The record industry needs to determine how to adjust to new technologies, instead of trying to get new technologies to adjust to the record companies outmoded business paradigm. For example, the English band “The Arctic Monkeys” inadvertently used peer-to-peer, YouTube, and other Web 2.0′ish technologies to create, support, and feed their fan base before they released their first album: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Monkeys#Formation_and_early_years

For small bands the Internet and file sharing can be a powerful medium that they can use to reach out to ever-greater numbers of fans. And because many of the up-and-coming bands have experienced these technologies they may have a better understanding of how they work, unlikes many of the senior Record Companies executives who still don’t know or understand what the Internet is (it’s what you make of it). And because of the Internet, we may have end up with a more diverse richer music environment than if we let our tastes be determine by the Recording Industry.

Also, just about every single DRM initiative so far has failed, look at Yahoo, anyone who bought DRM music from them is now unable to listen to their legally purchased music:
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/drm-still-sucks-yahoo-music-going-dark-taking-keys-with-it.ars

I suspect that big established bands such as U2 and Metallica are so entrenched in the 20th century record company business model that all they see is the loss of potential sales of their work. Potential sales not actual sales, an “illegally” downloaded song does not represent a lost sale. Also, the way many younger people treat music is different and changing from the way that their seniors treat music; music is no longer something you buy and owe, it’s something that’s free and which you share with your friends. For many musicians I believe that they’d be happy to know that their music reaches a larger audience, however this doesn’t put bread on the table which means musicians need to be more innovative in how they earn money to support their music. (Which means there’s a niche there for people with the technology savvy & marketing skills to help bands with this).

To be honest I feel the (majority of the) record companies cares about one thing; profits, and damn be the fans and the musicians. To bad there aren’t more companies around like the former Factory Records.

A major public scam that seems like a “legit/nice idea for a nice cause” yeah right!

Richard Pryde Hughes
Production Music Library – Urban Dropz
http://www.ProductionMusicLibrary.com

I find it interesting that Mr. McGuinness speaks out on copying/downloading content today. Was his views the same when his client started recording? I would think Mr. McGuinness would have been only too happy to have his client’s intellectual property copied to other mediums (cassettes, CDs) as this may have translated to having more revenue generated for his client in the way of concert tickets sales, merchandising, and ultimately record sales.

As for the comments made about artists doing what they do for the love of their art or starving for their art, I have two words: spare me. No artist wants their intellectual property to be copied or downloaded without some form of fair compensation.

I do agree, however, there needs to a way for the parties involved (record companies, artists, and ISP entities) to provide a business model where revenue can be generated to protect intellectual property. I don’t believe the ability to prevent copying or downloading intellectual property will work long term. One can build a sophisticated mousetrap only to have someone else disable the mousetrap. This has proven to be the case over time.

The music industry has to come to terms that torrents sites and P2P is here to stay. Instead of fighting them, work with them to share revenue. ISP’s can help in charging additional fees for downloading from torrent sites or P2P. All the components to track where downloads containing copyrighted intellectual property is in place today.

In closing, the business model used in the recording industry needs to reflect all the potential revenue streams where the record company and artist can profit while preserving intellectual property. The ditigal age has exposed the need to change for all concerned.

Essentially artists ( bar the exception of the 1900′s ) have always been poor. You must suffer for your art. The ‘gift’ , and that is what the creation of art is, has a price for the ‘artist’.

If as an artist you have a family you must find a job. Being an artist is not a job. If you are a true artist it is a vocation you are following. If you get some crumbs from the table you’re lucky. Thats’ how it always was and that is how it will be.

Sad but true.

One last point. When at school in the 80′s and 90′s most people taped their music from others. THE FANS bought it, Like Christians buy the bible, Buddhists buy a yoga DVD and a fat man and Muslims buy the Koran and some nice clothes. There were few FANS back then. There are few FANS now. If you don’t buy your music you are not a FAN. That’s all. Of course you can inherit a bible, find a yoga DVD and get some nice clothes from OXfam…..( metaphors suck don’t they ).

Anyway, there never have been many FANS of music. Download people are mainly more interested in football and other things like food etc. Why not! I could starve with pleasure listening to the great music of the past 900 years that I have ‘bought’.

Oh and look what nearly always happens to rich rock/pop/jazz stars. They F*** up their lives and people they love, destroy their health and dodge paying tax by living in Ireland or wherever….

Peace be with this house.

Michael

ps if this makes no sense….that’s cool. It’s just an opinion.