Re: [ARSCLIST] interesting!

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marcos:

I don't disagree with you one bit.

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 Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marcos Sueiro" <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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" <mls2137@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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.