The Future of Music: mobile, social... paid?
by Gerd Leonhard on Jun 11, 2010
- 4,761 views
The pdf from my presentation at the CMC Dublin, June 11, 2010 see http://www.cmc.ie/future-of-music/, on the topic of The Future of Music: from copy to access, from protecting to engaging, from closed ...
The pdf from my presentation at the CMC Dublin, June 11, 2010 see http://www.cmc.ie/future-of-music/, on the topic of The Future of Music: from copy to access, from protecting to engaging, from closed to open, from proprietary to public license. Also be sure to read www.musicfutures.com
Accessibility
Categories
Tags
More...Upload Details
Uploaded via SlideShare as Adobe PDF
Usage Rights
Statistics
- Favorites
- 8
- Downloads
- 153
- Comments
- 2
- Embed Views
- Views on SlideShare
- 4,243
- Total Views
- 4,761
Juan Varela
Here are a few examples:
1) music licensing can be standardized and its cost can be shifted to the users.
Well, laws are very complex, some say unnecessarily so; taxation can be simplified -- but it is not, and there are good reasons for that. Same with music licensing and copyrights. They are complex b/c music creation and distribution involves many stakeholders whose interest have to be represented and protected. Add to this an international dimension, and it will be obvious that one blanket model will never fit all these players -- it is impossible! Besides, who is going to administer such worldwide model, United Nations?
People consume music at different rates and for different reasons. One flat rate might work in one segment of the industry, but the entire industry, worldwide, for all types of users? Never. Consider for example the needs of a public library in, say, NYC, and a school in New Delhi. Who is going to pay for their patrons' access to music? At what rate? Or, would such public users be excluded from that model? Who else would have to be excluded? Or -- turning the issue around -- would one be required to pay for access from a private computer in addition to a public library's computer, in addition to a mobile radio, in addition to a work station, etc. Will US-based users have to compensate users in less-fortunate countries? Who is going to determine the 'going' rates, ISPs?
2) Access to music, including multiple access from different devices and from different ISPs can be funded by advertisers, brands, etc. Online advertising was to gross $54B (in 2009).
First, the billions include ALL online advertising. The majority of which is in adult content and gambling, information, finance, and electronics. Music and music related products commend a tiny fraction of the total. In addition, only a few years back marketing experts predicted that by 2011 internet ad spending would generate $106B. Now the forecast has been lowered to about $60B. In other words, the $54 billions quoted by Gerd is a disappointment not a bonanza. Online advertising does not grow fast enough to cover the cost of digital content. Not to mention that advertising is not 'additional money;' it is cost -- the ad money comes from customers who already paid premium prices for certain goods. And as any cost, it has its reasonable limits. Customers are not going to pay twice as much for a gallon of orange juices to get 'free' music and then 'free' movies (why not? If music should be paid by ads why not movies? ) then 'free' books and magazines, etc. Consumers might pay for more juice but not all the content that wants to be 'free'. And by the same token, marketers are not going to spend 50 cents (they got from selling overpriced juice) on a song. Especially if today's music lovers do not want to pay even half of it. The idea that music can be entirely funded by commercials is ridiculous.
3) If 900 million people could generate only 10 GBP per year/per person, 9B GBP would be available for paying artists.
Wow! And, if 6 billion people could send me only $1, only once in their lifetime, I would be a billionaire.... What is this? Some futurist methodology or magical thinking (or both)? How about those ISPs and telecoms. Would they work for free now, no revenue sharing, no costs to cover? All revenues go to artists? Does anyone realize that telecoms take up to 55% of the revenues generated by third party's content? Which means that the typical 99 cent price of a song would have to be either $1.55 or the music owner could get only 45 cents. With lower per-song prices, the royalties would have to be even lower. Is this the promised land?
Then how about the notion of 'artists' for whom the 9 billions would be available? Which artists, exactly, all of them, at an equal rate, regardless of their talent, experience and popularity? Who would determine who get what? Who would monitor and administer that system, also ISPs? If I were Lady GaGa, I would say, Take your hands off my money.
Then, what about ITunes, Amazon and hundreds of others who have paid for the licenses and built multi-billion dollar businesses anyway. Should they be dismantled? Let to become bankrupt? Will they ever sit and watch as ISPs and telecoms together with the author of this slide presentation implement the new order?
Well, these are only a few examples of wishful thinking and complete disregard for anything that might make it look like wishful thinking. But like with all foretelling, one can take it seriously or not. 1 year ago Reply