The days of selling music are over.

[supermosey]

I'm a lifelong music listener and purchaser. Up until 3 weeks ago I was still buying music both in the form of cd's and itunes. After getting over the initial guilt of moving to spotify , I realized how amazing it is.
I should also mention I am %100 a working musician. I don't have a day job and all my income is derived from music. With that perspective
I can still safely say that if companies like spotify, rdio , mog , ect. don't go under they're going to be very difficult to compete with.

However, I think too many people are getting carried away with the argument that artists are NOW somehow not going to make any money. The reality is that with the exemption of VERY VERY few artists, most bands ect never really made money from the old business model. Sharing has unequivocally hurt larger artists more than mid/lower level musicians.

I've had 3 record deals (not trying to sound pretentious) and I can safely say I never made a dime from selling records. I have though generated income from placements in tv and film . And as long as labels are able to maintain placements they'll survive. They will not be as gigantic as they once were, but their business model was never great to begin with.


As far as streaming services---if their selections grow I think they may provide a great plateau for emerging artists. Since sharing music is easier, word of mouth can spread faster and an artists exposure can grow . Exposure is what makes money because through this comes gig's/tours and placements.
So in away things are much better for artists now because they can get exposure without having to go through labels.. plus if there is an audience and money to be made the artist can do so without having to share profits with a label..

[chrisso]

I have nothing against Spotify myself, except I'm not going to use it over owning music myself. Each to their own.
I've worked for thirty years with a huge variety of bands, most of them in the indie category, and the claim only a very, very few made any money just doesn't jive with my experience.
Yes, many bands often eventually left labels owing money, but every band I worked with could afford to record, tour, eat, buy nice homes, buy new equipment etc....
Most of the people I've worked with on the lower to mid level have been able to afford to buy a home for their family, been able to amass quite nice collections of guitars, or keyboards, or a good home studio.
They did pretty well in the old system, while not compromising their art.
Of course income came from many sources; record sales, publishing, movie and tv licensing, touring, appearing on tv music shows etc....

And the arguments against making the industry live show based remain.
Bands simply don't play everywhere in each country, so city fans are unfairly subsidizing rural fans music.
In addition, some recordings can't or shouldn't be toured. For example, a Phil Spector production. Imagine a mid-level band touring with two drummers, two percussionists, a choir and a mini orchestra?

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by supermosey

...if companies like spotify, rdio , mog , ect. don't go under they're going to be very difficult to compete with.

and that is the big IF... and, remember those services are worthless without the content provided by labels, and if there's no ROI on that content I wouldn't expect licenses to keep getting renewed at a loss... so then what do you have?

[lds]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Once the tech giants gain more control over content (music and other), you'll see the price of content (EG: music) incline.
Ironically it's the streaming services that are one way of fencing people into a corner, then once they are dependent commencing the profit margin increase.

This.

[sventvkg]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I didn't say a single thing about purists listening to vinyl.
I simply asked how one would listen to music in a wi-fi black spot, as there are numerous such deadzones even in a small developed country like the United Kingdom.

That's obviously too hard to answer, as both of you have made counter points to factors I never mentioned.

Spotify premium lets you put thousands of tunes on your device to listen to at the top of a mountain or 30K feet up in jet.

[Jim Williams]

[QUOTE=rack gear;there is legislation afoot that could be a game changer, let's hope.[/QUOTE]

If you think a paper law is going to save this 'biz', I've got some desert land in California that would make for great beachfront property, once the 'big one' hits.

Chances are that will happen before any Federal law saves your butt. Piracy is already illegal, that worked out great.

Write a book instead, those are enforced copyright laws.

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

Have you guys ever seen that bumper sticker "Real musicians have day jobs"?

No, but I did see a guy with a sign at the bottom of the Laural Canyon off ramp on the 101 freeway.

It read: "Will mix for food".

[Rappy]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

Have you guys ever seen that bumper sticker "Real musicians have day jobs"? There is a big element of truth to this. I have met so many really good musicians who have day jobs. And they've made some really good albums too. This is especially true for jazz musicians. There are some MONSTER players out there who have day jobs. I know some of them. If music becomes truly a "free" commodity, these musicians will not stop making good/great music. In fact, their stuff may have a better chance of being heard.

This idea that good music is only going to come from people who don't have day jobs is just not true. If you talk to these musicians, you find out that they often adjust their work lives to accommodate music. Some have jobs that give them a lot of free time or flexible schedules. Some save up a lot of money and then take a year or two off to do music. Doing music full time means you're more likely to "make it," because you can focus on the business part better, but it doesn't guarantee that the music itself is actually any better. Songwriting is songwriting. You sit down and write the tune whether you have a day job or not. Performing is performing. If you play regularly, you'll be good.

In some ways, I agree. Bluegrass musicians are a good example of the point you're making. I have met many bluegrass musicians who completely floored me with their talent. Yet, they never had an inclination to try to "make it" as a professional. They got an education in something other than music and had good jobs and played on the side. To quote a John Denver song:

"I'd play Sally Goodin all day if I could
But the Lord and my wife wouldn't think it very good
So I fiddle when I can, work when I should
Thank God I'm a country boy"

On the other hand, I've recorded many musicians who had serious day jobs/careers that were very stressful and time consuming. They had some musical talent and were good songwriters, but I could easily tell that they weren't tight and needed more practice. They had great potential in them and I was able to bring out some of it through LOTS of takes, comping, tuning, and/or editing, but the contrast between them and full-time musicians I have recorded in the same studio with the same gear and the same engineer (me) was enormous. The former is a struggle, while the latter is a breeze. Maybe you can't always hear the different in the final product but it is obvious when you hear the raw tracks. Even with live touring national acts, I can hear the difference between a band at the start of their tour vs. one that has been playing together night after night for weeks or months. The problem with a lot of bands today is they simply don't rehearse and play together enough. Period. Club gigs don't usually pay well, many people live in apartments, traffic is horrible, rehearsal spaces are hard to find, running the band business and marketing distracts musicians from their main job of being musicians, etc. The list goes on. There are exceptions, of course, but this is what I'm seeing overall. A person who has a day job/career who is very smart, disciplined, organized, has great time management, and is talented enough to not require a lot of rehearsal time can overcome these limitations, but they are the exception.

My 2 cents,

Rappy

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

If you think a paper law is going to save this 'biz', I've got some desert land in California that would make for great beachfront property, once the 'big one' hits.

Chances are that will happen before any Federal law saves your butt. Piracy is already illegal, that worked out great.

Write a book instead, those are enforced copyright laws.

I wouldn't be to sure about that... now that books have gone digital they are having the same issues. We're not that far away from 3D printers as well.

The wild west wasn't wild forever, and neither will the internet be. This is a question of when, not if.

In a sluggish economy, there's no getting around this:

Facts About IP | Global Intellectual Property Center

Reducing the piracy rate in the United States by 10 percentage points in two years would add more than $52 billion to the country’s gross domestic product by 2013, an amount close to last year’s corporate profits for all US manufacturing of durable goods. It would meanwhile boost US tax revenues by more than $8 billion. (“BSA and IDC Global Piracy Software Study,” Business Software Alliance & IDC, May 2010)

Money Talks? No?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Rappy

... I have met many bluegrass musicians who completely floored me with their talent...

Bluegrass is a genre that has a vibrant contemporary live performance scene but it's also, at least from what I've seen, a very upper-middle-class crowd. The performers learn how to please that crowd with stunning musicianship but there is also little musical innovation. I'd argue that is mostly because the performers are part-timers.

Pleasing the crowd with something new and unique requires a lot more time on stage than most blue-grassers have available. The feedback from full time performing is how people have always become BOTH great and unique.

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Bluegrass is a genre that has a vibrant contemporary live performance scene but it's also, at least from what I've seen, a very upper-middle-class crowd. The performers learn how to please that crowd with stunning musicianship but there is also little musical innovation. I'd argue that is mostly because the performers are part-timers.

Pleasing the crowd with something new and unique requires a lot more time on stage than most blue-grassers have available. The feedback from full time performing is how people have always become BOTH great and unique.

great observation, Bob

and of course the other question is whether that audience welcomes innovation; or whether they just enjoy visiting the 'living museum'

[Thefife]

Originally Posted by sventvkg

Spotify premium lets you put thousands of tunes on your device to listen to at the top of a mountain or 30K feet up in jet.

From the perspectives the musicians, there is essentially zero difference between Spotify and music being free. Musicians make the same money from either alternative.

[MuffinManRock]

This is a rather depressing thought. :(

[leaf studios]

great isnt it......

well done to apple / spotify and all the other big business players who destroyed the incomes of millions of artists and turned the entire game into an even more shallow business exercise in selling music in crap formats that sound terrible to the braindead.

If you an artist and want to make money self release in Good physical formats only and via bandcamp Only ! you will make WAY more money.As soon as you hit the mass market and spotify yoo may as well be selling your farts for free.You just another rat on a wheel at that point.

An mp3 release means zero now really , its still about the physical product in many genres and thats the only way to make any money.

The sad part is the majority of ' unthinking ' now see music as cheap and not worth money as they have been given it for free by big business services .

Thats resulted in a dumbing down of peoples mentality and the net result is people just take it for free , they have less cash and so the trend suits them and also big business that works on volumn .

Big business simply uses the artist and label now to mass market its services , sell its plastic ipod players , phones , ego dildos etc and what of the music makers >? they mean f....all to big business.....

Spotify ? anyone who uses it or any cheap music service i instantly regard as a backward moron with no thought for anyone but themselves and another big business lemming .

People or the majority just dont see what the whole trend did to art / music / its value and its nature and quality.They dont see BIG BUSINESS behind it and how its made trillions for certain companies......which is simply a transfer of profit from labels / artists to BIG BUSINESS like spotify.

Big business makes more and more , the actual talent ? less and less.

hOW about actually considering what the artist gets from the music you love of theirs ?

Yeah it requires brains that one......thats the real problem , the worlds full of ignorant ******s , takers and parasites , huge companies whos revolutionary idea is fueled by nothing accept ways to take a product for nothing and sell it in volumn , make the shareholder a nice return and turn all art into supermarket wank.....


HAPPY 2012.

[sventvkg]

Originally Posted by Thefife

From the perspectives the musicians, there is essentially zero difference between Spotify and music being free. Musicians make the same money from either alternative.

Cool. Then lobby for abolishing it because ya know, you know best what the consumer should be able to have. I have a hard truth for ya. The consumer rules now, NOT the content creator or the Gatekeepers (Labels). That's the way it is and from my perspective as a fan, Spotify is AWESOME!!! Sue me, sorry!! From the perspective of a songwriter, revenues are going to have to be worked out and I believe they will or you will see a mass exodus from the services and TSWHTF.......

Believe this and get this. Totalitarian-styled SOPA bill was fostered by the very assholes who created and proliferated the sites that hosted ALL THE BIT TORRENT AND PIRATING SOFTWARE for he express purpose of gaining control of the Internet. It's insideous. Watch this.

EDIT: I can't figure out how to embed a youtube video on this board. Can someone please school me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=WJIuYgIvKsc

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by sventvkg

The consumer rules now, NOT the content creator or the Gatekeepers (Labels).

Yes, and as I keep pointing out, 'the consumer' loves Beyonce, Beiber and Buble the most. So by ruling over content creators the consumer is going to foster a Beiber and Buble market - which is bad IMO, because the balance is lost.
When there was something in it for content creators, you had a broader selection to choose from, including a lot of innovation.
Consumers are making the bed they're going to have to lie on. Trust consumers to direct the future of music, not the next generation of young, innovative content creators? A disaster IMO.

[initialsBB]

So what you're saying is that the corporate content creators craft classic cuts while boorish buyers bust the balance by boosting Beyonce, Bieber, and Buble?

[Wiz_Oz]

Consumers like, what they get to hear, and they generally need to hear it more than once. Who controls what they get to hear is another matter....

Or need to watch it on a music video.

In my mind, there is no doubt that the internet has been a double edged sword for musicians who release their own material.

On one hand, its allowed people all over the world to hear my music, which would never have happened previously. My first two albums, did well, physical product, but they came out at a time when relatively speaking, not many people were releasing CD's.

On the other hand, it seems to have come to pass that it has devalued music and video in the minds of the consumer to virtually nothing.

The advent of you tube, and other things, certainly killed sales. I think it would be hard to argue against it. Compared to when I was a teen ager (70's) my daughter and her friends have a different attitude to music, they see it as free. They buy very rarely, mostly they play music on you tube via play lists.

I have thought a lot about this problem.

The best solution I have come up with in my mind, to date.

Is to think of the internet, like TV

I can turn my TV on and watch a film clip for free. The TV studio is licensed by the government, has to heed a ton of regulations to keep their license and they generate their revenue to keep broadcasting via commercials.

The artist, receives royalties from the broadcast of their video, same with radio.

In both cases the artist, gets paid, the consumer, gets their music for free, not on demand, but they don't pay for it.

This model should be moved to the internet.

Somehow, the ISP's need to be made, to be accountable.You will never get the host websites to be accountable, they just move to a questionable country... They are the broadcast medium.

It needs to be legislated that the ISP's pay a fee to the rights collection agencies, for broadcast of music and video. Goes without saying that neither of those things can infringe copyright. Same as a TV station just can't go down the video store and grab a DVD and broadcast it.

This simply has to happen.

They need to license ISP's (internet service providers) and make them legally responsible for what traffic passes through them.

If that means the end user ends up paying whatever fee is required, by the ISP to manage this, then so be it.

I know this might be a technical everest, but its what has to happen, someone has to be accountable......and the business will adapt to whatever that is.

Music should not be free. Well, it can appear free to the consumer, but the artists and copyrights must be protected.

This will only happen by legislation and when the ISP's are forced to do it. Then the financial implications (raised internet connection fees to cover the cost) will filter down to the consumer.

The rate that spotify pays is laughable. I have had literally thousands of plays and gotten virtually bupkiss....

Music to the consumer, in most part, is like toilet paper, the use it, enjoy its benefits then flush it.

I am being flippant, some music stays with people and we all have our favourite songs and artists, but by and large, its a consumable entity.

If legislation doesn't take care of this, the future for our industry is extremely bleak.

Digital distribution is a godsend in so many ways, it would be horrendous to go back to the old make em and ship em and store em in your garage model.

cheers

Wiz

[Thefife]

Originally Posted by sventvkg

I have a hard truth for ya. The consumer rules now, NOT the content creator or the Gatekeepers (Labels). That's the way it is and from my perspective as a fan, Spotify is AWESOME!!! Sue me, sorry!! From the perspective of a songwriter, revenues are going to have to be worked out and I believe they will or you will see a mass exodus from the services and TSWHTF.......

I don't care to get in a long drawn out argument, but consider this. Given the shockingly obvious contradiction in your opinion, do you not at least consider it possible that you haven't thought through the issue enough?

[John N]

it occurred to me very recently that the music 'industry' situation is an exaggerated version of what is going on in the US economically: in short, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting... wait for it...

Its obvious that there are artists making mega dollars but they are becoming fewer in between and the ranks of the struggling wanna-bes are growing.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by John N

it occurred to me very recently that the music 'industry' situation is an exaggerated version of what is going on in the US?...

I agree we are the canaries in the mine.

[Depressionman]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

No, that's more tech industry propaganda. The truth is that people refused to cross a mall to save a buck on a CD. If they really wanted it, they bought it. If not, they passed. Nobody in retail discounted CDs very much because they didn't need to. In fact many stores sold budget titles for as much as a dollar above list price.

Beware of "common wisdom" circulated on the internet. A lot of it isn't true and is being circulated by people having an agenda to manipulate public opinion for their personal financial benefit.

U right -many false whistleblowers maybe to eliminate competition.Good strategy.This site is full of business people who just try to manipulate you one way or another.

[Thuneau]

Today is in many ways no different than the state of the art in the past. Only a small percentage of participants are good and lucky enough to make a living of their art. The big problem for today's participants in the contest is the proliferation of means of production and delivery of said art.
Whereas in the past a few chosen, lucky ones controlled the gates of production and delivery of consumable music, today the production and distribution part is highly democratized. It takes as much skill and luck to rise to the top today as it did in the past, except the rules of the game have changed slightly. Back in the day you sent your demo cassette or CD to the labels, today you post it directly for the consumer to find. But in the end it's as hard to get noticed today as it as at any time in the history. You just have to be better than 99.9% of the rest. The big problem is, that "the rest" has grown in numbers and in ability to produce quality music tremendously. So, what used to be good enough to wow audiences, isn't anymore. You have to be on the cutting edge as the acts before you were. The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, and so on were above their contemporaries in their abilities and their delivery. So they made it big regardless of the circumstances. The world moves on, the progress affects everyone. If you can be better than your competition today as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin were better than their competition, you will succeed, period. But, it's just not good enough today to equal the state of the art of 20 or 30 years ago.
Everyone has cool gear and software these days. Do something unique with it and you have as much of a chance of being noticed and profiting from your art as the acts of yesteryear had.

[Wiz_Oz]

Originally Posted by Thuneau

Today is in many ways no different than the state of the art in the past. Only a small percentage of participants are good and lucky enough to make a living of their art. The big problem for today's participants in the contest is the proliferation of means of production and delivery of said art.
Whereas in the past a few chosen, lucky ones controlled the gates of production and delivery of consumable music, today the production and distribution part is highly democratized. It takes as much skill and luck to rise to the top today as it did in the past, except the rules of the game have changed slightly. Back in the day you sent your demo cassette or CD to the labels, today you post it directly for the consumer to find. But in the end it's as hard to get noticed today as it as at any time in the history. You just have to be better than 99.9% of the rest. The big problem is, that "the rest" has grown in numbers and in ability to produce quality music tremendously. So, what used to be good enough to wow audiences, isn't anymore. You have to be on the cutting edge as the acts before you were. The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, and so on were above their contemporaries in their abilities and their delivery. So they made it big regardless of the circumstances. The world moves on, the progress affects everyone. If you can be better than your competition today as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin were better than their competition, you will succeed, period. But, it's just not good enough today to equal the state of the art of 20 or 30 years ago.
Everyone has cool gear and software these days. Do something unique with it and you have as much of a chance of being noticed and profiting from your art as the acts of yesteryear had.

An interesting point.

But, how many records do you think the Beatles would have sold, if there was internet and easy copying of songs, and you tube, back then....?

cheers

Wiz

[NoVi]

Originally Posted by Rappy

In some ways, I agree. Bluegrass musicians are a good example of the point you're making. I have met many bluegrass musicians who completely floored me with their talent. Yet, they never had an inclination to try to "make it" as a professional. They got an education in something other than music and had good jobs and played on the side. To quote a John Denver song:

"I'd play Sally Goodin all day if I could
But the Lord and my wife wouldn't think it very good
So I fiddle when I can, work when I should
Thank God I'm a country boy"

On the other hand, I've recorded many musicians who had serious day jobs/careers that were very stressful and time consuming. They had some musical talent and were good songwriters, but I could easily tell that they weren't tight and needed more practice. They had great potential in them and I was able to bring out some of it through LOTS of takes, comping, tuning, and/or editing, but the contrast between them and full-time musicians I have recorded in the same studio with the same gear and the same engineer (me) was enormous. The former is a struggle, while the latter is a breeze. Maybe you can't always hear the different in the final product but it is obvious when you hear the raw tracks. Even with live touring national acts, I can hear the difference between a band at the start of their tour vs. one that has been playing together night after night for weeks or months. The problem with a lot of bands today is they simply don't rehearse and play together enough. Period. Club gigs don't usually pay well, many people live in apartments, traffic is horrible, rehearsal spaces are hard to find, running the band business and marketing distracts musicians from their main job of being musicians, etc. The list goes on. There are exceptions, of course, but this is what I'm seeing overall. A person who has a day job/career who is very smart, disciplined, organized, has great time management, and is talented enough to not require a lot of rehearsal time can overcome these limitations, but they are the exception.

My 2 cents,

Rappy

Nice post, we shouldn't forget the fact that so many people working professionaly and full-time in music at this point in time is truly unique in the history of mankind. Professional musicianship was almost always seen as a quite inferior within a social hierarchy through human history. I think since the time of Beethoven, Chopin and Liszt this started to change, because these were people that could make some kind of living selling their sheet music worlwide and therefor could establish some kind of following that would attend their concerts (especially in the case of Liszt).

Now that the abilities to make money from selling music are becoming more and more shady I think that this will throw us back in time and that the position of the professional musician (or anyone else involved in the music industry) will become less appealing to people. Also the market will be saturated because only with a little investment and little time one is capable of making great productions: no need to be fulltime involved in creating music(al productions).

[NoVi]

Originally Posted by Thuneau

Today is in many ways no different than the state of the art in the past. Only a small percentage of participants are good and lucky enough to make a living of their art. The big problem for today's participants in the contest is the proliferation of means of production and delivery of said art.
Whereas in the past a few chosen, lucky ones controlled the gates of production and delivery of consumable music, today the production and distribution part is highly democratized. It takes as much skill and luck to rise to the top today as it did in the past, except the rules of the game have changed slightly. Back in the day you sent your demo cassette or CD to the labels, today you post it directly for the consumer to find. But in the end it's as hard to get noticed today as it as at any time in the history. You just have to be better than 99.9% of the rest. The big problem is, that "the rest" has grown in numbers and in ability to produce quality music tremendously. So, what used to be good enough to wow audiences, isn't anymore. You have to be on the cutting edge as the acts before you were. The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, and so on were above their contemporaries in their abilities and their delivery. So they made it big regardless of the circumstances. The world moves on, the progress affects everyone. If you can be better than your competition today as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin were better than their competition, you will succeed, period. But, it's just not good enough today to equal the state of the art of 20 or 30 years ago.
Everyone has cool gear and software these days. Do something unique with it and you have as much of a chance of being noticed and profiting from your art as the acts of yesteryear had.

Good post, we easily forget the fact that because of the democratization there hasn't been a single point in time (that I can think of) so many people worlwide are able to make some kind of living withing the musical industry.

[Thuneau]

Originally Posted by Wiz_Oz

An interesting point.

But, how many records do you think the Beatles would have sold, if there was internet and easy copying of songs, and you tube, back then....?

cheers

Wiz

The Beatles would be as popular today as Lady GaGa or you name it- the most talked about contemporary act. They were better than their competition. If anything, they would reach an even wider audience today thanks to the Internet and profited even more than it was possible in the 60's. Michael Jackson in the 80's reached further than the Beatles ever did. The next big thing will overshadow Michael Jackson in their appeal to world-wide audience. In the mean time, the music money pie will grow and it will be sliced accordingly- but most likely the slices will remain fairly constant. Big international media will get the biggest cut.

[sventvkg]

Originally Posted by Thefife

I don't care to get in a long drawn out argument, but consider this. Given the shockingly obvious contradiction in your opinion, do you not at least consider it possible that you haven't thought through the issue enough?

No, I have thought it through. As a content creator It sucks but as a fan I love the ease of Spotify and as a realist, I stand by my assertion that the consumer is in control. We as content creators need to work out ways so we can continue to make a living. As I stated I believe we will.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by Wiz_Oz

... Somehow, the ISP's need to be made, to be accountable.You will never get the host websites to be accountable, they just move to a questionable country... They are the broadcast medium.

It needs to be legislated that the ISP's pay a fee to the rights collection agencies, for broadcast of music and video. Goes without saying that neither of those things can infringe copyright. Same as a TV station just can't go down the video store and grab a DVD and broadcast it. ...

ISPs who "broadcast music and video" already pay for the right to do so. It sounds like you think that it's too hard to catch the illegal content suppliers and consumers. Since ISPs are "sitting targets", you want them to have to pay for the content that their subscribers illegally download. Why should ISPs alone be responsible for the illegal acts of their subscribers? People do their illegal downloading over phone lines or cable that often belongs to a different company than the ISP. By your reasoning, they're just as liable. If the content comes from an international host, the undersea cable it traverses belongs to yet another company. While we're at it, you can't download, or experience that illegally downloaded content, without electricity. Let's tax the electrical companies.

Remember the blank media levy, and how well that worked?

[Thuneau]

The technology to track downloaded or streamed material exists today- just see Carrier IQ and Windows NSA key stories.
What would make sense is to set aside part of everyone's internet subscription fee and divide it proportionally to bandwidth used consuming content such as music or movies. Then the game would be clearly defined - get the consumer's attention and download bandwidth = earn money. Of course there would have to be some sort of multiplier factor- video takes more bandwidth per minute of content than music, music takes more bandwidth than books. But once the details were worked out, every link you clicked and every media file you downloaded would mean revenue to the creator. Then the competition for attention would be much more fair. An independent artist could make money just because people listened to or downloaded his music. The playing field would be much more level.