Last month, when the news first came out that Prince was Prince did a deal to have a UK newspaper give away a free copy of his latest CD with every paper, we noted that this showed a great way to increase the value for both the music industry and the newspaper industry in one single move. Apparently, I wasn't the only one to think so. A columnist for the LA Times, Patrick Goldstein, felt the same way as well -- and actually had some fantastic ideas to improve on Prince's experiment in a way that would add tremendous value to a bunch of musicians and the LA Times in a single move. Of course, the LA Times sometimes is known for catering to the incumbent established entertainment industry which so dominates LA -- and perhaps that's why the LA Times' new associate editor killed the column and refused to run it (found via Romenesko). Of course, in true Streisand Effect fashion, the column has leaked and it's hard to see any reason why the LA Times would spike it, other than it was afraid of pissing off the established recording industry.

You can read the whole spiked column at the link above, and it's a worthwhile read. The smart changes Goldstein proposed were that it be a regular series of free CDs distributed with the newspaper (encouraging more subscriptions and positioning the paper as a "tastemaker"). And rather than have the newspaper pay the musicians directly (which is how the Prince deal worked), have a sponsor pony up the money to be associated with the musician (this is exactly how much music is already created). Everyone wins in this deal... except stubborn record labels who don't understand that they should be in the music promotion business and think they're only in the business of selling plastic discs. The musicians get paid, get a lot more attention and are likely to make even more in terms of a wider audience willing to go to more shows, buy more merchandise and increase the amount future sponsors will be willing to pay. The newspaper gives people a fantastic new reason to subscribe and reinvents the role of the newspaper as a tastemaker. Sponsors get a great way to associate their brand with hot musicians. And, most importantly, everyone else benefits by getting access to more good music. Yet, in a town where the entertainment industry rules all, apparently, protecting obsolete business models is more important than publishing interesting columns with fantastic suggestions for creating a great new service.

Goldstein's final paragraph is too good not to repeat (especially since the LA Times doesn't think it's worth even printing once:

"Giving music away doesn't mean it has lost its value, just that its value is no longer moored to the price of a CD. Like it or not, the CD is dying, as is the culture of newsprint. People want their music -- and their news -- in new ways. It's time we embraced change instead of always worrying if some brash new idea -- like giving away music -- would tarnish our sober minded image. When businesses are faced with radical change, they are usually forced to ask -- is it a threat or an opportunity? Guess which choice is the right answer."

Still handing out daft patents, though

The US patent system is set for a thorough review, according to reports, with the aim of improving the quality of patents awarded, and thus reducing the number of patent lawsuits.