Digital Music Biz Ain't Booming

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70170-0.html?tw=rss.index' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70170-0.html?tw=rss.index</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Here you have a product -- recorded music -- that costs very little to produce. Sure, you can spend a fortune on sound studios and videos. But even an amateurish recording of a live performance sounds OK. Nearly everyone knows some struggling band that has put out a decent-sounding release on a shoestring. Once a recording exists, reproducing it costs next to nothing. Because most of us pay a flat monthly fee for internet access, there's no extra cost to send or receive a music file. CDs are also cheap. A pack of blank ones sells for a few dollars. How, then, does the list price of a new music CD get to around $18? Why does it cost a dollar to download a song on iTunes? While $1 isn't much money, it seems high for something that costs nothing to reproduce."</i><br /><br />I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this article. I've never seen someone so utterly clueless about what music is: it's <i>intellectual property</i>, and if it's popular, the <i>owner is paid royalties</i>. That's the reason why music isn't just given away - Glasner, the author of the article, seems to think that the cost of reproduction is the only factor. There's an entire industry of middle-men adding their sometimes-questionable "value" to the product. But they're there nonetheless, and wishful thinking won't change anything. Page two of the article made slightly more sense, but only slightly. :roll: Give it a read and share your thoughts - is she as out to lunch as I think she is?

[Jason Dunn]

Some of the comments are bizarre as well:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,70186-0.html?tw=rss.index

[EscapePod]

Sometimes, I get to wondering --- did Beethoven or Bach get paid for their music? Royalties? Concert appearances? At least handouts???
:wink:

[Jason Dunn]

Sometimes, I get to wondering --- did Beethoven or Bach get paid for their music? Royalties? Concert appearances? At least handouts???

I'm no history expert, but I believe in most cases back then musicians had patrons. Powerful barons, lords, kings - people with money. They would pay the musician/composer a stipend (salary), and host concerts featuring the music - and gain prestige from it.

Things are very different now. ;-)

[Kacey Green]

Not to mention the very sheet music industry started then that led to they way our current music industry formed. See the episode of History's Business on the History Channel where they interview the former head of BMG.

[surfer]

I'm no history expert, but I believe in most cases back then musicians had patrons.

Don't they have ancesters that get paid now when people buy or use their music aswell?

***long quote edited by moderator JD. Please don't quote entire messages, thanks.***

[[email protected]]

Don't they have ancesters that get paid now when people buy or use their music aswell?

I've heard that the rights expire after 75 years.

***long quote edited by moderator JD. Please don't quote entire messages (or two of them), thanks.***

[surfer]

I've heard that the rights expire after 75 years.


But who get's the money now?

[Jason Dunn]

But who get's the money now?

No one - it goes into the public domain. So if you wanted to record a hymn written in 1910, odds are you wouldn't have to pay anyone a royalty. Basically someone can make money off something for 75 years via royalties, the idea being usually within their lifetime and one generation after, then it is given to the public to enjoy.

There are limitations to this though - technically Mickey Mouse should be public domain by now, but I think if a company can legally proove that they need that intellectual property to continue functioning, they can keep it out of the public domain.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be very wrong on all this. ;-)

[surfer]

No one - it goes into the public domain. So if you wanted to record a hymn written in 1910, odds are you wouldn't have to pay anyone a royalty. Basically someone can make money off something for 75 years via royalties, the idea being usually within their lifetime and one generation after, then it is given to the public to enjoy.

Ooo that's cool. So basicly I could say that im a musician after 75 years of work :D

***long quote edited by moderator JD. Please don't quote entire messages, thanks.***

[klinux]

Oh she is definitely out to lunch and beyond. The article made absolutely no sense and she even said so with the very first sentence: "Many people would consider me among the least qualified individuals to write a column about what's wrong with the digital music industry."

[Magellan]

I agree with her 100%. She is least qualified. :P I think the whole idea of put out a CD, promote it, and tour is outdated and doesn't work anymore. I can't think of a single CD that has more than 1 or 2 good songs on it. The artists are pushed to put out a number of songs, put them together on a CD and give it a name. The recording industry needs to change the distribution model to single songs. The consumer could go into a store (physical or virtual) and select different songs from different artists and mix their own CD or digital collection and pay per song. I thought it may have been mentioned here that some stores in certain markets are doing this now. I bet sales would increase, and the attraction of illegal downloads would decrease. The key would be all songs would be available, and multile formats supported (AAC, MP3, wma). That would put control with the consumer, while still giving the artists an income.

[AdamaDBrown]

the owner is paid royalties.

Not exactly. Royalties for all intents and purposes don't exist any more in the music industry--the average royalty for a music CD is pennies on the dollar, and most or all of that is taken by the record label, because they bill the band for the cost of producing the CD. Even if they weren't, you'd be talking 1-3 cents per song average. More for big name acts, but even less for minor players. The real money is made at concerts.

Because they've stomped royalties down to virtually nothing, the justification the music industry has always used to pump the price of CDs is distribution, the idea that you must charge $18 a disc in order to make, package, ship, and sell music at all. This, as much or more than filesharing, is why they've so virulently opposed digital music and dragged their feet at every turn. They don't want technology to do away with their business model, and failing that, they want to impose such ridiculous restraints on digital music that most people will abandon it.