Glenn
02-20-2003, 04:01 PM
What do you guys think of music sharing? The industry's in big trouble. CD sales are dying. Anyone with Kazaa can get any song in 1 minute for free.
Here's my take:
It is 100% the fault of the music industry. As a recent report I saw rightly pointed out, they have done nothing to embrace the MP3 format. All they do is sue. They overcharge, overpromote and release garbage.
Napster was the first to go. I didn't disagree with this, as Napster was set up to make money off of other people's work. But Kazaa Lite, an (ironically) hacked version of Kazaa, allows people to distribue music to other people in a setting where no one makes money. Is this wrong? On one level, yes. Basically, the artists are receiving nothing for their work. P2P file sharing is going to be very difficult to prevent though, and until the industry shapes up, it is a buyer's best option.
Free music downloads are not all bad. They allow people to explore all kind of music they never would have tried before. Recently, I was on a punk/hardcore kick so I downloaded a bunch of Black Flag and Dead Boys. Without P2P I would have just ignored it and put Use Your Illusion II or Jim Croce's Greatest Hits in again. No way I'm going to go spend $15 bucks on something I don't know if I'll like. Sometimes this leads to CD sales. But sometimes it leads to people just keeping/burning the music, especially if there's just one song they like.
So people are stealing music. Why? Well, it is easy, and free. But the real reason is that buying music is a total ripoff. It is not that hard or expensive to make a CD. Even with high end production, etc... So why does it cost $17.99 to buy one? And what if you only like one song...you have to pay $6 for the single...if a single is even available. Let's put this in perspective. Fight Club was rated the #1 DVD (best quality, coolest features, etc) by EW. Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition was #2...it contains 3 versions of the movie! How much do they cost? On Amazon, Fight Club is about $17 and Terminator 2 is about $20. Popular CD's are about $15. If one thinks about the difference between a movie (DVD) and a CD of music, it is not hard to see a big error in the market here. Packaging and raw materials for a major market CD costs what? A quarter or so? And how much does a CD cost to record? I am not exactly sure, but I can tell you it is a few orders of magnitude less than it costs to make a movie! It is a total joke that people are expected to buy a CD for $17 becuase they like two 4-minute songs. I don't buy CD's much becuase I go to the store and it ends up being between the Eminem show and the Seven Samuri. It's not close. Plust I can get the Eminem show for free. Sure, I think Eminem deserves his money. And if you tell me his address I'll be happy to send him a check for his per CD royalties...or mabye I'll just throw some nickels in the envelope /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.
Another major advantage of P2P file sharing is the availability of rare/unusual versions of songs that one might not otherwise be able to obtain. It is my feeling that if someone who holds the rights to music/entertainment doesn't release it for sale themselves, it is fair game. It only serves to promote their artists anyways. For instance I have an MP3 of Bruce and M. Ethridge doing "Thunder Road" that is amazing. Other examples include the P2P-ubiquitous "Wild Horses" cover by Jewel. You can't get this stuff (in a legit fashion) on CD even if you tried, so is it wrong to get it for free?
What should the music industry do to fix this? They should embrace the format, and distribute the music electronically a low cost. For 25 cents a song (maybe 30 for new stuff, 15 for old?), they would do pretty well. Imagine having and account at a website where you could just search for any music ever, and then click and get it for a quarter a song. People would do that, and the artists would get their money. Some of the fat cat producers will suffer, but the market will adjust. (Note: Sug Knight is an exception, he should get whatever he wants since, well, I don't wanna get shot.) Look at a song like Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction". That is an awesome song, but who goes out and buys the CD? I bet people would buy the song for a quarter though. High profile, highly marketed, low talent artist like Britney or J Lo may suffer, but they suck anyways so good!
Thoughts?
Here's my take:
It is 100% the fault of the music industry. As a recent report I saw rightly pointed out, they have done nothing to embrace the MP3 format. All they do is sue. They overcharge, overpromote and release garbage.
Napster was the first to go. I didn't disagree with this, as Napster was set up to make money off of other people's work. But Kazaa Lite, an (ironically) hacked version of Kazaa, allows people to distribue music to other people in a setting where no one makes money. Is this wrong? On one level, yes. Basically, the artists are receiving nothing for their work. P2P file sharing is going to be very difficult to prevent though, and until the industry shapes up, it is a buyer's best option.
Free music downloads are not all bad. They allow people to explore all kind of music they never would have tried before. Recently, I was on a punk/hardcore kick so I downloaded a bunch of Black Flag and Dead Boys. Without P2P I would have just ignored it and put Use Your Illusion II or Jim Croce's Greatest Hits in again. No way I'm going to go spend $15 bucks on something I don't know if I'll like. Sometimes this leads to CD sales. But sometimes it leads to people just keeping/burning the music, especially if there's just one song they like.
So people are stealing music. Why? Well, it is easy, and free. But the real reason is that buying music is a total ripoff. It is not that hard or expensive to make a CD. Even with high end production, etc... So why does it cost $17.99 to buy one? And what if you only like one song...you have to pay $6 for the single...if a single is even available. Let's put this in perspective. Fight Club was rated the #1 DVD (best quality, coolest features, etc) by EW. Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition was #2...it contains 3 versions of the movie! How much do they cost? On Amazon, Fight Club is about $17 and Terminator 2 is about $20. Popular CD's are about $15. If one thinks about the difference between a movie (DVD) and a CD of music, it is not hard to see a big error in the market here. Packaging and raw materials for a major market CD costs what? A quarter or so? And how much does a CD cost to record? I am not exactly sure, but I can tell you it is a few orders of magnitude less than it costs to make a movie! It is a total joke that people are expected to buy a CD for $17 becuase they like two 4-minute songs. I don't buy CD's much becuase I go to the store and it ends up being between the Eminem show and the Seven Samuri. It's not close. Plust I can get the Eminem show for free. Sure, I think Eminem deserves his money. And if you tell me his address I'll be happy to send him a check for his per CD royalties...or mabye I'll just throw some nickels in the envelope /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.
Another major advantage of P2P file sharing is the availability of rare/unusual versions of songs that one might not otherwise be able to obtain. It is my feeling that if someone who holds the rights to music/entertainment doesn't release it for sale themselves, it is fair game. It only serves to promote their artists anyways. For instance I have an MP3 of Bruce and M. Ethridge doing "Thunder Road" that is amazing. Other examples include the P2P-ubiquitous "Wild Horses" cover by Jewel. You can't get this stuff (in a legit fashion) on CD even if you tried, so is it wrong to get it for free?
What should the music industry do to fix this? They should embrace the format, and distribute the music electronically a low cost. For 25 cents a song (maybe 30 for new stuff, 15 for old?), they would do pretty well. Imagine having and account at a website where you could just search for any music ever, and then click and get it for a quarter a song. People would do that, and the artists would get their money. Some of the fat cat producers will suffer, but the market will adjust. (Note: Sug Knight is an exception, he should get whatever he wants since, well, I don't wanna get shot.) Look at a song like Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction". That is an awesome song, but who goes out and buys the CD? I bet people would buy the song for a quarter though. High profile, highly marketed, low talent artist like Britney or J Lo may suffer, but they suck anyways so good!
Thoughts?