A “music tax” to bail out the dying record industry? Hell, no!
Scroll down for updates…
How would you like to be forced to pay a “music tax” bundled into your monthly fee for internet service?
That’s what the entertainment industry is up to–and Congress needs to hear from you. The plan is objectionable on both economic and social conservative grounds. Desperate record companies can’t compete in the 21st century, so they’re looking to government coercion for a rescue. The lead industry giant spearheading the tax proposal is Warner Music Group–notorious for peddling violent, racist, cop-hating, drug-glorifying gangsta rap and currently in the process of acquiring Death Row Records’ assets– which include the work of Tupac Shakur, Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg.
Portfolio has the scoop on the tax plan:
Edgar Bronfman Jr.’s Warner Music Group has tapped industry veteran Jim Griffin to spearhead a controversial plan to bundle a monthly fee into consumers’ internet-service bills for unlimited access to music.
The plan—the boldest move yet to keep the wounded entertainment industry giants afloat—is simple: Consumers will pay a monthly fee, bundled into an internet-service bill in exchange for unfettered access to a database of all known music.
Bronfman’s decision to hire Griffin, a respected industry critic, demonstrates the desperation of the recording industry. It has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade. Compact disc sales are plummeting as online music downloads skyrocket…
…Warner’s plan would have consumers pay an additional fee—maybe $5 a month—bundled into their monthly internet-access bill in exchange for the right to freely download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions.
Griffin says those fees could create a pool as large as $20 billion annually to pay artists and copyright holders. Eventually, advertising could subsidize the entire system, so that users who don’t want to receive ads could pay the fee, and those who don’t mind advertising wouldn’t pay a dime.
Michael Arrington at TechCrunch rightly calls the scheme a “protection racket.” But it’s worse than that.
Forcing Internet users to subsidize music they don’t want and/or object to smacks of the worst kind of cultural Big Nannyism.
Where do your congressional representatives stand on this music tax proposal?
Ask them: 202-224-3121.
***
Arrington has more details on the plan they don’t want you to know about…
…the plan essentially comes down to telling ISPs that they can avoid any copyright infringement liability if they pay the fee on behalf of customers. And while the government wouldn’t be directly involved, the willingness of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system to enforce civil and criminal copyright infringement laws is the stick by which Griffin will convince ISPs to jump on board. It’s government endorsed extortion, nothing more and nothing less.
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.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- discarded lies - hyperlinkopotamus
- Fun With Headlines « Countenance Blog
- JUST SAY NO TO WARNER RECORDS « The Catskill Commentator
- » “Cause I’m the tax man, yea, I’m the tax man” - Beatles
- A Field Guide to American Politics on Blog Talk Radio - March 28, 2008
- No thanks, bozos. : Adam Lawson
- Mind Scalpel
- BobKrumm.com » Industry group supports greater government subsidies for its members
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Music
UNCoRRELATED
» The Delusional Liberal
Gateway Pundit
» Wash U Leftist Brats Harass Phyllis Schlafly ...Update: The Leftists In the Audience Protest Too! (Video)Confederate Yankee
» Huckabee Misfires AgainGateway Pundit
» Jamie Rubin Lied About John McCain in the WaPo (Video)Weekly Standard
» CNN Reports: Jamie Rubin LiedWeekly Standard
» The Psychology of AppeasementJustOneMinute
» Can't Slip One Past The TimesSound Politics
» Bruce Ramsey: "Hitler's demands were not unreasonable"protein wisdom
» A Subtle Reminder [Dan Collins]Power Line
» Obama's unrealistic realismPower Line
» Fix thisGateway Pundit
» Wow!... Al-Qaeda in Iraq Admits Attacks Are Down 94% In 1 Year!
Hey - Big Music - think buggy whip manufacturers - to quote a famous person: SUCK.IT.UP. You brought this on yourselves with your overwhelming greed. I don’t want any of MY tax dollars(and this is an attempt to pass a hidden tax) to go to such greedy swine!
I say let the free market take care of it. If setting up a pool of all known music to be accessed for a fee is such a great idea, let the music companies do it themselves. Demand would determine the price.
Michelle, what’s next? Americans will have to pay a tax on movies no one goes to see? Especially those anti-war movies? I hear Donahue (I thought he was dead!) is coming out with an anti-war movie
usingexploiting an injured warrior.Maybe the same thing can happen to Hollywood. Then all of our glorious actors could move their business, say to Venezuela.
Hell no. I don’t even listen to music on the internet. I say let the industry die from a lack of interest.
ah, I dont think so.
The quality of music has been in a continual spiral downward. Like any markey, one must come up with new ideas in order to stay productive in the market. And it should all be done without the government. Say no to ‘nannyhood’.
rumor has it their trying to do the same thing for Brussel Sprouts.
, market
That would surely destroy the music business. What King Midas touched turned to Gold. What the US Government touches turns to crap.
Maybe the music industry will shrink to the point that these ego bloated “artists” make working class wages.
Then maybe they’d have some cred when they wail about the evils of capitalism.
I agree with geminicontender in that I wish Hollywood could start to experience the same type of pain.
The idea of a tax is insane but it did remind me that Canadian radio stations had (and probably still has) Canadian content regulations where they would have to play a certain percentage of music by Canadian artists every hour to foster the development of the Canadian music industry. I believe television stations also had content rules.
if i need or want fertilizer i’ll go to home depot.
Typical Hollywood limo - liberal thinking. They know, better than we, what’s best for us.
(Remember Sheryl Crowe, and her “one square of toilet paper per visit” plan?)
Delusional, out-of-touch, etc., etc., etc. …
so as someone who has not downloaded a single piece of music off the net ever - am I supposed to pay this?
(Lest you think I’m a dunnderhead - yes I am - and proud of it :). My music of choice is Classical and quality classical has been almost non-existent online)
I don’t guess the music industry wants to listen to any of the various ideas circulating about how to stay viable from other folks. They are dead set on continuing to do business as usual.
Here is one hint: Album cover art
Not sure if this is even legal…
Doubt it’s gonna fly.
I would have no problem with a fee like that for unlimited access but it has to be a choice on the part of the consumer not a govt tax.
Sort of reminds me of my column this week: Read my lips — no new (gas) taxes.
/Shameless Plug Off
Plug in your own item. If it moves, tax it.
They’re still trying to refine the buggy-whip while we buy auotmobiles.
And the tax would naturally go away then, because that’s what always happens to taxes when their original purpose is over.
You think this is bad? They are going to tax us on carbon usage as well. Yes, we may be taxed on movies we do not watch. We may even have to pay a news print tax for news papers that are going belly up. An MSM tax will be coming soon as FOX News is taking over the free world!
Never underestimate the power of our government to tax us to the hilt.
And for those of us who have never downloaded (or intend to download) any music? Special dispensation from the Pope of Hollywood?
If they actually passed the money on to the artists that would be one thing. But all that money the RIAA collects from happless downloaders goes to line their pockets and the lawyers (ALWAYS the lawyers…). The artists get zip.
if/when that happens everyone will get rotten and moldy brussel sprouts.. I get mine from a farmer’s market nice a fresh.. one of the few greens I LOVE..
as far as the record companies…
take a page from iTunes.. adapt or die..
Radiohead distributed their last album online and it was by and large a success.. (which I really liked too.. despite being to the left of England’s politics, I think they still rock
I’ve downloaded songs before but I do like the feel of the CD and case in my hand.. something substantive..
So the music industry has for ages gone around preaching their version of BLT and Americans in return are flipping them the bird via the wallet. What a surprise, well it is to these lunkheads apparently. Here is a tip fools, most Americans don’t go in for that type of thing and the ones that do don’t buy music, movie tickets, they stiff the waiter/waitress. Yes they are penny pinching goons who spend all their money on illiterate signage to parade around recruiting offices with. We don’t hate ourselves like the dems do so it is no surprise that we reject their message their sub standard offerings. I don’t hear much worth buying and I am sick of them bringing out these dinosaurs from another era in a weekend at bernies style of musical entertainment. The problem is liberalism, that’s why we see almost nothing of anything worth spending money on in the entertainment industry. And that now includes sports, yes the liberal cry babies have invaded and ruined that too. If I need entertainment these days I will sick my dog on one of these American haters, now that’s entertainment. Stay out my wallet and peddle your bs somewhere else like tucc. Bullets beans and a big fat wad of money will take us as far as we need to go.
so, is the entire world going to pay this tax? will music downloads be confined to those paying the tax? and why should the 85 year old pay a tax for someone else to DL Snoop?
Michelle,
I think, the question that needs to be asked is, “Who” is being lobbied?
I can almost guess.
All new automobiles purchased in this country will have the most elegant buggy-whips you’ve ever seen, courtesy of the RIAA and Amalgamated Buggy-Whip
The music industry has two big problems:
1) They obviously don’t have anyone in their boardrooms with the slightest bit of economics knowledge; otherwise, they would know that reducing the ridiculous prices of their CDs would increase demand.
2) They ignore all listeners over the age of 25. Older listeners have more money to spend, but the industry doesn’t market to them.
You know, maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. As soon as the government controls it, they’re going to try to redistribute the wealth. Become a musician and get paid regardless of how popular your work is. You can collect a check for recording a song that nobody listens to because Fitty or Britney’s latest is at the top of the charts. Then the artists themselves will get tired of not getting paid even though their works are popular and decide that everybody should get rewarded based on their contributions. The whole lot of them will finally understand why capitalism and free markets are better than socialism. This will carry over to Hollywood and things will be back where they belong instead of this Bizarro world we’re in now.
Cue dakine to give me a lecture about free markets in 3…2…1…
These people spend 23 hours a day thinking up a new tax to force on us. I don’t listen to music or down load music.
L
“The quality of music has been in a continual spiral downward. Like any markey, one must come up with new ideas in order to stay productive in the market.”
As a music lover myself, I’ve said things like that out of disgust at alot of the stuff I hear coming from ‘thug-lifers’ cars. . .but actually there is quite a bit of excellent music still being produced. Unfortunately, the industry doesn’t push their quality music anymore. . .they push the tripe.
I will be contacting my elected officials today.
I say, “Make Me.”
I agree!
heh,heh,heh
I’m workin’ on my first song:
Makin’ a Fortune With a $10 Guitar.
I disagree on both counts. CDs are always going to be more expensive than downloads. I like having the feel of the CD in my hands too, but it isn’t worth the three extra bucks.
And people over 25 are much less likely to buy albums. They are much more likely to go to concerts. That’s where the artists with older audiences make their money.
These bozos can tax CD and record sales all they want. I just buy the knockoff CDs on Canal Street in NYC when I am there or buy them in East LA when I am there. The beautiful thing is that selfrighteous liberal “artists” and producers don’t get any royalties from my purchases!!! I feel like I am getting away with something and loving every minute of it! I don’t feel one bit guilty!
So why should we have to pay for their inept management skills? This is lunacy!
Well put, MM! I will be contacting my Congressman. I am not about to subsidize one of the sources our societal downfall quietly.
On March 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am, franksalterego said:
Hey, Frank, great idea! But be sure your lyrics include plenty of expletives, lascivious themes, and as much violence as possible - after all, you do want your recording to be hit!
Guess again, #30. The most typical way to do something like this would be to distribute the money to the people at the top, like Britney. Lesser known artists would NOT get any money from this.
Pass the FairTax and all these tax code shenanigans go away
Yuck! This sounds like a horrible idea to me, and I even make about $2000 of my annual income from performances sponsored in part by the Music Performance Trust Fund, the organization that would benefit from this bill.
I’d much rather see far more aggressive prosecution of copyright infringement rather than the few cases here and there of somebody falling hard for downloading. If the penalty were $100 plus the prosecution’s attorney fees per illegal download, and it were enforceable somehow, illegal downloading would stop in a heartbeat, and the trust fund would be doing plenty okay nickel and dime-ing its way through tens of millions of dollars as it used to.
Having at one time provided music for your selective enjoyment in 32khz or 96khz mode on my sites I hold the music industry in low and disgusting regard. Their greed killed the goose that laid the internet golden eggs. At one time there was a real rejuvenation of the best of who ever and the music industry began suing their customer base for downloading music that they had nothing to do with inventing or advancing. For example, all the music on my sites was created from music I purchased. $50 collector albums by Abba, FleetWood Mac, Beach Boy, Blonde, etc, all mostly dust on the shelf without the stimulus of the internet. The internet then invented new music formats, beyond CDs and DVDs audio format/tracks, such as MP3/MP4 in which the music industry did not develop or invest. Except, stuffing their pockets how ever they can. I no longer provide music on my sites and I no longer spend $15 - $50 per album either.
I can think of a lot of reasons to attach an assumed music use fee, perhaps 1 mill per thousand revenue dollars, but I can think of one good reason not to so assist the music industry: they created their own demise so let them create their own resurrection.
#40: Not true. One of the complaints in the music industry, actually, is that classical musicians like me get a disproportionate share of the distributions. Classical music doesn’t even make 5% of sales but gets FAR more than 5% of the royalties outlayed in support of symphonic programs, public band concerts, and school presentations.
Taxation without Appreciation.
Fore! Hit. Par.
Wanna’ bet?
Frank’s Recording Bidness Inc. is now officially open.
Might I add… the performances paid through the MPTF are required to be done at their own pay scale, generally lower than other union minimums. Also, the MPTF’s outlay for these performances in which I perform has decreased from 20% ten years ago to 5% if we’re lucky for this year’s summer series.
There’s a problem… there’s no denying it. If they’d think like a bunch of Rudy Guiliani fiscal and legal conservatives rather than a bunch of socialists, there’d be no problem. Aside from MM, me, and a few other notables, though, musicians are about the most socialist group out there, so the industry may need to collapse for the greater good of teaching my colleagues a lesson in supply-side economics.
How about a tax forcing me to buy an eight-track, otherwise I have to pay a fee?
I will refuse to pay. I do not d/l or listen to any of their commercial crap, and will not pay money every month so some 12-year-old little wannabe gangsta can listen to hour after hour of how they should kill cops, take lots of drugs and be a criminal.
If ISPa decide to offer an option of unlimited & buyer owned music for five bucks a month, that’s fine. If they demand everyone pay, that’s a whole ‘nother animal.
If the recoding indusrty were not putting out a constant wave of blah “music” and married to a 1980s model of distribution, they likely would be in much better shape. Indie artists who make use of the internet are light years ahead of the RIAA marketing-wise. Time for the music giants to - to coin a phrase — “Suck.It.Up.”.
hmm.. if the $5 monthly fee for access were optional, then fine, go for it. No reason the music industry can’t do that on their own right now.
# 30 “As soon as the government controls it, they’re going to try to redistribute the wealth. Become a musician and get paid regardless of how popular your work is. You can collect a check for recording a song that nobody listens to because Fitty or Britney’s latest is at the top of the charts.”
Ah, that brings back memories of BMI v. ASCAP debates with misc music folks.
$5 per month! For the privilege of not being bombarded with ads!! Only a stupid Marxist democrap could come up with a hair-brained idea like that. IDIOTS!
Partly disagree. CDs are worth the extra 3 bucks if you really like the music. Hard drive crashes can render a music collection moot very quickly. I always buy CDs first, and rip them last. I also backup my music collection in two different places…drives do not last forever.
During the heyday of modern music, the 70s. Yes that is where about half the music played today originated, it was not unique to see a concert advertised with five or six bands. They called it festival seating, or sit/stand anywhere you want, that’s illegal today. Anyway it was not uncommon to see an unheard of band come in and smoke the headliner. You couldn’t just come in drunk or drugged up and give a bad performance the other bands were headhunting you. Competition, what a novelty. We don’t see that today the mugicans are too afraid to do that they might be put to shame so we end up stuck with whatever they happen to offer that particular night. In those days most everyone was into music other forms of entertainment were not as big back then so many albums were purchased and guess what, albums were easy to scratch even the needle would do it sometimes. As soon as that happened to one of your faves whammo, another purchase and maybe another and another. I had stacks of albums in those days now I don’t own a musical CD. Most of the music I have I downloaded in the 90s and mirrored it to a few extra hard drives just so I wouldn’t lose it. I would say about 70 percent of the music the kids I know listen to comes from that era. I’ve seen about all the great bands over the years, I remember paying a dollar to see john cougar (yeah I know that’s about all he is worth) at six flags about the time he broke on to the scene try to find something like that today. Coming from parents that were music lovers I have a deep background in music and I get a lot of questions about which bands/songs are good from those days. One of my kids takes great pride in their musical knowledge it’s a big plus when hanging with the gang. It’s a good way to break the ice in a conversation with the opposite sex too.
How do you figure this? How does buying a CD correlate with going to concerts? Buying a CD gives you music that you can listen to over and over, where a concert is a one-time non-repeatable event. Albums are $10-15, concerts can be hundreds of dollars.
If “artists” truly do make more on concerts its likely because they charge far more for a ticket than a CD, but what a particular artist makes doesn’t necessarily correlate with what over-25s spend their money on either. Haven’t been to a concert in years, and I don’t have plans to go anytime soon (unless Zeppelin reunites!), yet I continue to buy CDs when something interests me (which admittedly isn’t very often these days). I’m 39.
Anyway, way off topic now. Sorry.
I agree. Most music today is nasty, disgusting cursing pretending to be music. No tax for racism.
I don’t like the idea of a new tax that everyone has to bear regardless of their usage of online music, but from a strict pocketbook perspective, I’m all for it. I currently pay more than $5 a month for Rhapsody, which I use just about every day, and $0.89 per download, and not all artists’ music is available.
To be fair to the music industry, the two best selling albums in 2007 were Josh Groban’s Christmas album and the soundtrack to High School Musical 2. Clean sells.
Maybe I am out of it, but I have never to this date downloaded free music. Nope, not once. I don’t mind buying music although I often buy used to save money. I don’t feel right downloading free music because it does feel like stealing. And yes, I would object to subsidizing music that is extremely negative when the music I enjoy is the opposite of that.
You mean the “FairTax” that would tax the money I have already been taxed on (at the time I spend it.) You mean that FairTax. Why not just call it STEALING.
How about anti-trust?
Frankly as a radical capitalist I don’t believe in patents and copywrites. They are an infringement on a free market place.
#56
BUT.. they can be a once in a lifetime event..
The only industry I have a loathing for is the recording industry. It has been ripping off artists and consumers for decades and treating both like serfs. I’m happy as a clam to see it go up in flames thanks to the magic of the internet. As Radiohead proved, you don’t even need a record company anymore to distribute your music. 100% of your labors go right into your pocket, the way it should be.
Try and put a tax on the internet to save the recording inudstry and you’ll see the 21st century’s answer to the Boston Tea Party.
How many times have they changed the format rendering our collections obsolete? Albums (33/45), 8 tracks, Cassettes, CD’s and now Computer files. So who is really doing the stealing here? If music is art and I buy the picture/song I paid for my copy I own it, forever. Its bad enough that in the past you were forced to buy a bunch of lousy tunes to get the one you liked. So the way I see it they owe me, but I’ll forget about it, I’m not greedy.
But.. when that happens, of course everyone who HAS broadband will treat that with respect and not download everything between ‘Pop Corn’ by Hot Butter and Beethoven’s 5th..
The record companies won’t be able to handle the ‘unforeseen’ surge with the new regulations so MORE government controls would have to put into place.. as well as a higher ‘tax’ to cover new costs and regulations..
and to be fair, music from the long stick end of the spectrum (stuff that I like, bluegrass, twang, obscure rock) would be sacrificed for the ‘greater’ good of more mainstream pop..
in the end, you would be ending up with:
(maybe) a sober Britney,
a strung out Whitney,
Justin Timberlake,
A hip hop version of Swan Lake,
Ice Tea,
Bass lines by Flea,
U2
and Shakira too..
but not Jessica Simpson.. she’s a republican..
Gotta go with Rusty here. Clean does sell, as does “good” - though there could be endless discussion as to what that is.
The older crowd will buy CDs they like, younger people have all gone to downloads. But there is a successful model in the download world - iTunes. No forced taxation, no government involvment, just private industry risking their own capital to license music and make it available for a small fee. If people like your work, they’ll buy it.
Just a ridiculous idea and that’s why we need to contact our reps, because the more egregious the tax, the less deserving the corporation, the more likely we are to subsidize the damn thing (see ADM or any agricultural omnibus bill for prime pork examples.)
Why the specific call out on gangsta rap?
You’re kidding I hope, but I’m worried you’re not. No protection for intellectual capital? “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?” Capitalism?
Frightening stuff. I frankly don’t want Congress involved at all. Any “fee” should be voluntary, and all taxes should have sunsets anyway.
Let’s break out the hymnals, shall we?
Term limits for Congress.
Shrink the size and scope of government.
Less nanny-state and more personal responsibility.
No brainers to some, but frightening to many.
Farm subsidies have been around since FDR. Paying someone not to make records is akin to paying a farmer not to grow crops. It’s ingrained in our culture, but it’s still socialism.
The “music” industry owes US. The verbal diarrhea that they spew has done nothing but erode our country’s culture and societal integrity. Most of these “artists” would either be in prison or in a condemned tenent building, strung out on drugs and dying from AIDS.
I am incredulous that this would matter to anyone, let alone people in Congress. It just goes to show how irrelivant people are who get voted into high office. These morons are just as societally and culturally damaging to our country as these criminal “music artists.”
If they could transform this into a private service for $5/month I’d sign up now for:
“unfettered access to a database of all known music”.
I’d almost be willing to pay it via a tax.
Oops, wrong thread.
yohannbiimu #73:
When you say “most” are you absolutely sure of this? I think that there is more to the music industry than gangster rap.
Also, congress is involved because it is a big money industry with power and an impact to some extent on our economy.
I’d much prefer for a free market solution to the whole thing but to answer your question, this is why they are involved and trying to “fix” it with their clumsy fist.
yohannbiimu #73:
When you say “most” are you absolutely sure of this? I think that there is more to the music industry than gangster rap.
Also, congress is involved because it is a big money industry with power and an impact to some extent on our economy.
I’d much prefer for a free market solution to the whole thing but to answer your question, this is why they are involved and trying to “fix” it with their clumsy fist.
Long ago, recording artist Tom Petty offered a simple solution to the music industry’s woes. In short, he recommended that the industry slash CD prices to $9.95 across the board.
His reasoning: inflated CD prices have a regressive impact on sales. At $9.95 potential consumers might be willing to dip into their wallets to purchase their favorite titles on CD. But at $19.95 to $29.95 (the range of the average CD — box sets costing even higher) consumers would be more inclined to forgo the cost of the CD by either ripping the tracks from a “borrowed” CD or simply downloading the pirated MP3s from the Internet. Lower prices mean more purchases. Higher prices mean fewer customers, more music piracy.
Needless to say, the music industry has not taken Mr. Petty up on his advice.
#15 conservativesRus
Google WCPE and check out http://www.classicalarchives.com/
Paying the record companies intellectual property rights is like paying UPS for making your own paintings of Disney characters.
Look guys, the record companies have an exclusive DISTRIBUTION contract with various performers.
That means
1) They profit by making music media of whichever types are accordance to those contracts
After making those media (records, CDs, DVDs, whatever) they transport those media to Wally World and various other retailers.
They have salesmen (and women) convince retailers to buy those media.
They have promoters convince radio stations to play the music on those media in the hopes that consumers will opt to buy those media for themselves.
They have no intellectual property rights
None
They have a contract for distribution of the physical stuff that contains those intellectual property rights. Most, but not all, of that stuff they can insist that the original acquisition be pay for (exceptions include not paying for recording from the airwaves and many promotional media are flat out given away)
So how do they continue to get in line first to take funds “for the
childrenArtiste”?Not exactly. We needed farmers then, and still do. We don’t truly “need” the music industry.
Farm subsidies have had nothing to do with saving farmers for a very long time. They are an example of the double whammy of subsidies: they keep poor businesses in business and they make food prices higher for everyone. Sounds just like what the record companies want.
They’re both examples of egregious abuses of government largesse.
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?
Record companies have been disintermediated by technology. Rather than adapt and find some way of adding value to the music supply chain, they would rather lobby the government for a protected revenue stream. This reminds me of the time when the USPS wanted to charge “postage” on email for fear that no one would ever again send snail mail.
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.)
#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!
To quote someone above ‘HELL NO’. Let them die if they can’t compete.
#78 - While I find Tom Petty’s view on the sale of CD’s intersting as quoted by you, I have to say it sounds better on the surface that it is in reality. I went to a concert of his back in 2001 and all he could do was rant about Bush and how he’s censoring artists. No mention of Tipper Gore’s rating systerm at all. It got so bad I walked out of the concert. So I have to question any “solution” he comes up with.
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)
the best reading is in the comments.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/28/the-music-tax-details-of-the-plan-they-dont-want-you-to-know/
I will add this to reason# 54237 as to why there will never, ever, be a moment of paid television in my home… ever again. We have been cable free for years, and it’s been liberating!
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