The same people seem to have no intention of paying for music. Why? simple supply and demand. Proprietory hardware and software owners pay programmers big salaries to make the best games. Consumers pay for them because there is a value in the best games. In music, the best music can be found all over the internet. Labels and artists have seen their product, unprotected by clever technologies, strewn all over the internet. Increasingly consumers, especially young ones, are becoming information nibblers. Media has segmented right down and people have no loyalty to information sources. We scan news and now scan music 'cos it is everywhere. What happened to the album? The unwrapping of the CD, the settling into the sofa to listen from start to finish. No one is consuming music now in the way bands hope they are. Their music is being crammed into mp3 players with 4,500 other totally non genre- specific noise and being tasted randomly by the consumer. Track by random track- too busy to finish one and feel it. The value of music has evaporated and now there is almost a universal reaction to being asked to pay for it.
Someone in the industry, more out of utter desperation than anything else, has suggested nailing the flag to a mast (Spotify) and helping it achieve the growth required to ensure no-one needs to own music anymore. Once Spotify forms a new behaviour then wait for the charges.
As for the product, ipod is now it. Music ownership is right now about the little thing in the pocket. The relationship we have is now with an award winning design and nothing to do with the content.
If I were a musician seeking recognition in this new world I might rethink. Barclays hiring anyone? But if I was good I would have the confidence to work with others to find an independent new technology that enabled music to be produced securely and sold to unique customers and monetised again.
If kids actually parted with money to experience music again they might live it too.
Phew, that feels better.