From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
Selling music is viable, but sampling is not at that rate.
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.
I don't see it in those terms. If I wasn't dling songs, I'd be listening on
the radio or doing without. So no screwing is going on. Thats ignoring the
fact that I consider copyright to be wrong, and thus ignore it anyway.
> >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?
Yup, perfectly. You see, I don't believe an author has any moral right to
profit off their recording. I use allofmp3 because its more convenient than
using file sharing software, and the convenience fee is reasonable. I'm
paying for the service. While they aren't paying the artist, they aren't
actively fucking them over either.
For the record, I'm not hypocritical about it either- I release all my
software as free software, except that which is work for hire.
> 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.
I have no problem with what apple does. They're providing a service. I
just think its overpriced by an order of magnitude or so. You misunderstood
my point- I think Apple deserves cash for running the servers. Its the
labels that don't deserver the almost 70 cents a song they get.
> refuse to support that kind of rampant profiteering. And yes, it does
And allofmp3.com *isn't* rampant profiteering?
No more so than Red Hat, Debian, Mandriva, etc. In other words, no.
> 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?
Something a lot closer to even than that. Notice I'm not saying dead even.
But the current situation is ridiculous.
> 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?
ANd there isn't in the current model? How do we know Apple, Rhapsody, etc
don't do that now?
> 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...
Just count only 1 dl per account per song. If someone is buying multiple
accounts to bump their numbers, they're losing money overall.
> Definitely a feasible model.
I don't see how. It's trivial to abuse in so many ways.
As are the current models. Look at how the record companies abuse things.
> 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?
New music. Consider it a reason for mainstrea music to become less utterly
craptastic. An added bonus.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
