>>If you don't love your art for the art, you should ponder that.>>

JohnnyMac,
I think you may have misunderstood me. I am NOT complaining that I am an unpaid artist. I mentioned it to show the irony that my stance (see my posts) about dealing with the fact that digital copies of music should be free (not just should be but ARE free, nothing we can do about it), is coming from an artist, not just a consumer who wants to download every body's music for nothing.

I have a sustainable job outside the artistic industry. It covers all of my basic needs, and allows me to pursue my art more "artistically." I realize that we are in an unbalanced society. I am very much in favor of the internet and its ability to even the playing field somewhat. I am embracing that. It shows what the future holds, especially as far as sharing things equally. I just wonder how long it will take for other people to realize it too. Too many people are stuck on the issue of stealing. Stealing only applies if you DON'T want others to have what you have. In the case of music, the artists DON'T want you to have their money. They DO want you have their music. When money is a non-issue, and artists freely share their work, (after all most enjoy creating it for others in the first place) it won't matter at all.

<<"I would agree that SOME, not most people would like to pay. If most wouldn't mind, as I said before, Mp3.com wouldn't be as small as it is. If I remember correctly, Napster had a poll to see who would be willing to pay. I don't think they got the positive feedback they were looking for.">>

Now, that is of course something to take into consideration. But first of all: mp3.com could not compete with any of the big file sharing networks because they simply didn't have enough music, and the way they offered it was...bad. And polling on Napster...well, what did you expect a bunch of young teenagers to answer? Kids that haven't yet discovered/developed moral won't say "sure, I'll pay." They'll say "why pay when it's free?".

But a program that charges money, requires the use of a credit card, and that implies involving grown ups. And I think that most (yeah, really) grown ups would actually like paying, instead of encouraging their kids to break the law.

But each record company can't come running with separate solutions. There HAS to be a common platform here. But the day that arrives, I believe people will pay. But as I've said before, you'll have to use quite a different way of thinking when you charge people for downloading. Charging close to $20 per album wont do...

Hey...the record companies knows everything about selling stuff to the public, so markedet right, such a program would be on every PC.

"Download music today, and do it legaly! It's fast, it's easy, it's cheap! And more of your money goes to the artist creating the music. Start using 'Music for Everyone' today, and experience the joy of discovering new music!"

Of course it'd sell.

-P-

P.S. And they'd have to use an open, free format, like ogg. Some licensed BS format with strings attatched would have done the job...

Looking for schemes to have people pay for digital copies of music is just delaying the inevitable. Like I said, there are too many good hackers on the internet. They will always find ways around this stuff.

The internet is the writing on the wall, so to speak. We have to modify our goals or be frustrated trying to fight a (world) system that is evolving toward true freedom and equality, that DOESN'T rely on money or its power.

Download you're music illegally here! It's cheaper than cheap!!
Look, I agree with what you're wishing for. But I'm afraid that's probably all it will amount to. You think the major labels are really going to get together? Their entire business is based on outselling the other one. The independents getting together to start something like you're talking about would be more likely, and probably more beneficial. David takes on What's his name(don't want to get into religious discussions here).
Take a look at SoFo's idea; AcidPlanet. That's more like what you're suggesting, I think. But it's only SoFo. If Steiberg, Cakewalk, etc was to be in on it, I don't think it would fly. Everybody wants the bigger piece of the pie.
It's not only the music industry's problem. If broadband was more accessible, could you imagine the movies being pirated!?! Who needs CD-Rs anymore, we've got mega-storage devices. Leave it on your PC. You can hook-up your home theater/stereo system to your PC now. Use your PC as a library/video store/record store.
Like I said, I agree with what you're wishing for. But there will always be pirated stuff that's cheaper than cheap. If everybody had the morals that you wish they had, we wouldn't need anti-virus software, firewalls, etc.

¢¢

Prices are, well, quite frankly, too high, approaching $20.

As operating costs and the the cost of lost revenues (to those of you who think stealing from the record companies is okay) go up, so will the product cost to honest customers. It's a business fact.

You miss my point. Cheap can never beat free, if price is the only criteria you use. But I really do think that most people manage to see that artists have to eat too.

I'm sitting on a 10Mbit network, I have a very fast computer, I have 400 GB of harddisk space, and I have a DVD-R/RW. I have access to virtually limitless amounts of music and movies, but still I wish I had the oportunity to pay for that small amount of stuff I download that I really like. So does my friends.

So why are you telling me it's impossible to get people to pay?

Deliver the goods, and people will pay. Just don't be greedy, or everyone will turn their backs on you. I really don't think it is any harder.

If the record companies can't come together and offer me the ultimate solution in music (and movie) downloading, well, too bad for them! They will dissappera then. And something else will come in their place. And if that something can cater to my needs, they'll survice, and earn shamlessly amounts of money on the way. And if not, they'll go away too...

Mark my words ;)

-P-

<<"As operating costs and the the cost of lost revenues (to those of you who think stealing from the record companies is okay) go up, so will the product cost to honest customers. It's a business fact.">>

Don't you read research papers? What you just said isn't a business fact, it's a lie the record companies use to achieve lots of goals:

1. Going after Napster-like companies. (I'm ok with that.)
2. Telling everyone that's the reason the sales has dropped. (I'm not ok with that.)
3. Pushing for laws like the AWFULL DMCA! (I'm NOT ok with that!!!)

...and more. Many of the record companies best customers are the same people that download lots of music from the Internet. The same people the record companies keep labeling thieves...

"So why are you telling me it's impossible to get people to pay?"

I'm not. It's impossible to stop people from stealing, especially if they KNOW they won't get caught.
I agree that people are willing to pay, just not enough of a percentage to make it feasible.
You pay what now to go see a movie? 8$, 9$ maybe. You can get all the latest movies at home for +/- 30$ per month via a dish. That's dirt cheap! Digital sound and image to boot. How many people do you think steal the signal via a "black box"?? These aren't kids either. People like you and me with good paying jobs.
I don't mean to be depressing here, but you can't look at this problem through rose coloured glasses either. Thinking enough people will pay instead of getting it for free, well, that's overly optomistic.
There are other problems also. Now when you steal a song off of the net, you accept the quality you get. What if you buy a song off a major label's site, and there is a glitch in the song. Who's responsible? You, because you're on dial-up and your connection quit mid download?, Your intrnet service's server? The label's server? Now, you paid for your song, but would also like to have it on your work PC. After all, you bought the song. What's that, the label says you only get one download per purchase?
Like I said before, I wouldn't want to be in charge of the team who has to come up with a foolproof way to stop pirating.

I respect you're opinion, and I hope you prove me wrong.

M

The mission isn't to stop the pirates. It's to outnumber them...with paying customers ;)

Agreed.

I've spent 20 years in big business; I was stating a fact. In a previous job I was faced with helping my employer defend itself against myriad frivolous lawsuits. It caused the prices of our products to go up.

We know for a fact that music and other intellectual property is being distributed illegally via the Internet -- that is costing the music companies and, in fact, penalizing artists who are not recieving residual payments for their work.

Good God!!!!! An artist asking 250,000.00 for an album's worth of production? You are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY living in the ether. Go to any artist at the level of the above mentioned Paul Hardcastle, or even an artist like David Lanz, Tom Scott, Craig Chaquico. Ask em when the last time they were given more than 50,000.00 to make a record, including art and fees.
I'm amazed at the continual ignorance by all the 'musicians' and music lovers out there. And free music???? Yeah, right. SOFO should just give away Vegas, Forge, and ACID so we can all make music for free, and then the music stores should give it away for free... Oh, here's a thought. Put music in McDonalds so when you go buy your burger, you get a free piece of music. An incentive.
No wonder the industry is suffering with such lost 'artists'
I can't comment on this thread anymore, it's depressing to see how many people never even graduated from economics 101 or for that matter, never operated a lemonade stand in grade school. I see 8 year old kids on the rez who have more sense than most of these posts.

Hm, really trying to add to the debate I see, SPOT. You know, giving away software for free isn't all that stupid. More and more big companies do so, and charges for support and "service deals" instead.

Sometimes it's frightening to think new...but sometimes your survival depends on it.

Last night I was going through a small experiment in my head before I went to sleep:

In 2001 the record companies sold music to resellers for about $120,000,000. In norway there are about 1,900,000 households. About 70% of those households has a computer, and the vast majority of PC owners is connected to the internet. And as we speak, more and more of those are connected via some sort of broad band connection.

So for arguments sake let's say that in Norway, there is 1,000,000 households connected to the Internet. Also, let's assume that half of those households would subscribe to the program I layed out in an eralier post. (I believe far more than 50% would do so, but let's say half.) If you somehow could make each subscriber - on average - pay $20 per month, you would earn your $120,000,000. And any revenue you'd get from CD sales would just come on top of that.

How would you get 500,000 norwegian households to subscribe? Easy. Aim commercials at teenagers, who would make their parents subscribe. Also make sure to tell people that by doing so, the artist gets paid. The parents will buy that one. How would you get each household to pay $20 a month on average? That's up to the economists to decide, but I'm sure it'd be easy, with the right plan. (By using some sort of monthly fee, and paying extra if you download more than so and so much...)

Why should this be so hard? I know...getting the record companies to work together, but the rest of it? I think it's doable.

I suppose the record companies just have to realize that their survival depends on it...before they start doing anything but filing law suits...

-P-

Spot, I think you're missing the point of this thread. Either that, or I am.
If you reread these posts, you'll see everyone is discussing how the record insustry can keep it's sales up, and fight pirating at the same time.
You need to look at what is being said as a whole, not so much the details. You're right, we haven't all taken economics, and we sure as hell aren't as knowledgeable in the record business as you are.
But if you look at the suggestions and fine tune them a bit, they do make some sense. OK, maybe the free music one is harder to fine tune. :)
How about we take your example first.

"Oh, here's a thought. Put music in McDonalds so when you go buy your burger, you get a free piece of music. An incentive."

Obviously, you meant that to be sarcastic. BUT...
Let's say McD was to hop on the "80's" train that's so popular now. They could easily get 13/14 songs together from "one hit wonders" from the 80's at a very low cost. You really think New Shoose(sp) would give up 10,000$ so they can use their "I Can't Wait" song on the CD? How about Adam Ant? Falco(Isn't he dead?)? You get the idea. Now McD puts the album together for not much $$, and gives away the CD with the purchase of (let's say) 6 Big Mac Combos, via a stamp system. How many combos do you think they'd sell? The artists are happy, because they got paid. McD is happy, they're making money. Actually, the artist is happier, because maybe people would ask themselves "whatever happened to ...", and maybe go out and buy a newer release from that artist.
As far as Panic's idea of offering something that is so good, people will pass up pirating? Most of us are doing it now. We all own registered copies of SoFo software, right? Why, because the advantages outweigh the free version we can easily get off the net.
Another example of paying a small amout to have better quality than free can get you... How many people are criticising pirating, yet have a cable splitter they bought a Radio Shack for their cable service? Well to some people the reduced clarity of the image is worth the reduced price. Me, well, I'm paying 7$ more a month for 5 connections, with the signal booster supplied by my cable company. To me, that's better than free.
As far as the free music idea? Umm, well... I have no idea how that would work. There's to many people involved in the process of putting out an album.
My idea of putting out singles instead of complete albums... Well, I think that people would buy more music if they could select individual songs for a cheaper price. How many 45s did you have as a teenager, compared to 33s. I know I had alot more singles. If kids were given a cheaper alternative to get THE song they want, that's IN at the moment, I think you'd see less DLs happening. My (maybe) naive idea.
Obviously, piracy is a huge problem. Ideas are like a mother, everybody's got one( I know, that's not how it goes, but this is a G rated forum!) I think the day people stop submitting ideas, whether good or bad, is the day we're really in trouble.
As far as not taking economics 101, you're right I didn't. But maybe sometimes trying to do something using common sense is better.
After all, any kid can run a lemonade stand. The smarter kid will get his friend to open a salty chip stand next to him, and they split the profits! The smartest kid will open up a salty chip and lemonade stand by himself, and keep ALL the profits!!

I for one would welcome your opinion on this, whether good or bad.

M

I just read something very interesting in the newspaper. Some of the copy protection schemes that the record companies use, can actually do physical harm to the CD/DVD-drive, and the PC/MAC the drive is mounted in. Also, copy protected CDs can damage stand-alone CD-players. This may be old news to some of you, but it's very interesting, and has some relevance to this debate.

First of all, when people PAY for a CD, they really do expect it to work on any CD-reading device they may have, be that a home stereo, a car stereo, a CDROM in a PC or MAC, or some expencive stand-alone CD-player.

This - of cource - is not how things are these days. You may actually damage your equipment by trying to play a copy protected CD. Most such "CDs" has a label telling you not to play the "CD" (it's not a CD) should not be played on a PC or MAC. If you do so, and your equipment is damaged, the record companies takes no liabilities.

But what about the stand-alone CD-players that are based on CDROM-drives?

The copy-protection business is so shady it makes me shiver! And this is done by big corporations, that claims moral higher ground.

No wonder more and more people download music from the Internet. It's so much SAFER!

-P-

It costs money to invest in copy protection. If companies weren't being ripped off, they wouldn't spend the money to protect themselves and their other sunk investments. You don't see people putting bars on the windows of houses located in safe neighborhoods, do you? Of course not.

Back in the early PC days, copy protection didn't exist -- the honor system was used. But so many people violated that system that software vendors were forced into protecting themselves, often irritating honest customers because copy protection schemes sometimes affected software performance.

It's too bad there are so many dishonest poeple in the world screwing things up for the rest of us.... Despite what you may think, record companies [and others] have the right to make a profit and to determine how much that is. If your idea of what's fair is not in line with theirs, don't buy the product. When enough of that happens, prices will fall.

It is happening, but instead of lowering prices, the record companies rais their prices, and blame it on piracy. Allthough several reports have more than just suggested that the decreased CD sales hasn't got so much to do with piracy as with the quality of the products beeing offered.

I'm not just inventing this. It's information comming from reserachers...

Anyway, the record companies has NOTHING to win by screwin over their paying customers, and that's what's happening with copy protection. The only ones that experience problems with copy protected CDs, are people that have BOUGHT the record. People that download music online never faces such problems.

And you do NOT prevent music from getting on Kazaa and other networks by applying copy protection. It's enough that -one- person "break" the protection, and the record is out there.

I suppose this is why the three scientists MS just reasently payed to look into copy protection reported back that copy protection didn't work, and made paying customers unhappy.

Go figure...

-P-

Despite what you may think, record companies [and others] have the right to make a profit and to determine how much that is. If your idea of what's fair is not in line with theirs, don't buy the product. When enough of that happens, prices will fall.</B >

>>Good God!!!!! An artist asking 250,000.00 for an album's worth of production? You are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY living in the ether. Go to any artist at the level of the above mentioned Paul Hardcastle, or even an artist like David Lanz, Tom Scott, Craig Chaquico. Ask em when the last time they were given more than 50,000.00 to make a record, including art and fees.
I'm amazed at the continual ignorance by all the 'musicians' and music lovers out there. And free music???? Yeah, right. SOFO should just give away Vegas, Forge, and ACID so we can all make music for free, and then the music stores should give it away for free... Oh, here's a thought. Put music in McDonalds so when you go buy your burger, you get a free piece of music. An incentive.
No wonder the industry is suffering with such lost 'artists'
I can't comment on this thread anymore, it's depressing to see how many people never even graduated from economics 101 or for that matter, never operated a lemonade stand in grade school. I see 8 year old kids on the rez who have more sense than most of these posts.>>

I don't think anybody pays any attention to what they are reading. Please read ALL of what I said. I'm not talking about asking for that fee right now, today, out the box. It would be PART of a complete re-working of the system, AND it was just an example. The moguls, attorneys, and artists have to decide what the proper amount would be. Basically, what I'm asking the industry to do is to re-examine where money is spent and how it is earned.

I believe the process today is that an artist is basically loaned some money to produce their album. The artist may also get a very small salary. But, the artist doesn't earn any more money until they pay back said loan, sometimes based on ridiculous terms. After that, they can share in profits.

In a nutshell, re-design the system so that:

1. Artists are paid a reasonable lump-sum to produce an album.
2. Internet distribution of the album is FREE to all who want it.
3. Producer/promoter recoups the money paid to the artist, via live concerts or other such non-digital means of work/earning. Both artist and producer (and any other investor) share in any additional profits generated by the concert.

The actual amounts paid upfront are somewhat negotiable, but should be reasonable so that the artist is paid a good living for their work. My definition of work is the time spent creating and recording the album. Just like a person who sweeps streets is paid for their hours and labor. NOT at all based on popularity of the artist. The fee range should be more or less equal no matter who the artist is, just like the fee range for street sweepers.

Popularity comes into play when the concerts happen. The more popular the artist, the more likely the concert will generate profits. Producers then, might decide who they want to "fund" based on how popular the artist has been in the past. With new artists, they are banking on making them popular. Not too different from what goes on now, except that the money distribution is rearranged in my scenario.

This is just one suggestion. I would appreciate it if I weren't insulted for simply making suggestions. If you see a flaw in my idea, explain why it wouldn't work, then help re-write it so that it does. I am only trying to prepare artists and producers for the fact that FREE music available on the net is here to stay. Try to come up with a way to work with it, not against it, because the way I see it, that is a losing battle.

>>It's too bad there are so many dishonest poeple in the world screwing things up for the rest of us.... Despite what you may think, record companies [and others] have the right to make a profit and to determine how much that is. If your idea of what's fair is not in line with theirs, don't buy the product. When enough of that happens, prices will fall.>>

It's important to realize why people are stealing in the first place. Often times (not always) people steal because they cannot afford what it is they want. Their desire for it is no less valid than yours or mine, only the means of obtaining it are different. If people were offered the same level of access, stealing would be unnecessary. This of course probably doesn't apply to Enron or the likes (but in some ways it does for them too). Ongoing dissatisfaction can set up a cycle of behavior in an individual that is considered immoral and against society. Sometimes people are just plain thieves, no excuse necessary. But, the point is that the concept of sharing is more valuable than the concept of hoarding. The ethics of profiteering, especially when accomplished with little regard for people who cannot earn a good living, is just as bad as stealing. Our society condones capitalism. The system CANNOT exist without class structure. It must have rich and poor at least, often it has middle too. But, there will always be people who suffer in order to support the rich. It basically says "screw you, I'm gonna make mine..."

I do not believe that ALL people who partake in the system do this consciously, but the system itself is designed to work this way, it encourages and depends upon a dog-eat-dog attitude, regardless of your personal attitude. If you are using the system, you are accepting any advantages it offers you over someone in a lower position. It does not ask you to be morally or ethically responsible for your fellow man or woman. In fact it specifically asks you to ignor that, because that gets in the way of your goal. Now, many have created ways to funnel their profits to people who need it more than they do, and that's great. It's a shame that everyone doesn't want to be that way. Capitalism wouldn't be quite as bad if the "poorest" anyone could be was well within a range of decent living, providing a basic minimum of healthcare, shelter and food (and I mean a valuable minimum, something that would really take care of a person's needs). If we can accomplish that, it would be wonderful, and capitalism would be on the road to success.

Right now, the best use I can see for money and capitalism is that is helps us control excessive use of our natural resources. I think there are better ways to do this, and provide everyone with a level of access to resources that allows for decent living.

I think my diatribe may be too futuristic.

JohnnyMac wrote:
"Like you, I gave up my art for a long time to make a living. And you know what? I don't regret the decisions I made and I'm in a place now where I have complete freedom (financially and emotionally) to pursue what is otherwise a whacky business [acting]. But like your music and you, acting is part of me and I can't not do it. "

I spent 4 years beating my head against the wall in the mid 80's in the Minneapolis music scene. I was in college and totally immature. I ended up getting no where as a musician so I ended up as the GM for WMMR (then the student run radio station of the U of Mn.) I got so fed up with seeing so many great musicians get squashed with major record deals and how whoreish it gets so I took a job in sales (not music related) and made my own way in life in Chicago and 4 years later I was in a band, we got gigs and went into the recording studio and best of all I was writting really good music. It's funny how maturity and a good "clean the slate" can affect your creative process. Thank god maturity has it's place in the arts, lord knows we're all getting longer.

good luck
jack