Subject: Re: (exotica) Didn't RealAudio ask for it?
At 10:11 PM 11/8/99, Rcbrooksod@aol.com wrote:
><< The situation will only get worse if the means of production and
> distribution come under control of a handful of immense and enormously
> powerful megacorporations created by mergers.
>What do you mean it will get worse "when" we have these megacorporations?
>That is what we have now.
Agreed, TB. I was thinking specifically of Time Warner, Viacom, and,in
publishing, the German firm Bertelsmann. The business media forecast that
this trend will continue--in many industries beyond entertainment. This is
our cue to quake in fear :). MM
# Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list?
# Send the command "info exotica" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com.
# To post, email exotica@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:47:09 -0500
From: mimim@texas.net (Mimi Mayer)
Subject: Re: (exotica) Paul replies...Didn't RealAudio ask for it?
Some time last night, the agile-minded and genial Paul Moshay wrote:
sending this just to you... if your reply was on list
and want to forward my reply to the list, go ahead
and do so...
*********
on 11/8/99 10:03 AM the incisive Mimi Mayer scribbled;
> Thanks for responding, Paul. I didn't ask my question to put you on the
> defensive
i had not felt that really. was only addressing raising the issue
you had touched upon, if i recall correctly :)
> The situation will only get worse if the means of production and
> distribution come under control of a handful of immense and enormously
> I really hoped that the Net would provide artists a fairer means of
> distribution than we have now--"fairer" meaning the creators get the
i don't think the more fair distribution would go as far as the artist
receiving a majority of profits, for the average artist at least.
> make the $$ they deserve for their creative work. I view piracy as a
> necessary cost or risk that artists must take to gain greater control over
> the distribution their work--it's a smart way to build audiences outside o=
f
> corporate funding.
how does making your music available to freely copy infinitely at no
cost, benefit an artist monetarily? if artists feel they do not get
a fair shake from the familiar record deal, how is giving away their
recorded songs unprotected from unlimited piracy going to better
their situation?
is the unstated notion that giving away the music, acts would make
money selling concert tix or teeshirts, etc. ? this is the part that
bewilders me. in a pure digital transmission world without copyright
piracy protection, where does the artist 'earn a living' exactly ?
i'm confused, enlighten me.
>> heard about any 'above ground' indies giving away the masters/copyrights'
>> of albums' they paid to record to the artists', simply because they may
>> be more genuinely into their music.
>
> No, that kind of thinking is naive. Of course producers are entitled to
> regain their investment and make *some* profit...but it's wrong that they
> take a higher share of the profits than creators, whose talent and work
> make the profits possible in the first place.
possibly, though most artists are not successful economically and the
ones that are have generally have short lifespans... pop music is like
talking about perishables in a sad sense. therefore majors know that
and that there are thousands of artists out there willing to sign for
a shot at mass success that they would almost never have otherwise.
>> of music industry don't include a provision for 10, 20, or 30 percent of
>> the aggregate demand for prerecorded music in the us to be satiated
>> by piracy. less choices and less chances would be taken than even now.
>
> Agreed. And the majors, in film, television, recording, and publishing are
> already becoming more selective in the products they choose to produce. Bu=
t
> I also think the entertainment industries must alter their business models
> to provide bigger royalties to the creators. Technology demands it;
> technology is moving to a place whenere artists can control the means of
> distribution themselves--call it guerrilla distribution. Given this
> situation, Paul, do you understand why I find the megacorporations' scream=
s
> of protest against piracy because it rips off artists a tad disingenuous?
yes, and they should simply come clean or cleaner with that. they are
concerned about both themselves and their acts. bear in mind that
many majors also support their acts lifestyles to one degree or another
with the notion that it is worth it to allow them freedom to write/record/
tour...and keep their lives intact while doing so.
labels' will eventually have to give a bigger share of profits to artists'
i believe. the bigger acts' ability to run their own careers over the net
without label support. after the beastie boys next album their contract
is up with capitol, and they have everything set up to do it *all* on their
own. others will follow suit, and that ability will tip things a bit more
evenly between labels and acts generally.
> I've very little sympathy for the corporados who bewail the evils of pirac=
y
> when their business models seek to build their profits without offering
> decent pay and wide promotion of artists. If cottage industry web sites ar=
e
> the best way for artists to build a audience that will get them make a
> living wage, then man, teach me to exploit the technology.
if the major/indies cannot exploit the masters' of their artists'
releases they pay to create, they'd put their money in other ventures.
Up to a "certain" executive level in these companies these are really
music people that like yourself want to earn a living by doing something
they love...but that can't continue if as a company they're giving away
their output.
> In the meantime, let's buy music, books, video cassettes of films directly
> from the creators as often as we can. Jane, I wanna buy the AstroSlut CD
Agreed!
# Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list?
# Send the command "info exotica" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com.
# To post, email exotica@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:18:12 -0500
From: nytab@pipeline.com
Subject: (exotica) fwd: Online Music Sales Booming - Survey
FYI, y'all.
- -Lou
lousmith@pipeline.com
11/04/99 Online Music Sales Booming - Survey
Online music sales are booming and only rank behind books as the most popular item bought on the Web, a survey found.
The study, released by the market research firm Greenfield Online, found that almost 60 percent of the people polled purchased music online in the past 90 days. A third of those who purchased music online spent between $50 to $150, and most planned to spend even more in the future.
However, two of the top three music purchases came from stores not specifically devoted to music. Leading the way with 44 percent of the visitors was amazon.com, followed by CDNow.com with 39 percent. Barnesandnoble.com was third with 27 percent.
The much-publicized MP3.com, which allows users to download music directly from the site onto their own hardware, was fourth with 16 percent.
"The reason why amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com ranked so high has a lot to do with Internet branding," Tricia Rosen, product manager at Greenfield Online, said. "They get their name out there and transit you into other products they offer. They capture you."
Rosen said many MP3.com customers downgraded their experience at the site due to ease of navigation, content satisfaction, and customer service.
The survey, which polled 5,100 people who have shopped for music in the past 90 days, found that four out of 10 believe satisfactory customer service is essential for them to make a purchase from the site.
Seventy-nine percent said price is a big factor and will not buy from the site if they can find it cheaper, despite the convenience.
Nearly half have abandoned purchases because it involved shipping charges, and most are willing to pay extra for custom music mixes.
