Hi, Its upto the companies & artists to decide. However I have a profitable business model in mind.
The ad revenue generated by freely sharing can be a huge amount. Most music piracy websites get ads from many renowned companies. Check out songs.pk for example. Lets think out something. Here's a related website: http://kroomsa.com. Have talked to the Indian Black metal band Alien Gods. Soon they'll be releasing their music on their to be launched website freely. Last year I remember listening to an UK artist whose music was released under Creative Commons. By choosing a suitable license artists can get a decent profit. Don't remember the name though. The biggest hurdle may be something else. A friend commented that at times the piracy sites are so popular & have such a huge collection that people may download from there instead of the artists website if they release their music freely. Basically the concept has to be popularised. Indian bands like "Band of Boys" have already released their music freely on their website. Looking forward to all your valuable response, Regards, Aveek On 7/21/10, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Send network mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of network digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Record labels should make MP3s free, and freely shareable > (sajan venniyoor) > 2. Re: Record labels should make MP3s free, and freely shareable > (jtd) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:19:52 +0530 > From: sajan venniyoor <[email protected]> > To: Indian FOSS Community Network list <[email protected]> > Subject: [fosscomm] Record labels should make MP3s free, and freely > shareable > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > *Record labels should make MP3s free, and freely shareable* > By Milo Yiannopoulos, 19 Jul 2010 > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7898359/Record-labels-should-make-MP3s-free-and-freely-shareable.html > > A few days ago, with no small amount of glee, Ray Beckerman from the > Recording Industry vs The People blog suggested that $16m in legal fees had > netted the Recording Industry Association of America less than $400,000 in > court judgements against pirates in 2008. (You can see for yourself just how > much glee Beckerman > felt<http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/07/ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-riaa-paid-its-lawyers.html>by > reading his post title, which is: ?Ha ha ha ha ha. RIAA paid its > lawyers > more than $16,000,000 in 2008 to recover only $391,000!!!?.) > > But beyond the gloating blog posts, there's a truth emerging: aggressive > legal tactics against pirates simply aren't working. Worse, they're turning > into a PR disaster for the recording industry. > Illegal downloading is costing record companies ? and, ultimately, artists ? > a lot of money in lost sales. No one would seriously deny that (though they > may argue over just how much it's costing). But if suing pirates isn't the > answer, what is? > > There are two main technical problems for content producers in a digital > age. The first is called the analog hole. It?s the point at which the 1s and > 0s become something human beings are capable of understanding: for example, > a sound or a picture. It?s at that point that ? regardless of the technical > restrictions on playback or distribution of content, the signal can be > intercepted or captured. > As soon as you have a digital copy of the movie or song, the second problem > rears its head: digital content can be instantly, infinitely copied and > distributed, near-instantaneously, to millions of other people. Both of > these problems are, ultimately, insoluble. > > And that?s why, after the lawsuits, the scary TV ads, the technical measures > like deep packet inspection, the (small) legal victories, the new > legislation in the USA and Europe, the hundreds of millions of dollars > thrown at combating online piracy, we are no closer to stamping out > file-sharing. > > Piracy cannot be eradicated. It doesn?t matter if every BitTorrent tracker > is shut down, every server hosting every torrent directory seized. > Determined pirates will just switch to a new type of technology ? such as > streaming via sites like RapidShare ? and the mainstream will eventually > follow. (It?s already happening in France, where streaming is the new > file-sharing.) > > That?s how the internet is: it?s a fast-moving, hyper-connected network of > highly intelligent, resourceful people. There is always a way around any > restriction; always a fix for any bug; always a way to get what you want for > free somehow. > > So if we accept that file-sharing is unstoppable, and that attempts to curb > it might leave us with something even worse, wouldn?t the logical > consequence would be to make MP3s free, and freely shareable? Yeah, I know. > But take a deep breath and think about it for a second. And yes, I do > realise I'm not remotely the first person to come up with this. But I'm > perhaps the latest person to be won over to it. > Giving MP3s away would require that record labels basically give up on > studio recordings as a revenue channel. On the face of it, it sounds > heretical and preposterous. I mean, they?re record companies because they > make records, right? > > Technology and music journalists have been banging on for years about broken > business models and the need for record companies to wake up. There?s an > increasing realisation, though it may not have filtered up to industry > executives yet, that the internet has created an insuperable obstacle to the > idea of charging for a copy of a file. > > Edit, copy. Edit, paste. That?s how you make a copy of something on a > computer; you don?t buy a new version of the file. It?s hard-wired into > anyone who knows how to use a PC. It doesn?t matter how many lawsuits you > file against grandmothers; that understanding doesn?t suddenly stop when the > file extension is .mp3 instead of .doc. > > There will always be a market for ?premium? physical stuff, along with all > the associated merchandise. But if the RIAA (I?m omitting the MPAA, because > movies are an entirely different kettle of fish ? a subject I?ll return to > in a future column) gave up on trying to sell digital copies of recorded > music, they and associated bodies in other markets could drop existing > lawsuits, fire their overpriced lawyers and refocus their attention on their > artists. > > Authorised streaming services offer an exciting potential replacement > revenue stream. You can charge people something like $10 a month for > services like Spotify. People seem happy-ish with that. $10 seems to be the > ?sweet spot?. So make those services valuable ? for example, by making local > versions of files available for offline use and build decent clients for all > the major operating systems and mobile handsets. People will pay for > convenience and good software. > > And then of course there?s live music. In 2007, when her existing recording > contract came to an end, Madonna signed an extraordinary $120 million deal > with Live Nation. But Live Nation isn?t a record company; it?s a tour > promoter. Madonna has proven that if you put on a good enough show you can > charge whatever the hell you want and you?ll sell out, night after night, > tour after tour. > > I know, I know, nobody listens when a gay man starts evangelising about > Madonna. But really, the numbers speak for themselves: at the end of 2007, > Madonna had raked in $194.7 million from her Confessions tour, having played > in front of 1.2 million people. A few years later, she?d refined the > formula: 2008/9?s Sticky and Sweet made a staggering $408 million. That > dwarfs the profit she made on the album itself, which sold 3.8 million > copies. > > What Madonna, Michael Jackson and more recently Lady Gaga have most in > common is their larger-than-life personas; the cults of personality they > erect around themselves that find their fullest (and most commercially > lucrative) expression in live tours. Ask anyone who had a ticket for Bad or > Blonde Ambition and they?ll likely tell you it was one of the most > extraordinary nights of their life. And people will pay stupendous amounts > of money for those sorts of live experiences. > > But they?ll also pay good money for more pedestrian experiences, if they > have that live feel to them. Cinemas, despite the rocketing prices of their > tickets, are experiencing a phenomenal renaissance. According to my friends > in the industry, it?s not just recession behaviour and there?s no sign of a > slowdown. > > Martin Spence, assistant general secretary of BECTU, the UK?s media and > entertainment trade union, told me a few months ago, in reference to the > Digital Economy Act, that ?politically, no ground has been given over the > fundamental understanding that illegal downloading and file-sharing are > forms of theft, and that the industry cannot stand by and watch it happen?. > > That position might be a horrible, perhaps even fatal, mistake. I reckon the > record labels that will survive will be the labels that reinvent themselves > as talent scouts and tour promoters. Artists like Madonna are perfectly > placed to prove the business case. Indeed, I think she already has. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.fosscom.in/pipermail/network-fosscom.in/attachments/20100720/0bab3dea/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:05:36 +0530 > From: jtd <[email protected]> > To: Indian FOSS Community Network list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [fosscomm] Record labels should make MP3s free, and > freely shareable > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Tuesday 20 July 2010 18:19:52 sajan venniyoor wrote: >> *Record labels should make MP3s free, and freely shareable* >> By Milo Yiannopoulos, 19 Jul 2010 >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7898359/Record-labels-sh >>ould-make-MP3s-free-and-freely-shareable.html >> >> A few days ago, with no small amount of glee, Ray Beckerman from >> the Recording Industry vs The People blog suggested that $16m in >> legal fees had netted the Recording Industry Association of America >> less than $400,000 in court judgements against pirates in 2008. >> (You can see for yourself just how much glee Beckerman >> felt<http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/07/ha-ha-ha >>-ha-ha-riaa-paid-its-lawyers.html>by reading his post title, which >> is: ?Ha ha ha ha ha. RIAA paid its lawyers >> more than $16,000,000 in 2008 to recover only $391,000!!!?.) >> >> But beyond the gloating blog posts, there's a truth emerging: >> aggressive legal tactics against pirates simply aren't working. >> Worse, they're turning into a PR disaster for the recording >> industry. > > The legal tactics are not against the organised pirates, who thrive > and do a roaring business, but against individuals most of whom are > regular joes who want to hear what they are buying first. > >> Illegal downloading is costing record companies ? and, ultimately, >> artists ? a lot of money in lost sales. No one would seriously deny >> that (though they may argue over just how much it's costing). > > Most of the money is skimmed of by the music company and even very > well known artists and their inheritors have had to sue the record > companies for fudging accounts. > Further illegal sharing has come about because of an utterly outdated > method of distribution coupled with other crooked practices like > bundling. And the "losing money" bit is a plug by the very same > group - news and media companies - whose business models are > obsolete. > > The rest of the article is partly true. However what the author fails > to understand is that the days of superstars writing mostly rubbish > which was lapped up by hungry hordes, simply because that was the > only stuff served on TV and radio is long over. Lady gaga, Madonna > (lip sync) Ccionne and a few others are the last dying embers. > > Passive consumption of entertainment, news, information, learning is > over and dead. This model of congregating in one place to consume > something reminds me of the colosseum - 2500 years is pretty good run > for a business model. Well one might even go all the way back to a > campfire 2.5 millon years ago, (though i doubt you paid or got > invited to these rock-n-barbecue parties), with a prime and propah > shaman to link you with the ethereal spirits. A few million years > later the media companies are mighty worried about losing their > shamanic roles. > > It would cost very little for a new group to organise a live show over > the net. > As an example, in the electronics industry until a few years ago, > there used to be several seminars every year on the use of components > made by some manufacturer or the other (National, Intel, Analog > Devices, TI etc). Today these are replaced by webinars. Login to one > of the these company websites and participate. Every now and then a > live event is announced with the old world fixed schedules, > registration, even a real physical meeting place. But the whole > kaboodle is now also available on the net LIVE. And subsequently as > an e-seminar. > Music and the performing arts are no different. > Infact one can have an infinitely large audience as opposed to one > restricted by the size of a Ravindra Natya Mandir or Shanmukhananda > Hall, or one constantly interrupted by brain dead fairy cream ads. > > The internet is a pardigm shift. Like it or not, the way we deliver > services and information has changed forever. There is plenty of room > for the shaman, he just needs to virtualise the campfire and stop > being a pain in the a... > > > -- > Rgds > JTD > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > > > End of network Digest, Vol 17, Issue 11 > *************************************** > -- Sent from my mobile device Aveek Sen [email protected] [email protected] http://twitter.com/aveeksen _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
