Wired.com - "Music: Too Expensive to Be Free, Too Free to Be Expensive"

[Styrofoam]

By Eliot Van Buskirk -- "Evidence and rumors are mounting to support the idea that free music websites are unfeasible."

 

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/music-too-expensive-to-be-free-too-free-to-be-expensive/

[sabriel9v]

 

That dream is fading fast. As legitimate sources for free on-demand music dry up, fans will likely head back to file sharing networks, which is bad news for everyone involved in music — except for, perhaps, hard drive manufacturers.

 

 

Bull{censored}! Has the author ever heard of youtube?

[slight-return]

 

Bull{censored}! Has the author ever heard of youtube?

 

 

I suspect he has -- the article starts with a context of

"a problem that has plagued every other licensed free music service.

 

The digital music doubters could be right with the contention that advertising revenue can’t cover the costs of licensing music. Meanwhile, illegitimate free music sources continue to proliferate, rendering paid music subscriptions irrelevant for most music fans."

 

[sabriel9v]

^^^^

Ha! Youtube is doing just fine, they make a boatload off of advertisements. You can also stream music off vimeo and hulu, there are plenty of places to stream music and corporations are trying to buy off all these companies because they're so popular.

[slight-return]

 

^^^^ Ha! Youtube is doing just fine,

 

 

while the author, specifically uses youtube as a potential (I don't know if they are currently in the black) counter example

 

YouTube remains the only licensed, free, on-demand music service that promises to break even, mostly because the visual nature of the services makes users more likely to encounter advertisements on the site. When the labels launch their Vevo YouTube spin-off, they hope to generate even more money from ads than YouTube does.

 

 

the author does bring up the point that Youtube has a large video component to it (that can affect its popularity) - it's not just a music site

 

one point, I do take some exception to - a decent amt of youtube stuff is not legitly licensed. They do SOME policing, but it's probably impractical for them to do a great job at it (which can help em against indirect infringement)

[i don't know their policy, but it might be similar to ebay where they need to receive a complaint from the copyright holder]

So, I don't know if we can put Youtube in a strict "licensed" category

 

 

 

 

 

You can also stream music off vimeo and hulu, there are plenty of places to stream music and corporations are trying to buy off all these companies because they're so popular.

 

one note on popularity - popularity and profitability are two different things ( believe HULU is public, so we might be able to examine it - but we can have the problem in analysis of HULU has a pretty large collection of more video oriented programming...I believe that's their main marketing thrust. which could impact the licensing and ad revenue structure. Vimeo I don't know anything about)

Hell, Enron had tremendous growth

 

That a corp wants to buy an operation also doesn't necessarily men it's a profit center. There can be a number of reasons (from core technology, to brand recognition, to reducing the competitive pool, to holding it as a loss leader to support other divisions, etc)

 

THEN there's the question IF a corp absorbs an operation b/c they think it'll be profittable -- will it, in fact, happen? (remember that tech bubble? "greater fool" and tulip bulbs? and that's the thing about speculative investment...it's speculative )

 

 

don't get me wrong - this isn't agreement with the author's thesis (goes back to the negation v opposition thing like when folks were asking you 'are you saying a music scene must stay away from major labels??' when you mentioned you felt a music scene didn't REQUIRE major label interest)

I haven't crunched any numbers and I don't have deeply held theories about where we are going, nor even where the "should go

BUT I am saying that "youtube is doing just fine" [and we mustn't confuse popularity /w profitability] isn't that strong a counterexample

[BlueStrat]

 

^^^^ Ha! Youtube is doing just fine, they make a boatload off of advertisements. You can also stream music off vimeo and hulu, there are plenty of places to stream music and corporations are trying to buy off all these companies because they're so popular.

 

 

 

well sure, but most streams sound like ass. And most YouTube videos DEFINITELY sound like ass.

 

Is this what we've come to?

[sabriel9v]

well sure, but most streams sound like ass. And most YouTube videos DEFINITELY sound like ass. Is this what we've come to?

 

Fine Have it your way. According to last.fm, I've streamed 20,000 tracks since I started my account in 2003. I'll just have to download that music for free instead because Bluestrat said "streams sound like ass."

[Styrofoam]

 

^^^^ Ha! Youtube is doing just fine, they make a boatload off of advertisements. You can also stream music off vimeo and hulu, there are plenty of places to stream music and corporations are trying to buy off all these companies because they're so popular.

 

YouTube may make a boatload from advertisements, but they actually lose about 400 million dollars a year from bandwidth costs. Advertising can not sustain YouTube's maintenance costs.

[sabriel9v]

 

YouTube may make a boatload from advertisements, but they actually lose about 400 million dollars a year from bandwidth costs. Advertising can not sustain YouTube's maintenance costs.

 

 

Why not? Give me figures on how much youtube makes in advertising and their overall profits minus "maintenance costs." In addition, can you please give me an alternative to free music aside from streaming and illegal downloads. A method in which I'm comfortable to listen to hundreds of artists that I like, but know that I'm not stealing their music.

[slight-return]

 

Why not? Give me figures on how much youtube makes in advertising and their overall profits minus "maintenance costs."

 

 

certainly not definitive (I'm not sure how exposed the numbers ar -- google is pub traded and all, but the specifics of each unit might not be fully exposed)

 

I just did a quicky google on "youtube profitability"

 

here's a couple articles from earlier this year

 

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090423_318797.htm

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/technology/youtube-closing-profitability/

[Poker99]

Fine Have it your way. According to last.fm, I've streamed 20,000 tracks since I started my account in 2003. I'll just have to download that music for free instead because Bluestrat said "streams sound like ass."

 

He's right. They sound like {censored}.

 

The new HQ ones are a little better.

[3shiftgtr]

Currently the industry is floating...delivery has changed the parameter of what 'product' is.

 

Free product is a misnomer. The "Feasability" is found in anyone willing to profit from the delivery medium. No different than radio. Advertising creates the illusion of the feasabilityof the product. The author's thesis that "the dream is fading fast" belies the product-producer-consumer money making paradigm. When you have a disc, Product=disc, producer=humans responsible for making disc, and the consumer=person BUYING disc.

 

In this paradigm, the Product is AUDIENCES, the Producer is THE MUSIC, and the consumer is ADVERTISERS.

 

Just like radio. The product changes when the 'feasability' is addressed. Free has nothing to do with it being 'too expensive'.

[sabriel9v]

 

In this paradigm, the Product is AUDIENCES, the Producer is THE MUSIC, and the consumer is ADVERTISERS.

 

 

Can you elaborate upon this? Do you mean that the audience turn out is what determines the success of the product?

[3shiftgtr]

Can you elaborate upon this? Do you mean that the audience turn out is what determines the success of the product?

 

Which business model are you referring to, sab?

When Product/producer/cousmer=disc/label/listener or when

product/producer/consumer=audiences/music/advertisers?

 

My point is that throughout the article, there is an underlying concept that 'free' has anything to do with the audiences/music/advertisers model. It doesn't. In an open, capitalist market you have only one way to make money; and that is the product/producer/consumer paradigm. In another sentence, 'someone has to sell something to somebody'. Audience size determines the the amount of money the owners of the delivery medium can charge, therefore determining the financial 'feasability' (success) of the medium. They are selling audiences, not music. The music is no longer a product compared to the other model. And therefore it's 'freeness' is irrelevant to how it is used. The medium determines delivery.

 

The music in the new delivery system creates the sellable product (audiences), much like a baker makes bread. The baker is not the product, the bread is. Is the fact that the baker gets paid or not, does not have any bearing on the success of the sales numbers for the bread (as long as he keeps making bread, you know, cuz he loves it, and well it's his art, ya know?) How much he/she is or isn't getting paid is of no consequence to the listener (who has now become the product), or the consumer (advertisers).

 

 

And music licensing is so far behind the curve it ain't even funny. The file sharing sites may or may not ever be regulated. Until money appears, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC could really give a {censored}. They are just floating around waiting for dollar signs to appear. But the irony of it all is that THEY are the ones that are in control of whether an ad supported site can make money, due to how much they decide to charge the sites. The idea that free sites and ad sites are somehow in the same boat is unaware thinking.

[richardmac]

So many little sub-topics going on. The fidelity of streaming subtopic is interesting. Most decent sites stream mp3's at 128k. If I'm going to sit down in from of my studio monitors and really listen, then they sound, to my ears, about the same as cassette did, give or take. It's perfectly fine for previewing music or for very casual listening. My own personal opinion is that it would be fine for checking out an artist. I would not spend money on 128k mp3. If I like a song I want better quality. Even iTunes's original 128k aac files sound markedly better, and the 256k aac files sound good to me.

 

Fidelity is relative. If your clock radio goes off in the morning and it happens to be a song you like, maybe you just sorta lie there and listen to the thing. And it has a two inch speaker and sounds like crap. Lots of offices play music on a crappy little box. Stores have awful speaker systems. We are surrounded by bad audio. When I want to really listen to something I listen to it on a good system. But I am perhaps a dying breed. I think home audio equipment sales have got to be down or going down. That would be an interesting stat to go look up.

 

People don't care so much about fidelity (obviously) and I can't help but wonder if caring about fidelity will become like, say, stamp collecting. If so, then I'm a stamp collector. But I have no problem listening to a stream to check something out.

[BlueStrat]

Fine Have it your way. According to last.fm, I've streamed 20,000 tracks since I started my account in 2003. I'll just have to download that music for free instead because Bluestrat said "streams sound like ass."

 

I can't help it if your ears are conditioned to crap sounding copies of otherwise decent recordings. If you're happy with it, that's cool. Not for me.

[stomias]

Almost all in mono too

[sabriel9v]

I can't help it if your ears are conditioned to crap sounding copies of otherwise decent recordings. If you're happy with it, that's cool. Not for me.

 

Look at it this way, if I purchased ALL the music I listen to, I'd probably be around twenty grand in the hole (no joke).

[Catchingthewave]

Why not? Give me figures on how much youtube makes in advertising and their overall profits minus "maintenance costs." In addition, can you please give me an alternative to free music aside from streaming and illegal downloads. A method in which I'm comfortable to listen to hundreds of artists that I like, but know that I'm not stealing their music.

 

You could try Creative Commons music. Jamendo has over 20,000 free albums and half a million members. I can't guarantee that you'll like what you hear, but you certainly won't be ripping anybody off. (You can easily donate to any musicians you like or even post your own album and join in.) Or you could try any number of CC netlabels who will be delighted if you stream or download their music.

[danosongs]

The great thing about using your own music with the advertising revenue model is that you don't have to pay any licensing fees.

 

I am still doing well with AdSense on my Website and offering my music under the creative commons.

 

The only difference is I no longer book studio time to record material - I just keep costs low by recording at home and I make a profit while also building up my name and mailing list.

 

I also do not create any physical product - so my cost is really only my time. If one new free song can add 1 repeat lifetime visitor/fan a day who checks back for more music then that time can actually be worth my while in advertising revenue. of course it takes at least a year to start seeing the constant $ in your ad accounts.

 

This works has been been working for me for a year now. Of course its all about scale so I keep promoting and promoting to increase traffic.

 

Think about this - Perez Hilton became a major superstar from his blog alone and he was in the front row of the American Music Awards last night. He has absolutely "zero" talent other than being a spectacle and hack blogger.

 

Just think what you could do with his tactics + some real talent. The Internet is very very powerful and its not just about CD sales.

[BlueStrat]

 

The great thing about using your own music with the advertising revenue model is that you don't have to pay any licensing fees. I am still doing well with AdSense on my Website and offering my music under the creative commons. The only difference is I no longer book studio time to record material - I just keep costs low by recording at home and I make a profit while also building up my name and mailing list. I also do not create any physical product - so my cost is really only my time. If one new free song can add 1 repeat lifetime visitor/fan a day who checks back for more music then that time can actually be worth my while in advertising revenue. of course it takes at least a year to start seeing the constant $ in your ad accounts. This works has been been working for me for a year now. Of course its all about scale so I keep promoting and promoting to increase traffic. Think about this - Perez Hilton became a major superstar from his blog alone and he was in the front row of the American Music Awards last night. He has absolutely "zero" talent other than being a spectacle and hack blogger. Just think what you could do with his tactics + some real talent. The Internet is very very powerful and its not just about CD sales.

 

 

Aw, jeez, not this {censored} again!

 

Seriously, you keep trotting out this same crap- but fail to tell folks that you aren't deriving income from your music, you're using your music as freebies to get traffic to your other sites that generate ad revenue. Why don't you be up front about that and let folks know that you're talking about one thing and everyone else is talking about something else?

[Poker99]

 

Aw, jeez, not this {censored} again! Seriously, you keep trotting out this same crap- but fail to tell folks that you aren't deriving income from your music, you're using your music as freebies to get traffic to your other sites that generate ad revenue. Why don't you be up front about that and let folks know that you're talking about one thing and everyone else is talking about something else?

 

 

+ 1

[DeuceyBaby]

Look at it this way, if I purchased ALL the music I listen to, I'd probably be around twenty grand in the hole (no joke).

 

yikes.