Subscriptions services work for some, ownership works for others. Personally I much prefer ownership. But true ownership means non-DRM music. I’ve used iTunes in the past but I’m tired of dealing with DRM issues. Until Apple makes its music DRM free I will continue using allofmp3.com.

When it comes to artists that I really love and respect, the CD is the only way to go for me.

The “DJ’s” or anyone else who isn’t performing live needs to find other ways to generate income. They can sell their own recordings online rather than rely on record companies.

-Fabian,

Labels (record companies) need to start coming up with better ways to make money if they are going to stay in business.

Do record companies worry about people buying CD’s and then burning them and selling them? Do they worry about people borrowing their CD’s to friends and them burning their own copies? They seem to be focused on the downloading aspect while there are many ways to get the music you want and not pay for it.

Everyone is so worried about getting paid. If your main concern with making music is making money than you shouldn’t get started in this industry to begin with. The record companies and agents will make more than you.

I haven’t heard any ideas as to how we can start this revolution. Anyone?

pandora is my favorite. it features like allowing users to vote on the songs and create/refine the channels are awesome.

eMusic, people! I pay $10/mo for 30 drm-free mp3’s. Bjork, Arcade Fire, Miles Davis, etc.

This is the future. All you can eat/own for a flat fee per month.

If they are smart enough to do it, the major labels will go for this eventually. The average person spends barely $50/yr on recorded music.

Who WOULDN’T go for all the music you can download for a $10/mo fee?

KISS

There are two problems with subscription services. The first problem is this: these services may be priced to make consumers happy, but they under compensate the community that makes music. Sure, someone can probably assert a theoretical case whereby if fifty percent of the human population were using a subscription service, every decent contributing artist would make a generous living. However, this best-case scenario is based upon assumptions that are absolutely unobtainable. The reason that this scenario will never come close to realization is due to the second major problem with music subscription services.

The second serious problem with music subscription services is the failure of these services to account for the total end-user cost of obtaining a single track. The real cost of obtaining a track is not the pennies that subscription services charge, or the .99 cents that download services like iTunes charge. The real cost of obtaining a track is the value of the time it takes to discover a new track plus the purchase price of the track.

The value of the time it takes to find a new song that you like is actually more valuable to most consumers than the retail cost of the track. This explains why a far greater percentage of the population prefers to own the music they consume. The retail cost of loosing your music is one thing, but the time value of loosing the collection you amassed during so many music safaris is priceless.

It seems like the best solution to the collection-disappearance problem would be to offer a bookmarking service that enables any subscriber to easily move his song collection to any other music platform in the marketplace. After all, nobody wants their song collection inescapably tied to one company. The music subscription service providers only have to look at how phone number portability in the telecom industry has helped ease consumer concerns, as well as to drive new service activations. It should be clear that a similar service for songs would benefit everyone.

What about artists that don’t necessarily perform live?

Like… alot of electronic music artists? I mean, they may DJ or something, but not all do, nor are all of them performing artists. How do they make a career out of music?

- Artists
- Labels
- Service providers

So far Apple’s strategy has brought the $$$ home and for as pissed as the labels are iTunes provides them with a viable business if they changed some of their “expectations” and practices. I also think that Apple needs to adapt more to the needs and practices and structures of the music industry.

Now … all of these changes if the artists can make a business outside of the recording industry. What was the name of the English band that did it without a record label?

However, Apple *must* change its model for TV and movies. The vast majority of people watch the vast majority of TV/Movies precisely once. There is only a small handful of titles that warrant ownership. Apple has to offer movie/tv rentals.

“Why rent music when you can own?” - Well the obvious next question is Why buy music when you can get it for free?

How much do bands make from CD’s/mp3’s? Really? The record companies are the ones making the cash there. Bands have started selling them on their own and record companies are scrambling to make sure they still get their cut.

If anyone out there has any ideas as to how this can be done..I would LOVE to be part of it. Even you Mr. Arrington!

I am a music LOVER but I am NOT going to pay a buck for ONE song!

I remember back in the day when stereo’s started integrating cassette players into them and record companies were pissed because people could record the radio. And everyone did!

C’mon Mr. Arrington! Get a hold of me so we can talk about this.

I am not sure if we can post our email addresses here so I will post one that I will only use for this -

Get a hold of me at elliotgreenwood@yahoo.com

This is the start of something……………

What gets me are people who rent and buy DVDs. Has anyone ever tried PeerFlix? And if yes, why?

To violate the first rule of market analysis (never view the world from your own shoes), I have 11,000 songs on a NAS, and it’s easier for me to listen to the same music via Rhapsody. And I can discover new music on Rhapsody, more easily (and enjoyably) than I can with iTunes. But Rhapsody still has a couple of gaps:
* Some music is missing, mostly brand new stuff and a bit from hold-out artists and labels. That’s OK, I can fill in the gaps.
* A solid and well-integrated portable player (Sansa reviews were poor). This is more of a pain, but someone will get it right soon.

Anyway, Didn’t Jobs take the buttons off the iPhone to make it a wireless media bridge? And wouldn’t that make much more sense with a subscription service?

We have seen very little action and when Steve was asked about DRM in video he said it is a different model and can’t go without DRM. He pretty much has the power at Disney to remove DRM if he really wanted.

I could be wrong but it seems like the only reason Jobs said this is because EMI wanted DRM free music:

http://www.webtvwire.com/apple.....downloads/

So he just comes out and says he doesn’t like DRM, complies with EMI to remove DRM, and doesn’t look like the bad guy.

Just a crazy theory of mine but worth thinking about.

Like another commenter, I subscribe to Yahoo Music as well, which is only $5/month. I love it, except that the program itself is pretty crappy, and of course I can’t put the music on the ‘pod. Apple would have my business no question, if only they wanted it.

Apple’s Steve Jobs, perhaps the most important person in the music industry today, says again that Apple is not planning on selling music via a subscription model like many of his competitors. The strategy certainly makes sense as long as as Jobs con…