Bon Jovi Ties Music Sales To Concert Tickets
from the linking-the-scarce-and-the-infinite dept
One of the keys to recognizing the new business models opened up by a lack of scarcity is the importance of linking scarce and non-scarce components. For musicians, we've often pointed out that an important scarce component are concert tickets, and, in fact have suggested that musicians can do quite well by offering incentives to people willing to pay musicians for their music by doing things like offering them early access to concert tickets (or even special private concerts). It appears that Bon Jovi is going this route. For fans who buy the iTunes version of the band's latest album, they'll have the first opportunity to buy concert tickets. In other words, the band is adding more incentives to make it worthwhile to pay for the download, just as folks like Trent Reznor are coming up with ways to make it worthwhile to buy a CD. For all the whining from the recording industry that DRM or brainwashing were the only ways to convince people to buy music again, it seems pretty clear that that's not true. Oh, and by the way, as many of us have been predicting, even as CD sales dwindle, the live music business is booming -- which is exactly the opposite of what the recording industry has been saying. When do we get an apology?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OK OK OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK OK OK
My theory, which I first developed in 1987, about Jon Bon Jovi has proven to be true: cut off his hair and he's nothing.
You'd be surprised how ANGRY teenage girls and poseur metalheads got by saying that 20 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy poop!
That actually works!! and here I thought the best thing Bon Jovi ever did was Vampires: Los Muertos :P
Step 1: Don't sweat people who download your music for free.
Step 2: Lots of people hear your music.
Step 3: Offer exclusive content for those that BUY the music.
Step 4: Listener base explodes, as do music and ticket sales.
Step 5: PROFIT!!
Now, if only this trend would pick up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy poop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy poop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy poop!
Hey Joe, why shouldn't this content be free too? Wouldn't you just take that exclusive content, rip it and post it?
You're analysis is superficial..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy poop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy poop!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proper Infrastructure...
Of course the online ticketing system was not set up properly to accommodate the volume of request and was almost instantly offline and stayed offline for several hours afterward.
A lot of disgruntled fans were the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't like..
It almost moves me as much as when the Black Crowes announced that they would start allowing concert taping when they started opening for the Grateful Dead though I actually attended a show with the Black Crowes/Dead and have no such plans to so much as listen to anything by John Francis Bongiovi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limited Edition.
Nowadays, whenever she releases a new CD... I buy it. I not only buy the goddamn thing, I buy the Limited Edition... which is (usually) twice the cost of the "normal", non-limited edition.
I'm sure the part that pisses the record labels of the most is... I buy it directly from her. :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limited Edition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money Grubbing...
I love it! I'll keep going to concerts and paying for my music so you can continue to download it for free -- hey you weren't going to pay for it anyway (thus no lost profits for the artist) and besides, it's not really stealing -- it's just copyright infringement.
When will they get it!? Anything that can be copied digitally and distributed at near zero cost must be free! Books are next! Video and movies too! While we're at it, lets just kill all patent laws -- they stifle innovation right? Lets just all work for the common good. Can't we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money Grubbing...
Now, when I was growing up our dad was a lawyer and he taught us this little game called "Dibs" that worked like this: The first one of us kids in the family to see some something or say something or even just think of something would just call out "DIBS!" on it and it would then become ours to use exclusively or to charge our siblings for the right of using. Mom and Dad, representing the government, were exempt of course. I remember the time I called dibs on flatulence. The problem there was tracking down the offending party to make them pay since nobody would admit to anything. I finally resorted to just picking out someone from whoever was around and accusing them whenever I smelt something that smelled like that. Now they didn't always want to pay up so I'd threaten them with something like "I'll take $0.25 now but I have to go get Dad it's gonna cost you a whole $1.00." Man, that was easy money if you were good at it like I was.
Now I thought that little game of dibs would end when I grew up and I'd have to, like you know, actually go to work several days a week or something. Imagine my joy when I discovered patents and copyrights! Is this a great country or what? Now I get *my* "money for nuthin' and chicks for free".
As for you commies like Brad who seem to have something against the game of Dibs, well that just must be because you aren't any good at it. That's not my fault, in fact it's yours, so you deserve to be pay royalties people like me. By the way, do you know why they're called royalties? Because, compared to you, I *am* royalty. And if you don't like it then just get out of my country. Or come to think of it, maybe you should get off the planet since Dibs is quickly becoming a global game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Musicians will tell you that all of their money is
The RIAA/Recording labels have very good contracts with artist (heavily in favor of the Recording Labels). The artist usually does not get cent1 until everything else is paid.
The studio time, the label time, CD press and manufacture, Recording overhead, promotion, Store space, inventory blah, blah, blah are all paid first; little is left over for the Artist.
That is why Musicians, even the old, old ones still perform.
It is the only way to make real money. This is also why so many artist jump on the RIAA bandwagon, because they suspect by some magic of accounting that they will start getting royalities from their record/CD sales. Nope, the Labels will continue to CPA the sales cost, throwing the artist nickles and dimes after EVERYTHING else is paid.
Established artist know to keep the Recording Studios away.
that is why so many artist setup their own recording studio in the basement; less involvement by studios.
How many times have you heard artist say they want to start a Recording Label for the Artist, the Artist First, yeah! They know who is working the contract to ensure that the content creator is lucky to get a few pennies.
I cannot fault the Recording Studios for trying to make money; for every 1-hit wonder that sells a gazillion, there are 10 that never turn a profit, like drilling for oil, 1-in-10 is a gusher. It rankles me to no end that I subsidize crappy 'artist' by giving up so much up-front money in the recording contract just to get my ding-dong out to press and into stores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read my name
That's right, music industry, follow Jon Bon et company and reap the rewards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This system is seriously broken (much more so than the patent system) and needs to be re-evaluated. If nothing else, we need to see new record labels start up that are not associated with the RIAA. I can't honestly believe that it's illegal to produce and sell music without the RIAA getting a cut. If it is, then I guess true democracy is quickly fading away to socialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Brad!
Commercials cost money to make and are given away for free. No one cares if you copy a commercial and show it to your friends-- they have a neat phrase to describe that type of marketing: Viral Marketing. People spend money and time on something with the intent of giving it away for free in the hopes that someone will find it worth sharing with someone else (for free) to *sell something else*.
Now that you know this, what do you suppose a recorded song should be? The end product, or a viral commercial?
Adapt, or die. I don't care which, but whichever you choose, choose it quickly. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad Brad!
If an artist wants to get paid for their intellectual property who are you to tell them they can't? You can argue all day that their current business model is antiquated -- but that still doesn't give you the right to take their product.
I choose to describe my music as the END PRODUCT -- so does any musician (author, programmer, artist, scientist, etc.) who wants to get paid for what they do.
In the end, arguments about the evils of DRM amount to users whining about inconvenience. Then they're off to how "evil" record companies are and how little money makes it to the artist(to help justify stealing from them).
Joe -- it's simply NOT YOUR CHOICE how I distribute my work. Your choice is to buy or not buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Brad!
I sense sarcasm, but the truth is that intellectual property is no longer scarce and people DO seem to prefer not the pay for something that costs approximately zero to reproduce, so if you want to get money by making music, you have to find ways to tie-in non-scarce goods/services which people WILL pay for.
I love it! I'll keep going to concerts and paying for my music so you can continue to download it for free -- hey you weren't going to pay for it anyway (thus no lost profits for the artist) and besides, it's not really stealing -- it's just copyright infringement.
Again, I sense sarcasm, but contrary to your tone, what you are saying is essentially true. Many more people will be willing to download a song for free than will be willing to pay for it - so NO a download != a lost sale. And, according to the supreme court no less, copyright infringement is NOT stealing, it is just what it is - infringement.
When will they get it!? Anything that can be copied digitally and distributed at near zero cost must be free! Books are next! Video and movies too!
The market certainly seems to support this.
While we're at it, lets just kill all patent laws -- they stifle innovation right?
There is overwhelming evidence that supports just this claim.
Lets just all work for the common good. Can't we?
Well, first of all, what's so bad about that?;) But seriously, just because you haven't got a monopoly on something doesn't mean you can't profit off of it. It's all about recognizing the market you're in, delivering a product people will pay for, and continuing to bring new and improved products to market - simple, right?;) Competition is good for consumers and businesses.
If an artist wants to get paid for their intellectual property who are you to tell them they can't? You can argue all day that their current business model is antiquated -- but that still doesn't give you the right to take their product.
First of all, the good folks here at TD have NEVER advocated infringing anyone's copyright.
Second, no one here is telling artists they can't get paid for their intellectual property - the market is. If an artist wants to get paid, they have to compete in the market like everyone else. period. If their current business model is antiquated that is going to make it that much harder for them to compete, and thus succeed as an artist.
I choose to describe my music as the END PRODUCT -- so does any musician (author, programmer, artist, scientist, etc.) who wants to get paid for what they do.
If you choose to describe your music as the end product, that is up to you. But if you want to get paid for what you do, it's not a great idea to try to sell something fewer and fewer people want to pay for. That is bad business whether you're an artist or a buggy-whip maker.
In the end, arguments about the evils of DRM amount to users whining about inconvenience. Then they're off to how "evil" record companies are and how little money makes it to the artist(to help justify stealing from them).
Arguments against DRM frequently make valid points about how it doesn't make sense to try and sell a product that makes things more difficult for your customer. Customers are not stupid, and will only put up with so much inconvenience especially if there is a viable alternative. Dislike the circumstances as you may, you still have to do business with the rest of us in reality. And the reality is that consumers are consuming digital media more and more, and that media is available in increasingly diverse places, both in legal and illegal forms. If you want to get paid for your music, and if you want people to use the legal rather than the illegal alternatives, why on earth would you make it harder for the customers that are willing to pay for your music to use the alternative that gets you paid? DRM is bad for your customers, therefore it is bad for your product.
Joe -- it's simply NOT YOUR CHOICE how I distribute my work. Your choice is to buy or not buy.
You're exactly right, under the law you have certain rights over things you create, including distribution rights, but if you plan on making money by selling a product, you still have to compete in the marketplace and sell a product that people will buy. And fewer people are choosing to buy.
The tone of your posts seems to try to suggest that TD is a big, evil, ip-stealing monster who wants you to give away your music and get nothing in return. In reality, the good folks here at TD are simply trying to point out to artists the reality of the marketplace in which they are competing. There are still plenty of ways to create music and use it to make money, and TD is nice enough to point out a few of those ways. Unfortunately, the reality of the market is that it is harder and harder to make a living by selling only music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad Brad!
The funny thing about Brad's post is he's being sarcastic, but almost all of his "sarcastic" points are actually supported by the facts.
The key that he (and a few others) seem to keep misunderstanding is this idea that we're telling artists they have to adopt this business model. You don't have to do so in the same way that buggy whip makers could keep selling buggy whips. It was a dumb business decision, but nonetheless, there's nothing stopping you from making dumb business decisions.
Also, we're not saying that copyright infringement is okay or that there's a justification for copying someone's content (you seem to think we are saying that). We're saying that it's bad business for the artists to think that way.
So, if you're going to argue against us, it might help if you actually argue against what we're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad Brad!
Agree that people want more convenient distribution, but "free" isn't a right granted anywhere. As soon as they can develop a business model that works, they'll use it.
The fact that distribution costs are much lower doesn't mean the production costs are lower -- in music, software, books, etc. It still costs money to create that content.
All of the arguments seem to take the form of "why don't you find a business model that lets me take your product without paying for it." That's a farce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad Brad!
The reality is that if given the choice people prefer "free" in all aspects of life. That's why we have laws. Copyright laws are no different.
No, copyright laws are different. They are *NOT*, as you seem to believe, about preventing people from getting stuff for free. They are about creating incentives to create new works. Of course, studies have shown that copyright tends to decrease incentives, but that's another argument all together...
Agree that people want more convenient distribution, but "free" isn't a right granted anywhere. As soon as they can develop a business model that works, they'll use it.
No one is saying that free is a right, so you're making stuff up here. Try again.
All we're doing is suggesting business models where the producers can use free for their benefit.
The fact that distribution costs are much lower doesn't mean the production costs are lower -- in music, software, books, etc. It still costs money to create that content.
Again, I make that very clear. It's absolutely true that it costs money to create this stuff. I'm not sure why you think you're disagreeing with us here.
All of the arguments seem to take the form of "why don't you find a business model that lets me take your product without paying for it." That's a farce.
You apparently don't bother to read what I've written. It's about creating business models that let you, as the content producer, make even more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Brad!
It takes talent, creativity, effort, lots of mistakes and a little inspiration to pen a song or record a song that captures the imagination.
Sure there is a lot of bad music. Don't buy it! I personally purchase about 8 CD's a month because I love all kinds of music and downloaded files sound like crap.
You who steal deserve to be poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad Brad!
This is a non-sequitor. No one is saying that stealing music is right. You seem to think we're saying something we're not.
It takes talent, creativity, effort, lots of mistakes and a little inspiration to pen a song or record a song that captures the imagination.
Again, that's absolutely true.
None of that, however, goes against the actual point of what we've written -- that it makes sense from a business model perspective to ignore copyrights and adopt other business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad Brad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Early Ticket Sales Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
saw a recent thread in doonesbury... about a musician who had found a new way of making money from his music.. he had tie-ins to "burger-king"... buy a download, get a whopper!!!
i rolled thinking that you could have written this!! and the fact that you buy into it.. puhleeze!!
by the way.. your central thesis is that if someone wants a product, and they weren't going to buy it anyway, and if the copying process doesn't "really" cause the "owner" of the material/product anything anyway, it should be ok to copy it....
why don't you really put this to the test and start counterfiting/copying US currency. You could rationalize, and make the same arguments... You'd also get serious time in the clink!!
mike, copying music for more than your personal use really is stealing...
btw, the bon jovi experience doesn't cost him any cash if it works/fails...
he's not telling people that they get a discount from the ticket price.. he's saying you move up in the line.. these are people who would have in all likelyhood gone to the show anyway!!!
peace..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike isn't pushing this, he's simply pointing out the realities of the current music business, and pointing to plenty of examples of musicians thriving by working WITH the market instead of against it.
saw a recent thread in doonesbury... about a musician who had found a new way of making money from his music.. he had tie-ins to "burger-king"... buy a download, get a whopper!!!
i rolled thinking that you could have written this!! and the fact that you buy into it.. puhleeze!!
Interesting... but you don't really make an argument here - why would you question Mike's accuracy in this when in almost every post he points you to evidence that backs up his stance.
by the way.. your central thesis is that if someone wants a product, and they weren't going to buy it anyway, and if the copying process doesn't "really" cause the "owner" of the material/product anything anyway, it should be ok to copy it....
By the way, Mike's central thesis is that copies of digital music costs basically nothing to reproduce, so market forces will push the cost of that music to zero - but there are many way to tie scarce items that people will buy into the non-scarce music and still make money.
Let me say this one more time - Mike HAS NEVER SAID that illegal downloading is okay - NEVER. PLEASE PLEASE if you're going to claim this, if it's true, why not back it up?
why don't you really put this to the test and start counterfiting/copying US currency. You could rationalize, and make the same arguments... You'd also get serious time in the clink!!
No, you couldn't make the same arguments, and Mike has never made those arguments.
mike, copying music for more than your personal use really is stealing...
No, it really isn't. Copying music for more than your personal use is copyright infringement. It has been ruled, quite rightly, by the supreme court that copyright infringement is not theft.
Theft, by it's nature deprives you of something, copyright infringement does not. Please do not take this to mean that I endorse unauthorized downloading, i do not.
btw, the bon jovi experience doesn't cost him any cash if it works/fails...
he's not telling people that they get a discount from the ticket price.. he's saying you move up in the line.. these are people who would have in all likelyhood gone to the show anyway!!!
Bon Jovi's not using this as an incentive to see his show, but as an added value for buying his music. This is a great example of what Mike has been saying. Adding value is a great way to incent people to pay money for a non-scarce good. Bon Jovi is tying a scarce good - time - with a non-scarce good - digital music - in order to help sell the non-scarce good.
Best,
emi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not "pushing" it, I'm highlighting that it's actually happening, despite folks like yourself insisting that it wouldn't.
by the way.. your central thesis is that if someone wants a product, and they weren't going to buy it anyway, and if the copying process doesn't "really" cause the "owner" of the material/product anything anyway, it should be ok to copy it....
Sam, I'm not sure how many times we need to explain this to you, but that's not the central thesis at all. We DO NOT, HAVE NOT and NEVER WILL advocate that infringing on copyright is okay. We are speaking from the perspective of the copyright owner, and explaining how they can do better by ignoring their copyright.
why don't you really put this to the test and start counterfiting/copying US currency. You could rationalize, and make the same arguments... You'd also get serious time in the clink!!
Sam, again, you fail to understand the difference between scarce and non-scarce goods. I would suggest you understand the difference before making ridiculous analogies.
mike, copying music for more than your personal use really is stealing...
Sam, it's copyright infringement, which is illegal, but it's not stealing. So says the Supreme Court.
btw, the bon jovi experience doesn't cost him any cash if it works/fails...
I'm not sure what your point is here.
he's not telling people that they get a discount from the ticket price.. he's saying you move up in the line.. these are people who would have in all likelyhood gone to the show anyway!!!
Again, not sure what your point is. He's adding value. That's exactly what the business model we're discussing is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red numbers.
No one buys commercials. That *is* the point. They make a product (the commercial) to sell something else. (the product)
In much the same way, a musician *is* the product. Anyone can make a CD, not everyone can make music. If putting music on a CD took talent, then sure, CD's would be the product, but anyone can put music on a CD. Music LABELS make CD's, which I just covered, anyone can do. So, we don't need them anymore. We do, however, still have need of musicians.
Is any of this getting through?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Red numbers.
You make my argument for me -- "We do, however, still have need of musicians." -- Whom you rip off every time you take their music without paying for it.
Again, you're arguing for a change of business model. That somehow they should give away their music in the face of the reality that it will be stolen anyway. That since it will be stolen, they must develop a new way of making a profit. Odd logic eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Red numbers.
No, you only think the songs are the product. However, if you were out there trying to sell buggy whips, and people decided to buy cars instead, would you still say the automakers were stealing from you?
You make my argument for me -- "We do, however, still have need of musicians." -- Whom you rip off every time you take their music without paying for it.
Every time you watch a commercial for BMW and don't buy a BMW, are you ripping off BMW? After all, you're consuming their content without paying for it.
Again, you're arguing for a change of business model. That somehow they should give away their music in the face of the reality that it will be stolen anyway. That since it will be stolen, they must develop a new way of making a profit. Odd logic eh?
No. You really need to go back and read what I've written. It's not because it will get "stolen anyway." It's because you can make more money giving away your music and charging for the scarce goods. Not only that, but others will figure this out. Then, if you're still trying to sell music while everyone else is giving it away, you'll have as much luck as the buggy whip seller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Red numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Red numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like the other way around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarify Stealing
In common English language we all understand what stealing is. Infringement in common language is stealing. If you were to outline a concept stealing is a general category with subsets like a. grand theft b. petty theft c. plagarism d. infringement e. larceny f. identity misappropriation g.etc, etc. No matter what, every common man knows the general category.
If I were to say or write in a song "He stole her heart and then broke it" people here wouldn't be able to understand this line because in actuality no physical part of her was ever taken. People here would need to have the line read more correctly "He infringed her heart and then did not hurt her physically when he dumped her"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarify Stealing
Yes, it's taking something away from someone else who it belongs to without their permission.
Infringement in common language is stealing.
No, because nothing is *taken* from the person. It's quite different, and different in important ways. So, no, it's not the same thing.
If I were to say or write in a song "He stole her heart and then broke it" people here wouldn't be able to understand this line because in actuality no physical part of her was ever taken. People here would need to have the line read more correctly "He infringed her heart and then did not hurt her physically when he dumped her"
"Stole her heart" is something entirely different.
So, let me ask you this, did you *steal* this webpage when your computer cached it in your hard drive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarify Stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarify Stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarify Stealing
The Supreme Court no longer matters, so don't respect their well-thought-out and rationalized conclusions based on years and years of accredited theoretical and practical experience of American Law.
ONLY TiredofLame HAS THE ANSWERS! DON'T LET SOME PIDDLY THING LIKE THE SCOTUS STAND IN YOUR WAY!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tactic is to pervert the common language
I'll even pay the credit card bills promptly and actually improve your credit score! I'm sure that you will be thanking me for "publicizing and improving your score". Just like all the musicians out there are universally thanking you for encouraging a theory of how their fortunes are improved by everyone "publicizing their songs".
I quite well understand the technical nuances of infringement and stealing. And I thank you for being so dismissive to the common man. Too bad we can't all be as smart as you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tactic is to pervert the common language
Thank goodness most of us can be smarter than TiredofLame though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tactic is to pervert the common language
That's fraud, not stealing. If you then use that to somehow steal money, that would be theft.
Just like all the musicians out there are universally thanking you for encouraging a theory of how their fortunes are improved by everyone "publicizing their songs".
You do notice that (as in this very article) that many musicians are happy about it.
I quite well understand the technical nuances of infringement and stealing
You don't seem to, since you keep confusing different things concerning stealing, infringement and fraud. These things have different names for a very good reason. To pretend one is another weakens your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's new about this?
How does this news support the argument that digital music should be free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's new about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's new about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK -Fraud it is
"An intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice or device resorted to with intent to deprive another of property or other right.
www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm"
OK we agree on now calling "taking of something or depriving a rights holder of their right that is not physical property" fraud per your above argument. Fine instead of the general common man definition category of stealing we won't use stealing or infringement. Now you want to call it fraud- fine you win- fraud it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK -Fraud it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Complaint
Example, how many times has he called us a "buggy whip" industry. Like it or not every musician here runs a small business- we are a musician (which is a skill) and also have to do the business of everything else (sell, get bookings, etc). So Mike insults us by saying we are a useless industry like the buggy whips. Sorry, we are not that stupid. People happen to need music (in fact they need it so bad they are willing to "take" it and invent all these inane "music should be free" theories). I see that your analogy is "terribly flawed" and designed only to run down the opponent while simultaneously saying how you don't think we are idiots.
I can cite plenty of other subtle ways you decrease our value. But that is human nature. When you want to "take, steal, fraud, infringe" something from someone you first run a psychological (and dangerous) game to devalue that person.
So decide whether you are an opponent of musicians and continue to use "buggy whips" on us continuously, or lay off the buggy whip clichee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Complaint
TiredOfLame, please point out where I've put down musicians. That's not the case at all. I am suggesting new business models to *help* musicians.
Example, how many times has he called us a "buggy whip" industry
No, I'm calling the recording industry a buggy whip industry, since they're focused on selling an increasingly obsolete product.
The music industry is going strong. In fact, I've pointed to articles in the past, showing that the *music* industry is growing tremendously. It's only the recording industry that's having trouble.
People happen to need music
I don't know about "need" but there is tremendous demand -- which is great for musicians. That's why the music business is growing. The trick is that it's based on a different business model than in the past.
I can cite plenty of other subtle ways you decrease our value. But that is human nature. When you want to "take, steal, fraud, infringe" something from someone you first run a psychological (and dangerous) game to devalue that person.
I don't see how explaining to you new business models that will increase your earning power, while getting you a larger fan base "decreases" your value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TiredofLame just doesn't get it
Opponent of musicians? That's not TechDirt. RIAA are your enemy, not these writers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm too stupid to know when my rights are eroded
Be very careful demonizing a whole industry that met your consumer needs for decades (and you still consume their products- legally or illegally).
Study history:
1. first you demonize a group ("doofuses","the enemy")
2. then you progress to say since they are subhuman you can "take" what they have
3. then progressively, taking more rights from other different groups begins to be justifiable
For example people here sloppily rail against "the evil corporation". Ask Mike how Techdirt.com is legally structured? Maybe Mike is out shopping the company (oh wait, he posted a YouTube video of himself doing a venture capital presentation- venture capital is selling a portion of the company). Wait maybe Mike is "the man" that many here take pot shots at.
It is just plain incorrect to demonize a whole group (corporations or "the evil music industry" or "music stars who flaunt their bling"). Incorrect and a very dangerous slope that erodes rights and can come back to haunt you and everyone else in our society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TiredOfLame is TiredOfReading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tired of lame TiredofLame, anyone?
Not enough times for you to figure out what he means when he types it, apparently. He's referring to the fact that the music business is trying to work *against* technology-- it costs next to nothing to put songs on a CD, and the average user can easily and cheaply recreate the CD. So, a CD's value, if *allowed* to follow the market, would quickly drop to zero because it can be reproduced for free(ish). But the music labels *force* the price up by making it illegal (but not stealing) to recreate a CD.
So, he's not saying that *musicians* have no/decreasing value, just that *recorded music* has no real value once it's been put in a format that can be copied easily (because it's non-scarce). Why would I pay someone $18 to make something that my buddy can make me for $1 and it's just as good (or in some cases like with DRM, better)? It's not that music should be *free*, it's that it has no *value*. So, take those creativity skills that I assume musicians have and find a gimmick that adds value to a recorded song on plastic.
So, anyway, tying it in to the topic at hand, Bon Jovi has apparently recognized that recorded music alone has no value, but if you say "Buy my songs and you get first shot at good seats at my next concert." then you've taken something without value (recorded music) and tied it to something with value (good seats at a concert). Now, there is an extra benefit to buying the song instead of downloading it illegally.
People happen to need music (in fact they need it so bad they are willing to "take" it and invent all these inane "music should be free" theories)
Now, because I know you'll freak out, when I said recorded music has no value, I mean strictly in the economic sense-- not that it's worthless. I like music as much as the next guy (though I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone *needs* music) and appreciate the skill of any good musician. It's not that music should be *free*, it's that it has no *value*. So, take those creativity skills that I assume musicians have and find a gimmick that adds value to a recorded song on plastic.
Also, there is a excellent potential in giving away songs for free (bear with me here). What's the fastest way to ensure that your music would get to as many ears as possible as quickly as possible for as cheaply as possible? By giving it away. People who would say 'No thanks.' to an unknown band's (or even a known band's) cd for $5 would gladly take it for free. (here's the good part) Now, lots of people who never would have touched your CD, have. Some people who didn't think that Sonic Death Monkeys was the band for them got the chance for the music to grow on them, and now you hit them with the "buy the CD and get entered in a raffle to win a chance to party with the band!" marketing scheme, and people who like the music-- even those that got the CD for free-- will buy the CD.
See how easy that was?
Don't feel bad, Mr TiredofLame, your business isn't the only one fighting against technology-- yours is just the loudest. *cracks the buggy whip*
For example people here sloppily rail against "the evil corporation".
Actually, many people here are quite eloquent when railing against the evil corporation. Not myself, but still, many people. ;)
Ask Mike how Techdirt.com is legally structured
From what I've read, Mike has noticed that a few sites out there cut and paste this blog word for word-- and although he would be in his rights to send a C&D letter to have the content removed, he sees it as free publicity and allows it to remain. Hmm.. allowing your non-scarce creation to be used by others without cost even when it is within your power to have it stopped to broaden a fan base... that sounds so darn familar... :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebuttal
For example people here sloppily rail against "the evil corporation.
"Actually, many people here are quite eloquent when railing against the evil corporation. Not myself, but still, many people. ;)"
Touche- I enjoyed that response.
By my question about how how Mike and Techdirt.com are legally structured I was guessing that he picked the "corporate" structure. I was looking for some confirmation that idle yelling about "all corporations are evil" makes very little sense if Techdirt.com is a corporation. Mike of course could confirm, deny, or ignore this guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This thread is old.
I think you're putting words into Mike's mouth-- since I don't recall him ever saying corporations are evil. In fact, he only seems to point out ways for the labels to last into the next decade-- which would arguably put him on their 'side'. In any event, this thread is old and worn out, I'm too lazy to scroll down this far. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actual quotes
"For example people here sloppily rail against "the evil corporation".
" I was looking for some confirmation that idle yelling about "all corporations are evil" makes very little sense if Techdirt.com is a corporation."
Seems to clearly convey the genericness of the message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Challenge to Mike Masnick and TechDirt!
I've seen your continual push for a new digital content business models. One that for the music industry acknowledges the seemingly unstoppable theft of music and the evils of DRM.
I've seen you points on how musicians could profit more if they quit worrying about illegal downloads and just found another way to profit from those who will buy (which begs the question, why would anyone be willing to buy if there's no penalty for just taking it?).
MY CHALLENGE TO TECHDIRT
I suggest you put your money where your mouth is. Remove the advertising from this site. Kill the ads that load on every page. They slow my load times of your content. They detract from my ability to enjoy you content. They make it harder to copy / paste your content into my site directly (a kind of DRM if you will). Follow your advice to the music industry and remove your ads.
By your logic, your traffic will increase, more people will learn of your site, and if you can only develop another means of making money from the increased traffic you'll be set! Infamous Joe has lots of good ideas -- just ask him!
Of course your other product can't be anything digital ('cause we all know "if it's digital, it's free!), so you'll have to sell t-shirts or something. Something distributed via a "scarce" method. (I think confuse good music, a scarce thing, with the non-scarce piece of plastic it's distributed on..)
Will you take the challenge!? Test your own proposed business models?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Challenge to Mike Masnick and TechDirt!
I'm guessing you haven't actually read most of what I've written. First of all, we're not saying that anyone will buy the music -- but that they'll buy the complementary products that the music makes valuable. You seem to be arguing against something I haven't said.
MY CHALLENGE TO TECHDIRT
I suggest you put your money where your mouth is.
We have.
Remove the advertising from this site.
You seem to be REALLY confused about what I'm talking about. I'd suggest you go back and understand the difference between scarce and non-scarce goods before making suggestions that make no sense.
if you can only develop another means of making money from the increased traffic you'll be set!
You do realize that our business isn't based on ad revenue, right?
Of course your other product can't be anything digital ('cause we all know "if it's digital, it's free!),
Again, you seem to be confused. We didn't say if it's digital, it's free.
What I find most amusing is that you're posting all this beneath an article that shows a way that artists can still make lots of money following the basic ideas of what we are talking about, and you're still insisting that it's impossible.
Will you take the challenge!? Test your own proposed business models?
Um, Brad, we ARE testing our business model. The thing is, we're testing the actual business model. Not what your misinterpretation of the business model is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Challenge to Mike Masnick and TechDirt!
The CD is NOT the product, its the distribution method. The song is the intellectual property.
Good music is scarce. Plastic CD's are not. Get that through your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad/TiredofLame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Support the Artist
BTW, cut out the recording/distribution industry and market it yourself online and you will get most of that $$$ yourself. That is kinda the whole gist of this very long discussion... I would buy it straight from the artist if I could. Hell they deserve the money for the hard work they put in with creating the music and lyrics. Instead the greedy middle man has scared them into thinking they need to keep paying that "protection money" because the bad people will steal the music if they don't. I don't know about you, but it sounds like a mob outfit to me. Any other small business would have gone under paying the mob 95% of their income for protection... Get a clue musicians and stand up to them. Unite and kick them to the curb.
Oh, btw, if you can find the smoking gun who keeps leaking the music / movies to the internet before they are officially release, you will probably find it is on purpose to support their crying to Congress about the evil file sharers stealing everything that is created. Inside job people, just find them and nail em hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad and TiredOfLame
Musicians these days now have the option of setting up a record label themselves, and selling their own music on the interwebs. This means they get to cut out EMI, Sony BMG, etc. They can take a BIG cut of each sale of music, whether it's CD or legal download.
Sure, they can get signed to one of those majors instead, and have the men in suits decide the price of their music, how it should be marketed, and at the end of it all, receive a TINY FRACTION of the music sale.
Yes, there are successful mainstream artists who have made millions (Bon Jovi being one of them) from being on a major. But for every Bon Jovi, there's a hundred artists who have been done over thanks to bad marketing by the majors.
The RIAA represents the majors. The major labels still have some clout in the music industry, I'll grant you. Virtually all of the top 40 is from major label artists.
However, what is better - getting to number one in the charts and receiving a small fraction of the sales, or getting nowhere in the charts but selling a significant amount of records where you get a massive mark-up of each sale?
This is why the major record labels and their pimp, the RIAA, are becoming irrelevant in this day and age.
Sure, there used to be a time when all artists needed a traditional label. After all, CD and vinyl pressing plants don't come for cheap.
Nowadays, you can knock out your own CDs from a $30 rewriter drive. You can create a website for pennies, or join an existing online minor record label website and receive huge royalties. The major labels are becoming increasingly redundant.
Then there's the piracy factor. No-one from TechDirt is saying "piracy is good". What they are saying is "it happens". And we know it does. Illegal downloads will happen, that's a fact of life. TechDirt are arguing that the major cause of illegal downloading is that the general public recognise that there's no need for the major record label model any more. Ask the average man on the street if CDs are overpriced. Now do you realise why illegal download is so attractive?
Sure, clamp down on illegal downloading where, but there are so many ways not to get caught. Cry about it if you want to, but the answer is to adapt or die. That's what you don't seem to understand.
Analogy: Recreational drug use is illegal. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Try and stop it happening - it's just not working.
Bon Jovi recognised the reality of the situation, and added value of their product. The live experience - you can't download that! Even better for them, they get genuine fans coming to their gigs first of all. Bon Jovi do good out of it, their fans do good out of it. It's a genius idea. (I just wish Bon Jovi weren't a boy band that happen to wield guitars, they're everything that's wrong with rock.)
TechDirt are praising the hair-rockers for this idea, because it's good for their fans and the band. They are pointing out a GOOD BUSINESS MODEL for musicians. You're a musician, right? Copy that idea! And you say TD are anti-musician? TD is anti-old-outdated-business-model.
I'm amazed I've had to point this out to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]