Posted on 09/03/2002 9:39:26 PM PDT by chance33_98
I disagree. I see an accompanying fall of the big record companies. Not the music industry.
The ingenuity and drive of the artists, along with the use of the internet will drive the next revolution in music distribution.
And I hope they all tell the bloodsucking leeches to take a flying f*** at a rolling donut when they come sniffing around trying to weasel a piece of the action.
Why read, if what is remembered by reading might perhaps be written -- even accidentally, by dimmed memory of source -- and thus stolen in the future? Why listen, for by a tune into an ear one day that same tune might cascade out onto a keyboard -- origin forgotten -- and thus constitute a theft?
I hope so but I don't think so. They will continue to litigate and attempt to crush any competition so they can maintain the status quo. They may move in a different direction but only as fast as molasses runs uphill in January.
Your attention to detail is pretty good. You are right, it IS the record companies that will feel the pain more than the industry itself..
Yes, and even the initial audio recording and mixing requires much less investment. The RIAA's attempts to buy mandatory copy-inhibiting technology (which cannot possibly tell the difference between your own recording and a good analog feed of the latest BritN'SyncBoyz garglings) is designed to outlaw the competition. It has as much to do with protecting their legitimate copyright interests as Billzebubba's $100k speeches have to do with conveying factual information about the actual history of 1990s America.
That's a close but not exact analogy. If a library purchased a single copy of a book and proceeded to churn out an unlimited number of exact duplicates for free distribution, the two situations would be identical.
If libraries operated on that model, how many books would be sold via retail outlets?
I know a guy whose band got signed. Big thrill, right? They got unsigned. His part of the eventual payback was something in the neighborhood of $75,000 x5 guys in the band. Recording contracts should come with a large jar of vaseline and something to bite on. May the RIAA wither away on the vine....
WinMX rocks, BTW.
Mr.M
There is a link in this thread to Kazaa Lite. I used to use WinMX and loved it. That is until I tried Kazaa Lite. No spyware and blazing fast multi point downloads. Give it a shot. You might like it.
"Come into the Liiiite...."
It's very similar, I agree. There are a couple differences, though...
Once someone checks out a book from the library, what are the chances that they'll go out and buy it?
Lower than if they had no free access to the book, I admit.
Some folks, though, (me, for example) read a good book more than once. I'm more likely to do this with histories and biographies, but the occasional novel that is readable and re-readable finds a place on my permanent bookshelf. One that fits into the latter category is Jack Finney's "Time and Again". I first read that book on loan from the public library, enjoyed it, and bought a copy for myself. Since then I've probably reread it a half-dozen times.
Aha! Doesn't that prove that mp3 sharing will actually spur CD sales? After all, if I listen to and enjoy a piece of music, won't I then buy the commercially pressed product? Maybe.
Consider, though, the library book I borrowed. Libraries must purchase the copies they wish to stock on their shelves. Should someone check it out, it is generally unavailable for two to three weeks. An exceptionally popular book may be returned only to be immediately checked out again. If the borrowers keep it for the full term, it is unavailable to anyone else for a half month or more. Over the course of a year, that book might change hands a couple dozen times. Perhaps the library realizes this and wants to keep waiting lists for that title short. What do they do? Buy additional copies. The occasional book may have a waiting list long enough despite the number of copies owned by the library that those wishing to read it just buy it for themselves. I did just that with Stephen Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" during the wave of interest following the HBO miniseries.
If the library/mp3 analogy were to hold up 100%, I never would have purchased "Time and Again", just made an exact duplicate. Not that I couldn't have duplicated it anyway, it's just that a crudely Xeroxed copy doesn't have much appeal. Not to mention the expense at approximately a nickle a sheet - heck, why not just get a professionally printed copy at a lower price? Ditto "Band of Brothers". If the library was able to produce as many identical copies as they needed to meet demand from a single original, there would be no waiting list. MP3s allow just that - perfect, quickly made copies of the original, at negligible cost. Even the CD labels and front & back jewel case inserts are available for free download on the net. Why buy an original? It would be every budget-watching librarian's dream - rather than buying a copy for each two dozen or so readers expected for a title each year, buy a single copy and make as many as needed. Or buy none at all. All it takes is a single copy to prime the pump. Those clones that follow are every bit as good, so why not find one already in circulation?
At most libraries I've visited over the years, there has always been a selection of music available for loan. Why was that never a cause for concern, then?
Much of it is not the kind of fodder for young mp3 traders - classical and show tunes, for the most part. I imagaine that some of it was duplicated at home by those with reel-to-reel and quality cassette decks in the old days, but those analog copies were never quite the same in the second generation. Copies of copies were worse, and each additional generation added its own mix of noise and distortion to the experience. Again, there was a limit to accessing each individual piece. Once checked out, no other potential copier could have it for the duration of the loan. Not so with music on a file sharing service.
The music industry has to realize that they are vulnerable to market forces and price their product accordingly.
I agree. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle, and there is no stuffing him back in. Off-the air recording didn't kill the music industry after the introduction of the reel-to-reel and cassette tape decks, nor did it do in Hollywood after the VCR.
What? After everything I said above, am I agreeing with you? Yep. I just wanted to point out what I perceive to be differences in the library/mp3 argument. Heck, I even have mp3s on my hard disk, and yes, I still DO buy CDs. Just as I still buy books despite the local library system.
They have pluses that will bring the market back to them once their pricing becomes more realistic.
Perhaps the mass-market music stores could offer a "CD on demand" service, where a customer could build a custom mix of tracks to be burned to CD while they wait. The finished CD could be quickly silk-screened (no cheapie sticky paper labels) and jewel cased with customer selected art. Pay a royalty for each tune and enough of a profit to made it worth the store's while, and voila - everyone is happy. Admittedly, I'm not much of a marketer, so perhaps there are better ideas out there. Probably so. What's keeping them from happening? Economics, maybe, the resistance of the recording industry, for sure.
The change will come whether they like ot or not. They may as well figure out how to make money with a new paradigm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.