DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: Record Companies Must Die

Forums > The General Forum

Record Companies Must Die

FrederikSchack	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 8:19 AM The record industry is supposedly suffering due to loss in record sales, and I like many other young people continue to copy music from the Internet without the slightest concern. That's a problem to the artists, and at the end of the day to the listeners, because we can't expect the musicians to deliver free music, at least not at a professional level. So is professional music doomed? The idea I’m going to present to you is rooted in reality, unlike the ideas of the record companies. It will “legalize” the MP3 format in a reformistic way, it will give musicians more creative freedom and it will make musicians earn money that way. Reality – MP3 All people can manage to pay some amount for a piece of music, but as soon as an individual’s price threshold is crossed, and this is very important, the alternative is obviously not to pay! That's reality, people aren't going to pay if the price is too high. Further, if the process of purchasing music is too dificult and implies too many disadvantages, people might not be willing to pay anything at all. Either realize this reality, or fail any attempt to save the music industry. Reality is that it’s impossible to prevent the copying of music. At some point the music has to be transformed to either a digital or analogous audio signal, which can be copied, and just a single copy is potentially spread like wildfire on the Internet. Reality is that the MP3 format has many advantages over the CD. Doesn't take up space in the shelves. Doesn’t get scratched. Is faster to search and find specific tracks. Makes it possible to compile your own playlists. Offers loads of smart features like visualization plug-ins, automatic lyrics lookup (evil lyrics), automatic music recommendation (audioscrobbler.com), etc. Cost’s almost nothing to distribute. Is easily distributed over the Internet. You don't have to go anywhere to get your music, you can download a track within minutes (and speeds are increasing). A wider selection is already available on e-mule and WinMX than almost any store. Is stored on any digital medium (harddisks, memory sticks, CDs, DVDs, micro drives etc.). The disadvantages are It’s mostly illegal Some believe that MP3 is worse quality than CD (I believe this to be a confusion between the quality of a recording and the limit of the MP3 format. I have very good HiFi equipment, and can’t tell the difference between a good MP3 and a CD.) To me, and many others, the MP3 format is so convenient, that we don’t even care whether it’s illegal or not. Reality is that we aren't going to sacrifice the advantages of the MP3 format, just because some butthead says it’s illegal. If I was recommended a piece of music through ICQ, AudioScrobbler, AllMusic.com or whatever, should I then spend an hour or so going to the music store, buying a whole CD with lot’s of stuff that I don’t want, going home, ooops scratching the CD? No way! I’m already online, it’s right there, the music, you can’t fool me! Neither can colourful CD covers, the marketing machine or PR stunts. This is a new paradigm demanding a new solution Problem – Record Companies The problem to me and many others is that we like our artists. That’s the ones we love, not the leaches sucking the blood from our artists. The distribution of music sucks 90%-95% of the retail price. Whoa! So even if we go to the store, take our time, just to support our artists, only 5%-10% would be scraped of to the artists??? No! It’s even worse, the musicians have to pay the marketing costs out of their humble budgets themselves. Typically big artists have to sell more than a million CD’s, just to be break even! It’s no wonder that the record companies cares so much about their current “symbiotic” relationship with the artists, and anything that could possibly upset it. One thing that upsets the record companies the most is this new reality, they can't ignor it and keep their huge profits and they can't conform with it and keep their huge profits. Instead they are trying to fight this new reality, pissing everyone off. The core problem to the record companies is that they can't monopolize distribution of music on the Internet, they aren't even needed to distribute music, if they could, they would most certainly shut down the Internet. Solution - Taking advantage of reality In order to find a solution that can satisfy both the artists and the consumers of music, we must make a concept based on reality. The record companies must die, they are nothing but a pain to the consumers and artists, they have no purpose in the market economy anymore. That's even true for those who want's a physical CD, artists could distribute their music dirictly to any store or consumer through the Internet and then the store could print high quality covers and CD labels. The music is obviously best distributed via the Internet. It makes no sense to produce CD's in America and send them by truck and boat to Europe, risking shortage or abundance of CD's, when it's almost free and free of risk to distribute the music via the Internet. We can't force people to pay, but almost everyone (at least those who can afford a PC or MP3 player) can manage to pay some amount, but the individuals threshold for how much he/she is willing to pay varies a lot. A common man in Bolivia has a much lower threshold than a common man in Germany. Further a poor man in the United Kingdom has a much lower threshold than a rich man in the United Kingdom. But all of them can manage to pay some amount, however small. So, why not make everyone pay what they can manage to pay, instead of only making those who have a high income pay? The trick then will be to get people to pay as much as possible. Basically what I'm suggesting is motivated voluntary contributions. Then, why not take advantage of the huge, world spanning and efficient distribution network already in place? The file sharing services like eMule, WinMX, iMesh, Bearshare, Grokster, eDonkey etc.? If contributions are voluntary albeit motivated, then the distribution network doesn't really matter, does it? Further, what is making the file sharing services so efficient is that everyone is a server and everyone is a client. It's a bullet proof server, allways online, costs close to nothing and has enormous amounts of diskspace and bandwidth. The more widespread a track or a whole CD is, the faster it is to download. This means that if the system that I'm about to suggest works, if you can actually make people who have been riding free contribute, then it is in the interest of the artists that their files are as widespread as possible, in order to recieve as much contributions as possible. The reason why files become widespread is that they are free to distribute! Everybody can listen to music for free and then support the artists that they like. So, what's the difference between the existing system of anarchy and my suggestion? How would you support an artist with 2$ today? Huh? International moneyorder? Thats expensive? If you live in the same country as the artist, you might be able to make a fairly cheap transfer, but do you know the account no. of your artist? You could write an e-mail to the artist, expressing your desire to contribute 2$, I'm sure he would understand.... I think this illustrates the base of the problem, it has to be cheap and easy to contribute, else it won't happen. The more easy it is to reach the point both practically and mentally where one pays, the more contributions. We don't want to enter a lot of information like credit card number, expiry date, name and the like, especially not if it's only for a small amount of money. It has to be simple, like just entering an amount and the click "send", then it would be 1) convenient 2) economically manageable to everybody. Furthermore it should be possible to do while downloading or playing the music, while the user is at the computer anyway. So here is what we’ve got to do 1. The very basic first step is to make it possible to make small contributions to artists. 2. The second step is to make it incredibly easy. 3. The third step is to motivate contributions. 4. The fourth step is to start a process that legalizes this kind of payment. 1. Make it possible Some of the existing file sharing networks, MP3 players or a service like AudioScrobbler could create user accounts where users allocate a certain amount of money, the normal way by paying with VISA/Mastercard or the like. Then the user could allot small amounts on different artist accounts. The services maintaining the accounts could charge a fee like 5% of the contributions. 2. Make it easy People are lazy. What could possibly be more easy than having a contribution plug-in for WinAmp, showing the current artist playing, a text field for entering any amount and a “contribute” button? Well, yes, “auto contribute” to every piece of music played, but that should be an option. How? Have an account at AudioScrobbler, Winamp or some other service, put some money on it and let the service distribute the money according to your choice. It’s really that simple, and in reality a little difficult to realize. 3. Motivate contributions People are egoists. People are different, some likes to show off, some likes to be respected for their authority, some like to be seen as good people and others need respect for their technical ingenuity. So let people show off, earn respect, contribute money and contribute technology, make us feel good in our own egoistic ways. Show off. 50 largest contributors? 50 largest contributors to a specific artist? To a specific song? Of the year? of the month? of the day? How much did he contribute? Let there be many winners! Earn respect. Some people just need respect for their honorable compliance with society. They would dutifully contribute to those in need and make rules apply. Be good. Some people are more idealistic, they would do whatever is needed to make the world a good one. They need to be good, because they need to be appreciated. And contribute technology. A very rare specimen in modern society are the wizards of technology, those that makes MP3, Winamp, Internet and all of that happen. They might only be interrested in contributing technology. Another method to increase contributions is to emphasize that this is actually a form of democracy through the wallet, what you contribute is what you get. The musicians’ career would depend on how much the users like their music. The users no longer support artists on compilation CD's that they don't like, and further more their money have a stronger effect on the survival of the musician as not 5-10% of the money goes to the artists but instead 95%. 4. Make it legal Legalizing this kind of contributions as a way of paying for art would beyond doubt increase the motivation to pay, especially amongst those authority people. Letting the users pay conditioned contributions that would only be paid to the artists when they accept this system as a legal form of distribution, could do this. If suddenly there were a considerable amount of conditioned money accumulated on a musicians account, he would probably sing a song to his record company about a “symbiotic” relationship that somehow broke into a million pieces. Of course there would be a lot of artists who wouldn’t be willing to accept voluntary contributions as legal payment. Well, we the consumers wouldn't care too much, we copy the music whatever they want their money or not. It is important to note that this is not about revolution; it's about reforming the system and turning more and more musicians from the old to the new system. There is no need to have the support from all musicians right from the start, even though this might be the long-term goal. What we need are some pioneer musicians. The mere news value could make some musicians accept this as a legal form of distribution. We have already seen musicians that have supported Napster, even though it's not in their immediate interest. Also the fact that many (if not all) musicians don't enjoy the same freedom in the existing system could motivate a lot of musicians to change. And there probably exists or could be created other motivating factors. Perspectives It will not be possible to get completely rid of free riders, there always are somebody that will not pay the price, but this was also the case before the invention of the Internet. Certainly there are musicians that earn a lot of money today, but that's a very small group that is blessed by the record industry. The system I have described would probably create some concentration of money as well, but I think it's beyond doubt that a lot more musicians would experience to earn money. They don’t need to invest or make big contracts; they only need to be good at their art. It is possible that the Users of the Internet would not pay anything near what they pay in the record shops, but at the other hand, if just 20% of the amount paid in the shops is paid on the net, then both the consumers and the musicians would have gained considerably, and that I think is very probable. Conclusion To me there are no doubts that copying of music can't be stopped, it will always appear in some form. If we try to prevent it we just end up hurting ourselves a lot. We would need some kind of totalitarian system to get rid of it, so the most constructive solution would be to make the best out of the current reality. We can't force the consumer, so why not motivate them? I argued for a simple solution based on voluntary contributions that is to be distributed through a payment system, integrated in some sort of music service like WinAmp, AudioScrobbler or a file sharing service. I believe that it is of greater importance to make it easy and manageable to a wide range of people to contribute with some amount, instead of trying to force people to pay a fixed amount. I have also pointed out ways to motivate consumers to contribute, and ways to motivate musicians to accept this system. I hope that many more people would contribute with ideas in this regard. I see a great possibility for musicians and consumers of music to get rid of a big and expensive record industry that neither of us really need. This is not meant to be a revolutionary system, but a reformist system that slowly develops and is being tested/corrected through its development. At last I want to say to all those sceptics that criticize this as pure romance, come up with a better idea, but do keep in mind that the distribution is already here and it's big, nothing suggests that it can be stopped and the consumers would demand a legal form of distribution on the Internet anyway.
zedsalt	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 12:06 PM In most of the music that I listen to, the musicians ARE the label. The Majors put out so little material of quality that I have to think that they will die...slowly, from lack of relevance. Of course, just about any time I hear of a project that was recorded, mastered, and duped in analog, I buy it! The difference in quality between MP3 and CD isn't that great, but the difference between CD and vinyl or cassette is like night and day. Or as Neil Young put it, "...like the difference between a warm Summer rain and getting pelted with icecubes". I have no interest in keeping my music collection out of the physical realm. In fact, I get a little nervous about having music on my computer that I don't have on a CD, and the stuff that I REALLY like from my download CDs gets put on mix tapes, because in roughly the same amount of time that it takes the Mylar/Lexican sandwich of those CDs to start falling apart, rendering them completely useless, a cassette rarely shows any audible signs of aging, and I can easily make a fresh copy before it does.
FrederikSchack	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 12:56 PM I'm just at different species, I like things that doesn't exist ;o)
FrederikSchack	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 12:58 PM I think the post is primarily relevant for people who actually use/abuse digital music.
icisnizz	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 1:23 PM I just don't get it anymore. Has anyone worked a minimum wage job full time, it sucks. Musicians want to be payed the same or a lot more when there only doing what they love to do and no offense to anyone but it isn't that hard if you really love it enough. It, to me is a big joke when someone thinks that there actually going to live off of there music. You might make a few 100 dollars at a show or sell some shirts but why do people think they deserve a ton of money for words they wrote or instruments they played. Most and I wish all musicians, make music for the sake of making music, that's it. In my opinion if you make it to make money your not a musician but a marketer. You create to sell, your making plastic dolls, your a big commercial. I'm not young at this and am not saying that my music is professionally recorded but I am saying that if I really wanted to record it professionally it wouldn't be all that hard and I would have no reason to be expected to get rich off of it. With today's technology its a breeze to record and it's only getting easier. I know that a lot of people would disagree with this but seriously, I think garbage men and bus drivers and mailmen and firemen and even people who pump gas should get payed more than the average musician. It's like the whole world wants money when they jack off, it makes no sense. If you don't like music, then don't make music. For what music is, we don't have to press vinyl or even print CD's anymore. It costs virtually nothing but time and I'd like to think that people making music are enjoying themselves or why would they do it. The years of the superstar are ending and it was fun while it lasted, too bad we missed out on all the music that was never signed. just my opinion record industry = control I want to be able to hear everything, not just what they feed me If people start charging per song or whatever other thing they plan to do, they better make it damn cheep because there will always be someone that will be willing to give it away for free because they love making it and sharring it with others. Pretty soon shirt making machines will be available cheep and even selling shirts will be pointless. There is no reason to hang on to old traditions, people will always make music, no matter what.
Snoogans775	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 3:44 PM for a musician, namely independent or self-label, most of their music income is from concerts and performances. Selling CD's is a minor thing compared to gigs for a modern musician, though there are many fine ways to sell your own music, a lot of the poeple zedsalt was talking about probably used high-tech low-cost home studios(personal or otherwise), and distributed their music independently, or with a guild of some form. the Major Labels make music for people who don't care very much about music, or care very much for pointless music, it's the thick people that are being brainwashed and controlled, there is plenty of freedom to get quality music if you pull the spoon out of your mouth.
FrederikSchack	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 1:46 PM Icisnizz, interresting point of view. I don't care too much about money either, but I would like support what is good and make what is good grow. Maybe you can have a job, and play music in your spare time, but I like people who are dedicated to making good music and they should'nt have any economical restraints. That's my opinion. And I wouldn't want to support BMG, SONY and all those buttheads.
FrederikSchack	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 2:27 PM Icisnizz, interresting point of view. I don't care too much about money either, but I would like support what is good and make what is good grow. Maybe you can have a job, and play music in your spare time, but I like people who are dedicated to making good music and they should'nt have any economical restraints. That's my opinion. And I wouldn't want to support BMG, SONY and all those buttheads.
FrederikSchack	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 2:37 PM Icisnizz, interresting point of view. I don't care too much about money either, but I would like support what is good and make what is good grow. Maybe you can have a job, and play music in your spare time, but I like people who are dedicated to making good music and they should'nt have any economical restraints. That's my opinion. And I wouldn't want to support BMG, SONY and all those buttheads.
FrederikSchack	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 3:05 PM Right now I'm enjoying a Santa Helen sauvignon and piece of music called "Rosanna" by Toto. I would like to contribute 10$, but how????????
FrederikSchack	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 3:12 PM Right now I'm enjoying a Santa Helen sauvignon and piece of music called "Rosanna" by Toto. I would like to contribute 10$, but how????????
mattbanx	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 3:59 PM To what zed said about cassettes up the post, I am a cassette junkie. And much for those same reasons. I always thought that even though technology makes it easier for large companies to stick their gloms in to things, the added benefit is that independent artists can use that tool to get ahead. I don't see completely through rose colored glasses on it. More controls are going to be put in place so some big turd sitting up their can keep keep their diamonds and pearls. Maybe it's a matter of beating them to it. Making a loud enough roar. There is the technology.
FrederikSchack	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 4:21 PM Yeah, tecnology is positively good, at least for a while, for the species of man. But who is to break headlines with the proposal that i made? Are we going to forsake the small artists?
wiger	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 4:53 PM I WANT TO BE A RECORD PRODUCER ONE DAY AND MAKE LOTS OF MONEY BY MAKING BOY BANDS OFF TALENT SHOWS , MUH HAH HA HA!!!!
mattbanx	Date: August 30, 2005 @ 12:22 AM There's always going to be someone with more exposure no matter how the game is played. It would be great if there were HAMM radio stations opened up just for amateur or hobby artists. Get another Wolfman Jack types so all the big Payola rackateers can do it all over again. Then they can say---THAT'S SHOW BUSINESS, BABY!

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: