He describes six different models for music distribution, at least one of which excludes the record label. I note however that at no point in this lengthy piece does he subscribe to the give music away for free model. Like David above, he tlks about artistes making a living from tours, but I don’t think he means as a complete substitute for music sales. In fact he admits that not all artistes are able to do tours.

It strikes me also that without much thought for what the artistes want, much of the discussion about this issue seems to centre on record labels vs. consumers, with the latter wanting music for free and the former feeling threatened by that. It seems to me – more so after reading Byrne’s article – that whilst consumers and artistes currently have a common enemy in the labels, if/when that enemy is eliminated, the two will turn on each other because the artistes will still want to sell their music and the consumers will still want it for free.

One last thought, which I alluded to in an earlier comment is that it is dangerous to accept that music needs to be free just because it has been digitized and can therefore be easily shared. If we accept that, we would soon have to do so for books as well, as more and more books get digitized for Kindle and other readers. I jest here but perhaps music and books should take the Hollywood approach – release first on an equivalent platform to the cinema and do so for a period of time before releasing digitally. Are tours the cinema for music? They would be if the artistes did not have to be physically present. For books, I guess it would have to be a public reading .

The genie is out of the bottle, if you want to fix it, you have to put it to work instead of working to put it back in.

As a business person, I feel that it would set a dangerous precedent if the music industry were to just roll over and die, accepting this notion of “everything on the Internet must be free”.

What would be really interesting would be to hear the opinions of a few artistes – independent and otherwise – not necessarily on the solution I have proposed but on the DRM issue in general.

I have been learning a lot about the music business recently (in fact I just became an A&R scout) and even major artists do not make much of their money off of record sales.

A record label is pretty much a Venture Capitalist — but they get a lot bigger stake in the artists future.

Getting signed by a record label means they will invest in you, how much depending on how big they think you can get, as well as provide important networking resources: music producers, sound engineers, etc.

Don’t forget that an artist’s manager is likely getting a cut of all this too.

An artist initially gets 10% of records sold, initially, with the artist standing to earn more depending on how successful they are.

Again, artists with record labels make most of their money on touring (as well as merchandise, and related royalties, such as landing a song in a commercial, or movie).

In addition, many artists get big in fact BECASUE of music piracy — in the past we used to call this “underground,” such as rappers like 50 cent who got big as people heard and ripped his CD.

Limiting distributing of music in the end can only hurt the artist — the less people who hear their music, the less fans they will have. Distribution of music happens exponentially, so every person limited to distributing the music because it must be purchased is worth many more potential fans — (even accounting for overlaps in social networks) many social scientists mark the current number as 259– the average person’s social network of friends and family.

Again, most people outside the industry falsely assume that the money is to be had from the sales — this holds true for record labels and only the biggest artists (90% of artists do not recoup the original investment by a Record label.)

“For one thing, I imagine it takes quite a while for an artiste to become popular enough to hold a successful tour, whereas with music sales, he or she might just earn enough to tide them over till they hit the big time. ”

It is a very different story with independent artists, who bring home all the bacon (minus expenses) from record sales, but to think an artist under contract makes money by music sales is simply not true — again, refer to the 90% figure.

Regarding advertising, my problem with that model is that ad-spported music is likely to have the same problem as ad-supported social networks are having – perhaps even more so. I am referring to the fact that people who visit music sites, do so to listen to music not to click on ads or buy things (other than the music itself). To my mind, the only ads that would really make sense are ads for other music, but why would artistes spend money advertising their music when no one will pay for it? I suppose, ads for concerts would also work but I am not convinced that concerts and ads for concerts are enough to sustain the industry. For one thing, I imagine it takes quite a while for an artiste to become popular enough to hold a successful tour, whereas with music sales, he or she might just earn enough to tide them over till they hit the big time.

I like the way you’re thinking, but it’s still wrong.

Music is a service — making money off the product is not going to work. Do you think people would be really motivated to make minimal money for sharing music with their friends?

Look at Facebook or Myspace, how many people do you see complaining that those companies are worth billions of dollars? They just keep on using it.

In the same vein, the majority of people aren’t interested in listening or sharing music to make money — its because they love it (check the sales of Apple’s Ipod if you do not believe this).

The killer idea for music (and I feel for e-books as well) will be this: give the music away for free with (or without) DRM technology.

The money maker — on the product, which doesn’t make much money for artists anyways, will be selling advertising, but the real money maker for artists is touring anyways.

By giving away their music for free the artist will achieve three things:

1. Increasing their fan base by making the music much more accessible

2. Possibly make money by selling ads — If LinkinPark, who is now independent, were to run ads on their website and then give away their music for free, you don’t think that would generate ads — imagine if Radiohead’s web page would have had ads how much money they could have made when they released their music for “pay what it’s worth.”

3. Get your service out there– again, music is NOT a product, it is a service. Look at the figures for Music Tours and see how they are rising, people will pay for this service because they want to hear music live, but if they already paid hundreds for their music player (you used to get a music player for cheap when it was CD’s and Tapes) , why they should pay again for the music.

People are still not understanding the internet— you have to give a reason for people to pay: people use Itunes not because they want to pay for music, but because it is so easy to put it on their Ipod.

They are paying for the ease-of-use, not really music as a product.

Personally, I think that Generation Y (or at least some proportion of them) can learn to pay for music and other products/services that they consume online. Indeed I think the future of the Internet depends to some degree on them doing so. The only way that I can think of for getting people to pay is by giving them an incentive to do so. What better incentive than money?

By the way, I realise that it would be naive of me to expect the majority of Generation Y to suddenly accept this new model, but if only a small fraction did, it would be worth it. It’s not just about saving an industry – it is about saving music. OK that’s my bit of drama for 2007.