Regarding Illegal Downloading, Fair Pay for Artists, and Customer Satisfaction.

[Traditional_Ale]

Nothing will stop illegal downloading, but I thought this might be an interesting alternative:

A dollar a song, or whatever it is. And then it is for life. That is it. You are authorized to have it in whatever digital medium you can get your hands on it.

The governing bodies in place, namely SOCAN in Canada and I think ASCAP in the US already have all songs making money cataloged, as they take their little bit for handling the logistics of distributing the money. Thus they are ideal candidates to have a database in which the owners of the material can register their creative property and consumers can get their downloads cataloged. It registers their ownership of having bought the material from whatever registered outlet they choose. This way if the cops come snooping on their computer it doesn't matter where they got it from, they already paid for it.

[SebC]

A dollar is too much. It doesn't really take music where it needs to go, and that's where customer's have comprehensive libraries while spending about the same or slightly more than what they did in the CD age. Musicians and publishers would be making the same money they always have, but they'd be reaching wider audiences.

Some of the video game makers have figured out that lowering prices increases their revenues, which makes it pretty amazing that the music makers haven't given that model a shot even though it's proven.

(I'm talking about an "ownership" model, not a monthly fee system.)

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by SebC

A dollar is too much. It doesn't really take music where it needs to go, and that's where customer's have comprehensive libraries while spending about the same or slightly more than what they did in the CD age. Musicians and publishers would be making the same money they always have, but they'd be reaching wider audiences.

Some of the video game makers have figured out that lowering prices increases their revenues, which makes it pretty amazing that the music makers haven't given that model a shot even though it's proven.

(I'm talking about an "ownership" model, not a monthly fee system.)

Good call. If I revised the idea to be 25 cents would it have more traction? Also, the price isn't the spirit of the post. It's the idea that I if I wanted to download something from wherever it wouldn't matter because I have a lifetime consumer license on said media entity.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Good call. If I revised the idea to be 25 cents would it have more traction? Also, the price isn't the spirit of the post. It's the idea that I if I wanted to download something from wherever it wouldn't matter because I have a lifetime consumer license on said media entity.

Probably need to to incorporate some kind of volume discount.

1 song = 25 cents
10 songs = 1 dollar
100 songs = 2 dollars
etc.

That way you don't need to be a billionaire to have the collections some pirates have.

Personally, I'd be happy to just legislate away restrictions on format shifting. They're really anti-competitive and anti-innovation. If a new device or format requires consumers to re-buy their libraries, there's less incentive to come up with new devices and formats.

[Titan]

A good article in wired a while ago:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/maga...urrentPage=all

[Jbo]

I know I would buy a ton more music if it was .25cents.

I actually think it will be the Netflix model where you pay a monthly fee to say hear all of Interscopes catalog.

Apple would make a killing for the same thing on iTunes. They could even limit it to, say 100 songs for x$.

Maybe go the Sony playstation plus model and you get the catalog as long as you maintain the fee, etc.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

I know I would buy a ton more music if it was .25cents.

I actually think it will be the Netflix model where you pay a monthly fee to say hear all of Interscopes catalog.

Apple would make a killing for the same thing on iTunes. They could even limit it to, say 100 songs for x$.

Maybe go the Sony playstation plus model and you get the catalog as long as you maintain the fee, etc.

You mean like spotify, rdio or pandora?

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Good call. If I revised the idea to be 25 cents would it have more traction? Also, the price isn't the spirit of the post. It's the idea that I if I wanted to download something from wherever it wouldn't matter because I have a lifetime consumer license on said media entity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_what_you_want

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You mean like spotify, rdio or pandora?

Or to a different extent, apple match.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Or to a different extent, apple match.

except apple match requires you to purchase the albums in full and basically just lets you access your library from any ios device.


Rdio (which I have) is a subscription service. I pay $10 a month and get access to their entire library. JayZ releases a new album, I get it, no additional fee.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

except apple match requires you to purchase the albums in full and basically just lets you access your library from any ios device

I was referring more to how it will match music from other sources.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

I know I would buy a ton more music if it was .25cents.

Maybe you would, but most people wouldn't, because 25 cents is still 25 cents more than they've gotten used to spending since they've been stealing it for years. One dollar per song is already quite cheap considering that we used to buy CDs for $15 to get the 3 or 4 songs that we really wanted, and now you can get those same songs for $3 or $4.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

A dollar a song, or whatever it is. And then it is for life. That is it. You are authorized to have it in whatever digital medium you can get your hands on it.

That's a simple solution and could easily form the basis for a plan.

Why do I (allegedly) download music? Because I've already paid for it Lord knows how many times over. My wild-a$$ guess is that I've paid for every 1000 songs I've paid for in my life, I have received 500-600.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Maybe you would, but most people wouldn't, because 25 cents is still 25 cents more than they've gotten used to spending since they've been stealing it for years. One dollar per song is already quite cheap considering that we used to buy CDs for $15 to get the 3 or 4 songs that we really wanted, and now you can get those same songs for $3 or $4.

Except that that's not how people want their music anymore. They've gone from wanting a CD to wanting a discography or a catalogue. $1/song is basically the price we've always been paying.

[Tiger]

There are legal sites. Like mp3sale.ru that are only ten cents a song and still pay artist royalities, but are not located in the states so they don't have to sell for a minimum cost. I don't have a problem paying for music, i only have a problem paying too much for it and the artist getting so little.

[Peanut]

I feel like the only person in the universe who still pays to download music. And it's pretty much only because I'm too lazy to figure out how to do it illegally.

[kermitology]

I have two problems.

1. Artists don't get enough revenue for digital music sales as they should.
2. I REALLY don't want to maintain a digital content library.

So Rdio it is. People like to think that they'll keep listening to an album for the rest of their life.. and frankly, that's rarely the case. So just listen to a few albums like crazy for a while and then move onto the next. Subscription services like Rdio are the future of media consumption.

[SebC]

The subscription model is a good one, but some people just like to collect.

[calgarywinning]

I would agree with kermitology that artists do not get enough revenue for musical sales as they should.

Also, when an artist (Jay Z) or companies gets in the way of the consumption of the product I am bothered. Hollywood has been slammed over the summer with high budget flops which could be based on many things, probably most related to content, but man they work hard to get in the way of the end consumer. I can't tell you how many times I would have watched the Lone Ranger if I could have from home.

So my point is that a digitally purchased download is a lot more permanent than that cassette purchase, cd purchase from years ago which was a physical medium which was subject to destruction. Why not have a medium where you subscribe and you can buy albums at the same time for a reduced rate.

As far as inalienable future rights to a purchased copy. We get into the whole can I gift my library to my family upon death. I could gift my record collection. Everyone is grappling with the physicality of purchased and owning a material vs the convenience of digital and using it on all your devices.

Who doesn't miss blockbuster on a Friday night? When I rent a movie, it's a very hollow experience unless the movie is good. There's no thrill in the picking, in the hunting or the gathering to take home to present. Instead it's endless preview after preview and even if you settle on a bad movie, it's always in stock. Lol.

While I am no puritan, I do not believe in stealing, but I do believe in art and information and access. I lean to the art and information and access side of the equation. That's why we have museums, art displays and libraries. So is it fair to say that a library card is a subscription access to music.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

I know I would buy a ton more music if it was .25cents.

Yeah, I'd buy a lot more music if it was a quarter of a cent.

An entire album would be like 4 cents tops.