|
|
|
All Music is Not Created Equal by George Ziemann (May 16, 2005) Wouldn't you think it was odd if you went to the grocery store and all the eggs were the same price? Large, small, extra-large, Grade A, AA, AAA -- 10 cents per egg. And the boxes are sealed so you can't look to see what size you're getting, much less if any are broken or rotten. Shampoo, dish soap, cheese, frozen pizzas, beer, bread, toothpaste, soft drinks, disposable diapers, aspirin -- all brands, all sizes, one price. That's how they sell music. Toilet paper pricing is more competitive. Let's ignore the obvious antitrust considerations (which is what the DOJ and FTC seem to be doing) for a moment, along with the fact that such a miniscule selection of music is offered for sale that 90% of the references I'm going to discuss probably can't be found for sale online. Can lengthy songs such as "Comfortably Numb" or "Stairway to Heaven" or "Layla" or "InnaGaddaDaVida" possible carry the same price as the extremely brief "Her Majesty"? Does a Hilary Duff song really have the same intrinsic value as one by Eric Clapton? Fifty Cent and Frank Sinatra? William Hung and Willie Nelson? Ella Fitzgerald and the Spice Girls? If I Were King... Create Janis Ian's Internet Jukebox but take the entire industry out of the loop. This should be a part of the National Archives because it is a natural extension of the body of work they have already collected. Upload every song ever recorded. Everyone is going to get paid so if the labels don't like it, they can just piss off, turn their fat, greedy asses around and go back to annoying the governments in their own countries. Those with an aversion to compulsory licensing forget that it is the publishers who are being compelled. Only those who use it will pay. Consumers will not be compelled to subsidize. There's a ton of stuff in the middle here, like hiring all the hackers to provide some decent copies of music that's not already in the database, not to mention the hackers who will be employed creating and maintaining the database because there are some twists in the programming that ought to be a challenge. Pricing Based on Demand -- The price of any individual song will be based on how many times it has been downloaded in the past 30 (60? 90?) days, a constantly fluctuating number. Everything starts out for free, whether its Mozart or Madonna or a recording of bird calls. Let's see, Mariah Carey's new CD came out and she sold like 400,000 copies the first week. Springsteen's newest release sold 220,000 when it appeared. I know these are full albums, not songs, but since there is no legitimate singles market in our country, we're going to have to start there. Just before iTunes showed up to deflate their pipe dreams, the record execs thought they could sell individual songs for $2.50 in the U.S. Instead, they've landed on 99 cents, with anyone trying to sell for less losing their ass. So... If a half million people download your tune in a month, it should be worth $2.50 a pop as long as you can sustain that. On the other hand, if you can't get 10,000 people to listen to it for free, well, thanks for playing and better luck next time, but there is no parting gift, other than becoming preserved forever as a part of our national culture. It won't end up dumped into a back alley or blown up. But if you pass that 10,000 mark in a 30-day period, the price is five cents. Price equals downloads divided by 2000. Minimum is 5 cents; increments of 5 cents; max is $2.50. We might have to play with the numbers after it gets going, shift the parameters a little to maintain $1 as the average price point, as opposed to the only one. The Archive takes 15% off the top to pay the hackers and provide the equipment to keep it alive. Maybe 20% Too much? Too bad. You want the damned jukebox or not? This shit ain't cheap. The second 20% goes to the songwriter and publisher of the words and music. Each gets half, or 10% of the price. If your song is selling for a dollar, the songwriter gets a dime, which is more than twice their share under the current system. The remaining 60% is a problem. Right now, that entire share goes to the record companies. If the artist is lucky, has been a good rock star and the label hasn't misplaced their mailing address, he/she might get a dime. Maybe 15 cents. If you've got a five-piece band, that's an entire 3 cents each, provided that you're obligated to be paid anything at all because you still owe money to the Evil Overlords.
I think those are two really noble statements of purpose. I wonder when they take effect? Oh wait, I forgot. I'm the king in this story. Let's do it now. 40% goes to the record companies because they stole the copyrights fair and square, provided they actually filed one. The remaining 20% is divided equally among all performers and musicians on the song so that we don't have to watch old rockers sell off their instruments on eBay. If the label didn't file a copyright, the artists split the whole 60%. Problems? Tons of them, all involving fat-assed record execs who will be certain this threatens their current loan shark and extortion racket. All the eggs are the same price because it's easier to count and they never were very good at math in the first place. An egg is an egg is an egg. |