Matt
No favorite files added yet
(May 17, 2006 - 6:00 PM)
Wow. I remember having this argument waaaay back in the early 80's when copying to cassette tape was a huge concern. (For you youngsters out there, back in the dark ages before CD's, we actually listened to music recorded on magnetic media. Barbaric, no?) Back then you could go to just about any flea market, street fair or other event and find mass-produced pirate copies of popular music. Music industry officials and musicians alike were doing their best to convince us that it was killing the industry. It didn't...
Same story with the movie industry when VCRs became affordable and video rental stores popped up on every street corner. Then the CD burner came around and again the music industry freaked out. Again, the industry survived...
Now we're in the era of file sharing on the internet. Granted, it's much quicker and more convenient than the bad old days when we actually had to lug a boom box over to a friends house if we wanted to copy their cassettes, but the end result is the same.
Bottom line is that the entire structure of music distribution changed with the advent of consumer-based recordable media. That happened a long, long time ago. Since that time, the availability and quality of copied music has improved, but the recording industry has done nothing to change the way it does business as technology advanced. Income for both the record company and the musician is still based on a model developed in the days when the record company was the only entity that could produce and distribute the recordings.
The way I see it, record companies large and small really missed out on a great opportunity to improve and expand their business. The internet should have been a boon, not a bane. Imagine if instead of trying to control the internet, record companies had worked with it. What if the label that distributes your favorite artist had developed a subscription or member-based model and provided access to not only the finished album, but also studio outtakes, interviews, videos, live performances, and the ever-popular "bonus tracks"? Concert announcements, contests and artist news delivered to your email. Artist merchandise available online. What if you could buy a "subscription" to a particular band/artist and receive all the items listed above for the cost of a CD? Would you do it? I would. And the record company has just sold it's product with zero packaging costs and greatly reduced distribution and warehousing costs. They get paid, the artist gets paid, and the customer gets a whole lot more for their money than they used to.
Take it a step further and imagine the record company has just signed a new artist. With a subscription-based model, they have instant access to very specific marketing information and can target their desired market based on the member's current subscriptions. On and on and on...
So does any of this make it right to "steal" music? Of course not. But the music industry has noone but itself to blame for the situation it now finds itself in. Had they kept pace with technology, they may have been able to remain the sole provider of new music and sold the distribution rights for older music to the iTunes and allofmp3's of the world...
Just my $.02 (said with $1.37 worth of words...)
(May 17, 2006 - 9:14 AM)
An email from mp3stor? Dang, ain't you the lucky one. Any chance you could publish the email addy you mailed to get the credit?
I'm guessing since mp3stor offers their pages in russian as well as english that they *might* just be located in Russia,and are just *possibly* affiliated with allofmp3. Just a guess... ;)
****Updated****
OK, my bad. allofmp3 is indeed registered in Russia. MP3stor.com appears to be registered to an organization in Cyprus. Incidentally, mp3stor only registered their domain name for a year, expiring January '07. Not indicative of someone looking to establish a long-term business. Think I'd just use up the credit issued then skeedaddle without giving them another dime if I were you...