what we pay for (Score 1)

Philosophically, when someone earns money, it should be because they have added value to a product. This is an essential principle behind Capitalism. Record companies have traditionally made 90-99% of the money on music because they performed the following services (which have, until now, been costly):

• quality assurance (provide a proper recording studio, etc),
• advertising/promotion
• manufacturing CDs, and
• filtering out the crap.

This is no longer really true when we consider the power of the net. Distribution, manufacturing, and promotion, probably accounting for the largest costs, are now much easier, therefore the added value is much less. This means that the costs of music should more or less be reflected in the quality of the music, and any associated costs in serving it to the public.

In a truly free market economy, this means that a new structure should arise where online record labels still provide quality assurance, promotion, and crap-filtering, providing music at a reduced cost.

So wouldn't it be great if someone could organize such a label? I would pay $100 per year to people with good taste to find good artists, collect music, ensure quality of recording, and compensate artists for their work. With an online membership as small as 100,000 people, this would give them an annual budget of $10million for providing a good product. They could make a deals where, when they pay the artist, the artist agrees to allow the free trade of their music on-line. From their popularity, they would be able to make money from other enterprises, including merchandising and concerts. By downloading from them, we could additionally ensure a source where we don't get mp3 music with pops, clips, or other problems. And it would all be legal.