“I didn’t get the impression they were trying to kill the MP3 format. I think they are trying to protect music they own that is uploaded to the net and downloaded by third parties.”
I’m sure they are trying to protect their intellecutal property, and I don’t blame them for that. Their biggest long term threat though, doesn’t come from illegal sharing of mp3s, but from legal sharing of mp3s.
This solution is like eliminating free speach, because there is a rash of people yelling fire in crowed theatres.
Record compaines developed because: 1. the cost to record a song was high, 2. the cost to produce physical media to distribute the music was high, 3. promotion costs were high, 4. the distribution channel was expensive (and came to be dominated by a few big companies.)
Recording costs have dropped through the floor. Computers have brought the ability to record and edit music to the basement level.
There is no cost for the physical (mp3) media anymore.
The internet has made it possible for even the smallest band to promote themselves.
The only thing the record companies have left is domination of the distribution channel. Whether it is hard media like CDs, or soft media like iTunes. As long as record companies can force consumers into channels they dominate, they will exist. When people get comfortable getting music from non-record company dominated channels (from file sharing to independent band web sites), the record companies business model will fail.
IMHO, if the record companies want to survive, they need to get away from the $1 a song model for downloads. It can actually cost more to download an entire album than to buy the physical CD. They would eliminate tons of filesharing just by dropping the cost (I’m guessing abuot 20 cents a song.) What they lost on each song would be gained by more songs being downloaded (considering there is zero additonal marginal cost for each downloaded.)
Anyway, I think they are fighting a losing battle with this approach. The ISPs don’t get paid by the record companies,they get paid by the users. The smart ISPs aren’t going to punish their customers to help the record companies (unless they want to lose customers to their competiton.)
—The smart ISPs aren’t going to punish their customers to help the record companies (unless they want to lose customers to their competiton.)—
Exactamundo. That approach works mostly with universities and colleges (who set up firewalls making hard to use p2p software) because:
1. They are afraid of lawsuits
2. Those darn kids are hogging valuable bandwith by file-sharing.
A professional studio will have advantages not available to a typical basement artist. The electronic parts of the path from performer to recording have gotten quite cheap, but except when using all-electronic instruments there's still an acoustic part that isn't so cheap. A performer in a recording studio generally isn't going to have takes ruined by unwanted outside sounds. Someone recording in his basement, on the other hand, often will. Of course, given a choice between having to do a few extra takes to get a good one, versus having to spend thousands of dollars for a studio, many people will opt for the former.
Also, I wonder what fraction of the people who listen to music these days really care what it sounds like? Someone listening to music under ideal conditions could easily tell the difference between a recording produced on $750 worth of equipment in someone's basement and one produced on $750,000 worth of equipment in a studio. Someone listening to a 128kbps MP3 with cheap headphones on a noisy subway, however, probably couldn't. Which type of person represents more of the market share?