![]()
It's all fine and dandy that labels now want a piece of touring and
merch, utilizing Sanctuary's "famed" 360 model. But what if you're a
songwriter? What if you don't tour? THEN WHAT?
Don't tell these people to go it alone. To get a MySpace page and
generate friends. They can't monetize their efforts. BECAUSE OF THE MAJOR
LABELS!
People need to pay for music. And the major labels have done their
best, through shortsightedness, through ineptitude, to assure the
contrary.
Looking out for the artists? Insuring that great music is produced in
the future? That's all hogwash, the inane ravings of fat cats fearful
they're going to lose their cash cow, CD sales.
CD sales are going to continue to deflate. And it's got very little to
do with file-trading, and a lot to do with iPod penetration. Seems
that once someone gets a hand-held device, he no longer has a need for
the disc. It's incongruous. I buy this to employ it once? To get the
tracks onto my computer? And prices at the iTunes Store are equivalent
to those for CDs, unless maybe you buy the complete album, but most
people don't want the complete album. So you're paying a buck a track for
LESS than what you used to get. Shitty sound, impermanent format, and
no packaging. That's not a deal, that's an impulse item.
The business got people to replace their vinyl and cassette collections
with CDs because the plastic discs were perceived to be better, and a
cost premium could be charged for this. NO ONE believes AACs/MP3s/WMAs
are better. They're just convenient.
But stealing an MP3 is like stealing a couch!
No Lars. It's just a bunch of replaceable bits. That can be
replenished at will. Assuming the cost of replacement is de minimis.
People should pay less for less. The key is to lower file prices and
sell more. Not only BECAUSE the price is lower, but because you can
only buy in bulk. Via some form of subscription.
I'm not talking rental here. I'm talking a file-trading fee. Some
kind of LARGE commitment for music access.
And the funny thing about it is, as broadband speeds increase, and the
price of storage drops, we can sell these same people the same music
all over again, AT A HIGHER QUALITY!
Who gives a shit if you trash all your iTunes files if they didn't cost
you as much as CDs. CDs were theoretically forever, the medium of
record. The file is evanescent. Ever try to open a Microsoft Word
document from 1986 in today's Office? You wouldn't even think of it, and
can't, because you don't have the original floppy disc it was stored on!
People hoarding MP3s? That's like hoarding M&M's. They're cheap,
plentiful, you can always replace them, you want a new bag, with the BLUE
ONES!
The way to encourage quality composition, recording and distribution is
to get people to pay for music. Suing traders didn't stop P2P, it's
still increasing
(
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2168113.ece).
The iTunes Store has sold 3 billion tracks in more than four years.
That's like 300 million albums. Or less than 1 billion dollars a year.
That's truly a drop in the bucket. That's not a solution.
Nor is rental today.
Tomorrow? There's a very good chance people won't want to own their
music, if they can get it delivered instantly, for a low price.
But what about TODAY? What about the seven years since Napster? What
about the lack of a solution? What about failed strategies?
Blame the labels. They could have sold music to the people the way
they consumed it, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO! And people had options, P2P
and disc-burning. And you can't kill these processes unless you're about
to monitor everybody's IM's. And THAT'S not gonna fly in Washington,
D.C.
So if you're Steely Dan today, you've got to break up, you've got to
get a day job.
Steely Dan didn't tour after "Countdown To Ecstasy". But some of their
biggest hits, and some of their most rewarding work, including the
legendary "Aja", came AFTER that. The reason they didn't need to tour?
RECORD SALES! We're gonna take that out of the equation? We're going
to make people go on the road to make a living in music?
That's fucked up.
The exec can turn his operation into a marketing company. The
songwriter...can count on BMI or ASCAP and the occasional license. But he's
throwing away most of his income, mechanical royalties. Did he want to
give these up? No, the label FORCED HIM TO!
If Napster had been licensed, writers would have been paid for every
trade. As would have labels. And acts.
But they're not. Because bullies who believe they can win through
sheer intimidation, that they can rig the game in their favor, wouldn't
acknowledge that people wanted their music in a new way, and that we live
in a land of transparency.
It's not too late. Issue a file-trading license. Or charge at the ISP
level. A good portion of the public will pay voluntarily, to avoid
being sued.
And those who still want CDs? Well, I hope they'll be able to find a
place to buy them. God, the inventory online eclipses EVERY store. You
can find OUT OF PRINT stuff online. This is bad?
According to the labels.
It's like we're living in a third world country, ruled by iron-fisted
fascists, whose way of dealing with public unrest is through force and
violence. Yup, a college student getting sued for file-trading faces
violent upheaval in his life. But the copyright bullies don't care. But
those copyright bullies won't continue to rule. How do I know?
Because they've been cutting off their nose to spite their face. Trying to
get everybody to pay CD prices, they've made music free. Good business
model guys! Great way to incentivize your raw materials, writers and
players. Yup, labels are NOTHING without composers and musicians. But
they don't seem to know this. Certainly the execs' behavior evidences
a belief that THEY'RE first. Whereas we all know the music comes
first. Oh, the execs pay lip service. But it's like Mafia Don going to
church. It's worthless.
--
Visit the archive:
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
Mike (Shmoo)
zxilton
