar to the cable/satellite TV: you pay a monthly fee for downloadable music/movies/TV series. That's it. Maybe you'll need to pay an extra fee for some "special channels", much in the way you actually pay for HBO or Cinemax today; as well as an equivalent to "pay per view" for special events. For example, I would definitely pay an extra fee for an "only for DJs" channel, or "pay per download" a recent concert, or a recent blockbuster movie (given that the "standard" content is really worth the price, otherwise, it would be just pretending; they would be charging a montly fee for worthless content, and leaving all the interesting stuff in "pay per download" format).
For a "decent" monthly rate I would gladly share my bandwidth and happily download lots of music and possibly videos and movies. What is "decent"? Well, for satellite TV I pay US$30 a month; + decoder rental US$16 - this in Mexico City. Only that I'd be using my own computer and sharing my bandwidth, so there would be no hardware to buy or pay a rent for.
What's in it for us, users?
* An interesting price
* The opportunity to try new music/series/movies without the "what if I don't like it?" that stops us from buying quite often.
What's in it for corporations?
* An lowered cost of operation, as the distribution cost is largely supported by the user base
* A somehow predictable income: say "one month for US$35, one year for US$28/month", many users will go for the yearly contract. You'll KNOW what minimum income you'll get, guys!
* US$30 equals 1 song purchase a day, for the current 99 cents per song standard. From how many of your customers can you claim that?
* A COMMUNITY (see below)
BTW: This would only work with standard, fine quality, non-DRM files. mp3 (LAME, standard VBR) for audio, for example. The message is "we want to build a community with you, our dearest customers; make this deal a win-win agreement". Current message seems to be "customer: you are a potential thieve; I must be protected from you, and take legal action when needed (and hook some spyware in your computer while we do it)". I dont want to do business with people who treat me like a criminal.
Just opened a café (well, small restaurant that I bought to someone else, to turn it into a "nicer" café). Right now (just one month from opening) we (my wife and I) are not really making any real profit yet, but that's how it starts.
This week we'll have the new audio equipment (instead of the nasty boom-box coming from the kitchen), and in about a month or less we'll be getting the coffee machine, so we are expecting to see it making good money soon.
In the meanwhile, with an IT company going through a severe crisis, I'm certainly questioning myself about how good it does coming to a place I'm not certain I'll get my next check on the expected date, or 2 days later, or 10, or 30... Really awful!
Why do RIAA and friends insist on wasting time on copy-protecting, sueing, prosecuting, etc? The business model is there, tried and tested, and it's the one cable TV follows:
1. You pay a monthly fee, and have full access. There are access levels, for example: you get 20,40,60 channels for a different price), and there are special channels you need to pay extra, and of course, pay-per-view events.
2. TECHNICALLY speaking (please, no flame-war on legal issues), you can record whatever you want, and pass it around. Of course, you dont record and share that much because:
a) Your friends also have cable TV
b) You can buy each time more and more DVDs from worthwhile shows, with bonus material, at a reasonable price.
In a nutshell, you dont record and share because it's illegal, but because it MAKES NO SENSE anymore. Yes: the right business model can beat most of the legal problems. An excess of legal issues is a sign of an erroneous business model.
3. Each channel specializes in something. In the end, there are channels you watch a lot, and channels you simply could ignore.
Translating this to music, I would think of the following:
1. You pay per month, not per download. This way I wouldn't think twice to download a song of an artist I dont know; I'll just get it, hear it, and possibly love it (and buy stuff from it, go to concerts, recommend it...). In this same way I dont ask my wallet every time there's a new sit-com; I just watch it once or twice if I feel like; I might as well like it.
2. MP3, FLAC, AAC, even WAV, possibly. No DRM. What for? I wont need to tell my friend "here, copy this mp3-filled CD and listen", I'll just hand him some URL (or whatever the name of the reference to the song/artist/genre/playlist) and s/he (a paying customer also) would go and get it. What??? You're not a customer, you lamer???
In the end, the (happy) customer base is your best PR.
3. For mainstream audience, a label generally doesn't mean much. But once you go deeper, you tend to recognize labels and seek for (or avoid) their releases. Quite probably, with such an online store, labels would make more sense to the general audience.
The closest to this that I know is EMusic.com. But nowadays they limit you the number of downloads per month (they didn't use to). 90 songs per month is a bit low for me (and that's their Premium service), but it's not that bad. At US$19.99, the price is certainly interesting.
They are focused on independent labels, so you'll certainly not find everything (mainstream) there. But there are some fine choices around. Choices I would have to pay quite much more if I bought the import CD. They are completely legal, no DRM involved, you keep your files even if you cancel your membership, good quality MP3s. Very interesting. There's even a free trial period.