The death of physical media and it's repurcussions on the consumer.

[the stranger]

Magpel got me to thinking about the death of physical media and it's effects on the consumer.

 

If there is no more physical media, will we be eventually forced into a system where we no longer own the music we buy, we just license it?

 

And the bottom line is your are getting less for your money. Your are at the mercy of the "provider", or binary storage which is a total crap shoot.

 

What is a "provider"? That's where when you buy music, it's just a stream. Blue talks about them all the time. You do not possess the media. The same concept as the threads about the future of storage and application servers, rather than end user based software.

 

I'll take an album, a cassette, or a CD. I'll take an 8 track if that's all you got.

[nwtsnma]

you already do don't own it and just license it. binary storage is reliable; it's used in the space program. artists will be more in control than ever with the caveat that selling recordings of music is no longer a viable source of income unless you've been bred to it.

[the stranger]

Oh, I love the artist control aspect. Don't get me wrong.

 

And I know we just license it, but owning physical media is a desirable aspect of music, imo.

 

Binary is not reliable. We haven't had enough years to say that. Binary media has a significant failure rate.

 

Just ask people who buy WD hard drives.

[slight-return]

Legally, we aren't licensing it.

There was a court case about that (UMG v Augustino). It kind of falls in line with the software case of a few years back (SoftMan Products v Adobe) that explored the License/sale issue.

The courts have ruled it transfer of ownership (sale, though in the case of Augustino the transfer was actually gift).

 

Here's the deal, it's of THAT PARTICULAR COPY -- We can divest (sell, give, etc) ourselves of that copy through a legal mechanism call "first Sale doctrine"

 

I think where people get confused is in the nature of copyright, it's a collection of control rights such as the right to copy or distribute (and a few others, it's spelled out in chapt 2 of title 17). While we have property rights connected to the instance we purchased, we do not own the copy rights (17USC202 makes a disctinction with physical media v the right of copy for instance)

 

Now, as we move forward with technology, first sale doctrine will probably have to be tested against intangible copy (much in the same way "ephemeral" copies such as produced when buffering or caching had to be hammered out) -- I don't know of any current caselaw in that area (not saying none exst, just can't say I've heard of any at this point)

 

but in terms of "are we merely licensing when we purchase a tape, CD, etc" the courts have ruled it sale

[rasputin1963]

It's been pointed out that we now live in an era when no music or Tv shows obsolesce.

[doug osborne]

It certainly is a Brave New World.

 

I do agree that we never owned the music (unless we bought the actual master recordings from the actual owner), we effectively own a license to play that music from that physical medium. No file trading is piracy since the ownership of the original recording or of the copy is not transferred (a pirated performance, maybe...).

 

No file will last forever, but then again, no CD will (and no cylinder, disc, tape, etc.). In each case, a backup (or two or three) can effectively preserve your investment. Is my hard drive, with FLAC copies of each of my CDs, the backup or are the CDs themselves the backup?

 

Streaming, file selling, file sharing, and various physical media will all be a part of the media array. I would like to have a streaming service with every recording ever made, available to listen to on-demand, for a small price - this is really an easy thing to do, but so far out of the grasp of the current industry that they can't see the vast existing market.

 

Only one of those distribution methods is not yet monetized - file sharing should have started generating revenue a decade ago, but the music industry is to dull, slow, and set in its ways to react.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Only one of those distribution methods is not yet monetized - file sharing should have started generating revenue a decade ago, but the music industry is to dull, slow, and set in its ways to react.

 

 

It has nothing to do with the music industry. It doesn't generate any revenues because it's being done illegally and will continue to be.

 

 

 

Streaming, file selling, file sharing, and various physical media will all be a part of the media array. I would like to have a streaming service with every recording ever made, available to listen to on-demand, for a small price - this is really an easy thing to do, but so far out of the grasp of the current industry that they can't see the vast existing market.

 

 

A) it's not easy if it's going to be highly reliable and have huge bandwidth and deal with large numbers of customers

B) You asssume the market is vast, but that's not remotely a given

C) Doing it for a very small price may or may not be viable. It depends on B and B isn't at all clear.

 

The people who buy most of the music (or who did back when they couldn't steal it) aren't looking for everything ever made. They are looking mostly for the hottest stuff, and they have no problem getting that illegally and for zero price. So that makes it not at all obvious that such a service would ever come close to paying off. There are streaming companies out there. I'm not aware that they are getting really rich or anything.

[TimOBrien]

 

Binary is not reliable. We haven't had enough years to say that. Binary media has a significant failure rate.

 

 

Guess you didn't live in the era of vinyl that cracks, wore the grooves out or crumbled into moldy dust. I did.

 

....no fun watching your records disintegrate when you have no way to back them up like you can by copying a file, kiddies....

[slight-return]

hmmm, "published" might be a better description than "ever made"

 

I'm pretty sure there is a dusty box of recordings (some of them recordings of my practice for my academic review) on magtape somewhere in the basement that, thankfully, not another human has ever heard

I doubt (for the sake of humanity) I would ever release that for publication, nor do I think the overhead of xfer would be warranted for a tape of me practicing out of a method book with a metronome ticking away

 

It's a recording that was made, but never intended for non-prescription use

[the stranger]

 

Guess you didn't live in the era of vinyl that cracks, wore the grooves out or crumbled into moldy dust. I did. ....no fun watching your records disintegrate when you have no way to back them up like you can by copying a file, kiddies....

 

 

I did, also. Sure you had a way to backup. Not to mention, that's when you were supposed to go buy the album again, so the artist received another 27 cents from you.

 

[YOUTUBE]-DP89iMe0BY[/YOUTUBE]

[slight-return]

 

....no fun watching your records disintegrate

 

 

classic vid of a bad day

 

h4GYg-5AdRw

[Jimbroni]

One of cool things about it all, is that old dudes know I will take their record collections off their hands. Seriously, I get of tons free records from dudes who can't bring themselves to throw out the old vinyl, but the wife wants the closet space back.

[Beck]

 

I'm laughing real tears... I needed that.

[the stranger]

Perhaps they need to work on that a bit more.

[doug osborne]

 

It has nothing to do with the music industry. It doesn't generate any revenues because it's being done illegally and will continue to be. A) it's not easy if it's going to be highly reliable and have huge bandwidth and deal with large numbers of customers B) You asssume the market is vast, but that's not remotely a given C) Doing it for a very small price may or may not be viable. It depends on B and B isn't at all clear. The people who buy most of the music (or who did back when they couldn't steal it) aren't looking for everything ever made. They are looking mostly for the hottest stuff, and they have no problem getting that illegally and for zero price. So that makes it not at all obvious that such a service would ever come close to paying off. There are streaming companies out there. I'm not aware that they are getting really rich or anything.

 

 

Of course there is a market for this, and it is nearly unlimited. P2P file trading proves this, and is a fraction of what a monetized market could be. People worldwide love music nearly universally - we're divided culturally, nationally, tribally...but we love music, and we find ways to listen to it.

 

We should be able to think of a song (or a TV show, work of art, etc.) and be able to enjoy it on a variety of devices, instantaneously, for pennies - these pennies add up. If we want to buy a lossy copy of this work, we should be able to for fifty cents a song, more for a lossless copy, more for a physical copy, etc. This stuff is doable today, it just goes right past the entrenched heads of musical state.

 

File trading is a federal crime under current federal law. Current federal copyright law would be unrecognizable to our founding fathers, even though after the initial shock ended they would grasp the technological challenges.

 

The reason people break federal law is that it is how they can get the music. It just is. Radio's gone - as imperfect as it was, it could supply people with a steady stream of music, old or new, great or cheesy. The younger we are, the less we are interested in collecting CDs or other hunks of plastic. Every time we are shown a viable, legal alternative, we adopt it, yet the current industry refuses to acknowledge change.

 

None of the music companies, none of the ISPs, none of the streaming music companies, etc., through all their bitching and moaning, are losing money (except in the stock market). They are all profitable businesses. Their insatiable need to feed their C-level execs, board memebers, and shareholders with increasing amounts of payment through growth at any cost is the real current threat to the music industry, and to most of corporate America. The car companies have to deliver vehicles with the features and quality that we need, and the music companies have to deliver music through the means and at the quality that we will adopt. They've forgotten their audience.

[Anderton]

 

I would like to have a streaming service with every recording ever made, available to listen to on-demand, for a small price - this is really an easy thing to do, but so far out of the grasp of the current industry that they can't see the vast existing market.

 

 

I've been pushing for this "celestial jukebox" for years, with a significant modification: A really great search engine for finding things, and some intelligence built in so that if it sees I like a particular genre, it will make suggestions about new releases.

 

The subscription model can work: I've gotten enough ASCAP checks to show me that at least some of the money from companies that pay blanket fees ends up in the hands of the artist.

 

I for one would love a world where I could have access to all music ever made but don't have to deal with the storage and preservation aspects.

[Anderton]

 

They've forgotten their audience.

 

 

We have a winner!

[doug osborne]

 

I've been pushing for this "celestial jukebox" for years, with a significant modification: A really great search engine for finding things, and some intelligence built in so that if it sees I like a particular genre, it will make suggestions about new releases. The subscription model can work: I've gotten enough ASCAP checks to show me that at least some of the money from companies that pay blanket fees ends up in the hands of the artist. I for one would love a world where I could have access to all music ever made but don't have to deal with the storage and preservation aspects.

 

 

I stole the idea from you, no question!

 

"All music," of course, is hyperbole, "but as much as possible" should be done.

 

Digital distributors should be independent virtual stores, generally not owned by the record companies, artists or other content providers, as with current brick 'n' mortar distribution. The owners of the content, whether Universal or Joe the Pianist, sell the rights to these stores at a wholesale price, and these stores resell these at whatever price their market can support - a free market at that point. If the owner or the store wants to sell lossy files, lossless, DRM-laden files, content enriched files, etc., their ability to compete in the market will change, depending on their competition. The record companies certainly show no interest in creating this free, competitive market, strange considering that's pretty much how they distribute physical media (with Walmart exclusives and other special deals the exception).

[Dean Roddey]

I think you are basically wrong on all points.

 

 

Of course there is a market for this, and it is nearly unlimited. P2P file trading proves this, and is a fraction of what a monetized market could be. People worldwide love music nearly universally - we're divided culturally, nationally, tribally...but we love music, and we find ways to listen to it.

 

 

That doesn't prove a *market*, it proves the desire. To have a market, you have to get them to pay for it. The desire doesn't lead to them paying for it, unfortunately.

 

 

If we want to buy a lossy copy of this work, we should be able to for fifty cents a song, more for a lossless copy, more for a physical copy, etc. This stuff is doable today, it just goes right past the entrenched heads of musical state.

 

 

This just isn't true. What do you think that iTunes is? You can go there right now and buy a copy of a huge collection of songs. But, file sharing still outnumbers iTunes sales by orders of magnitude. Which is baically what I've been getting at. You can't compete with free.

 

 

File trading is a federal crime under current federal law. Current federal copyright law would be unrecognizable to our founding fathers, even though after the initial shock ended they would grasp the technological challenges.

 

 

Of course it's a crime. But if a law cannot be enforced, it's meaningless. And it can't be enforced, unfortunately. In the few cases where the labels try to actually take action against people for doing it, they are treated as demonic scum bags for it. Law enforcement won't do anything about it. Copyright holders have no effective rights anymore, only paper rights.

 

 

The reason people break federal law is that it is how they can get the music. It just is. Radio's gone - as imperfect as it was, it could supply people with a steady stream of music, old or new, great or cheesy. The younger we are, the less we are interested in collecting CDs or other hunks of plastic. Every time we are shown a viable, legal alternative, we adopt it, yet the current industry refuses to acknowledge change.

 

 

Again, what is iTunes? You are acting like iTunes, Rhapsody, Pandora, XM Radio, etc... don't even exist. But they do. The streaming services aren't getting rich by any stretch of the imagination that I know of, well XM may be doing better than the others I don't know. iTunes sells probably a millionth or hundred thousandth of what is file shared.

 

 

None of the music companies, none of the ISPs, none of the streaming music companies, etc., through all their bitching and moaning, are losing money (except in the stock market). They are all profitable businesses. Their insatiable need to feed their C-level execs, board memebers, and shareholders with increasing amounts of payment through growth at any cost is the real current threat to the music industry, and to most of corporate America.

 

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with it. All publically held companies exist to make money for their stock holders. But it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They cannot compete with free, and the fact that file sharing still is orders of magnitude larger than legitimate sources proves that it's not going on because people have no legitimate sources. It's going on because it's free and kids know how to use those systems and they have other things they'd rather spend their money on.

[Jimbroni]

 

I stole the idea from you, no question! "All music," of course, is hyperbole, "but as much as possible" should be done. Digital distributors should be independent virtual stores, generally not owned by the record companies, artists or other content providers, as with current brick 'n' mortar distribution. The owners of the content, whether Universal or Joe the Pianist, sell the rights to these stores at a wholesale price, and these stores resell these at whatever price their market can support - a free market at that point. If the owner or the store wants to sell lossy files, lossless, DRM-laden files, content enriched files, etc., their ability to compete in the market will change, depending on their competition. The record companies certainly show no interest in creating this free, competitive market, strange considering that's pretty much how they distribute physical media (with Walmart exclusives and other special deals the exception).

 

 

Well I see why they are reluctant. Getting into the online business sales is a major risk. Right now it seems like everyone is just testing the waters, and finding that there is indeed a big market. But no is putting up a major investment, because of the profit loss risk. Its like trying to run a boom town in the wild west. It doesn't matter, how much gold you've mined, or if you have the best hookers in Santa Fe. Someone will come along and steal your gold and take your workin girls. So these companies do things like DRM to attempt to protect themselves, but it doesn't help and just pisses off the customer.

 

Dean makes really good points. Right now laws against online piracy are unenforceable. Even in the world of physical, people could steal but they didn't. Why because we have cops in the physical world. Its a sad state of affairs because the only solution I see to make all these ideas, which are great by the way, become profitable is to have a cyber police force. When the internet started we were all like this hip little, geek tribe of hippies. Now that the squares are involved, we're gonna need cops. It sucks. Why do MOFO'S gotta ruin everything?

 

Seriously, I've come to the conclusion that if I want to buy hi def audio, with artwork, liner notes, all the cool stuff that the online music sales community should be selling. Then we need enforcement, so these dudes can actually make money. DRM isn't the way. No the first time little Johnny gets put in jail or his parents get put jail and people start realizing there's a consequence to stealing, then we will create a true online media market place.

[Jon Gnash]

This is boring. :yawn: You guys (all of you) sound like a bunch of consumers.

 

I would rather hear your opinions about how

[Dean Roddey]

Well, you can forget plugins on a web site. The bandwidth and latency would never ever be remotely sufficient.

[Anderton]

Well, it's already happening: www.koblo.com.

 

And it's open source. So how will it change how we create music? Easier collaboration/community elements.

 

But that's very different from how it gets distributed, which I think is the point of the thread.

[slight-return]

This is boring. :yawn: You guys (all of you) sound like a bunch of consumers.   I would rather hear your opinions about how

[Jimbroni]

This is boring. :yawn: You guys (all of you) sound like a bunch of consumers.   I would rather hear your opinions about how