Post
by brent » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:08 pm
I know people are stealing music. But you are also talking about the bottom feeders and morally depraved crap of society. These are people that do not mind sinning to get what they want. These are Christians practicing relativism. So are we are to bend to the world's way of doing things because sin is overwhelming? Now THAT is scriptural.
Do we create a new business model to accommodate theft? Why even have a business? How far do you want to play this out? You want to do it with auto theft? I can't afford a new car, but I would like one, think I will take it. Why not? The automakers have someone to foot the bill. Is it only a valid point for cheap items under $50?
So, IMC, do you mean to say that stealing music was not OK back in the time when sales where good, but that it is acceptable now when sales are not?
If we continue to build these silly sites and fail to stop theft, how do you suppose artists and/or their label presidents/owners will go mortgage their homes to fund production and tour support? This is how it's done in Nashville. They put their own property up in hopes of a return. This is why the labels want a cut from the artists touring revenue, because record sales won't cover the cost of production for everyone all of the time. How do you expect artists to make money if it's free? You can't answer that.
Let me chase a rabbit:
Have you seen that little diagram that ties band popularity to IQ levels? I will bet you that you could explode that diagram to bands most stolen to IQ levels. I bet you could isolate the genres and belief systems that tie to theft. But we all know Christians do not steal music, right? It's ok for them.
Your website examples are not new models. They are not recreating the commerce of music. They are marketing gimmicks that are just another hand trying to get into the existing music biz pocket. I know all about them. They are something that CDBaby has networked with as well. They do not address marketing, distribution and commerce in a new way. They still have the same problems. They are underexposed. They have limited playlists/artists. They are not available everywhere. They are selling to less than 2% of the market that iTunes, Walmart, BestBuy and Amazon leave behind. Now, I am not a smart guy, but if I were going to revolutionize the music business, I would have to think of how to beat the one selling 80% of the downloads, not the 2%.
I don't need time to tell if these will work. There have been sites like this funded by bigger pockets and they all have closed shop. There is no longevity for a music site treating the internet as a store. THAT is the flaw in everyone's approach. The internet is NOT a store. Just having a site does not = money.
IMC, the premise behind the free sites is exposure. If you look at the countries where these sites are happening, you would find that record sales are generally crap there anyway (Autralia for example). So these sites are removing what cash was possible from the market.
Consider secular bands. Take a band like U2. They have exposure. Why would they need to give music away for free by choice, when it is already being stolen and put out for free anyway? Why would they agree to that? For exposure? Please. They are freakin' U2. Giving music away is not a new model with longevity. There is no money in that. That will not work with any other product. It will not work with music.
This is the same thing that mega churches have done to concert promoters here in the US. They started the whole free concert/artist in the service thing, thus eliminating the market and need for concerts people would pay for. This hasn't happened everywhere, but in many of the 10 major markets it is the case.
Subscription services (download, radio, etc) are a very small piece of the pie. They have never been well received. They are a fraction of a percent of the digital music market. They will not be around forever.
0 x
