Example:
Step 1 – put music online for free download
Step 2 – ???
Step 3 – profit!

….sorry, that’s not a business model, “new” or “old”

1. being a musician is a hobby, not a career. musicians who try to make a living selling recorded copies of their music (any medium) are dinosaurs or delusional.

2. if 10,000 people download your album for free and 5 pay for it, that’s because your music sucks, not because the business model doesn’t work.

3. the filesharing mob will cheer on any record company that puts their music online for free download, but will also not pay them a cent.

One of the reasons why music doesn’t seem very good value any more is that 90% of the cost of a CD album goes on advertising/marketing/legal fees/CD duplication etc etc. With the advent of P2P, a band doesn’t NEED a record company to do these things. In the age of the iPod, we don’t need CD jewel cases, billboard advertising campaigns etc. We can just look at a website that reviews music, and then get it for nothing via P2P.

To me, it’s fairly obvious that all digital media (including software) will be free of charge at the point of use in the near future. A “respectable” site like YouTube, iTunes, or MySpace will exist, wherein mp3s will be freely available, on the proviso that downloaders will see adverts. Bands will be able to sell merchandise, run forums and promote concerts on such a site. Accepting donations would also be apposite.

It just takes a few more major bands to leave the big companies for the End Game to begin.

Go Swedes GO!

But I want to see any of the coming 70 comments or so tell me a way to utilize file sharing in a profitable way to make it WORTH making music…[/quote]

You seem genuine, and since I don’t expect you to have read every post on this site, I’ll repeat what I’ve posted elsewhere, for your benefit.

It’s already been shown that it’s far more profitable to the musician to go through a Web site or set one up and offer their work for a small cost, rather than through middlemen who retail it for $20-$40 for blind sale (unknown content).

When people see the enterprising way you are going about it, and that you are avoiding these hated labels, and you yourself are NOT greedy; that is, you offer free samples preferrably in good quality, and most importantly, offer your albums for what people can AFFORD to pay or WANT to pay, say $1-$5. You have a system in place where they can EASILY pay and then download in good quality MP3 (VBR). That doesn’t mean giving it away free, as you could still make millions on an album, and why would anyone want or need more than that?

Publicity would be easy and people would be glad to pay it if it was good. Many artists have published their own music doing it the hard way, but now it’s easier than ever. If they can’t learn and implement these basics, it’s just laziness and perhaps they don’t deserve to make money. In any case if I were a musician I’d be happy to and feel privileged to have it distributed to and enjoyed for free to a worldwide audience.

There’s other distribution methods such as what Prince did with the newspaper. Although he gave it away for “free” he still could’ve made a lot from the deal if he’d wanted to. Not saying he did tho.

Since it is extremely hard to prove intent, It’s also very hard to prove copyright infringement, since whatever ‘evidence’ the prosecutor wants to use against you does not accurately prove the intent.

In order to enforce something as banal as copyright, you’d need to either know everything or live in an Orwellian society. Or be a hive mind. Since neither is possible, you can’t enforce copyright. Because in order to prove intent, you’d have to know the intent of the accused at the time of the infringement.

Assumptions go nowhere. Evidence can prove you were at the scene of the crime, but it cannot prove intent.

Until we can prove intent, the RIAA is fighting a losing battle.[/quote]
they can only prove that ip adress x downloaded a file called blabla. not who did it=)

Since it is extremely hard to prove intent, It’s also very hard to prove copyright infringement, since whatever ‘evidence’ the prosecutor wants to use against you does not accurately prove the intent.

In order to enforce something as banal as copyright, you’d need to either know everything or live in an Orwellian society. Or be a hive mind. Since neither is possible, you can’t enforce copyright. Because in order to prove intent, you’d have to know the intent of the accused at the time of the infringement.

Assumptions go nowhere. Evidence can prove you were at the scene of the crime, but it cannot prove intent.

Until we can prove intent, the RIAA is fighting a losing battle.

So obviously that Bolton guy has to leave for more urging pastures, what else was expected? I still can’t believe that so many people can be lured into feeding an over-obvious troll like that…