| Pay
what you want - does it work?
Should
we follow Radiohead and give away our music?
...continued
from front page
The freedom and egalitarianism that the digital world seemed to promise
because of greater ease of production and distribution, is rapidly being
revealed as the destruction of many parts of the music business itself.
Record majors may be losing their power, but very little is going to anyone
else. Instead, the power is residing almost entirely with consumers, and
the Radiohead sales reveal what the implications of that are. Not much
money, not much of a business.
Processing power, storage, bandwidth and the other enabling technologies
of the digital revolution are rapidly losing value. And they are dragging
the value of content (music, video, film) down with them. It is not just
music. YouTube poses a deadly threat to the traditional television industry,
Flickr has revolutionized photography.
The lesson for musicians seems increasingly to be that the digital space
is only a place for marketing – and not a very good place at that.
The Internet does not possess the promise it once seemed to hold of allowing
greater equality, and it is rapidly destroying even those areas of music
that once did make money.
From a business perspective, the lesson seems to be: forget the virtual
and go back to the corporeal. A live performance by human beings is something
that customers can be persuaded to pay for and it is scarce. Just as the
“old economy” businesses – mining and food – are
starting to outstrip the “new economy” businesses like selling
computers, so the old method of delivering music by actually playing it
to an actual audience may turn out to be the way of the future. It is
revealing that Radiohead – and Prince, who also has given his work
away for free – make their money from live performances.
As The Economist comments: “The dominant business model on the internet
today is making money by giving things away. Much of that is merely the
traditional media model of using free content to build audiences and selling
access to them to advertisers. But an increasing amount of it falls into
the free-sample model: because it is so cheap to offer digital services
online, it doesn’t matter if 99% of your customers are using the
free version of your services so long as 1% are paying for the ‘premium
version’.”
That’s fine. But what would the “premium version” look
like in music?
[Ed: This just in - from December 10th, "In Rainbows" has
been withdrawn as a pay-what-you-want download.]
Here
is another interesting perspective on this issue.
Home
|

|
|

US
performers chase broadcast cash
...continued
from front page
Legislation
introduced into the US Congress seeks to achieve royalties for performers
when their work is broadcast. The legislation, sponsored by both the Republican
and Democrat parties, is the result of lobbying by musicians. It aims
to give performers the same rights as publishers and songwriters. If it
succeeds, Australia's copyright act may also need to be changed, since
our US free trade agreement requires equal copyright treatment. Let's
hope they don't settle for the "give it and take it away" performers'
copyright we ended up with here.
EU threatens
Sino side
The EU is threatening to take China to the WTO over copyright
violation. Lengthy talks have yielded little and the EU is allegedly losing
patience over flagrant Chinese practices. Whether the EU has the stomach
to finish the fight, in light of the sizeable EU-China trade, remains
to be seen.
Grammy
some lovin'!

Burt Bacharach - magic moments...
Grammies for "Lifetime achievement" were recently announced
for Burt Bacharach, The Band, Cab Calloway, Doris Day, Itzhak Perlman,
Max Roach and Earl Scruggs. The selection is considerably wider and more
eclectic than usually seen in the "major" awards of the gongfest.
Dan Lan Hi-Res
Man
Famed producer
Daniel Lanois has released the
first download in high resolution "CD quality". The event
virtually closes the audio quality gap between downloads and discs. How
the biz will react remains to be seen.
Home
|