|
Termyn8or -> RE: The Music-Copyright Enforcers (8/18/2010 11:11:48 PM)
|
FR
On rethought, I am thinking that the industry is going through a metamorphsis now. The digital age has made this necessary. There are now bars with jukeboxes connected to the net, to vast libraries of music. So much you could never search through. They put their money in the slot and off it goes. If you have this type of system nobody should have a problem. The money is just cut up and everybody gets their's.
Ten years go on satellite radio if you bought a broadcast of a piece, say classical music, there were bytes of ID embedded in it to ID the person who recieved it, this was not necessarily downloadig in today's form. If someone else was caught with a CD of something that had your ID on it, you could get in trouble, or so they said.
The digital age could be good or bad for all concerned really. How many times in the old days we bought a whole album to get one or two songs ? I have done it more than once. It may be nice to have an album, such as Rink Floyd - Animals. Yes I downloaded it but I did buy it twice. I bought Led Zepplin - Presence just to get Achille's Last Stand.
So now if we can pick and choose exactly what we want, and pay only for that, the benefits are twofold. For one we save money, but our dollars vote for the songs giving feedback to these professionals. This can help them make more money, by telling them what the public wants. No more one song for the price of ten.
Now promotion is another thing. Say at the end of every MP3 there is an ad "You can buy this for $X at whatever.com. "
Once you buy it you get it free and clear, you can burn it and everything as you could with the promotional version. But there is no ad. There is a unique ID in it though that will ID you if you take to distributing disks of it. Possibly allow a couple of copies for friends and like that, but to redistribute would be considered stealing.
Say you buy a song and two friends really have to have it. OK. But then they might come for you asking why there have been 100 people caught with your download. And just as DVD burning software can make a DVD copy uncopiable, this should be an easy task.
But people have to work and that is exactly what they are doing. I did what I did, and I wouldn't mind so much paying for it if I have the money. But I'm not making any money. Now if I were to run an ad in the local paper saying "I'll download and burn you a CD of anything" and I was actually making money, I should probably pay something.
But just like the old days when physical media was in vogue, like the trucks that used to haul this vinyl and later CDs to it's actual selling point, then I should also be compensated, right ? You think truck drivers work(ed) for free ?
But see then people could legally put together their own set on a CD. Would that not increase sales if the proper amount was remitted ? To give them a valid copy, unlocked from copyright at least digitally and playable anywhere, with a replacement available at a reasonable copying cost, would that not be attractive to many buyers ? That they don't have to pay $18.95 to get one song ? To just pay for what they want instead of filler ?
This has come up in my world more than once "Why is it that most bands, their first albulm is the best ? ". I can tell you why. Their first album took a lifetime to create, and then they get the contract and they make alot of money. But then the contract requires them to come up with another album in so many months, and alot can't do it. I couldn't, and I bet almost anyone here couldn't. So you do filler, just something that sounds good to you or some covers, whatever it takes to fulfill that contract. Otherwise you get sued. That's how it used to be.
Some could. One album comes to mind Pink Floyd - Animals. That thing is made to listen to all the way through, in fact now that we don't have to flip the album over it is even better. But that is the exception rather than the rule.
But when you can buy it song by song the whole thing works out better. The suits might make less money but really I think the musicians will make more in the end. All other things being equal.
Promotional music has been tried, by various methods. Passing out one song cassettes, releasing singles. In older days you bought a 45 and got a free song on the flipside. Them days were over a long time ago. But I remember them as if it was five minutes ago. Sometimes it was the format, sometimes it was a short version. It's called marketing and that's what the suits do.
They have their function, but I think they are quite overpaid. And they wield too much power over what is promoted and what is not. Despite my problems I can look at this objectively at least. This is seen as doom by the suits who see the profits down, but for true musicians, the digital age can be a new beginning. You sell each song on it's own merit. You are not forced to produce, you do it when you are damn good and ready.
Then maybe female artists won't have to suck dick to get an album "cut". Pay by merit. If this situation is handled properly, it can be good for all concerned. That is if they don't blow the world up today. But we all share that problem.
T
|
|
|
|
