Future of the Music Biz - A Theory

N.L.Y. · **Posted:** May 6th, 2010, 1:34 pm

Quote:

I have an idea. I've been sitting on it for a while. I'm not sure, but I think I have one possible solution to the whole downloading/value of music conundrum. The idea seems to be right under everyone's nose, but I don't think anyone has seen it yet. This is an idea I've been tempted to go ahead with and try myself, but I'm not really in a position to do it right now. So I thought I'd share the idea before the clouds move in...

I, like a lot of people, believe that intellectual property and especially music (like all other artforms) has value. I also know that it's very hard to stop the dissemination of intellectual property once its in a digital form.

So, what if a song was treated like, say, a painting? What if it was sold by the artist just once at a high value? The artist gets paid up front (for once) and after that, nature takes its course.

Imagine the possibilities... If a musician sold a song to a single buyer, he or she could also include in the sale the sheet of paper the lyrics were written on, the strings from the guitar played on the song, the socks worn during the recording, hand-made artwork to go with it... The sky's the limit!

The song leaking would then become the buyer's problem, not the artist's. So that buyer might simply take the glory of being the one to offer the song to the world. Or maybe the buyer could try to turn around and sell it - make the money back or maybe even make a profit. If the artist felt particularly bold, he or she could sell a chunk of the publishing to the buyer.

Wouldn't it be risky for someone to buy work they haven't heard, you may ask? Well, maybe. But it wouldn't be in the artist's interest to try to sell sh*tty material. Screw a buyer like this once, you'll never get a second chance and your reputation would be ruined. But I also think a full-length album would be a safer bet/better value.

What about new, unknown artists? This plan wouldn't work for them - at first. A new band would have to give music away for a while to prove themselves and build demand. THEN they could try selling their material.

What about the press? If a plan like this caught on, it would mean the old-fashioned music press/promo system we know now would cease to exist (which is almost the case already anyway). The press wouldn't be used to generate hype ahead of the release of new music. It would just be used to discuss it after it began to circulate.

Who would pay lots of money for a song? Someone who wants to play a rather meaningful roll in the career of an artist they love. Or someone who thinks they can turn a profit from it (some crafty kid out there might even figure out the fool-proof plan that has eluded the labels so far). Or someone who can organize other fans to pool their money...

Think of it this way - if Radiohead announced they were selling an EP of new material on eBay and the minimum bid was set at $5,000, do you think someone in the world would buy it? For sure, right? In fact, it would probably end up going for more than that, I'd guess. And do you imagine that Radiohead fans around the world would eventually hear those recordings? One way or another, surely we would.

A plan like this would put all the power in the artists' hands. If it caught on, all that would suffer would be things that seem to be dying right now anyway. I think we can all agree that the way things are going now can't be stopped. This idea embraces the way things are, but takes care of the artist.

It's just an idea. Maybe it will never happen. I've been thinking about it for a while now. I haven't thought of a reason why it wouldn't work. If you can think of one/some, let me know.

A Canadian recording artist proposes some changes.

Ixzion · **Posted:** May 6th, 2010, 10:40 pm

It's an interesting idea, but I have to say something about making music like paintings.

First off, how many people give a crap about the new paintings made every day? No one knows and no one cares. I consider that art buyer's hobby too rich for my blood.

N.L.Y. · **Posted:** May 7th, 2010, 2:11 am

I care, sure. Not as a buyer, as a viewer. One doesn't have to be a buyer to view art, these days. I'm generally the brokest man in whatever museum I'm in, and the internet is a powerful tool for this field, as well.

I think his point is more, sold to who gets to distribute it, not the actual audience itself. Bands would live off individual sales, which eventually could become substantial, rather than be tied into the market like slaves.

The actual hole I see with the system is that I can't imagine a world in which the music business, not the artists themselves, opted to live in the reality of "The song leaking would then become the buyer's problem, not the artist's."
The system is theoretically solid, apart from this, more or less, but requires an actual economic schematic.

AnonymousBo · **Posted:** May 7th, 2010, 12:48 pm

At first I thought this was your idea N.L.Y. until I realized it was a quote. I may have to reread this when my mind is better in focus but I don't see what the difference is between this and an artist signing with a record company. The artist creates the work, the record company pays them for their work and then distributes it because now that they own it. Now true the artist still gets additional residules that they could lose via piracy. Is that how it works? Because if so, what incentive would the record company have to take on all the risk by paying an artist vast amounts up front, releasing it and then hoping it doesn't get pirated too much?

I don't understand why the buyers' wouldn't be able to hear the music first before buying it? But if they truly can't then there is no way this works like a buyer of paintings. Not every painting by a given painter is of equal value. There would be neither a standard price nor an expected or actual market price.

I think the biggest difference though is that a painting can be copied into a useful image but the valuable painting itself will always be an object or artifact. Oftentimes most artists who sell paintings actually keep the rights to reproduction of the image whereas the buyer of the painting only gets the actual painting itself. Even if the buyer got both, they could afford (in a sense) to lose the image to piracy because they will always have the original work itself which has some kind of reproduction-independent value. With music, there is no such object or artifact. It is the expression of the music itself that is valuable so once it gets pirated, the owner has nothing. I see no incentive for a buyer in that way.

It also seems like this would be bad for the fans of music but I have to think about that more.

Zombisem · **Posted:** May 8th, 2010, 3:34 pm

like the free software movement, a free music movement. it's just difficult to get enough people to believe it works to make it work.

AnonymousBo · **Posted:** May 8th, 2010, 3:40 pm

How is it a free music movement if someone has to purchase the songs?

KarrLordofChaos · **Posted:** May 9th, 2010, 2:35 am

its a horrid idea, it doesnt solve the problem, just makes it someone elses worry.

the whole problem of theft is that people deny others of rightful monetary value. it hardly maters if its the artist getting less money for his work or the store selling it loosing money because the cd was stolen - the same result happens, people loose money they are entitled to. real solutions are those that solve the problem by making both parties happy. the artist gets the money he deserves, and the public becomes willing to purchase the product.

steam has been a great check and balance against artists producing "shovel ware" for a cd and being cheap enough that anyone should be able to afford the song. with this advent all that remains is to plug the holes that freeloaders try to exploit. right now file sharing is so easy and so widespread that people can steal without limits. the internet is the wild west; its a seemingly victimless crime to steal from a recording industry thats widely demonized by the public.

drm was a royal fail because people want the freedom to use their music on any device and copy it without hassle, yet the same data needs to be protected from exploiters. the worst thing any seller can do is frustrate their market base. the industry doesnt seam to have caught up with the times and the rapid increase of technology. just like the police, you cant even begin to fight crime until youve caught up to the technology crooks are using.

i dont know what the grand solution is, if i had it i would already be swimming in money. i think the key to it lies somewhere in the middle of everything. a solution that changes the way data is treated (expiring data? a certifying process of some kind? using the internet to disable pirated works?) might be the best solution, or perhaps a change in mentality where people can see and feel the direct consequence of pirating, hell even somehow inventing a new non data medium. data is simply too lucrative and uncontrollable. once its released it can change form and disseminate unlike any other medium known to man.

the fundamental downside to every solution is that humanity doesnt generally care. there will always be pirates, there will always be people willing to exploit. in a society that is moving towards being plugged in to everything, rights management will only become increasingly difficult to combat.

Zombisem · **Posted:** May 11th, 2010, 6:07 pm

^ free market. but as we see in this example people can't get past the greed issues.

	It is currently December 12th, 2024, 9:10 am
View unanswered posts \| View active topics

Future of the Music Biz - A Theory

Who is online