Posted on 01/22/2007 8:59:55 PM PST by zarf
CANNES, France, Jan. 22 — As even digital music revenue growth falters because of rampant file-sharing by consumers, the major record labels are moving closer to releasing music on the Internet with no copying restrictions — a step they once vowed never to take.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The answer: access fees and advertising dollars in an "all you can eat" digital music bar.
This will reinvent the music biz and make money for all....with artists having much more control of their own destinies.
Mp3s are poor faxcimiles of the original content, they have one 10th the audio quility of a full recording. I have said for years that any serious audio fan wont be satisfied with the MP3 ver and that those who are satisfied arent serious consumers of the artists music. Its just advertisment
By choosing to fight progress instead of embracing it and making it work FOR them instead of against them, the MPAA and the RIAA have done a great deal of damage to themselves.
This would be a great move in the right direction. It may be too little too late though.
The traditional model is dead regardless of the majors. THis is the wave of the future whether the "majors" are involved or not.
Right now it sounds about as probable as "Microsoft to open-source Windows and Office codebase..." ;-)
They always find something to bitch about. That snotbag audiophile stuff got boring years ago.
The music industry isn't losing money because of file sharing. It's losing money because their product is crap. The big A&R and marketing dollars are all about hoodlum music and skanky girl pop. They have put no real talent out for over a decade.
Stick a fork in the RIAA.
Im talking about "Fans", the audience. They want the best, not bootlegs.
Listen to an Mp3 and listen to the cd there is a HUGE difference
And that music is being shared in P2P networks. The Artists never make much money off of it.
haven't bought an album by a major label in years, and I'm not gonna start doing it tomorrow.
This is the way the dinosaur media will have to go to survive as well. They will have to go to all online pubs and then get paid by ISPs or search engines, who then allow their customers free access.
Yes, there is a difference, however portabiity and lifestyle habits trumps all in todays world. The audio quaility of an ipod shuffle through a quality set of ear buds is a damned audiophile miracle for those who compare it to the Walkman era.
But most music consumers are not serious audio fans and they neither care nor want the best quality audio for the majority of the songs they tap into. They like to browse, use songs for a while and then throw most of them away.
There will always be people who want the best audio and they will always be able to get it. But for many people, MP3 is just fine, at least for most of what they listen to.
I agree!
All I can do is shake my head in amazement. The people who run these companies are such a bunch of morons and techno-dunces.
Maybe I'm just tone deaf, but I'm perfectly content with MP3s, FWIW.
When you consider millions of on line users forking over 2 bucks a month surcharge for access-in fact I think it will become stautory via an act of Congress a la cable TV statutory licencing-the distribution to the content providers will be substantial. Everyone will make a nice chunk of change.
Depends on the bit rate. I agree, 128K is crap, but if you max it out to 320K they start to sound really good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.