Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music Labels Screwed, DRM Is Dead

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the damn-the-man dept.

346

An anonymous reader writes "Peter Jenner, former manager of bands like Pink Floyd, T.Rex and the Clash, states in an interview with the Register that music label executives have lost faith in DRM and dollar-per-track online music selling isn't working too well as a model. He predicts that in two to three years time, many countries will have moved to a blanket licensing regime." The article goes on at some length, talking about the value of digital music, patterns in the music industry, and some business at the end about 'the tyranny of the playlist' that I'm not hep enough to follow. I'm not sure this rant has any connection whatsoever with reality, but it is something to think about.

cancel ×

346 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

dream vs reality? (1)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723671)

I certainly doubt that unless someone does all the work for them, hands it to them on a plate and has a potential market share that can force them into it (like the itunes store back in the day) that the major record labels will continue to resist changes until they die out. Even in the early 90s bands were refering to the record companies as 'Dinosaurs on the way to extinction'. The extinction will be a long time coming but the companies are not known for their ability to adapt which will kill them in the end.

Re:dream vs reality? (1)

maeka (518272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723725)

The article did question whether it would be "bottom up" (record labels making changes) or "top down" (governments imposing licensing structures).

Re:dream vs reality? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723861)

or "top down" (governments imposing licensing structures).

Whilever the American people's Congress is bought and sold by big business, don't ever expect this to happen in America.

Re:dream vs reality? (1)

LindseyJ (983603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724123)

You can't forget lobyists and special interests groups too!

Re:dream vs reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16723813)

What this article clearly demonstrates is that even traditional people in the industry are thinking there's a better way to contribute to the world of music than baring one's ass and all to a record company that is really only willing to take on someone that they can turn into an overnight sensation.

What this really leads onto of course is why we (or they depending on your POV) are spending sooo much to build DRM systems that are designed to prevent publishing of music when this is exactly what they and the artists really want to do. The point is, why spend money to restrict and spend money to market, why not find a business model that is does not suffer from such inherent inefficiences- and let everyone benefit from an open, collaborative culture. As much as everyone wants to earna dollar, IP, art, music and so on do not need barriers put in front of them if we as a race really want to progress.

On the business side of things, imagine if someone was to articulate the losses Sony has made thrashing around in their sea of indecision. Already they've sunk their share of many of the digital format markets, lost out big on their efforts with MD and Memory Stick whilst at the same time failing to deliver a Digital Walkman (R, TM, IANAL). Everyone knows what happened in the massive vacuum they left whilst they thought about 'i-knows what'.

These are losses of enormous value. To go investing in any further follies in an attempt to hoist all-encompassing DRM on consumers that really don't like it, is surely something that should be affecting their share price far more, let alone the conflict of interest they now have to manage daily between their various hardware and content delivery divisions.

And they don't realise that all the Artists are starting to create, deliver and distribute in mediums and forms that allow them to succeed despite this malaise. Has the record industry really completely forgotten that the Artists are their customers too?

Re:dream vs reality? (2, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724161)

"why we (or they depending on your POV) are spending sooo much to build DRM systems that are designed to prevent publishing of music when this is exactly what they and the artists really want to do."
You are missing the point here. It isn't about the musicians. And it never was.

The entire entertainment industry is run by people who are so consumed with greed that they are unable to think clearly and rationally. Although the record companies will ocassionaly pay lip service to "you're ripping of the artitis when you download music from the internet", the truth is, over the past 50 years, nobody has screwed and cheated musicians more than the record companies. A record company is simply a group of people, with no talent or creative ability, who exist for the sole purpose of getting rich by stealing money from people who DO have talent.

And that's why they are so in love with DRM. The entire entertainment industry is so consumed with greed that they are absolutely convinced that there is only one way to do busines: they must maintain absolute, iron-fisted, totalitarian control over they precious "content".

The idea of "an open, collaborative culture" is impossible for them to comprehend. The idea that you can eliminate all the DRM crap and just sell a good product at a fair price, is impossible for them to comprehend.



Re:dream vs reality? (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724225)

A new analogy for DRM just struck me- it's like body armour that offers almost 100% protection against small arms fire, but is so heavy bulky that you can't move off the spot while wearing.

All it takes is someone with an RPG ;)

Death vs Evolution (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724529)

I certainly doubt that unless someone does all the work for them, hands it to them on a plate and has a potential market share that can force them into it (like the itunes store back in the day) that the major record labels will continue to resist changes until they die out. Even in the early 90s bands were refering to the record companies as 'Dinosaurs on the way to extinction'. The extinction will be a long time coming but the companies are not known for their ability to adapt which will kill them in the end.

I think it would be better to describe it using an evolution analogy. Some new contender (like some podcast, music distribution site, or streaming radio station) will come along and find a way to make big bucks while at the same time producing their own content. Sure, they may not be raking in dough hand-over-fist, the way the music industry does now, when a hit song emerges, but the point is that the musicians who previously would have had no choice but to give 95% of their profits to the record pimps at the RIAA, could go somewhere else and get a better deal.

The end result will be that one or two labels will lose money and be bought out by either this new contender or their RIAA competitors, but the rest of the industry will see what they have to do to compete: change their name (because their old name was associated with idiots who tried to rip people off. The new company will be run by the same idiots, but under a different business model), and then adopt whatever marketing scheme worked for their non-RIAA counterparts. In the end, the RIAA will not look the same, but most of them will adapt.

If it has no connection to reality... (0, Redundant)

gabriel.dain (928879) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723687)

...then why think about it at all?

It has no connection to reality... (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723701)

...but it bashes the music industry, so it gets dumped on the front page of Slashdot. Wonderful.

Re:It has no connection to reality... (1)

Aaarrrggghhh (987643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723793)

This has ALL been hashed out before and it still leaves us with no better real understanding of what to do...

lock everyone in a room - the music industry, the unions, the performers, the record companies, the publishers, the ISPs - and tell them you can't be let out until you sort it all out.
They won't sort it out because the pie is a fraction of what it was and it's shrinking, so someone doesn't get to eat. Who's going to volunteer to lose their job today?

in the end the numbers will be so huge it'll iron itself out.
This is more pie in the sky idealistic bs that has already been said by too many people. Businesses don't just let their revenue "sort tself out", that's a good way to bring about a premature extinction.

This guys' comments are hardly worthy of /. attention because these are old ideas and he's not even presenting them well.

Who is Peter Jenner? (-1, Redundant)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723705)

Who is Peter Jenner?
Peter Jenner, former manager of bands like Pink Floyd, T.Rex and the Clash,

Who the heck is Peter Jenner?

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723873)

Peter Jenner, former manager of bands like Pink Floyd, T.Rex and the Clash,
Who the heck is Peter Jenner?
Obviously someone from before your time trying to remain revelant.

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723911)

Remain? I used to know the Wall by heart 25 years ago, including all the instrumental arrangement, and this is the first time I hear about Peter Jenner. Surely if he were that important to PF sound as, say, Alan Parsons or Clare Torry were, I would probably knew him.

I have read abot Jenner. What does make him relevant to the subject of his interview?

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723973)

You clearly have no clue as to what a manager's function is, since you make reference as to whether or not Jenner affected PF's sound (you're possibly getting the role confused with a producer, who does affect the sound). A manager is the person who manages the band's business aspects--booking shows, dealing with contracts, setting up licensing, etc. It's very much a behind-the-scenes role, which is why you generally don't hear about them. However, they are very instrumental (ha!) in guiding a band's career.

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724231)

Because Peter Jenner is not a musician. But he is someone who makes his money in the music business. This is one of the middlemen standing up and saying, "Hang on a minute, we're all fucked". He doesn't work for a record company, his interest is promoting the band that he is working for so he has a certain amount of leeway in what he says. A record exec is bound by the bottom-line, and owning the distribution channel, and above all *fearing change*. His entire livelyhood is based on preventing change.

Peter Jenner is relevent because he is one of the cogs in the machine that can speak out. His first interest is not preserving the status quo (terrible pun if he did manage them, I hope not...) but in promoting the interest of whichever band he is managing. And if you read what he said in the interview it's startling to hear an industry insider say what he does. "The record companies are fucked, they've raped their own business model to extinction". I've paraphrased him a little, but pg 4 has some interesting stuff.

In particular, his own view of the future that he is selling is not just blanket licensing rights for artists. He is also looking at the supply side - the supply of capital to start bands and promote them to profit. He doesn't use the words, but what he is describing is a stockmarket. Where investors can speculate in talent by buying a share of future profits. This is a really interesting idea for the music industry. A market where return comes directly from popularity.

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

dubbayu_d_40 (622643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723997)

He also won some olympic gold medals, but I thought he died from lung cancer recently. Guess I was wrong.

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16723939)

Here you go. [peterjenner.com] Apparently he handmakes fine jewelry.

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

nashton (862797) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723959)

He is one of the most respected music managers in the global music industry, Secretary-General of the International Music Managers Forum (IMMF), the international organisation that represents managers and featured artists, and a member of the board of the UK Music Managers Forum, the UK national managers trade association.

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723993)

He's this guy [wikipedia.org] I think (history of that page goes back a few years, so obviously other people had heard of him, even if you hadn't.)

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724069)

To be fair, the Clash is the only band that matters. If he managed them, he must matter at least a little bit even if we don't know exactly who he is.

Re:Who is Peter Jenner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724141)

So the Floyd, with the longest running most successful album ever, don't count?

This guy out of the loop? (0, Flamebait)

spineboy (22918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723709)

Just looking at the bands he manages - they're mostly washed up, even one of the newer ones - Billy Brag, was "popular" about 20 years ago.
He also further demonstrated his poor grasp on reality when he mentioned rich tenured professors. LOL! Professors rich??? Slave away in academia for 100K a year - that's not rich.

Re:This guy out of the loop? (2, Informative)

LS (57954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723797)

Pink Floyd and the Clash were two of the most influential rock bands of all time. And I happen to know several engineering professors that are multi-millionaires because of patents, startups, and other endeavors. It is not uncommon for engineering and science professors to be wealthy. Who's showing their ignorance now?

Err -try to read my comment and not get bent. (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723941)

Yes, I do know about the Clash(I happen to like them a lot) and Pink Floyd, but the Clash broke up 15-20 years ago?

As for Professors, on average they are not typically rolling around in money like your examples are. Go look up the AVERAGE wage for tenured profs

Re:Err -try to read my comment and not get bent. (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724471)

You cited '100K a year' a few comments up. That is WELL above average.

Re:This guy out of the loop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16723819)

Slave away in academia for 100K a year

FWIW, much of the faculty at the university where I did my undergraduate studies only had to come in for about six hours a week, and made well over a hundred grand a year. Sure, that's not rich, but it's certainly an easy life. The university where I am now attending graduate school allows faculty to refuse teaching duties and concentrate completely on research for about the same deal. Sure, one is still doing some work at home, but it's still not taking up a 40-hour work week, and it's a whole lot more pleasurable than anything else.

Re:This guy out of the loop? (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723849)

The last Pink Floyd album was released in 1995 and it sold very well. In 2005, there was a Pink Floyd reunion on Live 8, this performance was credited with a dramatic increase in Pink Floyd album sales. The band broke up, but it is not washed up.

Yeah, I kind of agree with you about T-Rex and the Clash. You can blame T-Rex for "glam-rock". The Clash's London Calling is widely considered to be one of the greatest rock music albums.

Washed up (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723979)

Washed up as in not current - one CD in 10++ years definitely qualifies as that. . How many people under 30 bought any of that stuff - very few. Yes you will find exceptions, but in general, these bands were popular a while ago.

I guess we're differing on what washed up refers to - you're talking about money, I'm talking about musical relevance. Reunion tours, and album releases every 12 years or so kinda mean they're done.

Re:Washed up (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724345)

How many people under 30 bought any of that stuff - very few.

      You would be surprised. My kids (aged 14 and 13) are really into Pink Floyd, it seems to be all the rage at their school.

Re:Washed up (1)

deficite (977718) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724425)

I second this. Please don't assume that all younger people listen to is modern rock and pop music. I'm a huge fan of Pink Floyd, as well as most of my friends (not just in my area, all over the globe). I'm well under 30: 18.

Re:Washed up (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724483)

How many people under 30 bought any of that stuff -

The idea that 'culture' is defined by 'what the children and young adults are buying' has faded. Thank good the 'culture of youth' thing is less relevant than it once was.

Now go eat the rest of your spinach. You won't get any pudding if you don't eat your meat.

Re:This guy out of the loop? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724015)

He also further demonstrated his poor grasp on reality when he mentioned rich tenured professors. LOL! Professors rich??? Slave away in academia for 100K a year - that's not rich.

that depends on what they teach and where - many Business School professors at top schools are doing much more than $100k a year, once you throw in consulting, speaking fees, etc. We may not be talking Bill Gates rich, but rich enough.

Re:This guy out of the loop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724289)

starting salary for junior (untenured, fresh out of grad school) economists in US research universities is in the neighborhood of $80-90K... $100K salary for tenured business school or economics faculty is not even close

Re:This guy out of the loop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724401)

Yeah...100,000 dollars a year to "slave" away....you myopic elitist twat. $100,000 is exponentially more than the vast majority of people in the world live on and more than most who live well earn. And "slave"? Oh those poor tortured souls, having to read and talk all day in those dreadful pits of despair called libraries and classrooms. And for a mere $2000 a week? What kind of animals are we becoming to ask so much of someone?

fer the sake of cripes....

Off-topic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16723737)

I really can't believe how much of Slashdot on the weekends is composed of old di*g stories...

Perhaps... (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723747)

... but I spotted a small caveat:
No, the political people have to be just well informed enough so they don't fuck it up
I think I've seen that prerequisite before.

Worse Than The Disease (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723795)

So Jenner's wonderful idea is a music tax?

Frankly, I'd rather have the DRM.

The "freedom" people are telling us I have to go out and sell more T-shirts - it's an argument I find tremendously insulting.

Nobody cares, Mr Jenner. Nobody cares.

Re:Worse Than The Disease (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723831)

So Jenner's wonderful idea is a music tax?

Most Western governments already fund new art music. Many composers make their living indirectly from taxpayer money. Institutions like IRCAM in Paris or the Sibelius Academy in Helsinki are completely publicly funded. Even in the U.S., which has lesser taxation than much of the EU, you still have the NEA.

Re:Worse Than The Disease (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723845)

Yes, and a lousy idea it is too.

But what they don't do is use this as a means by which to compensate all so-called musicians.

And that is what Jenner is after.

Re:Worse Than The Disease (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724279)

Copyright is essentially a taxation right and the effect it has on the economy is comparable to other forms of taxation. The whole issue is much easier to analyze if you simply consider the above-market price exacted through monopoly pricing to be a form of VAT. For example, for a CD costing $15 you can assign $14 to copyright VAT, and $1 to production (and theoretical free market pricing) cost.

It's neither worse nor better than the disease, it's the same disease with another name.

As such, it becomes a simple question of wether the current form of public financing of the IP industries is the most efficient way, or wether the public would be better served by incorporating the IP systems within the ordinary state budgets.

Imagine if we took the total amount of money spent by consumers on music today and funnelled that directly to the creators and artists instead, cutting out all expensive marketing, music exec coke habits, overly complicated distribution, and leaving those parts to the free market rather than the current monopoly schemes. Without costing consumers and taxpayers any more than today, those resources could finance many, many more artists and creators.

Re:Worse Than The Disease (1)

elgaard (81259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724435)

> Without costing consumers and taxpayers any more than today

But it would cost me more than today because I do not listen to music from the "big IP-industies". And I never buy CD's.

I do buy some music from e.g. Magnatune, but then I want to know which artist get my money.

Re:Worse Than The Disease (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724397)

Bad argument to make on Slashdot. Everything - from healthcare, through music, software, down to breakfast cereals - manufactured, regulated, and totally controlled by the government - oh, and as high as posiible taxes to support all of this - that is the idea of average slashbot's paradise. Welcome to the world of commusim.

WTF (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723833)

I'm not sure this rant has any connection whatsoever with reality, but it is something to think about.
Why, then?

well (1)

the_last_rites (837649) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723839)

ding dong the witch is dead

Paying for music is dead (5, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723843)

Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.

What I mean is: before computers became widely available, people had the option of sharing bootleg analog copies of something (which was prone to sound degradation during copy, and media aging) or buying a legit copy of the medium with the best possible song. That is, people who wanted good quality music bought the "officially sanctionned" medium it was imprinted on. Now that everybody can copy a file a million times without any quality loss other than the one possibly introduced during sampling, who's to stop people from copying things for free? only two thing: people's sense of morality ("I don't want to steal from artists") and people's fear of the law ("I don't want to be caught with illegal copies on my hard disk"). That's hardly the basis of a healthy business model.

The one-music==one-media confusion that is the basis of the **AA's business model is dead. In reality, record companies sell plastic disks, not music, and people don't need plastic disks anymore, so record companies are now obsolete. If they want to stay alive with their obsolete business model, they have to:

- appeal to people's morality: not likely to generate revenues long-term
- DRM-protect their music: easily circumvented as shown numerous times
- DRM-protect hardware: easily circumvented regardless of the hardware, simply by playing and re-recording the music
- push for harder copyright laws: circumvented by the sheer mass of file-sharers, which effectively means that an individual file-sharer has a next-to-null chance of getting caught

*or*... they could disappear and music bands could turn back into what they once were: live performers, who were paid to play music on a stage.

So in short: Peter Jenner is wrong. Nobody will turn to X, Y or Z licensing scheme. Eventually, people will share music for free, simply because that is the logical technical and legal way it must be, and they will pay musicians directly to give them what no amount of digital files can give them: live performances.

Re:Paying for music is dead (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724085)

Jenner is wrong about DRM being dead... because DRM is not about controlling the distribution of music and video.

You can only control data by controlling the applications that run. DRM is about the centralized development of software, and about forcing people to only run that software to access certain pieces of data. That's DRM is a nutshell.

Once you understand that, you understand why DRM is not dead, and will not die just because a bunch of record/movie companies finally get a clue. The technology companies like Intel, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Apple and Sun all *want DRM very badly* because it puts them in control. Remember: the DIGITAL in DRM doesn't just refer to music and video -- it's anything. Images, emails, word processing documents, spreadsheets... software itself is just digital data as far as an operating system is concerned (remember that when you think of Microsoft and DRM).

DRM is way past being about music and video. It's an unholy alliance between the pigopolists in the record and movie industry and the technology companies greedy to make themselves controllers of the digital world.

P.S. Absolutely *everything* that Intel has done in the last ten years has been driven by the desire to implement a pan-DRM regime -- and especially to bring a controlled locked-down environment to the PC world.

Re:Paying for music is dead (1)

greylion3 (555507) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724119)

I basically agree with you, but there could be one more perk to being a musician:
Some people might be big enough of a fan of [some musician] to donate money directly to that musician, either generally for enjoying his/her music, or for some specific purpose; if the musician needs money for an operation, or to replace all his/her stuff if his/her house burned down, and so forth.

Stealing? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724149)

"people's sense of morality ("I don't want to steal from artists") "

This is about possible copyright infringement, not theft. Morality about stealing is hardly relevant. Not any more so than mentioning that people don't want to rape the artists.

Re:Stealing? (1)

nem75 (952737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724223)

This is about possible copyright infringement, not theft. Morality about stealing is hardly relevant.

If only that were true. Sadly the industries involved, ignoring all legal facts and defintions, have always been trying hard to suggest that in fact it IS about theft. Probably because they are fully aware that it's hard to influence people's consciences with talk about mere "copyright infringement". It just doesn't have the desired effect because people realize that - compared to other illegal activities - copyright infringements are rather harmless offences (as long as not commited on a really, really large scale).

Therefore, sadly, since people inevitably get influenced by biased industry campaigns and superficial press coverage, morality about stealing is definitely relevant in this context.

Re:Stealing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724309)

people don't want to rape the artists.

      Depends on the artist...

Re:Paying for music is dead (1)

AlzaF (963971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724153)

I believe a lot of major artists are rely on touring to make money rather than record sales. Maybe in the future artists will provide free tracks of their music to promote these tours.

Re:Paying for music is dead (2, Insightful)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724539)

That sounds like a banal world where only 'big stadium rock' bands can survive.

Sorry. I can do without the bombast, I don't want to listen to music from the grandstands.

Re:Paying for music is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724247)

Interesting point of view. What if we were to apply the same logic to software - would you say "paying for software" is dead too?

Re:Paying for music is dead (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724251)

Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.

You're pretty wrong. It's not losslessness that caused piracy. It's the fact that pirated music has less restrictions, is more convenient, and is (sounds odd but) is cheaper.

Using pirated music costs you: you can be sued, and you gotta use questionable service full of porn, scam ads and trojans. Not every price has a dollar value.

If official labels would offer cheap legal downloads of unencumbered formats, people would flock to it, allofmp3 was a good example of this.

So perfect digital copies changes only one thing: no more articial scarcity. You either play with open cards, or piracy replaces you.

Re:Paying for music is dead (2, Insightful)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724297)

In reality, record companies sell plastic disks, not music, and people don't need plastic disks anymore, so record companies are now obsolete.

The previous role of the record company was more than "sell plastic disks". The record companies were the only entities that were capable of recording music, distribute the record and market it. Now, with the development and widespread adoption and use of computers and communication networks the role that the record company once played simply became obsolete. Now everyone can afford the tools necessary to record a song and can even do it in the comfort of their room, everyone can easily distribute an album worldwide with a simple click of a button and the marketing machine that the record companies had simply doesn't work as well as it once did. To put it shortly, the record companies simply aren't needed anymore. If you ask me, that change is more than welcomed. It's progress.

Re:Paying for music is dead (2, Insightful)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724463)

That's nonsense.

First of all, it's wrong if only because this would imply the similar death of the video gaming industry, which is not going to happen.

But to address what you say: there are a lot more things out there that are held in check merely by "morality and fear of the law" but you don't see society crumbling because of it.

Secondly, people DO want plastic disks. It might be easy for YOU to go online and get the music you want, but even in the absence of worrying about getting caught, much of the population has no idea how to find the music they want. It's much easier to go on iTunes or go to the store. And if someone does make something that's easy enough for 75% of the population, existing copyright laws will be able to control it to the industry's satisfaction. Look at YouTube for an example. The problem right now is that the copyright laws are more than enough for controlling the situation.

Secondly, record companies also do a lot more than control how plastic disks are created and distributed: they also make those disks VISIBLE - they're the gatekeepers of quality of music. Whenever you have media, you always have to have gatekeepers of quality that scale to the size of the industry. Even if all the record companies went bankrupt right now, and everyone went digital, you'd see the same the same pattern occuring: groups making money off of affiliating themselves with the best artists.

Even when musicians were live performers, people paid for copies of the composer's work to play on the piano at home. Nowadays, most musicians are live performers and composers rolled into one - which even counts groups like The Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears if you look at those groups as aggregates - Britney Spears doesn't write her own music, but the Britney Team has people who write it just for her. So people are going to pay for music for the foreseeable future at least. That's not even including those people who are going to purchase physical copies for the purpose of supporting the artist directly.

What the internet is going to do is make the entire process transparent - like Jenner says, you can get as much information about the artist as you want: blogs, live recordings, outtakes, etc. You're also going to get bands that are truly breakthrough artists, but aren't "commerical" enough for the majors that can now cause a buzz online instead. But even then, they are going to be affiliated with at least a small record company. Even if it's just the band and their friends under a label they started, it still lends credence to that band and makes tours easier to book and critics more amiable to reviewing your record. Record labels aren't going anywhere - but what I think IS going to change is that they'll stop being 4 mega-conglomerates and become more decentralized. You're already seeing this, but the majors are still maintaining control of the smaller groups. I think you're going to see a loss in this kind of control. I would also like to see a movement towards artist control of copyright.

There is a kernel of truth in what you say, however: the majority of a band's income comes from live performances.

This chap is way off mark (1)

bitkari (195639) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723885)

A blanket licensing system won't work.

It's merely a last-ditch effort by media companies to hold on to their existing business model as much as possible. What Mr Jenner is assuming in this interview is that collection organisations such as PRS and MCPS could have their reach extended further by encompassing not just broadcasters, performance venues, or regular retail, but every citizen that just *might* be using content that the media companies have acquired copyright for.

What Jenner is failing to realise here is that these collection oligarchies are rapidly becoming outmoded. Artists beginning to realise that these mechanisms which collect and distribute money are incredibly unfair, favouring only the larger artists, or at least the ones with the better-negotiated contract. To assume that a panicked extension on the remit of collection organisations would run as the BBC television license is laughable. The BBC is only able to exist on a strong public-service remit - allowing record companies their own secondary taxation would not work with an already jaded public.

Many artists, and smaller labels are realising that the old systems are not the only way to get their music to the public, and to make a living from doing what they love. If Sony BMG, Warner, EMI and Universal wish to continue to sell music, they really need to rethink the way in which they do business.

[Please insert your own ocean liner feng shui metaphor here]

Major Label Blues (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724055)

Well put. Keep in mind that those labels used to try to sign bands based on the idea of exposure. The angle was always that they "knew the music business" and could arrange shows, provide space on store shelves for their records/tapes/CD's, and in general make the band more money. But what we're seeing now is a situation in which those labels are less and less capable of trapping new talent, because the bands themselves realize how little added value the old channels offer over self-promotion. Who wants space on a store shelf when traditional music stores are dying all around us? Just ask the latest victim, Tower Records. [csun.edu] Hell, ask the record store owner I knew in indie rock hotbed, Chapel Hill, who one day confided in me that if he didn't run an eBay store on the side, he would be out of business.

Depending on the band's budget, direct-to-consumer marketing can be as simple as a band web page with PayPal buttons on it for downloading DRM-free mp3s, or it can consist of television or radio advertising, or anything else you can imagine. If you're a new, unproven band, and you have a good idea of what you're trying to accomplish coupled with the discipline to keep your overhead low, then you really don't need the "help" of a Sony BMG, an Atlantic or a Warner.

Re:Major Label Blues (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724151)

Plus there is alwasy this:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204439&cid=167 01949 [slashdot.org]

I think there might be some interesting possibilities in the answers to that question which now one seemed to want to try answer...

Q: What would happen if the big tech compamies started funding the production of copyleft music and movies and the like?

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954 [ourmedia.org]
'Sayings', a novel in progress for the current nanowrimo.org competition.
It is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
Go to town...

Re:Major Label Blues (1)

Gryffyx (956233) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724339)

"If he didn't run an eBay store on the side, he'd be out of business."
It sounds like your store friend thinks this (eBay marketing) is a bad thing. At least he had the good sense to use the new tools to sell and stay in business. Now, instead of complaining that the business model changed, he should be talking about how it's opened up whole new markets and embrace them with open arms.
Oh...wait. That complaining attitude sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before?

-1 Offtopic, Troll (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724383)

You just focused on something that has nothing at all to to with what the grown-ups are talking about, son.

Oh...wait. That complaining attitude sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before?


Nobody knows what this is supposed to mean. I don't know where you've "heard a complaining attitude before" but it probably has nothing at all to do with the discussion. Your last post was 9 months ago, and this is what you've got for us? You lose, please accept these lovely parting gifts.

DRM Is Dead - Was it EVER alive ? (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723907)

only big label companies and their sponsored software developers believed to be so, maybe, for a short while.

It was stupid right from the start - digital environment, internet is a free medium. freedom is its nature and its result. monopoly, impending 100-year old control schemes for distribution of intellectual property was a 'clueless' idea at best, if not stupid.

Given the big label company ceos, execs are now of a generation that is in their 60-70s, it is no surprise that they have misjudged that we were still in 1950s.

Gramps, you are of a dying generation. you are passing away.

then, instead of trying to screw your label and your shareholders with dinosaur-worthy 'measures', embrace the new digital/internet revolution and leave a good name behind.

or, leave your chairs to younger ones, who are actually able to understand the contemporary times and participate in it.

Re:DRM Is Dead - Was it EVER alive ? (2)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724027)

internet is a free medium. freedom is its nature

Not for long. Trusted Computing initiatives, hardware lock-on and pervasive DRM beside worldwide spreading legislation will soon put an end to that. The internet is being commercialized, bought and sold even as we're writing.

Gramps, you are of a dying generation. you are passing away.

Typical "I'm young and smarter than you" losing attitude. While the CEOs may be well over their 60s, many music industry executives are quite young.

leave your chairs to younger ones, who are actually able to understand the contemporary times and participate in it.

When this will finally happen, your "rights online" will be dead. The younger execs understand the contemporary times but their bottom line is to make money and with their better understanding of tech, they'll be able to address the issues at hand in a far more aggressive way.

Your "freedom" on the internet will soon be gone. Deal with it, because there's nothing you can do.

As some with some insight in copyright industry... (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723945)

...I would I believe him. For me, this interview is very informative, thank you very much :)

He's not qualified in the least (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723947)

From the article:

Few people know the music industry better than Peter Jenner. Pink Floyd's first manager, who subsequently managed Syd Barrett's solo career, Jenner has also looked after T.Rex, The Clash, Ian Dury, Disposable Heroes and Billy Bragg - who he manages today. He's also secretary general of the International Music Managers Forum.


That's great! He sounds like a really fascinating, well-weathered guy who has had a hand in promoting and advertising musicians. I'm sure he has a lot of really cool stories to tell about his experiences as a manager. But has that experience working in a music culture so dramatically different from the present day one given him the ability to intuit anything about DRM, about evolving content delivery systems, about much of anything outside of managing bands? Of course it hasn't. I'd rather hear the opinion of someone who is actually involved in the online music distribution business, someone like...hell, Steve Jobs, as opposed to an aging, disgruntled outsider who has been commissioned to tell us what we want to hear.

Perhaps that's why the only thing he gives us in the interview is sloganeering, platitudes, and empty insights that most of us who have been paying attention are already wise to. DRM is already dying. You don't need to drag out the old Pink Floyd manager and have him give a curse word-laced statement to that effect.

DRM is Dead!? (1)

Ross D Anderson (1020653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16723999)

My heart stopped for a second there, you shouldn't tease!

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724025)

"Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system"

Why would I want to participate in the Slashdot moderation system?

Labels' Attitude and Understanding (4, Interesting)

gilgongo (57446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724029)

I went to school with somebody who later became the MD of Sony Music UK. I met him at a mutual friend's new year's party a couple of years ago and we got talking about how he signed Travis, and bout new bands, and the rise of this Internet thing.

I have a great deal of interest in the copyfight, and earlier that year had attended one of RMS's talks, was reading Laurence Lessig, et. al. Naturally, I wanted to know what he thought of all that stuff. As head of one of the most powerful A&R operations on earth, I assumed he would definitely have an opinion.

But he seemed either completely ignorant of the issues, or completely unconcerned. He said something about how their lawyers are "doing something about it" but other than that had no interest. What about copying music? "Oh, we'll sort that out I'm sure." What about the role of the publisher as gatekeeper to new talent? "Er, what about it? We put a lot of investment into choosing acts that will do well. And they do do well."

Something about rabbits and headlights came to mind, so I asked him about where he went on holiday that year (France, it was really nice, you really *must* visit the Dordogne...)

Re:Labels' Attitude and Understanding (1)

The Cydonian (603441) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724271)

Seems to me from your narration that your friend in Sony Music was just trying to be polite, and not take a stance in a dinner party. :-)

ASACP? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724035)

It sounds like a mix of the license fees that retail establishments / bars / etc pay to play music combined with radio.

You could play a flat monthly fee and listen to what you want, the various artists get paid based on what you decide to stream. If enough music was available that way it certainly would be a seismic shift in the way music is bought and sold - not just for iTunes and recored stores; but for services such as satelitte radio and cell phone providers that want to sell you music. If you could pay a flat fee and listen to what you want where you want they would add no value. The one challenge is how do you allow playing away from a streaming signal - perhaps you allow a limited amount of music to be recorded and played at will - sort of like the Blockbuster / Netflix send a DVD model.

Of course, in the end teh battle will be over money - todays and controlling the distribution to maintain a lock on future revenue.

Re:ASACP? (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724189)

"The one challenge is how do you allow playing away from a streaming signal - perhaps you allow a limited amount of music to be recorded and played at will - sort of like the Blockbuster / Netflix send a DVD model."

I think if you check the article again, he envisions that you can save any part of any stream you want. (Kind of implied in the thought that a person doesn't want to pay twice and also in the download=stream=download idea.)

all the best,

drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145 [ourmedia.org]
'Sayings' - a nanowrimo.org novel in progress
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license

Misleading (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724061)

Anyone else find the title for this story misleading? I was expecting it to be about some new legislation that was suddenly passed, or some sort of skeleton-crack or something. What it actually should have been was "Some Guy Thinks Music Labels Screwed, DRM Dead".

Definitions (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724063)

payola n, Illegal promotion of music where record companies pay radio stations to play their songs.

playlist n. Legal promotion of music where record companies pay promoters to pay radio stations to play their songs.

Re:Definitions (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724179)

"payola n, Illegal promotion of music where record companies pay radio stations to play their songs."

I've always wondered why this is illegal/scandalous. Ad agencies and companies pay stations to play commercials, so what is so different about someone paying them to play certain music?

Re:Definitions (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724337)

Great point. Are we supposed to believe that (just to make up typical asshat DJ names here) "DJ Walrus Gordon and the Wildman: Gordon in the Mornin'" are too dignified, too principled to shill for a product, in this case, a certain band's CD? Celebrities do it, so why do button-pushing banter monkeys object to it?

Re:Definitions (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724215)

Maybe you can explain this to me. Why is payola illegal? What's wrong with it? If record companies want to pay radio stations to play their songs, who cares?

Only themselves to blame. (1)

AlzaF (963971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724113)

I know record companies are unable to adapt to changing technology them but I do feel they are in part to blame for the mess they're in. If you look at the history of the big bands and solo artists, the record companies biggest earners, they had spent 3, 4 years, sometimes more touring, building up a loyal fanbase before they got a record deal. These bands/artists created great singles and more importantly great albums, which is where they and the record companies make the money. Even when the bands were having low points in their careers, money was still pouring in from back cataloges. Nowadays, the record companies manufacture bands and artists through hype and televison programmes. They release a few singles to hype up album sales. These artists have only a shelf life of two or three albums and they're dropped. The problem is that the people who like these artists are not interested in albums, they're interested in the songs. Who wants to spend £15 on an album when they can get the tracks for nothing? There are people who will pay for these downloads but again, they're interested in the song, not the artist and mostly likely won't buy any more of the artists songs. IMHO, the record companies would still have problem if the technology of illegal downloads did not exist. Like the film industry it is a convienant excuse for failed managerial decisions.

end of drm (1)

caddisfly (722422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724125)

old music guy says: "You've got to provide stuff that people can keep, and they don't mind paying you $3 a month for."
 
....and how does that work? oh yeah, you have to pay $3 a month *FOREVER* and you don't have a choice about paying it if you want music

unfortunately, this is "brit-think" like the TV Tax. Won't work in America - where taxes are a four-letter word.

Can you imagine americans paying a tax to watch TV? ho! ho!

now we *will* pay unlimited $$$ to watch/not watch cable trash, and then bitch about how much we pay the cable companies - that is the american capitalist way; we prefer our corporate handouts/guarantees not too closely or obviously linked to the government. it allows us to keep up the independent cowboy charade ;-)

Re:end of drm (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724173)

How many Americans have cable or satellite tv just out of interest?

Re:end of drm (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724219)

I've had it. For a very long time. The reason? I can't get TV stations unless I have cable. This applies to the big 3 networks as well.

Re:end of drm (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724259)

I dumped Time Warner cable for DirectTV. TWC doesn't have anyone in their billing department that can add, my bill was never the same two months in a row for 8 years, mostly a few pennies more each month. With DirectTV I get more tha twice the channels for $2 a month more than TWC's expanded pack.

As for DRM: I have downloaded songs, most of which I already own the CD for. I use these to rip CD's with my own mix of songs and artists. Kind of like the party tapes many of us put together in the 70's using reel to reel decks, record a varied mix of songs by many artists to play for parties. DRM says I have to download this music because after Sony's rootkit I will never put a store bought CD in any computer. Yes I still buy the 2 - 5 CD's year that I actually like. The record companies don't put out more than that worth listening to.

The record companies are going to have to change how they do things, or die. All the arguments about downloading I have heard before when another technology was supposed to be the death of the record companies: the cassette tape! Some of the complaints are word for word what was said in the early 70's! Look it up some of it is hilarious.

Re:end of drm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724201)

What would happen if software companies got into the music biz? Play a song for 30 days, then have to activate it? Ad-Words subliminally inserted into songs?
I think the real solution to this will come when they realize that music distribution is not a big truck, but a series of tubes, and somebody with 20 songs, gonna jam up them tubes, enormous amounts of material, etc.

Re:end of drm (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724239)

What would happen if software companies got into the music biz? Play a song for 30 days, then have to activate it?

      No, the initial song would either sound like crap, or refuse to play. Until you download the 50MB patch.

Re:end of drm (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724205)

You do however pay an indirect tax to watch TV. The government gets it's cut from the cable companies and distributors who charge you more because of the taxes.

Re:end of drm (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724439)

unfortunately, this is "brit-think" like the TV Tax.

It's a licence, not a tax, and a lot of people over here don't like it either. I actually don't mind; it's only about a tenner or so a month, and personally I think it's almost worth it for Dr Who, let alone the rest of the BBC's output.

Electronic distribution is the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724183)

I for one much prefer the "tyranny of the playlist" over having to get up every few minutes to change an LP or CD, and it's certainly easy enough to put together a different playlist if I wish.

Whenever there is a new recording or artist I'd like to check out, this is where I go:
1. eMusic
2. AllOfMp3
3. Bittorrent or other P2P

I'm willingly to pay a small fee to download good quality non-DRM music that I can play anywhere I want just for the convenience of being able to download it with no hassle. Unfortunately eMusic rarely has what I'm looking for, so I go to AllOfMp3 which almost has everything (and for a price cheap enough to download things even if I'm just browsing, and yes, I know the artists don't get anything). If all else fails, there's always the finding/downloading hassle of a P2P application or finding a used copy of an album on Amazon or eBay (fifteen to twenty dollars is a bit much for a new album).

Re:Electronic distribution is the future (1)

AlzaF (963971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724295)

True, as well as a new means of distributing music, there is also a new means of listening to music. The music industries bread and butter is album sales. Their traditional model is to sign artists to release singles to promote albums. The public are slowly moving away from albums and want to listen to music the way they want. I think the music industry needs to address this issue as well.

Re:Electronic distribution is the future (1)

ta ma de (851887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724379)

Oh, man thanks. eMusic is just what I have been looking for, though not with any real effort. I have been wanting a search by record label for a long time ... since the cdnow days. I'm huge music junky and I refuse to use P2P ... that crap isn't even worth stealing, Low bit rate Hillary Duff, it is hard to imagine life being much worse.

make better music (0, Flamebait)

maryjanecapri (597594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724199)

the music industry is dying because of one very good reason: it sucks. new bands are horrible and the old tried and true bands aren't putting out anything.

on top of it all - the RIAA has become nothing more than a bully.

Money is there but... (1)

octopus72 (936841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724221)

End of the line is that you will have to somehow persuade people to give their money for music. Right now that money is spent on other things as access to music is easy and cheap (even free). DRM doesn't help here.
So the money is now in concerts (live performances) prices of which did rise significantly in recent years.

Flat model? Maybe (like a tax we pay to state TV houses in some countries), but it isn't going to get many people rich and money will again be ripped by clever managers and all those intermediate rats.

No, I Won't Pay $3 a Month (2, Insightful)

zentec (204030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724255)

The music industry needs to get around the mindset that they are due a monthly stipend. That pricing system rewards mediocrity and lack of creativity, which is all to prevalent in what the music industry calls its product today. There is absolutely no way I will pay any money for a license to listen to music that I may already own or music I wish to own. The fact someone is willing to pay money for a product, whether it's $15 per CD or 99 cents per download is the incentive this industry needs to give the customer what they want, not what the music industry wants. It's been written here so many times before that the reason the industry has lackluster sales is because the product isn't what the customer wants and its delivery method doesn't suit the method the customer wants.

I can't think of too many "kids" who don't like iTunes. My kids and their friends eat up iTunes gift cards downloading the exact music they want without having to pay $15 for a CD that has one or maybe two songs they enjoy. Which heralds back to what I remember as a kid where I could run up to the local drug store, fork over a dollar and get a 45 with the exact music I wanted (yeah, I'm that old). That's what the music industry was built upon before it was turned into a cash machine that ate customer good-will. And that was before the advent of downloadable music; now the music industry is vilified to the point of no return in the eyes of its customers.

Brilliant! (1)

weteko (1022621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724313)

"[...]the network is keeping an eye on you to see you don't download any music. And if you do without a license, we'll sue the hell out of you" - from the article As opposed to how it is working right now? (someone keeping an eye on things and sueing) And how would this work in the great many parts of the world where music downloading is very much legal?

Copyright is dead for distribution purposes (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724315)

The fact is, you can't outrun supply and demand. Prices don't set S&D, S&D set prices. When the supply is near infinite, the price falls to zero, and there is nothing the State can do to control it. Imagine if they State charged for air.

This means that musicians and ALL artists will have to work just like everyone. They can create live (a show) for a fee. They can produce something unique (a jingle, or a painting) for a fee. They will have to do real jobs doing their thing if they want to make money.

This is a good thing. The free market is a great equalizer, giving power to those who want to continue creating rather than those who want to make-once-and-license. The free market makes sense: a plumber doesn't charge you per flush, he charges you to install the toilet, and then to fix it if it breaks. A musicians is like a plumber (I know, I produce a few of them); they should make their money touring and giving lessons and selling merchandise that is unique and not-easily duplicated (autographed copies makes sense).

DRM is very dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724319)

DRM is the posterchild of news outlets that rely on fearmongering to produce interest.

But in reality (in 21th century: news != reality) DRM is only a mild "protection". Just like any other copy protection.

It was never alive. There is no DRM that really works.

Music taxes no good solution either (2, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724351)

Let's say I pay a music tax -- how do the ISP in collaboration with the owner of the intellectual property then figure out who should get the money for something I downloaded? Assuming an "popularity/assumption model" is one of their ideas -- I do not want the income be split according to the popularity of artists, as that could give Madonna money for downloading from a far less common artist. And how is the fee adjusted to how much copyrighted music I'd download? Because it is, right, otherwise it's completely unfair.

excellent ... music will be free once more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724357)

to bad we let the corrupt and evil people poison our culture with thier excessive greed

somedays i'm so ashamed to be human

Intellectual Property Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16724385)

I think it is about time to reconsider patents and intellectual property rights. People complain about the Hollywood crowd and music industry because of how much money they make versus how much work they do but they can't put their finger on it. The real deal is those industries have to use the coersion of the government in order to maintain their market. Before recordings musicians made money like everyone else they had to go do work, ie perform in concert for paying guests. Before movies actors had to perform in theater. They had to play for limited audiences which limited their income. With the invention of recordings and using the force of government they can now perform for limitless audiences while not even being there.

I think this has finally come to an end. Artists will once again have to survive by performing for audiences.

A similar thing exists in my field engineering. A firm can pay me to build a machine for them which I will do. If they want to know all of the information to build additional machines they can either pay me additional for the design or if my price is too high they can reverse engineer it.

This guy is almost as out of touch as... (1)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16724393)

the average poster on Slashdot. Peter Janner please meet the iTunes Music Store, iTMS, please meet out of touch guy.

The majority of people have no issue with DRM as long as it doesn't seriously inconvenience them in day to day use. The record companies aren't going away as they control the means to shelf space, both at retail and even on the Internet. There simply aren't enough venues to support every band out there, the whole idea that every band will make it's living off live performances is laughable if you actually know anything about the music business.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>