The other day when many were celebrating winning a skirmish in the S92A campaign, I came across this article from The Times:-
The days of paying for music over the internet — or illegally downloading free tracks — are numbered, according to artists, music companies and leading industry insiders.
The reason given for this is the rapidly growing popularity of Spotify, a music service that “streams” tracks to your computer. All the major record labels have signed up to allow users to access millions of tracks — from Michael Jackson to Lily Allen, U2 or Shostakovich — free of charge at the touch of a button.
Spotify’s catalogue is fast approaching the size of Apple’s iTunes, the world’s biggest online music service, leading many to question whether the dominance of the digital music market by iTunes is set to end.
Now no doubt to many Spotify is old news, but this article serves to demonstrate even more that technology and business models are outstripping legislation.
Further it would tend to suggest that RIANZ and other copyright holders are seeking to defend a business model through S92A that is crumbling anyway.
This led to another thought. For a fee say, $200 per annum Iwould happily sign up if it meant I could listen to or watch videos whenever I want over the Web. If access was convenient I would not need to download and store if they were only a click away.
Such a model would of course seriously disintermediate many interests.
We live in a period of rapid change and constantly evolving business models.
Why should we allow the dinosaurs of the entertainment industry and outmoded business models to dictate to us how we access information of any kind.