Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

["Erik" <erik AT openstandards.net>]

I've thought a lot about this model.  It's exciting to see you on this
track.

Your profit:  Consultantation is needed to replace the lump sum consultation
that a record company provides.  Even though you would in theory be helping
the client obtain services that don't require signing to a label to easily
gain access to, they still need help obtaining these services.  This will be
the nature of the business so long as musicians are musicians.

Their profit:  One of the primary benefits of this model is that it
increases the chance of them succeeding... making a profit and being able to
play music for a living.  While, in theory, it reduces the chance of them
ever becoming the next Metallica, it increases their chances of simply
becoming profitable, because it helps to level the playing field, and
rewards good music over good marketing.

The current business model used by the labels results in only a small
portion of those who sign from ever begin financially successful.  We tend
to focus on these few, since they are famous... Madonna, Metallica, etc,...
But, the reality is that few are able to continually make a living.  This is
in large part due to the decision by the labels to focus on the few, not to
maximize the likelihood of profitability for the musicians, but to maximize
the profitability of the labels.  The labels are not philanthropists.  This
business model works for them, not the artists.  Michael Jackson is a better
investment than 40 silly artists who each can make only 1% of the profit
that Michael Jackson can make.  But, to most musicians today, that 1% is a
LOT of money.  It is financial success, and the ability to play music for a
living, instead of getting another job, and letting music just be a hobby.

So, the question for any musician is, do they want to focus on the ability
to play music for a living, and profit according to how good their music is,
or throw a crapshoot that they will be the next Metallica, and somehow the
labels will decide to promote them over all the other Metallica's out there?

Of course, this is simplified.  Complications abound.  But, I think this is
the heart of what a musician has to decide.  Do they want to invest in
success, or play the lottery with the labels.

Erik
http://www.OpenStandards.net



-----Original Message-----
From: dmca_discuss-bounces AT lists.microshaft.org
[mailto:dmca_discuss-bounces AT lists.microshaft.org]On Behalf Of tom poe
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 4:00 AM
To: DMCA_Discuss AT lists.microshaft.org
Cc: Community Studios
Subject: [DMCA_Discuss] test idea


Hi:  Want to test this out.

Open Source investment opportunities.  How does an investor in an Open
Source project get a reasonable return on investment?

Example:
Musician makes .ogg file, puts it on the web using Creative Commons
Project licensing options, develops products for sale, tours, concerts,
etc., and if successful, investor gets reasonable return on investment.
No middle man.  Thus, need investment pitch for musician.  Or, better
yet, Open Source venture capital firm.

So, does Open Studios need to develop project for providing individuals
with skills to help musicians that find investors?  They'll need web
site skills, business management skills, . . . .etc.

Or, do we let the market do it's thing, and those that previously worked
within the Hollywood track now begin to take on individuals at terms the
individual dictates?
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/



_______________________________________________


------------------------
http://www.anti-dmca.org
------------------------

DMCA_Discuss mailing list
DMCA_Discuss AT lists.microshaft.org
http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss