By now you’ve probably seen the news that Yahoo! Music’s General Manager (that makes him my bossman’s bossman), Dave Goldberg, urged record labels to ease back their insistence on DRM yesterday at the Music 2.0 conference. I was in the audience and quite proud to hear such a statement come from the head of the business unit for which I work as I agree wholeheartedly with him (note my post “On DRM” from last June). You can read about Dave’s statements elsewhere (Slashdot, c|net, Digital Music News, Digital Music Weblog, A VC, etc), but here’s a few interesting points/quotes from my notes:
On-demand (digital downloads and subscriptions) are not the entirety of the “music business” online. The business of buying CDs, cassettes, digital downloads, etc is about $30B globally, while media supported music businesses (radio, music videos with ads, etc) is about a $40B business globally. Yahoo! Music is in both businesses.
Despite tremendous progress of legal, for-pay music services, the mainstream digital media consumer today is still listening to CDs, Internet radio, and using P2P services. 80+ percent of the music on iPods is from ripping and 3% or less is from legal digital services.
The playlist is key to Yahoo! adding value to digital music; it’s a unit of currency for users to create and share music with each other. Dave also gave a nod to Web 2.0 at Music 2.0, pointing to Web services as a way we will go “beyond the media player” with our music offerings this year.
Exploring ways the music industry could help move the pay market forward, Dave asks the labels to lighten the DRM requirements. “DRM is not a consumer value proposition, it’s a consumer cost. It creates a nice barrier of entry for the tech companies, rather than something that’s beneficial to labels, artists, or consumers.” In the Q/A session after his keynote Dave pointed to eMusic as a service which offers MP3 files as part of their subscription, files which are easily burnable and play just fine on the iPod. Due to restrictions from the major labels we aren’t able to offer hit content in a similar fashion with Yahoo! Music Unlimited. He reminds us that the major labels are selling DRM-free content every day in the form of CDs. I agree with Dave. DRM definitely has a cost, and eMusic is showing that consumers are willing to pay a premium price for unfettered access to digital media. What value is DRM providing in our service? What is the cost? Is it worth this cost?
What Dave is really asking the labels to do is to experiment along with us to grow legal music services as a category. Legal services are a very small percentage of the downloading activity on the Web, yet studies tell us people *are* willing to pay for high-value content and services. The larger subtext of the “No DRM” message that got headlines is: help us build great legal services for users, don’t hold us back.
Yahoo! Music served 4 billion videos last year (which, if you believe another figure that 17B videos were served on the Web last year, Yahoo! Music videos were fully 20% of the Internet’s video traffic in 2005).
Ironically, I went from Music 2.0 to UCLA’s Anderson’s school to participate in a panel about DRM, where I talked way too much. Like Jack White said, “Any man with a microphone can tell you what he loves the most.” That was me. Sorry, y’all.
Oh, and, sorry this damn post took so long. I had to fly up to the Yahoo! offices in Sunnyvale for some meetings today which, after the UCLA thing last night, left me no time to post about this. My loss, I missed a whole day of net buzz and maybe even a /.-ing for ymusicblog. That is teh suck. Damn day job.
maandag 29 oktober 2007
The day the music industry died
There is no money in recorded music any more, that’s why bands are now giving it awayRobert Sandall
Having waited four years for their heroes to finish another record, Radiohead fans were understandably excited last week to learn that the band’s seventh album, In Rainbows, will finally be released on Wednesday. But what really rocked the fanbase – and heightened the air of gloom enveloping the global record industry – was the news that In Rainbows could be preordered and downloaded perfectly legally for as little as 1p at Radio-head.com.
Currently out of contract and thus entitled to dispose of their recordings as they see fit, one of the most popular bands in the world had decided to let the fans decide how much their latest album was worth. An MP3 file of In Rainbows would have no price tag. Honesty boxes, it seemed, were the new rock’n’roll.
If the Radiohead faithful appeared somewhat nonplussed by this move – “The danger is that people will stop seeing their music as important,” one fan posted in a blog; “I will gladly pay $20 knowing the artist will get the money,” pledged another – the band’s strategy was anything but mad, and not even that revolutionary. Last week the Charlatans announced they would be giving away their new album as a free download. Earlier this year another rock band, the Crimea, did the same.
In July Prince arranged for 2.5m copies of his new album to be cover-mounted on a Sunday newspaper and issued several hundred thousand more free of charge to anybody attending his London concerts in August. The scale of this charitable epidemic can be measured by a quick browse of the Free Albums Galore blog that lists more than 800 albums by a range of artists – from the Beastie Boys to some unsigned metal bands – all of which are free to download.
Related Links
Radiohead: In Rainbows
What looks like commercial suicide is, in today’s reality, sound business sense. Records, CDs or downloads now have all become downgraded to the status of promotional tools – useful to sell concert tickets and fan paraphernalia. While there is still good money to be made in music, and particularly on the concert circuit, the record business – blame it on piracy, too many CD giveaways or the advent of the recordable CD – is a busted flush.
A revealing story doing the rounds in America tells of a young rock band who decided to stop selling their CDs at gigs after they discovered that by offering their CDs for $10 they were cannibalising sales of their $20 T-shirts. The truth now is that a rudimentary cotton garment with a band logo stamped across it that has probably been manufactured for pennies in a Third World sweatshop costs about twice as much as an album recorded in a state-of-the-art western studio. And even at that price, recorded music isn’t selling.
Album sales are currently in freefall all over the world. The 10% drop in the UK over the past year is dwarfed by a 15% slide in the US, 25% in France and a whopping 35% in Canada. The bankruptcy this summer of the CD retail chain Fopp, HMV’s announcement that its profits halved in the first six months of this year and Richard Branson’s recent decision to dump the Virgin Megastores – which have reportedly lost him more than £50m in 2007 – are only the most visible signs of a crisis that has rocked the music industry on its axis.
The point isn’t just that people are buying fewer CDs; they are paying as much as two-thirds less in real terms today for the music they listen to on their iPods than they used to when the compact disc first took over the market. Twenty years ago a chart CD cost about £14. Today you can buy the same in a super-market for £9.
The online market may have grown recently, but not enough to fix the hole. Here, too, margins have shrunk. A download of a single track now costs 79p against the £4 a CD single cost in 1999.
The impact on the bottom line of the record labels has been catastrophic. When EMI’s subsidiary Virgin put out the Spice Girls’ debut album in 1996 the company cleared roughly £5 in profit on each copy sold. That margin has since shrivelled to around £2 – and only then for albums that are significant hits. Industry insiders estimate that only one of the new British acts that has “broken” in 2007 – the pop diva Mika – will actually make his record company any money.
This has not gone unremarked in the City. When the private equity firm Terra Firma bought EMI recently it paid about a third, in real terms, what the company nearly fetched 10 years ago when a sale to its competitor Universal was mooted. That decline mirrors what has happened over the same period to the retail price of new CDs, and it also reflects the scale of the cull of EMI’s workforce, which has shrunk in 10 years from more than 10,000 worldwide to about 4,000 today.
The mood of panic is palpable, and there are no obvious solutions in sight. In America the recently appointed co-chairman of the Columbia label Rick Rubin, formerly a record producer by trade, has spoken of his ambition to turn the company around by refocusing it along the lines of a cable TV business – making Columbia’s entire catalogue downloadable to customers who pay a monthly subscription.
Another senior figure at Columbia has dismissed this plan as “potentially the last nail in the coffin”. The recent establishment of a “word of mouth” department at the label reflects the loss of control felt within a business that has lost a grip on its market.
One – fading – hope of the major labels is that they can somehow grab a share of the profits their artists make elsewhere. When Robbie Williams resigned to EMI in 2002 for a reported £80m this new deal guaranteed the label a piece of the action from Williams’s highly lucrative concert tours. But many young artists since have become wary of such composite arrangements. Some have decided to bypass the major record companies altogether.
One of the hottest new names to emerge here this year, the rave metal band Enter Shikari, refused to sign to anybody and in March released their debut album, Take to the Skies, on their own label Ambush Reality. In the past these tiny, so-called indie labels have usually been funded by majors anxious to covertly purchase credibility for their products with a young audience traditionally distrustful of big music corporations.
But that is not how it is with Ambush Reality. The marketing of Take to the Skies was largely down to the band themselves, who have played nearly 700 gigs since forming in St Albans in 2003. Word of mouth, coupled with a band presence on MySpace, has done the rest.
In November 2006 Enter Shikari became only the second unsigned act after the Darkness to sell out the leading London rock venue the Astoria. Take to the Skies entered the album chart at number four in March. In May they undertook a major tour of America – the first British band to do so without the support of a big record company.
This upending of the music business was neatly predicted back in the 1990s by the guitarist of the American hardcore band Anthrax who described their new album as “the menu; our concert is the meal”. This comment recalled the Beatles’ producer George Martin’s observation about his protégés’ first LP, Please Please Me from 1963. It was, Martin said, “just a memento of a concert”. Now, likewise, bands sell CD recordings of their performances at the end of the night.
The reprioritisation in recent years of live music over the recorded variety has been dramatic. Attendance at arena shows rose here by 11% last year. By the time 2007 bows out, 450 music festivals will have taken place in the UK.
Every week brings news of another frenzied assault on the box office. Last Monday Ticket-master reported that 20,000 tickets for the Spice Girls’ first reunion concert at London’s O2 arena in December sold out in 38 seconds, with 1m fans registering to buy. Three weeks back more than a million clamoured for seats at the forthcoming Led Zeppelin reunion. Glastonbury disposed of its 135,000 weekend passes for this year’s event within two hours – taking more than £21m in the process.
Ticket prices, especially for Alist artists, have soared as the price of CDs has tumbled. You could have bought Madonna’s entire catalogue for less than half what it cost to see her perform at Wembley Arena last summer where the best seats in the house went for £160. With the Rolling Stones at Twickenham a view from the pitch would have set you back £150.
Now that live music rules, nobody bothers to complain about what it costs any more. Euphoria at the news earlier this year that the Police had reformed obliterated all concerns that it cost between £70 and £90 to see them play at Twickenham in September. I spoke to many fans at one of those gigs; not one complained about the ticket price.
In the light of these numbers, the probability is that music fans now are spending more money on their passion than they were in the heyday of the CD. They have rediscovered an ancient truth that music is, at root, a communal experience as much as it is something that goes on between your ears.
Interestingly the band now tolling the death knell of the record industry, Radiohead, seem currently to have mixed feelings about live work.
“They probably will be playing some dates next year,” a spokesman said last week. “But Thom Yorke doesn’t like touring much.”
Having waited four years for their heroes to finish another record, Radiohead fans were understandably excited last week to learn that the band’s seventh album, In Rainbows, will finally be released on Wednesday. But what really rocked the fanbase – and heightened the air of gloom enveloping the global record industry – was the news that In Rainbows could be preordered and downloaded perfectly legally for as little as 1p at Radio-head.com.
Currently out of contract and thus entitled to dispose of their recordings as they see fit, one of the most popular bands in the world had decided to let the fans decide how much their latest album was worth. An MP3 file of In Rainbows would have no price tag. Honesty boxes, it seemed, were the new rock’n’roll.
If the Radiohead faithful appeared somewhat nonplussed by this move – “The danger is that people will stop seeing their music as important,” one fan posted in a blog; “I will gladly pay $20 knowing the artist will get the money,” pledged another – the band’s strategy was anything but mad, and not even that revolutionary. Last week the Charlatans announced they would be giving away their new album as a free download. Earlier this year another rock band, the Crimea, did the same.
In July Prince arranged for 2.5m copies of his new album to be cover-mounted on a Sunday newspaper and issued several hundred thousand more free of charge to anybody attending his London concerts in August. The scale of this charitable epidemic can be measured by a quick browse of the Free Albums Galore blog that lists more than 800 albums by a range of artists – from the Beastie Boys to some unsigned metal bands – all of which are free to download.
Related Links
Radiohead: In Rainbows
What looks like commercial suicide is, in today’s reality, sound business sense. Records, CDs or downloads now have all become downgraded to the status of promotional tools – useful to sell concert tickets and fan paraphernalia. While there is still good money to be made in music, and particularly on the concert circuit, the record business – blame it on piracy, too many CD giveaways or the advent of the recordable CD – is a busted flush.
A revealing story doing the rounds in America tells of a young rock band who decided to stop selling their CDs at gigs after they discovered that by offering their CDs for $10 they were cannibalising sales of their $20 T-shirts. The truth now is that a rudimentary cotton garment with a band logo stamped across it that has probably been manufactured for pennies in a Third World sweatshop costs about twice as much as an album recorded in a state-of-the-art western studio. And even at that price, recorded music isn’t selling.
Album sales are currently in freefall all over the world. The 10% drop in the UK over the past year is dwarfed by a 15% slide in the US, 25% in France and a whopping 35% in Canada. The bankruptcy this summer of the CD retail chain Fopp, HMV’s announcement that its profits halved in the first six months of this year and Richard Branson’s recent decision to dump the Virgin Megastores – which have reportedly lost him more than £50m in 2007 – are only the most visible signs of a crisis that has rocked the music industry on its axis.
The point isn’t just that people are buying fewer CDs; they are paying as much as two-thirds less in real terms today for the music they listen to on their iPods than they used to when the compact disc first took over the market. Twenty years ago a chart CD cost about £14. Today you can buy the same in a super-market for £9.
The online market may have grown recently, but not enough to fix the hole. Here, too, margins have shrunk. A download of a single track now costs 79p against the £4 a CD single cost in 1999.
The impact on the bottom line of the record labels has been catastrophic. When EMI’s subsidiary Virgin put out the Spice Girls’ debut album in 1996 the company cleared roughly £5 in profit on each copy sold. That margin has since shrivelled to around £2 – and only then for albums that are significant hits. Industry insiders estimate that only one of the new British acts that has “broken” in 2007 – the pop diva Mika – will actually make his record company any money.
This has not gone unremarked in the City. When the private equity firm Terra Firma bought EMI recently it paid about a third, in real terms, what the company nearly fetched 10 years ago when a sale to its competitor Universal was mooted. That decline mirrors what has happened over the same period to the retail price of new CDs, and it also reflects the scale of the cull of EMI’s workforce, which has shrunk in 10 years from more than 10,000 worldwide to about 4,000 today.
The mood of panic is palpable, and there are no obvious solutions in sight. In America the recently appointed co-chairman of the Columbia label Rick Rubin, formerly a record producer by trade, has spoken of his ambition to turn the company around by refocusing it along the lines of a cable TV business – making Columbia’s entire catalogue downloadable to customers who pay a monthly subscription.
Another senior figure at Columbia has dismissed this plan as “potentially the last nail in the coffin”. The recent establishment of a “word of mouth” department at the label reflects the loss of control felt within a business that has lost a grip on its market.
One – fading – hope of the major labels is that they can somehow grab a share of the profits their artists make elsewhere. When Robbie Williams resigned to EMI in 2002 for a reported £80m this new deal guaranteed the label a piece of the action from Williams’s highly lucrative concert tours. But many young artists since have become wary of such composite arrangements. Some have decided to bypass the major record companies altogether.
One of the hottest new names to emerge here this year, the rave metal band Enter Shikari, refused to sign to anybody and in March released their debut album, Take to the Skies, on their own label Ambush Reality. In the past these tiny, so-called indie labels have usually been funded by majors anxious to covertly purchase credibility for their products with a young audience traditionally distrustful of big music corporations.
But that is not how it is with Ambush Reality. The marketing of Take to the Skies was largely down to the band themselves, who have played nearly 700 gigs since forming in St Albans in 2003. Word of mouth, coupled with a band presence on MySpace, has done the rest.
In November 2006 Enter Shikari became only the second unsigned act after the Darkness to sell out the leading London rock venue the Astoria. Take to the Skies entered the album chart at number four in March. In May they undertook a major tour of America – the first British band to do so without the support of a big record company.
This upending of the music business was neatly predicted back in the 1990s by the guitarist of the American hardcore band Anthrax who described their new album as “the menu; our concert is the meal”. This comment recalled the Beatles’ producer George Martin’s observation about his protégés’ first LP, Please Please Me from 1963. It was, Martin said, “just a memento of a concert”. Now, likewise, bands sell CD recordings of their performances at the end of the night.
The reprioritisation in recent years of live music over the recorded variety has been dramatic. Attendance at arena shows rose here by 11% last year. By the time 2007 bows out, 450 music festivals will have taken place in the UK.
Every week brings news of another frenzied assault on the box office. Last Monday Ticket-master reported that 20,000 tickets for the Spice Girls’ first reunion concert at London’s O2 arena in December sold out in 38 seconds, with 1m fans registering to buy. Three weeks back more than a million clamoured for seats at the forthcoming Led Zeppelin reunion. Glastonbury disposed of its 135,000 weekend passes for this year’s event within two hours – taking more than £21m in the process.
Ticket prices, especially for Alist artists, have soared as the price of CDs has tumbled. You could have bought Madonna’s entire catalogue for less than half what it cost to see her perform at Wembley Arena last summer where the best seats in the house went for £160. With the Rolling Stones at Twickenham a view from the pitch would have set you back £150.
Now that live music rules, nobody bothers to complain about what it costs any more. Euphoria at the news earlier this year that the Police had reformed obliterated all concerns that it cost between £70 and £90 to see them play at Twickenham in September. I spoke to many fans at one of those gigs; not one complained about the ticket price.
In the light of these numbers, the probability is that music fans now are spending more money on their passion than they were in the heyday of the CD. They have rediscovered an ancient truth that music is, at root, a communal experience as much as it is something that goes on between your ears.
Interestingly the band now tolling the death knell of the record industry, Radiohead, seem currently to have mixed feelings about live work.
“They probably will be playing some dates next year,” a spokesman said last week. “But Thom Yorke doesn’t like touring much.”
woensdag 17 oktober 2007
Sony BMG And MySpace Sign Licensing Agreement
October 16, 2007
MySpace and Sony BMG announce a new licensing agreement allowing for music videos, songs and other content from Sony BMG artists on the social networking giant. The deal also allows the label and MySpace to share in sponsorship and ad revenue.
"MySpace has always served as a powerful promotional platform for music and we’re pleased to work with Sony BMG to take it to the next level," said MySpace CEO/co-founder Chris DeWolfe. "We look forward to working with Sony BMG and the rest of the music industry to enable people to share their love of music with one another through the next generation of MySpace music services."
"We are happy to be working with MySpace as we continue to develop new approaches to doing business online," commented Thomas Hesse, President of Global Digital Business & U.S. Sales for Sony BMG Music Entertainment. "This new effort is a great way to build new audiences for our artists, bring value to fans, and offer exciting new opportunities to advertisers. We look forward to working closely with MySpace as we roll out this ambitious new project."
Source: FMQB.com
MySpace and Sony BMG announce a new licensing agreement allowing for music videos, songs and other content from Sony BMG artists on the social networking giant. The deal also allows the label and MySpace to share in sponsorship and ad revenue.
"MySpace has always served as a powerful promotional platform for music and we’re pleased to work with Sony BMG to take it to the next level," said MySpace CEO/co-founder Chris DeWolfe. "We look forward to working with Sony BMG and the rest of the music industry to enable people to share their love of music with one another through the next generation of MySpace music services."
"We are happy to be working with MySpace as we continue to develop new approaches to doing business online," commented Thomas Hesse, President of Global Digital Business & U.S. Sales for Sony BMG Music Entertainment. "This new effort is a great way to build new audiences for our artists, bring value to fans, and offer exciting new opportunities to advertisers. We look forward to working closely with MySpace as we roll out this ambitious new project."
Source: FMQB.com
Report: Apple To Cut Price On DRM-Free Tracks
October 16, 2007 - Digital and Mobile
By Antony Bruno, Denver
Apple confirmed it will indeed lower the price on its DRM-free tracks to 99 cents, from $1.29, on all iTunes Plus music. Apple CEO Steve Jobs confirmed the move in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
Jobs told the WSJ that the iTunes Plus option, which offers unprotected tracks at a higher-quality bitrate than other tracks on the iTunes service, has proven “very popular,” but gave no specific reason for the price cut.
The leading speculation is that the move comes in the face of Amazon.com launching its DRM-free music service with prices as low as 89 cents a song, and albums for as low as $5.
Source: Billboard.biz
By Antony Bruno, Denver
Apple confirmed it will indeed lower the price on its DRM-free tracks to 99 cents, from $1.29, on all iTunes Plus music. Apple CEO Steve Jobs confirmed the move in an interview with the Wall Street Journal.
Jobs told the WSJ that the iTunes Plus option, which offers unprotected tracks at a higher-quality bitrate than other tracks on the iTunes service, has proven “very popular,” but gave no specific reason for the price cut.
The leading speculation is that the move comes in the face of Amazon.com launching its DRM-free music service with prices as low as 89 cents a song, and albums for as low as $5.
Source: Billboard.biz
Report: iTunes To Expand DRM-Free Offering
October 16, 2007 - Digital and Mobile
By Antony Bruno, Denver
Apple continues to dip its toe with variable pricing. Citing sources close to Apple, tech blog Ars Technica reports that iTunes will expand its DRM-free music plan, iTunes Plus, with additional tracks from a variety of independent labels. However, unlike the DRM-free music provided by EMI Music Group, these tracks will remain 99 cents. The announcement is expected sometime this week.
EMI's DRM-free tracks currently cost $1.29, in part because they lack protection but also because the files are of a higher sound quality than other tracks sold on iTunes. However Arts Technica reports that Apple has plans to lower EMI's music down to 99 cents as well, although it is unclear whether that move is expected.
It's also unclear at this time whether the price drop will be a result of a new wholesale deal between EMI and Apple, or if Apple is simply sacrificing it's profit margin on the iTunes Plus tracks to get costs in line with DRM-free competitors like eMusic or Amazon.com. Stay tuned to Billboard.biz for more details as they emerge.
Source: Billboard.biz
By Antony Bruno, Denver
Apple continues to dip its toe with variable pricing. Citing sources close to Apple, tech blog Ars Technica reports that iTunes will expand its DRM-free music plan, iTunes Plus, with additional tracks from a variety of independent labels. However, unlike the DRM-free music provided by EMI Music Group, these tracks will remain 99 cents. The announcement is expected sometime this week.
EMI's DRM-free tracks currently cost $1.29, in part because they lack protection but also because the files are of a higher sound quality than other tracks sold on iTunes. However Arts Technica reports that Apple has plans to lower EMI's music down to 99 cents as well, although it is unclear whether that move is expected.
It's also unclear at this time whether the price drop will be a result of a new wholesale deal between EMI and Apple, or if Apple is simply sacrificing it's profit margin on the iTunes Plus tracks to get costs in line with DRM-free competitors like eMusic or Amazon.com. Stay tuned to Billboard.biz for more details as they emerge.
Source: Billboard.biz
woensdag 10 oktober 2007
Digital Music Direct to the Customer
Mark Cuban is a smart guy. He dashed off a couple of ideas here that make a lot of sense. I completely agree with him that the big copyright holders (labels and publishers) can act as "networks" and bring their music to market. It is interesting that none of them are thinking this way at the moment, and the old way of thinking is guiding the day. Namely, why do they need aggregators like Apple's iTunes to replace the failing Tower Records of the past? Why can't the labels go direct to the customer with their product.
I have often said that when Napster 1.0 first emerged, the labels realized that they actually had customers. And those weren't Wall Mart and Target, but people like you and me. And instead of embracing these consumers, communicating with them, drawing 'em into the fold, marketing to them - they decided to sue the people. The legal people overran the marketing folks, and the chance for creating a direct to consumer business slipped through their lawyers hands.
It has taken a while to grasp the totality of all this, but perhaps someday soon, a large music content company will decide to get into the business of marketing to consumers, and creating an infrastructure to support and make it happen in the digital age. Can't wait to see that happen.
I have often said that when Napster 1.0 first emerged, the labels realized that they actually had customers. And those weren't Wall Mart and Target, but people like you and me. And instead of embracing these consumers, communicating with them, drawing 'em into the fold, marketing to them - they decided to sue the people. The legal people overran the marketing folks, and the chance for creating a direct to consumer business slipped through their lawyers hands.
It has taken a while to grasp the totality of all this, but perhaps someday soon, a large music content company will decide to get into the business of marketing to consumers, and creating an infrastructure to support and make it happen in the digital age. Can't wait to see that happen.
Digital Music Rules of the Road for Artists
Here is an useful list for success in the immediate future:
- Utilize MySpace and other websites to its full potential and don’t be afraid to “give your music away for free”. If one million people listen to your songs online, don’t see it as you just lost 1 million dollars in potential sales. See it as you just got radioplay in 100 markets.
- You have to learn new ways of viral marketing, including widgets and blog search engines and don’t be afraid to experiment with putting your music in new places and contexts.
- Look at what the most progressive record labels are doing with their artists, like Canadian Nettwerk and Barenaked Ladies and try to copy it.
- If you play a live gig, make sure people know about it. It may seem like a no-brainer, but it isn’t always. I don’t know how many good shows I have missed just because I didn’t know about it. Do all you can to get in Flavorpill and other online publications. Send emails to everyone you know and make sure everyone that shows up signs your email list.
- Press vinyl copies. This might be the last thing you think about doing, but DJs love vinyl and so do music lovers. Press a few copies and distribute them to your favorite DJs, clubs and critics.
- Don’t sign a record deal. This may seem like a weird suggestion, but stay indie as long as possible. You want to make sure the odds are in your favor when you finally sign with a big label or it can be a blessing in disguise.
- Utilize MySpace and other websites to its full potential and don’t be afraid to “give your music away for free”. If one million people listen to your songs online, don’t see it as you just lost 1 million dollars in potential sales. See it as you just got radioplay in 100 markets.
- You have to learn new ways of viral marketing, including widgets and blog search engines and don’t be afraid to experiment with putting your music in new places and contexts.
- Look at what the most progressive record labels are doing with their artists, like Canadian Nettwerk and Barenaked Ladies and try to copy it.
- If you play a live gig, make sure people know about it. It may seem like a no-brainer, but it isn’t always. I don’t know how many good shows I have missed just because I didn’t know about it. Do all you can to get in Flavorpill and other online publications. Send emails to everyone you know and make sure everyone that shows up signs your email list.
- Press vinyl copies. This might be the last thing you think about doing, but DJs love vinyl and so do music lovers. Press a few copies and distribute them to your favorite DJs, clubs and critics.
- Don’t sign a record deal. This may seem like a weird suggestion, but stay indie as long as possible. You want to make sure the odds are in your favor when you finally sign with a big label or it can be a blessing in disguise.
Good Copy Bad Copy - Stealing Culture
Good Copy Bad Copy - Stealing Culture
Watch a fascinating social commentary on the state of affairs in copyright and the internet.
Watch a fascinating social commentary on the state of affairs in copyright and the internet.
Gerd Leonhard’s Open Letter to the Independent Music Industry
Music2.0 and the Future of Music is yours – if you can resist the temptation of becoming just another music cartel.
On June 29, 2007, while at London Calling, I was invited to speak to a small group of indie record label leaders at the annual AIM / WIN gathering in London. I took this opportunity to take a good look at what needs to happen in order for the independent music companies to actually take advantage of the new music economy that is unfolding right now. So... some of my thoughts are shared below.
Today I want to present my views on what I like to call “Music2.0” – the next generation of the music industry that is being created as we speak. This new model is dramatically different: many old ways of doing things, many old relationships, and many outmoded traditions cannot and will not survive.
I want to seduce you, the leaders of the independent music industry, to go down this new road with me, to take a leap, to leave some of your assumptions and your ‘religions’ aside, and to make bold moves – because this is required to turn this ship around.
Scott Fitzgerald, the famous novelist, said: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function”. This will clearly be the music industry’s challenge going forward!
Technical and economic innovations have, for the past 10 years, stripped away many traditions, social and economic hierarchies and monopolies in the music industry, and if there is one thing we can say for sure I guess that would be that it’s now show-time: the music industry is finally reaching a major inflection point; 10 years after the first .com ventures shook the ground. It took a lot longer than we all thought but it’s hitting much harder now: CD sales are down between 20 – 40% YTD, and digital sales are not making up the difference, any time soon – and the one-horse race with iTunes clearly is a dead-end.
We are very quickly nearing a point to where we are forced to dive into what I like to call “Music2.0” – a new ecosystem that is not based on music as a product, but music as a service: first selling access, and only then selling copies. An ecosystem based on ubiquity of music, not scarcity. An ecosystem based on mutual trust, not fear.
As Don Tapscott says, in his great book “Wikinomics” , we can think of Web1.0 – the ‘old’ web - as some sort of digital newspaper, while Web2.0 is a canvas that allows information to be put up, shared, changed, and remixed. It’s about the interaction, the send-and-receive options that make it useful and ‘special’. And in music, it’s always been about interaction, about sharing, about engaging – not Sell-Sell-Sell right from the start.
Stop the sharing and you kill the music business – it’s that simple. When the fan / user / listener stops engaging with the music it’s all over. Today, you urgently need a canvas for music not a one-way product (such as the CD).
Let’s face it: most ‘leaders’ of the major record companies as well as some independents are, by and large, still in denial about the fact that their unit-sales-based model is utterly broken and crashing quicker than they can fathom, and many still hope for some magical technology solution to solve a business problem.
Billions of $$ have already been lost due to misguided strategies, outdated policies, and lack of true leadership. Forgive me, but it's time to get your act together and do whatever it takes, not just what fits comfortably into your current landscape – this is a make-it or break-it moment.
How come many societies and PROs / MROs are still at a total loss when it’s about ‘licensing the un-licensable’ (as my dear friend and colleague Jim Griffin puts it)? 1000s of companies with innovative business models are left unlicensed, by default (or shall I say by design?), and most of them have given up on even trying. Major money is left on the table due to tardiness and internal squabbling. Many of the traditional music licensing organizations have utterly failed in their mission of making music available – in fact, they have, by non-action, succeeded to make it unavailable. What you need now is action not continued excuses.
Today, we have the paradox situation that any startup that wants to use music will not even try to go legal right from the beginning, since there is no reasonable way of doing so. Look at the biggest exits in this turf, during the past 2 years: myspace, youtube, last.fm – either they did not bother with proper music licenses, or it was unclear if and where and when they would even need one. Non-compliance succeeded and was handsomely rewarded.
The music industry must admit that it has failed to act. Their leaders’ clueless-ness, incomprehension and general lack of willingness to embrace true change allowed the paying for music to become voluntary. Congrats.
Don Tapscott points at the year 2006: the losers built digital music stores, and the winners built vibrant communities based on music. The losers built walled gardens while the winners built public squares. The losers were busy guarding their intellectual property while the winners were busy getting everyone’s attention. Warner Music Group’s stock nose-dived from $30 to $14 in less than one year; Google rose from $323 to $526, Apple went from $50 to $127.
For the independent music industry, the question is: which side do you want to be on? Do you want to become another ‘major player’, and stay stuck in music1.0, or do you want to lead the way into music2.0?
In this context please allow me give you a glimpse of the future, so that you can make some decisions based on what is coming.
1. Within 18 months, in many key music territories around the globe, wireless broadband networks and device-to-device ad-hoc networks will connect every conceivable device with each other, as well as with gigantic online content depositories – or shall I say switch-boards - that will contain every imaginable song, film, or TV show.
If you think ‘sharing’ is a big deal now, wait another 2 years – it will be 100x as fast and enabled on every single device (not just computers). 3 Billion+ cell phones and 1 Billion+ music players will connect seamlessly to each other.
Wireless broadband access and devices will become so cheap, super-fast and ubiquitous that sharing content will become the default setting, at very high speeds and with anyone that is close by. Search – Find – Select – Exchange. Click and get.
How can you monetize this? By licensing participation – and the networks and the devices that enable it. You must license the use of any and all music on these networks, and make irresistible, irrefutable and compelling blanket offers to those that run it. These license deals must be conversations not monologs. Not a stick to the ISPs but a huge, shining and attractive carrot.
2. 10s of 1000s of new TV, online video, and gaming channels will be born in the next 2-3 years – and all of them will need music to go with the visuals. Millions of songs will be synched to video – this market will positively explode. It may well be that those B2B licensing revenues end up being more than 50% of your future income.
However, exploiting these opportunities will only be possible if an efficient and frictionless system for transactions is available – this is, imho, where the huge opportunity for the Merlin initiative (where AIM is a member) lies. Think ebay+ chemdex +ricall + pumpaudio+. Every $ invested in better B2B processes will make 10s of 1000s for music rights holders… while they sleep, or better yet, make more music.
3. Streaming music, on demand, will be everywhere. On every website, every widget, every mobile, every device – supported by ads, sponsorships and commissions on transactions. Performance-based income will surge beyond your wildest imaginations, But again, only if you finally chose to play ball, to participate, to make irresistible license and rate offerings, create reliable standards and go flat-out for liquidity not try to maintain artificial scarcity. BMI’s revenues have grown from $630 Million in 2003 to $779 Million in 2006 – not bad considering the overall demise of the recorded music market, at the same time! So read my mouse: It’s not the copy of the recording that makes all the $$$, it’s the use. In fact, the use of your music is the next big format you have been looking for.
4. Rich media (i.e. ads with music, video, animations, audio etc) will become the default advertising format for online advertising, representing yet another huge growth opportunity for music. Soon, 10%+ of all ad-spending will be on the Internet; and 16% of all Internet ads in 2009 will be rich media. With an estimated $ 700 Billion of global ad spending by 2009, that means $70 Billion for online ads, and over $10 Billion spend for rich media ads. 100s of millions of $$$ for music licenses!
5. Digital radio will deliver 100% time- and place shifted music experiences, stopping only a tiny bit short of becoming another iTunes. The reality is that net radio is just another Tivo for music. Radio will indeed become the feels-like-free, on-demand music box, once again: the only remaining ‘Radio1.0’ factor will be that it will continue to be curated and expert-produced, as well as taking in social recommendation and smart technology agents. The best radio stations will become very strong brands (Radio 1, KCRW etc), out-doing what used to be record labels. How will you license Radio2.0 if you insist on staying with a per-copy model?
6. All music companies will become video companies, too – music will be multimedia, by default (music + video + audio + text + games). If you aren’t already diversifying into video and TV you really should.
7. China, India, South America and Africa will explode with new models of usage rights – bundles and flat rates based on access. And guess what: they will indeed have those $100 computers that Negroponte is trying to bring to them!
But again, you will not have truly liquid (i.e. efficient, low-friction, vastly scalable) markets until you allow, support, and enable them. You must swing this ship around, because right now, the music industry is failing miserably: failing on technical and on licensing standards, on flexible pricing offerings, on competitiveness, on compatibility, on being trusted, on transparency.
The music industry’s past was based on:
• Control
• Exclusivity
• Monopoly
• Closed-ness
• Guarding / Protection
• Secrecy / Non-Transparency
• Territoriality
Your future – if you chose to go there – is based on:
• Openness
• Total transparency
• Peering
• Sharing
• A truly global outlook
• Liquidity
I predict that as much as 60% of this new music business - and with that I mean a $100 Billion music business - will be independent within 3-5 years – but only if their leaders don’t follow the major labels into LIKING CONTROL MORE THAN INCOME. Update: watch this movie clip for more details ;)
Here are a few of my favorite bottom lines:
1) The media ecosystem of the future is frictionless. That means music anytime, anyhow and anywhere, ranging from free and ‘feels like free’ to bundled, up-sold and premium’ed. Your job as a music company is to do away with the friction, not to add to it, or even to re-insert it: on the Internet, every hurdle is treated as damage, and the traffic is simply routed around it. Create friction and be side-stepped.
2) It’s all about participation not prevention. Because of the utter impossibility of maintaining any real hurdles, it is absolutely crucial that you find ways to participate in any and all forms of commerce that use music. Charge smartly for access but make music available the same way that cell phone operators make cell phones available: a very low-cost, irresistible way of engaging people… and sell-up from there. Whether it’s streaming on demand, remixes and mashups, play-listing and social network music applications, to add-music-to-video, to digital radio – being part of it is what it’s all about.
3) Let’s face it: the web is like a giant Tivo, a huge recorder or DVR - all performances are or can be recorded, all broadcasts really are deliveries. You need to stop distinguishing between music ‘to keep / own’ and music ‘to listen to’ – our users have done this a long time ago! License the USE. Share revenues. THEN upsell to ownership.
4) Copyright is the principle, usage right is where you monetize. Usage is where you need to focus your energies, not the ‘protection of Intellectual Property’. This is a tough spot but again… do you want total control, or do you want revenues?
5) Very few things end completely when new inventions are taking hold – usually, the market just grows larger. And it will be no different here. Yes, the fax machine and the Internet killed the Telex and telegraph, but we still have books even though we have Xerox machines. CDs will decline, and may fade out completely, eventually, but nothing you do in digital music will completely wipe out physical media. This is just another format, and it’s called ACCESS. And even better: after you provide access, you can sell ownership again, too (think HD!)
6) Remember that the only real limit to growth, in music and in media, is TIME. Media consumption will rise and rise and rise, as the offerings become cheaper and more ubiquitous, and as more of the “Digital Natives” consume multiple media at the same time. You are now engaged in a battle for the wallet and the clock – but the clock comes first. Mind share means time-spend means money spend! Again, this is where attention translates into money, and this is why the first objective is to get attention, and only then to get money. The biggest problem for most artists (and their labels) is obscurity not piracy!
7) Engage not enrage: stop anything that enrages the users. And do it now.
8) Guess what: you can compete with free because what you can offer is not free. Yes, a copy of a file is free. A CD burned from another CD is free, a USB stick’s content copied to my computer is free. But the real-life connection to the artist, the experience that is happening around the music, the added values such as videos, films, games, chats, books, concerts and merchandising, the context (!!!) - all of that must not be free. You must stop the obsession with trying to make money merely from selling copies, and instead provide access, because only the legitimate and authorized source (i.e. agent-label-manager) can provide the whole bundle of values that the users, fans, the people formerly known as consumers, will buy.
Music2.0 is an unprecedented opportunity, very much like when music when from acoustic to electric. Everyone wants music. More music is used on more platforms, all the time. An unprecedented hunger for music that you need to fulfill!
Finally, here are some challenges that I believe a music industry led by Independents must embrace.
1) Once released, a recording becomes, in reality, available by default and must be made ‘usable’ under a default license – all else equals tacitly conceding that it’s free to use without permission. As a result of such a new ‘default license’, some rights principles that we have gotten used to probably won’t translate in this environment – such as the moral right of deciding where you music is being performed or maybe even otherwise used. However, I don’t think this will apply to commercial use in films or ads - unlike the private or semi-private use in UGC and web-generated content, and of course, to public performance.
2) The traditional definition of ‘copyright’ and ‘intellectual property’ can, for the time being, not be the sole key to monetizing your creations. Because it is no longer about copies, it’s no longer about the right to copy, it’s no longer about reproduction – it’s about how music is being used and how to participate in those much larger revenues.
Call it ephemeral copies, tethered downloads, rented media, streaming, buffering, caching, storing, time-shifting, downloading, ripping or whatever – the fact is that digital technology has done away with the distinction of a so-called performance being different than a so-called DPD (digital phonographic delivery). All computers - and that means all cell phones, too ! – are by definition copying machines. As overwhelming as this may sound, you must therefore discard the idea of charging more to ‘keep’ music, as opposed to just ‘listening’ to it as in radio. Instead, you must focus on charging for added values (such as a better way to keep the music ;), and on collecting revenue at every point of access, and then go from there. I don’t want to get into my good old ‘music like water’ rant again, but charge for music like utility companies charge for basic water & electricity service, and then charge more for all the other options. The bottled water business is a $100 Billion industry!
3) Your revenues from selling ‘copies of songs’ will soon dwindle down to maybe 30% of your total income – the rest will be revenues from licensing, sync, performance, bundling, flat rates… revenue sharing and the many other streams that are yet in their embryonic stages. Get busy creating and supporting those new revenue streams!
4) You can’t afford exclusive rights representation at high rates any longer, unless these institutions give you 100% coverage and a flawless solution.
5) Forget territories except for when serving local repertoire (which is on the rise, too). Most talent is global, and your audience is global, or at least virtually local. Internationalize right from the start and build systems that will support that. Build a worldwide licensing and B2B-transactions system that makes all repertoire available for all types of use, and build it quickly.
6) Resist the temptation to do as the major labels have done (e.g. extract huge one-off payments, extort equity shares, license at unreasonable rates, refuse access for no reason but for market control concerns, sue their own customers etc) – that is a certain death wish. In fact, now you can force them to follow you!
7) Resist all attempts at locked / protected formats, and go for open systems.
) Bundle and package music in new ways: with other services, with other products. And prepare for the Flat Rate because this is certainly coming.
9) Remove any and all hurdles to complete market liquidity: pricing inflexibility, lack of standards (technology), lack of licensing transparency, territorial differences, monopolies.
10) Embrace outsiders to jumpstart the music business. Niklas Zennstrom disrupted the telecom business, Hotmail changed email, Stanford dropouts started Google – the innovation often comes from the outside.
Call me a Utopian, call me a Dreamer, call me a ruthless Optimist, but I think this is the Future of Music.
Gerd Leonhard, Basel, Switzerland, July 1, 2007
http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/
On June 29, 2007, while at London Calling, I was invited to speak to a small group of indie record label leaders at the annual AIM / WIN gathering in London. I took this opportunity to take a good look at what needs to happen in order for the independent music companies to actually take advantage of the new music economy that is unfolding right now. So... some of my thoughts are shared below.
Today I want to present my views on what I like to call “Music2.0” – the next generation of the music industry that is being created as we speak. This new model is dramatically different: many old ways of doing things, many old relationships, and many outmoded traditions cannot and will not survive.
I want to seduce you, the leaders of the independent music industry, to go down this new road with me, to take a leap, to leave some of your assumptions and your ‘religions’ aside, and to make bold moves – because this is required to turn this ship around.
Scott Fitzgerald, the famous novelist, said: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function”. This will clearly be the music industry’s challenge going forward!
Technical and economic innovations have, for the past 10 years, stripped away many traditions, social and economic hierarchies and monopolies in the music industry, and if there is one thing we can say for sure I guess that would be that it’s now show-time: the music industry is finally reaching a major inflection point; 10 years after the first .com ventures shook the ground. It took a lot longer than we all thought but it’s hitting much harder now: CD sales are down between 20 – 40% YTD, and digital sales are not making up the difference, any time soon – and the one-horse race with iTunes clearly is a dead-end.
We are very quickly nearing a point to where we are forced to dive into what I like to call “Music2.0” – a new ecosystem that is not based on music as a product, but music as a service: first selling access, and only then selling copies. An ecosystem based on ubiquity of music, not scarcity. An ecosystem based on mutual trust, not fear.
As Don Tapscott says, in his great book “Wikinomics” , we can think of Web1.0 – the ‘old’ web - as some sort of digital newspaper, while Web2.0 is a canvas that allows information to be put up, shared, changed, and remixed. It’s about the interaction, the send-and-receive options that make it useful and ‘special’. And in music, it’s always been about interaction, about sharing, about engaging – not Sell-Sell-Sell right from the start.
Stop the sharing and you kill the music business – it’s that simple. When the fan / user / listener stops engaging with the music it’s all over. Today, you urgently need a canvas for music not a one-way product (such as the CD).
Let’s face it: most ‘leaders’ of the major record companies as well as some independents are, by and large, still in denial about the fact that their unit-sales-based model is utterly broken and crashing quicker than they can fathom, and many still hope for some magical technology solution to solve a business problem.
Billions of $$ have already been lost due to misguided strategies, outdated policies, and lack of true leadership. Forgive me, but it's time to get your act together and do whatever it takes, not just what fits comfortably into your current landscape – this is a make-it or break-it moment.
How come many societies and PROs / MROs are still at a total loss when it’s about ‘licensing the un-licensable’ (as my dear friend and colleague Jim Griffin puts it)? 1000s of companies with innovative business models are left unlicensed, by default (or shall I say by design?), and most of them have given up on even trying. Major money is left on the table due to tardiness and internal squabbling. Many of the traditional music licensing organizations have utterly failed in their mission of making music available – in fact, they have, by non-action, succeeded to make it unavailable. What you need now is action not continued excuses.
Today, we have the paradox situation that any startup that wants to use music will not even try to go legal right from the beginning, since there is no reasonable way of doing so. Look at the biggest exits in this turf, during the past 2 years: myspace, youtube, last.fm – either they did not bother with proper music licenses, or it was unclear if and where and when they would even need one. Non-compliance succeeded and was handsomely rewarded.
The music industry must admit that it has failed to act. Their leaders’ clueless-ness, incomprehension and general lack of willingness to embrace true change allowed the paying for music to become voluntary. Congrats.
Don Tapscott points at the year 2006: the losers built digital music stores, and the winners built vibrant communities based on music. The losers built walled gardens while the winners built public squares. The losers were busy guarding their intellectual property while the winners were busy getting everyone’s attention. Warner Music Group’s stock nose-dived from $30 to $14 in less than one year; Google rose from $323 to $526, Apple went from $50 to $127.
For the independent music industry, the question is: which side do you want to be on? Do you want to become another ‘major player’, and stay stuck in music1.0, or do you want to lead the way into music2.0?
In this context please allow me give you a glimpse of the future, so that you can make some decisions based on what is coming.
1. Within 18 months, in many key music territories around the globe, wireless broadband networks and device-to-device ad-hoc networks will connect every conceivable device with each other, as well as with gigantic online content depositories – or shall I say switch-boards - that will contain every imaginable song, film, or TV show.
If you think ‘sharing’ is a big deal now, wait another 2 years – it will be 100x as fast and enabled on every single device (not just computers). 3 Billion+ cell phones and 1 Billion+ music players will connect seamlessly to each other.
Wireless broadband access and devices will become so cheap, super-fast and ubiquitous that sharing content will become the default setting, at very high speeds and with anyone that is close by. Search – Find – Select – Exchange. Click and get.
How can you monetize this? By licensing participation – and the networks and the devices that enable it. You must license the use of any and all music on these networks, and make irresistible, irrefutable and compelling blanket offers to those that run it. These license deals must be conversations not monologs. Not a stick to the ISPs but a huge, shining and attractive carrot.
2. 10s of 1000s of new TV, online video, and gaming channels will be born in the next 2-3 years – and all of them will need music to go with the visuals. Millions of songs will be synched to video – this market will positively explode. It may well be that those B2B licensing revenues end up being more than 50% of your future income.
However, exploiting these opportunities will only be possible if an efficient and frictionless system for transactions is available – this is, imho, where the huge opportunity for the Merlin initiative (where AIM is a member) lies. Think ebay+ chemdex +ricall + pumpaudio+. Every $ invested in better B2B processes will make 10s of 1000s for music rights holders… while they sleep, or better yet, make more music.
3. Streaming music, on demand, will be everywhere. On every website, every widget, every mobile, every device – supported by ads, sponsorships and commissions on transactions. Performance-based income will surge beyond your wildest imaginations, But again, only if you finally chose to play ball, to participate, to make irresistible license and rate offerings, create reliable standards and go flat-out for liquidity not try to maintain artificial scarcity. BMI’s revenues have grown from $630 Million in 2003 to $779 Million in 2006 – not bad considering the overall demise of the recorded music market, at the same time! So read my mouse: It’s not the copy of the recording that makes all the $$$, it’s the use. In fact, the use of your music is the next big format you have been looking for.
4. Rich media (i.e. ads with music, video, animations, audio etc) will become the default advertising format for online advertising, representing yet another huge growth opportunity for music. Soon, 10%+ of all ad-spending will be on the Internet; and 16% of all Internet ads in 2009 will be rich media. With an estimated $ 700 Billion of global ad spending by 2009, that means $70 Billion for online ads, and over $10 Billion spend for rich media ads. 100s of millions of $$$ for music licenses!
5. Digital radio will deliver 100% time- and place shifted music experiences, stopping only a tiny bit short of becoming another iTunes. The reality is that net radio is just another Tivo for music. Radio will indeed become the feels-like-free, on-demand music box, once again: the only remaining ‘Radio1.0’ factor will be that it will continue to be curated and expert-produced, as well as taking in social recommendation and smart technology agents. The best radio stations will become very strong brands (Radio 1, KCRW etc), out-doing what used to be record labels. How will you license Radio2.0 if you insist on staying with a per-copy model?
6. All music companies will become video companies, too – music will be multimedia, by default (music + video + audio + text + games). If you aren’t already diversifying into video and TV you really should.
7. China, India, South America and Africa will explode with new models of usage rights – bundles and flat rates based on access. And guess what: they will indeed have those $100 computers that Negroponte is trying to bring to them!
But again, you will not have truly liquid (i.e. efficient, low-friction, vastly scalable) markets until you allow, support, and enable them. You must swing this ship around, because right now, the music industry is failing miserably: failing on technical and on licensing standards, on flexible pricing offerings, on competitiveness, on compatibility, on being trusted, on transparency.
The music industry’s past was based on:
• Control
• Exclusivity
• Monopoly
• Closed-ness
• Guarding / Protection
• Secrecy / Non-Transparency
• Territoriality
Your future – if you chose to go there – is based on:
• Openness
• Total transparency
• Peering
• Sharing
• A truly global outlook
• Liquidity
I predict that as much as 60% of this new music business - and with that I mean a $100 Billion music business - will be independent within 3-5 years – but only if their leaders don’t follow the major labels into LIKING CONTROL MORE THAN INCOME. Update: watch this movie clip for more details ;)
Here are a few of my favorite bottom lines:
1) The media ecosystem of the future is frictionless. That means music anytime, anyhow and anywhere, ranging from free and ‘feels like free’ to bundled, up-sold and premium’ed. Your job as a music company is to do away with the friction, not to add to it, or even to re-insert it: on the Internet, every hurdle is treated as damage, and the traffic is simply routed around it. Create friction and be side-stepped.
2) It’s all about participation not prevention. Because of the utter impossibility of maintaining any real hurdles, it is absolutely crucial that you find ways to participate in any and all forms of commerce that use music. Charge smartly for access but make music available the same way that cell phone operators make cell phones available: a very low-cost, irresistible way of engaging people… and sell-up from there. Whether it’s streaming on demand, remixes and mashups, play-listing and social network music applications, to add-music-to-video, to digital radio – being part of it is what it’s all about.
3) Let’s face it: the web is like a giant Tivo, a huge recorder or DVR - all performances are or can be recorded, all broadcasts really are deliveries. You need to stop distinguishing between music ‘to keep / own’ and music ‘to listen to’ – our users have done this a long time ago! License the USE. Share revenues. THEN upsell to ownership.
4) Copyright is the principle, usage right is where you monetize. Usage is where you need to focus your energies, not the ‘protection of Intellectual Property’. This is a tough spot but again… do you want total control, or do you want revenues?
5) Very few things end completely when new inventions are taking hold – usually, the market just grows larger. And it will be no different here. Yes, the fax machine and the Internet killed the Telex and telegraph, but we still have books even though we have Xerox machines. CDs will decline, and may fade out completely, eventually, but nothing you do in digital music will completely wipe out physical media. This is just another format, and it’s called ACCESS. And even better: after you provide access, you can sell ownership again, too (think HD!)
6) Remember that the only real limit to growth, in music and in media, is TIME. Media consumption will rise and rise and rise, as the offerings become cheaper and more ubiquitous, and as more of the “Digital Natives” consume multiple media at the same time. You are now engaged in a battle for the wallet and the clock – but the clock comes first. Mind share means time-spend means money spend! Again, this is where attention translates into money, and this is why the first objective is to get attention, and only then to get money. The biggest problem for most artists (and their labels) is obscurity not piracy!
7) Engage not enrage: stop anything that enrages the users. And do it now.
8) Guess what: you can compete with free because what you can offer is not free. Yes, a copy of a file is free. A CD burned from another CD is free, a USB stick’s content copied to my computer is free. But the real-life connection to the artist, the experience that is happening around the music, the added values such as videos, films, games, chats, books, concerts and merchandising, the context (!!!) - all of that must not be free. You must stop the obsession with trying to make money merely from selling copies, and instead provide access, because only the legitimate and authorized source (i.e. agent-label-manager) can provide the whole bundle of values that the users, fans, the people formerly known as consumers, will buy.
Music2.0 is an unprecedented opportunity, very much like when music when from acoustic to electric. Everyone wants music. More music is used on more platforms, all the time. An unprecedented hunger for music that you need to fulfill!
Finally, here are some challenges that I believe a music industry led by Independents must embrace.
1) Once released, a recording becomes, in reality, available by default and must be made ‘usable’ under a default license – all else equals tacitly conceding that it’s free to use without permission. As a result of such a new ‘default license’, some rights principles that we have gotten used to probably won’t translate in this environment – such as the moral right of deciding where you music is being performed or maybe even otherwise used. However, I don’t think this will apply to commercial use in films or ads - unlike the private or semi-private use in UGC and web-generated content, and of course, to public performance.
2) The traditional definition of ‘copyright’ and ‘intellectual property’ can, for the time being, not be the sole key to monetizing your creations. Because it is no longer about copies, it’s no longer about the right to copy, it’s no longer about reproduction – it’s about how music is being used and how to participate in those much larger revenues.
Call it ephemeral copies, tethered downloads, rented media, streaming, buffering, caching, storing, time-shifting, downloading, ripping or whatever – the fact is that digital technology has done away with the distinction of a so-called performance being different than a so-called DPD (digital phonographic delivery). All computers - and that means all cell phones, too ! – are by definition copying machines. As overwhelming as this may sound, you must therefore discard the idea of charging more to ‘keep’ music, as opposed to just ‘listening’ to it as in radio. Instead, you must focus on charging for added values (such as a better way to keep the music ;), and on collecting revenue at every point of access, and then go from there. I don’t want to get into my good old ‘music like water’ rant again, but charge for music like utility companies charge for basic water & electricity service, and then charge more for all the other options. The bottled water business is a $100 Billion industry!
3) Your revenues from selling ‘copies of songs’ will soon dwindle down to maybe 30% of your total income – the rest will be revenues from licensing, sync, performance, bundling, flat rates… revenue sharing and the many other streams that are yet in their embryonic stages. Get busy creating and supporting those new revenue streams!
4) You can’t afford exclusive rights representation at high rates any longer, unless these institutions give you 100% coverage and a flawless solution.
5) Forget territories except for when serving local repertoire (which is on the rise, too). Most talent is global, and your audience is global, or at least virtually local. Internationalize right from the start and build systems that will support that. Build a worldwide licensing and B2B-transactions system that makes all repertoire available for all types of use, and build it quickly.
6) Resist the temptation to do as the major labels have done (e.g. extract huge one-off payments, extort equity shares, license at unreasonable rates, refuse access for no reason but for market control concerns, sue their own customers etc) – that is a certain death wish. In fact, now you can force them to follow you!
7) Resist all attempts at locked / protected formats, and go for open systems.
) Bundle and package music in new ways: with other services, with other products. And prepare for the Flat Rate because this is certainly coming.
9) Remove any and all hurdles to complete market liquidity: pricing inflexibility, lack of standards (technology), lack of licensing transparency, territorial differences, monopolies.
10) Embrace outsiders to jumpstart the music business. Niklas Zennstrom disrupted the telecom business, Hotmail changed email, Stanford dropouts started Google – the innovation often comes from the outside.
Call me a Utopian, call me a Dreamer, call me a ruthless Optimist, but I think this is the Future of Music.
Gerd Leonhard, Basel, Switzerland, July 1, 2007
http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/
What The Kids Are Stealing These Days -- And What They'll Be Buying Soon
Peter Kafka | October 5, 2007 4:49 PM
The same record labels that complain about the epidemic of file-sharing/song-stealing also pay close attention to what songs file-sharers are swapping. Why? Because song-stealers tend to have the same tastes as song-buyers, but they tend to move faster. So if you track the what songs are moving quickly on P2P file-sharing systems, you can get a good sense of what's will be selling in a few weeks' time.
Online measurement firm BigChampagne has generated a "biggest movers" chart for us, which tracks which songs have had the biggest week-to-week increases on file-sharing networks. We've published it after the jump. Note that it doesn't correlate at all to CD sales, because people who buy CDs aren't buying them because there's one good song on them. But if there's more than one good song on them, they tend to do very well. That's why we're confident that Gorilla Zoe, who we'd never heard of prior to today, will be selling a lot of copies of his album Welcome To The Zoo in the coming weeks. The album, released by Warner Music Group (WMG), has two fast-moving songs on the BigChampagne chart.
The same record labels that complain about the epidemic of file-sharing/song-stealing also pay close attention to what songs file-sharers are swapping. Why? Because song-stealers tend to have the same tastes as song-buyers, but they tend to move faster. So if you track the what songs are moving quickly on P2P file-sharing systems, you can get a good sense of what's will be selling in a few weeks' time.
Online measurement firm BigChampagne has generated a "biggest movers" chart for us, which tracks which songs have had the biggest week-to-week increases on file-sharing networks. We've published it after the jump. Note that it doesn't correlate at all to CD sales, because people who buy CDs aren't buying them because there's one good song on them. But if there's more than one good song on them, they tend to do very well. That's why we're confident that Gorilla Zoe, who we'd never heard of prior to today, will be selling a lot of copies of his album Welcome To The Zoo in the coming weeks. The album, released by Warner Music Group (WMG), has two fast-moving songs on the BigChampagne chart.
Why Hannah Montana Should Sell $200 Tickets
Peter Kafka | October 5, 2007 3:42 PM
The WSJ reports on the fascinating court battle between IAC's Ticketmaster and RMG Technologies, a Pittsburgh company that runs TicketBrokerTools.com, a scalping/reselling service. IAC says RMG has created bots that can outsmart Ticketmaster's "captcha" boxes and allow it to buy up huge blocks of tickets. It then resells them at a steep markup. RMG says it's not using bots, but says what it is doing is perfectly legal.
The Internet has transformed the aftermarket ticket business, and everyone wants in. In January eBay bought Stubhub for $310 million, and Ticketmaster has its own entry, dubbed TicketExchange. Last month Live Nation CEO Mike Rapino said his concert promotion business would like to have one, too.
The Journal focuses its story on Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana tour, where the price and scarcity of tickets purportedly has parents in a rage; a Kansas City councilman is making vague threats to do something about the problem. (Richard Blumenthal, are you on top of this?) But ticket buyers shouldn't blame concert promoters or resellers - they should blame themselves (or their kids) for driving up demand.
The top face value of a Hannah Montana ticket was $63; the average price of a Hannah Montana ticket on StubHub is $237 -- more than the Police, Genesis, or anyone currently on tour. Obvious solution: Increase the face value at the start. Rock bands and some Broadway shows have already started doing this by offering at least a portion of their seats at nosebleed prices; the moves tend to generate plenty of headlines, but not that much sticker shock. People who really, really want to see Neil Young in L.A. will pay $257 a pop (and that money goes to Neil Young and the concert promoter, not a scalper), and those that don't pay less, or stay home. No need to call the authorities here.
http://www.alleyinsider.com
The WSJ reports on the fascinating court battle between IAC's Ticketmaster and RMG Technologies, a Pittsburgh company that runs TicketBrokerTools.com, a scalping/reselling service. IAC says RMG has created bots that can outsmart Ticketmaster's "captcha" boxes and allow it to buy up huge blocks of tickets. It then resells them at a steep markup. RMG says it's not using bots, but says what it is doing is perfectly legal.
The Internet has transformed the aftermarket ticket business, and everyone wants in. In January eBay bought Stubhub for $310 million, and Ticketmaster has its own entry, dubbed TicketExchange. Last month Live Nation CEO Mike Rapino said his concert promotion business would like to have one, too.
The Journal focuses its story on Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana tour, where the price and scarcity of tickets purportedly has parents in a rage; a Kansas City councilman is making vague threats to do something about the problem. (Richard Blumenthal, are you on top of this?) But ticket buyers shouldn't blame concert promoters or resellers - they should blame themselves (or their kids) for driving up demand.
The top face value of a Hannah Montana ticket was $63; the average price of a Hannah Montana ticket on StubHub is $237 -- more than the Police, Genesis, or anyone currently on tour. Obvious solution: Increase the face value at the start. Rock bands and some Broadway shows have already started doing this by offering at least a portion of their seats at nosebleed prices; the moves tend to generate plenty of headlines, but not that much sticker shock. People who really, really want to see Neil Young in L.A. will pay $257 a pop (and that money goes to Neil Young and the concert promoter, not a scalper), and those that don't pay less, or stay home. No need to call the authorities here.
http://www.alleyinsider.com
AGs: Parents Have Inalienable Rights To Hannah Montana Tickets
Peter Kafka | October 8, 2007 10:00 PM
Last week we suggested that expensive Hannah Montana tickets were a result of market forces, not criminal behavior.* We appear to be in the minority on this one. From Billboard.com:
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon last week sued three ticket resellers on charges they violated state consumer protection laws. Also last week, Arkansas AG Dustin McDaniel said he was investigating resellers in that state, as is Pennsylvania AG Tom Corbett. The attention from state legal eagles speaks to the huge demand for tickets to the 54-date Hannah Montana tour, which begins Oct. 18 in St. Louis.
Adding fuel to the fire are the core demographics being impacted -- children and their parents. "You're dealing with a mother/child dynamic here that can lead to a very upset child and a very angry mother, and that certainly exacerbates things," says Ticketmaster VP/assistant general counsel Joe Freeman.
We didn't know that certain "core demographics" had the right to demand lower prices on entertainments. We also don't know if we fall into any of the "core demographics" that qualify for government intervention on our behalf. But if we do, here's a brief list of things we'd like to pay less for. Andrew Cuomo, please take note:
• Starbucks grande skim latte
• Santa Fe salad from Chopt
• Time Warner Cable's Cable/Broadband/Phone "triple play"
• Two-bedroom apartments in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn.
Related: Why Hannah Montana Should Sell $200 Tickets
* We also wondered if Connecticut AG was aware of the situation. Of course he is! From MTV.com:
The situation was no better in Connecticut, where there were also plenty of upset fans. That state's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, blames the fact that the state did away with its scalping laws. "Consumers are now at the mercy of ticket scalpers who can corner the market on tickets and then exercise monopolistic stranglehold power on the prices that tickets are sold," Blumenthal told local station WTNH.
Last week we suggested that expensive Hannah Montana tickets were a result of market forces, not criminal behavior.* We appear to be in the minority on this one. From Billboard.com:
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon last week sued three ticket resellers on charges they violated state consumer protection laws. Also last week, Arkansas AG Dustin McDaniel said he was investigating resellers in that state, as is Pennsylvania AG Tom Corbett. The attention from state legal eagles speaks to the huge demand for tickets to the 54-date Hannah Montana tour, which begins Oct. 18 in St. Louis.
Adding fuel to the fire are the core demographics being impacted -- children and their parents. "You're dealing with a mother/child dynamic here that can lead to a very upset child and a very angry mother, and that certainly exacerbates things," says Ticketmaster VP/assistant general counsel Joe Freeman.
We didn't know that certain "core demographics" had the right to demand lower prices on entertainments. We also don't know if we fall into any of the "core demographics" that qualify for government intervention on our behalf. But if we do, here's a brief list of things we'd like to pay less for. Andrew Cuomo, please take note:
• Starbucks grande skim latte
• Santa Fe salad from Chopt
• Time Warner Cable's Cable/Broadband/Phone "triple play"
• Two-bedroom apartments in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn.
Related: Why Hannah Montana Should Sell $200 Tickets
* We also wondered if Connecticut AG was aware of the situation. Of course he is! From MTV.com:
The situation was no better in Connecticut, where there were also plenty of upset fans. That state's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, blames the fact that the state did away with its scalping laws. "Consumers are now at the mercy of ticket scalpers who can corner the market on tickets and then exercise monopolistic stranglehold power on the prices that tickets are sold," Blumenthal told local station WTNH.
Why Nokia Won't Beat Apple's iPhone
Peter Kafka | October 9, 2007 4:41 PM
We've been knocked in the past for being too hard on Apple's iPhone. We think that criticism is misguided -- we simply think that Steve Jobs' one-third price cut, two months after the phone's launch, indicates that demand was underwhelming. Regardless, perhaps this prediction will cheer up Apple fans: We're confident that Nokia's attempt to take on the iPhone will fall flat on its face.
Why? Because last week Nokia launched an ad campaign that knocks Apple for selling a "locked" phone -- see photo of a set of New York sidewalk posters below. We don't have strong feelings about whether Apple made a mistake here or not. But we do know trying to tackle Apple products by pointing out their supposed flaws is a non-starter. Case studies after the jump.
picture at >> http://www.alleyinsider.com/images/2007/10/09/nokia.jpg
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/10/why-nokia-cant-.html
We've been knocked in the past for being too hard on Apple's iPhone. We think that criticism is misguided -- we simply think that Steve Jobs' one-third price cut, two months after the phone's launch, indicates that demand was underwhelming. Regardless, perhaps this prediction will cheer up Apple fans: We're confident that Nokia's attempt to take on the iPhone will fall flat on its face.
Why? Because last week Nokia launched an ad campaign that knocks Apple for selling a "locked" phone -- see photo of a set of New York sidewalk posters below. We don't have strong feelings about whether Apple made a mistake here or not. But we do know trying to tackle Apple products by pointing out their supposed flaws is a non-starter. Case studies after the jump.
picture at >> http://www.alleyinsider.com/images/2007/10/09/nokia.jpg
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/10/why-nokia-cant-.html
dinsdag 9 oktober 2007
Note To Music Industry: It’s Time To Clean Your Own House
It is amusing to me that the recording industry has celebrated its first “victory” when it comes to prosecuting piracy. Last week, Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $222,000 for illegal downloading of music. This amount is approximately ten times the median income for her community. I’m guessing the industry won’t see a dime — and I’m guessing the verdict won’t change the facts on the ground.
It’s a pretty safe bet that one of the biggest contributors to piracy is the industry itself. If you live in certain cities, you know that promo copies of CDs show up in used record stores long before the release date. All those freebies are pretty much turned over for better product or cash. And disks get passed hand to hand in hopes that “buzz” will be built for an upcoming release.
Mostly this doesn’t happen because most music that gets released on major record labels isn’t buzz-worthy. That’s another problem for another day.
BitTorrent (in the generic sense of peer-to-peer services, not specifically) watchers know that songs can be found in advance of official release. I think it’s safe to assume that much of this free stuff comes from the collections of music industry professionals. Maybe it’s just a modern version of the stealth (stealthy like an elephant, I mean) marketing I noted in the paragraph above. More likely it’s part of the culture.
Basically, I’m thinking that before the RIAA goes after consumers who won’t make enough money in the next decade to pay fines for really crappy music, it should clean its own house. You know what they say: piracy begins at home.
And Congress needs to stop pandering and start thinking. According to the Los Angeles Times, Thomas claims to own the songs she downloaded on CD. While this could and should be verified, it also raises a question we ponder frequently around here. Should it really be illegal to download an MP3 version of a song (or album) you’ve already legally purchased? Doesn’t legal precedent offer consumers a right to make a copy for personal use? Why is that we have turned the rights of consumers upside-down just because the music industry played its collective fiddles while the labels were burning?
And let us not forget that the industry has been downright multiple personality about how to get music to consumers. They pay lip service to the value of the content, but every day sees a new initiative. Pay for it, give it away free, ad-supported, non-ad-supported, use BitTorrent as a delivery mechanism, BitTorrent is evil. Consumers are understandably confused. The industry has sent more than a few mixed messages. Why should consumers be held responsible for knowing the rules when the music industry can’t maintain a consistent approach (”piracy is bad” is not a consistent approach)?
I have long believed that (most) people will pay for music that is easily accessible, in a usable format, and available at a reasonable price. I think the success of paid models like iTunes supports my theory. The hassle of going the piracy route is far outweighed by ease-of-use. At every possible turn, the music industry has made consuming music legally the most difficult of all choices — and that says something very sad about the state of music today
It’s a pretty safe bet that one of the biggest contributors to piracy is the industry itself. If you live in certain cities, you know that promo copies of CDs show up in used record stores long before the release date. All those freebies are pretty much turned over for better product or cash. And disks get passed hand to hand in hopes that “buzz” will be built for an upcoming release.
Mostly this doesn’t happen because most music that gets released on major record labels isn’t buzz-worthy. That’s another problem for another day.
BitTorrent (in the generic sense of peer-to-peer services, not specifically) watchers know that songs can be found in advance of official release. I think it’s safe to assume that much of this free stuff comes from the collections of music industry professionals. Maybe it’s just a modern version of the stealth (stealthy like an elephant, I mean) marketing I noted in the paragraph above. More likely it’s part of the culture.
Basically, I’m thinking that before the RIAA goes after consumers who won’t make enough money in the next decade to pay fines for really crappy music, it should clean its own house. You know what they say: piracy begins at home.
And Congress needs to stop pandering and start thinking. According to the Los Angeles Times, Thomas claims to own the songs she downloaded on CD. While this could and should be verified, it also raises a question we ponder frequently around here. Should it really be illegal to download an MP3 version of a song (or album) you’ve already legally purchased? Doesn’t legal precedent offer consumers a right to make a copy for personal use? Why is that we have turned the rights of consumers upside-down just because the music industry played its collective fiddles while the labels were burning?
And let us not forget that the industry has been downright multiple personality about how to get music to consumers. They pay lip service to the value of the content, but every day sees a new initiative. Pay for it, give it away free, ad-supported, non-ad-supported, use BitTorrent as a delivery mechanism, BitTorrent is evil. Consumers are understandably confused. The industry has sent more than a few mixed messages. Why should consumers be held responsible for knowing the rules when the music industry can’t maintain a consistent approach (”piracy is bad” is not a consistent approach)?
I have long believed that (most) people will pay for music that is easily accessible, in a usable format, and available at a reasonable price. I think the success of paid models like iTunes supports my theory. The hassle of going the piracy route is far outweighed by ease-of-use. At every possible turn, the music industry has made consuming music legally the most difficult of all choices — and that says something very sad about the state of music today
Big Music "Wins" Trial Against Song-Stealer; Industry Still Screwed
Peter Kafka | October 4, 2007 7:00 PM
The big music labels have won their first court case against an individual accused of stealing music online: A federal jury in Duluth, Minn has found that 30-year-old Jammie Thomas shared 1,702 songs illegally, and has levied a $200,000 fine against her.
Of course, this isn't a win for the music business at all. Because suing your customers -- and actually taking them to court -- is never a good idea. Nevermind that the legal case against Thomas was always straightforward -- the courts have been quite clear about the illegality of filesharing for years. The spectacle that the case created -- music execs, for instance, trudging over to a Duluth courthouse to explain why copying music you own is technically illegal -- didn't do anything to help the music industry's case.
And neither will this ruling. Even if the fate of Jammie Thomas has a real deterrent effect (and we don't think it will), it's not going to solve the music industry's real problem: It is dependent on a product - the CD - that customers no longer want to buy. For argument's sake, say the industry is able to forcibly restrain people from illegal file-sharing. That still wouldn't turn song-stealers into CD buyers -- at best they'd be singles buyers. That is, instead of spending $10 or $15 for discs, they'd spend a couple bucks on individual songs. And even after years of cuts, the industry still isn't lean enough to support itself on a diet of $1 purchases.
Again, the good news is that no music executive geniuinely believes that they can put the file-sharing genie back in the bottle. But the bad news is that they haven't been able to figure out how to replace the CD. And unless they can, they're going to have to endure a lot more pain.
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/10/big-music-wins-.html
The big music labels have won their first court case against an individual accused of stealing music online: A federal jury in Duluth, Minn has found that 30-year-old Jammie Thomas shared 1,702 songs illegally, and has levied a $200,000 fine against her.
Of course, this isn't a win for the music business at all. Because suing your customers -- and actually taking them to court -- is never a good idea. Nevermind that the legal case against Thomas was always straightforward -- the courts have been quite clear about the illegality of filesharing for years. The spectacle that the case created -- music execs, for instance, trudging over to a Duluth courthouse to explain why copying music you own is technically illegal -- didn't do anything to help the music industry's case.
And neither will this ruling. Even if the fate of Jammie Thomas has a real deterrent effect (and we don't think it will), it's not going to solve the music industry's real problem: It is dependent on a product - the CD - that customers no longer want to buy. For argument's sake, say the industry is able to forcibly restrain people from illegal file-sharing. That still wouldn't turn song-stealers into CD buyers -- at best they'd be singles buyers. That is, instead of spending $10 or $15 for discs, they'd spend a couple bucks on individual songs. And even after years of cuts, the industry still isn't lean enough to support itself on a diet of $1 purchases.
Again, the good news is that no music executive geniuinely believes that they can put the file-sharing genie back in the bottle. But the bad news is that they haven't been able to figure out how to replace the CD. And unless they can, they're going to have to endure a lot more pain.
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/10/big-music-wins-.html
maandag 8 oktober 2007
Digital Music ''Now Playing'' at Starbucks Stores
Digital Music ''Now Playing'' at Starbucks Stores with the Launch of the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store on Oct. 2
Starbucks to Celebrate by Giving Away an Unprecedented 50 Million Songs on iTunes Starbucks "Song of the Day" Offers 1.5 Million Free Songs Per Day from a Diverse Line-up of Artists Including Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, KT Tunstall and John Mayer
On October 2, the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store, which features Starbucks exclusive "Now Playing" service, goes live in more than 600 Starbucks locations in New York and Seattle. In celebration of this historic launch, Starbucks announced today that it will introduce the digital music experience across all of its U.S. company-operated and licensed stores by offering its customers the "Song of the Day," an unprecedented free digital music promotion. From October 2 to November 7 at more than 10,000 Starbucks locations, customers may receive "Song of the Day" cards redeemable on the iTunes Store for Mac or PC (http://www.itunes.com/) for a complimentary song hand-selected by Starbucks Entertainment. Throughout the promotion, Starbucks will give away 1.5 million downloads on iTunes per day for a total of more than 50 million free songs.ADVERTISEMENT "This is a landmark moment for Starbucks," said Ken Lombard, president of Starbucks Entertainment. "With the launch of the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks we can now provide the same classic coffeehouse experience and compelling music offerings our customers have come to expect from us through a new platform ideal for the digital music consumer. This is the first step in combining the power of brick and mortar retail and digital music."
"Song of the Day" kicks off Starbucks exclusive partnership with Apple, which lets customers use the T-Mobile HotSpot Wi-Fi Network at participating Starbucks to wirelessly download music onto their iPhone, iPod touch or laptop from the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store with no Wi-Fi connection fees or HotSpot login required.
Starbucks will also introduce a new "Now Playing" feature, which allows customers using the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks to instantly preview, buy, and download the music currently playing overhead. This is the only technology of its kind that allows customers to download the music they discover in the environment around them.
"Song of the Day" will offer hand-picked songs from top artists including Bob Dylan, Joss Stone, Dave Matthews, Bebel Gilberto, John Mayer, KT Tunstall, John Legend, Annie Lennox, Joni Mitchell, Keith Urban and Paul McCartney plus great music from up-and-coming artists such as Sia, Band of Horses, Hilary McRae, Frederico Aubele and Sara Bareilles.
Each morning and while supplies last, Starbucks customers nationwide can discover that day's complimentary download as part of their daily coffee routine. Upon receiving their complimentary download card at Starbucks, customers will have until the end of the calendar year to redeem the song on the U.S. iTunes Store.
Starting October 2, Starbucks company-operated locations in the U.S. will offer iTunes Digital Release Cards for sale, including KT Tunstall's "Drastic Fantastic" with bonus music videos, digital booklet and a behind-the-scenes documentary video, and music from the film "Into the Wild," featuring all new songs from Eddie Vedder with bonus tracks and digital booklet. Each iTunes Digital Release Card contains a full album's worth of music and features collectible artwork. After the card is activated upon purchase at Starbucks, customers can download the album and bonus material on the iTunes Store for Mac or PC.
Starbucks will also offer the Starbucks Card Plus Two, a limited edition re-loadable Starbucks card with added bonus value. When a Starbucks Card Plus Two is registered online the cardholder will receive two complimentary song downloads of their choice on the U.S. iTunes Store.
The iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks will continue its national rollout to 350 Starbucks stores in the San Francisco Bay area in early November; 500 stores in Los Angeles in early February 2008; 300 stores in Chicago in March 2008; and additional markets throughout the U.S. later in 2008. The iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks will run on the robust T-Mobile HotSpot Wi-Fi network, which is available at participating Starbucks locations across the U.S.
Source: 8.10-07/ Dawn Van Zant/ http://musicinvestornews.blogspot.com/
Starbucks to Celebrate by Giving Away an Unprecedented 50 Million Songs on iTunes Starbucks "Song of the Day" Offers 1.5 Million Free Songs Per Day from a Diverse Line-up of Artists Including Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, KT Tunstall and John Mayer
On October 2, the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store, which features Starbucks exclusive "Now Playing" service, goes live in more than 600 Starbucks locations in New York and Seattle. In celebration of this historic launch, Starbucks announced today that it will introduce the digital music experience across all of its U.S. company-operated and licensed stores by offering its customers the "Song of the Day," an unprecedented free digital music promotion. From October 2 to November 7 at more than 10,000 Starbucks locations, customers may receive "Song of the Day" cards redeemable on the iTunes Store for Mac or PC (http://www.itunes.com/) for a complimentary song hand-selected by Starbucks Entertainment. Throughout the promotion, Starbucks will give away 1.5 million downloads on iTunes per day for a total of more than 50 million free songs.ADVERTISEMENT "This is a landmark moment for Starbucks," said Ken Lombard, president of Starbucks Entertainment. "With the launch of the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks we can now provide the same classic coffeehouse experience and compelling music offerings our customers have come to expect from us through a new platform ideal for the digital music consumer. This is the first step in combining the power of brick and mortar retail and digital music."
"Song of the Day" kicks off Starbucks exclusive partnership with Apple, which lets customers use the T-Mobile HotSpot Wi-Fi Network at participating Starbucks to wirelessly download music onto their iPhone, iPod touch or laptop from the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store with no Wi-Fi connection fees or HotSpot login required.
Starbucks will also introduce a new "Now Playing" feature, which allows customers using the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks to instantly preview, buy, and download the music currently playing overhead. This is the only technology of its kind that allows customers to download the music they discover in the environment around them.
"Song of the Day" will offer hand-picked songs from top artists including Bob Dylan, Joss Stone, Dave Matthews, Bebel Gilberto, John Mayer, KT Tunstall, John Legend, Annie Lennox, Joni Mitchell, Keith Urban and Paul McCartney plus great music from up-and-coming artists such as Sia, Band of Horses, Hilary McRae, Frederico Aubele and Sara Bareilles.
Each morning and while supplies last, Starbucks customers nationwide can discover that day's complimentary download as part of their daily coffee routine. Upon receiving their complimentary download card at Starbucks, customers will have until the end of the calendar year to redeem the song on the U.S. iTunes Store.
Starting October 2, Starbucks company-operated locations in the U.S. will offer iTunes Digital Release Cards for sale, including KT Tunstall's "Drastic Fantastic" with bonus music videos, digital booklet and a behind-the-scenes documentary video, and music from the film "Into the Wild," featuring all new songs from Eddie Vedder with bonus tracks and digital booklet. Each iTunes Digital Release Card contains a full album's worth of music and features collectible artwork. After the card is activated upon purchase at Starbucks, customers can download the album and bonus material on the iTunes Store for Mac or PC.
Starbucks will also offer the Starbucks Card Plus Two, a limited edition re-loadable Starbucks card with added bonus value. When a Starbucks Card Plus Two is registered online the cardholder will receive two complimentary song downloads of their choice on the U.S. iTunes Store.
The iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks will continue its national rollout to 350 Starbucks stores in the San Francisco Bay area in early November; 500 stores in Los Angeles in early February 2008; 300 stores in Chicago in March 2008; and additional markets throughout the U.S. later in 2008. The iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store at Starbucks will run on the robust T-Mobile HotSpot Wi-Fi network, which is available at participating Starbucks locations across the U.S.
Source: 8.10-07/ Dawn Van Zant/ http://musicinvestornews.blogspot.com/
Yahoo’s Ian Rogers To Music Industry: “Inconvenience Doesn’t Scale”
Yahoo! Music -VP of Product Development Ian Rogers and I have different opinions on the future of the music industry. I think the price of recorded music will continue to fall towards free, whereas he thinks the industry can turn itself around and create enough value for listeners to make some money on recorded music. But on one thing we agree: For the last eight years the industry has been doing nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on its own musical Titanic.
In early 2006 Ian’s then boss, former Yahoo Music GM David Goldberg, stunned attendees of the Music 2.0 conference by urging major labels to abandon DRM and give unrestricted MP3 sales a try. That advice turned out to be pretty prescient: earlier this year Apple started selling DRM-free tracks, and Amazon just launched a completely awesome DRM-free music store.
Last week Ian was back telling music executives exactly what they don’t want to hear, this time at the Digital Music Forum West conference. His talk went back eight years, through the birth of high velocity P2P file sharing networks like Napster. He heavily criticized the way the industry responded (by suing everyone), saying:
Suing Napster without offering an alternative just seemed like a denial of fact. Napster didn’t invent the ability to do P2P, it was inherent in TCP/IP. It was like throwing Newton in jail for popularizing the concept of gravity.
He then talked about how ridiculous it is to continue to offer consumers inferior products. He uses the DRM-laden Yahoo Music subscription service as an example, pointing out that music listeners just aren’t willing to pay money for these products:
Yahoo! Music demonstrates this scale discrepancy perfectly…Yahoo! Music is the #1 Music site on the Web, with tens of millions of monthly visitors…But the ENTIRE subscription music market (including Rhapsody, Napster, and Yahoo!) is in the low millions…even after years of marketing by all three companies. When you compare the experiences on Yahoo! Music, the order of magnitude difference in opportunity shouldn’t be a surprise: Want radio? No problem. Click play, get radio. Want video? Awesome. Click play, get video. Want a track on-demand? Oh have we got a deal for you! If you’re on Windows XP or Vista, and you’re in North America, just download this 20MB application, go through these seven install screens, reboot your computer, go through these five setup screens, these six credit card screens, give us $160 dollars and POW! Now you can hear that song you wanted to hear…if you’re still with us. Yahoo! didn’t want to go through all these steps. The licensing dictated it. It’s a slippery slope from “a little control” to consumer unfriendliness and non-Web-scale products and services.
He compares that to the experience of buying and listening to a song on Amazon:
But now, eight years later, Amazon’s finally done what was clearly the right solution in 1999. Music in the format that people actually want it in, with a Web-based experience that’s simple and works with any device. I bought tracks from Amazon (Kevin Drew and No Age), downloaded them, sync’d them to my new iPod Nano, and had them playing in my home audio system (Control 4) in less than five minutes. PRAISE JESUS. It only took 8 years.
He ends up saying Yahoo won’t support flawed music industry business models any longer:
I won’t let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience. I will tell Yahoo! to give the money they were going to give me to build awesome media applications to Yahoo! Mail or Answers or some other deserving endeavor. I personally don’t have any more time to give and can’t bear to see any more money spent on pathetic attempts for control instead of building consumer value. Life’s too short. I want to delight consumers, not bum them out.
In the end, I probably agree with Ian completely. Offer consumers a quality service (no DRM and guaranteed quality) and they will pay something for the convenience factor. Offer them more of the same, and the future of the music industry is pretty clear. Yahoo, at least, won’t be playing along.
Source>
Michael Arrington / Tech Crunch / 8.10-07 /
www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/08/yahoos-ian-rogers-to-music-industry-inconvenience-doesnt-scale/
In early 2006 Ian’s then boss, former Yahoo Music GM David Goldberg, stunned attendees of the Music 2.0 conference by urging major labels to abandon DRM and give unrestricted MP3 sales a try. That advice turned out to be pretty prescient: earlier this year Apple started selling DRM-free tracks, and Amazon just launched a completely awesome DRM-free music store.
Last week Ian was back telling music executives exactly what they don’t want to hear, this time at the Digital Music Forum West conference. His talk went back eight years, through the birth of high velocity P2P file sharing networks like Napster. He heavily criticized the way the industry responded (by suing everyone), saying:
Suing Napster without offering an alternative just seemed like a denial of fact. Napster didn’t invent the ability to do P2P, it was inherent in TCP/IP. It was like throwing Newton in jail for popularizing the concept of gravity.
He then talked about how ridiculous it is to continue to offer consumers inferior products. He uses the DRM-laden Yahoo Music subscription service as an example, pointing out that music listeners just aren’t willing to pay money for these products:
Yahoo! Music demonstrates this scale discrepancy perfectly…Yahoo! Music is the #1 Music site on the Web, with tens of millions of monthly visitors…But the ENTIRE subscription music market (including Rhapsody, Napster, and Yahoo!) is in the low millions…even after years of marketing by all three companies. When you compare the experiences on Yahoo! Music, the order of magnitude difference in opportunity shouldn’t be a surprise: Want radio? No problem. Click play, get radio. Want video? Awesome. Click play, get video. Want a track on-demand? Oh have we got a deal for you! If you’re on Windows XP or Vista, and you’re in North America, just download this 20MB application, go through these seven install screens, reboot your computer, go through these five setup screens, these six credit card screens, give us $160 dollars and POW! Now you can hear that song you wanted to hear…if you’re still with us. Yahoo! didn’t want to go through all these steps. The licensing dictated it. It’s a slippery slope from “a little control” to consumer unfriendliness and non-Web-scale products and services.
He compares that to the experience of buying and listening to a song on Amazon:
But now, eight years later, Amazon’s finally done what was clearly the right solution in 1999. Music in the format that people actually want it in, with a Web-based experience that’s simple and works with any device. I bought tracks from Amazon (Kevin Drew and No Age), downloaded them, sync’d them to my new iPod Nano, and had them playing in my home audio system (Control 4) in less than five minutes. PRAISE JESUS. It only took 8 years.
He ends up saying Yahoo won’t support flawed music industry business models any longer:
I won’t let Yahoo! invest any more money in consumer inconvenience. I will tell Yahoo! to give the money they were going to give me to build awesome media applications to Yahoo! Mail or Answers or some other deserving endeavor. I personally don’t have any more time to give and can’t bear to see any more money spent on pathetic attempts for control instead of building consumer value. Life’s too short. I want to delight consumers, not bum them out.
In the end, I probably agree with Ian completely. Offer consumers a quality service (no DRM and guaranteed quality) and they will pay something for the convenience factor. Offer them more of the same, and the future of the music industry is pretty clear. Yahoo, at least, won’t be playing along.
Source>
Michael Arrington / Tech Crunch / 8.10-07 /
www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/08/yahoos-ian-rogers-to-music-industry-inconvenience-doesnt-scale/
woensdag 3 oktober 2007
Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing"
Duluth, Minnesota — Testimony today in Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas quickly and inadvertently turned to the topic of fair use when Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, was called to the stand to testify. Pariser said that file-sharing is extremely damaging to the music industry and that record labels are particularly affected. In doing so, she advocated a view of copyright that would turn many honest people into thieves.
Pariser noted that music labels make no money on touring, radio, or merchandise, which leaves the company particularly exposed to the negative effects of file-sharing. "It's my personal belief that Sony BMG is half the size now as it was in 2000," she said, thanks to piracy. In Pariser's view, "when people steal, when they take music without compensation, we are harmed."
Pariser has a very broad definition of "stealing." When questioned by Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft. The dirty deed? Ripping your own CDs or downloading songs you already own.
Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.
Countless studies have shown that the majority of music on portable music players like the iPod comes from sources other than download services. For most people, that music is comprised primarily of songs "ripped" from CD collections to MP3 or some other comparable format. Indeed, most portable music players comes with software (like iTunes) which is designed to facilitate the easy ripping of CDs. According to Pariser's view, this is stealing.
We've actually heard something similar to this view before. As part of the 2006 triennial review of the effectiveness of the DMCA, a number of content-related industries filed a joint reply with the government on the effectiveness of the DMCA and the challenges that lay ahead for copyright. The argument relating to CDs espoused in the joint reply could be summarized: although nothing has prevented consumers from making backups of CDs, this cannot be construed as authorization from the music labels for them to do so. Thus, there has been no authorization of said backups, and the coincidental ability to make backups currently should not be mistaken for fair use.
Pariser's views appear to be similar, insofar as she clearly suggests that consumers have no right to make backups of the music that they have purchased in CD form or even in download form.
Source:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html
donderdag 27 september 2007
A Musicians View
Artwork
When Jonas (Manual), Jess (of North Shore collaboration and Causa Sui), Rasmus (Aerosol) & and myself (Syntaks) started making music together way back in 1994, we quickly became aware of the problem of recording in a studio, so at the end of the decade, we stopped trying to find a producer that could match our musical output, and started recording everything ourselves. At first on simple 2-track devices and eventually Jonas bought a multitrack harddisc recorder, on which we recorded sketches for Limp: Orion (and eventually the delayed album), as well as the Manual albums Until Tomorrow, Ascend, Isares EP and parts of Golden Sun. So we took on the task of learning production and studiotechnique in our small rehearsalroom, and has been expanding that knowledge ever since.
The same goes for the artwork below - we simply didn’t think that what most designers were doing sufficiently matched our output. The artwork had to match the content, so we had to learn how to do it ourselves. Most designers use a visual style, that focus on the design itself instead of the music - we try to make artwork that doesn’t divert or distort the textures, sound and feeling of the music, but instead expand what’s already there.
The starting point is always layered images and textures - however the collage is meant as a complete impression, not just abrupt parts splashed together - like the musical output, everything flows together to one general impression. It’s calm zen instead of taped together avantgarde. Colours and feeling rather than fancy graphics and forms. Emotion before the schematic construct.
Source: Limp.dk
woensdag 26 september 2007
Like Amazon's DRM-Free Music Downloads? Thank Apple
Amazon's Tuesday launch of a DRM-free music store with some 2 million tracks represents the music industry's clearest repudiation yet of the elaborate copy-protection schemes it once staked its future on. And though it may not be obvious at first, it's Apple we have to thank.
Along with thousands of independent labels, major music producers Universal Music Group and EMI have signed on to sell songs on Amazon's new service, representing half of the "Big Four" music publishers. True, both Universal and EMI had already experimented with DRM-free downloads, but there are signs that the rest of the industry will soon follow.
Edgar Bronfman, Jr., the Warner Music Group chairman, told Goldman Sachs investors in New York last week he was considering removing DRM from Warner's music downloads -- this just months after suggesting Warner would never abandon DRM. He blamed Apple for the apparent change of heart.
"We need some online competition" for Apple's iTunes Music Store, Bronfman said. He conceded the iPod is "the default device" and iTunes the "download model."
DRM -- digital rights management -- allows downloads to expire, or to be shared and played only a limited number of times or on certain devices.
The self-created headache for the industry is that the highly popular iPod and new iPhone only play music protected by Apple's proprietary FairPlay DRM solution or music that isn't protected at all. And Apple chairman Steve Jobs has repeatedly balked at licensing FairPlay for use on competing download services or devices.
That meant music companies had to choose between using iTunes or going DRM-free. The industry stood by and allowed most of its music-download sales to come from Apple. Recognizing opportunities lost to Apple's dominance, the music industry is moving toward throwing DRM overboard in a bid to open up new retail markets and promotional opportunities.
"As a consumer, when you buy a slice of bread you want to know you could put it in any toaster," said Jeanne Meyer, a vice president at EMI, in an interview ahead of the Amazon announcement.
Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media, put the industry's predicament in layman's terms.
"As long as the iPod is dominant, they're going to have to reconcile themselves with dealing with what the consumer wants: something that will play on the iPod," Leigh said. "The smartest thing they can do is sell music without DRM. It's not as though DRM is stopping pirating in other ways, anyway."
The irony of the industry's predicament was not lost on Steve Jobs, Apple's chairman. Jobs described the industry's sagging business model as self-created by EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, the so-called "Big Four" leaders of sales and label ownership, with control of 70 percent of the world's music distribution market.
"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied," Jobs wrote Feb. 6 in a letter posted on the Cupertino company's website. "The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices."
Apple announced Sept. 10 that it had sold 1 million iPhones, 74 days after their June 29 debut. More than 100 million iPods have sold since the 2001 launch of the device, and more than 3 billion songs have been purchased from its iTunes Music Store following its 2003 inception.
The Microsoft Zune, by contrast, has sold more than a million units since its Nov. 14 debut in the United States, and it does not play iTunes DRM-restricted music.
Warner's Bronfman told investors that one problem for his industry is that consumers are more loyal to the iPod than to any particular artist. That means the industry's content must play on an Apple device.
"Never before in the history of content has the hardware been more valuable than the software," Bronfman said. "You think about the VCR or the video cassette -- the video cassette always had more value than the VCR that you shoved it into. Apple has been able to turn that model on its head."
Along with thousands of independent labels, major music producers Universal Music Group and EMI have signed on to sell songs on Amazon's new service, representing half of the "Big Four" music publishers. True, both Universal and EMI had already experimented with DRM-free downloads, but there are signs that the rest of the industry will soon follow.
Edgar Bronfman, Jr., the Warner Music Group chairman, told Goldman Sachs investors in New York last week he was considering removing DRM from Warner's music downloads -- this just months after suggesting Warner would never abandon DRM. He blamed Apple for the apparent change of heart.
"We need some online competition" for Apple's iTunes Music Store, Bronfman said. He conceded the iPod is "the default device" and iTunes the "download model."
DRM -- digital rights management -- allows downloads to expire, or to be shared and played only a limited number of times or on certain devices.
The self-created headache for the industry is that the highly popular iPod and new iPhone only play music protected by Apple's proprietary FairPlay DRM solution or music that isn't protected at all. And Apple chairman Steve Jobs has repeatedly balked at licensing FairPlay for use on competing download services or devices.
That meant music companies had to choose between using iTunes or going DRM-free. The industry stood by and allowed most of its music-download sales to come from Apple. Recognizing opportunities lost to Apple's dominance, the music industry is moving toward throwing DRM overboard in a bid to open up new retail markets and promotional opportunities.
"As a consumer, when you buy a slice of bread you want to know you could put it in any toaster," said Jeanne Meyer, a vice president at EMI, in an interview ahead of the Amazon announcement.
Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media, put the industry's predicament in layman's terms.
"As long as the iPod is dominant, they're going to have to reconcile themselves with dealing with what the consumer wants: something that will play on the iPod," Leigh said. "The smartest thing they can do is sell music without DRM. It's not as though DRM is stopping pirating in other ways, anyway."
The irony of the industry's predicament was not lost on Steve Jobs, Apple's chairman. Jobs described the industry's sagging business model as self-created by EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, the so-called "Big Four" leaders of sales and label ownership, with control of 70 percent of the world's music distribution market.
"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied," Jobs wrote Feb. 6 in a letter posted on the Cupertino company's website. "The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices."
Apple announced Sept. 10 that it had sold 1 million iPhones, 74 days after their June 29 debut. More than 100 million iPods have sold since the 2001 launch of the device, and more than 3 billion songs have been purchased from its iTunes Music Store following its 2003 inception.
The Microsoft Zune, by contrast, has sold more than a million units since its Nov. 14 debut in the United States, and it does not play iTunes DRM-restricted music.
Warner's Bronfman told investors that one problem for his industry is that consumers are more loyal to the iPod than to any particular artist. That means the industry's content must play on an Apple device.
"Never before in the history of content has the hardware been more valuable than the software," Bronfman said. "You think about the VCR or the video cassette -- the video cassette always had more value than the VCR that you shoved it into. Apple has been able to turn that model on its head."
Amazon Launches Digital Music Store
SEATTLE (AP) -- Amazon.com Inc. launched its much-anticipated digital music store Tuesday, a move analysts say represents the first hint of real competition for Apple Inc.'s market-leading iTunes.
Amazon MP3, as the new section of the Web retailer's site is called, currently stocks nearly 2.3 million songs, all without copy-protection technology. Shoppers can buy and download individual songs or entire albums. The tracks can be copied to multiple computers, burned onto CDs and played on most types of PCs and portable devices, including the iPod and Microsoft Corp.'s Zune.
Songs cost 89 cents to 99 cents each and albums sell for $5.99 to $9.99.
Major music labels Universal Music Group and EMI Music have signed on to sell their tracks on Amazon, as have thousands of independent labels. The company said several labels are selling their artists' music without copy protection for the first time on the Amazon store, including Alison Krauss on Rounder Records and Ani Difranco on Righteous Babe Records.
Amazon's store competes with Apple's market-leading iTunes, which is also offering some songs without so-called digital rights management technology, which prevents unauthorized copies from playing.
Although DRM helps stem illegal copying, it can frustrate consumers by limiting the type of device or number of computers on which they can listen to music. Copy-protected songs sold through iTunes generally won't play on devices other than the iPod, and iPods won't play DRM-enabled songs bought at rival music stores.
EMusic.com Inc., another popular download site, also sells tracks in the DRM-free MP3 format but, like Amazon's store, doesn't offer music from some major labels that still require anti-piracy locks.
Bill Carr, Amazon's vice president for digital music, said it will be up to customers to use the music they buy legally.
To help stop music piracy, Carr said some record labels add a digital watermark to MP3 files that indicate what company sold the song, and Amazon adds its own name and the item number of the song, for customer service purposes. He added that no details about the buyer or the transaction are added to the downloaded music file.
"By and large, most customers just want a great, legitimate way to buy the music they want," Carr said in an interview Tuesday morning. "What the vast majority of labels believe is that they will sell more music by giving customers what they want ... by enabling DRM-free MP3, than by continuing to confuse customers or force them to choose methods that are not legal, because the legitimate alternatives are not good."
Carr characterized the number of record labels that still insist on copy-protection technology as "a handful." But David Card, an analyst at Jupiter Research, said in an interview that "having two out of four labels doesn't cut it."
Warner Music Group Corp. and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which is owned by Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG, have not agreed to sell music on Amazon MP3, and Card pointed out that Universal and EMI have made only parts of their catalogs available without copy protection.
"Their catalog is going to suffer for a while," he said, referring to Amazon.
Card said Amazon's entrance into the market represents serious competition for Apple, which can no longer rely solely on the bond between the iPod and iTunes.
But, Card said: "In and of itself, (Amazon MP3) isn't enough to change any market share. They have to do a good job at building their store."
Colin Sebastian, a Lazard Capital Markets analyst, wrote in a note to investors Tuesday that he doesn't expect digital music sales to boost Amazon's profit, "given the significant contribution the company currently receives from traditional (physical) media sales, and the low margins typical with music download services, compounded by a highly competitive environment."
Shares of Amazon rose 89 cents to close at $93.48 Tuesday.
Amazon MP3, as the new section of the Web retailer's site is called, currently stocks nearly 2.3 million songs, all without copy-protection technology. Shoppers can buy and download individual songs or entire albums. The tracks can be copied to multiple computers, burned onto CDs and played on most types of PCs and portable devices, including the iPod and Microsoft Corp.'s Zune.
Songs cost 89 cents to 99 cents each and albums sell for $5.99 to $9.99.
Major music labels Universal Music Group and EMI Music have signed on to sell their tracks on Amazon, as have thousands of independent labels. The company said several labels are selling their artists' music without copy protection for the first time on the Amazon store, including Alison Krauss on Rounder Records and Ani Difranco on Righteous Babe Records.
Amazon's store competes with Apple's market-leading iTunes, which is also offering some songs without so-called digital rights management technology, which prevents unauthorized copies from playing.
Although DRM helps stem illegal copying, it can frustrate consumers by limiting the type of device or number of computers on which they can listen to music. Copy-protected songs sold through iTunes generally won't play on devices other than the iPod, and iPods won't play DRM-enabled songs bought at rival music stores.
EMusic.com Inc., another popular download site, also sells tracks in the DRM-free MP3 format but, like Amazon's store, doesn't offer music from some major labels that still require anti-piracy locks.
Bill Carr, Amazon's vice president for digital music, said it will be up to customers to use the music they buy legally.
To help stop music piracy, Carr said some record labels add a digital watermark to MP3 files that indicate what company sold the song, and Amazon adds its own name and the item number of the song, for customer service purposes. He added that no details about the buyer or the transaction are added to the downloaded music file.
"By and large, most customers just want a great, legitimate way to buy the music they want," Carr said in an interview Tuesday morning. "What the vast majority of labels believe is that they will sell more music by giving customers what they want ... by enabling DRM-free MP3, than by continuing to confuse customers or force them to choose methods that are not legal, because the legitimate alternatives are not good."
Carr characterized the number of record labels that still insist on copy-protection technology as "a handful." But David Card, an analyst at Jupiter Research, said in an interview that "having two out of four labels doesn't cut it."
Warner Music Group Corp. and Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which is owned by Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG, have not agreed to sell music on Amazon MP3, and Card pointed out that Universal and EMI have made only parts of their catalogs available without copy protection.
"Their catalog is going to suffer for a while," he said, referring to Amazon.
Card said Amazon's entrance into the market represents serious competition for Apple, which can no longer rely solely on the bond between the iPod and iTunes.
But, Card said: "In and of itself, (Amazon MP3) isn't enough to change any market share. They have to do a good job at building their store."
Colin Sebastian, a Lazard Capital Markets analyst, wrote in a note to investors Tuesday that he doesn't expect digital music sales to boost Amazon's profit, "given the significant contribution the company currently receives from traditional (physical) media sales, and the low margins typical with music download services, compounded by a highly competitive environment."
Shares of Amazon rose 89 cents to close at $93.48 Tuesday.
Music Business Pioneer Says IPod Will Soon Be Obsolete
The man who bet his professional life on the future success of rap music has finally come forward to offer his vision of the future of music business in an iPod age. Legendary producer and record label executive Rick Rubin (Beastie Boys, Slayer, Johnny Cash, Run DMC, Jay-Z) told The New York Times that the future is not iTunes serving á la carte songs to your iPod, but music labels offering every song on the planet, anywhere, via subscription.
Rubin said, "You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home."
Such words won't be music to the ears of consumers who have become accustomed to the iTunes model, but if the creeping defection away from Apple being led by Universal Music is any indication, Rubin's words are probably more prescient than some in Cupertino would readily admit. Rubin went on to say, "Either all the record companies will get together or the industry will fall apart and someone like Microsoft will come in and buy one of the companies at wholesale and do what needs to be done." Microsoft owning all your music? Such a scenario may sound unlikely today, but as music sales continue to plunge, it's not inconceivable that billion-dollar behemoths like Microsoft or Google might eventually snap up the major labels for (excuse us) a song and end up owning all the music you listen to... stranger things have happened.
Rubin said, "You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home."
Such words won't be music to the ears of consumers who have become accustomed to the iTunes model, but if the creeping defection away from Apple being led by Universal Music is any indication, Rubin's words are probably more prescient than some in Cupertino would readily admit. Rubin went on to say, "Either all the record companies will get together or the industry will fall apart and someone like Microsoft will come in and buy one of the companies at wholesale and do what needs to be done." Microsoft owning all your music? Such a scenario may sound unlikely today, but as music sales continue to plunge, it's not inconceivable that billion-dollar behemoths like Microsoft or Google might eventually snap up the major labels for (excuse us) a song and end up owning all the music you listen to... stranger things have happened.
Practice Tip: I recommend that defendants' lawyers consider making motions to dismiss complaint or motions for judgment on pleadings
In May of this year, the United States Supreme Court came down with the decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, --US --, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (May 21, 2007) which established a "plausibility" standard for federal pleadings.In Interscope v. Rodriguez, it was held that the RIAA's boilerplate complaint, which it has been using in all of its cases for the past 4 years, and which robotically alleges only the magic incantation of "downloading, distributing and/or making available for distribution", is insufficient under the Twombly standard, and the Court dismissed the complaint.Thereafter the highly predictable RIAA lawyers, who handle these cases "programatically" (to use their leader Matthew Oppenheim's terminology), filed an amended complaint which gives us a valuable insight into how they intend to negotiate the post-Twombly, post-Rodriguez era. The amended complaint robotically inserts -- where the magic incantation used to be -- new boilerplate which is taken mostly word for word from the RIAA's boilerplate form of interrogatory answers (See e.g. page 5 of interrogatory answers in UMG v. Lindor). The new boilerplate abandons the "making available" language, and says that at a certain date and time they "detected" an individual downloading and 'distributing' files, who was doing so continually.Clearly, the new boilerplate complaint is "implausible" on its face, since (a) it is fundamental that they did NOT detect an individual (their own expert has admitted as much under oath), (b) they cannot point to a SINGLE instance of the defendant actually copying anything or actually distributing anything to someone else, (c) it is impossible for any individual to do anything "continually", and (d) distributing is a term of art under 17 USC 106(3), the elements of which are not spelled out factually as they are required to be under Twombly.Accordingly I urge all practitioners who have a "making available" complaint to move to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or, if the time to do so has passed, to move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), on the basis of Twombly and Rodgriguez.If the RIAA counters by filing an amended complaint with the new "detecting an individual" boilerplate, that, too, is clearly the type of "formulaic" and implausible pleading that Twombly forbids, and should be dismissed as well.
The definition of insanity.. The Music Industry
There is an old saying that the definition of insanity is, "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting the outcome to change"I think of this saying everytime I hear about music industry efforts to impact piracy.Insanity is thinking that kids with more time than money will stop finding ways to get music for free. Even if the industry found the end all be all DRM solution that stops 100 pct of duplication, kids will sit in front of their radios with recording capability or redirect digital music from any source to their hard drives and then spend the time to pick out the music they like and burn it.Insanity is thinking that piracy is the reason music sales are down and then focusing most of your business on selling music to the exact demographic that has the most time to spend on finding free music and most energy to spend on cracking whatever protections you introduce.Insanity is ignoring year after year, the demographics with more money than time. Those who aren't willing, or don't have the time to troll through the net to figure out which network has the most music to download, searching for songs, picking out which peers to try to download from and then hoping it all worked out right. Those who would prefer to just buy music in the easiest way possible so they can get on with enjoying their music and their lives. Isn't that why we buy bottled water? It's easy and convenient?Hire someone from Starbucks who understands selling music to demographics who are happy to buy the music they want in a setting they enjoy.Insanity is repeatedly telling everyone that piracy stops the creative process by preventing artists from making a living and then time and time again, going out and giving advances to bands. Hello McFly, every start up band thinks the money is in getting the advance of a record label deal, not from selling music. They are just as motivated as ever to make music.Insanity is continuously trying over and over again to "fix" the CD ripping problem hoping to find DRM software that makes the process more difficult and deters the "good people" from creating illegal copies, while completely ignoring DVDs as a solution. A DVD only allows you to use its increased storage capacity to add more value through more music, games, video, pictures, software, whatever, at about the same cost of a CD, while being far more of a pain to rip than any DRM/CD combination the industry has ever come up with. Dual release on DVDs and CDs and over time elimination of CDs will have far more impact than any DRM on CD solution.Insanity is watching the digital download services develop customer relationships with music buyer after music buyer, while year after year the labels have none. When are you going to learn that it's not only about hitting the numbers for Wall Street every quarter but investing in your customer base. ITunes, Amazon, Netflix, CinemaNow and others have my credit card on file and can find me and sell me something in seconds. Create your own services and sell the music at a deep discount to Itunes and the others. Make it easy to buy, cheap to own. The short term pain will be well worth the long term gainThe music industry has a very unique opportunity to really re-establish itself as a growth industry. It's not like they don't know all of the above. For whatever reason, they just love to do the same things over and over... Which to me is just insane
Amazon.com's Launches Music Downloads. First Impressions.
Amazon.com's greatly anticipated music download store launched today. Here is a bullet list of things that first caught my eye:
• The title alone says it all: Amazon MP3. No association whatsoever with other, doomed file formats. Protected WMA would have been a huge non-starter for customers.
• There are so many titles listed and the catalog is so well presented, one may not notice the gaps represented by the missing Warner Music Group and Sony BMG titles. The relatively thin catalog is more evident if you notice there is only one new age album and just two opera albums listed in the "bestselling new and future releases" section.
• Who said variable pricing is a bad thing? On the left sidebar Amazon.com has put links to bargain albums: $4.99 and under, $5.00 to $5.99, $6.00 to $6.99, etc. Though I expected to find a lot of EPs mixed in with the albums, I was surprised to find legit catalog titles by Bon Jovi, John Coltrane and 50 Cent, as well as LCD Soundsystem's latest album (for a mere $5.99). Albums priced at $7.99 or less are showcased on the "New and Future Releases" page as well.
• Yes, they've got Radiohead...but full album downloads only (except for a couple of songs from compilations).
• Though prices for individual tracks vary, each of the Top 100 tracks has a price of $0.89. The first track priced at $0.99 is #149, Guns N' Roses' "Patience." Amazon's blog post claims one million of the site's two million downloads are priced at $0.89 and "most albums" are between $5.99 and $9.99.
• While prices are cheaper than iTunes, it can still pay to shop around. Two of the first albums I saw, Manu Chao's La Radiolina ($7.99) and Les Savy Fav's Let's Stay Friends ($8.99), are available at cheap-o subscription store eMusic for far lower prices and in the same MP3 format.
• How to push album sales: Let people know the difference between buying the album and buying each song individually. For example, the pitch at Devenda Banhart's Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon page: "Album Savings: $6.85 compared to buying all songs." Well done.
• There are no customer reviews for the digital albums even though the album's CD page is filled with reviews.
• Lots of cross-selling. CD pages let the shopper know if the MP3 album is "Available To Download Now." For example, KT Tunstall's Drastic Fantastic costs $11.99 for the CD or $8.99 for the download. Download pages have links to the CD page.
• The site lists upcoming MP3 albums and singles but unlike iTunes does not appear to allow for pre-orders.
• I haven't seen an attempt to sell MP3 players at any of the download pages.
Amazon.com's greatly anticipated music download store launched today. Here is a bullet list of things that first caught my eye:
• The title alone says it all: Amazon MP3. No association whatsoever with other, doomed file formats. Protected WMA would have been a huge non-starter for customers.
• There are so many titles listed and the catalog is so well presented, one may not notice the gaps represented by the missing Warner Music Group and Sony BMG titles. The relatively thin catalog is more evident if you notice there is only one new age album and just two opera albums listed in the "bestselling new and future releases" section.
• Who said variable pricing is a bad thing? On the left sidebar Amazon.com has put links to bargain albums: $4.99 and under, $5.00 to $5.99, $6.00 to $6.99, etc. Though I expected to find a lot of EPs mixed in with the albums, I was surprised to find legit catalog titles by Bon Jovi, John Coltrane and 50 Cent, as well as LCD Soundsystem's latest album (for a mere $5.99). Albums priced at $7.99 or less are showcased on the "New and Future Releases" page as well.
• Yes, they've got Radiohead...but full album downloads only (except for a couple of songs from compilations).
• Though prices for individual tracks vary, each of the Top 100 tracks has a price of $0.89. The first track priced at $0.99 is #149, Guns N' Roses' "Patience." Amazon's blog post claims one million of the site's two million downloads are priced at $0.89 and "most albums" are between $5.99 and $9.99.
• While prices are cheaper than iTunes, it can still pay to shop around. Two of the first albums I saw, Manu Chao's La Radiolina ($7.99) and Les Savy Fav's Let's Stay Friends ($8.99), are available at cheap-o subscription store eMusic for far lower prices and in the same MP3 format.
• How to push album sales: Let people know the difference between buying the album and buying each song individually. For example, the pitch at Devenda Banhart's Smokey Rolls Down Thunder Canyon page: "Album Savings: $6.85 compared to buying all songs." Well done.
• There are no customer reviews for the digital albums even though the album's CD page is filled with reviews.
• Lots of cross-selling. CD pages let the shopper know if the MP3 album is "Available To Download Now." For example, KT Tunstall's Drastic Fantastic costs $11.99 for the CD or $8.99 for the download. Download pages have links to the CD page.
• The site lists upcoming MP3 albums and singles but unlike iTunes does not appear to allow for pre-orders.
• I haven't seen an attempt to sell MP3 players at any of the download pages.
dinsdag 25 september 2007
FMC receives grant to study payola
The Social Science Research Council gave FMC a grant to study the impact of former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's payola investigation. Of course, Eliot Spitzer got more than $30 million in settlements from some of the nation's largest broadcasters and record labels a few years back to settle allegations that they had engaged in payola.
The New York Times described some of the shenanigans in an article from 2005 after the Sony BMG settlement:
To disguise a payoff to a radio programmer at KHTS in San Diego, Epic Records called a flat-screen television a "contest giveaway." Epic, part of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, used the same gambit in delivering a laptop computer to the program director of WRHT in Greenville, N.C. - who also received PlayStation 2 games and an out-of-town trip with his girlfriend.In another example, a Sony BMG executive considered a plan to promote the song "A.D.I.D.A.S." by Killer Mike by sending radio disc jockeys one Adidas sneaker, with the promise of the second one when they had played the song 10 times.
The FCC also had its own settlement and independent artists reached agreement with some major broadcasters to root out payola, but a major question remains: How much have the big labels and record stations changed? That's what FMC wants to take a look at.
http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2007/09/fmc-receives-grant-to-study-payola.html
The New York Times described some of the shenanigans in an article from 2005 after the Sony BMG settlement:
To disguise a payoff to a radio programmer at KHTS in San Diego, Epic Records called a flat-screen television a "contest giveaway." Epic, part of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, used the same gambit in delivering a laptop computer to the program director of WRHT in Greenville, N.C. - who also received PlayStation 2 games and an out-of-town trip with his girlfriend.In another example, a Sony BMG executive considered a plan to promote the song "A.D.I.D.A.S." by Killer Mike by sending radio disc jockeys one Adidas sneaker, with the promise of the second one when they had played the song 10 times.
The FCC also had its own settlement and independent artists reached agreement with some major broadcasters to root out payola, but a major question remains: How much have the big labels and record stations changed? That's what FMC wants to take a look at.
http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2007/09/fmc-receives-grant-to-study-payola.html
Germany bans copying of CDs
In a move aimed at cutting down on pirated content, it appears Germany is about to take a really hard line stance as Variety reports:
BERLIN — Germany's upper house of parliament on Friday approved a controversial copyright law, which makes it all but illegal for individuals to make copies of films and music, even for their own use.The Bundesrat pushed aside criticism from consumer protection groups and passed the law, which makes it illegal for anyone to store DVDs and CDs without permission. The law also covers digital copies from IPTV and TV broadcasts.Consumer groups and the Green Party had campaigned in vain to include a "bagatelle exemption," so that the measure would not "criminalize" youths and other private users. The law is set to take effect in 2008.The law goes beyond previous legislation brought in by the German government to help the entertainment industry. Germany's federal justice minister Brigitte Zypris claimed that the legislative reform brought German law into line with European Union codes.
http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/
BERLIN — Germany's upper house of parliament on Friday approved a controversial copyright law, which makes it all but illegal for individuals to make copies of films and music, even for their own use.The Bundesrat pushed aside criticism from consumer protection groups and passed the law, which makes it illegal for anyone to store DVDs and CDs without permission. The law also covers digital copies from IPTV and TV broadcasts.Consumer groups and the Green Party had campaigned in vain to include a "bagatelle exemption," so that the measure would not "criminalize" youths and other private users. The law is set to take effect in 2008.The law goes beyond previous legislation brought in by the German government to help the entertainment industry. Germany's federal justice minister Brigitte Zypris claimed that the legislative reform brought German law into line with European Union codes.
http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/
Big Content Down Under: unplugg your "pirate" users please
Pressure is building on Australian ISPs to do more about two hot-button issues: copyright infringement and adult content. The industry is pushing back, with mixed results.
Related Stories
Torrentspy starts filtering copyrighted content
File-sharing and the music industry
Australian ISPs would be required to pull the plug on repeat copyright infringers under a plan put forward by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). The Australian equivalent of the RIAA, the Australia Recording Industry Association, is behind the plan as well.
The ISPs are less than impressed with the proposal, however. While they condemn piracy and appreciate the position of the rights-holders, the ISPs do not want to be put in the position of playing copyright police at the behest of Big Content.
In a letter (PDF) sent to the heads of AFACT, ARIA, and the Music Industry Piracy Investigations, the IIA laid out some of its concerns. First and foremost, the ISPs believe that the Australian court system offers ample opportunity for rights-holders to protect their IP. They also do not want to be put in the position of playing judge, jury, and executioner when AFACT or another body says that a certain IP address was flagged for sharing content.
The IIA also believes that a court would have to make a finding of infringement before a subscriber could be labeled a repeat infringer and have his or her service disconnected. "The distinction between an infringer and an alleged infringer has been raised as an important legal standard which ought not be undermined by us," argues the letter.
But AFACT doesn't buy the arguments. "It's a very simple, reasonable, cost effective, practical thing for them to do," AFACT executive director Adrianne Pecotic told The Sydney Morning Herald. Pecotic also believes that since the ISPs' subscriber agreements state that users cannot use their connections for illegal activities, they would be perfectly justified in pulling the plug.
Filtering content
The IIA has been under a lot of pressure lately not only from the music industry, but from the Australian government itself. Earlier this month, Australian ISPs were forced to begin offering PC filtering software in an attempt to keep objectionable content away from impressionable eyes. In a press release, the IIA said that it believes that filters "are no substitute for parental involvement and supervision of their children's online behavior."
16-year-old Tom Wood demonstrated the accuracy of the IIA's argument when he managed to bypass the government-mandated filter in a little over a half hour. Not only was Wood able to circumvent the filter, but he was also able to make it appear that the filter was still operating as it should.
In the wake of Wood's demonstration, some politicians are calling for mandatory server-level filtering as well. "You need both," Sen. Steve Fielding told the Herald Sun. "You need it as the ISP and the PC level."
Australian ISPs want no part of mandatory server-side filtering, even if it would only be applied to subscribers that opt in. "The IIA is disappointed that there remain calls by some political parties for mandatory internet level filtering—particularly in the lead up to the election where the policy environment is heated," the group said in a statement.
Even the politicians appear to realize that filters are not a panacea. "Unfortunately, no single measure can protect children from online harm," Communications Minister Helen Coonan told the Herald Sun. "Traditional parenting skills have never been more important." Coonan is spot on, and the risk of overemphasizing technological solutions is that many parents will believe that they are sufficient—especially when they are strongly backed by the government.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070831-big-content-down-under-unplug-your-customers-for-us-thanks.html
Related Stories
Torrentspy starts filtering copyrighted content
File-sharing and the music industry
Australian ISPs would be required to pull the plug on repeat copyright infringers under a plan put forward by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). The Australian equivalent of the RIAA, the Australia Recording Industry Association, is behind the plan as well.
The ISPs are less than impressed with the proposal, however. While they condemn piracy and appreciate the position of the rights-holders, the ISPs do not want to be put in the position of playing copyright police at the behest of Big Content.
In a letter (PDF) sent to the heads of AFACT, ARIA, and the Music Industry Piracy Investigations, the IIA laid out some of its concerns. First and foremost, the ISPs believe that the Australian court system offers ample opportunity for rights-holders to protect their IP. They also do not want to be put in the position of playing judge, jury, and executioner when AFACT or another body says that a certain IP address was flagged for sharing content.
The IIA also believes that a court would have to make a finding of infringement before a subscriber could be labeled a repeat infringer and have his or her service disconnected. "The distinction between an infringer and an alleged infringer has been raised as an important legal standard which ought not be undermined by us," argues the letter.
But AFACT doesn't buy the arguments. "It's a very simple, reasonable, cost effective, practical thing for them to do," AFACT executive director Adrianne Pecotic told The Sydney Morning Herald. Pecotic also believes that since the ISPs' subscriber agreements state that users cannot use their connections for illegal activities, they would be perfectly justified in pulling the plug.
Filtering content
The IIA has been under a lot of pressure lately not only from the music industry, but from the Australian government itself. Earlier this month, Australian ISPs were forced to begin offering PC filtering software in an attempt to keep objectionable content away from impressionable eyes. In a press release, the IIA said that it believes that filters "are no substitute for parental involvement and supervision of their children's online behavior."
16-year-old Tom Wood demonstrated the accuracy of the IIA's argument when he managed to bypass the government-mandated filter in a little over a half hour. Not only was Wood able to circumvent the filter, but he was also able to make it appear that the filter was still operating as it should.
In the wake of Wood's demonstration, some politicians are calling for mandatory server-level filtering as well. "You need both," Sen. Steve Fielding told the Herald Sun. "You need it as the ISP and the PC level."
Australian ISPs want no part of mandatory server-side filtering, even if it would only be applied to subscribers that opt in. "The IIA is disappointed that there remain calls by some political parties for mandatory internet level filtering—particularly in the lead up to the election where the policy environment is heated," the group said in a statement.
Even the politicians appear to realize that filters are not a panacea. "Unfortunately, no single measure can protect children from online harm," Communications Minister Helen Coonan told the Herald Sun. "Traditional parenting skills have never been more important." Coonan is spot on, and the risk of overemphasizing technological solutions is that many parents will believe that they are sufficient—especially when they are strongly backed by the government.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070831-big-content-down-under-unplug-your-customers-for-us-thanks.html
CD Baby offers DRM-free digital downloads
I've written about CD Baby before. It's a great way for independent musicians to sell their recordings.
For a one-time fee of $35 per album, it will set up both mail-order distribution (for which it takes $4 per CD) and digital distribution through all the major music stores, including iTunes (for which it takes 9 percent of what the store gives its artists, which is usually about 60 percent of the list price).
A couple days ago, CD Baby began offering direct downloads from its site. According to an e-mail I got from a representative, CD Baby takes only 9 percent of the list price--its standard cut for all digital downloads. But there's no other party involved, which means that the artist gets to keep 91 percent of the revenue from sales through the site.
As with physical CD sales, the artist gets to set the price. Downloads are unprotected MP3s, lacking digital rights management (DRM) technology, which means that they'll play on any computer or portable device. iTunes still offers better exposure--direct integration into the software used by more than 100 million iPods--but this puts CD Baby into the same space as eMusic, which recently surpassed 100 million downloads.
eMusic works with independent labels, so its artists are probably more prominent than those on CD Baby--musicians on indie labels might get some radio play on college radio and perhaps national press coverage, while unsigned bands almost never do.
Nonetheless, if you're interested in a broad array of music and like to support artists (particularly favorite local acts) well before anybody else has discovered them, CD Baby is a great place to start.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9768005-7.html
For a one-time fee of $35 per album, it will set up both mail-order distribution (for which it takes $4 per CD) and digital distribution through all the major music stores, including iTunes (for which it takes 9 percent of what the store gives its artists, which is usually about 60 percent of the list price).
A couple days ago, CD Baby began offering direct downloads from its site. According to an e-mail I got from a representative, CD Baby takes only 9 percent of the list price--its standard cut for all digital downloads. But there's no other party involved, which means that the artist gets to keep 91 percent of the revenue from sales through the site.
As with physical CD sales, the artist gets to set the price. Downloads are unprotected MP3s, lacking digital rights management (DRM) technology, which means that they'll play on any computer or portable device. iTunes still offers better exposure--direct integration into the software used by more than 100 million iPods--but this puts CD Baby into the same space as eMusic, which recently surpassed 100 million downloads.
eMusic works with independent labels, so its artists are probably more prominent than those on CD Baby--musicians on indie labels might get some radio play on college radio and perhaps national press coverage, while unsigned bands almost never do.
Nonetheless, if you're interested in a broad array of music and like to support artists (particularly favorite local acts) well before anybody else has discovered them, CD Baby is a great place to start.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9768005-7.html
CDBaby holding the cards
Cd van de week bij ctrlaltcountry.be is ‘What it is they became’ van de mij onbekende Keith Miles. Vanwege de enthousiaste recensie wilde ik mij de cd bestellen bij copain Gert van Eddy’s Records. Maar helaas: ook deze cd blijkt zoals zovele andere singersongwriter-cd’s van tegenwoordig alleen verkrijgbaar te zijn via de online shop cdbaby.
Te oordelen naar de 3 schitterende songs die op Keith Miles z’n MySpace staan is dat erg jammer. Zeker ‘Nolichucky idyll’ is een americana-pareltje dat niet misstaan had op Guy Clark z’n recentste album ‘Workbench songs’, één van mijn favoriete albums van het jaar.
Aangezien ik geen ervaring heb met aankopen via online shops en ik die dingen eerlijk gezegd niet vertrouw, zal ik maar hopen dat ‘What it is they became’ binnen enkele maanden door één of andere gewone firma alsnog opgepikt en verdeeld wordt zodat ik de cd dan toch via mijn vertrouwde platenwinkeltje zal kunnen bestellen. Ik ben het op deze manier ondertussen dan ook al gewend. Dat neemt echter niet weg dat het bijzonder frustrerend is dikwijls maanden te moeten wachten tot een cd ook via de gewone weg verkrijgbaar is. Zeker als het dan in vele gevallen om kleine meesterwerkjes gaat, zoals enkele jaren geleden met 'Sunday shoes' van Nels Andrews bijvoorbeeld dat zich inmiddels ook al in het compartiment 'Koesterplaatjes' van mijn cd-collecite bevindt.
In plaats van tonnen hersenloze geprefabriceerde pulp te verdelen, zouden de grote firma’s beter hun geld en energie steken in de écht goeie authentieke muziek. Dan zouden de grote winkelketens die stapels Borsato’s, Clouseau’s, Bauer’s, Beyoncé’s of Lotti’s, die toch door geen hond gekocht worden gezien ze een half jaar later tegen dumpprijzen aangeboden worden, eindelijk kunnen vervangen door platen die het écht verdienen om massaal gehoord te worden en wél uw zuurverdiende euro’s waard zijn. Stapels van ‘What it is they became’ van Keith Miles, bijvoorbeeld. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat het met de platenverkoop meteen een stuk beter zou gaan. Écht goeie muziek wordt immers nog wél gekocht; pulp wordt alleen maar gedownload.
Te oordelen naar de 3 schitterende songs die op Keith Miles z’n MySpace staan is dat erg jammer. Zeker ‘Nolichucky idyll’ is een americana-pareltje dat niet misstaan had op Guy Clark z’n recentste album ‘Workbench songs’, één van mijn favoriete albums van het jaar.
Aangezien ik geen ervaring heb met aankopen via online shops en ik die dingen eerlijk gezegd niet vertrouw, zal ik maar hopen dat ‘What it is they became’ binnen enkele maanden door één of andere gewone firma alsnog opgepikt en verdeeld wordt zodat ik de cd dan toch via mijn vertrouwde platenwinkeltje zal kunnen bestellen. Ik ben het op deze manier ondertussen dan ook al gewend. Dat neemt echter niet weg dat het bijzonder frustrerend is dikwijls maanden te moeten wachten tot een cd ook via de gewone weg verkrijgbaar is. Zeker als het dan in vele gevallen om kleine meesterwerkjes gaat, zoals enkele jaren geleden met 'Sunday shoes' van Nels Andrews bijvoorbeeld dat zich inmiddels ook al in het compartiment 'Koesterplaatjes' van mijn cd-collecite bevindt.
In plaats van tonnen hersenloze geprefabriceerde pulp te verdelen, zouden de grote firma’s beter hun geld en energie steken in de écht goeie authentieke muziek. Dan zouden de grote winkelketens die stapels Borsato’s, Clouseau’s, Bauer’s, Beyoncé’s of Lotti’s, die toch door geen hond gekocht worden gezien ze een half jaar later tegen dumpprijzen aangeboden worden, eindelijk kunnen vervangen door platen die het écht verdienen om massaal gehoord te worden en wél uw zuurverdiende euro’s waard zijn. Stapels van ‘What it is they became’ van Keith Miles, bijvoorbeeld. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat het met de platenverkoop meteen een stuk beter zou gaan. Écht goeie muziek wordt immers nog wél gekocht; pulp wordt alleen maar gedownload.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)