I don't see why the industry hasn't figured this out yet. They can make more money selling rated and unrated videos while giving away the music.

I wish I could buy some of the videos I've seen.

videos? Who the hell cares about videos.

This will work simply because despite what the RIAA says, most people are actually decent and willing to pay for their music.

As long as it's:
1) Reasonably priced (yes $0.99/song is too much).
2) Easily and readily available, and in high quality audio.
3) Contains no restrictions on where and how i can play the music i paid for (no DRM that is).

I'm more then willing to pay for my music, but right now pirated music has the music industry beaten on all three of the above points.

Why should i pay through the nose to get some crappy 128Kbit file which i can only play in some proprietary player and not even be able to copy anywhere, when i can just get a far higher quality file much easier through torrents and not even pay for it?

The music industry is clueless.

I actually pre-ordered the radiohead album. Paid about 4 bucks for it.
Seemed reasonable to me for a band that i like, but it's not exactly in my top 5. Probably would've paid more if it was a bigger fan.

This business model of giving music away for free only works for big name acts that tour.

Why?

The biggest earners in music each year these days tend to be older groups/artists that can appeal to many generations and that is the type of act that is suited to performing live.

eg Acts like The Rolling Stones, U2, Prince are the sort of acts that top the biggest earner lists (on the years when they are touring).

So for a big name that can tour it can be worth it to give music away for free online to help add even more younger fans to their fan list.

Also these bigger names dont need to do so much promotion, because if they put out a press release saying something like this they will get great exposer.

If a group that is new tries this, it wont work as well. Or if an act that is less live orientated tries this, it wont work.

I challenge anyone who disagrees, to go and invest their money and create an independent label and sign acts and pay for the associated costs (recording/mixing/mastering of music, promotion, etc...)

If $0.99 is still too much, then, the price of a house should let you to "steal" one probably?

If you are so inclined to have it but it is not about life or death, pay for it.

No matter the model is, this is a business. If you don't like the price, just don't buy it but not steal it.

Its been great to hear Oasis giving their album free.

My guess is, music industry came to a point where records isn't the main income. If a music group wants to be successful, they got to do world wide tours and play live to the crowds. I bet fan enjoy it much more than just listening to the iPod. This is the way to kick out those sissy artists/groups (i.e. britney spears, fergie etc) out of the business and keep the hard-core musicians alive (i.e. oasis, radiohead)

Also its a known fact that record labels are the big earners behind the scenes. In fact, fans pay more royalty to labels than the artists. So its unfair I guess (record labels).

I agree with everything except the 99cents, that seems like an ok price in ripped at 320 kbs and without DRM...

If people are not paying anything for the music on their site, who pays for the server maintenance? Serving music online should be a burden for server, unless they are bit-torrenting it and sharing it too, but that would not be plain download. Anyway, I was just thinking about this in the way of someone wanting to follow this trend straight from the beginning, like someone playing music just for the fun of it, or like someone programming linux just for the fun of it. Musicians generally are not computer fans and will have a hard time unless they just put torrents somewhere and leave their own home pc on for sharing. Who will pay the electricity bill and the internet connection? :) If I'm not well known then I should charge for my music? Current ways of music distribution and the 220'000 story leave me a bad taste, but future will leave me a different, monopolistic taste in my current opinion.

yes, $0.99 is too much
considering an album has about 15 songs on average a full album would cost $15. For that price, you can buy the CD and not have any DRM/ripping/copying restrictions...

What music execs have the hardest time wrapping their brain around is the fact that although the music industry is business, music itself is still ART! Musicians are usurped for their talents to make money for businessmen - it's that simple!!
When musicians start fooling themselves into thinking that that can and SHOULD make a lot of money off their music, you get hip-hop and pop music - and, yes, it sucks. Of course, when people stop buying it and record lables suffer, accusations start flying about music file sharing hurting the music industry. CRAPPY MUSIC is hurting the music industry. Plus, at some point, musicians will have to come to the understanding that music is art, not a commodity, and they profit ONLY at the pleasure of an interested audience. Trust me, music would not suffer if musicians and the RIAA stopped making money. It would just thin the heard and great music would once again rise to the top!

2 areas to focus on, first, check out Metallica's beginnings. Without free downloads, ie, people who like the music making copies and passing them along, nobody would have ever heard of them. It's called word of mouth advertising, and is the most effective marketing tool out there.
Second, look into exactly why there is a huge difference in the money performers from the 1950's have made compared to performers from the 1960's. Hint, the cassette recorder became widely available in the 60's.

Life would be easy if everything was like that.

It is stupid to justify illegal file sharing. it is ILLEGAL no matter how you see it. No matter what excuse you use.. IT IS ILLEGAL AND BY DEFINITION IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

Now... I do have a few gigs of movies, anime, games and musics, and the last CDs/DVDs I've bought in about 7 years are blizzard games. You can guess were the rest of the music, movies and anime come from.

I'll just say it again... It is stupid to justify illegal file sharing... now knowing that it is wrong doesn't mean that people will stop doing it, as long as it is convenient and cheap people will prefer it over legal methods.

I'd say these are just the first steps in the right direction. What if the bands started selling their music directly from their own website? They could sell the music for less and make more actual profit.

BTW - Everyone keeps talking about $0.99/song, where on Itunes? I used Amazon and paid $8 for a few mp3 albums. I love the mp3s but now that RIAA is winning cases against individuals - I'm not sure I want to buy more just to line their pockets so they can hire more lawyers. :(

You can't buy a DRM song, you rent it... You have to connect to the internet and let your privacy get invaded.. Just ask sony's magical rootkits !!! haha....


Jay new technology circumvents the Recording Companies 1970s business Model. Lots of new artist now started off on myspace lol.. They either produced their own music or got a record company to sign them... (that Colbie Caillat chick , and lots of independent people too...)

Promotion, mixing, recording, can all be done in your basement. I know plenty of people that do this and market their stuff on social networks... Which relays to millions of people....

Thats why the RIAA is angry.... grrr.... fair use... you must pay for that song you are listening to on the RADIO!!! GRRRHhh. thorg lose money!!!


Guess what when DRM stops selling and ITUNES and Amazon sells mp3's again.... we might have to share again... This time will be wireless transfers between portable devices..... Poor RIAA lets sue people instead of changing our market strategy...

Steve, you did not need to separate the 'Hip Hop' you were speaking of from the 'Pop' genre. Hip Hop is great music, but we know that the Pop stuff has nothing to it. Hip Hop is also art, and please don't let the blingy radio stuff fool you on that point. Like 'Rock and Roll,' Smooth Jazz, etc., Hip hop grew out of the early 1900s southern Jazz and Blues scene, which grew out of a blend of slave hymns and classic European instrumentation. Whatever face we put to it, the record industry has put music on the wrong track; and, artists' giving something to us for free may help with the advancement of the art. They're still tryin to sell us something though...