Ok, not ALL Music Company heads are idiots..

[SirFozzie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/ma...ll&oref=slogin

Ok, I know that I've been one of the biggest bomb throwers at the business plan (or lack thereof) of the RIAA Cartel here on this board. Here's a good sign that at least one company understands that things have to change, before the business is taken out from underneath them.

[Rubin has a bigger idea. To combat the devastating impact of file sharing, he, like others in the music business (Doug Morris and Jimmy Iovine at Universal, for instance), says that the future of the industry is a subscription model, much like paid cable on a television set. "You would subscribe to music," Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. "You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home. You'll say, 'Today I want to listen to ... Simon and Garfunkel,' and there they are. The service can have demos, bootlegs, concerts, whatever context the artist wants to put out. And once that model is put into place, the industry will grow 10 times the size it is now."

From Napster to the iPod, the music business has been wrong about how much it can dictate to its audience. "Steve Jobs understood Napster better than the record business did," David Geffen told me. "IPods made it easy for people to share music, and Apple took a big percentage of the business that once belonged to the record companies. The subscription model is the only way to save the music business. If music is easily available at a price of five or six dollars a month, then nobody will steal it."

For this model to be effective, all the record companies will have to agree. "It's like getting the heads of the five families together," said Mark DiDia, referencing "The Godfather." "It will be very difficult, but what else are we going to do?"

Rubin sees no other solution. "Either all the record companies will get together or the industry will fall apart and someone like Microsoft will come in and buy one of the companies at wholesale and do what needs to be done," he said. "The future technology companies will either wait for the record companies to smarten up, or they'll let them sink until they can buy them for 10 cents on the dollar and own the whole thing."

[Maple Leafs]

Music fans: We want to pay for music, but the current system doesn't work so we're forced into piracy! If only you would change business models we could stop all this stealing we hate so much!
Music industry: OK, how about a new model where you pay per song, or maybe pay a monthly subscription, would that work?
Music fans: That costs way too much! You're greedy! We still must pirate!
Music industry: We didn't say how much it costs yet.
Music fans: We know, just practicing...

[SirFozzie]

Well, that's addressed in the article. You have to make it high enough to support the artist and the companies, and low enough that it's simpler for folks to pay it and avoid the hassle of downloading it.

Rubin said two prices in there.. the $19.95/mo is more then the average consumer pays currently for their music purposes (including hardware).. but if it's $5/$6 month? That isn't so bad, is it?

[lordscarlet]

Rhapsody is $12.95/mo I believe.

[SirFozzie]

yes, but you're limited to your computer and "supported" mp3 players.

What Rubin is saying above, is one, UNIVERSAL fee.

I don't see how it can work (unless they made a free universal widget that allowed you to play it in your car, your home stereo, etcetera)

[Anthony]

i like his idea. i read the article in its entirety, and while he may overestimate his impact on the industry, his subscription idea sounds really awesome and i'd do it. it'd be a no brainer if it's in the $5-$6/month range. sign me up.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Rhapsody is $12.95/mo I believe.

And I like it - a lot. I have Rhapsody to go - 15 bucks a month, on a bunch of nice MP3 players (I have a Sandisk E260) - good quality music (I encode mine at 192), and a simple, easy to use interface. I honestly can't remember the last time I downloaded a song.

[Coffee Warlord]

Even if they move forward, it'll be dead before it begins.

They will demand insane restrictions on how to port the music to and fro, requiring new hardware with said restrictions built in. The technically savvy will inevitably crack it, the RIAA will scream (with the added bonus of saying "hey, we *tried*), and the service will wind up being further restricted/made useless.

[SirFozzie]

Well, if they DO do it, and they half ass it, it'll be the final nail in their coffins (there's a quote in the article that admits just that). But really, it's the Ogre's choice they have. Die Fast (screw up a universal fee program), or Die Slow (Continue to devolve further into irrelevancy).

Heck, it's worked for Canada (levies on blank media, etcetera)... look at that for the future, maybe.

Oh, and Rubin's no fan of the DRM, either.. he was a producer for one of the albums that had the Sony rootkit on it, and they had to completely yank it from the shelves just after it was released.. it took four weeks to get it back on the shelves, and completely and totally killed the album's sales.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Rhapsody is $12.95/mo I believe.

I'm paying $15 for mine and I get to play the music on my portable ( up to three actually ). I love the service and can't remember the last song I've illegally downloaded.

Really, this is for mister knee jerk who said no one will pay for music. Well, Rhapsody, Itunes, Napster, Yahoo etc will differ with you and I am an example of those who use them.

[Daimyo]

I'd pay $20/month for pretty much the rest of my life for a Rhapsody-like service if formats were flexible and there were no restrictions on what could be done with the music (assuming personal use only of course).

Its really not the cost of digital music downloads that turns me off... its the proprietary formats, restrictions related to moving to a new computer, limits of which players work with which services, limits to burning CDs, enforced low-medium quality with most services, etc, etc.

[Karlifornia]

I spend upwards of $50 a month on CD's still....but I download one song and automatically I'm Public Enemy #12,423,457,673,584,463

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

I'd pay $20/month for pretty much the rest of my life for a Rhapsody-like service if formats were flexible and there were no restrictions on what could be done with the music (assuming personal use only of course).

Its really not the cost of digital music downloads that turns me off... its the proprietary formats, restrictions related to moving to a new computer, limits of which players work with which services, limits to burning CDs, enforced low-medium quality with most services, etc, etc.

I really think it's going to come to this and that's what the article is about. Unfortunately, it's still not going to happen due to some stubborn backward thinkers.

Since I bus or walk everywhere I go I have no need for burning CD's as I am exclusively an mp3 player guy so Rhapsody for me pretty much meets my current needs spot on with few enough nitpicks to not sour the experience.

I can understand how it will frustrate others though and I can 110% empathize since not everything I want is on Rhapsody but I figure I'll just be one of the people who guys like these can use as an example to convince the stubborn ones that the business model is viable and I'll let you guys make sure when they go for it that it's cheap enough, versatile enough etc.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I spend upwards of $50 a month on CD's still....but I download one song and automatically I'm Public Enemy #12,423,457,673,584,463

Really? Which song?

I want to be PE #12,423,457,673,584,464

[SackAttack]

Knowing Karl, "Afternoon Delight"!

[k0ruptr]

I think music downloads (illegally) are much to rampant to really stop though, they might make some money, and have some customers, but I still think the majority of internet users will get their music by pirating.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I think music downloads (illegally) are much to rampant to really stop though, they might make some money, and have some customers, but I still think the majority of internet users will get their music by pirating.

I haven't seen any numbers, but I would be surprised if "the majority" of internet users pirate music now. Maybe the majority of people you know, but I don't think users as a whole are pirating music more often than purchasing.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I spend upwards of $50 a month on CD's still....but I download one song and automatically I'm Public Enemy #12,423,457,673,584,463

(not that we haven't gone down practically every road like this in a music thread, but...) "I buy a bunch of stuff from a store but then I steal only one and the police still want to arrest me"

SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

...I don't think users as a whole are pirating music more often than purchasing.

I think they are.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I think they are.

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/153/report_display.asp
22% in 2005

That's the most recent study I could find with a quick search. That is far less than "the majority."

[lordscarlet]

http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P6982

Says in 2006 26% purchased music online.

[lordscarlet]

double dola: that last one says 45% downloaded illegally (ever).

edit: sorry. 45% have ever downloaded music.. pay and p2p, etc combined.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Call me a cynical puddle of goo, but I have a hard time believing that only 45% of "Internet users" (as obvious as that term seems, I'm really not sure what it means) have ever downloaded music illegally. Frankly, I wonder how many people have made illegal music downloads and don't even realize it. Also, are kids included in these studies?

Maybe I won't go as far as k0ruptr and say that the majority of users are actively pirating music, but I guess I wasn't taking the phrase "the majority" literally (a fault on my part, I concede). I just mean that there are probably more illegal downloaders out there than most people think.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Call me a cynical puddle of goo, but I have a hard time believing that only 45% of "Internet users" (as obvious as that term seems, I'm really not sure what it means) have ever downloaded music illegally. Frankly, I wonder how many people have made illegal music downloads and don't even realize it. Also, are kids included in these studies?

Maybe I won't go as far as k0ruptr and say that the majority of users are actively pirating music, but I guess I wasn't taking the phrase "the majority" literally (a fault on my part, I concede). I just mean that there are probably more illegal downloaders out there than most people think.

I think that "we" overestimate the "internet user" population. I would imagine that most of us would be on one hand surprised at the low percentage of Americans with internet access, but on the other hand surprised at how little the people that do have it know what they're doing. People like my grandfather that still has a dial-up connection and primarily uses it for email, checking it once every week or two. A large portion of the internet population uses a very small percentage of it's resources.