In an industry where CD’s are not selling, and online purchases including downloading is a daily part of most middle to working class lifestyles. Why are the music labels not investing in partnering with p2p file-sharing music sites?
One might say it’s due to greed; others might say its due lack of clout/monopoly, loss of business model, etc. But this form of music p2p file sharing has been somewhat revolutionized by Steve Jobs iTunes. Yet after over 50 million iTunes Store customers and iTunes having sold over four billion songs, illegal p2p file sharing still out ways purchasing. As Jitendra Mudhol responded to my similar linkedin.com question:
- In general, P2P model itself lends to almost free music and instantaneous distribution; so new business models of monetization are needed which record labels are incapable of coming up with। In this world, they are less and less significant.
But why are label incapable of coming up with a similar idea? Is it hard to imagine a service fee (similar to that of a water or electric bill) for unlimited quality p2p music with out viruses, cookies nor spam?
Imagen a legal p2p accessibility to unlimited amounts of music & video downloads with the ability to purchase concert tickets and user comments; ability to share pre-approved music & video uploads by fans, indie and unsigned artist.
It seems as though p2p sites understands this need by online consumers. I guess it’s true what they say; you can not teach old dog’s new tricks. So while the old dog (aka Music Labels) continues to bark and snarl at the constant popping up of p2p music sites and their consumers, they are not realizing that they are losing their voice and eyesight of what the consumer really wants.
I would like to thank all of those whom responded to my linkedin.com question.
-Shout outs to Jitendra Mudhol, Bruce Kane, and Charlie Greenbacker.
Recommended move for tonight – David Chappelle's Block Party
No comments:
Post a Comment