4 ms·

1. Get all your music for free. 2. log your usage. 3. Use a micropayments engine to slice out support. You could dial the support up or down, maybe giving a di

1. Get all your music for free. 2. log your usage. 3. Use a micropayments engine to slice out support. You could dial the support up or down, maybe giving a disproportional amount to a certain band. I think you're totally right: unlimited and immediate access to music is just better. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't directly support the artists. The RIAA can't compete because they are fundamentally no longer part of the exchange. They add nothing. They continue through momentum, and will die soon.

rms 18y ago
I support that model in general, but I'd much rather spend my money supporting live performance. My favorite band is Radiohead. I didn't pay for their most recent album, because it didn't seem worth it. But I have paid over $200 to get 3 tickets to see them in concert this summer.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Live music is certainly awesome. It isn't the only model though.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    It's the only proven model, and the only one that has even the slightest hint of economic viability yet. Maybe you'll change that. I hope that you do.
    - ivankirigin 18y ago
      Getting money for digital content distribution is an excellent value proposition for music makers. You need to show up at each, err, show. You only need to upload files into a distribution engine once, then every person on the planet can buy them.
      - rms 18y ago
        You mean like Pearl Jam's distribution and sale of their concert recordings? It's a great idea. I wish Radiohead would do the same thing. I'm actually surprised they haven't, since they definitely like extra opportunities to make money. Probably they haven't thought about it.
        mattmaroon 18y ago
        It's much different for established bands. But yeah, that is awesome. Pearl Jam has been very innovative ever since they took on Ticketmaster in the 90's.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Of course, it just remains to be seen if this can be accomplished. Studies have clearly shown in many occasions that humans will generally not pay for something they can get for free. In fact, we'll incur a ridiculous amount of cost just to get something for "free". A few weeks ago, Papa Johns locations in north east Ohio gave away free pizzas worth about $5. People stood outside in the 45 degree weather, with rain, for 2 hours to get that pizza.
        aneesh 18y ago
        Yeah, people like free too much, irrationally so. Chipotle in Cambridge gave away free burritos (worth $6), and the line was over an hour long. That said, I don't think this spells doom for micropayments. A successful "donations" model is Ben & Jerry's Free Cone day - a not-insignificant fraction of people donate to help various causes. I'd be interested to see statistics on this.
JesseAldridge 18y ago
"I think you're totally right: unlimited and immediate access to music is just better." Better for users, but not for producers. Also, Matt has made the point that the vast majority of people are unwilling to donate when they don't have to.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Free content is often free because people understand the the increased eyes and ears on content will make up for it being free. Only a fraction of your audience will pay, but your audience is probably orders of magnitude larger if free vs. gated by a pay wall.
  - whacked_new 18y ago
    Doesn't this assume the profit you gain from kN users donating X/k price on average, given free content, equals or exceeds N users paying X price, or something like that? Of course this is a gross simplification, but how else does it justify making something free and expecting increased exposure to make the operation sustainable? IIRC Wikipedia is not looking good financially, and there is probably nothing with more eyeballs at the moment. I'm guessing you have thought though this situation much more thoroughly, and maybe have data on it too; otherwise, I'd be very surprised if things work out so ideally.
  - DougBTX 18y ago
    > the increased eyes and ears on content Those eyes and ears were supposed to be looking at ads, where more impressions equals a happier advertiser. It isn't obvious how that extends to donation-ware, when everyone can just move on to the next free source of music.

rms 18y ago

I support that model in general, but I'd much rather spend my money supporting live performance. My favorite band is Radiohead. I didn't pay for their most recent album, because it didn't seem worth it. But I have paid over $200 to get 3 tickets to see them in concert this summer.

ivankirigin 18y ago
Live music is certainly awesome. It isn't the only model though.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  It's the only proven model, and the only one that has even the slightest hint of economic viability yet. Maybe you'll change that. I hope that you do.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    Getting money for digital content distribution is an excellent value proposition for music makers. You need to show up at each, err, show. You only need to upload files into a distribution engine once, then every person on the planet can buy them.
    - rms 18y ago
      You mean like Pearl Jam's distribution and sale of their concert recordings? It's a great idea. I wish Radiohead would do the same thing. I'm actually surprised they haven't, since they definitely like extra opportunities to make money. Probably they haven't thought about it.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        It's much different for established bands. But yeah, that is awesome. Pearl Jam has been very innovative ever since they took on Ticketmaster in the 90's.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Of course, it just remains to be seen if this can be accomplished. Studies have clearly shown in many occasions that humans will generally not pay for something they can get for free. In fact, we'll incur a ridiculous amount of cost just to get something for "free". A few weeks ago, Papa Johns locations in north east Ohio gave away free pizzas worth about $5. People stood outside in the 45 degree weather, with rain, for 2 hours to get that pizza.
      - aneesh 18y ago
        Yeah, people like free too much, irrationally so. Chipotle in Cambridge gave away free burritos (worth $6), and the line was over an hour long. That said, I don't think this spells doom for micropayments. A successful "donations" model is Ben & Jerry's Free Cone day - a not-insignificant fraction of people donate to help various causes. I'd be interested to see statistics on this.

JesseAldridge 18y ago

"I think you're totally right: unlimited and immediate access to music is just better." Better for users, but not for producers. Also, Matt has made the point that the vast majority of people are unwilling to donate when they don't have to.

ivankirigin 18y ago
Free content is often free because people understand the the increased eyes and ears on content will make up for it being free. Only a fraction of your audience will pay, but your audience is probably orders of magnitude larger if free vs. gated by a pay wall.
- whacked_new 18y ago
  Doesn't this assume the profit you gain from kN users donating X/k price on average, given free content, equals or exceeds N users paying X price, or something like that? Of course this is a gross simplification, but how else does it justify making something free and expecting increased exposure to make the operation sustainable? IIRC Wikipedia is not looking good financially, and there is probably nothing with more eyeballs at the moment. I'm guessing you have thought though this situation much more thoroughly, and maybe have data on it too; otherwise, I'd be very surprised if things work out so ideally.
- DougBTX 18y ago
  > the increased eyes and ears on content Those eyes and ears were supposed to be looking at ads, where more impressions equals a happier advertiser. It isn't obvious how that extends to donation-ware, when everyone can just move on to the next free source of music.