NY Times Sunday Article

[assorted]

This article is a mainstream news piece (finally!) coming from the right perspective; but it bugs me that it's concepts we smarter people discussed on nappy forums years ago (literally).

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/ma.../17ONLINE.html

(registration required; here's a snippet)

"But now, in a brave new world of abundant and free copies, the order has inverted. Copies are so ubiquitous, so cheap (free, in fact) that the only things truly valuable are those which cannot be copied.

What kinds of things can't be copied? Well, for instance: trust, immediacy, personalization. There is no way to download these qualities from existing copies or to install them from a friend's CD. So while you can score a copy free of charge, if you want something authenticated, or immediately, or personalized, you'll have to pay.

In the domain of the plentifully free, music will do the only thing it can do: charge for things that can't be copied easily. A friend of a friend may eventually pass on to you the concert recording of a band you like, but if you pay, the band itself will e-mail it to you seconds after the performance. Sure, you can find a copy of that hit dance track, but if you want the mix approved by the legendary D.J., then you'll want to pay for it. Anyone can grab a free copy of Beethoven's Ninth, but if you want it customized for the audio parameters of your room or car, you'll pay for it. You may have downloaded that Cuban-Chinese rock band from the Morpheus site without paying, but the only way to get all that cool meta-information about each track, which lets you search for chords and lyrics, is to establish a relationship with the band by paying."

[fogelbise]

thanks for the article!

In only 10 months, 71million copies of the music-sharing software Morpheus were downloaded. Of course, it's not just music that is being copied freely. It is text, pictures, movies, entire Web sites.

entire web sites? has anyone experienced this and could provide an example?

So while you can score a copy free of charge, if you want something authenticated, or immediately, or personalized, you'll have to pay.

I beg to differ on the immediately part. I can get a full album on grokster faster than I can drive to my closest music store...depends on the album i guess.

[twinspan]

I can get a full album on grokster faster than I can drive to my closest music store...

Holy cr@p, how far ARE you from the nearest store? Or do you have a T3 line? Even with my DSL, it takes me at least an hour to d/l an entire album (if I'm lucky). (with Kazaa Lite; I recently 'rediscovered' AG and the d/l speeds seem to be 3-4 times faster on average.)

As I type this I can see my nearest record shop out the window across the street... 'lidderallee'. Not that I'm going to go that far just to empty out my wallet to buy stuff I've already, ahem, acquired

Re 'entire websites', surely they're getting confused with offline browsers (I'm finding Offline Exlplorer pretty handy).

[fogelbise]

anyone, any other ideas on "entire websites?"

twinspan: first let me say, i was being a little picky as my response doesn't address the point of that part of the article...anyway, with multi-sourcing and choosing the "versions" of album songs that many sources have, starting one download right after the other and watching for any stalling(if i picked a version not widely distributed I cancel it and search specifically for that song as opposed to the whole album and get plenty of sources), they usually download in 10-15 minutes on Cable. Technically a little more(edit:should read *less*) than the time it would take me to go to the store and back.

[MikeHunt]

.....funny that I would also post about the exact same article over on the Underground about 2/3 the way down. And yes it's one of the best articles I've seen from a 'mainstream' source in a long time

[TankGirl]

A great article, thanks for bringing it to our attention assorted and MikeHunt!

Kevin Kelly, the journalist behind the story (also the executive editor of Wired magazine) definitely has a clue about what is going on in the filesharing scene. His visionary list of the things that could be part of the new economy of music in the era of free digital copying is well worth copying here :

• Songs are cheap; what's expensive are the indexable, searchable, official lyrics.

• On auction sites, music lovers buy and sell active playlists, which arrange hundreds of songs in creative sequences. The lists are templates that reorder songs on your own disc.

• You subscribe to a private record label whose agents troll the bars, filtering out the garbage, and send you the best underground music based on your own preferences.

• The most popular band in the world produces only very good ''jingles,'' just as some of the best directors today produce only very good commercials.

• The catalog of all musical titles makes more money than any of the record companies.

• A generator box breeds background music tailored to your personal tastes; the music is supplied by third-party companies that buy the original songs from the artists.

• Because you like to remix dance tunes, you buy the versions of songs that are remix-ready in all 24 tracks.

• You'll pay your favorite band to stream you its concert as it is playing it, even though you could wait and copy it at no cost later.

• The varieties of musical styles explode. They increase faster than we can name them, so a musical Dewey Decimal System is applied to each work to aid in categorizing it.

• For a small fee, the producers of your favorite musician will tweak her performance to exquisitely match the acoustics of your living room.

• So many amateur remixed versions of a hit tune are circulating on the Net that it's worth $5 to you to buy an authenticated official version.

• For bands that tour, giving away their music becomes a form of cheap advertising. The more free copies that are passed around, the more tickets they sell.

• Musicians with the highest status are those who have a 24-hour Net channel devoted to streaming only their music.

• Royalty-free stock music (like stock photography), available for any use, takes off with the invention of a great music search engine, which makes it possible to find music ''similar to this music'' in mood, tempo and sound.

• The best-selling item for most musicians is the ''whole package deal,'' which contains video clips, liner notes, segregated musical tracks, reviews, ads and artwork -- all stored on a well-designed artifact in limited editions.

• Despite the fact that with some effort you can freely download the song you think you want in a format you think will work for your system, most people choose to go to a reliable retailer online and use the retailer's wonderful search tools and expert testimonials to purchase what they want because it is simply easier and a better experience all around.

- tg

[Mowzer]

Are you guys for real? Or just fucking around a bit?

Some of the points make a bit of sense, others, well I dont know about.


If your making fun of something, I have no clue. Kinda a weird joke.

[assorted]

Sorry MikeHunt; I posted it because I had just read it in my physical Sunday NY Times. I don't check the Underground so much cuz it's too "busy."

Ethen; it's not a joke. The issue in question is that file trading is permanent; so how will industry/capitalim deal with it? There are ways to make $$; they are just radical to their thinking. But the people who think that way in said industries have a great opportunity right now. Um; that's why I linked it at least. Not that I agree with everything she says or believe she's particularly tech savvy; but that's not where she's coming from.

[Mowzer]

I thought it was a joke of some sort.

I read it 4 times and couldnt see how anyone would make money with some of those ideas.

But I guess others have made money with even stranger ones.
The RIAA needs to crawl up and die.

Just look what they are doing to net radio shoutcast/icecast.

[assorted]

Originally posted by Ethen
I thought it was a joke of some sort.

I read it 4 times and couldnt see how anyone would make money with some of those ideas.
(edit)
Just look what they are doing to net radio shoutcast/icecast.

agreed that some of the ideas are wacky; but it's the premise that counts. if you decide it's a given that filesharing of any file has won the battle already (if not officially); then the next interesting point is how $$ will be made from music. there's no doubt (in my mind) that music will still be made; and good music at that. so what she writes is interesting as she's a writer for a mainstream publication agreeing with that principle from the get go.

btw; what are they doing to netradio and shoutcast? unless you mean CARP; which yeah; will just obliterate it (already has basically).

tg:

thx for pointing out the she is a he and an editor for wired; i didn't realize. also the list you reprinted is fun; i like these as being decent concepts:

• You subscribe to a private record label whose agents troll the bars, filtering out the garbage, and send you the best underground music based on your own preferences.

not exactly quite what i'm thinking; but correct. no matter what; people still need a middle man; a fact discussed ages ago on napster forums. someone has to filter what is made for people with different tastes; or just the "crap" from what's "good"; and people will still pay for $$ for that service if it's good.

• The most popular band in the world produces only very good ''jingles,'' just as some of the best directors today produce only very good commercials.

Moby has already done this. The album "Play" was I believe entirely presold to adverts and film 6 months after it's release. Pop success followed later (as a NY Times article in the same magazine points out). This is already common and will continue to be a cash cow for musicians; even more so once the labels as we know it are rubbed out.

• Because you like to remix dance tunes, you buy the versions of songs that are remix-ready in all 24 tracks.

this is a way to make $$; and exciting. just not nearly as much $$ as other ideas and not really even worth noting in a way as it has a very limited appeal.

• For bands that tour, giving away their music becomes a form of cheap advertising. The more free copies that are passed around, the more tickets they sell.

this is something we've been saying (along with some artists like pete townsend) for some time now.

it's fun to watch and try to predict....

[fogelbise]

• The best-selling item for most musicians is the ''whole package deal,'' which contains video clips, liner notes, segregated musical tracks, reviews, ads and artwork -- all stored on a well-designed artifact in limited editions.

• Despite the fact that with some effort you can freely download the song you think you want in a format you think will work for your system, most people choose to go to a reliable retailer online and use the retailer's wonderful search tools and expert testimonials to purchase what they want because it is simply easier and a better experience all around.

I truly wish artists and musicians all the best in the future of p2p(as opposed to the RIAA), but have the unsettling feeling that the ideas above will not help them. With the first one, i am sure there will be ways to rip all of those bits and compile them to share on p2p networks as well. With the 2nd, nothing is easier than going to such a site, reading those reviews, then getting the song/album free on a p2p network. Just my thoughts, not that I like them....and very pessimistic...sorry