 |
 |
> I'm just saying that you need some profitable critcal mass to preserve > the commercial recorded legacy of the past 100+ years. > Nothing has so far worked better than the profit motive -- if a > content owner perceives long-term value in his content, he will invest > in preserving it. Tom, I'm not sure. The good news is that a lot of that legacy was mass-produced and so lives in many places. Some of these places (collectors, libraries) are not profit-driven but actually perceive value (not necessarily monetary value) in that content. I generally trust them much more than money-driven corporations to preserve our heritage. It is a bit like real estate: the profit drive may create most buildings in the first place, but it cannot "see" the value of a historic low-rise downtown when it can make more money by building a high-rise. That is where citizen groups and/or the government step in. Marcos > > -- Tom Fine > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcos Sueiro" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:11 AM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] interesting! > > >> Tom, >> >> I think that the transition of music companies to licencers of >> content is already happening, but it is unclear how they will make a >> healthy profit if copying of content by the consumer is so easy. (Is >> there a hacker-proof DRM? Doubtful. And, how much time and money are >> they willing to spend policing content?) >> >> Also, since corporations are in the business of making money, keeping >> old masters only makes sense if they are profitable. Therefore we >> cannot expect record companies to keep old recordings if they do not >> think they will sell, no matter how supposedly historic they are (a >> label that is vague at best). And there are quite a few horror >> stories as well of record companies being unable to find masters in >> their own vaults. >> >> But a key point is this: current copyright restrictions do not allow >> other sources (collectors and libraries) to make that content >> available (free or not) for society at large. This I find pernicious. >> >> The way I see it, copyright law was designed to protect a large >> business model that just does not work any longer. It made sense when >> a large investment was needed to create a product that could in turn >> generate large revenue. Once record companies are gone, copyright >> restrictions will go away. >> >> I see the future music business as far more performance-oriented, >> with the recording side as almost a promotional afterthought. It is >> still easy to charge a cover to see a performance. >> >> Marcos >> >> Tom Fine wrote: >>> The problem is, to preserve and not lose the vast legacy of >>> commercial music -- and I'd argue that the stuff previous to this >>> era will have much more long-term cultural and financial value -- >>> takes some critical mass. Not that the majors have been all that >>> good at it, but the alternative is not good and I've heard horror >>> stories about how smaller record companies kept their archives. >>> >>> And how many stories do we hear just on this list about vast >>> quantities of stuff donated to the LOC and smaller collections that >>> is literally rotting in warehouses, never to see the public again. >>> >>> I think owners of content work best on a for-profit model. What I >>> think will eventually happen is that music companies will be just >>> owners and licensers of content, licensed to whatever format is >>> distributed in whatever way. Their manufacturing and distribution >>> businesses will be more and more asset-draining albatrosses. Steve >>> Jobs' statement bears reading because, although of course it's >>> designed to bolster Apple's case against the EU nannies, it touches >>> on a lot of areas where I think his future visions are accurate. >>> >>> Back to your point, Marcos, my fear would be that if Big Music >>> totally blew up, a lot of great historic recordings would fall into >>> the pits of hell, never to be heard again in any format. >>> >>> -- Tom Fine >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcos Sueiro" >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:15 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] interesting! >>> >>> >>>> I'm going to get whipped for this, but I'll say it anyway: I don't >>>> see what is so terrible if large large record companies simply >>>> disappear. Music has been around much longer than the recording >>>> industry, so I do not think that the quality of music itself would >>>> suffer. And certainly there must be other business models for >>>> musicians to make a living without having to feed a huge machine >>>> that often sucked their blood, especially now that the means to >>>> record music are available to so many. Big Music generated lots of >>>> money for over a century, but only a very small proportion of all >>>> musicians saw that money. Perhaps Big Music is just not good for >>>> music anymore. >>>> >>>> Marcos >>>> >>>> Tom Fine wrote: >>>>> So, even though I'm no fan of Big Music, they have a point in all >>>>> of this. If the owners of the copyright material -- descendants of >>>>> those who put up money to record the old stuff and current funders >>>>> of new material -- cannot get a return on their investment, they >>>>> do not have a business model. So in that case nothing can be made >>>>> available because it's a money-losing proposition and companies >>>>> are not in business to lose money. >>>> >>