worlds collide?
i was reading this blog post this morning, which talks about the potential strengths that subscription-based music services have over ‘piecemeal’ song collection for a lot of people, and in the comments people talk about how two big downsides of subscription services are that the artist doesn’t get money directly and you don’t get to keep the music (so if the site goes down for some reason and you’ve invested hundreds of dollars over the years, you’re left SOL with only the sounds of silence (in non-musical form, of course)).
so first off, i wonder why the artist can’t get money directly – they can keep track of what people download, right? can’t they apportion the money relative to popularity? i thought they did that already anyway…
what i really wonder, however, is about something more like a rent-to-own service.
say you pay $30/month or whatever for your subscription service, but then in addition to your unlimited downloading rights you get a certain number of vouchers for “permanent” downloads. i don’t know how many you would really get. 5? 10? whatever, this is just hypothetical right now.
so you get these vouchers every month and they roll over like bonus points in a book club or something, and you can use them at any time to get your favorite songs in some more permanent (and potentially higher-quality) form.
so you get the benefits of the versatility and openness of the subscription service but you also get the chance to build up a library of the songs you actually listen to in case you have to go underground for a while. because this is the other point everyone makes – sure, it’s Nice to be able to access everything, but when it comes down to what you really Need, it’s not so much for most people. so a fraction of what you download every month would probably be sufficient over time. it would take a while to build up, but that would be something the companies would like because it would reward loyalty.
and it would take care of the whole paying the artists directly bit, too.
shrug
how bout it?
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Doesn’t sound too bad to me, although I still have issues with CD or service models that funnel money into RIAA. (which means all my cd purchases generally fall into the following categories: 1. CDs from independant labels 2. Used CDs 3. Extremely heavily discounted CDs)
Personally I think that the model might hold up better for television and movies. We seem to be reaching a point where there’s more affordable video content available than any one person really has the money to purchase. Unlike music, though, video usually comes in much longer segments (i.e.: it’s a lot more of an time investment to watch a 40 minute TV show than it is to listen to a 3 minute song). Partly for that reason I think fewer people really feel the “need” to watch things multiple times — there are a few movies/tv episodes that might be worth going back and watching later, but for the most part the time investment is large enough that many people would rather see something new.
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Now go explain that to the record companies. I don’t understand why there can’t just be an approved of database that would function as an online record store, selling music per download for whatever the appropriate percentage might be. Nice and straight forward for the ‘suits’ and laypeople (meaning me). There will always be warez and illegal p2p usage (and people who just plain share) obviously so maybe they’re still dragging their feet because of that, or ignorance relating to that. Am I the only one old enough to recall the scandal over recordable cassette tapes? Limiting online music to taste testing (with grandiose advertisement campaigns) only encourages bad behavior and wastes time that could be used to implement the technology to make money. And everyone likes that.
And yes, I know I said I’d stop commenting. I held out for something like three whole posts. Three active, alluring posts.
December 2nd, 2005 at 6:55 pm
i never told you to stop commenting. that was all self-censorship. i just said you should consider being more upfront with the whole identity business. what you conclude after such considerations is up to you.
you should perhaps compromise and call yourself something else so that witty and/or unwitting bystanders do not continue to put words in your mouth, but whatever floats your boat.
that said, ending your apology for returning by calling my posts “alluring” and using an IP address in Amsterdam… those get ya stalker points, buddy. 4 outta 5 random people i made up in my head agree on that one (and the 5th one is just there to make it sound like i’m not bribing my experts).
flattery and serial anonymity do not good partners make.
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:53 pm
You noted my IP address? Now who’s creepy and sardonic? Seriously, why can’t I just comment without having to introduce myself? And when I said that the subject was ‘alluring’ I was implying that it tempted me to comment. Didn’t mean for it to be a red-flag word, or even flattering really. But anyway, yeah, hey, I’m… Ted, no! Bill from… uh, West Virginia and I peruse Planet Info (and other blogs unrelated to UI) because I’m all about information science and have neither the interest nor affiliation to trouble myself with a public or semi-public forum. But now I feel embarrassed and even worse that I’m inhibiting your blog so I’ll just keep my distance and observe like a little girl outside a Yeshiva. I’ve trespassed all over Kabbalat Shabbat (good thing I’m not Jewish) anyway so I’ll leave you and passersby to mull over the dynamics of contextual online identity. Sorry for the distraction.
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:39 pm
i didn’t intend to embarrass you.
seriously.
you are more than welcome to comment without identifying yourself, and i tried to make that abundantly clear.
the only reason that i challenged you in the first place was because you commented not on the content of my posts, but on my appearance in a photograph, which i still contend is a bit of a strange choice for someone who is choosing to remain anonymous and claiming to be interested only in intellectual discussions. but whatever, you were right, the old picture did look like a voodoo head, and i know it’s hard to make conversation with new people, so that’s easily water under the bridge. i was even careful not to direct my rant at you. i was just blogging about what was on my mind. the matter only came up again because you yourself chose to comment on the fact that you hadn’t meant to come back despite being tempted, and i resent that you act like it was ridiculous that i raised an eyebrow at your choice of words. you are choosing to remain anonymous in a space that is known for manipulation, my friend. i will trust you as far as i can (and i don’t mean to sound egotistical here, but i still haven’t censored you, even as you bitch me out), but getting prissy because i dare to question your intentions is just not cool. if all you had done was lurk and talk about IS, there would never have been any issue at all with your presence, so you can’t really play that card, and i don’t appreciate the righteous tone.
now that we have that out of our systems, if you want to come back and post without reference to this conversation, please be my (ahem) guest.
this conversation, however, is now over.
(note: this comment has been edited slightly from it’s original version. in some ways it is nicer and in some ways it is not. i realized that i was angrier about all this than i wanted to be, and this is a fuller statement of what i’m thinking so i figured it was worth editing a bit. if you wonder what it used to say, tant pis! another reason to check back regularly and eat your veggies. or at least to check back regularly. veggies are just good for you.)
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:40 pm
oh yeah, and tim?
why would the money have to be funnelled into the RIAA? why couldn’t it take a more direct path to the artist?