- Impact
- 34
Last edited:
Think of the gTLD as more than just an extension (and the cost he says is $1,000,000+).
Think of it as a Noomle, or a Wordpress.org ONLY you can control and people will sign the RIGHTS for you to control some of the Merchandising?
Think Noomle COMBINED with LiveNation COMBINED with CafePress.
I've stated in other forums (.TV) that the Internet is changing. We're moving AWAY from address and to a world of BRANDS. In the DotCom space think Amazon. It's so big it's more or less it's own Shopping portal....
I know this guy. His name is Costa Roussos.....And, trust me, this play is NOT remotely a play about simply owning a TLD registry, and selling registrations.
(Disclosure: I have no personal interest in the .music concept).
The way I see it, this is a bold paradigm shift move - right at the centre of one of the world's most dynamic & lucrative markets...ie Music.
Its a play to use the internet to merge all the overlapping elements of the music business (producer, distributor, promoter, & consumer) into one cohesive concept/portal.
The great challenge for music-makers (bands, individuals, songwriters) is to find a way to reach & connect with an audience. Get your music out there. Get it heard, and played - get branded - and, get people to pay to hear it.
The key channels, now, are the recording companies (and their distribution/promotion systems), online music d/l's (eg iTunes etc), and, independent bands trying to go it alone via the internet, or any other way they can.....Its fragmented. And, they all overlap.
The right .Music concept has the potential to grab and unify this global platform....become an online Mega-Mall for every aspect of the music business....The place you get your music branded, promoted, heard, discussed, d/l & sold, and exposed, to a global market....The go-to place that music lovers go to hear, see, discover, and download, emerging music, and established music.....But, much more....Dot Music could manage relationships...part-own copyright, manage & coordinate merchandise, drive the discovery of new bands/music, control distribution, interact with the global market in a hundred ways etc etc....All branded as '.Music'....And, .Music takes a clip from every aspect of it on the way through.
This .Music concept could (& will) forge partnerships with the EMI's, and the Sony's etc....It will build a massive following of millions of music lovers (they already have 1.3 million supporters - and, they haven't even got the .Music extension yet!) ....And, it will be a core channel for emerging bands to brand themselves, and get global distribution...
If iTunes can make hundreds of millions of dollars by offering simple downloads of music clips, imagine what a concept could do if music clips were only 10% of what .Music could be....
Oh, yes....This is much more than an 'extension' registry play. This is a play for the future of how music is found, sold, distributed, and managed.
This is a billion dollar play.
.
I like your thoughts but one thing puzzles me: Why could this not be done with a .com (or any other extension)? When it's all boiled down, the .music idea is really just another extension. I can't think of one way that .music would be a better or even a smarter choice than a .com. More or less, it's just a .name for music. It's novelty and IMO, nothing more.
In a word. Control.
In two words. Absolute Control.
Control? Of what?
When you go to buy music, where do you go? iTunes, Amazon...
You dont go to Music.com. In fact, I hadnt ever been to the site until just now (not even .mobi). Whats the difference for a .music? Who is going to buy or use the domains?
Read.what.I.wrote.
You're thinking of it like a domainer. It's not about sites anymore it's about platforms.
.
I.did.read.it, yes.i.did.will.i.am lol....
Interesting development of this thread.....everyone here has valid points of view but i still have to root for Randy since i believe he has it broken it down correctly....
Sure, a great idea combined with a great concept could yield a very successful outcome but again
1.) go with the .com, buy music.com
2.)mobi failed unfortunately
3.) the new .music could take off, no doubt...but still, the perception of millions of user is..... DOT COM, nobody needs(or know) the recently introduction of hundreds of new tld's what are diluting everything, besides that it would take millions of billions in advertising.....did i mention buy a music related .com?? (and this guy has a fair music reletated .com anyway)
4.) domaintalker has valid points too but still, why waste a buck load of money(including the "reg fee" of an extension lol) when u can do it with an existing one, make's no sense...and to have all the bands/producers/music buffs under one umbrella...SONY or EMC didn't accomplished that from the get go so you think a new internet extension will just do that?? lol
I could go on and on about the not so well established extensions(very hard to have them ranking well in the SE's anyway)but let us just congratz to the boldness of this dude,good luck
Cheers,
Liquid
---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 PM ----------
ok, i just saw your reply defaultuser and i have to agree...it is all about the platform...but what u are not realizing is one thing what Randy(and me) stated through this whole thread......it is true that it depends on the domain name...oh, i just caught you!!!!!...why?? because you just admitted your conversation is about the "domain name"...not extension !!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Liquid
In a word. Control.
In two words. Absolute Control.
You're thinking of it like a domainer. It's not about sites anymore it's about platforms.
By 2020 I hope your portfolios are either empty or of little value.
Not sure I follow? In this conversation I will make the mistake of using domain/extension interchangeably because domain = name + ext and in the context of what I am saying... it's irrelevant.
I am failing to make you understand what I am saying when I say platform. It's not about controlling a bunch of subdirectories on a domain with loose links managed by google.
It's about controlling an entire platform, an entire namespace and the connectivity in and out of that namespace. You have to think beyond internet and think about BRANDS and CHANNELS and CLOUDS.
Separating the masses from the masses for the masses
I think only domaintalker understands that this is not about FITTING IN to the internet as it exists. This is about shifting the very nature of what we think is the INTERNET.
Trust me when I say it WILL happen. I don't think it will be this guy to accomplish it = for reasons I won't mention but you can see through his site and interview.
I don't get 600k for a mobi. This is one of the things that makes me a doubter that he is the one. My guess on that front is that it will come out of a small group in a major telco/provider/govt.
Awesome that you posted here, Mr. Roussos.
I'd like to ask a question, if you're taking them.
What is it that .music will do that existing platforms will not do?
I ask this as a semi-serious amateur musician and a huge fan of music in general.
Let me give you an example.
I'm a Fingerstyle Guitarist. I recent bought (and quickly developed) Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com into a fast videobook mashup of the better Fingerstyle Guitar talent out there. It's literally days live and hardly out of beta, yet is already receiving WOM traffic, in spite of no search engine presence (and absolutely ZERO on-page SEO effort for the sake of a clean, streamlined aesthetic). We expect this to grow over time. Whether the site had been Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com, FingerstyleGuitarists.music or fingerstyle.guitarists.music, the 'spark' that inspired users to look in- and to tell their friends- had absolutely nothing to do with the TLD and everything to do with the idea and (thusfar static) content.
By utilizing existing free content distribution infrastructure (ie- Youtube) and linking to artists own websites, we're able to distribute content cheaply, efficiently and get their presence 'out there'.
It's easy to conceive of an idea and theoretically compound that idea forward to the point that you're 'dominating the world' in your mind before the first steps are ever taen- and you're apparently someone with the financial wherewithal to subsidize such ideas- but what practical rudiments exist in .music that might actually precipitate your big ideas to transition from a fanciful and big notion to *actually* becoming ground zero for music distribution?
While the vanity/custom TLD concept is fascinating and potentially might be a paradigm buster over time, what is it about .music that would 'shake up' the way things are, right now? Genericized concept -TLD's strike me as being "just another TLD" and not subject to the same potential that is inherent to, say, IBM becoming .ibm.
What's out there right now seems adequate for the task that you're charging .music with accomplishing- and it's very, very difficult to redefine 'adequate' on the internet, barring some huge enrichment in user experience and as we all know, there's no point in reinventing the wheel.
What is it about this particular customized TLD that will "unseat adequate"?
I understand that conceptually, your idea is to develop out .music and make it a central clearinghouse for music in general- which obviously has huge potential- but what is it about the TLD itself (and whatever development scheme you employ) that will re-centrifugalize the distribution of music content back into a more controlled model- a model that the internet has since broken up?
Really interested in this.
I'm thrilled Constantine took the time to respond to us here in this forum
I don't think I called this quite correctly based on what he has said but I still don't believe I'm far wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, I really hope that he is as sincere as he sounds because he's saying a lot of great things and a lot of great things that shake up the industry in a profound way. Not quite how I envisioned it - it seems he has a greater passion for achieving massive change than just reaping the rewards.
While the final destination is not as fully integrated as I expected it is definitely a stepping stone towards that destination.
I wish you the best of luck.
I'm really glad I posted this interview on this forum. The discussion is illuminating the whole issue and has given me a kind of "insider's take" on ICANN and how they operate. Dongsman asked some damn good questions and I hope Constantine will return to answer them.
I agree with Dongsman, at least in principal. I question what a platform built on .music will do that a platform built on a .com wont do?
In my mind, this simply becomes another cost of doing business, a needless one. How much would it cost to maintain the Registry? Would it be not-for-profit?
*
Unfortunately, dotmusic, the idea of a "gatekeeper" scares me. In my opinion, "gatekeeper" is just another word for ICANN.
What makes YOU an expert in deciding who "include" and who to "exclude" in the music industry? For all we know, .music may very well stifle the next Beethoven, Mozart, or Louis Armstrong because some bouncer at the .music gate doesn't understand that "different" doesn't always mean "non-talented," that "different" can also mean "innovation."
It's sad but true: what starts out as a good idea with idealistic goals often ends up with cronyism and henchmen and corruption at its core.
Money and greed almost always insinuate their way into the mix of altruism and good intentions.
I say, keep the "white noise" by tabling ALL generic TLDs (in other words, I'm not just picking on .music, but also .movies, .banks, .cars, .loans, etc.) because of their potential to stifle commerce and the language of commerce. For instance, I would not want AIG or Washington Mutual to own .loans either.
I really dislike the idea of individuals and "special interest" groups "owning" generic TLDs and then restricting them based on some God-knows-what criteria. For example, EACH TLD has the potential to register and/or reject MILLIONS of domains within that special category. Rejecting musicians, even if they are not that talented, from registering a .music domain for specious reasons could very well lead down the slippery slope of the "music cartel," controlled by a few powerful moguls, who then decide what style of music is "acceptable." Small garage bands and music labels could very well be excluded from registering .music, and that would just about kill the music industry, limiting membership to the elite. And what would happen if any of these small time musicians and labels wanted to use the word "music" in their name? Would .music become so powerful that it could block the use of the word "music," except by its registrants?
My question then, from an ethical standpoint, should individuals or special interest groups be allowed to own generic TLDs, and, thus, reduce language itself to the marketplace?
My answer: I hope not.
*
*
Unfortunately, dotmusic, the idea of a "gatekeeper" scares me. In my opinion, "gatekeeper" is just another word for ICANN.
What makes YOU an expert in deciding who "include" and who to "exclude" in the music industry? For all we know, .music may very well stifle the next Beethoven, Mozart, or Louis Armstrong because some bouncer at the .music gate doesn't understand that "different" doesn't always mean "non-talented," that "different" can also mean "innovation."
It's sad but true: what starts out as a good idea with idealistic goals often ends up with cronyism and henchmen and corruption at its core.
I think the likelihood of him 'redefining music' by controlling a TLD and developing some websites is next to nill, so little to worry about here, but you do raise a helluva good point here. It's one we're presently facing down in a profoundly smaller and much less ambitious way with Fingerstyle/Guitarists/com (which is literally days old).
Right now, admission criteria to the site results from the objective opinions of a few lifelong enthusiasts and practitioners, as well as a few of the artists themselves. If anything, we trend heavily a-conventional and strongly prefer artists who bring something 'new' to the table. This has irked a few 'purists' in the community. Seeing Claus Bossier Ferrari on the same page as Merle Travis makes a few people mad :D
With that said, should the site ever go the monetization route, who's to say that there wouldn't be temptation to more heavily showcase artists who play the guitars made by one of our sponsors? Or upsell the iTunes of artists who promise us a cut of the action?
Obviously, we aren't going to do any of that, but benevolence always dies off in time, while the systems themselves live on forever. You cannot create a system that only succeeds if the people tasked with running it are good natured. You have to presume that in time, bad natured people will weasel their way in and hijack it for their own gain. Handing over "music on the web" to the one guy who steps up with an open checkbook and a willingness to take on the task seems a bit creepy and kinda bespeaks to the sort of rottenness we can expect with these new TLDs....
"... and in other news, a multi-way bidding war has erupted between the governments of Palestine, Israel and a consortium of Investment Bankers from West Palm Beach to secure the rights to the newly proposed .Jews TLD..."
There was a lot that I was going to add here, in light of dotmusic appearing here at NP. But it had all been said pretty well above by the last several posters. I do wish you well but I think you're being zealous without thinking of the full scope of things. When the dust settles all you are doing is making a large website, with domains (using .music) given only to a select few. I need to point out that there is no real way to protect against fraudulent signups. And yes, I'm sure there will be others who'll argue this but let's face it: If I teamed with a guitarist and labeled us a 'band,' who would hold the dictation to prove/disprove our status? Who would be the All-Seeing Eye who would have the ability to label us as a real, legit band or 2 ppl who play instruments? And what if two local/underground bands have the same name? Let's say there are 2 bands that call themselves Black Cross. Who would get blackcross.music?
There may be more to your idea than we realize but from all you've said, the infrastructure you've been working on is nothing more than a website. A wikipedia for music? Anyone could reg wikipediamusic.com or similar and do the exact same thing. All .music seems to be is a way to regulate the website you're building and to pass out members' jackets to the bands a la "Look, I'm a member of this website -- and I got the domain to prove it!"
I truly wish you the best but your idea is nothing new (aside from the adding-an-extension part) and I really cannot fathom this taking off... at least without a few million for promotion. It'd be the quintessential Pyrrhic outcome, assuming it has enough life to make it to that plateau -- for all your hard work, the site might never yield anything to show for it, not even a profit.
I know this guy. His name is Costa Roussos.....And, trust me, this play is NOT remotely a play about simply owning a TLD registry, and selling registrations.
(Disclosure: I have no personal interest in the .music concept).
The way I see it, this is a bold paradigm shift move - right at the centre of one of the world's most dynamic & lucrative markets...ie Music.
Its a play to use the internet to merge all the overlapping elements of the music business (producer, distributor, promoter, & consumer) into one cohesive concept/portal.
The great challenge for music-makers (bands, individuals, songwriters) is to find a way to reach & connect with an audience. Get your music out there. Get it heard, and played - get branded - and, get people to pay to hear it.
The key channels, now, are the recording companies (and their distribution/promotion systems), online music d/l's (eg iTunes etc), and, independent bands trying to go it alone via the internet, or any other way they can.....Its fragmented. And, they all overlap.
The right .Music concept has the potential to grab and unify this global platform....become an online Mega-Mall for every aspect of the music business....The place you get your music branded, promoted, heard, discussed, d/l & sold, and exposed, to a global market....The go-to place that music lovers go to hear, see, discover, and download, emerging music, and established music.....But, much more....Dot Music could manage relationships...part-own copyright, manage & coordinate merchandise, drive the discovery of new bands/music, control distribution, interact with the global market in a hundred ways etc etc....All branded as '.Music'....And, .Music takes a clip from every aspect of it on the way through.
This .Music concept could (& will) forge partnerships with the EMI's, and the Sony's etc....It will build a massive following of millions of music lovers (they already have 1.3 million supporters - and, they haven't even got the .Music extension yet!) ....And, it will be a core channel for emerging bands to brand themselves, and get global distribution...
If iTunes can make hundreds of millions of dollars by offering simple downloads of music clips, imagine what a concept could do if music clips were only 10% of what .Music could be....
Oh, yes....This is much more than an 'extension' registry play. This is a play for the future of how music is found, sold, distributed, and managed.
This is a billion dollar play.
.