Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Music Media

Would Free Music Sell Cars? 377

rhfrommn writes "An opinion piece on news.com says the old method of selling music CDs is doomed and suggests the best new method is to give away the content. No more 'piracy' or 'rights management' to worry about! The author discusses ad based models, giving music away as a promotion (buy a car, get 1000 hours of music free type stuff) and other methods. All based on cheap hardware like MP3 players as the new medium to replace CD."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Would Free Music Sell Cars?

Comments Filter:
  • Too late (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:06PM (#5654512)
    You can get as many free hours of music as you want now. It'll be that way in the future.
    • Re:Too late (Score:2, Insightful)

      by coopaq ( 601975 )
      True. The only way to make money on music in
      the future is to sing about Pepsi and Ford.


  • by KDan ( 90353 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:06PM (#5654514) Homepage
    Buy 1000 hours of music, get a free car!

    I'm sure more people would fall for that :-)

  • by BitwizeGHC ( 145393 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:06PM (#5654515) Homepage
    I mean would it be normal music from acts I like, or would it be "See the USA in your Chevrolet" type stuff?

    I remember getting free music with a McDonald's meal once. One of those cardboard punch-out disposable phonograph records with the catchy menu jingle recorded on it. And if the class sings it successfully through to the end, you win like a lot of money or something.

    Catchy, but not exactly chart-topping stuff.
    • Who cares? If you don't get what you want you can always grab it from kazaa.
    • by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:28PM (#5654714) Homepage
      For those who may have "forgot" it...

      I want a ..........
      Big Mac, Mc Blt, a Quarter-Pounder with some cheese, Fillet-o-Fish, a hamburger, a cheeseburger, a Happy Meal, Mcnuggets, tasty golden french fries, regular and larger size and salads, chef or garden, or a chicken salad oriental, Big Big Breakfast, Egg Mcmuffin, hot hotcakes and sausage, Maybe biscuits, bacon, egg and cheese and sausage, danish, hashbrown too and for dessert hot apple pies and sundaes three varieties, A soft serve cone, three kinds of shakes, and chocolately-chip cookies and to drink a Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, an orange drink, a Sprite, A coffee, a lowfat milk also an orange juice, I love Mcdonald's good time great taste, And I get this all at one place!

      I beleive the jingle was released in conjunction with a $1 million prize. If you received a copy of the jingle in your Sunday paper where the musicians made it through the entire song without messing up, you won.

      BTW: Was it McBLT or McDLT....I find references to both and I can't remember...

      Am I dating my self?
      • It's funny, whenever I sing this song (and I can only get to the chicken salad oriental), nobody recognizes it all. I wonder if it's the age group of people I work with...

        I usually sing it McDLT. Although I don't remember if they had a McDLT.

        • McDLT. I don't remember what the D stood for. This was the burger that came in a double-sized styrofoam box. On one side was the bottom of the bun with the burger and cheese. The other side had the top of the bun with mayo, lettuce & tomato. YOU get to put them together for "maximum freshness".

          It was basically a quarter-pounder with lettuce & tomato.
          • I thought it was McBLT (Bacon, Lettuce, Tomato). McD's website had both at different places. And I think the official jingle was "The hot side stays hot, the cool side stays cool".
          • McDLT. I don't remember what the D stood for. This was the burger that came in a double-sized styrofoam box. On one side was the bottom of the bun with the burger and cheese. The other side had the top of the bun with mayo, lettuce & tomato. YOU get to put them together for "maximum freshness".

            Yeah, I remember the burger. It's funny too because nobody I talk to ever remembers this burger either and the seemingly market flop it was.

      • It was Mc DLT and someone from Salem, Virginia won the contest when they pulled the winning record from a trash bin, IIRC.
      • McDonald's is your kind of place
        Hamburgers in your face
        French fries between your toes
        Dill pickles up your nose
        and don't forget those chocolate shakes
        Made from polluted lakes
        McDonalds is your..... kind of place

        There are other [inthe80s.com] versions as well.

    • I remember getting free music with a McDonald's meal once. One of those cardboard punch-out disposable phonograph records with the catchy menu jingle recorded on it. And if the class sings it successfully through to the end, you win like a lot of money or something.

      Big Mac McDLT a Quater Pounder with some cheese Filet-o-Fish a Hamburger a Cheeseburger a Happy MealMcNuggets tasty golden Fries, regular or larger size, a salad (Chef or Garden, or a Chicken Salad Oriental)

      Sadly, I don't remember the rest. I
    • If I recall, it went like this (totally from memory):
      Big mac, mc blt,
      a quarter pounder with some cheese,
      filet of fish,
      a hamburger,
      a cheeseburger,
      a happy meal,
      mcnuggets, tasty golden fries,
      regular or larger sizes,
      and salads chef or garden
      or a chicken salad oriental
      big mcmuffins, hot hot cakes and saugsage,
      maybe biscuits bacon eggs, and sausage? ...I forget this part...
      i love mcdonalds good time great taste,
      can I get this all at one place?

      If the record sang back, "You won a million dollars", then you won.

  • It seems every body is looking for one big thing to replaces the current selling records model of the industry. A lot of things like this and othere like online music sales will probably work to keep it profitable.

  • why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tiwason ( 187819 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:07PM (#5654523)
    No more 'piracy' or 'rights management' to worry about!

    Then why am I going to have to buy a $30k car to get my music..

    This is nothing new... your still "selling" the music

    I'm still paying or going through more hoops then kazaa or friends to get it.. then its not worth it.

    I don't understand..
    • Re:why? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MhzJnky ( 443677 )
      I'm still paying or going through more hoops then kazaa or friends to get it.. then its not worth it.

      I mean realy, Pay for music... that's rediculous. Next thing you know we'll be expected to pay for food, gas, and books. Just because someone went through all the trouble to produce something, package it, and make it available to me, dosn't mean I should actually have to GIVE them something in exchange for it. That's not what America's about people...
    • Re:why? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Vermithrax ( 524934 )
      And what sort of music will the music industry make if only people who buy new cars get to choose what music is available. Because they will start to produce music that fits the new car buying demographic
  • by greechneb ( 574646 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:08PM (#5654528) Journal
    I sure wouldn't base my decision on whether to buy a model of a car on if the dealer gave away "free" music. I prefer to make my choices based on my age old method
    1. - Does it go fast?
    2. - Can I afford it without having to sell an organ?
    3. - What kind of stereo does it have?
  • by mekkab ( 133181 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:09PM (#5654536) Homepage Journal
    or does it?!

    The analogy to the coal story is very interesting, but its just like radio: the discs go to radio stations, who are paid to play certain songs. And while there may have been a cost savings for the central heating model, you know darn well that when the landlord controls the thermostat, you go cold. Its happened in countless apartments where we get a cold spell before "the heat is turned on" and all I could do was bundle up and shiver.

    The same thing is happening with music. I get free music all the time in elevators and shopping malls and on radios. But it sucks, and leaves me cold.
  • Article text (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Ripping" a copy of a friend's music CD, or grabbing a track from a Napster-like service on the Internet, is stealing, plain and simple.

    Music fans, seeking to justify this casual act of larceny, claim they're really supporting an economic boycott of a usurious and uncreative music industry. "Cybershoplifting," reply the record companies, seizing the opportunity to impose their opaque and onerous copyright schemes on the listening public.

    While the battle rages on, piling up legal fees and taking the joy ou
    • The real illegality is taking art, which should be freely available, and reducing it in concept to property.

      It is about as inane as mineral rights. The mineral wealth of a nation should belong to the people of a nation, not its elites. The same is true for any wealth, artistic, economic, etcetera.

      By supporting the music industry, all you are doing is enforcing the serfdom of the artists themselves.
  • by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:10PM (#5654544) Homepage Journal
    Who would buy a car based on the amount of music you get with it? Everyone buys cars based on the amount of chrome it has.

    Vin Diesel
  • by Rombuu ( 22914 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:10PM (#5654546)
    This is less logical than an Iraqi press conference. So if people could then freely copy this music, why would anyone want to pay to get it in the first place to gie away with their products?
  • by delfstrom ( 205488 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:10PM (#5654557)
    I hear there's this great new wireless technology that actually sends out free music through the air. There appears to be a way of supporting it through advertising revenue, but who cares, it's live broadband music streaming.

    No more tinny-sounding RealPlayer broadcasts, this is high-quality stuff we're talking about. Free content for all! And the best thing is, the end-user hardware requirements are very inexpensive. I hear it's called 'radio' or something. Apparently people are working on actually sending video images in the same way. Imagine the possibilities!
    • by ip_vjl ( 410654 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:21PM (#5654658) Homepage
      ... music through the air. [snip] I hear it's called 'radio' or something.

      I know your post is meant as humor, but it reminded me of something I was thinking about on the way into work this morning.

      I was listening to the radio and there was a song I liked - don't know the name, don't know by who. There was no DJ break at the time, and by the time there would be one, I would no longer be in the car ... so not much chance of finding out who it was.

      Now *THAT* would be something that I would like ... potentially as a way of selling this new digital satellite radio crap.

      When I hear a song ... I can click the 'buy this song' button on the radio. It doesn't even need to download it to the car (though I suppose it could). It could just charge me a reasonable fee (maybe 0.75 - 1.00) and make a good MP3/OGG available for download in my "account" on the site.

      That way, music would become an impulse buy. Same way they leave the candy bars next to the cash register at the supermarket.

      See/Hear it ... want it ... buy it. (R)
      oh yeah. that would be the way.

      • You a smart mofo.

        I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. Now this idea, like all those moments, will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

        That was the equiv of a +1 mod from me, 'cept I am all out of points.
      • > I was listening to the radio and there was a song I liked - don't know the name, don't know by who. There was no DJ break at the time, and by the time there would be one, I would no longer be in the car

        What I usually do then is memorize a line or two and google for it next time I'm online.

        God bless lyrics pages.
      • "There was no DJ break at the time, and by the time there would be one, I would no longer be in the car ... so not much chance of finding out who it was."

        Well, if you'd had a DAB radio in your car (Digital Audio Broadcast) chances would be that you'd see the name of the artist and track scrolling along the little lcd screen on the front of the radio.

        Also, if you had the number for that mobile service... where you dial it up and play in a few bars of the song, that would tell you what it was also.

  • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:12PM (#5654576) Homepage Journal

    I have gigs and gigsof MP3s but don't own a car.
  • I've always thought that places like McDonalds and Taco Bell would be great record labels - sign a band and give the music away for free with purchase of goods. But DRM would be necessary in order to keep people coming in the door.

    I, for one, would love this. Maybe that is why McDonalds is rolling out WiFi?
  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:14PM (#5654592) Homepage Journal
    From what I've read, even the multiplatinum musicians make most of their money from live performances. I've always gone to see live acts based on their recorded work. If more recorded work were available (perhaps even for free), wouldn't that improved exposure give an artist the ability to pull in larger crowds and therefore make more money at live gigs?

    I'm sure I'm missing something, but why do artists need labels any more?

    • This is not about the artists. It never has been. It is about the five corporations that control the radio space and the retail shelf space.
      They do not want to lose control of their golden goose.
    • It's true that multiplatinum artists make a ton of money doing tours (according to Rolling Stone Magazine, the top three artists in terms of money making were Paul McCartney, Rolling Stones, and Dave Matthews. All made the majority of their money from touring.

      However, is that true for non-major bands? For a little band that sells 50,000 copies or less of their album, how much do they really get from playing in 1000 seat arenas?

      • Well at $10 a ticket (for arguments sake) and a 40% cut of the door (also for arguments sake) that would be $4000, split among an average of four members, hmmm $1000 for three hours of work? Wow that really sucks, especially when you take into consideration that these "smaller-bands" have more free time to do whatever they want than I do. Of course this is assuming that the entire theatre is full.

        I find it very difficult to find sympathy for bands complaining that they can't make a living playing music.

    • the downside to this idea is then there are musicians like me who make music that literally cannot be reproduced live, unless you just play a rough sounding recording and look like you're actually doing something.

      then again, i'm not out to make money... and neither are most people who make music like mine that i've ran into... although, being able to have my own studio would be the greatest thing ever.


      on second thought...my music HAS been used in avant-guarde performance art performed live, but tha
      • The story I heard is that Kraftwerk "toured" with David Bowie in the '70s-- he would play tapes of them before he went on stage. I wonder if they got a share of the tour proceeds. ;)


    • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:33PM (#5654771)
      I'm sure I'm missing something, but why do artists need labels any more?

      What you are missing are a few very important points that the media cartels, in their extraordinarilly disingenuous rhetoric regarding non-commerical copyright infringement by individuals, would very much like you not to notice:
      • The cartels in general, and the recording industry in particular, are not interested in their artists financial well being (just read their standard recording contracts sometime, or the excellent analysis done by Courtney Love and Janis Ian). They are interested in their own profits, and while most artists make most of their money from live shows and would benefit from free music, the recording industry makes most of their profits from selling recording (in large part because they pocket the lion's share of the proceeds).
      • There are some extraordinarilly rich artists, such as Metallica and the Zombie, excuse me, I mean Michael Jackson, that have managed to finagle contracts that, contrary to most, give them a portion of that pot. They benefit from the system enormously, and serve the aforementioned cartels by giving other artists an unreasonable dream to shoot for, a dream with which they very successfully ensnare new talent which they then milk dry and forget.
      • It is about control, even more than money remarkably enough. This happened in the early 80's prior to MTV, where their control was so solid, and the music they released so tepid, that sales had fallen dramatically until MTV introduced an entirely new genre of music imported from Europe. Their desire to control their market absolutely stems from their cartel mindset, a mindset made possible by the monopoly entitlements their copyright priveleges extend to them and one that is difficult to overcome, even when it is working against their own bottom line. Free music would undermine that cartel, the control they wield, and fear of this sort of change will leave the cartels entrenched even if they see the possibility of a better bottom line without it. The risk simply won't be worth the benefits, to their minds, at least not until an outside group has made them all but irrelevant and decimated their business anyway, something which may not even be possible with new legislation emerging from congress and various state governments.

      In short, if it were about the artists well being, free(dom) music and media would be a slam dunk. It benefits everyone ... except the ever-less-necessary publishers and middlemen, who run a powerful cartel and will see our every freedom destroyed before they give up or change their business model.

      It is interesting that those with such entitlement mindsets feel they should be able to earn money indefinitely (at least life+70 years) for one bit of work performed sometime in the past, while the rest of us accept that, if we wish to earn money, we must continue to work each day of our lives (weekends and vacation sometimes excepted). Given the profitability of, and real value offered by, live shows one must truly wonder why an artist, much less a publisher. would think they are entitled to proceeds from anything other than their live work. Four centuries of monopoly entitlements will, alas, do that to an industry and even a culture, to the detriment of nearly everyone (a few moghuls and poster children excepted)
      • Important points (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Infonaut ( 96956 )
        What you are missing are a few very important point

        Perhaps I should have been more clear in my initial post. I understand and agree with everything you've said. But my point was that from the perspective of view of the artist, why would you want to sign on with a label, since everyone knows that the labels screw artists?

  • Sure, they'll "give" you 1000 hours of music but will write it off as an operating expense in the books. It's attempt at propping up the artificially high values they put on music.
  • "Nothing in life is FREE." That goes for the music too. I'm sorry, but the price of a car is a lot to pay to get "free" music. Does anyone remember when mp3.com was sending out free CDs of 100 songs apiece of this same type of free music? The music was only halfway decent... nothing to sneeze at. I don't see this type of marketing going over very well with the public. I think the American public is smarter than that.
    • 100 songs apiece of this same type of free music? The music was only halfway decent... nothing to sneeze at

      He's suggesting that somebody other than mp3.com (Who doesn't have access to the BIG names or talent), would do this, like SONY.
  • The payment plan (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:17PM (#5654619) Homepage Journal
    This article goes one step ahead of slashdotters clamoring "Digital restrictions are bad. IP is untenable" and actually gives a revenue model which sounds workable to me. The important parts are:

    But how will artists and their agents and lawyers get paid? This time we can turn for answers not to coal distribution, but to an industry much closer to musicians' homes: the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. ASCAP licenses, collects and redistributes music royalties from music performance venues (like radio stations, concert halls and so on) to the artists. It determines who gets paid what by polling these venues to see whose music gets played and how often.

    To determine reimbursement in an MP3 player world, a small sample of users could be invited periodically to voluntarily, and anonymously share their listening history stored in the player. Then, just as in the ASCAP model, payments collected from the music player distributors (Kia, the BSO and the like) would be split among the copyright owners. No fuss, no complexity and no secret CD police.

    Makes a lot of sense to me. To get this off the ground, it only takes one company to tie up with some mp3 player makers. If it succeeds, others will be quick to jump on the bandwagon and the RIAA will be left wondering what hit them.

    • To get this off the ground, it only takes one company to tie up with some mp3 player makers. If it succeeds, others will be quick to jump on the bandwagon and the RIAA will be left wondering what hit them.

      Why 'company'? It seems to me like this could work equally well on an artist level. Of course it might take a few more artists, or at least a couple of really popular ones, to get the mp3 player manufacturers to move on it, but even a dozen artists will move many times faster than a single label.
  • For big acts only. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:17PM (#5654622) Homepage
    This model really would appear to work only for the larger acts. You know, the ones that get airplay -- all 10 of them.

    This wouldn't work at all for bands on smaller independent labels, other non-pop genres (jazz, blues, etc). Reads like another big step toward musical homogenization to me.

  • We already have this, it's called radio.

    You want a suggestion on how to modernize the music industry? It's simple: put more interesting content on the media.

    Sound is FAR too easy to capture and distribute. Trying to lock that up is like trying to lock up light. Even if DRM is perfect in the eyes of the RIAA, garage bands can do their own redition of a song, free of restriction. As a matter of fact, that'd be in demand.

    Provide more content on the CD, like a music video or interview with the artist. H
  • I cant see tracks of the Chemical Brothers, Aphex Twin or Arab Strap being given away for free.
    The 1000 hours would be of of the type you wouldnt want in the first place, made up of muzak or *shudder* country and western.
  • by defile ( 1059 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:21PM (#5654663) Homepage Journal

    The other day I found myself at CompUSA paying $40 for Red Hat. Why on earth would I pay money for that when I can get an ISO and burn it for free?

    In my case, it was because I was at a datacenter and needed to reinstall the system (the vendor forgot to install it). I could've either taken a trip back home (30 minutes), downloaded and burned a CD (an hour), and taken a trip back (30 minutes), or I could drop by CompUSA and pay for a copy (20 minutes). Savings to my client by paying for software? 1.75 billable hours.

    If there's any hope in selling data as a retail product, it'll be in models that completely ignore the actual data on it.

    There's my case (needed it quickly), but there are many others.

    Some people just want to rummage through piles of stuff, find a gem, claim a prize. That whole Hunter/Scavenger instinct is still with us, you know.

    Shopping at a record store is a social activity for many people -- something that's harder to do with a real person by a computer.

    There have been many times that we browsed Blockbuster Video (yes, they suck, but that's a different story) in search of a movie and ended up there an entire hour because we became so engrossed in searching (and ended up with 3 or 4 movies by the end of it). A web site can offer the content, but seldom can it recreate that experience.

    The content cartel should capitalize on this, because their current business model's days are numbered.

  • by paiute ( 550198 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:22PM (#5654673)
    Rip. Burn. Walk.

  • i have a car with a custom subwoofer box, a 6 disc changer, a nice amp, an in-dash cd player, and so on.

    i never listen to it. the previous owner of the car installed all that crap. i bought the car to drive, and when you have one of the worlds best sounding motors(*1), drowning it out with music is a crime.

    who buys a car based on the factory stereo, or the music that comes in the car ? shouldn't car buying revolve around performance, safety, and price ?

    *1- S38B35 US spec, with catalyst
  • buy a car, get 1000 hours of music free type stuff
    1000 hours of my choice, or of theirs? I'd buy a different brand of car to avoid getting 1000 hours of Brittney, 'N Sync, etc.
  • I'm a big fan of a bunch of small bands that depend on CD revenue for things like eating. On the one hand, I can't imagine that they'd care if their music got bundled with the latest SUV because soccer moms and dads would *hate* the music.

    Sure, this may make some sense for ultra-corporate music, where it's just a commoditized product, but I can't see it working for music that's less than completely corporate and mainstream.

    And Britney Spears Corp. is making more than enough money as is, even with P2P and
  • that's what I want (Score:3, Insightful)

    by capoccia ( 312092 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:26PM (#5654693) Journal
    that's exactly what i want. i have been waiting for someone to sell me ford-approved music. or do you think they would actually let you choose which songs they would sell you. no, this would be one ten-hour disk for everyone. i'm sure they'll be enough songs for everyone to hate.

    i like choosing my own music.
  • This guy talks about an "ad-supported player" as the replacement for selling music in album form. He gives you broadcast TV and radio as similar models for content distribution. What he's kind of forgetting is that people really hate ads. We'll pay extra to avoid them. That's why TiVo exists, that's why premium cable exists, that's why sites like Salon try to annoy you into buying a subscription by showing the most irritating possible ads. Paying for a $250 player, and then being subjected to advertise
  • Boggle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ThresholdRPG ( 310239 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:26PM (#5654704) Homepage Journal
    This is one of the stupidest ideas I have read in a long time.

    When I buy a car, I care about the features of the car. Adding in stupid junk like 1000 hours of music is an annoyance, not something I would be happy about.

    The key to selling music is selling it at a low enough price that people prefer the reliability and quality of purcahsed music to the hassle, unreliability, etc. of pirated music. It is truly as simple as that.
  • by greymond ( 539980 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:28PM (#5654718) Homepage Journal
    I think this would be a terrible idea, look at what I would have to listen too:

    BMW - 1,000 Free hours of Kraftwork

    Honda - 1,000 Free hours of SES

    Cadillac - 1,000 Free hours of Elvis

    NO NO NO....
  • Its as stupid as saying buy a house and get a free bathtub.
    Do they really expect people to be that stupid ?
    When I want to buy a car, I am much likely to look at
    • Engine Performance
    • Handling
    • past record of the car company and the model
    • Fule Efficiency. The regular gas costs 1.81 $ damnit
    • AND LAST of all the stupid accessories
      • And instead of paying my money to the f***ing so-called artist, I would rather give my money to a company which tries to be more environment friendly by producing more fuel efficient
  • ...I've lost all faith in the "music industry" to produce quality music. I no longer buy any new CD's, at least not major label ones. All my fav bands have either gone to independant labels, or are no longer in existance.

    Now I find myself listening to alot of underground and indie stuff via peoples websites. Mp3.com rocks for this reason. Free music, by otherwise unknown bands. I love going somewhere and having somebody ask me who that band is, and turning them on to a new group.
  • They sold ad space on their album. Now, depending on what you thought of their music, it worked. :) ID magazine, Network 21, l'oreal were some of the sponsors I can remember off the top of my head.

    Bands also have companies "sponsor" their tours to underwrite the cost of the tour so that the band walks away with most of the profit instead of making 300K in a night and then having to pay the teamsters for loading equip, their roadies for doing their job, and "rental" of the arena.

    So the ad concept is out

  • I don't know about you guys, but when I buy a new car I look good into it, after all I will own it for a few years, and more importantly spend a lot of money on it. I'm more worried about the car not free stuff.

    But then again, America is an impuslive nation. I know I talked to a few people that work in car sales and most people have no intention to buy a car when they visit. But they leave with a new car.

    Is free music realy doing to make someone say, "Hey, this is worth it" I know if a salesman said s
  • Ripping" a copy of a friend's music CD, or grabbing a track from a Napster-like service on the Internet, is stealing, plain and simple.

    1. In Canada this is perfectly legal [neil.eton.ca] to copy your friends CD for your own personal use.

    2. In anyplace that doesn't have a similar law it's still not theft. It is piracy.

  • "Now, each Cadillac Behemoth comes with your choice of ALL the oldies or ALL the classics! Or, for a limited time only, BOTH!"
    • This is the sort of thing Cadillac might even do. Their target market, after all, is "wannabee rich assholes". (Only Cadillac builds a 1000HP luxury sedan designed to burn rubber. Not go fast, just burn rubber.) Their demographic will pay for every bell and whistle that can be hung on the vehicle, especially if it can be chromed.
  • So, with this deal, would I be restricted to J-lo, Britney and N-Sync, or would I be able to get the Voivod [voivod.com] back catalog?
  • There is an important distinction that needs to be made in all of these "alternative music distribution" discussions. What seems to work - even perhaps optimally - in the short run, may not be feasible in the long-run.

    In many of these discussions, we take as given the current stock of music. Artists have already produced (and largely been compensated) for their music. But in the long-run, we need to consider how our proposed distribution system would support the creation of new music.

    The standard arg
  • Nor do I want to buy a toaster! I want to buy music that I like. Period. There are only 5 things in the way of music sales being obcenely profitable:
    1. Rampant corporate greed on the parts of the record companies.
    2. Absolute inflexability in the sales model (why can't I buy my music song by song at a reasonable price?).
    3. Prices are too damned high. (Oops, see #1)
    4. Most new music is garbage (but that's been said for the last 50 years, so it's a debatable point).
    5. The economy is in the toilet!

    Sell good mu

  • by Nix0n ( 649693 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:38PM (#5654816)
    You can't replace the CD.

    Well you can, but not with a lossy encoding scheme such as MP3. There are plenty of people out there, myself included, who simply do not like( or cannot even abide )the warbly sound of lossy compression, and would resist phasing out of high-resolution audio formats.

    If anything will replace the CD, it will be SACD or DVD-A, not mp3.
  • it works for TV and radio.

    will it work for mp3 music ?


    but for what kind of music ? will some company sponsor the kind of music I want to hear ?
  • by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @02:39PM (#5654827) Homepage
    I'll just have to steal cars now.

  • There's a tonne of money to be made on music, I don't know why people don't see this. Record companies should sell MP3s for a dollar each. That simple. I would pay $1 (and stop using Kazaa) for high speed xfers, no more broken downloads, consistent file naming, good quality recordings. If the web page let you preview songs and had buttons for "Show similar music" as well as a Top40 list by music type people would come. How many times have you heard a song you love on the radio and not known what to sea

    • And furthermore, why does the RIAA not allow this model? Why should they when they can use their monopoly to prevent change and stay smug in the current model? Why charge $1 for a song when they can charge you $15 for it and bundle 9 other songs you don't like? Why should they since they want music to be by subscription so they can milk you on a monthly basis rather than a fair trade: pay for what you need? Why should they take a risk on something new that people want when they can use monopoly and poli

  • Pretty soon, the car will be free too, as long as you purchase 100,000 gallons of gas.
  • Besides the nice packaging, universal portability, and feeling of having a tangible product, there's the all-important issue of sound quality. I'm sorry, but 192kbps MP3s are just unacceptable if you really want to appreciate Dark Side of the Moon. There's also something about the cohesiveness of an entire album as opposed to individual songs. Again, Pink Floyd is the most obvious example, but you can find many "concept albums" by many artists that have to be listened to in full, in order to fully apprecia
  • 1000 hours of free music when you buy a car? it's not an incentive if music is free anyway. That's like saying "buy our car and we'll throw in some free air for you to breath".
  • problem. You must have content, worth giving away. This appears to be the RIAAs' problem as well. The big companies music ALL SOUNDS the same. Music sales are not doomed, just the force fed, self serving market scheme the record labels have become used to. Net radio, cheap cd production are going to allow the expiremental and the new become a force again. The cookie cutter 90% profit model is a thing of the past, and if the labels don't realize it soon they will be extinct, government regulations or no.
    No o
  • It is not the hours of music that the marketing schmucks in the RIAA see, it is revenue based on an object - specifically, that which contains the content, be it CD, MD, LD, DVD, cassette tape, vinyl disk, or (God forbid) 8-track. Because an MP3 is so easy to transport, you can't establish revenues on that. And an MP3 player can be pulled off of. Give it time, the RIAA will collapse on its own weight. All they have to do is screw up on one tax return and the IRS will be on them like white on rice.
  • Coal stealing? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by blink3478 ( 579230 )

    Sorry, the coal-stealing analogy is a little off.

    In my opinion, being a recording artist is going to be closer to being a visual artist. There are tons of similarities - you usually have a single talented 'artist' that creates for the joy of creating, and little if any support structure to get the 'art' out there. Most people have very selective tastes in what they like, and collect a little bit to decorate their life with.
    Fine artists have a hell of a time supporting themselves making gallery art,
  • by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @03:09PM (#5655125)
    But merely masking/hiding the actual cost.

    The car dealer/builder who bundles a DVD chock full o' crap still has to pay something to the record company so that they can then distribute the scraps to the artist. They dealer prob gets a much reduced price, but not 'free'.

    The dealer damn sure isn't going to eat that cost. It WILL be passed back to the consumer.

    The $15,000 car now costs $16,5000. You just won't see it on the sticker.
  • by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Thursday April 03, 2003 @03:11PM (#5655149) Homepage
    I don't think the recording industry itself is doomed. Their real business is marketing. They market an image or sound to the public. Some of the public buys into it and so they buy albums, posters, concert tickets and so on. Popular artists have devoted followers who will buy anything they put out. They'll buy every CD, even their "greatest hits". They'll buy any magazine their favourite artists appear in. They'll watch any TV show that they appear on. There is even a good chance that they'll buy a products not even related to their artist based on his or her endorsement. The loyal fans buy stuff regardless of whether or not it's available for free.

    I have no doubt that on paper there will eventually be a point where the RIAA, or some other agency, will say that they've lost more money to piracy than they've taken in. Maybe they already say that, I don't really pay much attention to them. They will still be profitable though because losses due to piracy don't actually cost them any money from the balance sheet that matters.

    There are some tangible costs associated with being the music industry, and the way they maximize their profits is by minimizing investments where they don't get a large return on their investment. This means that unless you happen to look and sound a lot like what's already selling in a given demographic you won't get signed. Bad for consumers who don't fit into whatever the music industry is currently pushing (and slowly evolving) but that's business.

    So what do you do if you're an artist who can't get signed? Go independant. There's room for the independant music industry. There's probably a lot of money to be made for the first company that gets it: Give people what they want. So sell music on mp3 with optional CDs or vinyl. Don't worry about piracy, you don't lose money from that and maybe you'll make an additional sale. The artists won't get rich as the most popular RIAA artists but guess what? There's no gaurantee anywhere that you'll get rich regardless of your ambition, talent or luck.

  • Radio (Score:3, Insightful)

    by elliotj ( 519297 ) <slashdot.elliotjohnson@com> on Thursday April 03, 2003 @03:24PM (#5655251) Homepage
    My car already has a device that plays free music: the radio. In case you were wondering, it did not in any way affect my choice of which car to buy.
  • by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@@@geekazon...com> on Thursday April 03, 2003 @04:01PM (#5655589) Homepage
    The biggest flaw in this idea is that it is yet another attempt to solve the wrong problem: how to build a life support system for record companies. I wish these pundits would read and understand what musicians are saying [recordinga...lition.com] increasingly in their writings [janisian.com]: that the whole music piracy brouhaha is not about musicians, it's only about record companies, and that we really don't need record companies.

    Most musicians by far make a living with paying gigs, not CD sales. Recording contracts are carefully structured so that all expenses come out of the artist's share, which ends up being zero. CD sales benefit musicians by giving them exposure which translates into gigs. A musician gets this same exposure whether someone buys a CD, listens to a song on the radio or downloads it from Kazaa.

    Replacing the entire record industry with free distribution wouldn't deprive musicians of anything except the opportunity to let the record companies control their careers. And as an added bonus, it would mean one less source of big-money whispering into the ears of lawmakers.

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.