There have been arguments for years about music downloads and such, and whether or not it should be legal for people to get music for free through "peer to peer" sharing. Well, I can tell you that for years, I sided with music sharers, and thought that there was nothing wrong with it. But, I can see now that I was wrong, and many others are wrong as well. I will explain.

Years ago, before computer CDRW's and before music recording equipment was readily available to the general public for an affordable price, when people wanted to hear their favorite song on a regular basis, they tuned in to the radio station. If they really liked it, they would go to the record store and buy the record (or later, tape). Back during this time, a music artist HAD to be exceptional because the common "unsigned artist" outlets were not there back then (like Soundclick, NewGrounds, Myspace Music, etc.). When the internet was made available, and when CDRW's were made available, it cut into a HUGE chunk of artist's livelihood. In a way, computers did to artists what many of the free-trade agreements did to American workers.

Also, when the huge influx of underground artists started getting heard in the late 90's because of the internet, many people had more variety and choices when it came to what they wanted to hear. This new distribution of funds and attention also did not help many of the traditionally established artists or record companies. This took more money away from those artists.

Now, I'm not saying that we should go backwards. I believe that with as much power as the internet holds, and as many websites and files that are out here, there are an almost unlimited number of ways that people can make money. But in the music or print business, it's not that easy, because whatever music or book my friend has I can have it within seconds, and I didn't pay anything for it. Honestly, that is highly unfair to the artists. The artist should have been paid for the copy that I received.

What are the solutions? Well, it's good that we have many new and underground artists. Creativity is great and should not be hindered. But, people's personal creations should be protected, and if they desire to be compensated for providing their art, they should be compensated. So, here's an idea of what needs to happen. Companies that are involved in the music business in any way, even down to the little underground or unsigned artist websites, should all have their own specific file format that CANNOT be replicated or shared, similar to a protected WMA file only far more encoded. The companies that produce music players and computers should also work with the music companies to make sure that any player or computer will only "play" or store the file and not record it, and make sure that each individual file initially registers with your player or computer only, so that if someone attempted to use the file on another player or computer, it could not be accessed. This would force people to BUY every file that they wanted, whether it was from underground artists or established artists. The only way anyone could actually copy music would be just like how people did it back in the old days- running a "line out" of the headphone jack on your device into another device that could actually record it- (remember recording your favorite song from the radio station onto tape with your tape deck recorder?).

No chance. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. They tried encrypted files and it failed horribly.

the time for infecting the internet with money, is over.

so what if prince thinks the internet is over. hes giving away music for the price of a newspaper and people still arent happy. whats the problem?

leecaldon said:

No chance. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. They tried encrypted files and it failed horribly.

Okay, well if they don't want to go that route, the companies could work with the recording industry to produce a new audio device of some sort that can playback music and is completely incompatible with computers. A step back of sorts, but it would protect artists.

[Edited 7/11/10 23:31pm]

JDODSON said:

There have been arguments for years about music downloads and such, and whether or not it should be legal for people to get music for free through "peer to peer" sharing. Well, I can tell you that for years, I sided with music sharers, and thought that there was nothing wrong with it. But, I can see now that I was wrong, and many others are wrong as well. I will explain.

Years ago, before computer CDRW's and before music recording equipment was readily available to the general public for an affordable price, when people wanted to hear their favorite song on a regular basis, they tuned in to the radio station. If they really liked it, they would go to the record store and buy the record (or later, tape). Back during this time, a music artist HAD to be exceptional because the common "unsigned artist" outlets were not there back then (like Soundclick, NewGrounds, Myspace Music, etc.). When the internet was made available, and when CDRW's were made available, it cut into a HUGE chunk of artist's livelihood. In a way, computers did to artists what many of the free-trade agreements did to American workers.

Also, when the huge influx of underground artists started getting heard in the late 90's because of the internet, many people had more variety and choices when it came to what they wanted to hear. This new distribution of funds and attention also did not help many of the traditionally established artists or record companies. This took more money away from those artists.

Now, I'm not saying that we should go backwards. I believe that with as much power as the internet holds, and as many websites and files that are out here, there are an almost unlimited number of ways that people can make money. But in the music or print business, it's not that easy, because whatever music or book my friend has I can have it within seconds, and I didn't pay anything for it. Honestly, that is highly unfair to the artists. The artist should have been paid for the copy that I received.

What are the solutions? Well, it's good that we have many new and underground artists. Creativity is great and should not be hindered. But, people's personal creations should be protected, and if they desire to be compensated for providing their art, they should be compensated. So, here's an idea of what needs to happen. Companies that are involved in the music business in any way, even down to the little underground or unsigned artist websites, should all have their own specific file format that CANNOT be replicated or shared, similar to a protected WMA file only far more encoded. The companies that produce music players and computers should also work with the music companies to make sure that any player or computer will only "play" or store the file and not record it, and make sure that each individual file initially registers with your player or computer only, so that if someone attempted to use the file on another player or computer, it could not be accessed. This would force people to BUY every file that they wanted, whether it was from underground artists or established artists. The only way anyone could actually copy music would be just like how people did it back in the old days- running a "line out" of the headphone jack on your device into another device that could actually record it- (remember recording your favorite song from the radio station onto tape with your tape deck recorder?).

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

JDODSON said:

leecaldon said:

No chance. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. They tried encrypted files and it failed horribly.

Okay, well if they don't want to go that route, the companies could work with the recording industry to produce a new audio device of some sort that can playback music and is completely incompatible with computers. A step back of sorts, but it would protect artists.

[Edited 7/11/10 23:31pm]

I don't think there can be a technological solution to the problem. Everything can eventually be bypassed, anything can eventually be decrypted, etc. It's really kinda pointless and is more a society problem than a tech one.

Even so, sites like itunes prove that people do want to own music legally. Who knows what things could look like in the future!

I think the real money is in the areas of music that simply can't be duplicated and traded freely: live concerts, unique memorabilia, and "experiences." Madonna doesn't make millions anymore from record sales; it's from tours.

Extending these things to the internet could create a revenue stream. Imagine a weekly performance by Prince where he sat down to an online "concert" and not only performed, but we could also chat with him and he could reflect on his music. Or just try things out that he's come up with and ask us what we think about it. It would be incredible. Create a scarcity of availabilitity to such an event and he could make a weekly killing by just turning on a webcam. It wouldn't matter that these performances would be bootlegged; he'd make everything on the event upfront, and probably be able to sell them again somehow later.

Artists are just scratching the surface of what could be done online.

Here is an interesting Forbes article regarding Prince declaring that the Internet is over.

When Prince says "the Internet is completely over," he has a point.

The artist formerly known as a weird symbol said this in a British newspaper interview earlier this week. The newspaper, The Mirror, is going to distribute several million copies of his latest record inside their paper this week, so he granted them a rare interview. Presumably they are paying him a great deal of money for his music. There will be no Internet downloads, though his CD will probably be distributed via other newspapers in Europe – and, who knows, even in those record store things.

Denizens of the Web seemed to arise in millions to comment on Prince's stupidity. How could the Internet be dead? If you think that, they seem to say, then just send me an email about it – Oh, that's right, you can't, because you think the Internet is dead.

But the critics didn't look hard at what he said, which had solely to do with his own professional relationship to the medium.

"The Internet is completely over," said Prince. "I don't see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won't pay me an advance for it and then [the public] gets angry when they can't get [the music]."

New music. For free. With a sense of entitlement. Sorry, you music-pirating websites, but I see his point. Why should people feel like that is an inalienable right? (He also said a few things about harmful addiction to digital devices, but let's stick to his disdain for the free distribution model.)

We should cheer Prince. He said outright what others are just acting on. Wired Magazine, which not long ago had a cover story on how great it is that everything is free, just came out with an iPad app that costs $4.99. Time Magazine this week gave up some of its free print content in favor of a pay-based system. It may not work, but Time seems to be gambling that it will make more than nothing.

Moreover, Prince (who has sold over 100 million records in a 30-year career) may know what a lot of people are still learning: In any market, it is important to either deliver abundant commodities cheaply and efficiently, or cater to high-value scarcity. He has done a good job of focusing on the latter.

In that sense, he has the Internet completely figured out. In the digital world, where music is free and we're inundated with easily-duplicated information, what is scarce? Human contact. Things that vanish in time. Things that are handcrafted, or have to be sought out. Things that identify your personal connection to a passion.

That's why, though music is free, U2 can sell concert tickets for $300 or more (a Paris show currently has seats for $930). Concerts are human contact with the band, with other fans, and they disappear after a few hours. Replaying recordings is not the same. That's why Trent Reznor, the lead singer of the band Nine Inch Nails, sells deluxe editions of the band's CDs for hundreds of dollars.

Prince made a lot of money a few years ago by playing expensive, up-close dinner concerts at the Rio in Las Vegas for months on end, and people paid between $120 and $312.10 (for dinner, priced for personal affiliation with Prince's "3121" album.) This week he's at a huge venue in France, where some 22,000 tickets will sell for $106 apiece, and another 3,000 premium tickets go for $157 each.

That's more than tickets for either The Black Eyed Peas or Pearl Jam cost earlier in the week. From Prince's point of view, there's something to be said for making yourself scarce.

.....but Prince has already figured out how to make money.....get paid upfront and not be concerned

with greed

Portable hard-drive. Home delivered. Would reduce piracy for sure. Uncertain if this is anymore effective than an album though, but it would hold more possibilities for content; videos etc.