The devaluing of music started as soon as music became available as mp3 for download and stripped of a physical product medium for its delivery. It becomes a lot easier to devalue a product once you strip it of its tangible qualities. It's also simple economics...the greater the supply, the lower the cost and perceived value.

Everyone knows that Napster sold out and is now playing the corporate tune.

Nothing new here, people, move along.

In the past, you could get "free" music by listening to the radio. Of course you had to listen to the commercials, and if you liked a band's song you could buy the album/8-track/cassett/CD. Because the internet did not exist or the bandwidth was so small there was no ability to get/trade/steal music, other then making a direct copy. We all did it, but the technology was slow and you had to know someone with the original to copy (copy of a copy was crap). The combination of having to wait for someone you knew to buy the music and the shear effort it took to copy music many times added incentive to purchase an album. I did not wait for new U2, new Led Zeppelin or new police, I bought…

Let me say this, when we copied a bands music we knew we were wrong, it was stealing… But we justified the theft because we still bought a lot of music.

Fast forward to today. The biggest problem the music industry has is the digital recordings. Every copy is good as the next copy, so you no longer have to wait for a friend. (This is exacerbated by the ability to share an album in minutes with practically the entire planet.) There is also another misunderstanding by the record labels; they no longer provide a valuable service ( I should really say, the service they provide has less value)… In the past the actual creation of the music “media” was difficult and worth some portion of the price you paid (by the way, I still pretty much buy my music on CD, I like having the physical media. I feel like I own something). Today you can create a recording studio and publish the music directly… no record label middle man… Some might argue that the record labels promote bands, which is true, but the promotion is self-serving, the labels promote so there are more record sales, more concert attendance, etc. The promotion does not always coincide with quality, talent, etc… Really good music will get heard, because we are all linked into each other, and will be even more linked in the future (My mom just twitted about the size of the last dump she took, 140 characters did not do it justice). If you are promoting crap, and you are loosing money doing it, the problem is not that people are stealing the music, the problem is you are spending too much money promoting crap…

So what the hell, am I trying to say?

One, when you download music for free and don’t pay for it you are stealing… Some percentage of your music should be purchased. I would throw out the number of 25%. Exchange of music is good, it is the new promotion, but a guy (or gal) has got to eat and if you listen to an album all the time, then there is value, recognize the value (the personal value the music has to you) and support that artist so they can hopefully repeat that in the future. Don’t try and say I am so kind of nut job or a record label lackey, if your boss or customers or whoever took the fruits of your labor without paying you would be pissed, broke, homeless and hungry… and don’t tell me just anyone can make you feel the way you do when you hear (insert your favorite band here).

Two, record labels get over yourselves, you are not as valuable, you are not going to make as much money (nor do you deserve as much as you made in the past). Stop hanging on to old paradigms and figure out what you can do to create a new one… the internet and digital recording is not going away…

Freemium means that casual users get the service for free, subsidised by a minority of users who pay for additional services or features. So at entry level you aren't paying at all, except for your Internet bill itself for instance.

All-you-can eat download or stream, and phone-comes-with-music, are different deals.

Since music is also broadcast on radio for no listening fee, or performed in the street with no absolute obligation to pay the performers, Mr. Napster Man's argument doesn't have much going for it. And anyway, I don't think he's the same Napster that provided illegal free music file sharing, really. They were shut down and only the name and perhaps some legal documents - company ownership - still exist.

SKY dominated in a market of free TV. People were willing to pay for SKY even though they already had free tv. Why?

It's been done before, they don't even have to reinvent anything, and they have loads of cash. It's so easy, but they just cannot see the wood for the trees.

People will buy the music and other content if someone will sell it to them in an EASY TO USE system. Like SKY, SKY+ (recordable tv) and iPod-style music/movie buying.

I can watch 20 music MTV clone channels on SKY on my tv, I can listen to radio for free on my radio or pc. What can the music people do for me?

Why not sell music through SKY that you hear on tv shows by pressing the red button? Just send them straight to people's email accounts AND to their SKY online account. AND let them download that music to their ipods etc.

I'd buy that service as an add-on for £3/month.

And give people a choice of keeping the song for free for 24 hours, and then charging a few pence if they keep it forever. Every sucker will sign up.

Imagine 5mil people paying £3 a month flat rate for music downloads to keep forever, that's 150mil quid just in UK for the service, plus also charging for the songs. And making it so EASY to buy a song by pressing the RED BUTTON on their TV remote control.

Give us a simple BUY button on our tv/radio, come on already!

QED.

The only thing big label has going for them is channel / access / promotions for the music they control.

If they then creates a big enough hurdle (ie. price) then people's going to find music elsewhere.

Yes. Something extremely valuable might be lost -like the new Paris Hilton CD. Coldplay. U2.

Most musicians I've met haven't been making music *because* they can make money off it -rather, they aspire to make money off music so they won't have to work a tedious job. Still, if you take all the money out of music -music isn't going to just disappear. Plenty of people would still make music. That the world would lose nauseating idols is no loss. And also -lots of musicians like their day jobs and have no aspirations at all to become to become a full-time musicians. Many site the cost of fame as a price they wouldn't pay. Sure there are people that *really* wants to be famous. You can see them on american idol.

I agree that people will only pay what they think something is worth. But disagree with almost everything else this dolt Thorsten Scheisse says.

I dont know what kind of communist country Thorsten comes from, but here in the Free World if someone else is offering something at a better price, youd better either compete, or go bust and good riddance. Its called "capitalism", Thorsten. You may have heard of it.

Im sick of the music industry - of which Napster are now evidently a part - whining about how they are "special" and should be protected from the realities of the market.

Not while they're fighting over something they have no right to.
Making money out of someone else's work does not give you right to it.