Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Keep out of reach of children.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


           

Record Company MP3 Sharing

 Have record companies create their own MP3 shareing communites
  (-1)
(-1) 		  [vote for,
against]

People want free music and they've been getting it and it's going to be hard to take that away. I think that record companies should open their own (maybe join a few large compaines together) MP3 shareing sites. This could be peer to peer file shareing, but it would require strict file nameing conventions to filter out music from artists not afiliated with the owner(s) of the site and also to help track the popularity of an artist. They could advertise (either their own products or extrernal companies products) to make money and keep the music downloading free. The artists make money from the site's revinues (from advertiseing, sales of other products, exc.) based on the number of times thier music gets downloaded. In reality, musicians don't make a big percentage on CD sales at all. Most of their money comes from touring and merch (which could be advertised on the MP3 shareing application) People get free music, musicians get paid, everybody's happy.
—DorkRawk, Jul 31 2003

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       so.. a bit like record companies releasing their own MP3s then.. baked.
—neilp, Jul 31 2003
   

       No, not record companies releaseing their own MP3s, they would just set up a peer to peer system that used file nameing conventions to alow users to only share music by thier musicians.
—DorkRawk, Jul 31 2003
   

       Why, though, would the record companies want to swap their large incomes from the sale of music for much smaller returns from //advertiseing, sales of other products, exc.//? They'd rather protect their massive revenues than give up the ghost and encourage people into exploiting music sources which make them next to nowt.   

       And what of musicians producing music in unfashionable and merchanise-unfriendly genres? And musicians who lose money when they tour (e.g. Polyphonic Spree, Lambchop)? Where do they get their money from?
—my face your, Jul 31 2003
   

       I'm not sure nomenclature is the answer [DorkPark]
—neilp, Jul 31 2003
   

       There are 5 major labels. Not many bands make money from touring, It is very expensive. If they do it tends to be from merch or increased sales before and after the gig.
Muse do some interesting things. Not a band that I like but they sold 25000 downloads of their latest release with the video in a week at £1. Little in distribution costs, minimal advertising and at least £10,000 in profit. This is before it goes into the shops.
The BMI is talking about including downloads from official sites and DVD sales in the charts. 25000 downloads in the UK charts would have got them at least a top 10 chart position before the track was released. I wont go into chart return shops because I could go into if for the rest of the night.
I believe the best way forward for a band is to set up their own label and distribute the records themselves. Much easier to do now than at any time before because of downloads. It is also a great marketing tool. If you have a success with a couple of singles and majors get interested, start looking at other ways of doing business. Get them to buy a share in your company.
—sufc, Jul 31 2003
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle