Music Is Not A Product, And You'll Never Adapt If You Think It Is
from the lessons-from-the-front dept
About a decade ago, I wrote a long analysis of why digital "goods" were really a "service," not a "product," and explained how this was the key to understanding modern business models. I had submitted it to a large publication, who came back and told me that my reasoning made no sense at all and they refused to publish it. It may be true that my reasoning doesn't make much sense, but it's nice to see that others are coming to the same conclusion. Hypebot has a nice post from singer/songwriter Jeff Macdougall explaining how music must be viewed as a service, rather than a product, if those in the music industry want to successfully adapt to the changing market:When a label executive tells you that they are "not in the business of selling discs", (or vinyl, tape, t-shirts, etc.) and that they are actually "selling music," they are, at best, fooling themselves, or at worst, lying to your face. Moving plastic, vinyl, paper and/or any other tangible good they can dream up is exactly what the recording industry has been about since it was established.He goes on to note that music is really an experience, and people should stop focusing on copyright law or the idea that file sharing is "stealing," and focus on the overall experience and building models based on that.
Sure, the labels spend money and time trying to infuse their products (CDs, posters, etc.) with content (music, album art, etc.) to raise its intrinsic value, but it's still the CD or poster that they are/were selling... not the music itself.
Of course, he doesn't quite get into the difference between a service and a product -- and it's one area that people sometimes get confused about, so one way to simplify it is to think of it like this: a product is a single thing created in the past that you now own. A service is paying for something to happen in the future. It's not a perfect explanation, but in my experience, this simple distinction often gets people thinking creatively about how to turn a business model into one focused on selling a service, rather than a product.
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
Filed Under: business models, experience, goods, music, products, services
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Grammatical angle
And the revolution is to realise, music is a verb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammatical angle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammatical angle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grammatical angle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In your opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In your opinion
The fact that music is a service not a product is part of the science of economics like Newton's laws in physics.
You are at liberty to disagree with Newton's laws but you would be wrong to do so and if you attempted to use your mistaken opinions as the basis of a design for a mechanical device you would likely end up with a disaster.
In the same way you can disagree with the laws of economics - but if you design an economic device (like a business model) based on that misconception you will end up in trouble - and don't say we didn't warn you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In your opinion
(also, 'home economics' is silly, given that the 'eco' in economics means 'home' anyway.)
sorry, i've just been reading up on this and the more i find out about it the more rage inducing the stupid assumptions that have come out of it become :-S
then again, economics probably does have Actual laws, people just haven't figured them out properly yet... blah.
on a different note, while the music industry may be wrong about whether they're providing a product or a service, at least that's better than the software industry, who keep trying to claim to be doing both with the same item, and switching which based on what screwes over the customer/advantages them more...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In your opinion
A bit of a generalisation there. Unfortunately economics has frequently been hijacked for political purposes - and some overblown predictions have been made - but that doesn't mean that there isn't some value to be found in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do What you Want
I've been listening to your ilk for ten years whining about this subject. Here's the thing: you are entirely free to do WHATEVER YOU WANT with your OWN MUSIC. By all means, produce your own music, and give it away, free of charge. Is anyone stopping you from doing this? But please do keep your hands off of my right to distribute my own music as I see fit, including charging a per copy royalty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
Also, how many times can I play the song that I "bought"?
Do I actually own the song I "purchased" from you (as opposed to the shiny plastic disc) or will you try to sue me if I play it for 150 of my closest friends at a birthday-gala event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do What you Want
For most commercial music purchases, you do not "buy a song." You buy a license that grants you certain limited rights with respect to using that instance of the song.
>>Also, how many times can I play the song that I "bought"?
For most commercial music purchases, unlimited numbers of plays.
>>Do I actually own the song I "purchased" from you (as opposed to the shiny plastic disc) or will you try to sue me if I play it for 150 of my closest friends at a birthday-gala event?
No. You do not own the song. You own a license to use the song in a limited way, generally, non-commercial, non-broadcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
I am not provided nor informed about this "Contract" upon purchase, nor does the product direct to such information.
As such, a contract does not imply to me, and I am an uninformed consumer. Remember the ol, "I spilled coffee on me, but didn't know it was hot" winning lawsuit? Consumers have the benefit of being naive and your "implicit" contract doesn't spell out a single, damn thing to me. Don't like it? ...Sue me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Also if the license I purchase entitles me to unlimited plays, if my media that holds the licensed content is damaged will you replace the media at no cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
amusingly, not that it's ever been tested in court here, if it is not legal to return the software you bought (and that's the case here) for anything other than another copy of the exact same thing, even if you agree to the EULA, it Should (i'm not a lawyer, never have been, and have never had the time/budget/connections to get this checked out) rate as being signed under duress, if valid at all.
(of course, you also can't return DVDs for anything but a replacement copy here either... but some places will happily refund you anyway.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
what do u think we are talking about then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Is a license a service or a product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
If, instead, you prefer to continue trying to use an obsolete system to sell horrible licenses that nobody wants - well, don't be surprised when you don't make much money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
The person who sold me the shiny plastic disc (let's assume they are the copyright holder) can implicitly grant me more rights than that. For example, they can allow me to share it so long as I attribute the work to them. However, if they want to get more restrictive (a non-disclosure agreement for example) then they need to present me with a license.
For example, when I buy a knife, I can do whatever I want with it, but the government won't allow me vandalize with it. The guy who sold me the knife can be less restrictive. For example he can allow me to scratch up his stuff so long as it is with the knife I bought from him. But if he wants to restrict me further (allow me to only cut bread with it) then he'll have to get me to sign a contract.
I own the song I buy. Unless I voluntarily signed a more restrictive contract, then I'm only restricted by copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Yeah, we do the same thing with software. People who view it as a product really take issue with us not providing free upgrades. The rest recognize that a yearly subscription is a reasonable approach to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
So it seems a bit silly now, diesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
and then there was the...hair dresser, i think? again, radio on while she worked, oh, broadcast, sue. can't remember where that one was, exactly.
those are the classic examples, anyway. (i'm sure someone can give actual links and/or better details on those ones.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Are you saying that is illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
So, Intellectual Property is only to be considered "property" when you own it, and as so as you sell it to someone else it's only a "license".
Does anyone else see the problem with referring to Intellectual Property as property or is it just me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Again, you don't buy the music. You never own the music. You buy the physical medium (e.g, CD) and a license to use the music in limited ways. Don't like it? Change the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Right. That was my point. Intellectual Property is NOT property per se.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Bill, I want to check out some of your tasty tunes. Where can I get me some of them (legally, of course!)....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
http://www.billlongband.com/index.asp
And let me say Bill, though I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to be freaking awesome for having rocked out with Dan Castellaneta!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Here's to hoping I like your music more than your opinions on copyright, Bill the Long!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
That's what I'm trying to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Intellectual "property" is a figment created by law that has no actual basis on the natural characteristics of ideas. There is no inherent exclusion by possession, as ideas cannot be owned (as it has been since the dawn of time), and the only way Intellectual "property" can exist is through an artificial monopoly explicitly granted by congress.
I know there are relevant US supreme court rulings that state precisely this. Perhaps an american could cite them for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
In a connected world where copyright is virtually unenforceable, clever creators will find ways to sell music as a service, not as a product. That's the "adapting" part.
That is all there is to this. Adapt or perish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
That makes it a service!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
"Product: 1. Something produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process."
"Service: a. Employment in duties or work for another, as for a government:"
The difference here is that a product is an object, whether physical or abstract. A service is not. And whether you can buy something or not is irrelevent. People sell songs all the time. That's a different matter than licensing. If I write a song, I can sell all of the rights to that song to another party. (And "rights" here is the operative word.)
It's all about rights. The whiners don't like the fact that people can create IP and exercise distribution rights over their creations. That's the bottom line. If you don't like the laws, you can try to change them. Or use free music only. Or make your own music. Or steal other peoples music. It's the latter one that feeds the DCMA MPAA machine. Those exist because of IP theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Sorry we aren't whining - we're trying to offer advice.
The fact is that the "rights" you mention only exist because in the past the equipment necessary for copying was expensive and so could only be justified as part of a commercial enterprise for profit. The owners of the means of copying found it convenient to form a cartel to make their industry more comfortable (by creating barriers to new entrants). Authors (and later musicians) were duped into going along with this arrangement because the publishers allowed a few of them to become very wealthy and the rest were suckered in by the dream.
So long as only the publishers and the (suckered in) creators were affected by this arrangement it could persist indefinitely. However when the means of copying started to become cheap (starting with the tape recorder and the photocopy machine) the general public entered into the equation - and they have never accepted the law and never will. Eventually the law will either be repealed, modified beyond recognition or simply fall into disuse.
The corporations that rely on holding rights are doomed because of their top heavy cost structure - resulting from selling a product (the bit of plastic) that used to be expensive and is now cheap. Sooner or later a new thinking tech company will buy up one of these basket cases and free the old content because it will increase the value of their products. Once that happens it will be difficult to maintain these fictional rights any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
"Product: 1. Something produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process."
"The difference here is that a product is an object, whether physical or abstract."
You cannot produce something abstract because something abstract is not made through human, mechanical or natural processes. Products can only be physical, the abstract is a service as the abstract can not be produced but rather explained or exemplified through explanation or symbolism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
What happens when that number is greater than 50% or 60% and keeps climbing each year? At what point does the public (who also treat music as a service/experience and not a product) support those musicians more than others, such as yourself?
How long can you last, as opposed to an unbelievable amount of upstarts?
May we live in interesting times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
But stay out of my government, leave my fair use, due process, doctrine of first sale, first, fourth...hell ALL of my amendment rights well alone while you do.
You want to police your copyrights? Go right ahead, but don't dare expect taxpayers to foot the bill or platform services to haul your freight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
You are asking the government to enforce *your* monopoly privilege against *other people* with tax money *those people* are paying.
If you want to keep enforcing your privilege, I suggest you pay for it yourself with just your own tax money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Non-violent protest and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
You pay taxes to enforce everybody's rights, but your taxes are nowhere enough to cover the deadweight loss of enforcing your monopoly privilege.
And yes, my rights > your privilege. At the moment your monopoly is being enforced at the expense of our rights, and because of that we WILL (we MUST!) change the law, you can count on it.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Seriously? Did you read AC's post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Distribute your crappy "product which is only a license and not a product" any way you like, but don't recruit governments to enforce your antiquated business models at the expense of other people's rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
seems more like an invitation than a counter-effort
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Epic Self Fail Forced, Choice - even you support us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
Because the First Amendment allow it, besides why not?
You are the one going against the grain here, so you hear a lot of complaints what is the problem, you can't take it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
The minute you've crossed the line is when you start butchering the legal system to do so.
Presettlement letters? Nope. Hundred thousand dollar fines for minor infringement? Not allowed. Giving a corporate business legal authority? Too bad, not gonna happen. Removing due process? No way in hell. Removal of personal property rights? Go f' yourself.
I've listened to your "ilk" whine and whine for years about how you're losing out, yet you've spent just as much time trampling on rights and freedoms that are worth magnitudes more than your precious "music".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
The laws you defend so vehemently DO have negative consequences. You have to accept that. Even if you still feel the laws are necessary and should be enforced, you should acknowledge that they are not perfect and they can interfere with totally legitimate activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
I would say these guys have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not in fact accept that. :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
That's just dumb. Whether someone infringes copyright (not stealing - but that's another debate) or not has no relation to being concerned about our legal system being turned into a tool for monopolistic corporations to protect their outdated business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
I also don't pirate music...namely because my play list is tiny, because I'm extremely picky about what I listen to repeatedly. Of course, if it wasn't for YouTube, I probably wouldn't buy music at all.
I also work in an industry that whines about piracy as much as you do...and I'd still side with the pirates every day of the week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
And while copyright law has been pushed and stretched over the years to legally say that such an act is indeed "theft", no right-minded consumer is going to buy into that load of crap. Ever. (bold emphasis mine)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
And here you assume that music can be owned. It can't. You can own the CD that it resides on, and you can own the hard drive that stores it, but the music itself isn't property subject to ownership. In fact, your so called "intellectual property" (a phrase which, mind you, is completely absent from the very document that allows the government to grant you a monopoly by force) violates my very real property rights.
It's my hard drive; I'll twiddle the bits on it as I please. You can whine and cry and try to send the government in with guns to stop people from twiddling the bits on their hard drives in a manner that you object to, but it won't make any difference; people across the globe will continue to assert their real property rights in the face of your imaginary ones, and you will lose, like every petty tyrant eventually loses in the end.
Enjoy your descent into irrelevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do What you Want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
As you wish.
However, if it's your insistence for your music to not be heard, I would recommend not releasing it in the first place. It would stop that whole "piracy" problem in its tracks.
Seriously, you must have an extremely high opinion of your abilities to think that anyone will be willing to pay for the "privilege" of listening to your music when they can obtain music for free elsewhere...and legally, no less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
Which you will have to fallow if you want to make any money at all in the no so distant future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
You created a perpetuum mobile!!!
Isn't it just perfect?! You only had to put some finite amount of work into it (your music) and now it will reward you infinitely!
How unfortunate that most of us are not blessed with such gifts... But maybe now you might understand why some of us really think that (to quote some of your famous mates, hoping not to be sued...) you get money for nothing and your chicks for free
A good day to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example
model 1 (us):
10 produce something
20 get paid
30 goto 10
model 2 (you):
10 produce something
20 get paid
30 goto 20
I'd say most people bound to model 1 would deem model 2 as... unfair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do What you Want
Also, I never brought up copyright. I don't want to take away your control of your own music, I want you to at least consider that looking at things differently, you may have more success.
You have my permission to continue to distribute your music as a product and charge per copy.
How's that workin' out for you, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't a service. The service would be "delivery of music on the internet". Itunes is a service, the product they sell is music.
Pandora is a service. The product they provide is music.
Playing word games is amusing, but meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only way you fall for this one is if you are swimming in the Kool aid vat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pandora provides a service that is a stream of high and low bits that is utilized by my computer to send an electrical signal to the speakers connected to said computer which in turn use that signal on magnets attached to cones which are vibrated at specific frequencies specified by the signal to recreate sound that approximately matches an original recording made at a point in the past by a musician.
But they do NOT provide music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
service (noun) - work done for a customer other than manufacturing
It's not word-games, it's correct word usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not argue with trolls - It means that they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
Radio Paradise (and other web radios) offer music as a service.
Rhapsody offers music by subscription.
The non-purchase models exist but iTunes has the lion share of the market dollar wise if not quantity wise (each Rhapsody subscriber has access to over 3 million tracks so a much wider variety of music than they could purchase).
So I guess the author is correct if one looks at iTunes as a digital music download service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
I don't see why you think you can have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
So believe that music is a "product" all you want. I'm sure there are plenty of semantic arguments as to why. But it won't get you very far in the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
Um.. no. iTunes is a delivery service for DIGITAL FILES, which may contain music (or movies or games). The music itself is absolutely MEANINGLESS without some sort of container for delivery. That container is the product. Music in and of itself is not a product (and I say that as a semi-professional musician).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Radio Paradise and Rhapsody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and they want me to take them seriously?
soon they will want to copyright words. So you wont be able to talk anymore unless you pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheesh, bill long is ....
Because I can say, I'VE never heard of his "music".
If it's anything like his rants here...that would explain why.
And I'd love to know what a DMAC is, lol
The MPAA isn't necessary.
It's just another union, lol.
And, I know it been said here before...but I see NO reason I should HAVE to buy another copy of the music I ALREADY bought, just because I want to have it in the formats that are now being used.
It should NOT be illegal for me to convert my LP's to cd, or mp3 files to use in my mp3 player
But people like him want to make it to where I go to JAIL for doing that?
He can bite my round, red. rosy one. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is looking out for his best interest, as he should. I blame the politicians when they only listen to one side. So it is my responsibility to make sure my side is at least heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Somehow Bill seems to think that people are telling him to do. He is free to run his business any way he wants. He can hold on to his business model as long as he wants. No one, here at least, buys the old excuse that there's no way to compete/make money without curtailing people's rights even more online.
It's kind of becoming an old record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I drank so many Pepsi's out of that thing.....it never left my side.
I did lend it to my Grandma once, she thought the rim was too wide for her mouth.
I wanted to take it to the park one day, so I wrote my name on the bottom of it, so no one would steal it.
I accidentally left it at mom's for a month. Her neighbors that came over for poker every week always used it for holding sunflower seed shells. She finally mailed it back to me when one of her neighbors kids took it out back and used it for building sand castles.
If song = product then why are we even having discussions about fair use. I don't see the mug manufacturer coming after me to pay for loaning it to grandma, or fining me for putting my name on it, or even suing the neighbor kid for using it to build a sand castle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people aren't able to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a product! No, it's a service! No, it's a license! No, you license the product but the license is not a product, but you sell the license through a service, which is not a product, which you sell licenses to as a product, to provide a service to access the licensed product that is the music!
...or something like that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you forgot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you forgot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual "property" is a figment created by law that has no actual basis on the natural characteristics of ideas. There is no inherent exclusion by possession, as ideas cannot be owned (as it has been since the dawn of time), and the only way Intellectual "property" can exist is through an artificial monopoly explicitly granted by congress.
Indeed - because the memory of a song, in a person's head will remain - regardless of laws.
Isn't that - really the same thing? It's data, just in a different format - technically, right?
If - hypothetically - that could be done away with, advertising would suddenly become the one's suing - since no one would remember the product after the 'rights' to the 'idea' is removed from their head.
It would be *impossible* to maintain this 'law' as this kind of level.
Are they to ban the sound waves from traveling out of a person's car if they are next to me?
Or from a bar I walk past?
Or a music store I walk past?
Wouldn't that all be 'infringement' with this same concept?
Trying to enforce that would either be an exercise in futility or sheer insanity, really both.
If not for 'free music' on the radio - you know.. the music industry wouldn't even exist, as it were. Radio has always been the *core* advertising for music.
How many have bought songs that they have never heard? In the case of a 'favorite artist' - sure sometimes, and even the random purchase - but does that contribute to the *majority* of sales? Of course not. But that's what they are seemingly claiming.
So.. to all this - *why* does 'free music' exist on radio?
Sure maybe the station paid for the 'rights' - but how many of the listeners did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dear bill long
So consider this bill instead of trying to convince us of your right to sell something I can have for free you could have linked to a free streaming version of 1 or 2 of your songs and if I like them I could buy them from you. That is if you provide me with a way to access them that is convient, the service. Hey I might even like it so much I tell all my friends and they buy some and we all come see you next time your in chicago. So you could have used your time to increase you fan base instead of push people away from you. I'm sure DH will give up when he sees you have no samples on your webpage cause your trying to horde your music cause you still think that is your product. So instead of having more possible fans you have nothing.
If you really must insist that you have a product it wouldn't be your music. Your product is you, or your band, the music is an advertisment. You have to sell me you, I have to like you to want to give you money. And your service just doesn't have to be provideing access it could be a number of things, like explaining your artisic process, an inside look at making your album, a funny blog. If you can't provide access to the music provide some kind of service that alows me to connect to you because you are really what you have to sell.
That's what the article wants you to think about its not trying to argue semantics.
Sorry for any bad grammer ect I'm writing this on my phone on the train home.
Good luck out there dinosaur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music as a product, huh?
(goes back to store after accidentally buying a hair metal album)
"Excuse me, can I have a refund? I think this music expired at least 20 years ago."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music is a SERVICE
Bare facts, when weighing it up product versus service.
Its obvious that music is a service, as is a therapy that soothes countless millions in their daily lives. Music is becoming more and more a service everyday, facilitated by technology ...whether you think it disruptive or not.
The emotional value is not easily quantifiable.
In fact, some days it effectiveness may even be disputed. But no one can dispute that it is a service, not some product or pill to ease life's woes.
However, where it gets BITTER and hard to swallow, is when LARGE CORPORATE concerns try to make a HUMAN ARTIST into a commodity and product. This reduces the value of HUMAN LIFE and an artist who shares HIS or HER Life's journey. This SERVICE was intended to change others lives and make the world more palatable and HUMAN.
Labels however, turn it into a commodity by using it to sell other products, therefore making the whole matter somewhat grey. This in turn has made it about business and money, and then enters the legal dispute.
It would be a perfect world if they were taken out of the equation. Though life is not made simple by business, because its territorial by nature.
In a world where music is used in cross pollinating marketing strategies and psychological manipulation, its no wonder a thing of beauty has become UGLY.
Legalism & Politics aside, what needs to be worked out is how artists are to derive an income in a hostile world of business that treats them routinely as some rape and pillage expedition. It would seem no one has ever made discerning efforts to create a SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT where artists can work without being EXPLOITED.
Musicians need to stop being apathetic, complacent and lazy about their work place and enforce their rights against exploitation. Those in international governance need to stop supporting BAD CORPORATE CITIZENS as too their nations. Stop the rot of sovereign laws and the abuse of humans. They are NOT a product.
Any record label who thinks there doing some artist a favor by granting him/ her 5-10% of GROSS SALES. When the FINE print suggests in the subject to clauses, that you have no hope in hell of ever getting out of debt. And... the fees they charge artists for THEIR services to MAKE THEMSELVES LUDICROUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY is deemed to be nothing but EXTORTION. Oh by the way, you can't shop for another quote either. Tough break OUCH!
Labels need to get a whiff of reality and need to get back to serving the artist and developing talent. Not serving themselves and their interests at the cost of humanity.
If they can't find a better more equitable way of SERVING ARTISTS and THEIR customers, then I do hope TECHNOLOGY puts an end to your BLOOD SUCKING ways.
Good riddance to obsolete rubbish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes its about the LICENCE
At the rates of renumeration compensated the artist, they should never own the music. Indeed initially thats what was meant to have happened. The abuse started with artist, but then was extended to the customers.
So, I have some music and I say, "Mr. Record company exec
I will licence my music for you to exploit for the next 3 YEARS and I get at LEAST 10% NET [ not that I would stoop so low ]. After which the musics rights reverts totally to me."
Kind of fair, sort of.
But eventually the Mr Record Company Exec said, "This musician's a bozzo and such a lap dog." And said, "You'll be lucky to have paid me back the pittance of a loan I give you in the next 3 years and I'll exploit you forever and the music's ours." And ... the artist goes and sign's such contracts.
Today all musicians are treated like bozo's because people are weak and never stand up to the slave masters and say "NO MASTER I AINT BAILING SH*T, YOU CRACK THAT WHIP ALL YOU LIKE, YOU WANT MUSIC YOU MAKE IT YOURSELF"
If the law allows such treatment of artists, much less will the customer receive.
I'll just say this, today the music that is generally speaking a "product" to me, is the disposable stuff that some guys knocks up having fun. It comes it goes it made you smile, but now its gone. Little effort in, "damn it was a hoot and we made a little money." Great! But it hasn't got any longevity in the market place and rarely will it be played in years to come.
Disposable music = PRODUCT.
I don't like this, but its a part of the scene unfortunately.
Music as a service which is the future.
Is made by an artist who bled his heart and soul into his craft, suffered and made vulnerable by sharing his life and with fame, and became a prisoner in his own home and to an image. In the process changed lives and the world and shared what it was like to be human again. This will be heard under subscription and shared with millions globally everyday and as many times as they like.
To quote Marin Luther King, "I've SEEN THE PROMISED LAND!"
To see how Big Labels have treated the latter is abhorrent to me and that such people exist with no conscious is a monumental aberration on the record of human history. That such activity should be protected like some animal on the verge of extinction is morally sick and reprehensible.
If the LAW allows them to treat artists with such contempt, what of their customers? Seems a little lopsided huh? No its not money that's the root of all evil, its peoples intent. And it would seem the intent of BIG LABELS is disingenuous to say the least.
With respect to governance, maybe you need to change the LAW, or throw them out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm just a thought
You can argue about the container or the method of delivery all you want as product or service because it can be both or neither depending on the how but the music itself is still just an idea that is transferred and copied from one person to another. Look at it that way and it doesn't really make much sense to argue that another method of transfer of an idea already transferred is somehow not allowed. Once you've shared an idea the people you shared it with possess that idea too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sony is not going away?
Quote:
Source:
Can Doug Morris Bring Stability To Sony? (By Ed Christman, New York, March 02, 2011)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music as a service Hyden and Handel
Mozart was an employee of the Archbishop of Salzburg who at one time jailed him for wanting to leave. Finally he became such a pain that while he was in Vieana the Archbishop fired him. He then pursued a lucrative carrier as a concert pianist and composer give numerous symphony concerts of his works (again service).
Handel was employed by George II and was told to compose music for the Royal Fireworks. He was allowed to conduct a public rehearsal prior to the Fireworks and charged 2 shillings 6p (about equivalent to today's $100/ticket) again a service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]