Re: Free Music

["Larry Tremblay" <ltct@concentric.net>]

> The only caveat is, how is anyone going to make money distributing music
> with this technology?  *scratches head*  Is that really the point?

Eventually either a pay-as-you-go micropayment system or some
kind of encryption method may come along for commercial releases.
But even that is doubtful.

But like you said, is that really the point of (recorded) music?
Music is a commodity and once a product becomes commodified it
becomes so wide spread that it no longer makes sense to pay
exhorbitant prices for it. High Tech and software is the perfect
example of this process, for instance RAM memory:

IBM in 1975: "There's maybe a market for 4000 computers out there."

Gates in 1984: "Who would ever want or need more than 64K of
memory?"

(Unnamed defunct company, 1994): "The Internet is a FAD...like
hoola-hoops."

The point is, no one *knows* where this is going. Just that it's
no longer not going to be more of the same and business as usual.

- Larry T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael LaMeyer" <mlameyer@hotmail.com>
To: <loopers-delight@annihilist.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: Free Music


> The old model:
>
> 1) Musician makes music
>
> 2) Record company records music, makes record, promotes artist,
distributes
> music to stores
>
> = Record company controls music production and distribution
>
> The current model:
>
> 1)Musician makes music, *can* record music, *can* press master cd and pay
> for duplication, *can* self promote, very hard and expensive to 
>distribute
> music on a large scale
>
> 2) Record company *usually* records music, *usually* arranges for media
> duplication (same company or other), promotes artist (depending on who 
>you
> ask), controls wide spread distribution of music recordings to stores
>
> = technology has given artists more ability to produce quality sounding
> recordings fairly cheaply (in comparison), the Internet has given some
> artists more exposure outside of their communities (impact?), record
> companies still control wide spread promotion and distribution (and take 
>a
> pretty good cut for the priviledge)
>
> What does the MP3 and Napster and it's ilk mean?:
>
> 1) Physical media will eventually become less prevalent, it's not as
> convenient or portable.   All-digital storage and distribution of music
will
> eventually become commonplace (it's harder for your kids to scratch RAM,
and
> high-bandwidth or wireless data networks will continue to grow).  I don't
> know when eventually is, but it sure is starting to look like soon.
>
> 2) Simple standards based distributed file sharing will allow ANYONE with
> access to the internet to be a mass distributor, potentially.  This alone
> threatens the ability of anyone to generate revenue based on the current
> model.  This need not be centralized.  It would be so easy to create
online
> communities (such as this!) with subscribers that share, trade, or sell
> music to each other.  Combine that fact with the ever increasing ability
of
> musicians to produce and encode all of their music themselves (or with a
few
> others) and you've blown the above two models out of the water.
>
> The only caveat is, how is anyone going to make money distributing music
> with this technology?  *scratches head*  Is that really the point?
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tiktok" <tiktok@sprintmail.com>
> To: "Looper's Delight" <Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:43 PM
> Subject: Free Music
>
>
> >1) Everyone's for free music until it's their music they're not being
> >*fairly* rewarded for.  One's definition of "fair" varies according to
the
> >perception of how much money is being personally lost.
> >
> >2) The "music industry" is not a synonymous term for "musicians".
> >So, statements such as "Napster is a boon to the music industry, just as
> >home taping was" are probably not cause for musicians to rejoice.
> >Musicians benefit when they feel transported by playing music.
> >People who are also musicians can benefit when they get paid for their
> >music, since the last time I checked there was no Napster equivalent for
> >gassing up your tour van or buying recording gear.
> >Making music at anything above the dilettante/hobbyist level requires a
lot
> >of money.
> >
> >3) The "rise of alternative music" was due to the Music Industry 
>deciding
> >to
> >promote some Alternative bands, not to home taping.
> >
> >
> >TH
> >
> >--
> >"For over half a century rock 'n' roll music has acted as a kind of
> >umbrella
> >under which the noblest elements of society have gathered. Today, the
very
> >word "rock" is a synonym for everything that's most decent, honorable 
>and
> >moderate in Western society. The model behavior of both its stars and
fans
> >is eclipsed only by the probity and rectitude of the men and women at 
>the
> >business end -- that corps of managers, accountants and recording
companies
> >whose transparent honesty and compassion have made the industry such a
> >pleasant environment for musicians to work in."
> >
> >--John Perry, from a discussion of the Napster situation
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>