Gadgetell | Tech News, Reviews, and Interesting Things

It seems like a never ending story doesn’t it?  People are downloading music and not paying for it.  Naughty, naughty.  The industry has their panties in a bunch over the fact people are downloading music illegally.  Threats ensue.  “We’re gonna get you all.”  “Oh no you won’t, pirating will live forever!”  Yawn.  Be real guys, you’re never gonna “get them all.”  And times are changing when it comes to music.  Even many of the artists recognize this fact, the labels are starting to, now we just need the Music Cops to see it as well.

Let’s Sell Recorded Music

There is a new report out called “Let’s Sell Recorded Music!” which goes over the possible highs and the lows of creating a legal service that uses a blanket licensing scheme to download music.  They want to come up with one that would actually be able to compete with free services and still make some money.  Sounds like a hard task.

The Subscription Model

This report all began with a bunch of meetings that MusicTank held last fall in the UK.  All sorts of folks joined up to talk not only about P2P enforcement and the whole copyright infringement/education bruhaha, but also about what kind of legal alternatives could they come up with.  Ones that held a major draw.  There were people there from record labels, ISPs and collecting societies, all wanting to see change.  And what did they come up with?  Subscriptions.

Yeah, it’s been done before.  And they pretty much bombed.  In a big part due to DRM, although that certainly is no barrier to the motivated.  So, as a result, free services like Last.fm keep people from wanting to pay for streaming music at other, bigger subscription sites.  And, lots of people get their music the way they are not “supposed to.” 

A license to listen

It seems though the music industry is coming to think that a more open subscription model is the way to go in the future.  Exactly how this is going to work still remains to be seen and worked out.  The idea in general is that there will be a flat fee for access to (almost) all recorded music.  The (almost) is because what about the small indie groups that don’t join in?  Or the mixes? Or the mashups?  This is where it all gets hairy.

One idea of the payment model is that there would be some kind of payment made monthly.  Users would then have legal access to any ISP and any P2P network to share music.  The money would then be split up between artists depending on the popularity of their music.

However, using this method, the ISPs aren’t really motivated to join in.  They want a way to set themselves a part from their rivals.  Their preference would probably go the route of that with a service like this, a charge would be plunked on your Internet bill each month, but you would only have access though that ISP (which would probably come out with a special service of its own to give you your music).

Could this work?

But as you can image, tons of problems could set in with this “download what you want legally” plan as well.  Like I mentioned, how the heck are we sure of what exactly is covered under this license?  Unless it is an absolute across the board mandated requisite for all artists, there are bound to be small labels that don’t join. 

Big Brother

So, guess what?  You download their song and it’s a crime.  Or unreleased albums, or studio outtakes, or concert bootlegs, etc.  All found on P2P networks.  Even if they got every single label on the planet on board with the plan, it could still be a mess.  When users are told that they are allowed to download “whatever they want” legally, that wouldn’t really be the case.  Because P2P networks are chock-full of stuff that labels don’t have the permission to license.  And how exactly by the way are they gonna divvy up the money from a mashup to the different artists?

And, Johnny might download a song, listen to it and decide it’s garbage and delete it, then download another by a different artist, love it and play it over and over and over.  Should both artists cash in on the same cash kick back just because Johnny downloaded their song initially?  There is no good metrics to this system about what is actually being listened to.  Unless there is going to be embedded software in players or on the users’ machines, that is not going to be able to be tracked.  I’m sure folks are gonna want Big Music Brother coming in and keeping track of what they are listening to.

10:80:10

Even with all these difficulties, the MusicTank report remains insistent on making money right from recorded music in the days ahead.  “Indeed, the fact that despite all this, so many people do pay for downloads is heartening and suggests that by experimenting with different types of services and pricing structures and making more content available in a wider range of formats and quality—as iTunes has begun to do—the recordings business can guarantee itself a healthy future,” it says.

According to a consultancy called Deltica, there is a principle that holds true when it comes to music and downloading and users.  It is called the 10:80:10.  It means that “10 percent of all consumers will always opt for the legal, licensed option, and 10 percent will always prefer the unlicensed alternative. That leaves the vast majority up for grabs—if they can just be presented with a compelling alternative.”

I’m sure MusicTank is hoping to be able to sway that 80% their way.

The artists themselves are apparently even sick of the whole suing fans business and want to come up with a better alternative.  At a meeting in London, the Featured Artists Coalition’s group leaders came before the labels asking them to stop suing fans.  They demanded more control over their own works and how they can be used.  They do however, want more money from places like YouTube or MySpace that use their music—-companies that use their music.  Not individuals using a P2P.

But until it all goes through, if it all goes through…the music police will still be out there. 

Via: arstechnica