Ad Supported Music Label A Step In The Right Direction
from the just-a-step dept
The NY Post is running a story that everyone seems to be submitting here. It's about former Engadget (and Gizmodo) editor Pete Rojas teaming up with Downtown Records to launch a new music label that will offer the music of artists for free, while focusing on ad-driven business models. The details are exceptionally vague in the article, but it sounds like the plan will be to create some sort of destination site that will host ads, and try to attract people to listen to the music (similar to YouTube). We're hoping that Pete is joking with the name on the plan, which only Ed Zander of Motorola could love: RCRD LBL. This is definitely a step in the right direction, though, as it recognizes that the music acts as the promotion -- though, the rest of the business model opens up plenty of questions. Still, it shows that a new generation of entrepreneurs are willing to push these new types of business models, and those that insist on retaining the old business models may find themselves standing around holding buggy whips before long.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Radio by Michael Long on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 3:16am
If I wanted ads with my music I'd still be listening to AM radio...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Non-Ads by Dino on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:24am
Mike,
I enjoy your work...keep it up. Take a look at our start up model - www.9thxchange.com. Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Dino
9thX
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add value- stop the cliche by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:54am
quote
"those that insist on retaining the old business models may find themselves standing around holding buggy whips before long."
Let's start counting how many times Mike uses this derogatory cliche.
Buddy whips became unneeded- music is vitally craved. They are not comparable.
You fail to show why both "free" models and the "old" model can't co-exist perhaps indefinitly. One does not preclude the other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is just the sort of forward thinking that wil by Ajax 4Hire on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:56am
people to pay for music/content.
AM radio, FM radio, TV; I am a channel hopper, jumping away from the commercials. Odd how you can know in moments if it is advertising or content? When are the content makers going to learn to do embedded commercials/advertisements?
The Movie industry has started; Coke, Pepsi, Ford all 'buy' exposure in movies. Some Rap musicians have even been paid to place McD Big Mac in songs.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:58am
i give it 5 days for an article about RIAA trying to stop this new venture
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not here too!! by The infamous Joe on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 5:22am
You fail to show why both "free" models and the "old" model can't co-exist perhaps indefinitly. One does not preclude the other.
Um... paying $18 for a CD and getting it for free do preclude each other.. who would pay for something that is being given away at the same quality? The only thing that is stopping *everyone* from downloading music at it's value is outdated laws.
Buddy[sic] whips became unneeded- music is vitally craved. They are not comparable.
Vitally craved? Well, whatever, maybe it is, at that. :)The point, though, is that paying $18 for a CD and buggy whips are both things of the past. We, the general public, know how hard it is to put music on a CD (it isn't), and refuse to pay $18 for something that costs the labels almost nothing. That is how they are comparable.
Are you really not getting this?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Response to the infamous Joe by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 5:44am
Quote
"The only thing that is stopping *everyone* from downloading music at it's value is outdated laws."
Joe, some people will pay for music as an arms length transaction even if there were no laws relating to music transactions. I can pick corn for free from a field (even call it "gleaning") with zero chance of getting caught (for all intents and purposes the legal system does not apply) but I choose to buy it in an arms length transaction. Hence, the most likely scenario is that the "free" music market and the paid music market will coexist.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stealing corn and downloading Korn. by The infamous Joe on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 6:10am
. I can pick corn for free from a field (even call it "gleaning") with zero chance of getting caught (for all intents and purposes the legal system does not apply) but I choose to buy it in an arms length transaction.
Holy cow, TiredofLame, you're getting dangerously close to the point... are you ready? :P
1. Picking corn is stealing. I know, I know, you think copyright infringement is stealing-- but to the *courts* there is a difference. If you take a farmer's corn, he has 1 less ear of corn to sell. Sure, it's negligible, but there it is, you have deprived him of 1 ear of corn. Now, if I were to download a Korn album (not that I would, yuck!) I have not taken anyone's Korn album.. there is, if you count, 1 more corn album than there was before I copied it. If you could take a picture of an ear of corn, eat the picture and get the same *exact* nourishment from it, then we'd have a valid comparison.
So, to sum it all up: If a farmer has 100 ears of corn and you take one.. he has 99 now, and you have 1. If there are 100 Korn songs and I download one, there are now 101 Korn songs! Wait a second! I just made a song! For free!! If I can make it for free... why would I sell it for $18? Gosh, that seems pretty underhanded. To move it farther.. if I make a copy of my Korn song for my buddy, there's now 102 Korn songs.. holy cow!! I'm like a digital media Jesus.. I can feed everyone all the Korn they want! (Maybe I should have used Phish instead of Korn) :P
Even further (and this is as far as I'm going with it, I promise) My buddy can make a copy of *his* Korn song and give it to another friend and now there's 103 Korn songs! All without Korn, or the record label, lifting a finger or paying a dime! (Some might venture to say by distributing Korn songs I'm doing the record labels' job, even!)
See where it's going? I hope so. Embrace the future- or become the past.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 6:17am
Dear children...yes, CD-Rs are very inexpensive and we know that you can use your crap computer to burn the bestest mix CD ever EVER for pennies. However, SOME-FREAKIN'-BODY had to pay to CREATE that music. When you buy a CD or download a digital track, you're not paying for the replication, you're paying for the creation. It's like saying a pizza should be free because the box it's in costs next to nothing. There's a thing that normal businesses have called overhead. If Mike's blessed theory of an "everything is free" economy was ever fully realized, we would all be in trouble (anybody out there work for a company that SELLS stuff? You might be out of a job) - and every song would have a 30 second ad right in the middle of it! I imagine Mike would change his tune if he actually had to create content rather than riding on the backs of other people's articles while depositing checks from his advertisers. Whatever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How is this different?? by Alex on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 6:18am
How is this different from any of the current models, be it Pandora, AM, FM or anything else? When you have a story for us, call us back.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL by Buzz on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 6:42am
Apparently, most of you have not read all of Mike's series on the economics of zero. Some of you have lightly skimmed it. A better business model does NOT involve giving away music for free and HOPING that users click on ads.
I will give you a living example: I have a sister who RARELY purchases music CDs. It has been YEARS since she bought one. Recently, she heard music from a particular artist through various sources. She heard her older brother (I'm her younger brother) playing it in his apartment. She heard the artist numerous times on the radio. She listened to his stuff on the Internet. She then persuaded her husband, her brother, and her brother's wife all to pay $80 each to attend a big concert hosted by this particular artist. If she had not heard all that music FOR FREE, she would not have scored $320 in favor of the artist.
Wanting digital music to be free is not being cheap. Creating music takes work. We all understand that. However, the distribution cost is zero. As Mike teaches, people should not pay for zero-cost items. These things should be used to drive business elsewhere.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Rebuttal to the infamous Joe by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 6:50am
point quote from me:
"Joe, some people will pay for music as an arms length transaction even if there were no laws relating to music transactions."
While I very much enjoyed your corn/Korn, fish/phish repartee you were the one who initially said "everyone" would download for free if there were no laws relating to it. If one person (me) would still pay for music irregardless than your thesis would be disproven. Or better yet and more interesting in terms of me and you learning something new (that's one reason I am here) is to hazard a percentage guess about pay vs non pay. I suspect we would not be all that radically different. Here, I'll take a stab at it. With no laws I say 15 percent would pay and 85% not pay. Therefore, both types of markets would co-exist.
What is your guess?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Daddy's Money. by The infamous Joe on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 7:16am
Here, I'll take a stab at it. With no laws I say 15 percent would pay and 85% not pay.
I stand by my words. If it weren't illegal, then it would rapidly be picked up my all sorts of web sites, who would just sell adds on the page that you go to to download the music.. hey! wait a minute! That's *exactly* what the article is about!! :P
No one would pay $18 for a CD if the songs were free online and CD-R's cost next to nothing.. Now, collectors would still want oh, signed copies of CD or vinyl records of old stuff, etc.. but that's not the the music they are buying, it's something attached to the music...
Are you telling me that if you were browsing the web and stumbled upon a site that *legally* allowed downloads of your favorite music DRM free, you'd still go to itunes and pay a buck for the music? You and I both know the artist sees almost nothing of that $1, so don't try the 'support the artist' mumbo jumbo.. I support the artist by going to the show and buying a T-shirt or buying them a drink (depending on the size of the show) and by telling other people "Hey, check out this guy, here's a copy of the CD.. I'm gonna go see him in Boston next friday!"
@AC 8
When you buy a CD or download a digital track, you're not paying for the replication, you're paying for the creation.
I would agree, but I can go to a music store and find music that was popular in 2000 selling for $10.. are you trying to say that they still haven't made back the overhead? Am I *still* paying for the creation, and $10 a CD after 7 years? Mind you, it started off at $18 a CD for the first year or three... I agree that there is an initial overhead for recording and such-- and I admit I don't know how much that comes out to be.. I'm sure it's highly overpriced because record labels can front a huge bill because they're raping the suckers that buy their CDs. (Some people might even say that the price is so outrageous to keep independent artists from being able to afford it.. some people.)
@Alex
How is this different from any of the current models, be it Pandora, AM, FM or anything else?
Because it's not someone paying the label to give it away for free, it's a label giving it away for free. Pandora, AM and FM have to pay fees to give that music away. Sure, selling adds isn't new or inventive-- but for some reason major labels can't figure it out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by sam on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 8:36am
what you guys still don't get (at least some of you don't)...
i'm the creator/owner of the music. i get to decide/determine how my music is sold/distributed. if i choose to give it away for free, so be it.. if i choose to sell it, again, my right to do so.
you as a consumer, have a right to bitch about my choices if you choose. you as a consumer don't have a right to copy/download my song and then give it to 50,000 of your closest friends...
if i create a song, and you hear it on the radio, by all means, copy it and listen to it for your own pleasure. however, don't copy it, and then upload it for 10,000 friends to listen to....
if we all agree to this, then we really have no issue...
i suspect that you won't agree to this. i suspect that because of your culture/growth, you view downloading as a non-crime event...
i laugh at some of the arguments saying that because you can copy a song, then you haven't harmed the owner of the song, because you wouldn't have purchased the song anyway.. if you wouldn't have purchased the song, then why are you downloading it.. it obviously has some value to you, ... so pay for it.
i also laugh, as none of you would say, hey.. why don't we simply copy US currency.. I mean think about it, the same convoluted logic would apply. if you copy/create a fake $100 bill, you have 'added' to the number of US $100 nills in circulation.. you haven't 'hurt' the US treasury, as you haven't taken one of their bills...
but i doubt the US Treasury/Secret Service would agree with you on this one...
amazing how people can construct arguments to justify the actions that they want to pursue...
peace
sam
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Play it again, Sam. by The infamous Joe on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 9:06am
i suspect that you won't agree to this. i suspect that because of your culture/growth, you view downloading as a non-crime event...
You are correct.. and here's the kicker.. those people today who don't view downloading your song as a crime are the people in charge of making/changing the laws tomorrow. More and more people *are* speaking out-- they are saying "We won't pay for recorded music by itself." Are you listening? Do you think every day there are less people downloading, or more? Adapt or die. (In an economic sense, of course.) :)
.. if you wouldn't have purchased the song, then why are you downloading it
Have you ever seen a movie trailer and thought, "Meh, I'll wait for video." or, like me, "Meh, I'll wait for the cable network premiere."? It's the same thing.. the music in question may not be worth $18, but sure, if it's free I'll take a listen. It has no value to me-- I can go either way-- but if it's offered easily for free (and it is) then sure, I'll check it out. For me, the the worst that happens is I have to delete the song because it's crap. For you, the best that happens is you get a new fan where one wasn't before. I seriously don't understand how it's not obvious.
i also laugh, as none of you would say, hey.. why don't we simply copy US currency
Either you have no idea how paper money works, or you're grasping at straws. I'm not going to go into it, read more here on how currency works.
amazing how people can construct arguments to justify the actions that they want to pursue...
I was just thinking that myself, Sam.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Some would pay for music by |333173|3|_||3 on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 9:09am
Even if free ad-free downloas were available, those on bad connections would still buy music, especially if theri tastes were not mainstream enough to leach at LANs or from shered folders at libraries and so on.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stealing corn and downloading Korn. by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 9:48am
You are stealing from Korn...having downloaded their song illegally is the same as stealing the corn. The song whether it's on a CD or just a bunch of 0's and 1's floating in digital space is still a commodity. Just like the farmer invested capital in growning his corn. Korn and their record label invested capital in producing that song. You are stealing, period. There's no way around it...there's no rationalizing...you are stealing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 9:49am
When an artist with a Top 100 album signs with RCRD LBL, this will be news.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Play it again, Sam. by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:00am
hey Joe...why don't you go pay some money and buy some music instruments and equipment..then why don't you invest your time and write some songs...then go to a recording studio and pay to record those songs...pay a producer to supervise the recording...pay an engineer...pay someone to do mixing and pay someone to do mastering...then pay for CD replication, album artwork etc....then pay for advertising to promote the music...
pay your tens of thousands of dollars to produce your music...pay that money and time and hard work...
and then just give it away...
if you go ahead and do that then i'll listen to your arguments...
otherwise you are just a f**king thief...that's what you are...a thief...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Stealing corn and downloading Korn. by Kyle on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:13am
Actually it's not stealing, as ruled by the Supreme Court.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Stealing corn and downloading Korn. by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:28am
Actually it's not stealing, as ruled by the Supreme Court.
--------------------
Tell that to the musicians that you've stolen from...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:36am
I am tired of hearing the phrase "adapt or die". Just because a majority of kids think it's okay to download music for free, does not justify it. And just because you don't think it's "fair" to charge $10 for a CD released in 2000, doesn't mean you should steal it (take it, whatever).
What if they sold all CD's for $5? You may start buying CD's again, but there would be a significant percentage of people who don't. What if they sold all CD's for $1 (and the record companies/artists still made a profit)? There would still be a small percentage of people who are too lazy to make it to the store or too impatient to wait for a mail order. So, my question is: with so few people, is it not justified anymore? What percentage of people have to stop downloading for you to agree it's not okay; or, what kind of profits would you like the record companies to make for it to be "okay" with you?
My point is, you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand of profits, saying the amount of money they make is not okay; and, because everyone and their brother downloads songs, that justifies you stealing as well. Therefore, they need to change their business model.
Gas is expensive. Oil companies make a lot of money. Why not steal from the pumps? Because you'll most likely get caught. If you were as likely to get caught downloading music, you wouldn't. And, when the RIAA starts prosecuting people, everyone screams foul play.
And please stop saying stuff like: "i downloaded a cd and it was cool so i bought the band's t-shirt for $20! i totally used that cd as advertisement for myself." Great, that may work for you; and, as righteous as you may be, the majority of people do not use it as advertisements, samples, or anything other than music that they downloaded and listen to for free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
... by Buzz on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:42am
Kyle is correct. Judges have explicitly stated that illegal downloads are a form of copyright infringement. "Stealing" implies the robber removed the original from the owner's possession. When it comes to downloading, no such event takes place. You cannot compare the stealing of materialistic things to the copying of information.
Piracy is illegal. If it wasn't, I don't think it'd be called 'piracy'. No one is arguing the legality of it. Mike's articles do not condone piracy. He merely points out how the new market will continue to take advantage of the free publicity that comes from legally sharing music files (from artists who have allowed it) and make more money in the long run.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here we go again by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:44am
quote:
"a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"
I see the taking, music is property under the current law, and I see the intention of keep it.
What part of the above doesn't fit calling someone a thief or stealing? Thief and stealing are legitimate English language and are commonly understood. The Supremes are making a legal definition/distinction and StuCop is entitled to his English language usage. That is the purpose of a common language.
I would propose for the sake of cordiality, using infringment has less baggage attached to it but StuCop is well within his rights of description.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re: stu by [kossori hana.] on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:57am
i agree 100% with joe.
i am an artist and a musician.
i have done all the things you proposed joe do.
here's what happened:
(don't be too shocked now...)
it worked!
i have more fans and more shows and more openings than i did before i tried this.
all of those add up to more revenue for better equipment, more supplies, and more studio time.
that produces a larger body of work which in turn feeds the fans what they want: new material now.
and i get to enjoy doing it all without worries that people are "stealing" from me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Where is this rule engraved in stone by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 10:58am
quote from Buzz:
"You cannot compare the stealing of materialistic things to the copying of information."
That's a rather big "thou shalt not" !
You can try to make this rule stick but good luck on it. This is the internet and we can argue about anything and everything.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ... by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:01am
He merely points out how the new market will continue to take advantage of the free publicity that comes from legally sharing music files (from artists who have allowed it) and make more money in the long run. - Buzz
---------------------
I have yet to see any musician or record label that has found this Shangri-La of supposed profits "in the long run". If this new business model was working so well wouldn't record labels and artist be raking in the profits? Last time I checked less and less money is being made.
I think that this feel good atmosphere of giving away songs for free as a new business model is similar to the feel good give everything away for free business models of early web start-ups before the bubble burst. Obviously that business model didn't work...you had all these start ups whose business models didn't factor in actually making profit...they did factor in spending lots and lots of investors cash...but no idea how to make $. We all know where those fabulous web 1.0 companies ended up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: re: stu by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:03am
i agree 100% with joe.
i am an artist and a musician.
i have done all the things you proposed joe do.
here's what happened:
(don't be too shocked now...)
it worked!
i have more fans and more shows and more openings than i did before i tried this.
all of those add up to more revenue for better equipment, more supplies, and more studio time.
that produces a larger body of work which in turn feeds the fans what they want: new material now.
and i get to enjoy doing it all without worries that people are "stealing" from me.
-------------------
Oh yeah...who are you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Happy for your success by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:12am
Hi kossori hana.
Glad to hear this approach is working for you. My working theory is that your approach works at maximizing profits for a musician depending on factors like career stage (starting up versus established) and ability/desire to tour (some artists may be great in the studio and suck on stage). I would like these forum discussions to evolve over a period of time to flush out the relevant variables to find out what works best and when it works best. So I am extremely interested on your reports from the front lines.
I wonder if someone like Stevie Wonder would be lost to us if he was trying to break himself as an independent artist these days with its dependence on grueling touring?
Also if the toll from touring will limit the artist base up the road (I imagine that female performers would elect to not hit the road when starting/raising a family).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Add value- stop the cliche by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:14am
TiredofLame is still confused.
Buddy whips became unneeded- music is vitally craved. They are not comparable.
I'm not saying *music* is the buggy whip. The business of *selling* music directly is the buggy whip. It, too, is becoming unneeded. That doesn't mean music is obsolete. To the contrary. The *music* business is booming. As we pointed out, more music is being created today than ever before, and all sorts of businesses related to the music business are absolutely booming.
The only one struggling is the recording industry -- which is based on the obsolete business model of selling music delivery.
You fail to show why both "free" models and the "old" model can't co-exist perhaps indefinitly. One does not preclude the other.
It does eventually. I have shown this, but perhaps you missed it. Let me illustrate:
You are selling horse-drawn carriages. Ford comes along and starts selling Model Ts. Yes, the two could co-exist in theory, but the reality is that consumers will quickly move to the Model T because it provides them with something more.
So, yes, you can keep trying to sell music directly, but if everyone else is giving it away free *and* making more money on the complementary products, you're not going to get much business. People are going to ask why they need to pay for your music when everyone else is giving it away free and succeeding.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Happy for your success by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:19am
My working theory is that your approach works at maximizing profits for a musician depending on factors like career stage
-----------------
1. This is just a theory...
2. are the only reports from the front lines that you consider the ones that support your theory?
that's not very scientific.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:19am
However, SOME-FREAKIN'-BODY had to pay to CREATE that music.
Again, I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. We absolutely agree that it costs money to create music. That doesn't mean that it's the best business model to sell the music. Somebody has to pay to create BMW commercials, but BMW doesn't sell the commercials. In fact, they pay TV stations to give them away... because they know it helps sell complementary products: the BMWs.
Same thing with music. It helps sell all sorts of complementary products.
It's like saying a pizza should be free because the box it's in costs next to nothing.
Please learn the difference between scarce and infinite goods before making bad analogies.
If Mike's blessed theory of an "everything is free" economy was ever fully realized, we would all be in trouble (anybody out there work for a company that SELLS stuff? You might be out of a job) - and every song would have a 30 second ad right in the middle of it!
Please go back and read what I wrote. I never said "everything is free." I said exactly the opposite. I said some stuff is free and that makes all the other stuff much more valuable. The infinite components are free. The scarce components cost money. So your argument that I say everything is free is completely wrong.
I imagine Mike would change his tune if he actually had to create content rather than riding on the backs of other people's articles while depositing checks from his advertisers. Whatever.
You do realize our business has almost nothing to do with advertising, and we make most of our money creating content? The thing is, we do so while understanding this business model. The creation of *new* content (as you say in the beginning of your post) costs money. So we get people who value that content to pay us to create it. But then we let them do what they want with it.
Eh. As you say, whatever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Rebuttal to the infamous Joe by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:21am
Here, I'll take a stab at it. With no laws I say 15 percent would pay and 85% not pay. Therefore, both types of markets would co-exist.
TiredofLame, you remain extremely confused about the business model we are pushing. We're not saying "some percentage" will pay for the music.
What percentage of people who view BMW ads buy BMWs?
The whole point is that you are growing the overall size of your market by selling a different product.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: re: stu by [kossori hana.] on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:21am
i'm a self-sustained, self-employed, non-starving artist/musician.
i do these full-time as my career, and i do quite well.
i think of it as a symbiate relationship between me and my fans.
we both get what we need and enjoy from each other.
if you can't understand this simple concept, then i believe it hopeless that you ever will.
if you want to know my secret, here it is: quality.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:26am
Sam, I pointed most of this out yesterday. I'm not sure if you haven't gone back and read the responses to your comment yesterday or if you're just ignoring it and repeating the incorrect statements you made again.
i'm the creator/owner of the music. i get to decide/determine how my music is sold/distributed. if i choose to give it away for free, so be it.. if i choose to sell it, again, my right to do so.
I have never said otherwise. I have never said that you shouldn't be allowed to try to sell your music. I've only said it's a bad business model that will get worse and worse.
you as a consumer, have a right to bitch about my choices if you choose. you as a consumer don't have a right to copy/download my song and then give it to 50,000 of your closest friends...
Indeed. Why do you think I've said otherwise. I'd ask you to apologize for making a statement that suggests I've said something different.
if we all agree to this, then we really have no issue...
But we do have an issue, because you keep insisting I'm saying stuff I haven't.
i suspect that you won't agree to this. i suspect that because of your culture/growth, you view downloading as a non-crime event...
No. I view it as copyright infringement. That's why I don't participate. However, I also view it as a dumb business model decision from the producer's side.
if you wouldn't have purchased the song, then why are you downloading it.. it obviously has some value to you, ... so pay for it.
Price and value are not the same thing.
You value air. Do you pay for it?
i also laugh, as none of you would say, hey.. why don't we simply copy US currency..
I explained this yesterday. Please learn the difference between scarce and infinite goods. Otherwise your arguments don't make much sense.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Stealing corn and downloading Korn. by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:27am
You are stealing from Korn...having downloaded their song illegally is the same as stealing the corn. The song whether it's on a CD or just a bunch of 0's and 1's floating in digital space is still a commodity. Just like the farmer invested capital in growning his corn. Korn and their record label invested capital in producing that song. You are stealing, period. There's no way around it...there's no rationalizing...you are stealing.
No. It's infringement. It's not stealing. It's an important distinction. In stealing, something is taken away from the producer. Nothing is taken away here. The fact that capital was invested is meaningless. Copying is not stealing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:28am
I am tired of hearing the phrase "adapt or die". Just because a majority of kids think it's okay to download music for free, does not justify it. And just because you don't think it's "fair" to charge $10 for a CD released in 2000, doesn't mean you should steal it (take it, whatever).
Again, nothing I have said says that it's okay to infringe on copyrights. You are arguing against something I haven't said.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: re: stu by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:31am
again...oh yeah...who are you...c'mon...promote yourself...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: ... by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:32am
I have yet to see any musician or record label that has found this Shangri-La of supposed profits "in the long run". If this new business model was working so well wouldn't record labels and artist be raking in the profits? Last time I checked less and less money is being made.
You need to get out more. We've pointed to many musicians who are doing quite well with this business model. You can ignore them, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Second, you're wrong about "less and less money is being made." Can you back that up? The reports we've shown is that more and more money is going into the music industry. It's true that less and less money is being made in the *recording* industry -- but that's quite different than the music industry.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Happy for your success by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:35am
I wonder if someone like Stevie Wonder would be lost to us if he was trying to break himself as an independent artist these days with its dependence on grueling touring?
That assumes (incorrectly) that touring is the only way to make money. It is one way, but certainly not the only way. We've listed out many other ways as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Happy for your success by [kossori hana.] on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:39am
as a woman currently starting a family (2 months to go!), i take this time to create new works.
i can work on a commissioned piece or compose a new song whenever i get inspired to do so.
i plan on releasing my new works before the due date so my fans have something fresh before i take a long break.
i'm also sure this new beginning will be ripe with new concepts and ideas for me to explore upon my return.
the only lost opportunities will be the ones i don't take.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: re: stu by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:40am
also, as far as quality is concerned in music/art quality is not really a quantifiable property...quality in art is really determined on individual level...
beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Gloss over far too many details by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:40am
Mike,
1. Buggy whip is still offensive to me- you are a good enuf writer to not rely on an inadequate, offensive cliche
2. The models will co-exist- how can you just gloss over the following:
a. I know you think that the sky will part and patent law and copyright law will be repealed but that is a relatively long shot
b. Some people just want the music as an end product (think of it as a premium) with no ads and no hassles. The bands that make that transaction easy and also utiltize the benefits of your described model will have the best of both worlds and will take more market share than the band that only uses one model
c. You conclude too early in the game that this is the end game for DRM (digital rights management) and it completely failed. That may or may not be the case 10 years from now.
d. As the RIAA fails, consumers are going to have a hard time generating the hatred for an independent band that they do for the current industry and there will be a pendulum swing the other way. They could easily feel a desire to contribute directly. Every action has another reaction
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Here we go again by Charles Griswold on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:48am
If I take something from you that means that you, by definition, don't have it anymore. Therefore, copying something (even illegally) is not "taking" it.(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
All concerts are free by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:49am
What's the "give it away for free" crowd's take on fans sneaking into a concert for free...
is that okay too?
or is that not okay...b/c now you feel someone is "stealing" from you...
c'mon you should just play free concerts for everyone right?
what if that's the next "Business Model"
can you wrap your arms around that one...or is it only theft when it affects you personally?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: re: stu by [kossori hana.] on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:54am
i view this forum as a place to discuss ideas.
i refuse to promote myself as an artist/musician here.
i will however share my experiences if i see a reason to do so.
don't mistake what i said.
i do not equate beauty and quality.
this is my last response to you, as you have had nothing of worth to add to our discussion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:59am
You do realize our business has almost nothing to do with advertising, and we make most of our money creating content? The thing is, we do so while understanding this business model. The creation of *new* content (as you say in the beginning of your post) costs money. So we get people who value that content to pay us to create it. But then we let them do what they want with it.
-------------
Mike I'm just going to start taking this content that you create and just copy it and give it away to people...I'm sure you wont mind...being a champion of this "Business Model" and all...so thanks dude...i'm a big fan...thanks for the free stuff...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Gloss over far too many details by Charles Griswold on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 11:59am
I second that. As a buggy whip manufacturer*, I am highly offended by the comparison between buggy whips (a necessary item among a certain segment of the population (mostly the Amish)) and the outdated business model that is being pursued by the majority of the music industry.*OK, not really.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You added to the dictionary by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:00pm
quote from Charles Griswold
"If I take something from you that means that you, by definition, don't have it anymore. Therefore, copying something (even illegally) is not "taking" it."
Charles you have added the "don't have is anymore" to the dictionary definition. While that may be a valid point in an argument about loss it is not valid in discussing what the commonly accepted definition is. That is why we have language. You may be correct in your argument but you can't just unilaterally redefine the meaning of a common word out of the blue. There can be no constuctive discourse if I and you do that. I looked up "take" in the dictionary and it means to gain possession of (once again you incorrectly add that means someone else loses possession of). Read the dictionary- then argue using the accepted language.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: All concerts are free by Charles Griswold on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:02pm
Hey, it works for Ozzy.(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: ... by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:04pm
As an owner of a record label and a musician and I think I'm getting out there enough to be able to speak my mind on this topic...
but hey...you've converted me to the free model...so as I said in an earlier reply...
I'm just going to start taking this content that you create and just copy it and give it away to people...I'm sure you wont mind...being a champion of this "Business Model" and all...so thanks dude...i'm a big fan...thanks for the free stuff...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Happy for your success by Jansion on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:06pm
Mike, with regards to the touring not being the only way to make money. this is correct - you CAN sit on your arse and watch the money fly in... if you are brian wilson or paul mccartney and have a back catalogue spanning a couple of decades.
touring is the only way for an independent act to make any kind of money, decent or not.
hell, my friends band are signed to a major label subsiduary, just back off the road from supporting bloc party for the past couple of months, and soon to head of to your side of the atlantic for a month or two to promote the new album - only now after the release of their 4th album are they making a "wage".
they've toured constantly, for as long as i've known them scraping by on close to 200 quid a week each (off of sales), which is almost minumum wage in this country.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: All concerts are free by [kossori hana.] on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:09pm
okay, this is a new topic, so i'll bite.
my personal response:
i don't mind.
other musicians playing will have a guest list.
barkeeps have friends they let in.
venues have regulars who are exempt.
fairs and festivals don't charge admission.
i don't think of it as losing revenue.
i think of it as an opportunity to reach a new individual.
if it is an existing fan who snuck in, i'm not going to delve into his privacy and ask why he didn't pay.
he wanted to see me badly enough to risk getting thrown out.
i just appreciate the devotion and move on.
i covered all the bases i can think of at the moment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re: stu by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:13pm
hah...
okay I'll promote myself then...
www.myspace.com/skeandhu
is my record label
please feel free to listen to the music...but please don't steal it...we've invested a lot of time and money in the label...and our artist have invested time and money as well...
but please feel free to purchase the music if you'd like...it's great stuff and you'd be helping a small indie label and indie artist...
xoxoxoxox
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: All concerts are free by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:18pm
no...i mean totally free for everyone...no one pays...there's no getting thrown out...it's just free...
concerts are free...cd's are free...downloads are free...
so would it be an opportunity to reach a new individual who got into your concert for free to then give free music to via downloads...how are you making any money?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: All concerts are free by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:20pm
...and don't you value your music enough to warrant charging for it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Gloss over far too many details by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:31pm
1. Buggy whip is still offensive to me- you are a good enuf writer to not rely on an inadequate, offensive cliche
Why is it offensive? I'm not being flip here. It's a very good example of a business that became obsolete. If you explain why it's offensive, I can point to other examples of obsolete business models instead.
2. The models will co-exist- how can you just gloss over the following:
If you have two companies, one of which sells a better product for less money, how long does the second company stay in business?
a. I know you think that the sky will part and patent law and copyright law will be repealed but that is a relatively long shot
No. That's not what I think. If you could explain where I've said it, I'd appreciate it. I don't think that at all. What I think is that companies and individuals will discover they're better off ignoring copyright and patent law. That has nothing to do with repealing either.
b. Some people just want the music as an end product (think of it as a premium) with no ads and no hassles. The bands that make that transaction easy and also utiltize the benefits of your described model will have the best of both worlds and will take more market share than the band that only uses one model
There doesn't need to be ads or hassles. Plenty of people can enjoy the music just fine... You still seem confused about the business model we're proposing. It's not about annoying users. As I said, I actually don't think the advertising model is the best one... but it is one business model.
You are still too focused on the music as the end product. If everyone else recognizes it's not the end product, but a component to make other things more valuable, you'll have a lot of trouble still selling music.
You claim it's the best of both worlds to sell the music, but you're wrong. You miss out on all of the promotional benefits and the ability to grow your market if you keep the music locked up.
c. You conclude too early in the game that this is the end game for DRM (digital rights management) and it completely failed. That may or may not be the case 10 years from now.
No. It's not too early in the game. We have plenty of history (especially if you include the software space) to understand that DRM fails. However, the more important factor is if you understand the economics, you recognize that DRM simply makes NO ECONOMIC SENSE. It destroys value, rather than enhancing it. You do not and cannot build larger markets by destroying value.
d. As the RIAA fails, consumers are going to have a hard time generating the hatred for an independent band that they do for the current industry and there will be a pendulum swing the other way. They could easily feel a desire to contribute directly. Every action has another reaction
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Nothing in what I'm saying has to do with "hatred." It's the opposite. It's about creating transactions that make everyone happy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: All concerts are free by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:32pm
What's the "give it away for free" crowd's take on fans sneaking into a concert for free...
is that okay too?
or is that not okay...b/c now you feel someone is "stealing" from you...
Stu, please understand the difference between scarce and infinite goods. Space at a concert is scarce.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: All concerts are free by [kossori hana.] on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:34pm
i play all the local festivals for free, and my cds are free.
(i don't have downloads.)
i doubt i could convince a venue to not charge a cover.
i have worked for free before, almost all musicians have.
it's not always about the money.
right now, this is part of my career.
i like that idea though.
maybe i will do it completely free later in life.
i chose these paths because i enjoy these things.
i didn't expect to make these my career.
that's just how events eventually played out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:35pm
Mike I'm just going to start taking this content that you create and just copy it and give it away to people...I'm sure you wont mind...being a champion of this "Business Model" and all...so thanks dude...i'm a big fan...thanks for the free stuff...
Stu, go for it. I don't understand why people raise this argument every time we have this discussion. We've discussed it before:
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070412/183135#c612
Please, go right ahead. As per what we say, it helps us. It doesn't hurt us one bit.
Please go ahead and create a site and help promote us. That's fantastic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: All concerts are free by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:39pm
...and don't you value your music enough to warrant charging for it?
Stu, do you value the air you breathe? How come you don't pay for it?
Value and price are quite separate.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All concerts are free by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:41pm
you like that argument a little too much Mike...it doesn't make sense...and is not applicable. No entity has invested capital to produce air...and if they did you bet your bottom dollar we'd be paying for it...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All concerts are free by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:43pm
you like that argument a little too much Mike...it doesn't make sense...and is not applicable. No entity has invested capital to produce air...and if they did you bet your bottom dollar we'd be paying for it...
Ah, but the entire point was to understand the difference between value and price.
Okay, how about TV shows. You didn't pay to watch American Idol. Do you not value it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All concerts are free by Anonymous Coward on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:47pm
i believe air isn't classed as a commodity
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:50pm
Mike...you are getting your $ from somewhere right? That's valid to say isn't it? You say it's from the creation of content...then someone is paying you for the content, correct?
What if they just said forget it Mike...we don't want to pay you for your content anymore...we're just going to take it for free. Thanks.
You'd be pretty upset right...and suddenly you'd probably have some pretty negitive things to say about the "taking your shit for free" business model...wouldn't you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All concerts are free by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 12:59pm
no...i didn't (but whoever watched it did) but that still doesn't make your point...again someone paid for it to be on the air...the commercial sponsors...and i think that they'd be upset if i decided to strip out their commercials and re-broadcast it. And I think that Fox would be upset if I decided to take it and strip out the commercials...or just sell new ones and re-broadcast it.
anyway...why are we arguing value and price...
what's your point?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I hope your right by Fred on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:04pm
I, for one, hop Mike is right. I hope all goods for which the marginal cost of duplication and distribution is zero are free. I'll get my music for free, my DVDs for free, my software for free, basically anything digital will be free. And it will be really free to me. I'm a 38 year old father of 2. I don't go to concerts any more. I have no use for your stupid looking t-shirts. You can make money selling your tunes to BMW for inclusion in their next ad, but I skip ads with my DVR. The music is the end product to me, so I'm happy if you subsidize my enjoyment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
headache by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:06pm
I have a headache now...but it was a fun discussion
please buy some music from Skean Dhu Recordings...
www.myspace.com/skeandhu
techdirt...thanks for the free ad space...
xoxoxoxo
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:15pm
What if they just said forget it Mike...we don't want to pay you for your content anymore...we're just going to take it for free. Thanks.
They're paying for the *creation* of the content. That is for *new* content, which is scarce. So if they say they're not going to pay for it any more, the new content won't exist. The companies value the creation of the content, and therefore they pay for it.
You'd be pretty upset right...and suddenly you'd probably have some pretty negitive things to say about the "taking your shit for free" business model...wouldn't you?
Nope, because our business model is designed not to worry about that. For the companies that pay for our content, they're free to do with it whatever they want. So there's nothing to get pissed about.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All concerts are f by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:17pm
no...i didn't (but whoever watched it did) but that still doesn't make your point...again someone paid for it to be on the air...the commercial sponsors..
Aha! Do you note realize that you just validated everything we've been saying. *SOMEONE* values it to create it. Why? Because they know there are OTHER BUSINESS MODELS that will make it worthwhile for them to pay for the creation. In this case, by creating a show like American Idol, they get to sell more stuff.
That's all we're saying for music. Someone will pay for the creation, because it will help them sell more of something else. Same thing as a TV show.
Then, the point we're making is that music creators will increasingly realize they can make MORE by adopting this business model.
So, you really do understand the business model we've been pitching, even if you think you don't.
anyway...why are we arguing value and price...
Because you said they were the same thing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I hope your right by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:20pm
I, for one, hop Mike is right. I hope all goods for which the marginal cost of duplication and distribution is zero are free. I'll get my music for free, my DVDs for free, my software for free, basically anything digital will be free. And it will be really free to me. I'm a 38 year old father of 2. I don't go to concerts any more. I have no use for your stupid looking t-shirts.
And what's wrong with that? Nothing.
I've been reading up about the history of the lighbulb recently (fascinating stuff, actually). And you realize how many people got the "free" benefit of the lightbulb, that allowed so many new businesses to exist.
Imagine if Thomas Edison had demanded that anyone who benefits from the lightbulb had to pay him money?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Price is only one part of equation by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:24pm
Mike quote:
"If you have two companies, one of which sells a better product for less money, how long does the second company stay in business?"
Mike, the above is nonsense and defies all logic. We have already determined that music is not a commodity. Many times (but not every time) better music costs more money to make. If you spend more to make it than the next band and in all your monetization policies net less than the next band than you will get a lower return on your band business investment.
Ever heard of that the customer gets to pick between price, quality, and service levels (things like rush delivery,etc). You get all three at once only rarely (extremely rarely). Usually you get to pick two of the above.
You cannot just argue price alone. Purchase decisions include the above matrix and many other brand/ feel good factors like "is this product green" or "was child labor used in this garment".
All the time people select and pay for a product or music based on a myriad of factors which you conveniently deny because they seem like "irrational" behavior to you. But I can guarantee you that these factors can be huge in purchasing behavior and there are countless examples of businesses that command a higher price by managing those factors well- Starbucks comes to mind. By your price/quality alone theory Starbucks should have gone out of business but instead they continue to expand. How could that be?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Free Ad.. by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:28pm
why'd you take my free ad down mike? free is good right?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Free Ad.. by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:30pm
...it's just my business model to use your site for free advertising...get with the times man and drop that buggy whip...free is good
www.myspace.com/skeandhu
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Free Ad... by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:32pm
or does that only apply when it's not your pocket that the "free" is coming out of?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All concerts a by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 1:53pm
I didn't validate your point at all...if anything you validated mine...
it would be theft/copyright infringement/ whatever you want to call it if I copied Idol...stripped out the ads and re-broadcast it...or even just re-broadcast it...
if i took their content and removed the way they made profit from it that would be theft....
if i monetize my music by selling it and someone takes that profit from me by simply stealing it then that too is theft...
if you don't want to buy my music...then don't...but for gods sake don't copy it and mass-distribute it for free...and then say you were doing me a favor...that's insane...
you can't force "business models" on people/companies whatever...especially if the model is take what they produce and give it away for free...
nothing is free...somewhere there is money being invested/spent/thrown down a well or whatever...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Price is only one part of equation by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 3:14pm
Many times (but not every time) better music costs more money to make. If you spend more to make it than the next band and in all your monetization policies net less than the next band than you will get a lower return on your band business investment.
Again you make the false assumption (why do you keep doing this???) that somehow with my business model you make less.
You cannot just argue price alone. Purchase decisions include the above matrix and many other brand/ feel good factors like "is this product green" or "was child labor used in this garment".
Indeed. But, if the discrepancy is huge, your business model will suffer tremendously. And when people know that every other band is giving their music away, the *mental transaction costs* of having to pay for your music will make it just not worthwhile -- no matter what the quality.
All the time people select and pay for a product or music based on a myriad of factors which you conveniently deny because they seem like "irrational" behavior to you. But I can guarantee you that these factors can be huge in purchasing behavior and there are countless examples of businesses that command a higher price by managing those factors well- Starbucks comes to mind. By your price/quality alone theory Starbucks should have gone out of business but instead they continue to expand. How could that be?
Again, you seem to totally misunderstand what I've said. It doesn't seem like irrational behavior at all. People make all sorts of decisions based on overall utility, not just price. I said exactly that just a few days ago.
However, what I'm saying is that you still need to recognize that the market sets the price -- and if they see everyone else giving the music away for free, your model isn't sustainable unless you add a lot more value -- and that value isn't just the music alone.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Free Ad.. by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 3:15pm
why'd you take my free ad down mike? free is good right?
I didn't take your ad down. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't removed any of your comments, if that's what you're saying.
But, no, "free is good" is not the argument. To take what we've said and boil it down to "free is good" is wrong. The point is recognizing what should be free and what should be charged for. That's not "free is good" that's just about recognizing basic economics.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All concer by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 3:22pm
it would be theft/copyright infringement/ whatever you want to call it if I copied Idol...stripped out the ads and re-broadcast it...or even just re-broadcast it...
Did I say it wouldn't be copyright infringement? Don't argue against what you think I said. Argue against what I said.
if i took their content and removed the way they made profit from it that would be theft....
Removing the way someone else profits is not theft. If I open up a pizza place next to your sandwich shop, and I offer better food for better deals and you go out of business, I have removed your way of profiting. That's not theft. That's competition. Learn the difference.
if you don't want to buy my music...then don't...but for gods sake don't copy it and mass-distribute it for free...and then say you were doing me a favor...that's insane...
Okay, Stu, how many times do I need to say this:
I NEVER SAID IT'S OK TO COPY AND MASS-DISTRIBUTE SOMEONE ELSE'S CONTENT FOR FREE.
Stop responding to what you *think* I said. I said that *from the producer's standpoint* it makes sense to ignore those rules. Not the consumers.
you can't force "business models" on people/companies whatever...especially if the model is take what they produce and give it away for free...
Ugh. Do you just not read what I write? I'm not forcing a business model. I'm saying that the old business model is disappearing and I'm highlighting a new one.
It's as if you're making buggy whips, and I am warning you that the automobile is coming and it's going to change your ability to profit from buggy whips, and you just sit there saying that *I* can't force this new business model on you. That's right, I can't. The market will, however, and you'll be out of business.
nothing is free...somewhere there is money being invested/spent/thrown down a well or whatever...
Well, first, plenty of things are free. But, you're right that money is always being spent related to that free good. That's actually the key to my model. Why do you continue to insist I'm saying something I'm not.
I have never said give away everything free. I have said you need to learn what should be free and what should be charged for to *maximize* your ability to profit.
To take from that that I say people should infringe on copyrights and that everything should be free is just wrong.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Where is this rule engraved in stone by Buzz on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 3:28pm
TiredofLame, you misunderstood my statement just like you misunderstood just about everything Mike is talking about. My statement was not a "thou shalt not". I was pointing out how misguided it is to state that piracy = stealing. If I jump into your car, hotwire it, and drive off, I am now +1 car while you are -1 car. I have taken something from you that only I can return. However, with digital content, an exact duplicate is made. The original is whole and untouched.
No one is supporting piracy here. Piracy is wrong. Piracy should be punished. We are not preaching that piracy is the way of the future. All we're saying is that no matter how you slice it, piracy is not stealing; it is copyright infringement. That is unlawful, and we accept that. So, stop calling it stealing. :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You have not proven this by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 3:40pm
Mike quote:
"Again you make the false assumption (why do you keep doing this???) that somehow with my business model you make less."
Mike, I have read your series and you have hypothesized this but it has not undergone any intellectual rigor. I doubt that any economics professor if you turned this in would say that you have proven you make more under your model.
If every band were to adopt your model then the pie would have to get larger to prove out your theory. I would contend that there are other limitations to your concert monetized plan. Things like, the time, the expense, the hearing loss issue. You might get a slight larger pie from someone playing slightly less video games but the overall effect would be minimal.
Secondly, by my (and I would hazard a guess some other musicians here would agree) back of the envelope calculations the profit from all the non direct sales you have mentioned is less than the profit from direct sales. See, musicians who have been in the industry don't mistake the gross amounts the concert tickets bring as pure income. Really drill down and you will find the promoter gets his take (for insuring the deal). A hall or club is not going to rent to a batch of ragtag musicians traveling thru in a van. By the time you pay gas, vehicle, breakage of instruments, repairs, health insurance, interest on loans, theft of the tshirts stack, traveling stress, etc. People here have tried to alert you that your analysis is flawed regarding what indie musicians net from touring and you are so headstrong you ignore them. Not a good habit for an analyst.
Finally, businesses ultimately go out of business from cash flow issues. Even in your best case description of successful monetization by your model, an independent band will mightily struggle because many of the payoffs are heavily at the back end (months and years down the road). Just a small example, tshirts- you pay for a big batch of them up front (at the time of the order being placed). By the time you have sold the batch close to out you have an inventory carrying charge.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You have not proven this by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:12pm
amen TiredOfLame...hypothesizing and theories don't make a point without proof...
even techdirt who claims to make money by giving away content doesn't...they charge a lot for what they do with their Corporate Intelligence product...which is odd in a way in that they basically link to other people's content and write a paragraph of snarky commentary about how whoever wrote the article is entirely wrong...
so maybe techdirt should start giving away everything they do for free...that would be putting your money where your mouth is...
everything is free...hooray...
mike encouraged me to repost his content for free earlier...but i didn't find where his money was coming from...ie the Corporate Intelligence product...so now i put the use of that on the web for free...why not...that's the way to go...free Corporate Intelligence software for everyone...c'mon Mike...that'd be super cool...give that away for free and you've won me over...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: You have not proven this by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:39pm
Mike, I have read your series and you have hypothesized this but it has not undergone any intellectual rigor. I doubt that any economics professor if you turned this in would say that you have proven you make more under your model.
To say that you've read it when you keep making statements that show you haven't doesn't make sense to me.
Anyway, despite your claims, there are plenty of economic studies that support this with actual data... If you want to do some research take a look at the work of David Levine and Michele Boldrin. Then Eric Schiff's research. Next up: Lerner and Jaffee. And Samson Vermont. Then look at the research by Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg. Then look at the research by Petra Moser. Then the research by Mariko Sakakibara and Lee Branstetter. Then there's the research of Robert Hunt. And Fritz Machlup. There are a lot more as well...
But you'll start to notice a pattern. And as you read the research each of them brings up, it will point you to more and more research with data to back it up.
And, to prove that you still haven't understood what I wrote, you go back to insisting the model I've described is solely about concerts. Concerts are only one component -- and not even a necessary one.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: You have not proven this by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:45pm
amen TiredOfLame...hypothesizing and theories don't make a point without proof...
I've pointed out plenty of research that backs up the points I've made.
even techdirt who claims to make money by giving away content doesn't...they charge a lot for what they do with their Corporate Intelligence product...which is odd in a way in that they basically link to other people's content and write a paragraph of snarky commentary about how whoever wrote the article is entirely wrong...
Stu, you really should take the time to understand what we do before you make claims that show your ignorance. We give away a ton of content right here, which gets people to come see what we have to say, and we make money by connecting companies to experts who can provide them valuable analysis that they couldn't get otherwise.
so maybe techdirt should start giving away everything they do for free...that would be putting your money where your mouth is...everything is free...hooray...
Stu, I said this above, so I'm not sure why I need to repeat it. I have NEVER said that "everything is free." I have simply said that you recognize what should be free and what should be charged for in order to maximize your profits. Your insistence on pretending I've said something I haven't doesn't help you prove your point.
mike encouraged me to repost his content for free earlier...but i didn't find where his money was coming from...ie the Corporate Intelligence product..
Stu, you seem really confused. I never said that everything needs to be free. I never said that whatever you do to make money should be free. I said to simply recognize the economics, and you'd know what things it makes sense to charge for and what it makes sense to use for promotion. You can pretend I said something else all you want. It doesn't, however, add much to your argument. It just makes you look stubborn and unwilling to admit you were wrong.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: You have not proven this by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:45pm
you're the pony-tailed know-it-all guy from the bar scene in Good Will Hunting aren't you?
Will: Do you like apples?
Clark: Yeah.
Will: Well, I got her number. How do you like them apples?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: You have not proven this by Mike on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:49pm
Stu: There's no data.
Mike: Here's the data.
Stu: *phbbbbbt* Now I'll call you names.
That's a convincing argument there, Stu.
Don't tell me there's no data, then mock me when I provide the data. Either admit you were wrong or show me how all those studies are wrong.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: You have not proven this by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 4:59pm
I'm not calling names...and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I'm just saying that theory and hypothesis don't equate to real world applications. I'm sure they're are a few examples of labels and musicians that have made money buy giving away their songs for free. But I'll guarantee the somewhere in the line there was some money to pay for that "Free"...whether it be investors or reletives or something. There's a lot of struggling musicians and record labels out there that aren't making it and a lot of that is due to piracy. In fact the vast vast vast majority of musicians and labels aren't making it.
Musicians deserved to be paid for their work...whether that's on a CD or a live concert. Labels deserve to make money too for being business partners...especially the indie labels.
I'd love for you to prove that your theories work...I asked you offline if you'd be interested...let me know.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
To add to my post 81 above by TiredofLame on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 5:05pm
To state my bias- I am an older gray haired musician who has promoted and moved 300,000 CDs in the last 4 years. I am no stranger to giving after free stuff- have given out 20,000 CDs for free to help obtain those direct sales.
Believe me that I avidly welcome and pursue worthy ideas that will help me make more profit (including your theories). However, I have to invest my money in things that have a plausible chance of success. So don't mistake my crustiness for lack of interest in your theories.
I have played zero live performances thru this period of moving product.
Also the thought occurs to me that I have considerable hiring experience and for the life of me I cannot think of 5 musicians working as a group that can cover the range of tasks and capabilities needed to pull off your plan. In addition to being a world class musician you have to cover within the group (or pay outsiders at considerable expense) a range of tasks that is almost Herculean in range and depth. Needed is considerable experience in (only a partial list) 1. merchandise marketing (degree and experience preferred) 2. superb musicianship 3. superb logistics/mapping/inventory control systems/ computer experience and don't forget you have to take out and remit local sales taxes- so accounting background or degree desirable. Oh and by the way, many cities have traveling entertainer taxes you are required to pay and they will get you 4. superb PR specialist within the group/ spokesperson to local media/ track upcoming gigs and preship PR kits advance 5. a couple of really strong backs in the group to schlepp in and setup and breakdown and pack. 6. a stong social connector MYSpace /facebook networking online specialist
OK I am wearing myself out- even before I get 1/3 of the way into the list of requirements for the tasks involved. No wonder there are precious few success stories for this model. So once again, even a model that works on paper can quickly fall flat when you go to source out fellow bandmembers or hired gun bandmembers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: You have not proven this by StuCop on Jun 12th, 2007 @ 5:13pm
Stu, you seem really confused. I never said that everything needs to be free. I never said that whatever you do to make money should be free. I said to simply recognize the economics, and you'd know what things it makes sense to charge for and what it makes sense to use for promotion. You can pretend I said something else all you want. It doesn't, however, add much to your argument. It just makes you look stubborn and unwilling to admit you were wrong.
---------
I produce music...that's my product...I can't simply not charge for it. If that's stubborn then you're stubborn too by arguing that I should not charge money for it...that I should give it away for free.
to loop back to the topic of this blog "the give it away for free label" . I bet