... or we could restore fair commerce and trade by enforcing the laws that value and protect copyright and IP.
if you are advocating for the end of copyright and IP, that is a stand you can make, but let's be clear about the discussion. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is probably not going to happen.
We're not just talking about music here, we're talking about any digitally distributable copyrighted works such as software, movies, photography, and of course music.
Old technologies are always replaced by new ones in on going and evolving life cycles - but copyright and compensation of labor is a part of each advancing model.
perhaps the closest to where we are now is the end of the golden age of hollywood brought about by the advent of television. content creators still got paid for creating AV works such as TV shows, and movies didn't die completely - but the dynamic changed dramatically.
the key point here is that market conditions changed, but not the laws - for example, TV had to create it's own content or fairly license the films for broadcast. The new TV medium could not broadcast the existing copyrighted works, for free, just because they had the ability to do so.
and the same w/ P2P - if the P2Ps were distributing their own content, or content created for Free distribution than Soundclick.com is the future of the music business. Problem is, people don't want the dreck on Soundclick.com - they want the highly invested hits created by highly skilled labor. That labor has a cost and is protected by Copyright.
Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the U.S. can be traced to intangible assets. Industries which rely on IP protections are estimated to produce 72 percent more value per added employee than non-IP industries.
[5] A joint research project of the
WIPO and the
United Nations University measuring the impact of IP systems on six Asian countries found "a positive correlation between the strengthening of the IP system and subsequent economic growth."
[6] Quote:
Originally Posted by trashman  The market will bear what the market will bear ... neo-luddite or not. The model may have changed ... again. When Mozart made music there was only one way to appreciate the music .... to hear it live and hopefully by the man himself! One could also get the sheet music and in a way own the music.
Perhaps the new model is closer to what fine art did after the invention of the camera.
Perhaps musical artists should issue fewer tangible releases and when they do, make them really expensive like a work of fine art ... i.e. an original francis bacon or a limited run kiki smith etc. make the release high quality and brand / status it. fine artists do this all the time. maybe music has to step it up!
And the merchandise, like the kid said ... play shows ... t-shirts .... If your music is hot enough for a bunch of downloads people are gonna pay to see the show and get an original shirt and other genuine merchandise etc.
I think the model has changed yet again and the industry hasn't had a real innovator .... a bill gates, a henry ford, a gutenberg. Trent reznor and radiohead are both ahead of the curve to some degree.
money isn't the only reason why people compose music. this idea that the incentive is money and that making music is driven by profit motive is kinda silly. it's nice to be able to monetize art and make a living at it. That's nice.
Perhaps a better way to think about music is to think about how fine art has evolved after the camera. |