Michael Hirchshorn of The Atlantic Monthly takes a look at Web 2.0 music services and while drawing lines though a connect the dots progression comes up with several gems of inference. The highlight of which is a comparison of Mp3 to DRM "protected" media that contrasts VHS and Betamax, "One next step could be a move by the labels to make more pay-per-download music available without restriction, meaning that once you've purchased a song, you can do anything you want with it, currently a no-go on Zune or iTunes. Unrestricted MP3 sites could play VHS to iTunes's Betamax. However it occurs, though, the execution of a widely used free and free-flowing music download and sharing system is surely imminent."
Coolfer was struck by the same quote, and asks not "if" but "when" this whole magical convergence of factors will result in the reiterated statement, "everything will eventually become available everywhere for a price that will approach zero" will become fact rather than lore. We're already on record as saying DRM will die, so where and when can we expect the fiery crash and burn which we all agree is inevitable? I wanna bring marshmallows and watch the flames.
I'm always enlightened when Glenn Coolfer grabs his calculator and starts making sense of the sales figures Billboard and Nielsen throw around. Often you find that when Coolfer works over the numbers he gleans insight that no one else is spouting.
This week is no different. While the nay-sayers are forecasting the demise of the music business (once again), Coolfer shows us that optimisim may be the better track, "Last week, digital track sales totaled over 21 million, a 29% drop from the previous week but still 61% higher than the same week in 2006. That 29% drop was an improvement over last year's 33% decline. In other words, sales are higher and are not dropping off the holiday peak as quickly as last year."
He's talking about the same week in which the Dreamgirls Soundtrack was the best thing going, which slipped into the top spot while only moving 66k copies. Its the same week Paul Resnikoff used to declare, "Album sales continue to drop year after year, and chart-topping releases are losing their sales potency. [...] the continued declines are generating anxiety among investors."
Patience and prudence Grasshopper. I say 2007 will end up a banner year, and the year we'll all look back on as the point when a solid transition was made from physical to digital. No doubt, it'll be a bit painful for some. Transition is never comfortable, nor should it be expected to be.
A new survey by The Digital Media Association says online consumers are driving music in new ways, and causing a renaissance among music fans.
According to the survey, "The vast majority of online music service users report that enjoying music over the Internet has expanded their musical tastes, allowing them to discover new artists and explore new music genres. About 25 percent reported having discovered a lot of new artists, while more than 60 percent of consumers surveyed say they have discovered some new artists. Nearly 7 in 10 online music consumers are enjoying new genres of music since listening to online music services."
A wider range of artists sharing a slightly growing pie is a great thing for music itself, although it puts the music industry in a precarious position. The major's need to learn to work with a model in which blockbuster albums are fewer and further between, and deeper catalog cuts move with a little more ease.
Jupiter Research has done some prognosticatin' and come to the conclusion that digital sales are going to keep on growing. In fact, if predictions hold true, digital sales will grow at a compounded rate of 16% per year, to a total of 2.5 billion dollars, or just over 22% of total US consumer spending on music.
Glenn Coolfer astutely observes, "Before you do any math, read a blog post about the survey by Jupiter analyst David Card. He explains something the press release does not: Jupiter did not count ringtone sales as digital revenues. He wrote, "Digital music sales will total 22 percent of US consumer music spending in 2011, and ring tones another 12 percent." Combined with download spending, the adjusted digital figure is actually 34%. That leaves the CD with about 66% of the market."
Subscription services are forecast to keep growing as well, with a staggering 32% compounded growth rate in just that category alone. Napster must be salivating but, frankly I don't see it. Unless some major shift comes along and changes the subscription landscape, or the Major labels relent to an eMusic style model, I just don't see how 32% growth in subscriptions is remotely possible.
"The CD as it stands is dead", that's what Alain Levy of EMI told a packed room at London School of Business in October (Lomax's article says different but, we checked). John Nova Lomax of Houston Press is taking the time to eulogize it, examine why it's dying and take a cursory look at where the format is heading.
Lomax writes, "Looking back over the past 45 years, it is now plain that the move from vinyl to CD was not the bold step forward we were told it would be. CDs were not scratch-proof (as the labels had us believe early on), nor was the sound an improvement on vinyl -- indeed, most audiophiles argue that their sound is inferior. Jewel cases were ridiculously brittle -- they were rendered useless by a drop of four feet or so -- and they were hard to open, as were the huge and idiotic long-boxes CDs were packaged in well into the 1990s. Their visual appeal was almost always minimal and yet they took up what now seems like a lot of shelf space."
The truth is the CD, due to its fragility, has become a disposable item. One hipster quips in Lomax's article that she treats her music burned to CD with the same dismissive regard as she would treat any disposable lighter. As a culture, we're plenty fed up with disposable items which are sold to us as a "semi-durable" good. We know we'll be back to replace it far to early, and we feel ripped off when we find ourselves back in line again, holding a package full of the same empty promises we bought last time.
From a letter to musicians promoting a joint seminar by Own It and The BPI, "You want audience adoration, respect from your peers and the music industry and the chance to keep your name and music in the public psyche for years to come. However, success in the music industry comes from a series of partnerships between musicians and industry. Such partnerships most likely involve a musician exchanging their intellectual property rights for the expertise that enables them to distribute and sell their music whether on or off line." (emphasis added)
Whoa, hold the phone guys. Signing away intellectual property rights isn't such a bright idea for a young musician, and certainly not so smart given the radical changes to the music business which are happening almost daily. Frankly, in 15 years time, the BPI/RIAA/IFPI may well be reduced to second tier players. Jon Newton of P2Pnet equates this practice to Droit de seigner, the middle ages tradition which allowed the lord of an estate the right to "first night" with any virgins in that estate.
Still, if you're in London and interested in hearing some rather shaky advice about how to manage your future music career, the seminar is free and starts promptly at 6pm on Jan 30th.
It's the democratization of the music business, and it's becoming a trend to large to ignore. The LA Times reports on artists who've given up (or never wanted) a major label deal, and are instead finding success online.
"It's nice to have the deep pockets and clout of a major record company. [...] Nonetheless, the Web is turning into a viable alternative with which bands can develop a following and earn some money while still pursuing fame and fortune. Such popular groups as Britain's Arctic Monkeys used the Web extensively before getting a break. Indeed, music companies are embracing the Internet as a convenient way to scout new talent."
What's more, artists with online followings have a whole lot more negotiation clout when they do sit-down to discuss a deal. Making it in music is hard, and the internet hasn't changed that. What it has done, is serve to create a much more even (although still rather slanted) playing field in which the indie artist has a real fighting chance, something they definitely didn't have just 15 years ago. With music blogs playing the part that radio stations once did (and no sign of radio recovering from its glut of self serving poppycock), could we really be that far from taking the major label system and turning it on its ear?
Ars Technica spoke with Kheit and has this gem of a quote, "AllofMP3 is legal, and it's not going anywhere," adding, "Legality is not decided by a legislative branch or an executive branch. It's decided by a court"
The question is, which court and under what jurisdiction? AllofMp3's legal grounds are fragile at best, and as useless as nipples on a boar at worst in my humble -- non-lawyer who took some pre-law undergrad courses and decided law wasn't for me -- opinion. However, Kheit is a smart guy, who holds a degree in Computer Science as well as an M.B.A and (obviously, as a practicing attorney) a J.D., he must understand something that I fail to see. I'm not sure in which court, or on what legal standing Kheit is planning to defend his client --AllofMp3 parent company Media Services -- but, I for one can't wait to hear his argument.
It's back again. The seemingly never-ending speculation about AllofMp3 and its entanglement with Russia's desire to join the World Trade Organization. This time there's some evidence of the validity of those claims, and a little bit of light shed on when AllofMp3 might be gone for good.
A document released by the US trade representative to Russia clearly spells out that AllofMp3 has been and still remains a concern for US trade officials, and lays out a time-line within which Russia is expected to act against the rouge music download site.
According to PC Magazine, "Russia said it would [...] act by June 1, 2007 to take action and prevent rights societies from taking action without consent of the rights holders themselves; AllofMP3.com claims it holds licenses from the Russian Licensing Societies, including the Federation of Rights Holders for Collective Management of Copyright with Respect to the Use of Musical Works in Interactive Regime (FAIR) and the Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Right Holders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS)."
The fight to keep the UK copyright system as is -- rather than being extended to a period of 95 years from date of creation -- is getting a little boost from an independant review according to the BBC.
The BBC reports, "an independent review is to recommend the terms are not extended, a well-placed government source has said." Which, if heeded, would mean that the earliest Beatles recordings could fall into the public domain as early as 2013 and, that Sir Cliff Richard's earliest recordings -- who in his day was the British answer to Elvis -- could hit the public domain in 2008.
Needless to say, the IFPI and the BPI aren't the happiest of campers. John Kennedy, who in my estimation is an enemy of creativity worldwide threatens, "If the UK government decides not to support copyright equalisation, then the music industry will have to continue its campaign in Europe."
A recent press release from the IFPI would lead one to believe that, if given their rathers, the Brits would hapilly take an extension of copyright to a proposed 95 years, as opposed to the current 50 year term.
From the release, "62 per cent of those polled agreed that UK artists should be protected for the same number of years as their American counterparts, by extending the term of copyright for sound recordings from its current 50 years to 95 years."
And certainly, if you ask the question in a very leading way such as, "Should UK artists enjoy the same copyright protections as their U.S. counterparts?", most people are going to say yes. Frankly, I'm surprised that such a loaded question only garnered a 62 percent share in the affirmative.
What most UK citizens probably don't realize; US copyright terms are only as long as they are because of a few heavy hitting and deep pocketed corporations who spent millions lobbying congress to extend their copyright terms (I'm looking at you, Disney). Until Mickey Mouse came dangerously close to retirement age, this wasn't an issue. Now, for the Brits, the issue revolves around The Beatles, who's first recordings reach 50 years of age around 2010, with the earliest bits from the Stones following just two years behind.
Artists are entitled to a fair and reasonable lifetime for the works they create, there isn't any argument about that. However, extending copyright to exceed the life expectancy of everyone who is living today is morally reprehensible, and a bad deal for artists and creators themselves. Music, literature and culture are building blocks. Each new work adds to the common meme and creates a new point from which to jump off. Had Disney faced the same copyright terms in the 1930's that they enjoy today, many of the stories they plucked from the public meme and created beautiful cartoons to illustrate would have been locked away from Disney's reach by copyright terms extending far beyond the lifespan of their original authors. What Disney did in the US, and what the IFPI, BPI and others are lobbying to do in the UK is helping to ensure that no one will ever start and build another Disney. This debate has precious little to do with the artists, and a whole lot to do with the publishers.
I've been holding my tongue a bit on the subject of UMG's demand that Microsoft cough up more than a buck per Zune sold, and Microsoft's acquiescence to what amounts to a tax on portable media devices. When coupled with Cary Sherman's recent slash and burn attack on fair use rights, and UMG chairman and CEO Doug Morris calling you a thief in Billboard Magazine, it's pretty clear that the RIAA and its member companies are beginning to circle the wagons for an all out attack on the way you pay for music.
Sean Ryan quips in Forbes, "The next question is whether they will demand a $1 royalty for each of my children, since they have ears, which can hear music, and a brain, which can store it. Or would that be $2 since they each have two ears?" But, does he put forward a proposition that is all that far fetched, or that much different than what UMG has demanded? Assuming most children the age of Sean Ryan's will own a portable media device (at least one) in their lives and, assuming that Universal Music Group gets a buck for each player sold (as they wish to do, and are doing in the case of Zune) then, the tax has already been passed. You didn't get a vote, you don't get a say and, unless you're willing to go totally old school and listen to your vinyl records in the dark ages, you'll be forced to pay up.
As much as Morris, Sherman, and a host of other industry wet blankets would like for it to be illegal for you to trans-code that CD you own into a format compatible with your Zune or your iPod, the laws of the United States beg to differ with them. Fair use is still fair use, and you still have every right to rip that CD you paid for, and listen to it anywhere you wish. You had that right with cassette tapes, the vinyl records that came before them and, aside from the DMCA making it illegal for you to crack the DRM on a bought and paid for digital download, you still have the right to listen to the music contained within that file in any way (and in any place, or any format) that you see fit.
What UMG has done is lay the first piece of framework for putting the kibosh on the democratization of the music industry. The RIAA labels have owned distribution in the United States (and made it difficult if not impossible for many small labels to get distribution) for decades and, just as a market for distribution sprang up that existed outside of their domination, they've managed to secure a loophole that will again put small independent labels on the sidelines.
So, the Zune launch may be grabbing all the media attention but, the ubiquitous iPod today also claims a few inches of territory that could be incredibly important for business travelers, and market share.
Six major airlines, including Delta, United and Air France have announced plans to install docking ports for passengers that will not only allow your iPod to get some juice while you're racking up frequent flyer miles, but also allow you to watch that episode of 30 Rock you just bought from iTunes on the headrest screen in front of you.
Unfortunately, for now you won't be watching your latest video downloads on the flight from Peoria to Portland -- the service is only expected to be offered on business and first class seats and, only on international flights -- but, how long until docks for your media player become commonplace?
Filesharing lawsuits can go one of two ways. Mostly, they end up settled out of court. If settled out of court, they cost an average person between $3750 and $7500, possibly bankrupting them, increasing their credit card debt or reducing their child's chances of hitting their mid-twenties with a college degree in their pocket.
Others go to court, and lately, many of those ask early on for the judge to grant a motion for summary judgement. Exactly that has happened in a newly surfacing Brooklyn, NY case, that of Electra Records Vs. Schwartz.
Ray Beckerman writes, "A disabled mother, who has never engaged in file sharing or downloading, has been sued in Brooklyn, in Elektra v. Schwartz. She has interposed a counterclaim for attorneys fees, and has asked the Court for a premotion conference, or waiver of such a conference, so that she can proceed with a motion for summary judgment:"
We'll be keeping Electra vs. Schwartz on our radar along with the other cases we regularly follow.
Michael Hirchshorn of The Atlantic Monthly takes a look at Web 2.0 music services and while drawing lines though a connect the dots progression comes up with several gems of inference. The highlight of which is a comparison of Mp3 to DRM "protected" media that contrasts VHS and Betamax, "One next step could be a move by the labels to make more pay-per-download music available without restriction, meaning that once you've purchased a song, you can do anything you want with it, currently a no-go on Zune or iTunes. Unrestricted MP3 sites could play VHS to iTunes's Betamax. However it occurs, though, the execution of a widely used free and free-flowing music download and sharing system is surely imminent."
I'm always enlightened when 
Having followed the digital music scene for years, I think I can say without any disclaimer that if you're looking for the most evil among the RIAA, BPI and IFPI, you really can't go wrong with the Brits. I thought I'd seen everything, from 
It's the democratization of the music business, and it's becoming a trend to large to ignore. The LA Times 
The fight to keep the UK copyright system as is -- rather than being extended to a period of 95 years from date of creation -- is getting a little boost from an independant review according to the BBC. 
A recent 
So, the Zune launch may be grabbing all the media attention but, the ubiquitous iPod today also claims a few inches of territory that could be incredibly important for business travelers, and market share.
Filesharing lawsuits can go one of two ways. Mostly, they end up settled out of court. If settled out of court, they cost an average person between $3750 and $7500, possibly bankrupting them, increasing their credit card debt or reducing their child's chances of hitting their mid-twenties with a college degree in their pocket. 
