Re: [linux-audio-user] Internet Music Business Models + Logos

From: tim hall <tech@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Wed Mar 22 2006 - 17:11:34 EET

R Parker wrote:
> Hi,
> I haven't got enough time to properly revue your ideas
> and proposals but will attempt to respond in part.
> --- Carlo Capocasa <capocasa@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>>We all need marketing. In its best sense, it simply
>>means that there are
>>no obstacles people need to get around to get to
>>your music. Clean up
>>the dog poo in front of your store. Sure it's
>>flattering to see to what
>>lengths people will go to get your product, but
>>maybe that length could
>>be reduced to one: How much will they pay?
>>1. For the first business model I was thinking of
>>selling music on an
>>'All Rights Reserved' basis, but with FULL RESALE
>>RIGHTS. In other
>>words, people are allowed to distribute your work
>>for free if they want
>>to, but there is a little incentive not to, because
>>they can also sell
>>it to their friends.
>>From the Copyright owner perspective, I issue a
> license that describes how you can legally use, sell
> and distribute my property.

This is probably the same as what Carlo is suggesting, except you
already have a workable version?

> This is very empowering to
>>people since it
>>encourages them to create additional sources of
>>income for themselves
>>except their jobs.
> What percentage of the revenue do I the song writer,
> producer and Copyright owner recieve upon the sale of
> my property? As I see it you have operating expenses
> and the right to compensation for your efforts and
> anyone acting as a sales person also deserves a cut.
> Relicensing my property so that anyone can sell it is
> a bit of a can-o-worms. Are you responsible for
> collecting and redistributing funds derived from the
> sales of relicensed property? BMI can collect
> broadcast royalties but not mechanical sales. And BMI
> exists for very good reasons.

OK, there are some important points here.

> Or am I misinterpreting and the objective is for the
> writer, producer and Copyright owner to give the
> rights for usage and sale of their property to your
> organization and any other people that might want to
> sell the property. IOW, the Copyright owner gets
> nothing upon the disbursement (broadcast) and sale of
> their property.
> I actually don't understand the basic premise upon
> which you are designing this business and I need to be
> enlightened. Once I understand the design it will be
> easier to conduct a high octane flame war. :) Until
> then I'm in the dark and creating useless noise within
> your thread.

Now I'm confused. Carlo's last posting made sense to me. I think you're
reading a lot more into his proposal than I was. However, I'm all in
favour of reality checks.


tim hall
Received on Wed Mar 22 20:15:02 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 22 2006 - 20:15:03 EET