From yoeddy at earthlink.net Sat Jan 30 13:25:52 1999
Return-Path: <yoeddy@earthlink.net>
Received: from bnl.gov (bnl.gov
by ssadler.phy.bnl.gov (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00748
for <adler@ssadler.phy.bnl.gov>; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:25:52 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by bnl.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA17768
for adler at ssadler.phy.bnl.gov; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:25:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from set.scient.com (set.Scient.COM
by bnl.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA17761
for <adler@bnl.gov>; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:25:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: by set.scient.com; (5.65v4.0/1.3/10May95) id AA26407; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:25:44 -0800
Received: from somewhere by smtpxd
Message-Id: <001201be4c7d$e5c330b0$1902020a@z24gb_pl.ny.scient.com>
X-PH: V4.4 at bnl.gov
From: "phil lam" <yoeddy@earthlink.net>
To: <adler@bnl.gov>
Subject: Your comments on Digital Music distribution
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:25:16 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Status: OR


I read your comments about the NYSIA panel on Digital Music, and have a
comment. You say:

"On one side you have you, me and the artist, on the other side you have the
rich and powerful establishment. The establishment is working hard to
introduce "security" into the distribution of music content. "Security" only
deals with how one can restrict access to the content. It has nothing to do
encrypting the music itself. (I'm not sure how you would restrict access
without encrypting the music itself.) example snipped The control of who
and for how long one can listen to the music is under control of the artist,
or so says the industry consultant. Reading his lips, I hear, the music is
controlled by those who sell it, those being the establishment. "

I have a slightly different opinion, which is this: I disagree that "the
music is controlled by...the establishment". In this age of the Internet,
it could very easily be the artist who sells his/her music directly to the
consumer. Whether its "the establishment" or "the artist", if there is no
control of the means of distribution (ie. "restricted access"), the
opportunity to make money via creating and selling music diminishes.

For example: How is Chuck D going to make money by distributing his music
via MP3? Let's say he sells 1 album via MP3 for $10 off his website, then
the MP3 file gets emailed to 1 million people...1 million people have his
song, and he made $10. In the CD world, he probably makes $200,000. But he
can't support himself making $10 per album....he probably then ends up
finding another job to pay the bills...

It's not about artist vs. establishment...its about protecting the value of
creative endeavors to ensure that they can continue in our capitalist

My two cents...