10 Signs You're Headed for a Financial Meltdown
Why Taco Bell and Popeyes Want to Serve You Breakfast
An interesting article from the BBC takes a look at how file-sharing web sites can actually make a music act more popular. In fact, the research cited in the article shows that the most-pirated songs tend to be those at the top of the charts.
Think of the potential impact of this on Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL). I remember the halcyon days of Napster and the likes, when you could go online and find songs from various artists (I even found Scruffy the Cat on Napster, not an easy task) and download as many as you want.
Well, when the RIAA and Metallica decided to wade into the fray -- sites like Napster were either summarily shut down or had to start charging for their services.
Now, I know that there are still sites out there where an enterprising internet surfer can find music for free -- but doing so is a sin against God, man, and all things holy, right?
Wrong. In fact, this article suggests that the free download sites are good for artists. Many industry experts suggest that the "unprecedented amount of choice on the web" has led to new models of music distribution. Those conducting the study call this a "Long Tail" argument, noting that offering more choice and helping people make the choice will result in more people choosing.
How does this impact Apple? The firm's iTunes site charges for music downloads, which may limit the number of songs downloaded by a customer. It's seems pretty logical that someone would download more songs from more artists if the songs were available for free rather than $1.29 per song. More songs downloaded and disseminated should be good for the artists. Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect Apple to suffer too much -- too many people use iPods and download their music from iTunes.
Wrong. In fact, this article suggests that the free download sites are good for artists. Many industry experts suggest that the "unprecedented amount of choice on the web" has led to new models of music distribution. Those conducting the study call this a "Long Tail" argument, noting that offering more choice and helping people make the choice will result in more people choosing.
How does this impact Apple? The firm's iTunes site charges for music downloads, which may limit the number of songs downloaded by a customer. It's seems pretty logical that someone would download more songs from more artists if the songs were available for free rather than $1.29 per song. More songs downloaded and disseminated should be good for the artists. Nevertheless, I wouldn't expect Apple to suffer too much -- too many people use iPods and download their music from iTunes.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-22-2009 @ 1:03AM
Beltway Greg said...
"Many industry experts"? Obviously not music industry experts for no such animal exists. (Well maybe David Geffen and Clive Davis, but I digress. The rest were just sharks and barracudas see Heart.) The sad part about this is that the music industry had this coming for years. For eons they ripped off African-American artists and just about any other guitar slinger who had the misfortune of wandering into a studio. Name a successful band or solo artist and you'll find a learning curve paved with the royalties that they failed to receive. Even beloved music icons like Elvis and Alan Freed got in on the act. If Elvis recorded your song he received some of the publishing and I think Freed managed to wrangle himself a piece of Chuck Berry's "Maybellene" (among others) which in a truly ironic twist of fate Chuck may have himself expropriated from his piano player Johnnie Johnson. But what's a couple of million between friends? After posting record sales not so long ago, the recording industry began behaving like an overbought tech stock. It tanked in record time. Why? Arrogance and the inability to get with the program and recognize that the retail game had changed. Basically we had a jockey beating the skeleton of a dead horse. Remember Tower Records? Of course you do. Immense music warehouses selling everything you didn't need. What a concept. Free music on the net may help to break a few regional acts, but in the long run it ruins the business paradigm for everyone else. There is no long tail. And, the companies made us buy the album when we only wanted one or two songs. Greatest hits LPS were really the first mix tapes. Video killed the radio star and Apple saved the music industry-at least until the recording industry figures out how to destroy Apple which they just might do. Apple should start a label. They have billions so signing bands shouldn't be a problem and all they have to do is to give the bands full creative control. Obviously they can't call it Apple (The Beatles already landed on that spot), but they could name it 'Core" and have a number of different divisions i.e., country, (real country like Kris Kristofferson and Willie Nelson), fat old hair bands like Warrant, Ratt, and even classical. A music label run by musicians now that's "Thinking Different" and that's my "Cherry Pie."