How the Record Industry should change?

[Fayd]

This is a theoretical discussion, it will employ some economic theories.

How should the record industry change? as is now, they've acknowledged they cannot keep people from pirating music. however, it is my opinion that they brought pirated music upon themselves, by selling something for $15 that should in all honesty be sold for free. (marginal cost of online distribution of music is $0.00. given this, charging anything other than 0 leads to an inefficient outcome) however, if there's no profit in making music, then it simply wont happen. nobody will bother creating new music.

I think the music industry should change as follows. music should be free to distribute legally, and will serve as advertisement for concerts, which should be the primary source of revenue for entertainers.(that, and endorsement deals) the parasitic entity that is the RIAA should either streamline itself for purposes of exposing new talent and hyping for concerts, or just fall by the wayside, and leave it to entertainers themselves or independent advertising agencies.

thoughts?

 

[JohnCU]

they should follow trent reznor's lead

 

[effowe]

I think the iTunes business model is a good one to look at, as it has been the most profitable way of selling music online. It's even better now that it's DRM free. The music industry will never go for free distribution, but if they made it free with an option to donate (like Radiohead and NiN) then they might be able to pull it off.

 

[schneiderguy]

Artists should release their music for free on the internet completely cutting out the record companies, and then make money from touring/merchandise from which they make most of their money anyway.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: effowe
I think the iTunes business model is a good one to look at, as it has been the most profitable way of selling music online. It's even better now that it's DRM free. The music industry will never go for free distribution, but if they made it free with an option to donate (like Radiohead and NiN) then they might be able to pull it off.

a dollar a song? that's still quite a bit more than it really should be, imo.

with the internet, the music industry can never be as profitable as it was before. this is just a given.

(at least, imo.)

 

[spidey07]

That's always the reasoning pirates use. You can't have it free to distribute legally - it's copyrighted work.

1) it should be free
2) pirating is really advertising!

How should the record industry change?
1) Stop the crappy recordings dead in their tracks
2) Continue radio as that is really the advertising to sell the product
3) When you buy a song or album it is yours listen to on any device you own
4) Online distribution option

 

[Gunslinger08]

I think most people who reply to this thread will have an unrealistic view of how the world works.

 

[compuwiz1]

By giving the bird to the big record labels, becoming their own music company and distributing thru large channels like Walmart, the artists can retain about 4 times the profit, also enabling them to sell their CD's cheaper.

In practice, this is working for 3 big name bands as I type this. They are:

AC-DC
The Eagles
Journey

I believe all 3 had albums go platinum in 2008.

 

[effowe]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: effowe
I think the iTunes business model is a good one to look at, as it has been the most profitable way of selling music online. It's even better now that it's DRM free. The music industry will never go for free distribution, but if they made it free with an option to donate (like Radiohead and NiN) then they might be able to pull it off.

a dollar a song? that's still quite a bit more than it really should be, imo.

with the internet, the music industry can never be as profitable as it was before. this is just a given.

(at least, imo.)

Well they changed to a .69, .99, and 1.29 model announced at Macworld this week. I think the price is also reduced when you purchase a full album, but don't know as I've never done it.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
Artists should release their music for free on the internet completely cutting out the record companies, and then make money from touring/merchandise from which they make most of their money anyway.

the record companies front the money for advertising that gets the artists exposed. without that front of money, most artists wont ever become anywhere near as big as they do now.

that's why i said independent advertising companies.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I think most people who reply to this thread will have an unrealistic view of how the world works.

i think most people who live in this world have an unrealistic view of how the world works.

everyone can only see their own world view. >.>

 

[mugs]

It's a good thing the record industry has you to tell them that they should give away albums for free and make money off their concerts. That's a brilliant idea considering that they're currently making money on both albums and concerts.

I think it's funny that people complain that album prices are too high. They cost less now than when I was a teenager (early 90s), and people didn't complain about the cost of albums back then.

 

[frostedflakes]

I'm not a concert person, so albums are the main way I support artists. It's just unfortunate they get such a small cut after the retailers and labels grab their chunk.

I wouldn't mind if albums were distributed free, but I'd still want the option to send some money to the artist. The major labels would never do this, though. There are a lot of good unsigned artists out there that follow this business model, though, you might check them out.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: mugs
It's a good thing the record industry has you to tell them that they should give away albums for free and make money off their concerts. That's a brilliant idea considering that they're currently making money on both albums and concerts.

I think it's funny that people complain that album prices are too high. They cost less now than when I was a teenager (early 90s), and people didn't complain about the cost of albums back then.

I know what you mean, man. When I truely appreciate an artist / album, I just buy it and be happy.

The mentality of those who are always trying to steal other's works and then try and justify it are quite disgusting.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's always the reasoning pirates use. You can't have it free to distribute legally - it's copyrighted work.

1) it should be free
2) pirating is really advertising!

How should the record industry change?
1) Stop the crappy recordings dead in their tracks
2) Continue radio as that is really the advertising to sell the product
3) When you buy a song or album it is yours listen to on any device you own
4) Online distribution option

i understand it's copyrighted work. and thus, the artists or copyright holders are entitled to be compensated their fair value for their expended effort in creating the song.

but how much is fair? and for how long should they be given that compensation? because reproducing the song is free, distributing the song should be free as well.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: mugs
It's a good thing the record industry has you to tell them that they should give away albums for free and make money off their concerts. That's a brilliant idea considering that they're currently making money on both albums and concerts.

I think it's funny that people complain that album prices are too high. They cost less now than when I was a teenager (early 90s), and people didn't complain about the cost of albums back then.

the internet didnt exist as a practical medium of transferring albums when you were a teenager.

and you're mistaken if people didnt complain about it then. people have a habit of complaining about the cost of everything.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: mugs
It's a good thing the record industry has you to tell them that they should give away albums for free and make money off their concerts. That's a brilliant idea considering that they're currently making money on both albums and concerts.

I think it's funny that people complain that album prices are too high. They cost less now than when I was a teenager (early 90s), and people didn't complain about the cost of albums back then.

I know what you mean, man. When I truely appreciate an artist / album, I just buy it and be happy.

The mentality of those who are always trying to steal other's works and then try and justify it are quite disgusting.

FWIW, i don't pirate music.

i have a BA in econ. read at the top: "This is a theoretical thread, using econ concepts."

i'm not trying to justify stealing music, i'm trying to have a discussion.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: mugs
It's a good thing the record industry has you to tell them that they should give away albums for free and make money off their concerts. That's a brilliant idea considering that they're currently making money on both albums and concerts.

I think it's funny that people complain that album prices are too high. They cost less now than when I was a teenager (early 90s), and people didn't complain about the cost of albums back then.

I know what you mean, man. When I truely appreciate an artist / album, I just buy it and be happy.

The mentality of those who are always trying to steal other's works and then try and justify it are quite disgusting.

Albums are a fantastic value IMO. Some of my favorite albums I've probably listened to at least a few hundred times, so that's hundreds of hours of entertainment for like $15. Pretty good bang for your buck.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: mugs
It's a good thing the record industry has you to tell them that they should give away albums for free and make money off their concerts. That's a brilliant idea considering that they're currently making money on both albums and concerts.

I think it's funny that people complain that album prices are too high. They cost less now than when I was a teenager (early 90s), and people didn't complain about the cost of albums back then.

I know what you mean, man. When I truely appreciate an artist / album, I just buy it and be happy.

The mentality of those who are always trying to steal other's works and then try and justify it are quite disgusting.

FWIW, i don't pirate music.

i have a BA in econ. read at the top: "This is a theoretical thread, using econ concepts."

i'm not trying to justify stealing music, i'm trying to have a discussion.

A little defensive today, are we? I was not pointing a finger directly at you, but at the vast number of others who refuse to pay for the music or intellectual property that they enjoy using everyday. And whether you have a BA, an MA or a PHD, education has nothing to do with whether one has morals and ethics, so beating your chest about the rag you possess does not impress me much.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Fayd
i understand it's copyrighted work. and thus, the artists or copyright holders are entitled to be compensated their fair value for their expended effort in creating the song.

but how much is fair? and for how long should they be given that compensation? because reproducing the song is free, distributing the song should be free as well.

That doesn't make any sense at all. So you think people should be able to copy your work and you not get any money for it? Who cares what it costs to reproduce it, that's your work and you should get your money.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'm not a concert person, so albums are the main way I support artists. It's just unfortunate they get such a small cut after the retailers and labels grab their chunk.

I wouldn't mind if albums were distributed free, but I'd still want the option to send some money to the artist. The major labels would never do this, though. There are a lot of good unsigned artists out there that follow this business model, though, you might check them out.

Buy direct from the artist then.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's always the reasoning pirates use. You can't have it free to distribute legally - it's copyrighted work.

1) it should be free
2) pirating is really advertising!

How should the record industry change?
1) Stop the crappy recordings dead in their tracks
2) Continue radio as that is really the advertising to sell the product
3) When you buy a song or album it is yours listen to on any device you own
4) Online distribution option

i understand it's copyrighted work. and thus, the artists or copyright holders are entitled to be compensated their fair value for their expended effort in creating the song.

but how much is fair? and for how long should they be given that compensation? because reproducing the song is free, distributing the song should be free as well.

Fair is whatever the market will bear.

And if you don't want to pay for it that doesn't give you a right to have at it either.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'm not a concert person, so albums are the main way I support artists. It's just unfortunate they get such a small cut after the retailers and labels grab their chunk.

I wouldn't mind if albums were distributed free, but I'd still want the option to send some money to the artist. The major labels would never do this, though. There are a lot of good unsigned artists out there that follow this business model, though, you might check them out.

Buy direct from the artist then.

I usually do that when the option is available. The fewer middlemen sucking up artists profits the better.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Fair is whatever the market will bear.

And if you don't want to pay for it that doesn't give you a right to have at it either.

But, but, but...I deserve to have it for free! It isn't fair!

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: mugs
It's a good thing the record industry has you to tell them that they should give away albums for free and make money off their concerts. That's a brilliant idea considering that they're currently making money on both albums and concerts.

I think it's funny that people complain that album prices are too high. They cost less now than when I was a teenager (early 90s), and people didn't complain about the cost of albums back then.

I know what you mean, man. When I truely appreciate an artist / album, I just buy it and be happy.

The mentality of those who are always trying to steal other's works and then try and justify it are quite disgusting.

FWIW, i don't pirate music.

i have a BA in econ. read at the top: "This is a theoretical thread, using econ concepts."

i'm not trying to justify stealing music, i'm trying to have a discussion.

A little defensive today, are we? I was not pointing a finger directly at you, but at the vast number of others who refuse to pay for the music or intellectual property that they enjoy using everyday. And whether you have a BA, an MA or a PHD, education has nothing to do with whether one has morals and ethics, so beating your chest about the rag you possess does not impress me much.

i took your post to mean that i was trying to justify stealing music. if that was not what you meant, oh well.

i'm not beating my chest over any piece of paper. i'm bored, and want to have a theoretical discussion. given that i am trained in economics, i bound theoretical discussions with theories from economics. given that i graduated, i have noone to have a theoretical disussion with, so i turn to atot.

and i dont really give a damn if i impress you or anyone else on the internet. you are the internet, and the internet is not real.

anyways, awhile ago, someone who has more knowledge than most of the inner workings of the recording industry said to me, "the RIAA cannot continue as it is now, internet piracy has stripped it of it's profitability and it'll decline...."yada yada and such. anyways, that's where the idea for this thread came from. how should the recording industry change in order to remain profitable in a time when online distribution of music is the accepted medium, and copyrights are all but ignored?