Cringely: How to destroy the music industry (legally)

[ChompySnack]

The reason I am even writing this column is two-fold.  The biggest reason is simply because I would like people to consider lateral solutions to problems.  I am pushing the concept of problem solving in a new way.  There is no particular methodology here, just the underlying concept that if things aren't working the way you like, think of something different.
...

The second reason I am doing this is because I don't like the current situation in the recording industry where power is concentrated in the hands of executives who are doing all they can to stop the rotation of the Earth.  Technology has already changed the economics of music creation and distribution, but the record companies are resisting with every weapon they have.
...

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html

Very interesting read....

[Bob3]

1. more I want free music on my $4,000 computer stuff.

eh. There are far worse things in the world than record companies. I wonder how many indy CD's this guy owns. Not mine for sure.

:hippie:

[Shipwack]

6. Maybe none right now...

:hippie: wrote
>>eh. There are far worse things in the world than record companies. >>I wonder how many indy CD's this guy owns. Not mine for sure.
>>
>>:hippie:

And he never will, if the big record companies have their way.

[Loonman]

2. Good read

:think:

I like how that guy thinks.

[sarin]

3. I know

That I'd be willing to "risk" 20 dollars on that stock...I mean really, what do you have to lose there?

I like his thinking, definately a viable option, if you have 2 mil lying around and have nothing better to do.

If I win the lottery, I'm going to contact this guy and see if we can't work something out;)

heheheh

Sarin

[stopbush]

4. It's illegal.

The author writes, "What I have described is legal, it just leverages technology in a way that has never been done before."

He's wrong.

If you follow his "business model," you could also take newly published books and make money off them simply by making photocopies of the same. Or, movies and videos/video games...or proprietary computer programming, for that matter. His rationale seems to be that if you get enough people involved and imagine that they're simply investing in a mutual fund rather than pirating copyrighted intellectual property (fair use? I don't think so) that the copyright "problem" evaporates. Guess what? It doesn't.

Having worked in the music biz for years, I can tell you that most artist contracts at the major companies include copyright ownership by the labels of the recorded material not only as it relates to existing technologies but FUTURE technologies and sound carrier/delivery devices as well. The complex legalities of the copyright laws - which the music companies have already fully leveraged to their (though not the artists') advantage - aren't going to be fooled by what amounts to a cold fusion proposal intended soley to circumvent existing law.

Looks like another variation the classic Ponzi scheme to me.

[Shipwack]

5. Almost,but not quite workable...

"MusicLocker.com" (or whatever its name was) had a similar idea, though without the stock options. Heck, they limited downloads to only CDs you could actually prove you already had in your possesion, and they -still- were sued and shut down.

If this goes down, I'm willing to bet the RIAA's argument will be that a CD can only be "owned" and listened to by one person where no profit is involved. That's why if I own a store, I can't buy a CD and play it over the PA system for my customers...

Even still, I'd be willing to plunk down a little cash for this tiger ride...

[Brian Sweat]

8. I forgot about the ASCAP aspect.

I'm not sure it would apply here though. I could not play a CD I bought in my store for the public, because that would be for profit. I'm pretty sure I could play it in my office for my coworkers.

Under this guys plan, the CD's would not technically be used for profit. However, I think any judge would see through the technical aspects and rule that they were in fact being used for profit.

[Brian Sweat]

7. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think this would be legal

The closest anology is software. I work for a very large company (a fortune 100 company.) We have a lot of investers. We also have licenses for a lot of software. As far as I know, our investers do not have the right to use the software because we have a license for it. Also, we have to have a seperate license for each user.

I don't think this would stand up in court. If it did, they would change the law anyway.

[Brian Sweat]

9. All of this is moot anyway

The recording industry as we know it is dead. The record company execs know this as well as anyone else. They are just trying to get as much cash as the can while they can.

Before the advent of recorded music, if you wanted to listen to music it had to be live. This severely limited the ability of music to reach a wide audience. Recorded music changed all of this, but recorded music has had one major limitation. Until recently it cost a lot of money to start a successful music business. First you needed a recording studio with lots of expensive equipment. Then you needed an expensive manufacturing facility and you needed a distribution chain. The need to sell a large volume in order to pay for the cost of recording, manufacturing and distribution resulted in additional costs for promotion. The cost of developing artists means that additional profits have to be made on successful artists to cover the costs incurred on failures.

Today, anyone can build a recording studio in their basement and modern technology has reduced the cost of the recording equipment by several orders of magnitude. Manufacturing is no longer an issue and distribution can be done over the Internet. Promotion will still be important, but not nearly as costly.

In the future, there will be a much greater selection of music available. Must of it will be junk, but there will also be more truly great music. The record companies tend to limit the ability of artist to produce great music because they want them conform to a tried and true formula. In the future, artists will have more freedom to produce truly artistic music. On the down side, we will have to wade through a lot more crap to find the good stuff.

The same thing is going to happen to movies.

[Bob3]

10. No. Junk will rule the land. Bland mush will swamp the world.

Yeah Artists will have more freedom but since they won't be able to make any damn money doing music - they won't have time because they'll all be at their shit paying day jobs. None of which bothers anybody since all they want to do is download for free and the hell with everyone else.

the only acts that will keep going will be the pre-fab ones: the jo-los and the Britany's of the planet who will release a cd simply as a reason to tour charging 150 bucks a pop for nosebleed seats - the rest will have to stumble along in small clubs for food money - while computer users sit in their underware eating cold crazy bread listening to free junk and bitching about how bad music is these days.

Sorry - nobody has come up with a way other than touring 350 days a year (which not everybody can do) for a musican to make a living in this brave new world.

:hippie:

[joeprogressive]

11. different approach

The music industry will always find a way to claim copyright infringement and they have the bucks to fight it in court. I think they should start a legal fund for the downloaders. Think about it, if everyone that wanted to preserve the ability to download songs gave a few bucks each, there would be enough to crush the record companies in court by dragging out a long and expensive litigation process.