[blue_dinner]

The music industry is so large, nobody will be able to defeat them or their pack of lawyers in court. Napster was supposed to be a revolution, but all it did was put all of the indy artists out of business and create the environment we have now where music is virtually worthless and the only way to make a living as an artist is to sign with a big company and tour.

Music sharing took away all of the power we had to defeat the music industry. You need big money to make big changes, and now it's way too late.

The only real way to change the music industry is to start your own label, get the rights to all of the musicians' work, and then charge what you feel is right for the music and give them their fair share.

Nobody wants to do this because it will take years of sacrifice and money. I suspect that most people that start out with this intention, end up becoming the exact company they aimed to stop in the first place, because they didn't realize the cost and risks involved with the music industry.

[coldtea]

>The music industry is so large, nobody will be able to defeat them or their pack of lawyers in court. Napster was supposed to be a revolution, but all it did was put all of the indy artists out of business and create the environment we have now where music is virtually worthless and the only way to make a living as an artist is to sign with a big company and tour.

It also halved or even less the revenues of the music industry.

It was indeed a revolution, but not necessarily good for the indies. Plus, technology lowered both recording and distribution costs to nearly 0, and so everybody and his dog is an indie now and people just don't care. If you have 10.000 indie artist, each might have a following. If there are 200.000 of them, it's much more difficult.

>Music sharing took away all of the power we had to defeat the music industry. You need big money to make big changes, and now it's way too late.

Only if the idea of "defeating the music industry" was "and get to make a living as indie artists".

If it was "fuck the industry part, let's just have music from people who don't do it for profit" then it was a wild success. We now have more music from people who couldn't give a rats arse for profits than ever before -- all over Bandcamp, CD Baby, personal sites, small vanity pressings and more.

[krapp]

> Napster was supposed to be a revolution, but all it did was put all of the indy artists out of business and create the environment we have now where music is virtually worthless and the only way to make a living as an artist is to sign with a big company and tour.

Maybe that's fair. Maybe digital music is virtually worthless, because software is virtually worthless. When music came pressed onto a plastic disc or magnetic tape, paying for it made sense. Why should anyone pay more than a few pennies, or anything at all, for arbitrary bits downloaded from the internet - the way most people consume music now?

>charge what you feel is right for the music and give them their fair share.

As coldtea mentions elsewhere, the cost of production is approaching zero, the cost of distribution is zero, and the market is flooded with far more mediocre products than anyone can consume in a lifetime. Charging what "you feel is right" will bankrupt you if the market disagrees with you as to the actual value of your product. You don't have to worry about fighting the music industry because its collapse is inevitable. Fortunately for indie artists, there are already alternatives to the old media models and it is easier to directly reach an audience and be directly compensated for your work.

[blue_dinner]

edit: well, I'm out. I realized that on HN, after you go against the main liberal narrative enough, all of your comments are down voted by bots from then on...even when you are trying to have a conversation with adults.

Time to create a new account. rinse and repeat.