From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2)Still too expensive. You can't sample new artists for a buck a song,
an
> album is still $10.
I've never been one to cold-sample an artist anyway. I wait for either
(a) hearing a song I like by the artist on the radio (or in person) and
buying an album with that song, (b) getting a new artist's work as a
gift, or (c) having a friend recommend an artist [typically by loaning
an album to me].
But having it cheap makes this a viable option. If its 10 or 20 cents a
song, I might try an artist from something like a "People who bought this
also liked this" link. At a buck a song, that ain't happening.
> 3)For every penny the artist gets, the label still gets 65 or 70.
> Literally. I refuse to support those greedy parasites.
How much does an artist get from allofmp3.com?
Nothing. Its the one negative side. Instead, I buy concert tickets, where
the artist actually gets a majority of the revenue.
And what would a reasonable cut be for the middlemen? Does this apply
to other areas of life? (For each $1 in the grocery store, what portion
of that makes it back to the farmer?)
Not 60x. In this case, the label isn't even the middleman- apple is. Yet
apple just breaks even on itunes, and makes its money off the ipod. I
refuse to support that kind of rampant profiteering. And yes, it does apply
to other areas of life. I think its one of the largest problems in America
today that the 99% of the people producing goods and services get jack shit
while the 1% or less get 99% of the wealth.
> What I'd love to see is something like Napster/Rhapsody/Yahoo Music with
no
> DRM on the files- just a flat monthly fee to download whatever I want,
and
> I keep it (none of this renting bullshit). I'd happily pay as much as I
do
> for cable tv for such a service.
That's an economic model that makes no sense. You might as well demand
that all music be free to everyone all the time. All you're doing is
assuming the role of parasite to replace/join the RIAA and friends...
I think it should be free- I think copyright ought to be utterly abolished.
But ignoring that, it is still a workable buisness model. You take off
the costs of running the servers from the top. Then you give the guys
running it a reasonable profit (10%? 15%? something around that). Split
the rest up to the artists by the percentage of total downloads. If
1,000,000 songs are downloaded, and yours is downloaded 1000 times, you get
.1% of the pool. Definitely a feasible model. I'd be willing to bet they
make even more money off it than they do now- the vast majority of the US
does not buy 3+cds a month, but they do have cable TV. For the price of
cable they can get as much music as they want? People would buy it in
droves.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
