Friday, November 21st, 2008
Muffin is one of the many, new music apps or technologies which use some clever mathematical formulas to work out what kind of music we like!
Muffin can be embedded into Itunes and Facbook as well as being used on its ow website http://www.mufin.com/us. It looks at your current music, learns the tempo, instruments and other musical components. It then suggest tracks which are similar (well similar if based upon the criteria like tempo etc!).
Muffin is not unique and we have seen similar technology being pushed. Why the sudden increase is services like Muffin? Simply that traditionally the majority of consumers ‘found new’ music by watching TV and listening to Radio. This worked when there were only a few channels the nation watched, or only a few radio stations. However, in the world of mass media we have witnessed not only music shows being given their own channels (good) and hence coming off the main networks (bad), but via the net we have witnessed a fragmentation of the audience.
So along with the fact that there is now MORE music than ever, and that none of us know about it or have the time sift through it it seems that that why there is the demand for Muffins!
donderdag 11 juni 2009
You Can’t Escape the Cost of Good Music!
Monday, March 30th, 2009
The demise of Spiralfrog has highlighted the reality of the ‘music for free’ model. This reality is simple: music is not free and costs to listen to and own. The record labels knew this and hence charged Spiralfrog a premium for granting access to their content.
Unfortunately they did not have a strong enough business model and did not sell other services or generate enough income from advertising to be able to afford the music. This is interesting, as it demonstrates to consumers that the idea that there is no cost to music is phoney. Certianly Spiralfrog users now understand that there is a cost, because their service no longer exists.
However, one assumes that they will just migrate to another free music service such as Spotify. Spotify are clearly learning from the Spiralfrog story and has now announced that it will start to offer paid downloads via 7digital.
Record labels want these new, legitimate services, to exist but then charge such high fees from them, they end up not allowing these services to bed in and grow. Hence, it is impertive that new music web ventures have a range of income sources from day one of launch. Especially in a market where advertising income on the net is down from anywhere from 2-20% depending on the sectors targetted.
Meanwhile the Itunes music download service will start to vary the pricing structure of songs within its library. Some would argue that the timing is awful, as the industry as a whole is still struggling and we are in a recession, but the idea of increasing the COST of downloading music is interesting. Perhaps Apple is seeing if the legitimate download market is now becoming a way of life for many users rather than something to ‘play with ‘ on the side of their traditional music consumption habits. Accordingly they are testing the market to see if they can squeeze value back into certain recordings.
One thing is for sure, good music costs money to find, nurture and produce. Perhaps the re-education of the public has started?
The demise of Spiralfrog has highlighted the reality of the ‘music for free’ model. This reality is simple: music is not free and costs to listen to and own. The record labels knew this and hence charged Spiralfrog a premium for granting access to their content.
Unfortunately they did not have a strong enough business model and did not sell other services or generate enough income from advertising to be able to afford the music. This is interesting, as it demonstrates to consumers that the idea that there is no cost to music is phoney. Certianly Spiralfrog users now understand that there is a cost, because their service no longer exists.
However, one assumes that they will just migrate to another free music service such as Spotify. Spotify are clearly learning from the Spiralfrog story and has now announced that it will start to offer paid downloads via 7digital.
Record labels want these new, legitimate services, to exist but then charge such high fees from them, they end up not allowing these services to bed in and grow. Hence, it is impertive that new music web ventures have a range of income sources from day one of launch. Especially in a market where advertising income on the net is down from anywhere from 2-20% depending on the sectors targetted.
Meanwhile the Itunes music download service will start to vary the pricing structure of songs within its library. Some would argue that the timing is awful, as the industry as a whole is still struggling and we are in a recession, but the idea of increasing the COST of downloading music is interesting. Perhaps Apple is seeing if the legitimate download market is now becoming a way of life for many users rather than something to ‘play with ‘ on the side of their traditional music consumption habits. Accordingly they are testing the market to see if they can squeeze value back into certain recordings.
One thing is for sure, good music costs money to find, nurture and produce. Perhaps the re-education of the public has started?
woensdag 10 juni 2009
Eerste speurtocht via Twitter gehouden
Romano Sandee, een 21-jarige gewichtsconsulent uit Groningen, verstopte zich woensdag in een café in Assen en gaf zijn volgers via Twitter vanaf het middaguur elk half uur een hint.
TAN-code onderschept met gehackt mobieltje
Beveiligingsbedrijf Ultrascan wist met een gehackte Nokia 1100 een mobiele TAN-code te onderscheppen.
HDMI kabelhel breekt los
HDMI komt met een nieuwe standaard, HDMI 1.4. Dat wordt straks kiezen tussen vijf soorten kabels. Ingewikkeld.
Nokia N97 toch deze maand
Nokia's topmodel N97, met touchscreen en toetsenbord, is toch nog deze maand te koop, zegt Nokia.
HD-streams, Facebook en Twitter op Xbox
Nederlandse Xbox Live-abonnees kunnen straks ook Full HD-content bekijken. Ook komen sociale netwerken naar de Xbox.
Mannen vaker gevolgd op Twitter
Mannen worden veel vaker dan vrouwen als follower toegevoegd op Twitter, concluderen Amerikaanse wetenschappers.
Nederlands kabinet wil piraten niet afsluiten
Economische Zaken heeft gereageerd op de Franse wet die illegale uploaders wil afsluiten van internet.
Veel twitteraars twitteren niet
Veel Twitter-gebruikers plaatsen nooit een bericht, blijkt uit onderzoek. De conclusie dat Twitter een massamedium van enkelen naar velen is, klopt echter niet.
De twitter-hype kan tot aardsere proporties worden teruggebracht. Harvard-onderzoekers becijferden namelijk dat tien procent van de gebruikers meer dan 90 procent van alle tweets plaatst, terwijl meer dan de helft van de Twitteraars vrijwel nooit iets van zich laat horen. BBC komt nu rijkelijk laat met dit nieuws, want de oorspronkelijke blogpost van de onderzoekers dateert al van 1 juni.
De twitter-hype kan tot aardsere proporties worden teruggebracht. Harvard-onderzoekers becijferden namelijk dat tien procent van de gebruikers meer dan 90 procent van alle tweets plaatst, terwijl meer dan de helft van de Twitteraars vrijwel nooit iets van zich laat horen. BBC komt nu rijkelijk laat met dit nieuws, want de oorspronkelijke blogpost van de onderzoekers dateert al van 1 juni.
iPhone-gebruik beperkt door T-mobile
In Nederland mag je je iPhone vooralsnog niet gebruiken als modem voor je laptop. T-Mobile biedt de functie niet aan.
XS4All-app voor voip via iPhone
XS4All laat zijn klanten via een eigen app met de iPhone bellen over internet. De app werkt alleen met wifi.
De XSPhone-app werkt niet met Skype, maar met de dienst 'Bellen van XS4ALL' en met SIP-beldiensten zoals Voipbuster. XS4ALL zegt dat de dienst het beste werkt met voip van XS4ALL, maar je kunt ook andere SIP-servers instellen. Apple staat het gebruik van mobiel internet voor voip nog altijd niet toe, dus kan bellen alleen zodra je op een wifi-netwerk zit. Op een station met KPN-hotspot bijvoorbeeld, of in het hotel op je vakantie-adres.
De XSPhone-app werkt niet met Skype, maar met de dienst 'Bellen van XS4ALL' en met SIP-beldiensten zoals Voipbuster. XS4ALL zegt dat de dienst het beste werkt met voip van XS4ALL, maar je kunt ook andere SIP-servers instellen. Apple staat het gebruik van mobiel internet voor voip nog altijd niet toe, dus kan bellen alleen zodra je op een wifi-netwerk zit. Op een station met KPN-hotspot bijvoorbeeld, of in het hotel op je vakantie-adres.
Filesharing toch goed voor economie
Uit gezamenlijk onderzoek van TNO, SEO Economisch Onderzoek en het Instituut voor Informatierecht (IViR) blijkt dat filesharing van muziek, film en games per saldo toch positief uitpakt voor de economie.
Mobiel geluid absorberen
Tijdens het North Sea Jazz festival in 2007 werd voor het eerst een techniek toegepast met een mobiel geluidsabsorberend doek van schapenwol. De resultaten waren dusdanig dat Ampco-Flashlight er een product van heeft gemaakt: TexLnt. In Nederland gedistribueerd door All Areas.
In de evenementenbranche is één van de problemen de geluidsweergave bij Poppodia en in grotere complexen, die niet geheel voldoen aan de eisen voor een goede akoestiek. Met name de lage tonen zijn moeilijk te beteugelen en vormen een struikelblok voor menig geluidstechnicus. Ook de artiesten zelf zijn gebaat bij een goed optreden waarbij het geluid optimaal is. En daar heeft het publiek ook recht op.
In de evenementenbranche is één van de problemen de geluidsweergave bij Poppodia en in grotere complexen, die niet geheel voldoen aan de eisen voor een goede akoestiek. Met name de lage tonen zijn moeilijk te beteugelen en vormen een struikelblok voor menig geluidstechnicus. Ook de artiesten zelf zijn gebaat bij een goed optreden waarbij het geluid optimaal is. En daar heeft het publiek ook recht op.
Doe de oorcheck!
De Nationale Hoorstichting heeft onlangs een website opgericht met geluidstesten om uw gehoor te kunnen testen.
Het menselijk oor is in principe in staat om tonen te kunnen horen tussen 20 en 20.000 Hertz. Naarmate je ouder wordt, neemt ook de gehoorkracht af in het bovenste bereik en in diepte.
Het menselijk oor is in principe in staat om tonen te kunnen horen tussen 20 en 20.000 Hertz. Naarmate je ouder wordt, neemt ook de gehoorkracht af in het bovenste bereik en in diepte.
Pioneer wint 4 IF Product Design Awards
Pioneer heeft bevestiging gekregen dat het de concurrentie een stap voor is op vlak van design door vier prestigieuze iF Product Design Awards te winnen. International Forum (iF), de toonaangevende Duitse vereniging voor industrieel design, koos de plasma-tv’s KRP-600A en KRP-500A, de thuisbioscoop LX03 en de Super Audio CD ontvanger PDX-Z9 als winnaars en prees deze producten van Pioneer om hun vernieuwende karakter, gebruiksgemak, ontwerpkwaliteit en materiaalkeuze. iF had ook lof voor de manier waarop Pioneer zich succesvol laat gelden in de erg competitieve internationale markt.
Audiofiel? Eet vis!!!
Vette vis is gezond. Goed voor de hersenen. Dat is volgens “mensen die er verstand van hebben” onomstotelijk bewezen. Vanwege de Omega-3 vetzuren, weet u wel... Dus heel bewust Nederland zet minstens één keer per week zalm, makreel of paling op het menu.
Dat betekent niet dat vette vis vanaf nu te koop zal zijn als audio-accessoire, het is geen oplossing voor dun klinkende luidsprekers. Maar muziekliefhebbers kunnen er hoogstwaarschijnlijk wel hun luistergenot een aantal jaren mee rekken. Toch goed om te weten.
Zune HD nieuws
Microsoft heeft de haar nieuwe wapen in de strijd tegen de immer succesvolle iPod nu officiëel aangekondigd. De Zune HD moet het aandeel verkochte portable spelers van Microsoft weer flink opkrikken.
Digitale muziekverkopen in de lift
De verkopen van digitale muziek zijn goed voor meer dan eenvijfde van de wereldwijde omzet van de muziekindustrie. Dat meldt de handelsorganisatie International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Hiermee zijn digitale muziekverkopen aan een sterke opmars bezig en is het einde van het cd-tijdperk in zicht.
Nieuwe Sony Giga Juke muziekserver
Langzaam maar zeker wordt bij veel mensen de muziekcollectie in de kast vervangen door een muziekcollectie op de computer. Vaak hangt er echter geen goede geluidsinstallatie aan de pc waardoor het niet echt fijn luisteren is. Sony komt met een alternatief.
Sony PSPgo voor downloadbare content
Sony Computer Entertainment heeft gisteren een nieuwe versie van de PlayStation Portable (PSP) aan de wereld voorgesteld. De PSPgo is lichter geworden, heeft een uitschuifbaar scherm en is gericht op downloadbare digitale content.
Nieuwe Philips Blu-ray spelers
Philips voelt de vraag bij consumenten voor HD-ready flat-TV’s en thuisbioscoop beleving toenemen en brengt daarom een breed portfolio van Blu-ray spelers uit. Recentelijk zijn de Philips BDP5000 en BDP7300 geïntroduceerd en nu zijn ook de BDP3000 en de BDP9100 beschikbaar.
Nieuwe `Series 2` SACD-speler van Marantz
Marantz toonde onlangs op de High End beurs in München haar nieuwste SACD-speler. Hoewel het uiterlijk van deze SA-15S2 erg lijkt op dat van zijn voorganger, gaat het in feite om een totaal nieuw apparaat. Wanneer we in het apparaat kijken zien we de SA-15S2 in bijna elk aspect compleet anders is dan het origineel.
Cisco lanceert draadloos netwerk hifisysteem
Gisteren vond in Leiderdorp de lancering plaats van een nieuw draadloos muzieksysteem voor in huis. Fabrikant Cisco brengt onder de merknaam Linksys by Cisco een pakket apparaten op de markt die gebruik maken van hoogwaardige draadloze technologie om media (beeld én geluid) door het hele huis te distribueren.
Take That's iTunes Season Opens
Take That has become the first U.K. music act to issue an iTunes "season pass" subscription package.
Nokia Says On Track For May Online Store Opening
The world's top handset maker, Nokia Oyj, is on track for a May launch of its Ovi application and content store, company officials said.
Time Warner To Separate AOL Near Year End
Time Warner Inc on Thursday made official plans to separate its AOL division sometime around the end of this year, a widely expected move that sheds one of the media company's weakest divisions.
U.K. Report Shows Impact Of P2P
A new U.K. report states that unauthorized downloading is causing huge economic losses, and that widespread confusion about copyright law in the online world is adding to the problem.
Analysis: Live Nation, Sony Are Pricing for Profits, Not Margin
Live Nation's decision to drop service fees on amphitheater lawn tickets purchased on select Wednesdays this summer is a classic case of a company pricing for profit, not for margin.
Briefs: Live Nation, 'The Beatles: Rock Band,' MySpace
Live Nation's "No Service Fee Wednesday" is underway; a quick review of "the Beatles: Rock Band"; former AOL exec jumps to MySpace Music and more.
Album Sales Down Nearly 18% in May
Album sales in May dropped 17.8% versus May 2008, according to Billboard analysis of Nielsen SoundScan data, and were 36.7% lower than May 2007.
Sony Partners With UMG For Vevo
Sony Music has joined Universal Music Group as a partner on Vevo, the new music video service which is expected to launch before the end of the year.
Too Much, Too Fast? Susan Boyle Hitting the Rocks...
Susan Boyle may be getting fried by the bright lights of celebrity. The YouTube sensation has now checked into a clinic after suffering a nervous breakdown, according to numerous reports out of London. After a tough week, Boyle finished second on Britain's Got Talent, and subsequently checked into the Priory Clinic, a mental health hospital. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/053109boyle
-Mobile Waltzes DRM-Free Into Austria, Germany...
T-Mobile launched mobile music download services in both Austria and Germany on Thursday, according to details shared...
Pandora iPhone App Gets Concert Listings...
The highly-successful Pandora iPhone app now has a concert companion, thanks to a deal with SonicLiving. The tie-up, tipped to Digital Music News late last week, finds SonicLiving powering concert listings alongside station streams. "Pandora is dedicated to providing the best music experience possible, whether recorded or live, which is why we've chosen SonicLiving to power our sponsored concert listings," said Tom Conrad, chief technical officer for Pandora. "SonicLiving has made it much easier for our listeners to find out where and when their favorite bands are playing." http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060809sonic
Another Thud: CD Sales Now Back at Mid-90s Levels...
US-based CD sales are now back to mid-90s levels, according to data revealed by Nielsen Soundscan on Monday. "If you look at 1995, there were 368 million CD albums purchased, and in 2008, we were basically back to that same volume," said Nielsen's Chris Muratore, during a data-focused presentation at NARM. The 2008 total was roughly 360 million. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060809data
Play.com Named Best Online Retailer
Play.com has won the best online retailer category for the second year running at the U.K.'s third annual Which? Awards, which celebrate the companies and individuals best serving the interests of the consumer.
Kanye's Vindication: Twitter Starts Celebrity Authentication...
Kanye West 'doesn't have a f---king Twitter,' but plenty of imposters have been tweeting under his name. Actually, imposters are all over Twitter, and now the company is reacting. Kanye threw a self-described 'spaz' against the service, but St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa recently threw a lawsuit. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060909twitter
MOD Systems Finalizes DRM-Free, Major Label Licensing...
Top kiosk contender MOD Systems has now finalized DRM-free licenses with all four major labels, according to details disclosed by the company. Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and EMI Music have all signed on the dotted line, alongside a number of independents. The updated licenses traverse 5.2 million songs, a shift that opens total compatibility across any storage device or solution. http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/060909mod
Social Networks Eclipse E-Mail - NY Times
“Alongside the explosive growth of online video over the last six years, time spent on social networks surpassed that for e-mail for the first time in February, signaling a paradigm shift in consumer engagement with the Internet.
According to a report released in April by Nielsen, Internet use for “short-tail” sites with large audience reach has evolved since 2003. The change is from portal-oriented sites, like shopping directories and Internet tools like Microsoft Passport, to social networks, YouTube and providers of niche content.
In November 2007, the video audience also exceeded the e-mail audience for the first time, and sites with long-form videos (averaging six to eight minutes) are showing much more growth and user time spent online than those with shorter videos.
Although Charles Buchwalter, senior vice president for research and analytics for Nielsen, said marketers had yet to master advertising on social media, he predicted that “over the next 12 months a model will emerge” that takes into account “the influence factor” of users who wield disproportionate power.”
From the New York Times.
According to a report released in April by Nielsen, Internet use for “short-tail” sites with large audience reach has evolved since 2003. The change is from portal-oriented sites, like shopping directories and Internet tools like Microsoft Passport, to social networks, YouTube and providers of niche content.
In November 2007, the video audience also exceeded the e-mail audience for the first time, and sites with long-form videos (averaging six to eight minutes) are showing much more growth and user time spent online than those with shorter videos.
Although Charles Buchwalter, senior vice president for research and analytics for Nielsen, said marketers had yet to master advertising on social media, he predicted that “over the next 12 months a model will emerge” that takes into account “the influence factor” of users who wield disproportionate power.”
From the New York Times.
Social Networks Eclipse E-Mail - NY Times
“Alongside the explosive growth of online video over the last six years, time spent on social networks surpassed that for e-mail for the first time in February, signaling a paradigm shift in consumer engagement with the Internet.
According to a report released in April by Nielsen, Internet use for “short-tail” sites with large audience reach has evolved since 2003. The change is from portal-oriented sites, like shopping directories and Internet tools like Microsoft Passport, to social networks, YouTube and providers of niche content.
In November 2007, the video audience also exceeded the e-mail audience for the first time, and sites with long-form videos (averaging six to eight minutes) are showing much more growth and user time spent online than those with shorter videos.
Although Charles Buchwalter, senior vice president for research and analytics for Nielsen, said marketers had yet to master advertising on social media, he predicted that “over the next 12 months a model will emerge” that takes into account “the influence factor” of users who wield disproportionate power.”
From the New York Times.
According to a report released in April by Nielsen, Internet use for “short-tail” sites with large audience reach has evolved since 2003. The change is from portal-oriented sites, like shopping directories and Internet tools like Microsoft Passport, to social networks, YouTube and providers of niche content.
In November 2007, the video audience also exceeded the e-mail audience for the first time, and sites with long-form videos (averaging six to eight minutes) are showing much more growth and user time spent online than those with shorter videos.
Although Charles Buchwalter, senior vice president for research and analytics for Nielsen, said marketers had yet to master advertising on social media, he predicted that “over the next 12 months a model will emerge” that takes into account “the influence factor” of users who wield disproportionate power.”
From the New York Times.
The Potential of New Music Formats
Neil Young’s ‘Archives’ Shows the potential of new formats. New formats have driven the music industry forever. That and new music.
While Blu-ray may not be the “next big thing”, it shows what can be done with more storage and bandwidth. The evolution of music formats will determine the path for the future. MP3 was the last major music format and the industry missed monetizing it entirely.
“Anything is possible in the Blu-ray disc edition of “Neil Young: Archives, Vol. 1 (1963-1972),” the most technologically advanced mega-boxed set in rock ‘n’ roll history, arriving with a hefty thump on store shelves Tuesday.
Young, a militant guardian of the analog waveform (notably, the vinyl LP) who dismissed the CD era as sonic sludge, has found purist’s heaven in a new digital format, Blu-ray, that’s still trying to push the consumer acceptance needle past indifference.
Neil Young’s “Archives” is the latest thing to debut in the Blu-ray format. This first volume, at $299, chronicles Young’s early music career from his school-days band, the Squires. Young waited 15 years for the appropriate format to showcase his life’s work in a multimedia package that combines high-resolution audio, high-resolution graphics and archival video.
The set includes 128 tracks (12 hidden), 20 feature videos, film clips, trailers, interviews, radio spots, photo galleries, biographies, even newspaper clips. Young also promises free updates with music, vintage recording sessions or film using BD-Live, which needs a compatible Blu-ray player and a broadband Internet connection.
The set will be available in CD and DVD, too, but Blu-ray is the marquee package: It could foretell the future of music as multimedia and prolong, even save, the new format’s life.
“I went through hell in the ’80s,” Young told bloggers a year ago at the JavaOne conference in San Francisco, where he announced this project that uses Sun Microsystem’s Java-powered graphics. “Now we’re coming close, climbing the quality wall.” How cool is that - Neil Young at a Java conference?
How big is the climb? Young has used “ice picks” to describe the sound of early CD. Where a vinyl LP is a continuous analog waveform, a CD is a digital approximation. The CD takes 44,100 numerical samples each second, each sample in 16-bit chunks. At 22 kilohertz, the theoretical high-frequency limit of human hearing, that 44.1-kilohertz sampling rate produces as few as two samples. It’s what makes the higher frequencies fatiguing, even grating, to some ears.
In recent years, DVD-Audio pushed recorded digital music to 24 bits and 96,000 samples per second. Now, Blu-ray goes even further with music, like “Archives,” at 24/192,000 or, as it’s more widely known, 24/192. With more digital information comes a more lifelike representation of the original source. An elaborate timeline, a horizontal scroll, lays out Young’s career amid world events and includes access to supplemental music, vintage concert video and future BD-Live downloads.
The music is also cataloged in a virtual file cabinet that stores each song in a folder with album art, recording date, credits and handwritten lyrics. As the music plays, a vintage Dual cassette deck, Ampex reel-to-reel player or KLH turntable might be the video backdrop, a lit cigarette in an ashtray next to a coffee cup the ambience.”
Read more here.
While Blu-ray may not be the “next big thing”, it shows what can be done with more storage and bandwidth. The evolution of music formats will determine the path for the future. MP3 was the last major music format and the industry missed monetizing it entirely.
“Anything is possible in the Blu-ray disc edition of “Neil Young: Archives, Vol. 1 (1963-1972),” the most technologically advanced mega-boxed set in rock ‘n’ roll history, arriving with a hefty thump on store shelves Tuesday.
Young, a militant guardian of the analog waveform (notably, the vinyl LP) who dismissed the CD era as sonic sludge, has found purist’s heaven in a new digital format, Blu-ray, that’s still trying to push the consumer acceptance needle past indifference.
Neil Young’s “Archives” is the latest thing to debut in the Blu-ray format. This first volume, at $299, chronicles Young’s early music career from his school-days band, the Squires. Young waited 15 years for the appropriate format to showcase his life’s work in a multimedia package that combines high-resolution audio, high-resolution graphics and archival video.
The set includes 128 tracks (12 hidden), 20 feature videos, film clips, trailers, interviews, radio spots, photo galleries, biographies, even newspaper clips. Young also promises free updates with music, vintage recording sessions or film using BD-Live, which needs a compatible Blu-ray player and a broadband Internet connection.
The set will be available in CD and DVD, too, but Blu-ray is the marquee package: It could foretell the future of music as multimedia and prolong, even save, the new format’s life.
“I went through hell in the ’80s,” Young told bloggers a year ago at the JavaOne conference in San Francisco, where he announced this project that uses Sun Microsystem’s Java-powered graphics. “Now we’re coming close, climbing the quality wall.” How cool is that - Neil Young at a Java conference?
How big is the climb? Young has used “ice picks” to describe the sound of early CD. Where a vinyl LP is a continuous analog waveform, a CD is a digital approximation. The CD takes 44,100 numerical samples each second, each sample in 16-bit chunks. At 22 kilohertz, the theoretical high-frequency limit of human hearing, that 44.1-kilohertz sampling rate produces as few as two samples. It’s what makes the higher frequencies fatiguing, even grating, to some ears.
In recent years, DVD-Audio pushed recorded digital music to 24 bits and 96,000 samples per second. Now, Blu-ray goes even further with music, like “Archives,” at 24/192,000 or, as it’s more widely known, 24/192. With more digital information comes a more lifelike representation of the original source. An elaborate timeline, a horizontal scroll, lays out Young’s career amid world events and includes access to supplemental music, vintage concert video and future BD-Live downloads.
The music is also cataloged in a virtual file cabinet that stores each song in a folder with album art, recording date, credits and handwritten lyrics. As the music plays, a vintage Dual cassette deck, Ampex reel-to-reel player or KLH turntable might be the video backdrop, a lit cigarette in an ashtray next to a coffee cup the ambience.”
Read more here.
FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION’S D.C. POLICY DAY 2009 EXAMINED CRUICAL ISSUES FACING MUSIC COMMUNITY
Diverse voices in music, technology, policy and law participated in robust discussions about broadcasting, broadband policy, copyright and more
Washington, D.C.—Informed discussion and lively debate were the hallmarks of Future of Music Coalition’s third annual D.C. Policy Day, which took place on February 11 at National Geographic in Washington D.C. Artist compensation in a rapidly-evolving music landscape featured prominently in discussions ranging from localism in radio to net neutrality and emerging models for digital distribution. Acting FCC Chairman Michael J. Copps gave a keynote speech emphasizing the importance of media diversity and the contribution of musicians to America’s cultural tapestry. “Recording and other creative artists have often been leaders of progressive change in our country in times of great social and political upheaval; their music not only changes history, it helps illuminate the path before us,” Copps said to an audience of more than 250 musicians, advocates, industry representatives, journalists, public policy professionals and music fans. Panels such as “Adjust Your Dial: Radio for the 21st Century” and “Win-Win When? Copyright and Innovation in the Digital Age” featured spirited back and forth from panelists on all sides of the issues. Focal points included the impact of media consolidation on the public airwaves, broadband expansion and digital inclusion, direct versus blanket licensing, copyright and innovation and more. Musicians, songwriters, broadcasters, label reps, attorneys, entrepreneurs and policy experts offered a wide range of perspectives about the future of music in the digital age. The event was webcast live, as well as professionally recorded. Permanent audio/video archives will be available on the official Policy Day 2009 website in the coming weeks:http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/dcpolicyday09/index.cfm
Washington, D.C.—Informed discussion and lively debate were the hallmarks of Future of Music Coalition’s third annual D.C. Policy Day, which took place on February 11 at National Geographic in Washington D.C. Artist compensation in a rapidly-evolving music landscape featured prominently in discussions ranging from localism in radio to net neutrality and emerging models for digital distribution. Acting FCC Chairman Michael J. Copps gave a keynote speech emphasizing the importance of media diversity and the contribution of musicians to America’s cultural tapestry. “Recording and other creative artists have often been leaders of progressive change in our country in times of great social and political upheaval; their music not only changes history, it helps illuminate the path before us,” Copps said to an audience of more than 250 musicians, advocates, industry representatives, journalists, public policy professionals and music fans. Panels such as “Adjust Your Dial: Radio for the 21st Century” and “Win-Win When? Copyright and Innovation in the Digital Age” featured spirited back and forth from panelists on all sides of the issues. Focal points included the impact of media consolidation on the public airwaves, broadband expansion and digital inclusion, direct versus blanket licensing, copyright and innovation and more. Musicians, songwriters, broadcasters, label reps, attorneys, entrepreneurs and policy experts offered a wide range of perspectives about the future of music in the digital age. The event was webcast live, as well as professionally recorded. Permanent audio/video archives will be available on the official Policy Day 2009 website in the coming weeks:http://www.futureofmusic.org/events/dcpolicyday09/index.cfm
FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION RELEASES DATA-DRIVEN STUDY
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Artist education, research and advocacy organization Future of Music Coalition (FMC) announces the release of a new report that analyzes radio playlists to determine whether the policy interventions resulting from 2003-2007 payola investigations have had any effect on the amount of independent music played on terrestrial radio.
In April 2007, the Federal Communications Commission issued consent decrees against the nation’s four largest radio station group owners – Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom – as a response to collected evidence and widespread allegations about payola influencing what gets played on the radio. In addition to paying fines totaling $12.5 million, the station group owners also worked with the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) to draft eight "Rules of Engagement" and an "indie set-aside," in which these four group owners voluntarily agreed to collectively air 4,200 hours of local, regional and unsigned artists, and artists affiliated with independent labels.Using playlist data licensed from Mediaguide, FMC examined four years of airplay – 2005-2008 – from national playlists and from seven specific music formats: AC, Urban AC, Active Rock, Country, CHR Pop, Triple A Commercial and Triple A Noncommercial. FMC calculated the "airplay share" for five different categories of record labels to determine whether the major labels’ ratio of airplay share has changed at all in the past four years.
The data indicate almost no change in station playlist composition in this period. Specifically, the national playlist data indicated very little measurable change in airplay share from 2005-2008, with major label songs consistently securing 78 to 82 percent of airplay. The format data showed some modest increases in airplay for indies on some formats (Country and AAA Non-Commercial, in particular) but otherwise the data from year to year changed very little. An examination of airplay by release date showed that many formats leave only small portions of their playlist for new material, with current songs sprinkled in among well-worn hits. While such programming choices might make sense for a given station’s target audience, the outcome is that there are very few spaces left on most airplay charts for new music. Looking specifically at airplay for new releases, FMC found that new major label songs typically receive a higher proportion of spins than new indie label songs. Finally, FMC looked at the indie labels themselves, and found that only a handful of indies have enough resources and clout to garner airplay consistently. For the remainder of indies, airplay is infrequent and modest, if it happens at all.
"Same Old Song" views these results through a broad lens, using the data to describe the state of radio thirteen years after the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The report underscores how radio’s long-standing relationships with major labels, its status quo programming practices and the permissive regulatory structure all work together to create an environment in which songs from major label artists continue to dominate. The major labels’ built-in advantage, combined with radio’s risk-averse programming practices, means there are very few spaces left on any playlist for independent labels, which comprise some 30 percent of the domestic music market. "Radio is still an incredibly vital public resource that’s worth fighting for," says FMC Policy Director Michael Bracy. "It's ubiquitous and local nature make it unique in the media landscape, but unfortunately today’s commercial radio rarely reflects the communities where it is heard. There are so many artists who are successful by any other measure, but who still have enormous difficulty reaching the airwaves. Why is that? It’s important to understand how music is programmed at commercial radio. We also need regulators to devise clear and transparent rules so they can effectively oversee such a significant industry."FMC believes that, by asking the right questions, expanding community radio and enforcing the law, the radio industry can regain its historic role and relevance to culture and community. The report also articulates a brief set of policy recommendations that will enhance the FCC’s oversight of the airwaves and improve the radio landscape for both listeners and the broader music industry. These include:
A commitment to improved data collection
A refocus on localism
An expansion in the number of voices in on the public airwaves
Select quotes about "Same Old Song":
"As this report dramatically shows, we are still haunted by the ghost of payola, whether real or imagined. In an era when the music community is being forced to reinvent itself for the sake of its own survival, radio has the distinct advantage of existing in unique communities with unique voices. Yet by commercial radio’s one-size-fits-all approach to programming does not bear this out. Why not tap into these robust local and regional scenes and use that vitality as a way to energize and engage listeners? The independent community is more than ready to do its part, but we need a willing partner."-Peter Gordon, Founder, Thirsty Ear Records/Lead Negotiator, Voluntary Agreements and Rules of Engagement
"A2IM applauds FMC for being the leader in the fight to get independent music labels and their artists equal access to and playlist results from commercial AM/FM radio. We note that the FMC playlist study confirms the results of the A2IM label study released in October of 2008 — that independents are simply not receiving a fair shake from commercial over-the-air radio. Yet A2IM continues to remain hopeful, despite current evidence to the contrary, that commercial radio will finally recognize the value of playing independent music as a larger part of their music programming. Independent music accounts for approximately 38 percent of digital sales in the U.S. and over 40 percent of audience impressions at internet radio but consistently receives only slightly more than 10 percent of traditional commercial radio airplay. It’s obvious that music fans want independent music, and commercial radio programmers continue to ignore that demand at their own peril. We will continue to support FMC in their ongoing fight for parity on behalf of the entire independent artist and music label community."-Rich Bengloff, President, American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
"FMC’s previous work questioned the benefits of consolidated ownership of radio stations. This put the burden on the large radio companies to justify further deregulation, which they couldn't do. FMC's valuable new study of radio playlists questions radio stations' openness to independent label music. The report shows that the FCC's attempt to discourage payola hasn't moved the needle on the percentage of airplay that goes the major labels. FMC has once again put the burden on the large radio companies — this time, to show how their supposed rejection of payola and payola-like practices has made any difference at all."-Peter DiCola, Assistant Professor of Law, Northwestern University
In April 2007, the Federal Communications Commission issued consent decrees against the nation’s four largest radio station group owners – Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom – as a response to collected evidence and widespread allegations about payola influencing what gets played on the radio. In addition to paying fines totaling $12.5 million, the station group owners also worked with the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) to draft eight "Rules of Engagement" and an "indie set-aside," in which these four group owners voluntarily agreed to collectively air 4,200 hours of local, regional and unsigned artists, and artists affiliated with independent labels.Using playlist data licensed from Mediaguide, FMC examined four years of airplay – 2005-2008 – from national playlists and from seven specific music formats: AC, Urban AC, Active Rock, Country, CHR Pop, Triple A Commercial and Triple A Noncommercial. FMC calculated the "airplay share" for five different categories of record labels to determine whether the major labels’ ratio of airplay share has changed at all in the past four years.
The data indicate almost no change in station playlist composition in this period. Specifically, the national playlist data indicated very little measurable change in airplay share from 2005-2008, with major label songs consistently securing 78 to 82 percent of airplay. The format data showed some modest increases in airplay for indies on some formats (Country and AAA Non-Commercial, in particular) but otherwise the data from year to year changed very little. An examination of airplay by release date showed that many formats leave only small portions of their playlist for new material, with current songs sprinkled in among well-worn hits. While such programming choices might make sense for a given station’s target audience, the outcome is that there are very few spaces left on most airplay charts for new music. Looking specifically at airplay for new releases, FMC found that new major label songs typically receive a higher proportion of spins than new indie label songs. Finally, FMC looked at the indie labels themselves, and found that only a handful of indies have enough resources and clout to garner airplay consistently. For the remainder of indies, airplay is infrequent and modest, if it happens at all.
"Same Old Song" views these results through a broad lens, using the data to describe the state of radio thirteen years after the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The report underscores how radio’s long-standing relationships with major labels, its status quo programming practices and the permissive regulatory structure all work together to create an environment in which songs from major label artists continue to dominate. The major labels’ built-in advantage, combined with radio’s risk-averse programming practices, means there are very few spaces left on any playlist for independent labels, which comprise some 30 percent of the domestic music market. "Radio is still an incredibly vital public resource that’s worth fighting for," says FMC Policy Director Michael Bracy. "It's ubiquitous and local nature make it unique in the media landscape, but unfortunately today’s commercial radio rarely reflects the communities where it is heard. There are so many artists who are successful by any other measure, but who still have enormous difficulty reaching the airwaves. Why is that? It’s important to understand how music is programmed at commercial radio. We also need regulators to devise clear and transparent rules so they can effectively oversee such a significant industry."FMC believes that, by asking the right questions, expanding community radio and enforcing the law, the radio industry can regain its historic role and relevance to culture and community. The report also articulates a brief set of policy recommendations that will enhance the FCC’s oversight of the airwaves and improve the radio landscape for both listeners and the broader music industry. These include:
A commitment to improved data collection
A refocus on localism
An expansion in the number of voices in on the public airwaves
Select quotes about "Same Old Song":
"As this report dramatically shows, we are still haunted by the ghost of payola, whether real or imagined. In an era when the music community is being forced to reinvent itself for the sake of its own survival, radio has the distinct advantage of existing in unique communities with unique voices. Yet by commercial radio’s one-size-fits-all approach to programming does not bear this out. Why not tap into these robust local and regional scenes and use that vitality as a way to energize and engage listeners? The independent community is more than ready to do its part, but we need a willing partner."-Peter Gordon, Founder, Thirsty Ear Records/Lead Negotiator, Voluntary Agreements and Rules of Engagement
"A2IM applauds FMC for being the leader in the fight to get independent music labels and their artists equal access to and playlist results from commercial AM/FM radio. We note that the FMC playlist study confirms the results of the A2IM label study released in October of 2008 — that independents are simply not receiving a fair shake from commercial over-the-air radio. Yet A2IM continues to remain hopeful, despite current evidence to the contrary, that commercial radio will finally recognize the value of playing independent music as a larger part of their music programming. Independent music accounts for approximately 38 percent of digital sales in the U.S. and over 40 percent of audience impressions at internet radio but consistently receives only slightly more than 10 percent of traditional commercial radio airplay. It’s obvious that music fans want independent music, and commercial radio programmers continue to ignore that demand at their own peril. We will continue to support FMC in their ongoing fight for parity on behalf of the entire independent artist and music label community."-Rich Bengloff, President, American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
"FMC’s previous work questioned the benefits of consolidated ownership of radio stations. This put the burden on the large radio companies to justify further deregulation, which they couldn't do. FMC's valuable new study of radio playlists questions radio stations' openness to independent label music. The report shows that the FCC's attempt to discourage payola hasn't moved the needle on the percentage of airplay that goes the major labels. FMC has once again put the burden on the large radio companies — this time, to show how their supposed rejection of payola and payola-like practices has made any difference at all."-Peter DiCola, Assistant Professor of Law, Northwestern University
Future of Music Coalition Statement on Copyright Royalty Board Rulings
Washington, D.C. — Future of Music Coalition has issued the following statement from Executive Director Ann Chaitovitz about the Copyright Royalty Board’s October 2 rate setting decision, which sets the compulsory mechanical rate at $0.091 per song for physical sales and digital downloads and $0.24 for mastertones.
“Future of Music Coalition is encouraged that the parties involved in the proceedings seem pleased with the decision, and looks forward to reading the entire CRB decision when it is made public.
“As an organization that has consistently worked towards the creation of a musicians’ middle class, Future of Music Coalition believes that current and emerging structures should reward artists while forging new opportunities for the licensed distribution of music. Creators must be compensated for work that brings value to the digital services, and the mechanical royalty is how songwriters get paid for these uses of their music. And fans need a means to legally consume music in a way that works for them; we hope this decision helps them do so.
“Additionally, Future of Music Coalition commends the songwriters, publishers, record labels and digital music services for reaching an agreement on a particularly important issue in the digital music space — the rates for limited downloads and interactive streams. We hope other lingering royalty and licensing disputes can be resolved in a way that benefits musicians and allows fans to participate in a robust and legitimate digital music marketplace.”
FMC blog post about the voluntary agreement regarding mechanical royalties for interactive streaming and digital downloads:http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html
FMC blog post about the passage of the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, which allows for implementation of an agreement between parties regarding digital broadcast royalties:http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/09/webcasting-call.html
About the Future of Music CoalitionFuture of Music Coalition is a national non-profit education, research and advocacy organization that seeks a bright future for creators and listeners. FMC works towards this goal through continuous interaction with its primary constituency — musicians — and in collaboration with other creator/public interest groups.
“Future of Music Coalition is encouraged that the parties involved in the proceedings seem pleased with the decision, and looks forward to reading the entire CRB decision when it is made public.
“As an organization that has consistently worked towards the creation of a musicians’ middle class, Future of Music Coalition believes that current and emerging structures should reward artists while forging new opportunities for the licensed distribution of music. Creators must be compensated for work that brings value to the digital services, and the mechanical royalty is how songwriters get paid for these uses of their music. And fans need a means to legally consume music in a way that works for them; we hope this decision helps them do so.
“Additionally, Future of Music Coalition commends the songwriters, publishers, record labels and digital music services for reaching an agreement on a particularly important issue in the digital music space — the rates for limited downloads and interactive streams. We hope other lingering royalty and licensing disputes can be resolved in a way that benefits musicians and allows fans to participate in a robust and legitimate digital music marketplace.”
FMC blog post about the voluntary agreement regarding mechanical royalties for interactive streaming and digital downloads:http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/10/agreement-royale.html
FMC blog post about the passage of the Webcaster Settlement Act of 2008, which allows for implementation of an agreement between parties regarding digital broadcast royalties:http://futureofmusiccoalition.blogspot.com/2008/09/webcasting-call.html
About the Future of Music CoalitionFuture of Music Coalition is a national non-profit education, research and advocacy organization that seeks a bright future for creators and listeners. FMC works towards this goal through continuous interaction with its primary constituency — musicians — and in collaboration with other creator/public interest groups.
Future of Music Coalition Releases "Artist Principles"
Guidelines advance discussion about artist compensation in new music models and services
WASHINGTON, DC – Future of Music Coalition continues its pursuit of equitable structures for musicians with the release of the Principles for Musician Compensation in New Business Models (or “Artist Principles”) — a set of broad guidelines outlining best practices for ensuring creator compensation in an evolving music landscape.
Crafted by artist advocate Ann Chaitovitz with input from industry experts, the principles offer a clear framework for those looking to utilize musicians’ creative works in the pursuit of new business models.
“Future of Music Coalition has always supported novel and innovative ways to get music to fans,” says Chaitovitz. “Artists, whose music creates the value and attracts listeners and investment capital, must receive their fair share of the revenues their music generates. Equitable structures that reward artists also bring legitimacy to new services, making them more likely to be supported by fans. Artists must ensure that the business models of the future do not replicate the flawed models of the past.”
“There is tremendous need for thoughtful discussion about how musicians get paid in the digital era, especially given the state of the economy and where businesses are headed,” says FMC Board President and co-founder Michael Bracy. “These principles take FMC’s major label contract critique one step further into the digital age, and represent the first of several FMC initiatives to document the extraordinary complexity of musicians’ income streams.”
The advent of new technologies has fostered incredible opportunity for the lawful discovery and acquisition of music, with new sites and services emerging every day. Fans can now connect to wide array of music across genres and platforms. Business arrangements between rights holders and digital innovators can be potentially fruitful, but without reasonable guidelines, performers and songwriters may be excluded from these revenues.
The Artist Principles apply lessons learned from new music services that launched without clearly defined creator compensation — for example, where labels received equity stakes and advances or where independent artists did not have access to the platforms. The Principles are likewise informed by instances where artists have successfully ensured fair compensation and oversight of other new royalty streams.
A variety of individuals and groups support these Principles:
Nan Warshaw, co-owner, Bloodshot Records“These principles provide a straightforward outline of how to proceed fairly with new media royalty and income streams. If the music industry can adhere to these basic practices, artists may be spared many of the abhorrent and inequitable business models of the past.”
Bertis Downs, General Counsel and Advisor, R.E.M.; Adjunct Professor, University of Georgia School of Law “With the various new music business models and proposals emerging, the fundamental principal of equitable compensation for artists remains paramount. And while everyone is seemingly is in agreement that ‘artists should of course be compensated,’ devising structures and systems to make that a reality is proving far from easy. These Principles for Musician Compensation in New Business Models are an important step forward in the right direction.”Tim Quirk, VP Programming & Creative for Rhapsody; Musician, Too Much Joy and Wonderlick"As a Rhapsody executive, I know what and how we pay the copyright owners from whom we license music. As a musician who’s been signed to indies and majors, I wish I could say I had as clear a view into how that money gets shared with the original creators. I endorse any effort to ensure artists get compensated fairly and transparently.”
Tom Lee, President of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, A.F.L.-C.I.O.“Fair and transparent compensation to musicians and songwriters is the best way to insure the growth and vitality of the music industry. If we want great music, those who make it must be paid.”
Fred Goldring, entertainment lawyer, entertainment/new media/marketing strategist, Goldring, Hertz, and Lichtenstein LLP; Membrain, LLC“For well over a decade, my partners and I have been very vocal about the need for our industry to embrace and explore the opportunities presented by technological innovation and disintermediation, rather than just fighting it in an attempt to stem the tide and preserve long-existing business models. While it is certainly encouraging to see that new business models are now being seriously considered at a rapidly evolving rate, it is critical that the actual creators, the artists and not just the business entities and copyright holders, have a significant financial stake in the results and that they are compensated fairly and properly.”
Rick Carnes, President, Songwriters Guild of America“Whenever you encounter a masterpiece of art, whether it is a painting, a sculpture or a Gershwin tune, you are experiencing the work of a professional creator, not a hobbyist. Professional creators need to be paid if we are to get the benefit of their incomparable talents.”
Pat Collins, President and Chief Operating Officer, SESAC“New business models are constantly changing and evolving and all reasonable concepts that offer compensation to creators, both songwriters and artists, should be considered.”About the Future of Music Coalition Future of Music Coalition is a national non-profit education, research and advocacy organization that seeks a bright future for creators and listeners. FMC works towards this goal through continuous interaction with its primary constituency — musicians — and in collaboration with other creator/public interest groups.
WASHINGTON, DC – Future of Music Coalition continues its pursuit of equitable structures for musicians with the release of the Principles for Musician Compensation in New Business Models (or “Artist Principles”) — a set of broad guidelines outlining best practices for ensuring creator compensation in an evolving music landscape.
Crafted by artist advocate Ann Chaitovitz with input from industry experts, the principles offer a clear framework for those looking to utilize musicians’ creative works in the pursuit of new business models.
“Future of Music Coalition has always supported novel and innovative ways to get music to fans,” says Chaitovitz. “Artists, whose music creates the value and attracts listeners and investment capital, must receive their fair share of the revenues their music generates. Equitable structures that reward artists also bring legitimacy to new services, making them more likely to be supported by fans. Artists must ensure that the business models of the future do not replicate the flawed models of the past.”
“There is tremendous need for thoughtful discussion about how musicians get paid in the digital era, especially given the state of the economy and where businesses are headed,” says FMC Board President and co-founder Michael Bracy. “These principles take FMC’s major label contract critique one step further into the digital age, and represent the first of several FMC initiatives to document the extraordinary complexity of musicians’ income streams.”
The advent of new technologies has fostered incredible opportunity for the lawful discovery and acquisition of music, with new sites and services emerging every day. Fans can now connect to wide array of music across genres and platforms. Business arrangements between rights holders and digital innovators can be potentially fruitful, but without reasonable guidelines, performers and songwriters may be excluded from these revenues.
The Artist Principles apply lessons learned from new music services that launched without clearly defined creator compensation — for example, where labels received equity stakes and advances or where independent artists did not have access to the platforms. The Principles are likewise informed by instances where artists have successfully ensured fair compensation and oversight of other new royalty streams.
A variety of individuals and groups support these Principles:
Nan Warshaw, co-owner, Bloodshot Records“These principles provide a straightforward outline of how to proceed fairly with new media royalty and income streams. If the music industry can adhere to these basic practices, artists may be spared many of the abhorrent and inequitable business models of the past.”
Bertis Downs, General Counsel and Advisor, R.E.M.; Adjunct Professor, University of Georgia School of Law “With the various new music business models and proposals emerging, the fundamental principal of equitable compensation for artists remains paramount. And while everyone is seemingly is in agreement that ‘artists should of course be compensated,’ devising structures and systems to make that a reality is proving far from easy. These Principles for Musician Compensation in New Business Models are an important step forward in the right direction.”Tim Quirk, VP Programming & Creative for Rhapsody; Musician, Too Much Joy and Wonderlick"As a Rhapsody executive, I know what and how we pay the copyright owners from whom we license music. As a musician who’s been signed to indies and majors, I wish I could say I had as clear a view into how that money gets shared with the original creators. I endorse any effort to ensure artists get compensated fairly and transparently.”
Tom Lee, President of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, A.F.L.-C.I.O.“Fair and transparent compensation to musicians and songwriters is the best way to insure the growth and vitality of the music industry. If we want great music, those who make it must be paid.”
Fred Goldring, entertainment lawyer, entertainment/new media/marketing strategist, Goldring, Hertz, and Lichtenstein LLP; Membrain, LLC“For well over a decade, my partners and I have been very vocal about the need for our industry to embrace and explore the opportunities presented by technological innovation and disintermediation, rather than just fighting it in an attempt to stem the tide and preserve long-existing business models. While it is certainly encouraging to see that new business models are now being seriously considered at a rapidly evolving rate, it is critical that the actual creators, the artists and not just the business entities and copyright holders, have a significant financial stake in the results and that they are compensated fairly and properly.”
Rick Carnes, President, Songwriters Guild of America“Whenever you encounter a masterpiece of art, whether it is a painting, a sculpture or a Gershwin tune, you are experiencing the work of a professional creator, not a hobbyist. Professional creators need to be paid if we are to get the benefit of their incomparable talents.”
Pat Collins, President and Chief Operating Officer, SESAC“New business models are constantly changing and evolving and all reasonable concepts that offer compensation to creators, both songwriters and artists, should be considered.”About the Future of Music Coalition Future of Music Coalition is a national non-profit education, research and advocacy organization that seeks a bright future for creators and listeners. FMC works towards this goal through continuous interaction with its primary constituency — musicians — and in collaboration with other creator/public interest groups.
Stacey Rookhuizen: “Fuck de Cd.”
Afgelopen vrijdag vierde Stacey Records haar 5-jarig jubileum in een uitverkocht Paradiso. Stacey Rookhuizen richtte in 2002, toentertijd een 16-jarige scholiere, het platenlabel op, nadat zij door de media op de hoogte werd gesteld van het feit dat het “slecht ging in de platenindustrie”. Door het massaal (illegaal) downloaden en het kopiëren van muziekopnames, kelderde de Cd-verkoop met grote aantallen. Gevolg: steeds minder platenmaatschappijen durfden nog te investeren in nieuw (onbekend) talent. Stacey Records, het platenlabel voor nieuwe Nederlandse bands, was geboren. Nu, 5 jaar later, wist Stacey tijdens haar verrassende speech Paradiso muisstil te krijgen: “Ik heb veel Cd’s uitgebracht waar ik ontzettend trots op ben. Maar bekijk de nieuwste Cd van 2nd Place Driver en de gratis compilatie-Cd ‘5 Jaar Stacey Records’ nog maar goed, want dit zijn de laatste albums die ik uitbreng. Ik stop met het uitbrengen van Cd’s.” Stacey geeft aan geen nut meer te zien in het zilveren schijfje. Vooral niet in haar omgeving, te weten de wereld van de opkomende Nederlandse bands. De Cd heeft volgens Stacey geen toekomst. “Waarom zou ik zoveel tijd, geld en energie in een schijfje steken als het niet verkoopt? Terwijl er zoveel andere & veel interessantere manieren zijn om muziek aan de man te brengen die wél werken? Vandaar dat ik roep: “Fuck de Cd!”. De honger van de consument naar nieuwe muziek is nog nooit zo groot geweest. Er werden dit jaar weer meer & meer muziekproducten verkocht. “En geloof mij, dat is niet dankzij De Compact Disc geweest.” Gratis muziek. Ondanks dat er honderden legale downloadshops zijn weigert een groot gedeelte van het volk te betalen voor muziek , en dat zal volgens Stacey ook zo blijven. Muziek is steeds vaker gratis te consumeren: “Een jaar lang gratis muziek downloaden op je mobiel… Een gratis track bij een optreden. Een gratis Cd bij een tijdschrift of in de dop van de pindakaas. Gratis podcasts..” En ten slotte: “Gratis muziek van ontelbaar veel bands op het net (MySpace). En tegen gratis kan je niet concurreren”, zei Stacey vrijdag. Toekomst. Stacey zal haar tijd gebruiken om via zoveel mogelijk kanalen onbekende Nederlandse bands te ondersteunen en promoten. Naast het feit dat ze zich op internet actiever zal gaan inzetten, blijft Stacey talent scout en dus actief in band coaching, marketing en (online) promotie voor bands. Ook het door haar opgerichte platform Dutch Delight gaat door. Naast vaste avonden in Amsterdam, Utrecht & Breda opent ook Apeldoorn in januari haar Dutch Delight deuren met een maandelijks evenement in poppodium Gigant. Tevens zal Stacey haar wekelijkse radioprogramma op KINK FM blijven presenteren en is ze vanaf januari 2008 met een vast item op de Amsterdamse Tv-zender AT5 te zien: Stacey stelt je voor aan het nieuwste Amsterdamse talent. Tenslotte werkt Stacey ook nog met plezier parttime voor het Nationaal Pop Instituut (vanaf 2008 het ‘Muziek Centrum Nederland’).
Helemaal gratis, en toch legaal
Volgens de Volkskrant kan het niet: iets wat gratis is en tóch legaal. In een door stichting Brein ingefluisterd stuk schrijft de legale (want betaalde) krant het volgende: "Internetters downloaden vaker films, muziek en software via nieuwsgroepen. Ze denken dat dit mag, maar het is illegaal." De kop is helemaal duidelijk: "Is het gratis? Dan is het niet legaal."
Toemaar.
Enige juridische onderbouwing voor dit wat raadselachtige stuk is er niet, zo stelt ook ict-jurist Arnoud Engelfriet. Downloaden voor privégebruik is níet illegaal, benadrukt Engelfriet.
Dat doet ons deugd. Hij was enige tijd stuk, maar sinds deze week bieden we weer de GRATISSS download aan van onze Vista-gadget. Dit is een programmaatje dat de laatste headlines op uw Vista-bureaublad toont. Helemaal legaal.
Laten we nog één keer naar Tim Kuik van Brein in de Volkskrant luisteren: "Software downloaden is altijd illegaal." Internet gaat nog heel groot worden...
Toemaar.
Enige juridische onderbouwing voor dit wat raadselachtige stuk is er niet, zo stelt ook ict-jurist Arnoud Engelfriet. Downloaden voor privégebruik is níet illegaal, benadrukt Engelfriet.
Dat doet ons deugd. Hij was enige tijd stuk, maar sinds deze week bieden we weer de GRATISSS download aan van onze Vista-gadget. Dit is een programmaatje dat de laatste headlines op uw Vista-bureaublad toont. Helemaal legaal.
Laten we nog één keer naar Tim Kuik van Brein in de Volkskrant luisteren: "Software downloaden is altijd illegaal." Internet gaat nog heel groot worden...
De relatie tussen social media buzz en cd-verkoop
Twee onderzoekers aan de Stern Business School universiteit in New York onderzochten of er een relatie te vinden was tussen het aantal verkochte cd-albums en de hoeveelheid online buzz rond deze albums. Hiertoe volgden zij twee maanden lang de discussies en het aantal verkopen rondom 108 muziekalbums. De relatie bleek te bestaan.
Volgens de onderzoekers zijn vooral blogs en sociale netwerken nauwkeurige indicatoren voor de hoeveelheid verkochte albums. Daaruit bleek bijvoorbeeld dat als er veertig of meer unieke blogposts over een album geschreven werden het aantal verkochte cd’s gemiddeld verdrievoudigde. Let wel; dit is wanneer er ook gekeken wordt naar onafhankelijke platenmaatschappijen. Kijk je enkel naar de ‘grote vier’ dan werden er met het zelfde aantal blogposts zelfs vijfmaal zo veel cd’s verkocht.
Een andere interessante constatering was dat een album zes keer meer dan gemiddeld werd verkocht wanneer er meer dan 250 blogposts over geschreven werden. Ook het aantal ‘vrienden’ dat een bepaalde band op MySpace had bleek een goede indicator voor de hoeveelheid verkochte cd’s. Wanneer een band meer vrienden kreeg ging ook het aantal verkochte cd’s omhoog.
De onderzoekers gaven wel aan dat de relatie tussen deze factor en de cd-verkoop veel minder sterk was dan bij blogposts. Ze vermoeden dat dit is omdat het toevoegen van een band als vriend een vrij passief proces is vergeleken met het schrijven van een blogpost.
Jammer aan het onderzoek vind ik dat er niet gekeken is wat de invloed van de verhouding positieve/negatieve berichten over het album is op de cd-verkoop. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat elke post super enthousiast was over het nieuwe album. Ook gaven de onderzoekers aan de traditionele persaandacht niet meegewogen te hebben in het onderzoek. Het is daarom moeilijk te zeggen of social media buzz nu een goede voorspeller of beïnvloeder van cd-verkoop is.
Volgens de onderzoekers zijn vooral blogs en sociale netwerken nauwkeurige indicatoren voor de hoeveelheid verkochte albums. Daaruit bleek bijvoorbeeld dat als er veertig of meer unieke blogposts over een album geschreven werden het aantal verkochte cd’s gemiddeld verdrievoudigde. Let wel; dit is wanneer er ook gekeken wordt naar onafhankelijke platenmaatschappijen. Kijk je enkel naar de ‘grote vier’ dan werden er met het zelfde aantal blogposts zelfs vijfmaal zo veel cd’s verkocht.
Een andere interessante constatering was dat een album zes keer meer dan gemiddeld werd verkocht wanneer er meer dan 250 blogposts over geschreven werden. Ook het aantal ‘vrienden’ dat een bepaalde band op MySpace had bleek een goede indicator voor de hoeveelheid verkochte cd’s. Wanneer een band meer vrienden kreeg ging ook het aantal verkochte cd’s omhoog.
De onderzoekers gaven wel aan dat de relatie tussen deze factor en de cd-verkoop veel minder sterk was dan bij blogposts. Ze vermoeden dat dit is omdat het toevoegen van een band als vriend een vrij passief proces is vergeleken met het schrijven van een blogpost.
Jammer aan het onderzoek vind ik dat er niet gekeken is wat de invloed van de verhouding positieve/negatieve berichten over het album is op de cd-verkoop. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat elke post super enthousiast was over het nieuwe album. Ook gaven de onderzoekers aan de traditionele persaandacht niet meegewogen te hebben in het onderzoek. Het is daarom moeilijk te zeggen of social media buzz nu een goede voorspeller of beïnvloeder van cd-verkoop is.
dinsdag 9 juni 2009
Twitter Me This
With even members of Congress “tweeting,” it was probably inevitable that the ubiquitous status-updating service Twitter would start being used for things that were just a glimmer in some developer’s eye even a few short few months ago. Besides hipping your “followers” to what you had for breakfast, users are also playing DJ – building playlists on other digital services and “sharing” tunes with the greater Twitterverse.Wired’s Epicenter blog recently examined some of the most popular Twitter-meets-music applications like blip.fm, twisten.com and song.ly. With most of these music apps, you simply search for a song, it kicks out a shortened URL link to that song that’s being hosted somewhere on the internet and — tweet! — when your followers click on the link, they can hear the song, too. But this article got us thinking: are musicians being compensated for these plays and, if so, how?Our crack, two-person research department got to work. We dug through various services, using Simple Machines catalog and The Contrarian releases as test balloons. We checked in with a digital music service provider and a content licensor. As far as we can tell, this is what’s going on:There is no license for this use. . . yet. That’s no surprise, given that the concept of tweeting music is less than 10 months old, and it sometimes takes years for the Copyright Office and other licensing agencies to recognize a use (and even longer for the copyright law to be codified around a new use). Yet this novel use raises some fundamental questions: are these tweets essentially a micro-broadcast that would qualify as a “public performance” and subsequently mean that licenses from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC would be required? If yes, then who is responsible for acquiring and paying for the license? Or does the interactive nature of the tweet mean it should be considered an interactive stream? If it is an interactive stream, that means direct negotiations with labels and publishers would be necessary to acquire permissions and set a rate. But with the music spread across the web — legally or otherwise — and the services themselves acting as “search,” which party would be responsible for getting a license?Music is being hosted all over the internet. This would be a lot easier if the music was being pulled from a source that already had the licenses in place, something like a Rhapsody or Napster. However, our tests show (and sites’ FAQs indicate) that the songs that pop up in their search boxes – and are subsequently tweeted – are being hosted by random servers all over the internet.In some cases, musicians may have pre-consented for a use like this. Many times a band or label will identify a couple of songs on each album that are pre-cleared for promotional use, such as made available for a free stream on MySpace, or embedded in a podcast, or posted to an MP3 blog. While it’s possible that the twitter-based search engines are finding this pre-cleared material, which sits on servers all over the place, it’s also highly likely that lots of the songs have not been pre-cleared. In some cases the music may be partially licensed, but even this brings up questions about how revenue is generated – is the site ad-supported, subscription-based, or part of an equity agreement between the rightsholders and the service? What happens when the song becomes a link in Twitter?Because there is no license, there is no direct revenue for these performances. Without a license in place, all the music being tweeted and re-tweeted are essentially full-length plays for free. There is likely some revenue generated through “Buy MP3” referrals embedded in blip.fm tweets, but the performances themselves are currently unlicensed.We’re not trying to sound like grumpy old schoolmarms — actually, we get very exited when we see new applications that facilitate the discovery of new music. Still, it’s FMC’s duty to examine new music models to understand whether and how they compensate musicians. Given how quickly music fans have embraced Twitter as a way to hear, share and discover new sounds, those in the music and technology communities should ask a few questions, namely: are these uses sustainable? If so, should they be licensed? Could existing music destinations become the legit backend for socially driven discovery?Perhaps it is too early to tell whether Twitter + music will flourish, or if it will only last as long as Twitter’s venture capital funding. We’re guessing Twitter is here to stay, which means that folks in both the music and tech worlds will eventually need to work together to ensure the platform’s growth, and to address whether and how musicians are compensated when their music is fleetingly tweeted.Any Twitter DJ’s out there? What do you think?
Chart Attack: Who’s “Indie” When it Comes to Sales?
Digital Music News recently ran an article called “The Gray Art of Counting Indie Sales,” which underlined the confusion of tallying purchases of downloads or CDs based on the music’s “independent” classification. According to the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), 32 percent of album sales in 2008 came from independent artists, but Nielsen Soundscan puts that number at 12.8 percent. Part of the difficulty in differentiating between an indie and a major the fact that many indie labels enter deals with distribution companies owned by the majors, such as ADA (95% owned by Warner) or Fontana (owned by Universal). As a result, major labels have a tendency “count the sales of their distributed partners, while indies like to downplay those partnerships,” according to DMN publisher Paul Resnikoff.
According to the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), everything is tallied according to IP ownership — in other words, who owns the masters. "What makes a label an “indie'” is that its master recordings are not owned by one of the major labels," the group stated.A2IM president Rich Bengloff tipped Digital Music News to that distinction earlier this year. "I think if you asked the man on the street they would go with the ownership criteria because it's permanent," Bengloff said.FMC has had its own experience with trying to figure out what constitutes an indie or a major label. Over the last year, FMC has conducted research on radio playlists, released last month in the report “Same Old Song.” Since the research was designed to measure the difference in “airplay share” for songs released by major labels versus non-major labels, the backbone of the work was coding all of the labels that received any airplay between 2005 and 2008. When we extracted that list, there were over 6,000 unique record labels that received some airplay.We ended up having 5 different codes:• Major: the four majors and any of their many-owned subsidiaries and imprints• Indie: Following A2IM’s lead, we considered an indie label as one independently owned/that controls its own masters and seems to be responsible for its own radio promotion. Even if the indie label had a distribution deal, we classified them as “indies” since distro deals usually focus on getting songs into retail as opposed to getting airplay on radio.• Disney: including its imprints Lyric Street, Fearless and Hollywood Records. After completing some early data analysis we discovered it was important to give Disney its own code since, in some formats, this one label or its subsidiaries was garnering 2-3% of total airplay. In essence, Disney has the strength of a major label, but was not part of the payola proceedings and thus needed its own category to isolate its level of influence.• Legacy: A small set of labels or well-known artists for which their relationships to the major labels has either changed over time, or for which a major label association with radio is likely, but cannot be confirmed. Example: recent releases by The Eagles, Jimmy Buffett, Cheap Trick or Motley Crue: artists who are now putting out their own music, but who have a well-documented history of significant radio airplay while on a major label in the past. There are also some current labels in this pool, such as Tooth and Nail, that started as an indie in the 1990s, but has allegedly created a number of upstreaming deals with major labels. This is also where we put companies like Mountain Dew’s Green Label Sound, which has been releasing singles to promote the soft drink. Clearly, this is a company with a significant promotional budget, but it’s not a major label. Without additional information it was difficult to categorize them as an indie or a major.• No label/TBD: in the cases where there was insufficient dataEven with these five categories, we had to make many judgment calls. There were cases where a label’s relationship to various major labels had changed over the years. For example, Roadrunner started as an independent but as of January 2007 is now 74 percent owned by Warner Brothers. There are other labels that have a documented upstreaming deal with the majors – such as Fall Out Boy’s label Decaydance, which has a relationship with Island – where the independent label finds a band, puts out their first record and then the major label partner can come in and sign them to a bigger deal. On the charts, if the song had a listing Decayadance, we’d code it as an indie. If it said Decaydance/Island, we classified it as a major. In cases where we could not determine with certainty, we erred on the side of independence. Needless to say, defining “indie market share” is an inexact science, and an ever-evolving landscape.But what about unaffiliated artists who aren’t on a label – indie or otherwise? We’ve talked recently about services like TuneCore, CD Baby and ReverbNation, which, for a nominal fee, get unsigned artists “stocked” at digital retailers like iTunes, eMusic, Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, Napster and so forth. If an unaffiliated act starts “moving serious units,” to use Music Industry 1.0 lingo, how do they demonstrate this success to the wider world? For this, you probably need some kind of ranking system that the industry (and fans) perceive as legitimate.TuneCore currently has a chart in Billboard showcasing the 25 top-selling artists who use their service. (This chart displays two types of data: top selling full albums by total earnings for the period and top selling individual songs by earnings for the period.) Appearing in Billboard would do more than make your mom proud — it actually means something to the industry. But since established mainstream artists also use TuneCore, the top spots are often already filled. For instance, Jay Z, David Byrne, Joan Jett and t.A.T.u are all currently featured on TuneCore’s March 2009 album list (as reported in May 2009). That’s some stiff competition. (Click here for a look at the most recent charts.)Digital distributor/marketing tool ReverbNation also has charts to show which of its artists are selling the most. But unlike TuneCore’s Billboard chart, which lumps all musicians irrespective of genre into a single top 25 listing, ReverbNation breaks its lists down by not only style of music, but also by location. You can find the top selling albums/songs from musicians from US or even the world,, including your own backyard. (Similarly, TuneCore’s iPhone app uses a geolocator that tells you the 25 best selling TuneCore songs based on your exact zip code.)Keep in mind that all of this is based on downloads. While digital sales might currently be a better indicator of “success” than MySpace plays, there isn’t (to our knowledge) a chart that measures on-demand listens where you don’t keep the digital file. As people grow more accustomed to “accessing” music as opposed to owning it, accounting for online plays could become increasingly important.As more artists go direct to fans and label roles evolve, all of this gets a bit fuzzier. Will everyone eventually be wading in the same digital pool? Do standard chart measurements even apply in a world of limited-edition physical items, on-demand streams and (potentially) legal filesharing?For a lot of musicians, having people at your shows and moving some merch is achievement enough. But we’re curious: what do you think counts as success with recorded music? Feel free to let us know in the comments.
According to the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), everything is tallied according to IP ownership — in other words, who owns the masters. "What makes a label an “indie'” is that its master recordings are not owned by one of the major labels," the group stated.A2IM president Rich Bengloff tipped Digital Music News to that distinction earlier this year. "I think if you asked the man on the street they would go with the ownership criteria because it's permanent," Bengloff said.FMC has had its own experience with trying to figure out what constitutes an indie or a major label. Over the last year, FMC has conducted research on radio playlists, released last month in the report “Same Old Song.” Since the research was designed to measure the difference in “airplay share” for songs released by major labels versus non-major labels, the backbone of the work was coding all of the labels that received any airplay between 2005 and 2008. When we extracted that list, there were over 6,000 unique record labels that received some airplay.We ended up having 5 different codes:• Major: the four majors and any of their many-owned subsidiaries and imprints• Indie: Following A2IM’s lead, we considered an indie label as one independently owned/that controls its own masters and seems to be responsible for its own radio promotion. Even if the indie label had a distribution deal, we classified them as “indies” since distro deals usually focus on getting songs into retail as opposed to getting airplay on radio.• Disney: including its imprints Lyric Street, Fearless and Hollywood Records. After completing some early data analysis we discovered it was important to give Disney its own code since, in some formats, this one label or its subsidiaries was garnering 2-3% of total airplay. In essence, Disney has the strength of a major label, but was not part of the payola proceedings and thus needed its own category to isolate its level of influence.• Legacy: A small set of labels or well-known artists for which their relationships to the major labels has either changed over time, or for which a major label association with radio is likely, but cannot be confirmed. Example: recent releases by The Eagles, Jimmy Buffett, Cheap Trick or Motley Crue: artists who are now putting out their own music, but who have a well-documented history of significant radio airplay while on a major label in the past. There are also some current labels in this pool, such as Tooth and Nail, that started as an indie in the 1990s, but has allegedly created a number of upstreaming deals with major labels. This is also where we put companies like Mountain Dew’s Green Label Sound, which has been releasing singles to promote the soft drink. Clearly, this is a company with a significant promotional budget, but it’s not a major label. Without additional information it was difficult to categorize them as an indie or a major.• No label/TBD: in the cases where there was insufficient dataEven with these five categories, we had to make many judgment calls. There were cases where a label’s relationship to various major labels had changed over the years. For example, Roadrunner started as an independent but as of January 2007 is now 74 percent owned by Warner Brothers. There are other labels that have a documented upstreaming deal with the majors – such as Fall Out Boy’s label Decaydance, which has a relationship with Island – where the independent label finds a band, puts out their first record and then the major label partner can come in and sign them to a bigger deal. On the charts, if the song had a listing Decayadance, we’d code it as an indie. If it said Decaydance/Island, we classified it as a major. In cases where we could not determine with certainty, we erred on the side of independence. Needless to say, defining “indie market share” is an inexact science, and an ever-evolving landscape.But what about unaffiliated artists who aren’t on a label – indie or otherwise? We’ve talked recently about services like TuneCore, CD Baby and ReverbNation, which, for a nominal fee, get unsigned artists “stocked” at digital retailers like iTunes, eMusic, Amazon MP3, Rhapsody, Napster and so forth. If an unaffiliated act starts “moving serious units,” to use Music Industry 1.0 lingo, how do they demonstrate this success to the wider world? For this, you probably need some kind of ranking system that the industry (and fans) perceive as legitimate.TuneCore currently has a chart in Billboard showcasing the 25 top-selling artists who use their service. (This chart displays two types of data: top selling full albums by total earnings for the period and top selling individual songs by earnings for the period.) Appearing in Billboard would do more than make your mom proud — it actually means something to the industry. But since established mainstream artists also use TuneCore, the top spots are often already filled. For instance, Jay Z, David Byrne, Joan Jett and t.A.T.u are all currently featured on TuneCore’s March 2009 album list (as reported in May 2009). That’s some stiff competition. (Click here for a look at the most recent charts.)Digital distributor/marketing tool ReverbNation also has charts to show which of its artists are selling the most. But unlike TuneCore’s Billboard chart, which lumps all musicians irrespective of genre into a single top 25 listing, ReverbNation breaks its lists down by not only style of music, but also by location. You can find the top selling albums/songs from musicians from US or even the world,, including your own backyard. (Similarly, TuneCore’s iPhone app uses a geolocator that tells you the 25 best selling TuneCore songs based on your exact zip code.)Keep in mind that all of this is based on downloads. While digital sales might currently be a better indicator of “success” than MySpace plays, there isn’t (to our knowledge) a chart that measures on-demand listens where you don’t keep the digital file. As people grow more accustomed to “accessing” music as opposed to owning it, accounting for online plays could become increasingly important.As more artists go direct to fans and label roles evolve, all of this gets a bit fuzzier. Will everyone eventually be wading in the same digital pool? Do standard chart measurements even apply in a world of limited-edition physical items, on-demand streams and (potentially) legal filesharing?For a lot of musicians, having people at your shows and moving some merch is achievement enough. But we’re curious: what do you think counts as success with recorded music? Feel free to let us know in the comments.
TechnoBox: Finally a Useable iPhone App for Making Music
I recently heard about TechnoBox from AudioRealism for the iPhone and iPod Touch, and already being a fan of thier Bassline VST instrument I had to check it out. $10 for this app is a steal when compared to the price of a VST instrument or any music creation software for that matter. Compared to the price of most iPhone apps it is on the higher side but it’s well worth it. Basically TechnoBox is similar to the old Rebirth program by Propellerheads but better sounding. I definitely see someone using this app in a live set, but you would have to deal with manually syncing it up. Definitely worth a look.
From the AudioRealism website:
TechnoBox is your virtual techno studio on the go for iPhone / iPod touch featuring stunningly accurate emulations of three classic boxes: The legendary 303 bass line machine together with the smooth 808 and punchy 909 drum machines. technoBox has easy to use sequencing capabilities which lets you tie together patterns, or use it live by improvising pattern switches on the fly!
Featuring the same high quality audio engine as ABL2 which was painstakingly optimized to be able to run on mobile devices. For the uninitiated our audio engine has aliasing free oscillators and full range non-linear filters.
The drum section features 11 parts with 808 or 909 sounds (for a total of 22 sounds) with variable amount of shuffle per pattern.
technoBox comes with a session manager which allows you to load/save sessions in realtime without stopping the internal sequencer — great for saving realtime improvised patterns without interrupting the audio stream.
From the AudioRealism website:
TechnoBox is your virtual techno studio on the go for iPhone / iPod touch featuring stunningly accurate emulations of three classic boxes: The legendary 303 bass line machine together with the smooth 808 and punchy 909 drum machines. technoBox has easy to use sequencing capabilities which lets you tie together patterns, or use it live by improvising pattern switches on the fly!
Featuring the same high quality audio engine as ABL2 which was painstakingly optimized to be able to run on mobile devices. For the uninitiated our audio engine has aliasing free oscillators and full range non-linear filters.
The drum section features 11 parts with 808 or 909 sounds (for a total of 22 sounds) with variable amount of shuffle per pattern.
technoBox comes with a session manager which allows you to load/save sessions in realtime without stopping the internal sequencer — great for saving realtime improvised patterns without interrupting the audio stream.
Cost to British economy of free downloads is revealed
At least 7 million people in Britain use illegal downloads, costing the economy billions of pounds and thousands of jobs, according to a report.
Shared content on one network was worth about £12bn a year according to the research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property.
The peer-to-peer network had 1.3 million users sharing files at midday on a weekday. If each of them downloaded only one file a day this would amount to 4.73bn items being consumed free each year.
The ability to download or share content is getting easier with faster technologies and greater storage space.
The new 50 megabytes-per-second broadband access can deliver 200 MP3 music files in five minutes, a DVD of Star Wars in three minutes and the complete digitalised works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes.
David Lammy, minister for intellectual property, said: "Illegal downloading robs our economy of millions of pounds every year and seriously damages business and innovation throughout the UK.
"It is something that needs tackling, and we are serious about doing so."
Ministers privately accept the difficulty attached to criminalising millions of people who now apparently see little wrong with stealing online content.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry estimates that there were 890m illegal free music downloads through file-sharing in the UK in 2007 compared with 140m paid downloads. This puts unauthorised access at a ratio of six to one, before offline sharing like disk burning is even considered.
The SABIP report found music downloading had "become part and parcel of the social fabric of our society despite its illegal status". Creative industries provide about 8% of British GDP. Digital copying of their products resulted in the estimated loss of 4,000 jobs in 2004.
Lammy said: "The report helps put the scale of the problem into context and highlights the gaps in the evidence which need to be filled.
"It is important that we understand how online consumer behaviour impacts on the UK economy and the future sustainability of our copyright industries."
SABIP warned that it may be difficult to change attitudes to free downloading as there was "huge confusion" about what is and is not legal.
It claimed that 70% of those aged 15 to 24 did not feel guilty about downloading music for free from the internet and 61% of the age group did not feel they should have to pay for the music they listen to, according to a survey.
Lammy said: "We can't expect 12-year-olds to become copyright lawyers before they can switch on a computer, but we can educate people on enforcement and work towards getting the right people caught and punished, wherever they live."
The UK film industry told the authors of the report that there were just under 100m illegal DVD downloads in 2007 and the global film industry is thought to lose more than £4bn a year.
Shared content on one network was worth about £12bn a year according to the research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property.
The peer-to-peer network had 1.3 million users sharing files at midday on a weekday. If each of them downloaded only one file a day this would amount to 4.73bn items being consumed free each year.
The ability to download or share content is getting easier with faster technologies and greater storage space.
The new 50 megabytes-per-second broadband access can deliver 200 MP3 music files in five minutes, a DVD of Star Wars in three minutes and the complete digitalised works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes.
David Lammy, minister for intellectual property, said: "Illegal downloading robs our economy of millions of pounds every year and seriously damages business and innovation throughout the UK.
"It is something that needs tackling, and we are serious about doing so."
Ministers privately accept the difficulty attached to criminalising millions of people who now apparently see little wrong with stealing online content.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry estimates that there were 890m illegal free music downloads through file-sharing in the UK in 2007 compared with 140m paid downloads. This puts unauthorised access at a ratio of six to one, before offline sharing like disk burning is even considered.
The SABIP report found music downloading had "become part and parcel of the social fabric of our society despite its illegal status". Creative industries provide about 8% of British GDP. Digital copying of their products resulted in the estimated loss of 4,000 jobs in 2004.
Lammy said: "The report helps put the scale of the problem into context and highlights the gaps in the evidence which need to be filled.
"It is important that we understand how online consumer behaviour impacts on the UK economy and the future sustainability of our copyright industries."
SABIP warned that it may be difficult to change attitudes to free downloading as there was "huge confusion" about what is and is not legal.
It claimed that 70% of those aged 15 to 24 did not feel guilty about downloading music for free from the internet and 61% of the age group did not feel they should have to pay for the music they listen to, according to a survey.
Lammy said: "We can't expect 12-year-olds to become copyright lawyers before they can switch on a computer, but we can educate people on enforcement and work towards getting the right people caught and punished, wherever they live."
The UK film industry told the authors of the report that there were just under 100m illegal DVD downloads in 2007 and the global film industry is thought to lose more than £4bn a year.
Downloads should be free for everyone
Instead of trying to reduce the number of free music downloads on the internet, the government should be trying to increase them (Costs to British economy of free downloads is revealed, 29 May). Digitisation and the internet have turned copyright law into an appallingly restrictive anachronism. Information technology gives us the potential to provide free and universal access to almost all human knowledge, art and entertainment, yet the government's response is to worry about the loss of profits. Set against that loss are the millions of people enjoying music, films, the written and spoken word, computer software and access to information who would otherwise have gone without.
The only obstacle to providing universal free access to all digital products is finding a way of paying their creators without restricting access to what they produce. That is the problem David Lammy, the minister for intellectual property, should be trying to solve. The present system is as restrictive as it would be if we had to pay item by item for each radio or TV programme we tuned into. Perhaps we need a publicly funded agency that would offer to buy copyright for the nation. Let us try to maximise access to human knowledge and creativity and do it in such a way that it benefits everyone. Richard WilkinsonTadcaster, North Yorkshire
It is disingenuous to suggest putting a figure on how much illegal downloading has cost the economy. Presumably, the money being saved on not paying for recorded music is either being spent on something else (quite possibly on live music and festivals), or being looked after by banks that dearly need more savers. Despite what the music industry want us to believe, illegal downloading has a purely positive impact on everyone involved except the middleman: the soon-to-be-redundant industry itself. Kasper LurcockBristol
Illegal downloads may cost the music industry a small fortune but let's not pretend that it has a similar effect on the economy as a whole. And, if they weren't free, what proportion of those estimated 890m downloads would actually result in a sale?Charles DorinLondon
I trust that none of the 7 million people who, through illegal downloading, have cost the economy billions of pounds and thousands of jobs, are to be found among those who are currently hounding MPs.Alan PavelinChislehurst, Kent
The only obstacle to providing universal free access to all digital products is finding a way of paying their creators without restricting access to what they produce. That is the problem David Lammy, the minister for intellectual property, should be trying to solve. The present system is as restrictive as it would be if we had to pay item by item for each radio or TV programme we tuned into. Perhaps we need a publicly funded agency that would offer to buy copyright for the nation. Let us try to maximise access to human knowledge and creativity and do it in such a way that it benefits everyone. Richard WilkinsonTadcaster, North Yorkshire
It is disingenuous to suggest putting a figure on how much illegal downloading has cost the economy. Presumably, the money being saved on not paying for recorded music is either being spent on something else (quite possibly on live music and festivals), or being looked after by banks that dearly need more savers. Despite what the music industry want us to believe, illegal downloading has a purely positive impact on everyone involved except the middleman: the soon-to-be-redundant industry itself. Kasper LurcockBristol
Illegal downloads may cost the music industry a small fortune but let's not pretend that it has a similar effect on the economy as a whole. And, if they weren't free, what proportion of those estimated 890m downloads would actually result in a sale?Charles DorinLondon
I trust that none of the 7 million people who, through illegal downloading, have cost the economy billions of pounds and thousands of jobs, are to be found among those who are currently hounding MPs.Alan PavelinChislehurst, Kent
Will you be better off under new iTunes pricing?
Apple's started getting flexible on the price you pay for iTunes downloads - but popular tracks seem to have become more expensive
Anyone logging in to iTunes to download music will have noticed a change online store: for the first time, the amount you pay will vary from track to track.
Instead of the flat 79p per song that has been iTunes' single price for the past few years, some tracks in Apple's music library are now priced differently - costing either 59p, 99p or the old 79p standard.
The change was the result of a detente between Apple and the record labels, which negotiated long and hard over how they thought iTunes should work. Thanks to the deal, Apple was given the chance to get rid of copy protection (which had irked big boss Steve Jobs), while the music industry was offered the opportunity to mix up pricing to boost profits.
It's also sparked a price war with Amazon - which is trying to take advantage of the changes to drop its prices on particular downloads and convince users to try its own service.
So, now it's all actually happening, how do things stack up? Are we simply being ripped off?
I took a walk through iTunes and Amazon to see how much different tracks cost. It turns out that if you want to download any currently popular iTunes tracks, you won't save any money on the previous prices: eight of the top 10 songs remained 79p, while two of them had risen to 99p. Meanwhile, Amazon has dropped the prices on those tracks as low as 29p to get the punters in.
ITunes users are clearly expected to pay a premium for the most popular stuff - indeed, the song that's Top 40 at the moment, Lady GaGa's Poker Face, is one of those that's gone up to 99p.
What about other tracks, though? I trawled through history to see what the prices of tracks that topped the charts in years past. These tracks would be popular, at least, but shouldn't be in as high demand as those topping today's charts.
One year ago:Estelle ft Kanye West, American BoyApple price: 99pAmazon price: 29p
Five years ago:Usher, YeahApple price: 79pAmazon price: 79p
10 years ago: Mr Oizo, Flat BeatApple price: 79pAmazon price: 69p
20 years ago: Madonna, Like a PrayerApple price: 79pAmazon price: 69p
30 years ago:Gloria Gaynor, I Will SurviveApple price: 99pAmazon price: 69p
40 years ago:Marvin Gaye, I Heard it Through the GrapevineApple price: 99pAmazon price: 69p
Now obviously, this isn't a scientific study, and it hardly plumbs the depths of the long tail – those obscure and unpopular tracks that are likely to have their prices lowered to stimulate demand.
But right now, for mainstream tracks, the results look fairly clear to me: of the seven chart-topping tracks we looked at, Apple's new flexibility on pricing means that you're more likely to be paying extra today than you were before.
In comparison, the same tracks on Amazon were cheaper in every case – bar one example where the price on both services was the same.
Looks like Amazon's price war is working. But how long will it last?
Anyone logging in to iTunes to download music will have noticed a change online store: for the first time, the amount you pay will vary from track to track.
Instead of the flat 79p per song that has been iTunes' single price for the past few years, some tracks in Apple's music library are now priced differently - costing either 59p, 99p or the old 79p standard.
The change was the result of a detente between Apple and the record labels, which negotiated long and hard over how they thought iTunes should work. Thanks to the deal, Apple was given the chance to get rid of copy protection (which had irked big boss Steve Jobs), while the music industry was offered the opportunity to mix up pricing to boost profits.
It's also sparked a price war with Amazon - which is trying to take advantage of the changes to drop its prices on particular downloads and convince users to try its own service.
So, now it's all actually happening, how do things stack up? Are we simply being ripped off?
I took a walk through iTunes and Amazon to see how much different tracks cost. It turns out that if you want to download any currently popular iTunes tracks, you won't save any money on the previous prices: eight of the top 10 songs remained 79p, while two of them had risen to 99p. Meanwhile, Amazon has dropped the prices on those tracks as low as 29p to get the punters in.
ITunes users are clearly expected to pay a premium for the most popular stuff - indeed, the song that's Top 40 at the moment, Lady GaGa's Poker Face, is one of those that's gone up to 99p.
What about other tracks, though? I trawled through history to see what the prices of tracks that topped the charts in years past. These tracks would be popular, at least, but shouldn't be in as high demand as those topping today's charts.
One year ago:Estelle ft Kanye West, American BoyApple price: 99pAmazon price: 29p
Five years ago:Usher, YeahApple price: 79pAmazon price: 79p
10 years ago: Mr Oizo, Flat BeatApple price: 79pAmazon price: 69p
20 years ago: Madonna, Like a PrayerApple price: 79pAmazon price: 69p
30 years ago:Gloria Gaynor, I Will SurviveApple price: 99pAmazon price: 69p
40 years ago:Marvin Gaye, I Heard it Through the GrapevineApple price: 99pAmazon price: 69p
Now obviously, this isn't a scientific study, and it hardly plumbs the depths of the long tail – those obscure and unpopular tracks that are likely to have their prices lowered to stimulate demand.
But right now, for mainstream tracks, the results look fairly clear to me: of the seven chart-topping tracks we looked at, Apple's new flexibility on pricing means that you're more likely to be paying extra today than you were before.
In comparison, the same tracks on Amazon were cheaper in every case – bar one example where the price on both services was the same.
Looks like Amazon's price war is working. But how long will it last?
Minister warns illegal filesharers they face 'technical measures'
Three strikes and you're off the internet is too draconian, Andy Burnham tells music industry
Buzz up!
Digg it
Alexandra Topping
The Guardian, Friday 5 June 2009 00.01 BST
Article history
The government will acquire powers to apply "technical measures" to crack down on persistent illegal filesharers on the internet, the culture secretary, Andy Burnham, said today.
The government's response to problem filesharing of music and video is due to be unveiled in the Digital Britain report later this month.
Today Burnham said any solution was likely to involve a requirement that internet service providers (ISPs) notify users caught stealing digital content.
Speaking at a Music Week conference about monetising digital music, Burnham said that while a great deal could be done with voluntary measures, the government was willing to back these up with force. He said: "There will be many who don't think a simple notification would be effective and we will reserve the powers to apply technical measures for persistent offenders. Applying these measures will be a serious business, and not one we take lightly, but it is right that they are in place."
Burnham would not give details about specific measures before publication of the Digital Britain report or discuss what legal action could be taken against filesharers, but dismissed the previously floated idea of "three strikes and you're out" – in which users would have their connection cut if they continued downloading illegally – as draconian.
He said any new legislation would be overseen by Ofcom, a proposal which dismayed some music industry figures who doubt the regulator's ability to make an impact.
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the British Phonographic Industry, welcomed the promise of legislation, but said it must go further than forcing ISPs to send educational letters and had to be backed up by measures to steer persistent illegal filesharers towards legitimate online services.
"That type of graduated response solution needs to be put in place now, not in a few years' time. The long-term harm that will be done to the UK's outstanding creative industries – and the new jobs they create – will be enormous if Government puts off hard decisions now," he said. "This is no time to fiddle while Rome burns."
Feargal Sharkey, the chief executive of UK Music, said: "The government threw down the gauntlet to the music industry on this 12 months ago. We have done everything in our power to tackle the problem head-on so we can make sure we protect artists and keep producing amazing music. Now we are incredibly keen to see the government in the Digital Britain report reciprocate their side of the bargain."
Charles Caldas, the chief executive officer of Merlin, a licensing body for the independent music sector, was concerned that legislation could pose more problems than it solved. "I haven't met an indie label that wants to see its customers prosecuted," he said. "Yes, we need to protect artists but first there has to be a compelling commercial offer for users." A system of educating users and encouraging them to move towards an efficient legal model would be more effective, he said.
Burnham urged the music industry not to cling to "the old order", comparing the current turmoil to the "severe wreckage" in Westminster. "There is, at the moment, a head-on crash between the old and the new worlds," he said. "That change will bring a world where people are more empowered and where abuses of power are not tolerated."
Buzz up!
Digg it
Alexandra Topping
The Guardian, Friday 5 June 2009 00.01 BST
Article history
The government will acquire powers to apply "technical measures" to crack down on persistent illegal filesharers on the internet, the culture secretary, Andy Burnham, said today.
The government's response to problem filesharing of music and video is due to be unveiled in the Digital Britain report later this month.
Today Burnham said any solution was likely to involve a requirement that internet service providers (ISPs) notify users caught stealing digital content.
Speaking at a Music Week conference about monetising digital music, Burnham said that while a great deal could be done with voluntary measures, the government was willing to back these up with force. He said: "There will be many who don't think a simple notification would be effective and we will reserve the powers to apply technical measures for persistent offenders. Applying these measures will be a serious business, and not one we take lightly, but it is right that they are in place."
Burnham would not give details about specific measures before publication of the Digital Britain report or discuss what legal action could be taken against filesharers, but dismissed the previously floated idea of "three strikes and you're out" – in which users would have their connection cut if they continued downloading illegally – as draconian.
He said any new legislation would be overseen by Ofcom, a proposal which dismayed some music industry figures who doubt the regulator's ability to make an impact.
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the British Phonographic Industry, welcomed the promise of legislation, but said it must go further than forcing ISPs to send educational letters and had to be backed up by measures to steer persistent illegal filesharers towards legitimate online services.
"That type of graduated response solution needs to be put in place now, not in a few years' time. The long-term harm that will be done to the UK's outstanding creative industries – and the new jobs they create – will be enormous if Government puts off hard decisions now," he said. "This is no time to fiddle while Rome burns."
Feargal Sharkey, the chief executive of UK Music, said: "The government threw down the gauntlet to the music industry on this 12 months ago. We have done everything in our power to tackle the problem head-on so we can make sure we protect artists and keep producing amazing music. Now we are incredibly keen to see the government in the Digital Britain report reciprocate their side of the bargain."
Charles Caldas, the chief executive officer of Merlin, a licensing body for the independent music sector, was concerned that legislation could pose more problems than it solved. "I haven't met an indie label that wants to see its customers prosecuted," he said. "Yes, we need to protect artists but first there has to be a compelling commercial offer for users." A system of educating users and encouraging them to move towards an efficient legal model would be more effective, he said.
Burnham urged the music industry not to cling to "the old order", comparing the current turmoil to the "severe wreckage" in Westminster. "There is, at the moment, a head-on crash between the old and the new worlds," he said. "That change will bring a world where people are more empowered and where abuses of power are not tolerated."
Should musicians be making the most noise about the recession?
As the credit crunch bites, rock stars are complaining the loudest about losses on album sales. But when the same artists earn a fortune from touring I start to lose sympathy
Macca's down to his last £440m. Elton's out of pocket to the tune of a cool £60m. Poor Robbie's going to have to scrape by on a paltry eighty big ones from now on. Last week's Sunday Times Rich List might have had me weeping into my gruel for the sorry lots of credit crunch-hit rock stars, were it not for the fact that I would hardly notice there was a recession except for their whining about it.Over the past few months I've gritted my teeth as Robert Smith complained about the detrimental effects of downloading and the economic downturn on his income, and Kaiser Chiefs have bemoaned the reduced cost of the average album on iTunes. But while the rest of us have had to grin and bear our redundancies, wage freezes, tighter budgets and reduced job security, major rock stars have made the most noise about protecting their profits.As soon as they feel the pinch, rock's aristocracy is applauding prison sentences and multimillion pound fines for the Pirate Bay founders, with Macca concluding that the £2.4m fine was "fair", probably assuming that, like him, they could dig that sort of change out of the back of the sofa. Robbie, Radiohead, Richard Ashcroft and 150 other musicians have rushed to sign up with the Featured Artist Coalition in the hope of rescuing their income (and, to be even-handed, that of future bands too) by wrestling back the copyright to their albums. And artists have suddenly become open as to how small a fraction from music sales they actually receive; the transcript of Courtney Love's speech in 2000 to Digital Hollywood is an precursor to current widespread cap-wringing, even if her conclusion that "the system's set up so that almost nobody gets paid" smacks as hypocritical since we now know she had $350m stashed away for pilfering.
To a degree, you can sympathise with these artists; the perfect storm of illegal downloading, streaming sites and the credit crunch has hit musicians hard (although the same can be said for freelance music journalists). But I find such pity-us bickering shallow when a) it seems to be the musicians with big bank balances doing the moaning and b) these same artists are keeping schtum about how much they make from gigs.Having spent some time booking bands, I found it staggering how much they would ask for an hour's work. As a general rule, a band who've had a sniff of a top 40 hit and a bit of media hype will happily charge anything up to £10,000 for a show – a new band with their debut album in the top 20 will cost you around £20,000, double that if they're top 10. And once they've got a couple of albums and a Brit nomination under their belt you'll be lucky to get them for less than the price of a three-bed semi in Carshalton. One venue asked me to try to book a festival-headliner band for a small one-off event claiming "money is no object". When I came back to them with a quote of £1.1m, money suddenly became a very big object indeed.Even factoring in bands' costs for an average of £3,000 per show, it's clear that a couple of UK jaunts by a group with a modicum of success could provide them with more than an average annual salary. Many bigger bands can make more money in one European festival season than you or I could make in a decade of finger-blistering overtime. In the 90s record labels had to come to terms with the obliteration of any profit from singles; the format merely became a loss-making promotional tool for the band's album instead. Perhaps the time has come for whining musicians to see albums in the same way – as infinitely sharable plugs for their hugely profitable tours.
Macca's down to his last £440m. Elton's out of pocket to the tune of a cool £60m. Poor Robbie's going to have to scrape by on a paltry eighty big ones from now on. Last week's Sunday Times Rich List might have had me weeping into my gruel for the sorry lots of credit crunch-hit rock stars, were it not for the fact that I would hardly notice there was a recession except for their whining about it.Over the past few months I've gritted my teeth as Robert Smith complained about the detrimental effects of downloading and the economic downturn on his income, and Kaiser Chiefs have bemoaned the reduced cost of the average album on iTunes. But while the rest of us have had to grin and bear our redundancies, wage freezes, tighter budgets and reduced job security, major rock stars have made the most noise about protecting their profits.As soon as they feel the pinch, rock's aristocracy is applauding prison sentences and multimillion pound fines for the Pirate Bay founders, with Macca concluding that the £2.4m fine was "fair", probably assuming that, like him, they could dig that sort of change out of the back of the sofa. Robbie, Radiohead, Richard Ashcroft and 150 other musicians have rushed to sign up with the Featured Artist Coalition in the hope of rescuing their income (and, to be even-handed, that of future bands too) by wrestling back the copyright to their albums. And artists have suddenly become open as to how small a fraction from music sales they actually receive; the transcript of Courtney Love's speech in 2000 to Digital Hollywood is an precursor to current widespread cap-wringing, even if her conclusion that "the system's set up so that almost nobody gets paid" smacks as hypocritical since we now know she had $350m stashed away for pilfering.
To a degree, you can sympathise with these artists; the perfect storm of illegal downloading, streaming sites and the credit crunch has hit musicians hard (although the same can be said for freelance music journalists). But I find such pity-us bickering shallow when a) it seems to be the musicians with big bank balances doing the moaning and b) these same artists are keeping schtum about how much they make from gigs.Having spent some time booking bands, I found it staggering how much they would ask for an hour's work. As a general rule, a band who've had a sniff of a top 40 hit and a bit of media hype will happily charge anything up to £10,000 for a show – a new band with their debut album in the top 20 will cost you around £20,000, double that if they're top 10. And once they've got a couple of albums and a Brit nomination under their belt you'll be lucky to get them for less than the price of a three-bed semi in Carshalton. One venue asked me to try to book a festival-headliner band for a small one-off event claiming "money is no object". When I came back to them with a quote of £1.1m, money suddenly became a very big object indeed.Even factoring in bands' costs for an average of £3,000 per show, it's clear that a couple of UK jaunts by a group with a modicum of success could provide them with more than an average annual salary. Many bigger bands can make more money in one European festival season than you or I could make in a decade of finger-blistering overtime. In the 90s record labels had to come to terms with the obliteration of any profit from singles; the format merely became a loss-making promotional tool for the band's album instead. Perhaps the time has come for whining musicians to see albums in the same way – as infinitely sharable plugs for their hugely profitable tours.
There is a hidden - and high - cost to illegal downloading
So Richard Wilkinson (Letters, 1 June) thinks that all music should be available for download free and that only the "creators" need to be paid in some way. He seems to have forgotten the sound engineers, makers and sellers of musical instruments, recording studio owners, recording equipment makers, music teachers, designers and managers of download sites, database engineers, producers, arrangers... and of course the vast majority of musicians who are not themselves creators. The cost of distribution of music may have fallen dramatically (although it is still not close to zero, and many people do not have access to broadband) but the costs of production and of creation itself are still much the same as they were. David DixonOxford
The Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property claims there is "huge confusion" about what is and is not legal (Cost to British economy of free downloads is revealed, 30 May). This confusion seems to be shared by Sabip, which reports that 1.3 million users were sharing files at midday on a weekend, yet fails to mention the fairly obvious fact that many of these downloads would have been perfectly legal.
"The new 50 megabytes-per-second broadband access can deliver ... the complete works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes," reports the article, clearly giving the impression that such an activity would be in violation of copyright law, even though all of Dickens's work is in the public domain.Brad StevensLuton
Downloading music or video files is only one piece in the puzzle of online piracy. People may think its cool and easy to simply choose a new album or film and start downloading, however the consequences aren't so friendly. The online piracy issue is the UK's greatest threat to business software, video games, music, TV and film industries.
Intellectual property contributes £53bn to the UK economy. Around 8% of gross domestic product is down to IP, and 1.9 million people are employed in the creative industries. Yet still, people see software and all digital piracy as a victimless crime. Some 27% of the software used in UK businesses is illegal, equating to £1.4bn per annum of loss to the software industry.
Everyone should expect to be paid for the work they do in life. It is the same maxim if you are a plumber, teacher, filmmaker or software developer. Why would someone in the creative industries just create content for others to enjoy for free? John LovelockFederation Against Software Theft
The Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property claims there is "huge confusion" about what is and is not legal (Cost to British economy of free downloads is revealed, 30 May). This confusion seems to be shared by Sabip, which reports that 1.3 million users were sharing files at midday on a weekend, yet fails to mention the fairly obvious fact that many of these downloads would have been perfectly legal.
"The new 50 megabytes-per-second broadband access can deliver ... the complete works of Charles Dickens in less than 10 minutes," reports the article, clearly giving the impression that such an activity would be in violation of copyright law, even though all of Dickens's work is in the public domain.Brad StevensLuton
Downloading music or video files is only one piece in the puzzle of online piracy. People may think its cool and easy to simply choose a new album or film and start downloading, however the consequences aren't so friendly. The online piracy issue is the UK's greatest threat to business software, video games, music, TV and film industries.
Intellectual property contributes £53bn to the UK economy. Around 8% of gross domestic product is down to IP, and 1.9 million people are employed in the creative industries. Yet still, people see software and all digital piracy as a victimless crime. Some 27% of the software used in UK businesses is illegal, equating to £1.4bn per annum of loss to the software industry.
Everyone should expect to be paid for the work they do in life. It is the same maxim if you are a plumber, teacher, filmmaker or software developer. Why would someone in the creative industries just create content for others to enjoy for free? John LovelockFederation Against Software Theft
maandag 8 juni 2009
Music Quotes Worth Repeating
Without music life would be a mistake. Friedrich Nietzsche
Music is the poetry of the air. Richter
Music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without. Confucius
I don’t know anything about music. In my line you don’t have to. Elvis Presley
Music is the poetry of the air. Richter
Music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without. Confucius
I don’t know anything about music. In my line you don’t have to. Elvis Presley
zondag 7 juni 2009
The Pirate Bay Ruling: What Does it Actually Mean for the Music Industry?
The problem with mixing lawyers and legislators with business is that the results can be unexpected and inconvenient. With the Pirate Bay case there was always a good chance for the music industry that the ruling would at best be short of definitive.
However the music industry has come out of this with a ruling that is more positive for them than many had been expected. Behind the technicalities of the legal arguments, there were two basic principles underpinning the case:
the Pirate Bay actively provides a service to help consumers download content without the express permission of the copyright owners
the record labels have internationally recognized ownership of the copyright and the right to exploit it
There are some interesting implications from this ruling, most notably the question of whether Google could now be held responsible for posting links to content that does not have copyright cleared?
Though the music industry have ultimately won (subject probably to an appeal) the ruling is not going to stop file sharing, nor have much long term impact on file sharing activity. So why they take on a case that delivered so little and had such a high risk of what would have been very public failure?
The music industry was always stuck between rock and hard place on this one. They couldn’t turn a blind eye because the Pirate Bay were positioning themselves as 21st Century digital Robin Hoods, stealing from the ‘fat cat media companies’ and redistributing the wealth to the ‘poor consumers’. Their provocative message to the record labels was essentially “Come and get us if you think you’re hard enough”.
The history of file sharing is of course littered with the detritus of legal action against the networks and even the users themselves. But in most markets file sharing has grown year upon year. By the time that each major file sharing destination is finally closed down by the music industry the file sharing masses have moved onto the next big thing. Whatever the ruling would have been, file sharing wouldn’t have gone away. In fact the problem is worse than that, the new additional threat of non-network file sharing (via Instant Messenger, email, blogs, newsgroups, iPod ripping) is growing strongly and becoming firmly established. And then there’s also a whole mass of anonymous networks lurking in the wings.
So ten years on from the launch of Napster why is the music industry still suing the file sharing destinations? The simple answer is because they have to be seen to. It’s the same reason that customs officials and police continue to fight illegal trafficking of drugs and other contraband despite doing little more than scratching the surface of the problem. If the music industry isn’t seeing to be taking action then it effectively turns on a green light to the illegal sector.
The good news from the music industry’s perspective (and indeed from the consumers’ one also) is that the industry is well into the process of fighting free not just with the courts, but also with free itself.
There is a poetic symmetry to the fact that Sweden is home to the defining icons of both sides of the free spectrum: the Pirate Bay and Spotify. With services like Spotify the music industry is giving consumers genuine compelling, and crucially free, alternatives to illegal file sharing.
So although the ruling may not be exactly to the music industry’s taste, out of the ashes of the case the parallel free universes of Pirate Bay and Spotify will continue to plot their disparate courses. The music industry can taken comfort from the knowledge that the latter is gaining genuine momentum. Free may just succeed where 10 years in the courts failed.
However the music industry has come out of this with a ruling that is more positive for them than many had been expected. Behind the technicalities of the legal arguments, there were two basic principles underpinning the case:
the Pirate Bay actively provides a service to help consumers download content without the express permission of the copyright owners
the record labels have internationally recognized ownership of the copyright and the right to exploit it
There are some interesting implications from this ruling, most notably the question of whether Google could now be held responsible for posting links to content that does not have copyright cleared?
Though the music industry have ultimately won (subject probably to an appeal) the ruling is not going to stop file sharing, nor have much long term impact on file sharing activity. So why they take on a case that delivered so little and had such a high risk of what would have been very public failure?
The music industry was always stuck between rock and hard place on this one. They couldn’t turn a blind eye because the Pirate Bay were positioning themselves as 21st Century digital Robin Hoods, stealing from the ‘fat cat media companies’ and redistributing the wealth to the ‘poor consumers’. Their provocative message to the record labels was essentially “Come and get us if you think you’re hard enough”.
The history of file sharing is of course littered with the detritus of legal action against the networks and even the users themselves. But in most markets file sharing has grown year upon year. By the time that each major file sharing destination is finally closed down by the music industry the file sharing masses have moved onto the next big thing. Whatever the ruling would have been, file sharing wouldn’t have gone away. In fact the problem is worse than that, the new additional threat of non-network file sharing (via Instant Messenger, email, blogs, newsgroups, iPod ripping) is growing strongly and becoming firmly established. And then there’s also a whole mass of anonymous networks lurking in the wings.
So ten years on from the launch of Napster why is the music industry still suing the file sharing destinations? The simple answer is because they have to be seen to. It’s the same reason that customs officials and police continue to fight illegal trafficking of drugs and other contraband despite doing little more than scratching the surface of the problem. If the music industry isn’t seeing to be taking action then it effectively turns on a green light to the illegal sector.
The good news from the music industry’s perspective (and indeed from the consumers’ one also) is that the industry is well into the process of fighting free not just with the courts, but also with free itself.
There is a poetic symmetry to the fact that Sweden is home to the defining icons of both sides of the free spectrum: the Pirate Bay and Spotify. With services like Spotify the music industry is giving consumers genuine compelling, and crucially free, alternatives to illegal file sharing.
So although the ruling may not be exactly to the music industry’s taste, out of the ashes of the case the parallel free universes of Pirate Bay and Spotify will continue to plot their disparate courses. The music industry can taken comfort from the knowledge that the latter is gaining genuine momentum. Free may just succeed where 10 years in the courts failed.
Comes With Music Finally Gets Its Route To Market
Orange today announced they will be ‘exclusively’ providing Comes With Music on the Nokia 5800 in the UK. Finally Nokia’s Come With Music gets the route to market it needs.
I’ve long been a strong advocate of CWM and that belief remains intact despite reportedly poor sales to date. Nokia always needed strong channel partner participation to make the service a success. Without the route-to-market, marketing support and – most crucially – subsidy support that the operators provide CWM is left looking like an overpriced, under featured oddity. But with the support of an operator it comes into its own.
Orange packages start at just 25 pounds a month. For this consumers not only get a decent number of voice minutes and texts, but they also get the handset for free and unlimited music that they get to own for ever. That is a compelling proposition and offers genuine value for money. Unsubsidized, the cost in Italy for the same handset and music service, but without a voice and text tariff is just short of 500 Euros. The comparison is stark and is central to why CWM has under-whelmed thus far.
CWM is an exciting product because, when packaged correctly, looks and feels like free to the consumer. In this context DRM restrictions and a phone that falls short of iPhone sexiness are entirely tolerable. But with a premium price point they become non-starters.
CWM, along with the likes of Spotify, We7, Last.FM and imeem, is one of the key weapons that the music industry has in its armoury to fight free with free itself. CWM may not be free, but packaged like this it ‘feels like free’ and that’s enough to have real potential of pulling young music fans away from illegal downloading on a scale that hasn’t yet been achieved.
I’ve long been a strong advocate of CWM and that belief remains intact despite reportedly poor sales to date. Nokia always needed strong channel partner participation to make the service a success. Without the route-to-market, marketing support and – most crucially – subsidy support that the operators provide CWM is left looking like an overpriced, under featured oddity. But with the support of an operator it comes into its own.
Orange packages start at just 25 pounds a month. For this consumers not only get a decent number of voice minutes and texts, but they also get the handset for free and unlimited music that they get to own for ever. That is a compelling proposition and offers genuine value for money. Unsubsidized, the cost in Italy for the same handset and music service, but without a voice and text tariff is just short of 500 Euros. The comparison is stark and is central to why CWM has under-whelmed thus far.
CWM is an exciting product because, when packaged correctly, looks and feels like free to the consumer. In this context DRM restrictions and a phone that falls short of iPhone sexiness are entirely tolerable. But with a premium price point they become non-starters.
CWM, along with the likes of Spotify, We7, Last.FM and imeem, is one of the key weapons that the music industry has in its armoury to fight free with free itself. CWM may not be free, but packaged like this it ‘feels like free’ and that’s enough to have real potential of pulling young music fans away from illegal downloading on a scale that hasn’t yet been achieved.
Why Napster’s New Pricing Strategy is More than Just Price Cuts
Napster has overhauled its pricing strategy in the US, selling pre-stored value cards in retail stores. It’s being widely reported as ‘Napster slashing prices’ but it’s more than just that. The key things of note here are:
It shifts the consumer focus onto downloads: each card has a pre-stored value for MP3 downloads as the headline. Unlimited streaming is the sub head.
It targets iPod owners: MP3 downloads and easy synching make iPod owners a core target
It lowers barrier to entry to subscriptions: by using a Pay As You Go solution Napster makes subscriptions more attainable to more consumers, even if they are sneaking them in through the back door
It tacitly acknowledges the dire state of premium subscriptions: the focus on MP3s moves the focus away from the subscription business, but the latter is still Napster’s core business. To really thrive in the imeem and Spotify age they need to be unlimited MP3
This is an innovative move by Napster, and should widen their market appeal, but I can’t help but feel that it is almost embarrassed of its core value proposition (on demand streaming). Positioning the streaming component as a freebie with MP3 tracks will weaken perceived value. They’ll need to be careful with their positioning, or risk further weakening their ability to sell their core product, unless of course they can fire the silver bullet of unlimited MP3s.
It shifts the consumer focus onto downloads: each card has a pre-stored value for MP3 downloads as the headline. Unlimited streaming is the sub head.
It targets iPod owners: MP3 downloads and easy synching make iPod owners a core target
It lowers barrier to entry to subscriptions: by using a Pay As You Go solution Napster makes subscriptions more attainable to more consumers, even if they are sneaking them in through the back door
It tacitly acknowledges the dire state of premium subscriptions: the focus on MP3s moves the focus away from the subscription business, but the latter is still Napster’s core business. To really thrive in the imeem and Spotify age they need to be unlimited MP3
This is an innovative move by Napster, and should widen their market appeal, but I can’t help but feel that it is almost embarrassed of its core value proposition (on demand streaming). Positioning the streaming component as a freebie with MP3 tracks will weaken perceived value. They’ll need to be careful with their positioning, or risk further weakening their ability to sell their core product, unless of course they can fire the silver bullet of unlimited MP3s.
donderdag 4 juni 2009
Qualms with music
Oct 2nd 2008
From The Economist print edition
Cross-subsidised subscriptions offer a promising new model—if the sums add up
IT IS a gift that keeps on giving—for a year, at least. Starting in Britain this month, buyers of some handsets made by Nokia will be able to download as much digital music as they like. The handsets, starting with a model costing £130 ($230), are bundled with a year’s free online-music subscription, called “Comes With Music” (CWM), launched on October 2nd. You can download music, and listen to it, on both the handset and your PC. Once the subscription expires at the end of the year, you can still listen to the tracks.
Nokia’s new handsets are sure to appear under many Christmas trees this year. The offer of unlimited downloads will appeal to teenagers; and parents will not have to worry about their children getting caught downloading music illegally, or spending a fortune at online music-stores. But CWM and similar subscription services are also being touted as a potentially life-saving gift to the ailing music industry. That is because they cleverly reconcile the demands of teenagers, who think music should be free, with those of record companies, which want to make money.
The world’s biggest handset-maker has pulled this off by acting as a go-between: it licenses music from the four major labels and some independent record firms at a discount, tags some of the cost onto the device’s purchasing price and absorbs the rest itself. Such a deal is made possible by a convergence of interests. Sales of digital music are growing, but not fast enough to offset falling sales of CDs, partly because of internet piracy (see chart). Record companies are realising that their efforts to get young music fans to pay up are not working. Many are unwilling, or unable, to pay for downloads, and legal action results in bad publicity. So something new is needed. Nokia, for its part, wants to move beyond hardware, and considers music a way to kick-start Ovi, its new initiative to offer a range of mobile-internet services.
Both camps also have a common interest in reining in Apple, the computer-maker that dominates digital music with its iTunes download service and iPod music-players. At the moment, record labels have to accept Apple’s terms. A strong rival service from Nokia could strengthen their negotiating hand. As for Nokia, it hopes to catch up with iTunes and defend its core market against Apple’s iPhone handset.
CWM is the most prominent example of a wider trend. Other companies have also started to combine their offerings with similar “all you can eat” music subscriptions. TDC, a Danish telecoms operator, has bundled such a service with its broadband connections. Orange, a European mobile operator, has launched Musique Max, which combines unlimited music downloads with a mobile-broadband service for €12 ($17) a month. And Sony Ericsson, another handset-maker, is planning to launch an unlimited music service called “PlayNow plus”, which will be offered to consumers via mobile operators.
Will this new model work? For the record labels CWM is likely to be a good deal. If they receive, as some analysts have estimated, a total of €4 ($5.60) per handset per month (about half the cost of all-you-can-eat subscription services on the internet) and Nokia sells 5m CWM handsets, the additional income would add up to €240m ($338m)—equivalent to more than 1% of global recorded-music sales in 2007 and 12% of the digital business. The potential market is far bigger: last year Nokia sold 146m phones that can play music.
But Paul Jackson of Forrester, a market-research firm, worries that Nokia will end up overpaying. The firm has not released details of its agreement with the record companies, but it is said that they will receive a fixed fee per handset, have been guaranteed a large number of handset sales, and will receive additional fees once a subscriber exceeds a certain number of downloads. So the promise of “unlimited” music is actually subject to a “fair use” limit, beyond which access will be cut off.
The economics of CWM will become clearer when Nokia reveals what exactly will happen after the 12 months of free downloads are over. The company hopes that most owners will simply buy a new CWM handset, says Elizabeth Schimel, the head of Nokia’s music business, since teenagers like to be seen with the latest model. (CWM could thus encourage people to upgrade their handsets more often than they otherwise would have.) But customers will also be offered the chance to switch to Ovi’s paid-for music service.
The cost of that service will indicate the extent to which Nokia is underwriting the free CWM service. The level of subsidy will also determine how long CWM will remain in its current form. At the moment, Nokia’s priority is to get Ovi off the ground. But over time, the firm’s willingness to absorb some of the cost of a music subscription may well diminish, says Mark Mulligan of Jupiter, another market-research firm. Either the labels will have to make do with less, or other firms, such as the mobile operators, will have to pitch in. Consumers are unlikely to contribute much, simply because they will refuse to: take-up of subscription-based music services has been disappointing so far.
Even if the sums do add up, the new model may face other problems. To start with, the services will be available in only a few countries and will not compete directly: CWM in Britain (and, perhaps, India soon), Musique Max in France and PlayNow plus in Sweden. But as these services spread and start to compete, consumers may object to the fact that they are not compatible with each other. Next, record labels may have second thoughts about appearing to allow other firms to give away their wares—even if they are, in fact, paid for behind the scenes. Subsidised subscriptions will only strengthen the widely held belief that music should be free. “They are another step in the commoditisation of music,” says David MacQueen of Strategy Analytics, a consultancy.
That said, unlimited music services could help to reduce piracy, by making it unnecessary. With services such as CWM, “the person with a hard-drive with 60,000 stolen files is all of a sudden deeply uncool, as other people have access to everything,” says Rob Wells, a senior executive at Universal, the world’s biggest record company and the label that is most keen on CWM. But they could also undermine people’s willingness to pay for CDs and music downloads from iTunes and other online stores, as avid consumers of music switch to unlimited, free services instead.
“CWM is almost too good for its own good,” says Jupiter’s Mr Mulligan. The impact of such services is uncertain; there are many details still to be worked out; and even then they will not solve all of the industry’s problems. But they are potentially a big step forward.
From The Economist print edition
Cross-subsidised subscriptions offer a promising new model—if the sums add up
IT IS a gift that keeps on giving—for a year, at least. Starting in Britain this month, buyers of some handsets made by Nokia will be able to download as much digital music as they like. The handsets, starting with a model costing £130 ($230), are bundled with a year’s free online-music subscription, called “Comes With Music” (CWM), launched on October 2nd. You can download music, and listen to it, on both the handset and your PC. Once the subscription expires at the end of the year, you can still listen to the tracks.
Nokia’s new handsets are sure to appear under many Christmas trees this year. The offer of unlimited downloads will appeal to teenagers; and parents will not have to worry about their children getting caught downloading music illegally, or spending a fortune at online music-stores. But CWM and similar subscription services are also being touted as a potentially life-saving gift to the ailing music industry. That is because they cleverly reconcile the demands of teenagers, who think music should be free, with those of record companies, which want to make money.
The world’s biggest handset-maker has pulled this off by acting as a go-between: it licenses music from the four major labels and some independent record firms at a discount, tags some of the cost onto the device’s purchasing price and absorbs the rest itself. Such a deal is made possible by a convergence of interests. Sales of digital music are growing, but not fast enough to offset falling sales of CDs, partly because of internet piracy (see chart). Record companies are realising that their efforts to get young music fans to pay up are not working. Many are unwilling, or unable, to pay for downloads, and legal action results in bad publicity. So something new is needed. Nokia, for its part, wants to move beyond hardware, and considers music a way to kick-start Ovi, its new initiative to offer a range of mobile-internet services.
Both camps also have a common interest in reining in Apple, the computer-maker that dominates digital music with its iTunes download service and iPod music-players. At the moment, record labels have to accept Apple’s terms. A strong rival service from Nokia could strengthen their negotiating hand. As for Nokia, it hopes to catch up with iTunes and defend its core market against Apple’s iPhone handset.
CWM is the most prominent example of a wider trend. Other companies have also started to combine their offerings with similar “all you can eat” music subscriptions. TDC, a Danish telecoms operator, has bundled such a service with its broadband connections. Orange, a European mobile operator, has launched Musique Max, which combines unlimited music downloads with a mobile-broadband service for €12 ($17) a month. And Sony Ericsson, another handset-maker, is planning to launch an unlimited music service called “PlayNow plus”, which will be offered to consumers via mobile operators.
Will this new model work? For the record labels CWM is likely to be a good deal. If they receive, as some analysts have estimated, a total of €4 ($5.60) per handset per month (about half the cost of all-you-can-eat subscription services on the internet) and Nokia sells 5m CWM handsets, the additional income would add up to €240m ($338m)—equivalent to more than 1% of global recorded-music sales in 2007 and 12% of the digital business. The potential market is far bigger: last year Nokia sold 146m phones that can play music.
But Paul Jackson of Forrester, a market-research firm, worries that Nokia will end up overpaying. The firm has not released details of its agreement with the record companies, but it is said that they will receive a fixed fee per handset, have been guaranteed a large number of handset sales, and will receive additional fees once a subscriber exceeds a certain number of downloads. So the promise of “unlimited” music is actually subject to a “fair use” limit, beyond which access will be cut off.
The economics of CWM will become clearer when Nokia reveals what exactly will happen after the 12 months of free downloads are over. The company hopes that most owners will simply buy a new CWM handset, says Elizabeth Schimel, the head of Nokia’s music business, since teenagers like to be seen with the latest model. (CWM could thus encourage people to upgrade their handsets more often than they otherwise would have.) But customers will also be offered the chance to switch to Ovi’s paid-for music service.
The cost of that service will indicate the extent to which Nokia is underwriting the free CWM service. The level of subsidy will also determine how long CWM will remain in its current form. At the moment, Nokia’s priority is to get Ovi off the ground. But over time, the firm’s willingness to absorb some of the cost of a music subscription may well diminish, says Mark Mulligan of Jupiter, another market-research firm. Either the labels will have to make do with less, or other firms, such as the mobile operators, will have to pitch in. Consumers are unlikely to contribute much, simply because they will refuse to: take-up of subscription-based music services has been disappointing so far.
Even if the sums do add up, the new model may face other problems. To start with, the services will be available in only a few countries and will not compete directly: CWM in Britain (and, perhaps, India soon), Musique Max in France and PlayNow plus in Sweden. But as these services spread and start to compete, consumers may object to the fact that they are not compatible with each other. Next, record labels may have second thoughts about appearing to allow other firms to give away their wares—even if they are, in fact, paid for behind the scenes. Subsidised subscriptions will only strengthen the widely held belief that music should be free. “They are another step in the commoditisation of music,” says David MacQueen of Strategy Analytics, a consultancy.
That said, unlimited music services could help to reduce piracy, by making it unnecessary. With services such as CWM, “the person with a hard-drive with 60,000 stolen files is all of a sudden deeply uncool, as other people have access to everything,” says Rob Wells, a senior executive at Universal, the world’s biggest record company and the label that is most keen on CWM. But they could also undermine people’s willingness to pay for CDs and music downloads from iTunes and other online stores, as avid consumers of music switch to unlimited, free services instead.
“CWM is almost too good for its own good,” says Jupiter’s Mr Mulligan. The impact of such services is uncertain; there are many details still to be worked out; and even then they will not solve all of the industry’s problems. But they are potentially a big step forward.
Rethinking The Music Industry Business Model... Finally Going Mainstream
from the can't-stop-the-trend dept
For all the complaints we have about the way the RIAA conducts its business, we have always been optimistic that things would get sorted out eventually. It wasn't the music industry that was in trouble at all -- just the traditional recording labels. People often accuse us of hating the music industry, which is totally incorrect. When we discuss music industry strategies it's hoping that they recognize that these new business models have the potential to be much bigger than the old ones. This is based on a few simple ideas that really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, unless you're desperately tied to an existing business model and unwilling to change. First, treating all your customers as criminals doesn't create much loyalty or willingness to buy your product. Especially in a market where the product is based on being a fan, not filling a need. You want your fans to be happy -- not pissed off. Second, the basic economics are there. On the supply and demand curve the supply of digital goods is infinite, meaning that the trend over time will absolutely be for the price to get pushed towards zero. It's just the way the market works. That's not a bad thing if you embrace it and recognize that, rather than lost revenue, free content represents free promotion. After all, the hardest part of becoming a success in the music business is the marketing to get your product known. The third, and final, aspect of this is how new technologies have dramatically decreased the costs of every other aspect of the music business. Creation, publishing and distribution are all now much cheaper due to the onward march of technology, forcing a shift in how we think about copyright issues.
Based on all of this, it's not hard to come up with a variety of different business models that are based on (1) using the music as a promotional good to get a lot more attention in a crowded market (2) offering customers what they want, and offering them plenty of different ways to get it and (3) building tremendous loyalty from happy customers who feel much closer to the musicians and are much more willing to spend money on secondary products (merchandise, concerts, access). Plenty of musicians have figured this out, and now it's moving further and further away from being a "fringe" idea and into the mainstream music business. Wired Magazine is running a bunch of articles about how the industry is realizing this, with two pieces that are definitely worth reading. There's an interview with Beck where he discusses continually giving fans more ways to interact with the content, and not worrying about things appearing on the internet. However, even more interesting is the article about Canadian music management and music label firm Nettwerk. You may remember that name from their announcement earlier this year that they would pay the legal fees for a teen sued for file sharing one of their own artists. The article also discusses how Nettwerk recognizes all of what we discuss above, in that it's encouraging each band on its roster to build its own label, and focus not just on how to "sell a CD," but on selling the entire experience of the music. When you look at things that way, it means you don't worry if some of the music is heard for free, because that just encourages more interest in other things the band is selling. It's also looking to try experiments similar to the recently announced Sellaband, who focuses on getting people to "invest" in a musician to help them pay for a recording, in exchange for a share of the later profits. In other words, the industry is evolving -- in many of the ways that plenty of people have been predicting all along. This is a good thing -- and one of these days the old record labels will finally recognize the mistakes they've made... or simply disappear.
For all the complaints we have about the way the RIAA conducts its business, we have always been optimistic that things would get sorted out eventually. It wasn't the music industry that was in trouble at all -- just the traditional recording labels. People often accuse us of hating the music industry, which is totally incorrect. When we discuss music industry strategies it's hoping that they recognize that these new business models have the potential to be much bigger than the old ones. This is based on a few simple ideas that really shouldn't be that hard to grasp, unless you're desperately tied to an existing business model and unwilling to change. First, treating all your customers as criminals doesn't create much loyalty or willingness to buy your product. Especially in a market where the product is based on being a fan, not filling a need. You want your fans to be happy -- not pissed off. Second, the basic economics are there. On the supply and demand curve the supply of digital goods is infinite, meaning that the trend over time will absolutely be for the price to get pushed towards zero. It's just the way the market works. That's not a bad thing if you embrace it and recognize that, rather than lost revenue, free content represents free promotion. After all, the hardest part of becoming a success in the music business is the marketing to get your product known. The third, and final, aspect of this is how new technologies have dramatically decreased the costs of every other aspect of the music business. Creation, publishing and distribution are all now much cheaper due to the onward march of technology, forcing a shift in how we think about copyright issues.
Based on all of this, it's not hard to come up with a variety of different business models that are based on (1) using the music as a promotional good to get a lot more attention in a crowded market (2) offering customers what they want, and offering them plenty of different ways to get it and (3) building tremendous loyalty from happy customers who feel much closer to the musicians and are much more willing to spend money on secondary products (merchandise, concerts, access). Plenty of musicians have figured this out, and now it's moving further and further away from being a "fringe" idea and into the mainstream music business. Wired Magazine is running a bunch of articles about how the industry is realizing this, with two pieces that are definitely worth reading. There's an interview with Beck where he discusses continually giving fans more ways to interact with the content, and not worrying about things appearing on the internet. However, even more interesting is the article about Canadian music management and music label firm Nettwerk. You may remember that name from their announcement earlier this year that they would pay the legal fees for a teen sued for file sharing one of their own artists. The article also discusses how Nettwerk recognizes all of what we discuss above, in that it's encouraging each band on its roster to build its own label, and focus not just on how to "sell a CD," but on selling the entire experience of the music. When you look at things that way, it means you don't worry if some of the music is heard for free, because that just encourages more interest in other things the band is selling. It's also looking to try experiments similar to the recently announced Sellaband, who focuses on getting people to "invest" in a musician to help them pay for a recording, in exchange for a share of the later profits. In other words, the industry is evolving -- in many of the ways that plenty of people have been predicting all along. This is a good thing -- and one of these days the old record labels will finally recognize the mistakes they've made... or simply disappear.
'Muziekindustrie moet meer geld uit online muzieklicenties halen'
Tijdschrift voor Marketing > Nieuws > week 4, maandag 19 januari 2009
Digitaal aangeboden muziek zal tegen 2013 qua omzet de cd-verkoop voorbij zijn gestreefd. De Europese muziekindustrie zal hierdoor drastisch veranderen. Het oude businessmodel, gebaseerd op distributie, voldoet niet meer. Muziekaanbieders zullen nieuwe businessmodellen rond online muziekconsumptie moeten bedenken, en additionele inkomsten moeten halen uit online muzieklicenties. Aldus Forrester.
Het onderzoekbureau ondervroeg ruim 4.200 Europese online consumenten in Frankrijk, Duitsland, Italië, Spanje, Zweden en Groot-Brittannië.
Volgens het bureau moet niet de verkoop van cd’s, maar de muziekconsumptie zelf in de nieuwe businessmodellen centraal komen te staan.
Forrester: ‘De kernprincipes van de oude muziekindustrie, zoals omzet uit de hoeveelheid verkochte albums, zullen minder van betekenis zijn in een on-demand digitale wereld. De muziekindustrie in de 21ste eeuw is complexer en meer ontwikkeld’.
Muziekaanbieders zullen consumenten meer toegang tot gratis muziek moeten bieden en daarnaast ook omzet halen uit ‘online muzieklicenties’; mensen en bedrijven laten betalen voor het beschikbaar maken en afspelen van muziek online.
Forrester verwacht dat in 2013 digitaal aangekochte muziek 57 procent van de omzet voor zijn rekening zal nemen, en dat online muzieklicenties nog eens 1,2 miljard euro zullen omzetten.
Andere onderzoeksresultaten:
De enige manier om het gevecht met 'gratis'aan te gaan, is gratis aanbieden. Illegaal downloaden blijft een groot probleem.
‘Social music’ zal groeien in het digitale landschap. Onder andere door bijvoorbeeld MySpace.com Music zal het publiek hiervoor meer dan verdubbelen. Van 32 miljoen in 2007 tot 78 miljoen in 2014.
‘Gesubisdieerde diensten’ zijn de weg naar het massapubliek. Jonge consumenten verzamelen zich rondom social networks voor hun muziek, het massapubliek zal muziek via sites beluisteren waarvan de kosten worden gedragen door bijvoorbeeld telecommunicatie- of consumentenelektronicabedrijven. Zie Nokia met ‘Comes With Music’.
Niet stervende
De muziekindustrie is niet stervende, meent Forrester. Maar de manier waarop het te werk gaat, zal ingrijpend veranderen. ‘De mensen in deze industrie zullen uit hun comfortzone moeten stappen en hun strategie moeten aanpassen om een kleiner, maar complexer deel van de Europese muziekindustrie te kunnen bezitten’.
Cd-releases ook gedaald
Niet alleen de verkoop van cd’s daalt, ook de releases worden minder.Vergelijkingssite Beslist.nl komt na eigen onderzoek tot de conclusie dat het aantal cd-releases vanaf 2006 is gedaald met 65 procent.
Er is gekeken naar de lancering van nieuwe producten door de ruim 475 aangesloten webwinkels.
Een belangrijke reden voor de afname van het aantal uitgekomen cd’s is volgens de site het verschijnen van muziek op andere mediadragers, zoals dvd’s en op mp3’s.
Ook zal het illegaal downloaden van muziek een negatief effect hebben op het aantal uitgekomen cd’s, aldus Beslist.nl
Ondanks de mogelijkheid van het downloaden is de verschijning van dvd’s opnieuw gestegen, van 10.687 in 2007 naar 12.834 in 2008, een stijging van 20 procent. Opvallend noemt de site de grote stijging van het aantal uitgekomen Blu-ray discs: 351 procent ten opzichte van 2007.
Digitaal aangeboden muziek zal tegen 2013 qua omzet de cd-verkoop voorbij zijn gestreefd. De Europese muziekindustrie zal hierdoor drastisch veranderen. Het oude businessmodel, gebaseerd op distributie, voldoet niet meer. Muziekaanbieders zullen nieuwe businessmodellen rond online muziekconsumptie moeten bedenken, en additionele inkomsten moeten halen uit online muzieklicenties. Aldus Forrester.
Het onderzoekbureau ondervroeg ruim 4.200 Europese online consumenten in Frankrijk, Duitsland, Italië, Spanje, Zweden en Groot-Brittannië.
Volgens het bureau moet niet de verkoop van cd’s, maar de muziekconsumptie zelf in de nieuwe businessmodellen centraal komen te staan.
Forrester: ‘De kernprincipes van de oude muziekindustrie, zoals omzet uit de hoeveelheid verkochte albums, zullen minder van betekenis zijn in een on-demand digitale wereld. De muziekindustrie in de 21ste eeuw is complexer en meer ontwikkeld’.
Muziekaanbieders zullen consumenten meer toegang tot gratis muziek moeten bieden en daarnaast ook omzet halen uit ‘online muzieklicenties’; mensen en bedrijven laten betalen voor het beschikbaar maken en afspelen van muziek online.
Forrester verwacht dat in 2013 digitaal aangekochte muziek 57 procent van de omzet voor zijn rekening zal nemen, en dat online muzieklicenties nog eens 1,2 miljard euro zullen omzetten.
Andere onderzoeksresultaten:
De enige manier om het gevecht met 'gratis'aan te gaan, is gratis aanbieden. Illegaal downloaden blijft een groot probleem.
‘Social music’ zal groeien in het digitale landschap. Onder andere door bijvoorbeeld MySpace.com Music zal het publiek hiervoor meer dan verdubbelen. Van 32 miljoen in 2007 tot 78 miljoen in 2014.
‘Gesubisdieerde diensten’ zijn de weg naar het massapubliek. Jonge consumenten verzamelen zich rondom social networks voor hun muziek, het massapubliek zal muziek via sites beluisteren waarvan de kosten worden gedragen door bijvoorbeeld telecommunicatie- of consumentenelektronicabedrijven. Zie Nokia met ‘Comes With Music’.
Niet stervende
De muziekindustrie is niet stervende, meent Forrester. Maar de manier waarop het te werk gaat, zal ingrijpend veranderen. ‘De mensen in deze industrie zullen uit hun comfortzone moeten stappen en hun strategie moeten aanpassen om een kleiner, maar complexer deel van de Europese muziekindustrie te kunnen bezitten’.
Cd-releases ook gedaald
Niet alleen de verkoop van cd’s daalt, ook de releases worden minder.Vergelijkingssite Beslist.nl komt na eigen onderzoek tot de conclusie dat het aantal cd-releases vanaf 2006 is gedaald met 65 procent.
Er is gekeken naar de lancering van nieuwe producten door de ruim 475 aangesloten webwinkels.
Een belangrijke reden voor de afname van het aantal uitgekomen cd’s is volgens de site het verschijnen van muziek op andere mediadragers, zoals dvd’s en op mp3’s.
Ook zal het illegaal downloaden van muziek een negatief effect hebben op het aantal uitgekomen cd’s, aldus Beslist.nl
Ondanks de mogelijkheid van het downloaden is de verschijning van dvd’s opnieuw gestegen, van 10.687 in 2007 naar 12.834 in 2008, een stijging van 20 procent. Opvallend noemt de site de grote stijging van het aantal uitgekomen Blu-ray discs: 351 procent ten opzichte van 2007.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)