begin quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 02:42:41PM -0600: > >From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [attribution deleted by previous poster] > >> 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.
$1/song is viable already. Apple has shown that. Just because you're too cheap (and I) doesn't mean it's not viable. > 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. At 10 cents a song, it ain't happening for me, either, especially if zilch gets back to the artist. I don't need to walk around with a cloud of guilt over my head for screwing the artist, or worse, be indistinguishable from an RIAA stooge. > >> 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. It's an awfully big negative. They're making the RIAA look ethical. > Instead, I buy concert tickets, where > the artist actually gets a majority of the revenue. I don't go to concerts very often, and most of my favorite groups aren't around any more, so there's no concerts to go to. > >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. But a model that makes 60x look like a tiny markup is okay? > 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 So apple is behaving more-or-less responsibly (a first in this field); so instead of rewarding 'em for doing something right, you're going to claim it's not enough... Hm. > refuse to support that kind of rampant profiteering. And yes, it does And allofmp3.com *isn't* rampant profiteering? > 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. It's a thorny problem, no doubt. But what's a good distribution? > >> 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. I pay $0/month for cable TV, BTW... > >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. Well, that's a separate matter. > But ignoring that, it is still a workable buisness model. You > take off the costs of running the servers from the top. You don't see the potential for abuse inherent in that? > 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. And a whole separate model of abuse right there just jumps out at me... > Definitely a feasible model. I don't see how. It's trivial to abuse in so many ways. > 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. I think the segment that pays for cable TV doesn't buy 3+ CDs each month, but I'm sure that there's a demographic that *does* buy 3+ CDs each month... but their parents are paying for cable. > For the price of > cable they can get as much music as they want? People would buy it in > droves. Not if you don't make Cable TV free as well. And there's a lot of "all the music you want" with Cable TV and Satellite Radio already... after three months and you've leeched all the albums of your favorite group, why is there a need to keep it up? More likely it would be self-limiting and the online market would simply implode... the leechers would suck down everything (and probably share it with friends and strangers), and everyone else would use it briefly, and then stop... and go back to watching cable TV. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
