The methods of business are changing and a new music model is required to save music.
I have taken the trouble of outlining it below:
This file is sized at an A3 sheet and is at a very printable 300ppi.
This file is for 'eco' printers - again at 300ppi:
Comments, of course, are fully expected and fully encouraged.
6 comments:
Great idea in concept; I believe there has been some talk of implementing an idea similar to this, only instead of paying a company via paypal/whatever, a tax is imposed on internet service, mp3 players, laptops.... basically anything used for file sharing and playing media. This tax is then distributed in a similar manner to what you are suggesting.
The main fault I see with your idea: how does it compete with piracy? I think its a great idea for a distribution system, but would be difficult to implement and establish as a standard means for media distribution on a large scale. In other words, why sign up for this service when I can already download whatever I want for free?
Good thinking though!
^To elaborate on the taxation concept: this has already happened for CDRs. I don't think it's really possible to track what artists are being burned, but the tax (which I want to say is 2%? Not sure though) presumably gets redistributed to PROs, and that's why you don't hear the Big Four whining about how burning CDRs is just like stealing and ruining musicians lives and worse that raping babies yadayadayada
The are two reasons I feel that it can compete with piracy:
1. It will attract people who have to pirate but for the wrong reasons - who would pay for music but the service isn't there yet. This falls into leaked albums and lossless downloads.
2. In my opinion, technology is changing from a pay-once (like a whopping desktop PC) to pay-monthly (think a subscription phone). Once this concept takes hold more firmly, it becomes more difficult to pirate music. If somebody owns a device, it is simple to self-regulate the whole thing. When companies start owning the devices we use (such as a google chrome laptop), it is foreseeable that subscription services may become part of the fee.
Er, Spotify. Some people have been working for years to make this a reality, rather than being a douchebag that just pompously posts a blog entry, under the hilarious misapprehension that he was the first person to think of it.
Spotify is not the same thing - not even close!
The content is limited - artists can choose to opt out.
The content is limited (2) - content does not include bootlegs.
The content is compressed - impossible to get lossless quality.
The subscription is not widely taken up and supplemented by advertising - this is a bad business model as it does not promote the uptake of the new technology as it pays the artists very little.
The payment is limited at best - artists are paid according to number of songs played. This encourages shorter songs as a means of more income.
The content is limited (3) - pirated music is available in advance of appearing on spotify.
I didn't say my idea was completely novel but I think it is a huge improvement on what already exists.
I'm sure Spotify would love to be able to implement all the ideas if it were possible (which it currently isn't) but it would be great if there was a better consensus amongst the internet community.
The idea is a fleshing out from a conversation as to what could bring pirates back to paying for music.
Post a Comment