RE: <OFF-TOPIC>

["Jonathan El-Bizri" <jbiz@linkexchange.com>]

>> It's not worth thinking about that till it's about to happen.
>
>Most folks caught behind when everyone else is up front taking advantage 
>of
>this are probably thinking that as well.

But what you have been suggesting has been tried already, and isn't 
working.
Could you tell me what you are going to do differently?

>
>> Even then, I'll wager that the two strategies still won't work without
>some
>> radical changes in technology (goodness that's not going to happen, is
it?
>> :>)
>
>Yep.  Think about this, then.  In four years, someone selects a list of
>songs to be burned onto a CD or its equivalent - whereupon the
>vendor-in-question, who doesn't keep inventory beyond the traditional
stuff,
>makes a multiple request to other vendors - the distributors publishing
>houses or (gasp!) the artists who own the recording and pub rights, to not
>only get permission to burn their songs/etc., but process payment as well.
>The purchaser gets more of what he/she wants, and the artists/owners of 
>the
>work get paid more.  Why?  Because there aren't a legion of middlemen
>leeching off the process as if they were a necessary transaction.

( Actually, it's more likely that we no longer use any form of end media,
but stream directly from the source. Third generation, 2 megabit cell based
connectivity will be about three years old by then. )

But the point is moot - this still doesn't work out how people will be made
to pay for the stuff, and how people will be able differentiate your stuff
from all the other stuff.

>> >
>> >...This would seem to be more of the same.  I'm sure quite a lot of
folks
>> in
>> >the established music biz would prefer it if we all just went away, or
>> >signed up with them as if it were the only way to do business.
>>
>> Errm, maybe they're right?
>
>You grew up in LA, didn't you?  I can't imagine anyone subscribing to such
>foolishness unless they're already making money off it, or just don't know
>any better than to believe what everyone tells you.

No, I've never been there. I've heard a lot of strange things about the
place and it's inhabitants though. What will happen to me if I do go there?
It sounds like I will turn into some kind of entertainment industry drone.
Are you from LA?

>
>> I'm not in the music bix, I'm in the internet biz. I'm telling you it
>> doesn't look good from this end either. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
>
>That's a bit like looking through binoculars from the wrong end, isn't it?
>

No, I'm just coming from a different perspective. I working daily with the
tools you say will save us all from the gravy train. It's way more
complicated than that, and not going to be all peaches and cream. You say
the magic of internet based content distribution is here. I'm telling you
that the emperor is half dressed.

>> Ermm, exactly how are you going to get your music differentiated from 
>all
>> the crap out there? How people going to find your music?
>
>The publicity end of this is still in process-of-formation, evidenced by
the
>ongoing existence of rudimentary (and ineffective) modes of advertising on
>the Web.  Like Banners.

The biggest difference between banner advertising and other forms is that
and exact measure of it's effectiveness is possible. Now that the novelty 
of
banners has worn off, people are getting 'sticker shocked' by the fact that
advertising is an expensive, inefficient business. Compared to other form 
of
advertising, for some purposes banner advertising is much more effective.
However, it's not going to make your site the most popular one on the web
for $5.95.

>
>> Also, people's tastes are changing thanks to the massive amount music
>> available to them all of a sudden. I'm not talking about their stylistic
>> habits, but how they treat music. It's becoming more disposable :<
there's
>> so much good stuff out there (as well as the crap), that there's no need
>to
>> stick to one thing. Why read the same book every time you go to the
>library,
>> if there are a kazillion other >good< ones to read? Still, there's been
>more
>> interesting music around than I'll ever have time to enjoy since before 
>I
>> was born. The difference now is that niches and styles are exploding -
>
>You know, the status quo bunch were pretty much saying the same thing 10,
>20, 30, and 40 years ago.  So what else is new?
>

Broadband planetary networking? The differentiation of content from it's
media, and the ability of perfect, quick and convenient duplication.
Civilization as-we-know-it? I'm not sure how the 'status-quo' bunch would 
be
saying that things are going to change.

>> This reminds me of something that happened in the video gaming industry,
>on
>> a smaller scale. When Doom came out, the first set of levels were sent
out
>> free. It was a stroke of genius - video game crack. The first one's
>free...
>> But soon every gaming mag came with a cd, of all the first levels of
every
>> game to come out. Suddenly (and there were a lot of other things
involved,
>> such as sudden over-saturation, which is a topic that deserves it's own
>> thread, related to the music biz and online music) the market took a
hit -
>> so many people bought magazine and played the 50 demos for a couple of
>> bucks, instead of buying one game for 50.
>
>And you don't see folks in the arcades anymore either.  Imagine that!  One
>can't treat the game market like the music market in any event - the
>elements involved aren't like Apples / Oranges, but they're different
enough
>not to be comparable in their effects.  If I need to elaborate upon this,
>please say so!

Please do so. My argument was valid, and might as well have been about
people giving away shareware vegetables.

Let's say that people start releasing compilation DVD's from the mp3 
archive
for $2 each. 10 hours of music for $2 (They would have to be DVD's because
60 minutes of music doesn't go as far as 650 megs of video games ) Would 
you
the music market be affected? I think you'd have to take it into account.
Probably not much, but the gaming market wasn't catastrophically struck
either; I was just saying that it changed things a little.

We have something very similar in the music market. It's called mp3.com -
from the perspective we are discussion, the two main differences between it
and the shareware games are that a) it's not as convenient, though it is
cheaper and b) the quality of the content is abysmal.

So it's not as convenient as picking up a cd at the store, yet. It will be
though. People just have to get better at building content UI, and 
everybody
has to get a ginormous connection like the T3 I'm sitting on right now.

However, most of the free music still sucks, because so many people are
doing it. Do you think that people will pay for music from a band they have
heard one song from, since they have a taste for the quality of it's music?
You seem to think so - I don't. The amount of quality music will increase
and searching for it will become more refined and intelligent. All this
competition is bad for everyone, not just the big guys; it's literally 
going
to change the way we think about music and other artistic content (and 
other
information and systems, like software, but those are just the )

Actually, people still do go to arcades, a lot. The video game business 
(all
of it together, consoles, arcades, pc etc. etc.) rivals the movie in the
amount of profit it generates ( $5 billion versus $7.5 in 1998 (this only
counts US based companies, but includes international sales))

(BTW it's not even close to the profits of the gambling industry, which was
$13 billion for the same year (again, only counting US based companies. Is
that messed up or what?)

>
>In the long run, if one wants to obtain ones aims in whatever milieu
they're
>in, it just doesn't pay to consider negatives unless they're something 
>that
>really exist, as you coined, Now.  Otherwise I suppose it's quite a
struggle
>just to play an instrument.
>

We differ in that you don't think that the stuff I've brought up exists, 
and
I've seen it!