The ENTIRE modern ‘music industry’ after Edison up until the explosion of computers, digital communications, Internet, etc. grew up around Edison’s invention of putting recorded music on … “A PHYSICAL THING” Edison’s invention turned music, (and video), from art into a form of ‘possession’.

It doesn’t matter that the physical thing changed from fuzzy warbles on a wax drum to binary burnt onto a few angstroms of metal – Edison’s invention DIED! It’s DEAD, KAPUTT! It’s as dead as whale lamp oil or the buggy whip.

There is no more ‘thing’ to sell! For better or worse, with the requirement for having a physical thing suddenly removed – the business model for the music industry that it was based upon – evaporated over night.

As I see it, it puts the ‘business model’ for music right back to where it was BEFORE Edison. I haven’t researched it but, as far as I know, the compensation for musical talent came mainly from only two or three places:

1. Charity. At the bottom of the spectrum, you play your song on the street and people throw some change in your hat. At the top, a rich person, particularly one who is also a successful artist subsidizes you because they see a lot of potential in your music.

2. Live Performance. People pay a set price in advance to gain entrance to some place of assembly in order to enjoy your performance.

3. Copyright royalties for compositions. You receive payment when others use compositions that you wrote. (I’m fuzzy on the history of how copyright law afforded compensation protection for musical compositions. There were copyright laws back in Beethoven’s time but those bear little resemblance to today’s laws.)

For #2, I don’t see that much has really changed. It’s a good thing that people still find that there’s really no substitute for being there, (heh heh..).

For #3, I think that remains unchanged, unaffected by the digital revolution. You wrote it – it’s your creation, someone else who plays it ought to owe you if they use it for their own gain. (But think how people like Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Leadbelly etc. all felt seeing others get really rich on their music simply because they never wrote it down?)

So that leaves #1. Imagine if Paul McCartney, (if he still owned them? he sold em’ to Michael Jackson?), right now placed every Beatles song, in high definition sound, on a web site for FREE download and simply ASKED that you please donate 10 cents per song. Who wouldn’t pay that? If only 1 of 5 people bother to give 10 cents, a billion people might download say ten songs each on average and bring Sir Paul $200 million. (But I have this stupid optimism that most people are generally good and far more than 1 in 5 would contribute.)

For ten cents I wouldn’t even bother with the trouble of downloading and storing a music file – I’d just pay it each time like it was a juke box from the 60’s.

Sure, there will be those who pay nothing or copy it from someone – but WHY CARE ABOUT THEM AT ALL if the majority are honorable and the artist is justly compensated? I wouldn’t doubt that some wandering minstrels in the middle ages complained that some people were seen dancing within earshot of their performance but never contributed anything. There was but one recourse – POX on them! The majority needs to be able to ridicule them for their ingratitude! They will be and should be put down for their dishonorable behavior – like any bad behavior should be, ( and we certainly do NOT need government to solve every form of ‘bad behavior’). Your own honor used to be a valid point of pride; why not try to resurrect that same spirit in everyone instead of shaking down the parents of a 9 year old who didn’t know some music software was acting as a server?

Consider how short the walk-in movie rental store business lasted? Here one day and gone the next; totally a product of a transitionary period while demand exceeded bandwidth. You couldn’t get very far when cars first came out either – there weren’t any roads. Should I take the car or the horse today? People didn’t ask that question for very long..

So yes!

The effects on innovation in music would be disastrous if such a scheme were ever to become reality. It’s clearly good for the music labels, who are facing their imminent extinction. For everyone else, though, this is the worst possible thing that could happen.

Imagine a middle age king deciding which minstrels deserved getting income protection (for a political kickback), with the help of the king’s ‘Royal Listening Guard’ who made certain that anyone who could hear your music was forced to pony up? “But your highness, I was just passing through and , of the little that I heard of it, I thought the song sucked anyway.” – OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

What would we be like if the person who reconized the usefullness of the wheel had no need?

With that said… maybe if the music industry would focus on talent instead of who can be the biggest punk or skank, they would not be in trouble. Also, remakes of the 70’s and 80’s hit songs in a rap-remix format does not count as original or good music. It’s a reflection of the stagnation of the music industry.

As far as bailing out the industry… as Whitney Houston would say “Hell to the Nah!” :p

To me, what he’s propsing is socialism. Charge the same amount for every CD, don’t want to make money on the ones that will actually sell. Have to make the cruddy ones sell too.

Don’t get me wrong, on the surface it sounds good, I just know to read deeper because of his vile spewing during his concert. That’s an hour of my life and $150 I’ll never get back (sigh)

Michelle Malkin relays a
Portfolio story on how
Warner Music is spearheading a lobbying push for Congress to require a “music tax” be bundled into your monthly internet service provider fee — supposedly for unlimited access to &#82…

dan708 said:

The music industry has two big problems:

#3 “It(music)has too long been in the hands of people who were in it for reasons other than music.” George DUKE,Father of the Synth http://georgeduke.com/corner.html

The Industry is dead because it attempted to maintain a stranglehold on the creative evolution of Music thereby forcing the ‘Heavies’ to compromise, & the universe of Indies who would NEVER be recognized by the big boyz, to bushwhack it on there own. And the more they try to hang on to their $700. bottles-of-whatever-over-lunch-lifestyle, the uglier they look to the megaWave of Independent musicians taking back the history of MUSIC!!
DIE YOU GREEDY CREEPS!!

go here: http://cdbaby.com/
“Now CD Baby has paid over $70 million dollars(!!) directly to musicians.
And despite the moaning you hear from the majors, independent artists are selling better than ever. Even physical CD sales are up 30% over last year!” Derek Sivers, founder, CD Baby on its 10th Birthday

It’s dead…it’s over…& I am in line to stick my fork deep into the carcass of the ‘Trendmongers’. Indies Rule….because it’s not about the money, although that would be nice, or the fame, which would also be nice because it would allow some hard cash…it’s about real musicians making real music vs. studio-gadget wizardry, marketable-non-threatening ‘talent’ & pre-fab ‘boxes’ & trends that no one is allowed to leave unless the industry calls forth a new genre. The Truth is that the Industry CEOs & their lawyers HATE!!! musicians!!!….but that’s OK onnaconna we don’t care much fer them either.

signed: still living @ the Hotel Broke&Unknown but no body tells me what or how to write!

Wouldn’t it be great if record companies spent their resources on finding a way to provide something that we would want to purchase? There is no excuse that a major label does not have an iTunes like site with ALL of their catalogue available. There is no excuse that anything should be no longer “in print”.

Naxos is a prime example of a record company that understands how it’s done. They distribute CDs, but they also make everything they own available via a reasonable subscription. They offer monthly contests and loads of content about the artists, music, composers, and related stuff.

Why can’t these ossified organizations accept that technology has passed them by? It doesn’t take an MBA to know that you either change with the market landscape or you die (or you spend money in Washington looking for a handout.)

Frankly as a radical capitalist I don’t believe in patents and copywrites. They are an infringement on a free market place.
–Mister P On March 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm.

So, lemme’ see if I got this straight…

You create a script, that millions of users find useful, and can sell for $100 per copy.

I can come along, copy your script, and sell it for $10 per copy.

The next guy comes along, and gives it away for free.

Would you feel ripped off?

They’re both examples of egregious abuses of government largesse.