Prince

For some reason this reminds me oh so much of the lovely Patriot Act - which, naturally, is all about fascism, NOT about patriotism.

My perspective? David Bowie was the first well-known commercial artist to release a single on the Internet, back in '96-'97. He predicted at the time that the digital file-sharing community would grow significantly, and that it would be in the recording industry's best interest to grow with it...and not against it. I agree with this whole-heartedly.

I mean, let's look at the way music is distributed. It's still, for the most part, OFFICIALLY distributed the way it always has been, since "day one". The artist goes into the studio, records an album for the label, the label releases it, distribution companies distribute it and record stores sell it. Musician, producer, engineer, label executive, distributor, store owner. They all want to take their cut, and this is all before the applicable taxes.

I'm sure this distribution method employs a whole bunch of people, but how much of this is really necessary? I've heard record labels claim that the price of a CD is so high because of taxes, and because the artist and all those involved in the production and distribution of it have to eat, too. However, the production costs are nowhere near what they used to be, with today's technology. It is just that the powers that be are used to being able to maintain the high price of their product, even while the production costs continue to drop, thanks to technological advancement.

The way music is distributed is changing. Significantly. It would do record labels good to acknowledge and accept this, and change the way they conduct business accordingly. Music can and will still be sold, but the ways this is done are changing, rapidly. There is a lot of money to be made, I believe, but most labels are missing out on this because of their conservative thinking.

Music itself has changed. Thanks to personal computers and highly advanced software that's made available, any average Joe can record their own music, right there in their own homes, and release it on the Internet, with practically no production costs whatsoever. This is becoming more and more common...and you know what? The record labels and distributors don't like it. They're not making a dime. I am willing to bet that it won't take long for a top selling artist to realize that, hey, I don't really NEED all these executives and yes-men, I can produce my music myself, at a home studio or a professional one, and sell it on the Internet. Even with the original setup costs, this will with very high likelihood be extremely lucrative, as the artist will not have record labels and distributors, not to mention record stores, cutting in. In this case, even though the price of the product would not be as high, the artist's own cut of the proceeds would be significantly higher. To top it all off, record labels typically restrict an artist to make new releases only so often. By selling their music exclusively online, an artist could offer their entirely back catalogue. A consumer could browse the catalogue online, pick the songs they wanted, and pay. A lot of material is not released because the costs of doing so in the traditional way would be too high. On the Internet, an artist could offer even these songs, and this would make a potentially serious dent in bootlegging.

I've been making music for ten years, and releasing it into public use without ever charging for it. I often use file-sharing networks in an effort to do this. I find that even though record labels and distributors are not willing to embrace the new technology, and even though they want to suppress evolution in the music industry and marketing, they should not be in a position to make up laws to help them do this. Instead, just like any business out there, they should realize that their marketting scheme is old, and they need to take a look at the way they produce and market their product.

__________________
Who is John Galt?