A conversation on the music industry

[XHipHop]

i need sugar; Article: A conversation on the music industry.

Best part:

At which point, you have to ask yourself, why is it a consumer issue that producers aren't working to monetize their program in an age of digital distribution. The answer is, it shouldn't be the consumer's issue. But because the distribution model is broken and they don't know how to fix it, they're putting this on the consumer, masquerading content access as "theft" and "stealing". Sadly, you're appearing to drink the Kool-Aid that the RIAA and other content lobbyists are spewing forth. It's all weak-minded hogwash from a bunch of old school industry buffoons who have been caught with their pants down as their closed distribution model has opened up with new technology.

The people with brains who understand the failure of the distribution model are getting my money because they're creating new distribution models and value for their art. The people who are blaming consumers for their incompetence while they put the screws to the artists are not getting my money and are getting an earful from me. And the artists that I support are making more money than they've ever made from me because I'm working outside of a distribution model that would otherwise have me buying used CDs which, again, gets the artist nothing even thought it's technically not stealing (but by your logic surely more moral than downloading, which nets the artist the exact same amount of money. Which consequently must make buying used less moral than buying a new CD, since the artist theoretically gets money from each CD sold, even though I would consider it amoral to buy a CD because of the environmental waste it creates).

Again, this is not a black and white issue. If you take your moral argument to its logical conclusion, you simply cannot buy music right now because every method is stealing from someone in the distribution chain. Buy digitally and the artist may get nothing. Buy at a concert and the artist is circumventing the retail and warehousing distribution chain. Buy a CD from a retail store and the artist is getting less while you're contributing even more to the destruction of the planet (granted, that doesn't affect the artist directly, but it's one heck of a reason to not buy CDs and more important and destructive and amoral to me than a conveniently limited view of what stealing is).

[chrisso]

Sorry mate it's ill informed, heavily biased rubbish.
Specifically:
'you simply cannot buy music right now because every method is stealing from someone in the distribution chain'
Totally wrong.
The environmental argument against CD's is pretty damn weak too, the the writer claims they can't buy music outside of CD's. What???

Look, I get you hate the current attempts by the industry to get people to pay for music, BUT.....
Look at the news media. They are further along the line than the music biz.
Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation just announced $4 billion losses for the last financial year.
The competition for Murdoch's newspapers and websites is other websites and blogs that give away news free (legally I might add, as opposed to illegal music downloaders - big difference!).

Anyway.....
Murdoch's new business model idea is to charge for entry to his websites.
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
If people continue to reject payment for news content, it'll set the benchmark for internet business for the long term.
Meanwhile, no one else seems to have a clue how to make money from news any more. Newspapers are going under at a rapid rate and journalists are become unemployed.
At the moment for the most part you still have to pay for music (by law).
So I think you should watch what happens with the Murdoch business model, rather than cheering on lame, inaccurate arguments like the one above.

[ThetaAlpha970]

A lot of this is crap, but then again it's just a conversation...and I get the point.
This much is true:
It is NOT right vs. wrong, it IS past vs. future.

[ThetaAlpha970]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Look at the news media. They are further along the line than the music biz.

I disagree. They are much further behind. But we are in the same boat, respectively.

Originally Posted by chrisso

The competition for Murdoch's newspapers and websites is other websites and blogs that give away news free (legally I might add, as opposed to illegal music downloaders - big difference!).

What's the difference in the news? The news may be labeled "legal" here or "illegal" there but you can't compete with free. I mean, the information is accessible either way. If you pay, it doesn't come any better, or quicker. This is why TV news to so feature driven...There IS a business model problem, and that's all. Free news is the "loss leader" for the source in much the same way as music is the "loss leader" for the artist.

Originally Posted by chrisso

Meanwhile, no one else seems to have a clue how to make money from news any more. Newspapers are going under at a rapid rate and journalists are become unemployed. At the moment for the most part you still have to pay for music (by law). So I think you should watch what happens with the Murdoch business model, rather than cheering on lame, inaccurate arguments like the one above.

Chris, Would you say that news reaches us faster and easier than ever? Are you glad it's free? Is the news you're hearing true?
This was just a biased, conversational article, big deal. It was entertaining. Lame? Maybe. Amoral? Hardly.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970

A lot of this is crap, but then again it's just a conversation...and I get the point.
This much is true:
It is NOT right vs. wrong, it IS past vs. future.

Every "future" business model that has been suggested will be in practice by January. So I fail to see how that's the case.

And in the UK, at least, the new streaming/buying options and harsher penalties and ISP co-operation are resulting in a reduction, not increase, in piracy.

So all those "piracy is the future" claims already seem to have some holes in them.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970

They are much further behind. But we are in the same boat, respectively.

We are in the same boat.
But as historic record labels aren't closing every week, as newspapers are, and as major labels haven't incurred 4 billion dollar losses in the last financial year (as News Corp has) I still say they are further down the road.

What's the difference in the news? The news may be labeled "legal" here or "illegal" there but you can't compete with free. Free news is the "loss leader" for the source in much the same way as music is the "loss leader" for the artist.

My point is, a 'loss leader' has to lead to a business model that gives income. They haven't found it yet in news, and that's the interesting point for me. I doubt they will find it in music either. Some bands have found a way of making money by playing live, but this wont suit everyone in music.
My first point which you seemed to disagree with is this.....
News is being written about by journalists on free to view websites like that of the BBC.
At the moment those journalists are being paid.
Music is taken illegally and freely by some music consumers. Quite different.
The creators aren't giving it away (like the journalists), nor are they being paid!!!

[crufty]

I used to work at a newspaper, one that was one of the first online. It was profitable then, and profitable now.


The problem with newspapers in the USA, for example, is that many of them fail to have decent journalism. Most local papers are in bed with local politicians, churches and businesses, which means real news rarely makes the headlines UNLESS there is an actual arrest and even then, depends on which side of the fence the paper stands.

It used to be if you wanted to read about state/national/global stuff, you had to buy a newspaper to do so--either your local one or NY Times, etc. Now, with the internet, you don't need to read some crummy slanted interpretation of the global stage.

Local papers that thrive will be reduced to three sections:
Local Sports (1 page high school. 1 page college/pro, 2 pages scores)
Local construction / company hq trends (1 section)
Local gov / court rulings (1 section bundled with sports).

Arts, opinion, and general news are no longer needed. Insightful analysis is always worth paying for. Costs will go up and circulation down, but profitability can still be had. It's a tough pill to swallow though for papers with staff > 100 etc.

An example--for the last 12 years, my local newspaper has weighed in on elections: with a page that states how the newspaper thinks we should vote. Well, thanks for nothing. I can figure that out on my own. Instead of insightful, detailed analysis and thought provoking questions, we got a page of yes/no. So is it a surprise when they continue to shed staff at an alarming rate? No. They have failed to adjust for market realities.

When I used to work at newspaper ABC, they saw the writing on the wall and leaned down 15 years ago. The profit margin is still there because they created a demand for their information by focusing on their target market. Their election coverage had analysts from inside the construction, legal and technical communities weigh in on both sides of each issue and candidate. This wasn't horribly expensive btw. This information cannot be found anywhere else for the target market. Not Joe Blow wandering the street (any more), but people who really need timely info and don't have the time to dive into the details.

Anyway, just a perspective on newspapers....

[chrisso]

Hmm, your opinion seems to be at odds with almost all media analysis experts.

Problem number one = if you can get your news for nothing and quickly why buy a newspaper?
This is where the topic relates to the music business.

Fact, Murdoch hasn't changed his quality of journalism. A couple of years ago his papers were hugely profitable, now losing huge amounts of money.