I enjoyed Zed as a bringer of change and entertainment back when he did it loudly. I'm enjoying it even more now that he's toned it down - he's still got attitude in a good way, and brings a beatdown on specious thought, but he's much friendlier and courteous about it now. I think it actually makes his writing more powerful, and it's just as fun to read.
If you want to sell your music online, why not just build a simple e-commerce site?
Zed's answer to this has to do with the feed reader.
So he actually has two problems: a "checkout" problem (how to actually accept money for the music) and an "awareness" problem.
An already famous artist could set up the simplest e-commerce store and sell copies of a long-anticipated album through it.
But Zed needs to get the word out. He has a hunch, like any entrepreneur, that there is a market for his music if only more people were exposed to it.
Sure he could pay Google lots of money for click-throughs to his e-commerce site, but that wouldn't be any fun.
So in comes the idea of using RSS. I admit, I've noticed that a lot of companies have a business model like:
1) Idea
2) RSS
3) ?
4) Profit
Zed is reinventing the wheel... the traditional music industry exists not because it is evil but because it helps match musicians with consumers who happily buy the music.
Consider all the music fandom lore about waiting in line to buy an album, etc. People love making the purchase, they love the cover art, they love the unauthorized leak of a track before the album's official release date, etc. These things are part of the larger entertainment and social value of music.
So Zed wants to reinvent the wheel, with the help of RSS, to get all the clueless people, clods, and scammers out of the way so that people will discover his own music and the music of other tortured artists.
The real question to ask is to the consumer: "Do you have a music problem?" I personally do not. There is a lot of great stuff on iTunes, Pandora, etc., and I have maxed out the amount of leisure time and money I want to spend on music enjoyment.
In economic terms, the marginal cost of discovering another great artist is extremely low, effectively nil. I know where to go, I can afford the price of the album, etc. The reason I don't buy more music is because I don't care to. There is tremendous abundance and quality.
So to make a persuasive argument from the perspective of a consumer, Zed would have to argue that there are lots of artists who (if discovered) would make music listeners significantly happier, or would save them significant amounts of money, or both.
Zed's music-themed rants sort of remind me of an infomercial.
If you want to sell your music online, why not just build a simple e-commerce site?
Allow me to plug my favorite e-commerce provider: e-junkie makes this so easy even a coked-out rockstar can do it. Upload MP3s, set price, copy/paste cart code for page. Done.
To the extent that it is a take money, give music problem, they solve it pretty well. (The build an audience willing to pay you money problem... well, there is a reason the labels don't charge BritStreetBoys $5 a month.)
Here’s an actual question: If I sell my music on Amazon or iTunes can I sell it for $0.10 or $20.00? Do I have to charge $0.99? Just like the labels?
If it’s true that I can’t set the price to compete with the labels, then the labels are guilty of collusion and price fixing. Someone should look into that.
The music labels? Guilty of collusion? Price fixing? Never! It's just that all music is equally worthy.
On the contrary, Steve Jobs had a eureka moment when he decided to require record labels to sell all songs for $0.99 through iTunes.
This was genius because it puts the focus on the music... that is, the artist, the sound, the emotion... and not on pennies.
Do you really care if one track is $0.99 and the other is $0.91? Is that how you decide which album to buy?
Jobs had the challenge of convincing the industry that music could be sold online profitably, and to do that he needed to break the industry of its focus on the "hot new song" and the huge revenue boom that comes at the beginning of a song's life. Jobs knew that people would repurchase older albums that they already loved, and wanted to be able to afford to focus the store on all music, not just the 3 songs that are bringing in serious money this week.
The overall result has been that iTunes has tremendous selection and quality. Now, as there is more competition, iTunes does charge more for some songs, but I view this as a step backwards in terms of the psychological ease of making a purchase. Once the consumer is over the hump of believing that a song is worth $1, it's easy to just focus on love and emotion and enjoyment.
You are free to start a music store charging $2 or $50 per song, but you have a sales pitch to make to artists and labels in order to be able to compete with iTunes.
It's interesting, actually. The idea is that you should be able to set the price of your music, but there's quite a bit of weirdness and technical issues. For example, I'm selling an album I recorded on Amazon. It's a full-length, so you'd expect something like ~$9.99 to be the final price, but since it's only one track (21 minutes long), it ended up going for 99 cents at Amazon. I have no doubt that somewhere on the internet exists a form where I can edit the price, but it'd be a real pain to deal with. I'm glad selling music on Amazon/iTunes is a hobby of mine and not a business.
> The music labels? Guilty of collusion? Price fixing? Never! It's just that all music is equally worthy.
Actually, the labels hate iTunes $0.99 fixed price and want variable pricing.
The fixed price is Apple's condition.
While I'd like to think that variable pricing would lead to $0.10 songs, actual label behavior suggests that the floor would be at least $0.49 (highly unlikely), $0.75 (possible), and probably $0.99, with popular stuff going for $2.99.
I'm not sold that a new "better" player/browser is needed. People need to be able to move songs onto their player/browser of choice, MPUI, itunes, ipod, car stereo, zillion dollar sound system etc.
I like Zed, but seems less than knowledgeable of copyright and music rights/ownership.
The not knowing .99 itune is Apple enforced and not the Industries doing(which hates it btw)
Not understanding/admitting difference between public performance (what ascap collects royalties for) and downloding/playing music.
"That’s right, as long as you don’t edit the content, when you provide hosting and search for an artist, and they pirate music, then you are safe."
Worked awesome for Napster!
prev article "The problem is gatekeepers in general." I didn't read all of this but I don't think Zed sees/said what I think is obviously(debatable I guess(like ID is debatable)) the main problem with music in general and esp online music and double esp independent music is The Music Industry. Destroy them and it will be all rainbows and kittens.
I would love to be able to put music "ads" in my blog feed. Seriously, is that do-able? You pick a song you love, and at the end of each post an "ad" appears for it, which is really an embedded music player and allows a person to play 30 seconds of it. If someone clicks through and buys it, I get a commission, ala Amazon.
Since this topic is right where my startup (http://www.klictrack.com/mdt) is trying to push things forward, please check us out and tell me where we need improvement. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
