Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
 ·Site5.com
|  Will it beat the price point?
I will be very interested to see if music these musicians are selling on their own will show up on free P2P services. It will also be interesting to see how many people have them on their available to download lists. If the price is reasonable, like $1 per song, it will be interesting to see how much people are willing to shell out. Even if the money is going directly to the musicians.
In short, the answer is...time will tell.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
firefox
Premium
join:2000-12-03
San Jose, CA
| said by Nightfall  :
I will be very interested to see if music these musicians are selling on their own will show up on free P2P services. It will also be interesting to see how many people have them on their available to download lists. If the price is reasonable, like $1 per song, it will be interesting to see how much people are willing to shell out. Even if the money is going directly to the musicians.
Exactly my thoughts. I already came to the conclusion a while back that P2P either killed or is killing any reasonable chance for artists to make money. People say that they are willing to pay artists direct, but if you read enough about P2P here, you get the feeling that no one would pay money anyways because P2P is free. |
|
crowdx
join:2001-10-12
Concord, CA
| reply to Nightfall
If the artist keeps tight control on the original product, i.e. no leaks from workers (most workers that leak stuff are pissed the the record companies anyhow), then the initial release of songs will have to make some money before everyone starts to share it. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
·Site5.com
| said by crowdx :
If the artist keeps tight control on the original product, i.e. no leaks from workers (most workers that leak stuff are pissed the the record companies anyhow), then the initial release of songs will have to make some money before everyone starts to share it.
I am sure they will make some money, but the question is how much until it is being shared for free? It will just be a matter of time until the purchased is shared. Which is why I am not holding my breath until after these musicians release their financial figures involving this venture. Then, we can hear the pundits complain about how either the musicians are greedy (make money) or are lying (not making money).
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Nightfall
I suspect we're in for more entertaining bumps in the transition from the era of expensive manufacture & distro where large labels controlled everything to the dominant model being artists that sell directly to their fans BUT, yes, I think as things progress that way the "price point", as you say, will be beat. I'd be quite surprised if the per track cost doesn't drop to sub-25c within 5 years. Purveyors of online tunes are building their networks on sales of label-owned copies but there is nothing to stop them from seeking content directly from artists - artists who get pennies per track now & are well positioned to undersell the labels.
CD's are cheap compared to what we are used to, but distribution remains as a hugely inefficient, non-digital layer in an otherwise end-to-end digital transfer: the pressure to remove the CD from the equation is tremendous. The CD is a vestige, really. And as more consumers port their PCsound out to their livingroom stereo systems & portable players they are really NOT gonna want to have all these nasty plastic discs lying about. And that damn car CD player that keeps skip-ip-ip-ipping? ugh, don't even get me started!  |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to firefox
said by firefox :
Exactly my thoughts. I already came to the conclusion a while back that P2P either killed or is killing any reasonable chance for artists to make money. People say that they are willing to pay artists direct, but if you read enough about P2P here, you get the feeling that no one would pay money anyways because P2P is free.
Most artists now don't make money from their record sales. If you want to see something interesting, look for VH1's Behind the Music:TLC. These 3 women were selling millions of CD's a year and only got $50,000! Why? Record companies made them pay for their videos, their promotion, their studio time, etc. Plus, their manager and producer (Pebbels) was taking a massive cut. This is all considered the way the music business is run.
The ONLY way they could make money was by touring. That's where most of these artists make their money.
Now, if they do their own internet distribution, they almost certainly make more per song than if they go the conventional route. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
·Site5.com
| said by moonpuppy :
said by firefox :
Exactly my thoughts. I already came to the conclusion a while back that P2P either killed or is killing any reasonable chance for artists to make money. People say that they are willing to pay artists direct, but if you read enough about P2P here, you get the feeling that no one would pay money anyways because P2P is free.
Most artists now don't make money from their record sales. If you want to see something interesting, look for VH1's Behind the Music:TLC. These 3 women were selling millions of CD's a year and only got $50,000! Why? Record companies made them pay for their videos, their promotion, their studio time, etc. Plus, their manager and producer (Pebbels) was taking a massive cut. This is all considered the way the music business is run.
The ONLY way they could make money was by touring. That's where most of these artists make their money.
Now, if they do their own internet distribution, they almost certainly make more per song than if they go the conventional route.
I think you miss the point.
The whole point of her statement isn't that the musicians will make more, but that their product will still be distributed for free. I know I have heard a lot of people state how much they are for the musicians and against the RIAA. Well, with this option, fans of the music can pay the musicians directly....but will it be successful? If the musicians complain, will they be blacklisted? Will people actually shell out money to buy music if it benefits the musicians directly?
My theory is that this isn't about "DOWN WITH THE RIAA" like some people say. It is purely about money and ease of use. P2P is so simple to use and it sure does beat paying for the product. Hurting the RIAA is just a small benefit. Everyone I know that downloads doesn't care about the RIAA. They just want the music for free.
So now we are back to the watch and wait portion of this soap opera. Will users buy? Will sharing still happen? Will this venture be a success? Stay tuned....
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
firefox
Premium
join:2000-12-03
San Jose, CA
| reply to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy :
said by firefox :
Exactly my thoughts. I already came to the conclusion a while back that P2P either killed or is killing any reasonable chance for artists to make money. People say that they are willing to pay artists direct, but if you read enough about P2P here, you get the feeling that no one would pay money anyways because P2P is free.
Most artists now don't make money from their record sales. If you want to see something interesting, look for VH1's Behind the Music:TLC. These 3 women were selling millions of CD's a year and only got $50,000! Why? Record companies made them pay for their videos, their promotion, their studio time, etc. Plus, their manager and producer (Pebbels) was taking a massive cut. This is all considered the way the music business is run.
The ONLY way they could make money was by touring. That's where most of these artists make their money.
Now, if they do their own internet distribution, they almost certainly make more per song than if they go the conventional route.
I was refering to Nightfall's post about their new business model for musicians in which they sell and distribute their own music online. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :
I think you miss the point.
The whole point of her statement isn't that the musicians will make more, but that their product will still be distributed for free. I know I have heard a lot of people state how much they are for the musicians and against the RIAA. Well, with this option, fans of the music can pay the musicians directly....but will it be successful? If the musicians complain, will they be blacklisted? Will people actually shell out money to buy music if it benefits the musicians directly?
My theory is that this isn't about "DOWN WITH THE RIAA" like some people say. It is purely about money and ease of use. P2P is so simple to use and it sure does beat paying for the product. Hurting the RIAA is just a small benefit. Everyone I know that downloads doesn't care about the RIAA. They just want the music for free.
So now we are back to the watch and wait portion of this soap opera. Will users buy? Will sharing still happen? Will this venture be a success? Stay tuned....
And both of you are missing my point.
The fact has been that most musical artists do not make money from their record sales. They make it on touring. Most people won't go see a band they have never heard of but if they hear something they like, they will go see the band in concert where they make the money.
This goes beyond just selling songs on the net but advertisement and promotion. If the record companies don't like an album put out by the artist, they can "shelf" it and make them make another. Essentially, controlling what the artist puts out. By bypassing the labels, they can put pout whatever they want (good or bad) and get their music out.
Yes, they will probably be those who won't pay for music but getting into a concert for free is a lot more difficult. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
·Site5.com
| said by moonpuppy :
said by Nightfall :
I think you miss the point.
The whole point of her statement isn't that the musicians will make more, but that their product will still be distributed for free. I know I have heard a lot of people state how much they are for the musicians and against the RIAA. Well, with this option, fans of the music can pay the musicians directly....but will it be successful? If the musicians complain, will they be blacklisted? Will people actually shell out money to buy music if it benefits the musicians directly?
My theory is that this isn't about "DOWN WITH THE RIAA" like some people say. It is purely about money and ease of use. P2P is so simple to use and it sure does beat paying for the product. Hurting the RIAA is just a small benefit. Everyone I know that downloads doesn't care about the RIAA. They just want the music for free.
So now we are back to the watch and wait portion of this soap opera. Will users buy? Will sharing still happen? Will this venture be a success? Stay tuned....
And both of you are missing my point.
The fact has been that most musical artists do not make money from their record sales. They make it on touring. Most people won't go see a band they have never heard of but if they hear something they like, they will go see the band in concert where they make the money.
This goes beyond just selling songs on the net but advertisement and promotion. If the record companies don't like an album put out by the artist, they can "shelf" it and make them make another. Essentially, controlling what the artist puts out. By bypassing the labels, they can put pout whatever they want (good or bad) and get their music out.
Yes, they will probably be those who won't pay for music but getting into a concert for free is a lot more difficult.
Oh, I agree. Musicians can release all the music they want if they eliminate the middleman. It makes sense in my opinion. Why go through the RIAA when you can make all the money yourself. You do make a good point.
However...
My point is different from yours. I don't know what to expect or if it will be successful. One thing is for sure, the heavy P2P users are being called out to put their money where their mouth is. All this "down with the RIAA" talk doesn't apply now. Will P2P users purchase music straight from the musicians or will it be heavily shared and the musicians strike out once again?
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Nightfall :
However...
My point is different from yours. I don't know what to expect or if it will be successful. One thing is for sure, the heavy P2P users are being called out to put their money where their mouth is. All this "down with the RIAA" talk doesn't apply now. Will P2P users purchase music straight from the musicians or will it be heavily shared and the musicians strike out once again?
Some will and some won't. Copying CD's from friends didn't end. P2P won't end.
The down with the RIAA talk does apply in that the RIAA is against artists doing this. How else will they make their money? Almost no artists had the means to distribute their music on a grand scale UNTIL the internet. Now, music can fly as fast as a connection can download it. No more deal makers and brokers trying to get their hands into the artists' pie. If it doesn't benefit the RIAA and its members, it is no good in their view. |
|
Jigsaw
Stardust We Are
Premium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to moonpuppy
Hey guys need to Check these guys out!!!!
»www.marillion.com/
Marillion have been doing this sort of thing for some time now and as a matter of fact are pretty good at it.Just see what they did to raise money for Promoting there new CD.IMHO this is the way most Bands should present themselves. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
·Site5.com
| reply to moonpuppy
quote:
The down with the RIAA talk does apply in that the RIAA is against artists doing this. How else will they make their money? Almost no artists had the means to distribute their music on a grand scale UNTIL the internet. Now, music can fly as fast as a connection can download it. No more deal makers and brokers trying to get their hands into the artists' pie. If it doesn't benefit the RIAA and its members, it is no good in their view.
I am more just pointing out the fact that the P2P users claiming the RIAA is the reason why they pirate won't be a valid one anymore. Especially when it comes to these artists in specific. That is why I am saying to wait and see what happens.
Keep in mind P2P users claim they are downloading because of the greedy RIAA and the fact they suck. Well, in this case, the musicians are making all the money so will users pony up or will another excuse me made?
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
