Unabated P2P, and the destruction of the CD

[killswitch1968]

I made a post about CD sales and P2P, and the general concensus is that P2P seems to hurt CD sales (why else does the RIAA hate it so much?) This post will not try to prove this claim, but merely use it as an assumption to determine the long term result of unencumbered P2P sharing, no lawsuits, no RIAA.

Currently people buy CDs because:
1. Ignorance of P2P
2. Convenience of buying a CD rather then hunting for songs
3. Audiophiles who want the exact copy
4. The extras on a CD, including the jacket, lyrics, and media.
5. Desire to support the artist
6. The warm and fuzzy feeling of owning an authentic copy
7. Status symbol, much as with people who buy expensive brand name clothes.

We can imagine that as P2P gets more and more popular, so does its technology. We have already seen this with swarming downloads, decentralized sharing, improved audio quality, etc. It will become easier to get songs from an album. Additionally, and what is already becoming apparent, the mp3 files themselves will contain both the lyrics and CD jacket jpgs within them. This enables users to print out the jackets, and even today we are able to print DIRECTLY on a CD (no stickers) for around $200 USD.
With all these factors, 'people groups' #1, #2, #3, and #4 will be effectively eliminated. Group 5 might stop buying CDs but offer donations and buy merchandise to their bands.

That leaves group 6 and 7 still buying CDs, is this enough to support the billion dollar music industry? They seem to represent a tiny fraction of the initial 'people pie', so I do not believe so.
So let's assume CD sales begin to decline, the meat and potatos of the music industry. As P2P continues major labels go bankrupt, and musicians are free of contractual obligations.

Does the death of the music industry bring on the destruction of music? In Asia today, music piracy is rampant. Who was the last big asian star you heard of? But does this mean asians don't make music? NO. It only means that 'artists' driven by profit motive cannot exist, and the 'true artists' aren't getting any coverage.
Now imagine this on a global setting, with no labels pulling the strings of radio stations or governments. There is simply no money to be made in making music. The only musicians around will play for one reason, they love making music. Of course some people will still need expensive studios. Where does this money come from? Like many open source/freeware programs, users can offer donations, which would more then compensate the cost. The only music available in this society will be made by true artists who love their art, the true formula of making quality music.

tl;dr On a long enough timeline P2P will topple labels. Music will no longer be a profitable business, if a business at all. The only musicians around will be making music because they love music, the only motive that makes good music in the first place. No megastars. No music videos. No MTV. In essence: MUSIC UTOPIA.
God Bless P2P

[Lamourlady]

killswitch, u must know by now that this is one of my more fav topics...seems to be yours as well...lol.

So let's assume CD sales begin to decline, the meat and potatos of the music industry.

i wouldn't say that cd sales were the "meat & potatoes" of the music industry. i believe in the thousands of articles i've read over the last few years, the money to be made is really from merchandising and live concerts. only a handful of very successful artists actually financially "power" the industry from actual cd sales, kind of covering any losses by less popular & financially unstable artists on the labels.

As P2P continues major labels go bankrupt, and musicians are free of contractual obligations.

i would like to see some proof that p2p is what is causing any major labels to go bankrupt. let's take into consideration the economic times, recent war, and lack of jobs, major disease, ecological disasters...all affecting our world in drastic measures. everyone is hurt by these things and the music industry is not immune.

Does the death of the music industry bring on the destruction of music?

i hardly think so.

On a long enough timeline P2P will topple labels. Music will no longer be a profitable business, if a business at all.

i disagree. it will be the artist who will ultimately decide if the lables will remain a major player in the music business...but let's not even think that music will not be in the profit-making business.....it will always make a profit......even though the p2p community is a large one.......there r still many more people in the world who do buy cds.....as u point out in your post...many more.

The only musicians around will be making music because they love music, the only motive that makes good music in the first place. No megastars. No music videos. No MTV. In essence: MUSIC UTOPIA.

nice dream, but unrealistic, by any standards. everyone needs/wants to make money, even those who do it because they love it. and u can't blame them. and the visual side of the music today......well, let's just say i don't think it is going anywhere either....hey.....we want our MTV. lol. ;)

God Bless P2P

yes......i will concur on this one point.

good posts u got there, nevertheless, killswitch.....u mos def get people thinking. and this is a good thing!

LL ;)

[killswitch1968]

Originally posted by Lamourlady

i wouldn't say that cd sales were the "meat & potatoes" of the music industry. i believe in the thousands of articles i've read over the last few years, the money to be made is really from merchandising and live concerts.

Got a reference? But anyways, a moot point. This post makes a big assumption that P2P will kill the music industry. Whether or not this is true, it's just an assumption.

i would like to see some proof that p2p is what is causing any major labels to go bankrupt.

This was just an assumption, let's just assume, for arguments sake, the cynics are right. P2P decreases CD sales. Is this really a bad thing for artists in the long run?

Thanks for the kind words LamourLady. ZP seems more like a place to gangbang the RIAA whilst giving high fives to your fellow supporters in a virtual lockroom. I'd like to stimulate some real discussions and pose interesting questions. Thanks for reading.

nice dream, but unrealistic, by any standards. everyone needs/wants to make money, even those who do it because they love it. and u can't blame them.

I guess this is my largest disagreement. Everyone wants to make money, but they don't need to whore their art to do it. And I certainly CAN blame people who are commodifying their music. I personally find this heinous debacle all too common in the current system. I think you find the best artists are the one's who just want to make music. Money is a plus not a carrot.

But anyways, that's not the point of this post. The big question is:
If we assume that P2P will kill the music industry, will this new musically environment based on free sharing be better/worse than the previous system?
I obviously say yes. Keep in mind when you post you'll have to consider artists will still need to pay for production costs, which can get expensive, especially if you need orchestras/professional musicians. Also keep in mind artists need start-up money for tours, which has previously been supplied by labels.

[beardedwonder]

If the music industry were to 'dissappear' which, IMHO wont happen, i think that music would suffer. As you said what with production costs mixing etc. etc. some artists would not be able to produce the music they wanted. This could cause a couple of things:

Music becoming very crappy.
Only wealthy people able to produce mixed etc. music.
Higher concert ticket prices
More merchandising
More sponsoring
MTV becoming even worse (<is this possible?)

Looking kind of bleak to me.

[notbob]

Originally posted by beardedwonder
Music becoming very crappy.
Only wealthy people able to produce mixed etc. music.
Higher concert ticket prices
More merchandising
More sponsoring
MTV becoming even worse (<is this possible?)

Looking kind of bleak to me.

were you trying to be ironic?

these things all started happening LONG before file sharing

look around you for god's sake

[Lamourlady]

Originally posted by killswitch1968
Got a reference?

well, one from a forum of great peeps. i usually save these articles, but when i upgraded to XP, i lost all of my "favorites".
but, as i have been doing, u could as well, do a search on the topic, if u really need references.

Behind The Grammys, Turmoil
(well worth the read)

By NEIL STRAUSS, NYT

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 24,

link

So, if you're Sony, and you're paying for the lifestyles of longtime stars like Michael Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, Bob Dylan and scores more in this extremely cost-ineffective industry, you may be grossing $4.6 billion a year, but only about 5 percent of your artists are considered successful. And not only is it more expensive to market these artists, but you need their profits to pay for the failures of all those other bands.

Originally posted by killswitch1968
This was just an assumption, let's just assume, for arguments sake, the cynics are right. P2P decreases CD sales. Is this really a bad thing for artists in the long run?

here is an excellent article on the views of the artist and how they see the whole picture.

link

Record companies see it as mutiny. Musicians call it an overdue rebellion. Either way, the artists' rights movement has set the stage for combat that could revolutionize the music industry.

The drumbeat of war has been building in recent years as artists wrestle for self-empowerment and vow to amend a system that let soul greats Otis Blackwell, Jackie Wilson and Mary Wells die destitute. Before she died, Peggy Lee was part of a class-action settlement that won unpaid
royalties. Courtney Love filed suit to break her Geffen contract. Prince fled the corporate structure and pitched camp on the
Internet, where he sells directly to fans. Tom Petty's upcoming album, The Last D.J., slams industry greed.

Like all other corporations, the music industry has gotten greedier," Henley says. "It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight."

Originally posted by killswitch1968
Thanks for the kind words LamourLady. ZP seems more like a place to gangbang the RIAA whilst giving high fives to your fellow supporters in a virtual lockroom. I'd like to stimulate some real discussions and pose interesting questions. Thanks for reading.

not a problem, like i said, it's a topic i enjoy debating and discussing. as for "gang-banging the RIAA"....hmmmmm...nah!

Originally posted by killswitch1968
I guess this is my largest disagreement. Everyone wants to make money, but they don't need to whore their art to do it. And I certainly CAN blame people who are commodifying their music. I personally find this heinous debacle all too common in the current system. I think you find the best artists are the one's who just want to make music. Money is a plus not a carrot.

interesting perspective. i honestly believe, no matter what a person's reasons for doing anything are, if they deserve to be paid, they deserve to be paid, even if u feel they are "whoring" their art.

Originally posted by killswitch1968
But anyways, that's not the point of this post. The big question is:

If we assume that P2P will kill the music industry, will this new musically environment based on free sharing be better/worse than the previous system?
I obviously say yes. Keep in mind when you post you'll have to consider artists will still need to pay for production costs, which can get expensive, especially if you need orchestras/professional musicians. Also keep in mind artists need start-up money for tours, which has previously been supplied by labels. [/B]

u r right. the costs will have to come from some where. and that will be the up & coming questions, i'm sure.
guess we'll be seeing some "weening" from the industry, in more ways than one. ;)

[beardedwonder]

Originally posted by notbob
were you trying to be ironic?

these things all started happening LONG before file sharing

look around you for god's sake

Well if it's already like that, imagine what it'll be like if the record industry collapses.

[tons of fun]

Great thread!!!

:fire

[notbob]

Originally posted by beardedwonder
Well if it's already like that, imagine what it'll be like if the record industry collapses.

years ago there were hundreds of record labels, all independent, serving independently owned radio stations. there was diversity and it was good.

today there are 5 major labels (which have engulfed the old labels, and one company (clear channel) in charge of a huge percentage of radio and concert outlets.

this hexopoly is connected integrally to the RIAA

as it stands now, the RIAA backed industry is a non diverse cesspool of sameness. what p2p stands for is a new rise of independent labels and independent acts--if the RIAA loses its foothold on the music industry, the smaller guys have a shot at competition, and possibly at a musical landscape worth listening to again

[TipYourBartender]

Just a thought: I thinkpeople dont pay enough attention to concerts. A band that has attained a large following through concerts can make a damn good living off ticket sales, and eventually their record sales will begin to reflect the popularity that they have cultivated through touring the nation / world.

[beardedwonder]

That could be true, although i was basing my opinion on the fact that music would be free, i.e artists don't make money from cd sales.

[Ne007]

"It only means that 'artists' driven by profit motive cannot exist, and the 'true artists' aren't getting any coverage. "

WTF do you get THAT assumption? I basically disagree with every assuption that you have made in your post.

There are MANY MANY MANY ways of making money off of music WITHOUT CD's. they have already been mentioned.

So...with that said.....death to the RIAA.

[Winphuk]

Originally posted by killswitch1968

Music will no longer be a profitable business, if a business at all. The only musicians around will be making music because they love music, the only motive that makes good music in the first place. No megastars. No music videos. No MTV. In essence: MUSIC UTOPIA.
God Bless P2P

Not true. Music is not a profitable business right now. The only people who are really profiting from music are the major labels, promoters, publishers, and a few musicians lucky enough to get signed on to a major deal, then have their album go platimum (which is essentially what it takes to pay of the record company for fronting the costs.) You can profit by being in a wedding band, studio musician, public school music teacher, instructor, or be a promoter or record exec, to syphen the profits from succesful artists.
Most people in original rock bands (some famous ones), are still touring in vans, eating white castle, scrounging up money for beer,and sleeping in cheap motels (if not in their vans, and this probably includes bands like At the Gates).
If anything, p2p will probably make original music more profitable for the average talented artist, because he/she can record, promote, and distribute their material on their own with minimal costs involved rather than be in debt to a record cooperation thereby keeping all the profits. That make sense?

[Power Penguin]

What you have just said is that CD sales are and will continue to be affected by downloads from the internet. Well I never.

You've stated the obvious in the most unsuccint way possible.

[broadwayrock]

I read in the newspaper the other day that record companies are making more money from Ringtone royalties than they are making from Single sales.

Maybe thats where they need to concentrate.