CD format getting abandoned by major labels in 2012?

[The King in Crimson]

On another note, record stores have largely neglected an angle that would greatly help them. Currently, when you go to a record store, it's typically rows of merchandise, some bland tune playing faintly, and that's it. They need to make going to a music store more of an experience. They need to make the average person enjoy coming in. Class it up a little. Throw in a coffee bar. Have listening stations where people can sit down, relax, and maybe discover some new music. The key thing to take away from this is making it an experience instead of just a store. It's actually surprising that no stores really seem to be trying that.

There were a few Borders that used to do that. They'd have sets of headphones near the CD's and you could listen to any of the CD's. Kinda cool, but that was a long time ago and, of course, Borders went under. I do wish stores would do something like that though.

Regardless of whether the CD becomes a dead medium, I don't see many brick and mortar music stores surviving much longer. There are so many online stores that offer better selections and, often, better prices and coupled with the damage done by digital distribution, they're going to become more and more rare. Which sucks.

[seasonsinthesky]

i'm all for being limited (literally) in the physical sales department as long as lossless downloads are a universal option and worthwhile artists learn to offer hi-res lossless downloads at the recorded resolution (like Porcupine Tree just started). it would also be a lot better if they'd include gigantic PDFs with all the artwork/liner notes at huge resolutions.

sadly, i doubt the major labels would get any of that right.

[AcidLameLTE]

I can only listen to music if it's a 92Kbps MP3 blaring out of iPod headphones anyway so this is good for me.

[Zook]

I can only listen to music if it's a 92Kbps MP3 blaring out of iPod headphones anyway so this is good for me.

64kbps all the way.

But seriously, I have ipod headphones that I use at work, and they do the job just fine.

[ZeppelinDT]

But it isn't happening, except according to one unverified and almost-certainly-BS internet article. This would be a major major withdrawal from a huge market sector, and so if it were true it would be all over not just the music industry press but the broader business press as well. Yet it isn't.

I agree that the source is questionable and probably not accurate.  But I'm pretty sure it WILL happen, probably sooner than later.

And a lot of people simply would not buy digital albums if CDs were not an option. So by withdrawing from that entire sector of the market, they would be losing revenue and not covering the costs that they will still be incurring recording in the first place.

I think this a critical point, and an assumption that may not necessarily hold true.  As profitable as CDs are, digital is more profitable.  The costs of producing, shipping, packing etc. CDs may be low, but the costs of making digital files are even lower/non-existent.  While CDs still may be profitable in and of themselves, you have to measure the profitability against the profit that would otherwise be made on digital sales if CDs weren't available.  While I do agree that there are people who probably just wouldn't buy anything at all if CDs were not available, I feel like there's a significant number of people who WOULD buy digital INSTEAD, which could cover the money "lost" from not having CDs available, and which would possibly increase overall profit.  I guess it's really just mostly speculative as to how many people would go out and buy digital instead, and how many would just not buy at all, but I don't think it's in any way obvious that SO many people would stop buying completely as to justify completely ignoring the extent to which digital sales would increase and cover the lack of CD sales.

And Mason's point makes no sense - why would the industry care about the casual people who just download the occasional single? They don't get a great deal of money from them - it's the album-buyers who contribute the most.

Of course it makes sense.  And I think he already explained why.  I don't have any hard evidence to support this, but in general I get the sense that, overall, the industry is swinging back to being "singles" based rather than "album" based.  Even just looking in my own circle of friends, I know plenty of people who buy lots of individual songs off of iTunes, and not a lot of people who buy entire albums in any format.  I think reality is actually exactly the opposite of what you're saying.  The money comes from the millions and millions of people who buy individual songs, rather than the significantly smaller number of people who buy entire albums. 

There is a large segment of people who ONLY care about those songs, and ignore the rest of the songs on the album.  Digital only allows publishers to offer single songs, so they can sell the single songs to the people who only care about those, as well as albums to people who will buy the album.  There are people who won't buy an entire album of music, but will buy a couple of songs they like now; that's an option that didn't exist in the past.

Wrong.

They were (are) called singles, and were released on vinyl/CD and maybe contained another song on it, or a remixed version of the single itself.

Singles, and people who only care about them, have been around longer than albums have.

While this is technically true, I think it kind of misses the point.  Sure, CD singles were AVAILABLE, but did anybody ever actually buy them other than collectors?  The single was big in the 60's and 70's, but by the time CDs came around, the focus was generally more on the album format, and the price difference between a single and a full album was so small that it didn't make much sense to buy singles.  I don't think I have ever in my entire life bought a single other than for purposes of collecting or getting a rare unreleased B-side.  The concept of the digital single has completely changed that.  Now you can much more easily go out and buy the one song you want and pay $1.00 for it, rather than having to spend $10 on the entire album.  This has created an entirely new market that didn't previously exist.  I think it's somewhat disingenuous to compare the modern digital single to the concept of a CD single.  It may be more comparable to the concept of 45's in the 60's/70's, but the market and industry has changed so much since then I think that that's a fairly out-of-date comparison.  True, there have been "singles" before, but there's never been anything like the digital one-song download single.

Thinking streaming subscriptions will in any way replace album sales is just silly. Most who buy subscriptions will still buy albums as well, and the bulk of the mainstream crowd is more likely to just listen to songs for free on youtube than pay for a streaming service.

Why is it silly to think that?  Streaming is still a fairly new concept, but why on earth would the average music fan go out and buy an album they could legally get for free through a streaming service.  Comparing streaming services to youtube is absurd.  They're two completely different animals.  The key to the success of streaming services will be mobility.  Streaming from you computer is one thing, but that's not where streaming is ultimately going.  The future is in things like the Spotify mobile app.  With the rapid increase of availability and affordability of Smartphones, it's only a matter of time before people start subscribing to mobile streaming services.  I use the Spotify mobile app and I absolutely love it.  It costs $10/month and it basically converts my iPhone into an iPod with 15 million songs.  Why in the world would people NOT want to do that?  "Getting songs for free on Youtube" is not even remotely comparable.  Even torrenting is much more of a hassle.  If you spend all day sitting in front of your computer and listening to music that way, then sure, torrenting is just as easy, and even YouTube might be a way to go, but people want portability and easy access, which is where streaming services destroy any other sort of competition.

Zep, you're drastically underestimating how many people like having physical collections, or even just getting a tangible object that they can hold in their hands in exchange for their money.

I don't think I am.  But that's kind of missing the issue anyway.  The question isn't how many people "like" having physical collections.  The question is how many people would be willing to spend significantly more money for physical collections.  Right now Spotify premium is $10/month.  That means unlimited, portable, instant access to 15 MILLION songs.  For $120/year.  How many physical albums can you buy for $120?  8?  10?  Maybe 12 or 15 if you go to a used CD store?  So the question isn't so much "how many people just want something physical?" but more along the lines of "How many people would prefer to spend $120/year on 10 physical albums when the same amount of money could get them access to hundreds of thousands of albums".  Maybe if I had unlimited funds and unlimited storage space, I'd go with the former.  But I think it's hard to deny that the vast majority of people would go with the latter.

[Ultimetalhead]

I want a physical copy as well.  Sadly one of my concerns is how it will effect the value of my rare CD collection (yes, I have one).  Not that I ever planned on selling them, its still a source of pride.

You could always sell it to Ryan after CDs become vintage and indie.

[zxlkho]

I still don't get how I'm always the target of these vinyl/indie/hipster jokes.

[AcidLameLTE]

I think it's just vinyl jokes.

[zxlkho]

I think it's just vinyl jokes.

vintage and indie.

[Ultimetalhead]

Admit it, Ryan. You're a closet hipster.

[zxlkho]

Um, no?

[Ultimetalhead]

It's okay, Ryan. We're here for you.

[zxlkho]

Fuck off.

[Zantera]

Meh, the day they stop making physical forms of music, that's the day music will die, or something.
I could honestly not think of a worse way to spend my money then to buy music digitally, this might sound douché-y, but I don't just pay for the music, I pay because I want something physical to hold in my hands, whatever it now may be. (seeing as packaging's might be very different)
I would never in a billion years pay for digital songs, I'd rather download them without paying, because digital files overall has such a low status for me, that I wouldn't bother paying for them, even if it was just a few cents (or whatever)

[Ultimetalhead]

Fuck off.

bant

[zxlkho]

If I'm banned for that, I'll honestly never post here again. You're trying so fucking hard to bait me right now.

[Ultimetalhead]

[Nick]

Both of you need to knock this shit off. UMH gets a warning (no previous infractions), and Letter is out for a week considering he's not only been warned, but for similar activities before. It isn't that hard to play nice.

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Ha. After reading the thread I get the argument this may not be real. I was wondering sorta myself.

[E.S.]

For me personally, I'd go 100% digital anytime, IF there was an option to buy uncompressed WAV files, just as they left the mastering studio. I'm sure that will happen some time, storage is cheap and all that, and all the hardware is capable of playing the files.
But, if the music biz is going to make money, they have to offer something you can't get anywhere else, IMO. You can't download the physical booklet or artwork, and to the minority, which still is a fairly huge amount of people, that's something worth paying for. If the only thing left is 320k mp3 files, there's no reason why anyone would buy music anymore. You have the choice of buying it, or downloading the exact same product for free. Which is the path of least resistance?

I can't imagine the CD format will die completely anytime soon, but maybe it won't be produced on a big scale like before. The days of making a lot of money on music sales are clearly over, unless you are one of the FEW huge artists everyone knows. The rest of us will have to work much harder, playing a lot more concerts. You can't download a gig, you can't get that experience in any other format than real life. In a way it's a good thing, it makes bands get out on the road, interact more with their fans. You can't rely on sales and take a couple of years off. There's a reason why a fairly well-known band around here has been on a write-record-tour cycle for years now.

No matter what, the days of music are never over. There will be new music every day until the end of the world. Maybe we just have to look harder to find it.

Sorry for rambling, it's almost 5 in the morning.

[PetFish]

I have no problems with CD's dying at all but I slap myself in the forehead and shake my head at the people that say ridiculous stuff like "I'll never listen or buy new music again."  Talk about overreacting.

It's just the 1% of "audiophiles" that make the other 99% of of us feel like crap cuz we don't have perfect pitch and actually like digital music.  See what I did there?

[Dark Castle]

I have no problems with CD's dying at all but I slap myself in the forehead and shake my head at the people that say ridiculous stuff like "I'll never listen or buy new music again."  Talk about overreacting.

It's just the 1% of "audiophiles" that make the other 99% of of us feel like crap cuz we don't have perfect pitch and actually like digital music.  See what I did there?

Skew the percentage much?  There's so many people that love cd's, and that's why they're still sold to this day.  Also I don't see anyone bagging on you for buying digital, so who's the one being an ass?

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

Who said they'd never listen to new music? Whoever did is just silly. But not buying new music is 100% understandable. Some people believe why pay when you can get THE EXACT SAME THING for free. I still buy digital music, just to support the artists, cause I'm such a nice guy.

[Riceball]

Niche market? Bullshit. CDs are profitable and represent a massive proportion of the music sales industry. A major label exec would have to be certafiably insane to withdraw from it.

That article is riddled with flaws as well - CDs are not expensive to make and distribute, and the markup over digital sales covers that. Most of the cost goes into recording the album and paying the people involved. Making a disc costs pennies.

I don't think I made my point clearly enough. What I meant was by my largely uneducatex reckoning physical media sales would represent a greater proportion of total sales in niche markets than they would in generic markets, and so I don't believe CDs would be abandoned all together for all markets. I could certainly, however, see it happening in the "top 40" market quite easily - largely due to reasons already cited in this thread.

[rumborak]

Except the range is better on CD because it's not compressed like on vinyl.

A lot of people don't realize that the vinyl signal is robbed almost entirely of its bottom end (so that the needle doesn't jump out of the groove), and then the record player needs to artificially reamplify this bottom end.

rumborak

[ZeppelinDT]

Meh, the day they stop making physical forms of music, that's the day music will die, or something.

Probably.  I mean, we all know music wasn't invented until 1878 when Thomas Edison perfected the phonograph, so clearly physical media and the existence of music are inseparably linked...

I have no problems with CD's dying at all but I slap myself in the forehead and shake my head at the people that say ridiculous stuff like "I'll never listen or buy new music again."  Talk about overreacting.

It's just the 1% of "audiophiles" that make the other 99% of of us feel like crap cuz we don't have perfect pitch and actually like digital music.  See what I did there?

Skew the percentage much?  There's so many people that love cd's, and that's why they're still sold to this day.  Also I don't see anyone bagging on you for buying digital, so who's the one being an ass?

That percentage doesn't sound skewed at all.  The vast majority of the general population doesn't give the slightest fuck about the difference in sound quality between a CD and an mp3.  I would bet that the average person isn't even more than vaguely aware that any difference even exists.  Tbh, I have trouble really noticing any differences at all.

And CDs aren't still sold because people love them.  CDs are still sold because people are used to them.  The trend is rapidly shifting to digital though.  CD sales have been steadily declining for years.  It's only a matter of time before everyone under the age of 20 refers to CDs as "those weird shiny things that my parents play music on".

But not buying new music is 100% understandable. Some people believe why pay when you can get THE EXACT SAME THING for free.

Not that I necessarily want to open the door to this argument, but I mean, there is the fact that it's, y'know, like... illegal and all.  I know it seems like a useless argument, but believe it or not there are people out there who avoid downloading because they just don't want to steal their music or get it illegally.  This point seems to have just been completely ignored.  It's not exactly something that's currently overly enforced, but if they ever find a way to start really busting people for it, it may not always be such an easy/obvious fallback position...

[TL]

*Snip [Streaming Services]*

I can tell you from anecdotal experience that most people who just want to listen to music on their phone or whatever typically just look it up on youtube. That's what most of these 'typical' people do. They usually have the youtube app right there on their homescreen, and to them, that's how you stream music. I'm not saying no one will use proper streaming services, but it seems almost hypocritical that you're insisting that CDs are becoming an increasingly niche product while claiming that streaming is the next big thing.
To the average person who isn't super into music, streaming music means going to youtube.

I don't think I am.  But that's kind of missing the issue anyway.  The question isn't how many people "like" having physical collections.  The question is how many people would be willing to spend significantly more money for physical collections.  Right now Spotify premium is $10/month.  That means unlimited, portable, instant access to 15 MILLION songs.  For $120/year.  How many physical albums can you buy for $120?  8?  10?  Maybe 12 or 15 if you go to a used CD store?  So the question isn't so much "how many people just want something physical?" but more along the lines of "How many people would prefer to spend $120/year on 10 physical albums when the same amount of money could get them access to hundreds of thousands of albums".  Maybe if I had unlimited funds and unlimited storage space, I'd go with the former.  But I think it's hard to deny that the vast majority of people would go with the latter.

You're starting to sound like you're advertising spotify (I'm not accusing you of that).
Yes, there are many people who want a physical item for their money. You also seem to be insisting that subscribing to a streaming service and buying albums are mutually exclusive, when they're obviously not. For example, I have a subscription to Netflix. I also buy films on DVD/BluRay if I like them enough. I don't think it's out of the question that someone would have a music streaming subscription, but still buy albums that they really like.

Also, at the end of the day, if how you decide to experience art doesn't go beyond dollars and cents, I feel sorry for you. I don't want to be 'that guy', and I know that sentence will make me sound like a condescending asshole, but that's how I feel about this. If you're referring more to the 'average listener' or whatever, then I think you're underestimating how many people have more than a passing interest in the music they listen to.

[tjanuranus]

Blame Canada.

[Zook]

This is the best thread ever!

[crawl_away]

This will NEVER happen, unless another format is there to replace the CD. The big 4 will never abandon a physical format in one form or another.

[kirksnosehair]

One thing that really bothers me, as a signed artist trying to just simply break even on my albums, is when people say things like "why should I pay for something I can get for free?" referring to digital music.

Let's be honest folks.  In this context, "get" is really "steal"  If you download music from the internet without paying for it, you are, in fact, engaging in theft.  I'm not here to tell anyone they're a bad person, we all make the choices in life that our consciences will allow us to make.  If your conscience allows you to download copyrighted digital media without paying for it, well, that's between you and your conscience. 

The CD is probably going to go away at some point.  It's not going to happen in 2012.  But eventually, I believe all audio and video media will be delivered via the internet.  It's the most cost-effective distribution system there is.  As bandwidth increases, the lossy/lossless argument will become moot.  A few months ago, on another message board we had a similar discussion to this one and an idea occurred to me about how the whole downloading thing could become a non-issue for everyone, artists, labels and consumers.  I wrote a post about it, which I'm reposting here because I think it's germane to the discussion:


How can "Illegal Downloading" Become Legitimate?
Just an idea, by Barry Thompson



You know what I think the solution is?
Internet Service Provider Surcharges.  That's right.  Surcharges.  It's really a simple thing.   The implementation would not even be that difficult.  The math would  have to be worked out, and a lot of people would have to come to  agreement, but it could work.  Here's how it would work:
All  internet service providers have the ability to see how much data  (bandwidth) is flowing into and out of your internet service device  (we'll call it "cable modem" for the purpose of this discussion).  Not  only can they determine how much bandwidth is flowing into and out of  your cable modem, but they can also -very easily- determine the type of  data (Audio, Video, etc) you're uploading and/or downloading and where you are uploading and/or downloading it from.  And your bandwidth usage, in both directions can be very easily measured.  It's similar to how they measure how much water or electricity you use on a monthly basis.
So, given that every internet service provider in existence already has this ability, there  would be practically no infrastructure that would have to be installed  and/or upgraded in any way for a Surcharge system to work. 

The way it would work  is simple:  As a customer of the Internet Service Provider, when  you sign up for your account, you would agree to pay $X.XX per MB per month  for all downloads and uploads of certain "qualified" content.  This would include torrents of DVDs, Albums, Software, Video Games and other "qualified" digital content that is currently being illegally downloaded world-wide.
The more you  download, or upload, the more you pay.  That money -the Surcharge- would be  split as profit between the Internet Service Provider and the copyright owner.  I realize a lot of details would  have to be worked out, but until or unless there are either fees or  consequences involved with illegal downloads, they're going to continue  happening and the decline of the music business (and eventually other media businesses) is going to continue. 

The "consequences" angle has been tried and it was really a dismal failure by  most accounts.  Suing kids for a million dollars because you caught them sharing their music folders on Kazaa or Napster is not going to work, neither as a mechanism for recovery of  profits, nor as a deterrent to others.  Incentives, however, will work.   The Surcharge system would make those who immediately upload everything  they get their hands on to torrent sites think twice about uploading -  because now they'd have to pay for those uploads and really not be  receiving anything in return.  Additionally, those who download would also have to think a bit more about what they are downloading and why they are downloading it, and whether or not it's really something they need or want, because again, they'd have to pay for those downloads in the form of a Surcharge on their monthly Internet Service Provider bill.  The content creators (e.g. artists, musicians,  software engineers, movie studios, etc) would have an incentive to  actually encourage people to upload and download their content because  they would be receiving compensation for their work with this type of a system.
It's not perfect.  There would be a lot of business and  even political hurdles to overcome, however, I am absolutely convinced  that we must swim WITH the tide of downloading instead of against it, if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem.  The downloading  is not going to stop.  This is simply how people obtain digital media now.   They download it.  Often illegally.  Because....they can.  Well, I'm  saying let's leverage THAT!  The Internet is now clearly a proven system that is extremely  effective at distribution.  It might even be the best media distribution  system ever conceived.  The problem with it, though, is similar to why  we all have to have locks on our houses:  People are going to be....people.  The world  is a big place and human nature is what we all know it is.  We've seen what happens when the  uploading and downloading is allowed to happen without legal or financial consequences.   Enforcing some kind of legal consequence either  via some DRM (Digital Rights Management) mechanism on the content or by monitoring everyone's  internet use and then prosecuting violators is a LOSE/LOSE situation.  The  content creators lose, the people doing the downloading lose.  Everyone  loses.
Except......
The Internet Service Providers!  They haven't lost anything!  In fact, they've gained tons and tons of revenue and customers in the last decade.  They are the ones who have been getting paid and  continue to be paid throughout this entire illegal downloading era.  Internet Service Provider charges have skyrocketed in the last 10 or 12 years while media sales  have either plummeted (music business) or stagnated (movies and software).
Make the connection, folks, it's not too hard!

A large portion of the revenue that was once going to bands and record labels has simply shifted from the bands and record labels to the Internet Service Providers.  Music, an incredibly important art form, as a whole, loses and.....Comcast and Verizon win?  I don't know about you, and maybe as an artist on a small, independent record label that practically no one knows or cares about I'm a little bit biased, but something smells here.  What's fair is  fair.  The time for content Surcharges with Internet Service Providers has arrived.  Don't want to pay  any surcharges?  No problem!  Don't download or upload stuff!  It's SIMPLE!  No one  who doesn't want to pay, will have to pay.  Want to get the latest - or  even out of print music from your favorite artists?  Go for it!  They'd  be LEGALLY available everywhere online and you could get them whenever you feel like you have the money in your budget to pay for it.  Download away!  Just pay your  Internet Service Provider's bill when it comes in, and some of that Surcharge will be passed on to the rightful owner of the copyright on the content you just -now LEGALLY instead of ILLEGALLY- downloaded.
I firmly believe the Surcharge system will be the ultimate solution to the problem of illegal downloading.  If you agree, feel free to re-post this to some of your friends and see what they think about it.
==================================================================================


I know it's far from perfect and a lot of details would have to be worked out, but I really believe this is the way forward.

[ZeppelinDT]

I can tell you from anecdotal experience that most people who just want to listen to music on their phone or whatever typically just look it up on youtube. That's what most of these 'typical' people do. They usually have the youtube app right there on their homescreen, and to them, that's how you stream music. I'm not saying no one will use proper streaming services, but it seems almost hypocritical that you're insisting that CDs are becoming an increasingly niche product while claiming that streaming is the next big thing.
To the average person who isn't super into music, streaming music means going to youtube.

I've actually never really seen anybody do that, although I'm not doubting that it happens.  But I think part of the reason for that is just because there hasn't yet been any big streaming service with a convenient simple interface.  I still have a lot of trouble seeing how youtube is really comparable.  The quality of youtube is lower, the selection is smaller, and it's much more difficult to set up playlists/listen to full albums on youtube.  Streaming services offer SO much more than youtube, and I just feel like once people get a little more familiar with them, they'll become a lot more popular.  The key is ease of use.  People want something simple with a smooth interface.  Youtube does not quality for that.  Spotify is a start, but has issues.  My prediction is that once Spotify gains a little more traction and people become more comfortable with the concept of streaming in general, Apple will step in and release their own streaming service, which people will jump all over.  I'm not sure how what I'm saying seems hypocritical at all by saying CD sales are declining and streaming will take over :/.  It just seems like the most logical next step...[/quote]

You're starting to sound like you're advertising spotify (I'm not accusing you of that).
Yes, there are many people who want a physical item for their money. You also seem to be insisting that subscribing to a streaming service and buying albums are mutually exclusive, when they're obviously not. For example, I have a subscription to Netflix. I also buy films on DVD/BluRay if I like them enough. I don't think it's out of the question that someone would have a music streaming subscription, but still buy albums that they really like.

Lol... well, the only reason I'm citing Spotify is because they're the biggest streaming service out there.  I'm really just trying to lay out the reasons why I think people will gravitate towards streaming.  I'm sure other services will come along that do it better and that eventually oust Spotify (probably at least one owned/run by Apple).  I understand that digital/streaming and physical products aren't mutually exclusive, but can you really doubt that the availability of digital/streaming content has a huge impact on the overall sales of physical media?  Sure, people who have NetFlix still buy DVDs/BluRays.  But I bet they buy a LOT fewer of them.  Netflix is a fairly good parallel though, although it's not quite perfect because the Netflix library is still severely lacking.  But along those same lines, if NetFlix or other movie/tv streaming services ever get to the point where they have expansive libraries that cover the majority of what people want, I'm sure physical media for movies will ultimately meet the same fate.

Also, at the end of the day, if how you decide to experience art doesn't go beyond dollars and cents, I feel sorry for you. I don't want to be 'that guy', and I know that sentence will make me sound like a condescending asshole, but that's how I feel about this. If you're referring more to the 'average listener' or whatever, then I think you're underestimating how many people have more than a passing interest in the music they listen to.

It's not JUST about dollars and cents.  Part of it is just purely a practical concern.  I mean, most people just simply can't afford to buy everything they want, and streaming offers them a way to get access to a lot more stuff without having to spend nearly as much money.  Another part of it is about convince and availability.  It's just easier to access to that much music.  And I think stuff like this actually benefits people who have more than just a passing interest in their music.  I feel like the music scene in general is more alive and vibrant today than it's been in years, and I think that's at least in part to the fact that music in general has become much more accessible to people, which allows people to discover a lot of stuff they may have never otherwise experienced.  I certainly fall into the category of people who have "more than a passing interest" in the music I listen to - I have literally thousands of CDs, a rapidly growing vinyl collection, and I go to about 40 concerts per year on average - but that being said, I absolutely love having the ability to stream music and to access music digitally quickly and conveniently.  My favorite way to experience music is still seeing it live, followed by listening to it on vinyl (which is as much about the "experience" as anything else).  But the fact is that I just don't have the time or money to make that the ONLY way I listen to music, or even to make it the most common way.  Although those two methods are my favorite, listening on my iPod or Spotify are by far the most common ways I listen, and I've found that doing things that way has given me the chance to experience and enjoy so much more music than I ever did when I relied on CDs.  I used to be vehemently against digital music in any form... then I was just against downloading... but over time I've grown to love it and I've found that I couldn't possibly care less about not having CDs anymore.

I mean, I obviously could be totally wrong about this, and maybe CDs will make a huge comeback and dominate forever.  I'm just trying to look at what I see every day and think about these things in realistic, practical terms to predict where the future is headed.  I certainly have nothing personal invested in the growth of streaming or the death of CDs.  As long as I can keep getting the music I want to listen to, I couldn't possibly care less about what actually happens or how I get it.

[rumborak]

All  internet service providers have the ability to see how much data  (bandwidth) is flowing into and out of your internet service device  (we'll call it "cable modem" for the purpose of this discussion).  Not  only can they determine how much bandwidth is flowing into and out of  your cable modem, but they can also -very easily- determine the type of  data (Audio, Video, etc) you're uploading and/or downloading and where you are uploading and/or downloading it from.  And your bandwidth usage, in both directions can be very easily measured.  It's similar to how they measure how much water or electricity you use on a monthly basis.

So, you're proposing that your ISP sniffs all your TCP packets, determines their content, checks against a central database whether the data is copyrighted, and then charges you money?
I don't think you'll find many people wanting to sacrifice internet anonymity for the few bucks artists would get through that.

In the end, the answer might be simply what artists won't like to hear: They will just not make much money on the distribution of the material anymore. Maybe the future is that an artist distributes his material for free, and people pay to see him live, just like in the olden days before physical recordings of music existed.
Maybe the days of uber-artists like U2 are over. Maybe in the future music will be produced mostly by small bands recording their material in a small studio, and then just put it online as a marketing material for their live shows.

rumborak

[ZeppelinDT]

Maybe the days of uber-artists like U2 are over. Maybe in the future music will be produced mostly by small bands recording their material in a small studio, and then just put it online as a marketing material for their live shows.

I think this is probably accurate.

I really dislike the Surcharge system, for two reasons.

1 - One of the biggest reasons I download is to discover new music.  I don't want to have to pay extra to download something I'm going to listen to once and then delete.  If I find something I like, I will absolutely support the artist, go to their shows, but their records, etc.  But a system like this would seriously limit the ability to explore/discover new stuff.

2 - How does the revenue get distributed amongst the artists themselves?  Sure, you can measure total data, but is it possible to measure which bands are getting the most downloads?  That would seem to be the key to determining how to distribute compensation.  (Although, maybe it is possible - I'm not that technologically advanced).

Regardless, I think these are two good examples of why streaming is a better way to go.  Streaming lets you access all the music you want for a flat fee, and it's very easy to track percentage of listeners, so that can be used to distribute the fees.  I think that, ultimately, most people DO want to pay for music (or, at the very least, would prefer getting music legally over getting it illegally).  The problem is that a good method of doing this hasn't yet been worked out.  Maybe there are other better potential systems out there waiting to be invented, but at the moment flat fee streaming seems to be the most logical way to go, at least imo.

[kirksnosehair]

All  internet service providers have the ability to see how much data  (bandwidth) is flowing into and out of your internet service device  (we'll call it "cable modem" for the purpose of this discussion).  Not  only can they determine how much bandwidth is flowing into and out of  your cable modem, but they can also -very easily- determine the type of  data (Audio, Video, etc) you're uploading and/or downloading and where you are uploading and/or downloading it from.  And your bandwidth usage, in both directions can be very easily measured.  It's similar to how they measure how much water or electricity you use on a monthly basis.

So, you're proposing that your ISP sniffs all your TCP packets, determines their content, checks against a central database whether the data is copyrighted, and then charges you money?
I don't think you'll find many people wanting to sacrifice internet anonymity for the few bucks artists would get through that.

In the end, the answer might be simply what artists won't like to hear: They will just not make much money on the distribution of the material anymore. Maybe the future is that an artist distributes his material for free, and people pay to see him live, just like in the olden days before physical recordings of music existed.
Maybe the days of uber-artists like U2 are over. Maybe in the future music will be produced mostly by small bands recording their material in a small studio, and then just put it online as a marketing material for their live shows.

rumborak

1. Internet anonymity is a myth.  Your ISP already knows what's passing through your router.

2. I vehemently disagree with the idea of artists just giving away their music for free - you've just eliminated studio bands from existence.  That's incredibly unfair.

3. I know the idea isn't perfect, but I think we're headed in a direction like that or streaming services - and there is ZERO anonymity in streaming services so my model has merit.