Just a note to point out that the Future of Music Coalition have begun releasing the stats from their Artist Revenue Project - most recently publishing the data for their ARS Financial Case Studies.
There are five case studies - a Jazz Bandlear/Composer; an Indie Rock Composer/Performer; a Jazz Sideman/Bandleader; a Professional Orchestra Player and a Contemporary Chamber Ensemble member.
They state: "Drawing from 4-12 years of accounting data provided by the artists, each case study graphs and explains their musician-based sources of income over time. The reports also include annual revenue pies, and a look at income versus expenses and net profit over time. Some case studies also include more detailed breakdowns, such as PRO royalties by territory, or session work by bandleader."
You can read more about it here:
Future of Music Coalition, Music By The Numbers: ARS Financial Case Studies Released (19 March 2012) < http://futureofmusic.org/blog/2012/03/19/music-numbers-ars-financial-case-studies-released > at 21 March 2012
Showing posts with label Profit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Profit. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, September 12, 2011
FMC Artist Revenue Streams Survey Launch
The Future of Music Coalition are conducting a survey on revenue streams for USA musicians - take the time to participate if this applies to you.
They write:
They write:
FMC urges US-based musicians and composers who are 18 years of age or older to participate in this online survey. Your participation is both voluntary and anonymous. There are no questions that identify you as an individual, and your data will be aggregated with thousands of other musicians.
By participating in this survey, you are contributing to something much bigger than simply providing us with some information about your life and musical work; the results will provide a rich snapshot of the complex nature of being a musician in the 21st century.
We will be sharing the data with organizations, advocates and musicians nationwide in 2012, and it will help us to ensure that policymakers and consumers understand the financial realities of musicians today.
You can take the survey by visiting FMC here.Tuesday, June 16, 2009
What’s the Deal with Record Labels?
Many of us sit back and wonder why it is that record labels act the way they do. I have written earlier about how the corporations law prevents them from making decisions based on morals and forces them to consider profits above all else. But what are the impacts for musicians and the music?
The Standard Deal
Typically record labels offer ‘standard’ deals to artists (especially the unknown ones) that have unfair and onerous conditions. Many artists, with the exception of those with a very savy manager or significant popularity, walk into a record label’s office prepared to accept any terms they offer. The artist believes that without their support they simply cannot create but the short term gains most often outweigh the long term benefits. Indeed it is not until sometime later, once the contract is in full swing, that they can really assess their needs compared to what they are being offered and by then it is generally too late.
All but the most successful artists are forced to work under terms which are financially unsustainable and grossly unfair, sometimes without access to resources that would help them to produce better music and without the ability to renegotiate.
With the exception of those that have an agreement that would be considered in law to be ‘unconscionable’, there is little that can be done but to find ways around the conditions that have been imposed.
Some artists seek the advice of organisations such as the Musicians Union but the contracts which already underfoot, are strict in their terms and there is little that can be done to negotiate a better deal.
Artists under standard contracts are left with little option but to rely on alternative forms of revenue – this has typically been in the form of concert ticket sales and merchandising which until recently were not part of recording contracts.
Those lucky enough to have a short term contract may have the opportunity to reconsider their options and look around for another label but this process itself is stressful with the old label looking over their shoulder.
For those artists that do have some success and are able to prove their worth, the length of the deal which often has clauses that enable the label to keep extending the current arrangements (option clauses) means they are trapped and must continue to work under the same conditions regardless of whether their needs or abilities have changed.
For others, those that are not as successful, the contracts may still be extended despite the fact that the label has no intention of supporting them in the future and yet they are not able to sign with another label or go out on their own as an independent.
Furthermore, even the most successful artists are forced to make ‘artistic compromises’ – in short this has meant that the labels can refuse to release music that they consider unworthy of financial investment or unlikely to be popular with the masses. For political music this is very problematic with songs deemed too controversial unlikely to be released unless they have an associated marketing angle.
One artist famous for a dispute with his record label is Prince/The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. Prince was in dispute with his record label, Warner Brothers, who had trademarked his name and owned all associated rights to the music marketed under that name. I remember well the jokes that many in the industry made at the time asking why he would pick the Love Symbol and such a silly name. The reason was that his record label could hold him to the contract if he used the name 'Prince'. By changing his name in this way he gained the benefit of both avoiding the terms of the contract he was in while negotiations were taking place and continuing to work based on the reputation he had already built.
However for most artists the results of ‘corporate patronage and indentured servitude’ are catastrophic. They are unable to plan their lives as they do not know from one day to the next what will be happening. They have terms that are financially unsustainable and demanding commitments that they cannot meet. Some struggle to work with the little that they have and others elect non performance. Pure and complete non performance of a contract is a breach of the agreement but by sabotaging themselves - writing poor songs, being unreliable, difficult to work with and generally uncooperative - some artists may be released from their deals. Others are retained, perhaps out of spite, and all lose whatever reputation they have developed to that point. They suffer career paralysis and eventually their popularity dies.
In all circumstances record labels control the recording copyrights and what was done in the past continues to be the property of the record label so the labels continue to reap the profits despite the ongoing frustration of the artist.
Enter the Internet
Up until the last decade this was the fate of the majority of musicians. However the internet has transformed the options for artists. They are much more likely to be able succeed without the support of major labels, for the most part superstar status still depends on it, but many more are able to connect with their fans and give them a reason to buy their music without having to enter into deals that are uncompromising and unfair. Those that were signed to a major label in the past, Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor being one such example, are refusing to get back into bed with the record labels knowing that they have the reputation, intelligence and experience which enables them to go forward without the help of others.
Indeed those that are signed to major labels can take advantage of this new form of communication. One recent example of this is DJ Danger Mouse who was prevented from releasing his new album because of a dispute with his record label. Instead he released a CD case with an extensive booklet of photographs and a blank disk, telling consumers to ‘Use It As You Will’ – implying that as the music was available on file sharing networks that they should feel free to download and burn a copy.
Some have stated that the digital environment creates a ‘competition issue’. Those that are familiar with trade practices law will know that many countries attempt to regulate markets to ensure that they do not become too concentrated – in Australia it is the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) while in the USA it is the Sherman Act (1890). (Kazaa unsuccessfully argued anti trust grounds in an early MGM v Grokster decision [1]).
The internet means that record labels are in competition with the entire world. It has the potential to create a much more open marketplace where there is far less control and concentration. While on the one hand this alters the power of record labels to dictate the terms, it also dissipates the potential for artists to penetrate the global market place and for some forms of music, particularly the political, this may have associated consequences.
The New Deal
Record labels have not responded well to the digital environment and the competition that they are now faced with. The tendency has been to do as much as possible to constrict the competition – lawsuits against emerging technology are just one part of this equation – the move to 360 degree contracts where they control every aspect of a musicians career and can make money from all parts of their business has been another.
But not all labels are taking that approach. There are number of record labels, such as Magnatune (‘We’re Not Evil’), that are attempting to work with artists rather than exploit them. This has typically meant less financial investment but greater understanding for the uniqueness of some artists and the need to ensure that they are comfortable with their contractual arrangements. However many artists are scared and do not know enough about these labels to make the change, perhaps more time will help them to see that they do not operate in the same way as the record labels of the past.
What Does it Mean for the Music?
Music is and has always been intangible. It is non rivalrous meaning that it can be duplicated without loss of quality and in infinite quantity. The artificial scarcity that was created by the reduction to material form (the CD) has now largely been replaced with unfettered and cheap supply. It is only natural that music should want to be free, to explore and communicate with as many people as it wants, and yet it remains in an environment where it can be difficult to assess who will permit this and who won’t.
Some, those of the old school, get angry with those that seek to enable the music to live out its intangibility. Some seek to enable the intangibility but fail to consider the implications of the lack of financial support that is needed to sustain a professional sector of creators. Others seek the mid point. They know that there needs to be more freedom and are willing to give it but also seek to create an environment in which the music is able to have some support without being dominated and controlled to the point where it can no longer reach its true potential. Those in this mid ground advocate a collective licensing regime. Whilst requiring detailed planning and foresight it is nonetheless achievable and would make an enourmous difference to the choices that are currently in place.
A collective licensing regime has been advocated by the likes of Netanel [2], Fisher [3], Lessig [4], the Electronic Frontiers Foundation and The Songwriters Association of Canada. Experiments have taken place in countries such as Canada and China (Fisher) and in the USA recent steps have been taken to trial different versions in colleges as a means to reduce illegal file sharing by students (Choruss).
While there is a way to go yet, these developments are both positive and essential. While some forms of music, the emotive and purely entertaining forms, will be produced in most conditions due to their social function, they can be produced to a higher standard under better conditions. Other forms of music, such as political music, require greater attention. This form of music in particular has an important social function but under negative community conditions – capitalism, closed or structurally deterministic architecture, neoclassicist copyright law and prohibitive social norms – it cannot achieve its potential as an agent for social change.
If the major record labels are going to have a place in musicians' lives in the future, they need to act now because they are running out of time. It is impossible to unscramble an egg - things will never return to the way they were before. It is time the labels realised this and got on with helping musicians to achieve their goals.
Further Reading
[1] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al v Grokster Ltd et al 269 F.Supp. 2d 1213; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11329; Copy. L. Rep (CCH) P28,634; 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74,081
[2] N W Netanel, ‘Impose a Noncommerical Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File-Swapping and Remixing’ (2003-2004) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 1-84
[3] William W. Fisher III, Promises to Keep (2004)
[4] Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004) 301
Musicians Union of Australia <http://www.musicians.asn.au/union/index.html> at 16 June 2009
The Standard Deal
Typically record labels offer ‘standard’ deals to artists (especially the unknown ones) that have unfair and onerous conditions. Many artists, with the exception of those with a very savy manager or significant popularity, walk into a record label’s office prepared to accept any terms they offer. The artist believes that without their support they simply cannot create but the short term gains most often outweigh the long term benefits. Indeed it is not until sometime later, once the contract is in full swing, that they can really assess their needs compared to what they are being offered and by then it is generally too late.
All but the most successful artists are forced to work under terms which are financially unsustainable and grossly unfair, sometimes without access to resources that would help them to produce better music and without the ability to renegotiate.
With the exception of those that have an agreement that would be considered in law to be ‘unconscionable’, there is little that can be done but to find ways around the conditions that have been imposed.
Some artists seek the advice of organisations such as the Musicians Union but the contracts which already underfoot, are strict in their terms and there is little that can be done to negotiate a better deal.
Artists under standard contracts are left with little option but to rely on alternative forms of revenue – this has typically been in the form of concert ticket sales and merchandising which until recently were not part of recording contracts.
Those lucky enough to have a short term contract may have the opportunity to reconsider their options and look around for another label but this process itself is stressful with the old label looking over their shoulder.
For those artists that do have some success and are able to prove their worth, the length of the deal which often has clauses that enable the label to keep extending the current arrangements (option clauses) means they are trapped and must continue to work under the same conditions regardless of whether their needs or abilities have changed.
For others, those that are not as successful, the contracts may still be extended despite the fact that the label has no intention of supporting them in the future and yet they are not able to sign with another label or go out on their own as an independent.
Furthermore, even the most successful artists are forced to make ‘artistic compromises’ – in short this has meant that the labels can refuse to release music that they consider unworthy of financial investment or unlikely to be popular with the masses. For political music this is very problematic with songs deemed too controversial unlikely to be released unless they have an associated marketing angle.
One artist famous for a dispute with his record label is Prince/The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. Prince was in dispute with his record label, Warner Brothers, who had trademarked his name and owned all associated rights to the music marketed under that name. I remember well the jokes that many in the industry made at the time asking why he would pick the Love Symbol and such a silly name. The reason was that his record label could hold him to the contract if he used the name 'Prince'. By changing his name in this way he gained the benefit of both avoiding the terms of the contract he was in while negotiations were taking place and continuing to work based on the reputation he had already built.
However for most artists the results of ‘corporate patronage and indentured servitude’ are catastrophic. They are unable to plan their lives as they do not know from one day to the next what will be happening. They have terms that are financially unsustainable and demanding commitments that they cannot meet. Some struggle to work with the little that they have and others elect non performance. Pure and complete non performance of a contract is a breach of the agreement but by sabotaging themselves - writing poor songs, being unreliable, difficult to work with and generally uncooperative - some artists may be released from their deals. Others are retained, perhaps out of spite, and all lose whatever reputation they have developed to that point. They suffer career paralysis and eventually their popularity dies.
In all circumstances record labels control the recording copyrights and what was done in the past continues to be the property of the record label so the labels continue to reap the profits despite the ongoing frustration of the artist.
Enter the Internet
Up until the last decade this was the fate of the majority of musicians. However the internet has transformed the options for artists. They are much more likely to be able succeed without the support of major labels, for the most part superstar status still depends on it, but many more are able to connect with their fans and give them a reason to buy their music without having to enter into deals that are uncompromising and unfair. Those that were signed to a major label in the past, Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor being one such example, are refusing to get back into bed with the record labels knowing that they have the reputation, intelligence and experience which enables them to go forward without the help of others.
Indeed those that are signed to major labels can take advantage of this new form of communication. One recent example of this is DJ Danger Mouse who was prevented from releasing his new album because of a dispute with his record label. Instead he released a CD case with an extensive booklet of photographs and a blank disk, telling consumers to ‘Use It As You Will’ – implying that as the music was available on file sharing networks that they should feel free to download and burn a copy.
Some have stated that the digital environment creates a ‘competition issue’. Those that are familiar with trade practices law will know that many countries attempt to regulate markets to ensure that they do not become too concentrated – in Australia it is the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) while in the USA it is the Sherman Act (1890). (Kazaa unsuccessfully argued anti trust grounds in an early MGM v Grokster decision [1]).
The internet means that record labels are in competition with the entire world. It has the potential to create a much more open marketplace where there is far less control and concentration. While on the one hand this alters the power of record labels to dictate the terms, it also dissipates the potential for artists to penetrate the global market place and for some forms of music, particularly the political, this may have associated consequences.
The New Deal
Record labels have not responded well to the digital environment and the competition that they are now faced with. The tendency has been to do as much as possible to constrict the competition – lawsuits against emerging technology are just one part of this equation – the move to 360 degree contracts where they control every aspect of a musicians career and can make money from all parts of their business has been another.
But not all labels are taking that approach. There are number of record labels, such as Magnatune (‘We’re Not Evil’), that are attempting to work with artists rather than exploit them. This has typically meant less financial investment but greater understanding for the uniqueness of some artists and the need to ensure that they are comfortable with their contractual arrangements. However many artists are scared and do not know enough about these labels to make the change, perhaps more time will help them to see that they do not operate in the same way as the record labels of the past.
What Does it Mean for the Music?
Music is and has always been intangible. It is non rivalrous meaning that it can be duplicated without loss of quality and in infinite quantity. The artificial scarcity that was created by the reduction to material form (the CD) has now largely been replaced with unfettered and cheap supply. It is only natural that music should want to be free, to explore and communicate with as many people as it wants, and yet it remains in an environment where it can be difficult to assess who will permit this and who won’t.
Some, those of the old school, get angry with those that seek to enable the music to live out its intangibility. Some seek to enable the intangibility but fail to consider the implications of the lack of financial support that is needed to sustain a professional sector of creators. Others seek the mid point. They know that there needs to be more freedom and are willing to give it but also seek to create an environment in which the music is able to have some support without being dominated and controlled to the point where it can no longer reach its true potential. Those in this mid ground advocate a collective licensing regime. Whilst requiring detailed planning and foresight it is nonetheless achievable and would make an enourmous difference to the choices that are currently in place.
A collective licensing regime has been advocated by the likes of Netanel [2], Fisher [3], Lessig [4], the Electronic Frontiers Foundation and The Songwriters Association of Canada. Experiments have taken place in countries such as Canada and China (Fisher) and in the USA recent steps have been taken to trial different versions in colleges as a means to reduce illegal file sharing by students (Choruss).
While there is a way to go yet, these developments are both positive and essential. While some forms of music, the emotive and purely entertaining forms, will be produced in most conditions due to their social function, they can be produced to a higher standard under better conditions. Other forms of music, such as political music, require greater attention. This form of music in particular has an important social function but under negative community conditions – capitalism, closed or structurally deterministic architecture, neoclassicist copyright law and prohibitive social norms – it cannot achieve its potential as an agent for social change.
If the major record labels are going to have a place in musicians' lives in the future, they need to act now because they are running out of time. It is impossible to unscramble an egg - things will never return to the way they were before. It is time the labels realised this and got on with helping musicians to achieve their goals.
Further Reading
[1] Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al v Grokster Ltd et al 269 F.Supp. 2d 1213; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11329; Copy. L. Rep (CCH) P28,634; 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74,081
[2] N W Netanel, ‘Impose a Noncommerical Use Levy to Allow Free P2P File-Swapping and Remixing’ (2003-2004) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 1-84
[3] William W. Fisher III, Promises to Keep (2004)
[4] Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004) 301
ArsTechnica, Canadian artists' new/old plan: $5 to share music legally (24 March 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/canadian-songwriters-plan-5-to-share-music-legally.ars> at 29 March 2009
Electronic Frontiers Foundation, File Sharing: It’s Music to our Ears, Making p2p Pay Artists (2004) <http://www.eff.org/share/compensation.php> at 12 April 2006
EFF Deeplinks, More on Choruss, Pro and Con (20 March 2009) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03/more-choruss-pro-and-con> at 11 April 2009
EFF Deeplinks, Danger Mouse Releases a Blank CD-R (18 May 2009) <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/danger-mouse-inducem> at 29 May 2009
Future of Music Coalition, Major Label Contract Clause Critique (2001) <http://www.futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm> at 16 June 2009
OpenContentAustraliaResearchReview, Capitalism and the Alcoholism of the Music Industry (18 May 2009) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2009/05/capitalism-and-alcoholism-of-music.html> at 16 June 2009
Open Content Australia, Year in Review: Recording Contracts (18 December 2008) <http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/12/year-in-review-recording-contracts.html > at 16 June 2009
TechDirt, My Keynote At The (RIAA Sponsored) Leadership Music Digital Summit (30 April 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/0407024607.shtml> at 3 May 2009
TechDirt, U2 Manager: Free Is The Enemy Of Good; And It's Moral To Protect Old Business Models (29 May 2009) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090528/1919455049.shtml> at 31 May 2009
Testimony of William W. Fisher III before theSubcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness Committee on Education and the WorkforceHearing on: The Internet and the College Campus: How the Entertainment Industry and Higher Education are Working to Combat Illegal Piracy (26 September 2006) <http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/109th/21st/piracy092606/fisher.htm> at 17 October 2006
The Dues, “Record Earning” Deemed Oxymoronic (Issue 9 Vol 1) March 2006 <http://www.musicians.asn.au/ezine/archives/issue9/page2.html> at 16 June 2009
The Dues, How to Make it To The Top and Still End Up in Debt (Issue 2 Vol 1) <http://www.musicians.asn.au/ezine/archives/issue2/> at 16 June 2009
Wikipedia, Prince (musician) (14 June 2009) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)> at 16 June 2009
Good Copy Bad Copy<http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/> at 22 April 2008
Musicians Union of Australia <http://www.musicians.asn.au/union/index.html> at 16 June 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Spaces and Places.
Last night I had a very enjoyable dinner with friends at the 20,000 Cows Restaurant in Lismore, NSW and thought to write a little about the analogy between this place and the current space for political music.
20,000 Cows is a quaint little restaurant outside of the CBD. It is housed in an old petrol station with an odd, triangular shaped, small building and a small court yard. Inside the walls are decorated with a range of unique and hand made art works, the curtains are all different colours, there are lanterns, candles on the table and a collection of odd pieces of furniture. There is a potbelly stove made out of an old beer keg, panels of melted glass and a book on Ghandi on the wall.
The food which is absolutely beautiful is Middle Eastern and Indian vegan/vegetarian and the philosophy of the proprietor, Murray Vilkelis, is based on animal rights and respect for other living beings. Some people eat around coffee tables while sitting on lounges, others at tables with mismatching chairs.
The atmosphere is fantastic – there are people from all backgrounds including those from non mainstream and mainstream cultures. It serves as a meeting place for many that appreciate the ideological basis of the ‘business’ and it serves as a place where people from outside that culture can be comfortable and become accustom to alternative approaches.
I say ideological basis of the ‘business’ because while there are recommended prices, these are optional –the menu states that these are suggested prices.
It was a great evening and I will be certain to return many more times however it was not without its hiccups. It was very busy with a Gem Festival nearby attracting a large number of people, this led to some cramping with people squashed together in small spaces and the high demand on the staff led to some delays in service and some confusion about meals.
This was really of a secondary concern to my friends and I, and I only raise it because I was thinking at the time what a great analogy this place was for the current space of political music in the digital environment.
Political music is unique and at present it suffers from a small area in which to thrive. The artists congregate in what little architecture is available to them which is beneficial because of its intimacy and concentration, however the spaces have not grown to accommodate new creators, they have not expanded enough to house everyone comfortably and in a way that provides the greatest level of service. The distribution system (serving staff) are limited in effectiveness because of the lack of expansion and money to do more.
The business appears to be worthwhile from an economic perspective however I was not the one to pay the bill so I cannot say from personal experience whether social norms are enough to ensure that the costs are covered. At a guess I would say that most people that go there are ethically motivated enough to pay the recommended price but am sure that on occasion those that can’t don’t, and sometimes those that can, do not either. The generosity of the proprietor is both what attracts people to try new experiences but at the same time does not of itself ensure or guarantee that the business will continue without financial concerns. As I have noted recently, Trent Reznor estimates that only around 18% of consumers paid to access his bands music when a similar business model was used.
The ideological basis of the restaurant is both an attraction to those that appreciate alternative perspectives, catering (pun intended) to their desire for integtrity and respect. For others, perhaps it is something that does the opposite. It is the same for political music - not everyone who is exposed to it goes on to appreciate its true value.
I didn’t get to eat all that I ordered and some friends ate another person’s meal because of the lack of resources (serving staff per customer) – this is a direct parallel to those of us that want more political music but cannot find it.
There were delays in getting our meals (lack of cooks = lack of artists) but the uniqueness of the food was worth waiting for – it takes time to prepare something that is not generic and mass produced.
And there were things that were not welcome, such as the consumption of meat from other sources on the premises and smoking – this relates to the notion that non dedicated spaces for political expression dilute its potency and ability to get its message across.
As I said, it was a wonderful and very enjoyable evening – we all had a great time and please don’t take this as a criticism of the restaurant. This is merely me being observational and using a real space example as an illustration of what is taking place on the internet.
I had been to this restaurant some 10 or more years ago and never saw it in this way. If you ever have the chance, go, and see for yourself how special cultures express themselves and think a little of how much better the world would be if there were more chances for it to do so.
More Information
Wolf & Lamb, Wolf and Lamb: Animal Free Cooking (7th ed, 2002) <http://lis.net.au/marijonas/WOLF01.html#F200> at 17 May 2009
Your Restaurant, 20,000 Cows (2009)
<http://www.yourrestaurants.com.au/guide/20000_cows/> at 17 May 2009
20,000 Cows is a quaint little restaurant outside of the CBD. It is housed in an old petrol station with an odd, triangular shaped, small building and a small court yard. Inside the walls are decorated with a range of unique and hand made art works, the curtains are all different colours, there are lanterns, candles on the table and a collection of odd pieces of furniture. There is a potbelly stove made out of an old beer keg, panels of melted glass and a book on Ghandi on the wall.
The food which is absolutely beautiful is Middle Eastern and Indian vegan/vegetarian and the philosophy of the proprietor, Murray Vilkelis, is based on animal rights and respect for other living beings. Some people eat around coffee tables while sitting on lounges, others at tables with mismatching chairs.
The atmosphere is fantastic – there are people from all backgrounds including those from non mainstream and mainstream cultures. It serves as a meeting place for many that appreciate the ideological basis of the ‘business’ and it serves as a place where people from outside that culture can be comfortable and become accustom to alternative approaches.
I say ideological basis of the ‘business’ because while there are recommended prices, these are optional –the menu states that these are suggested prices.
It was a great evening and I will be certain to return many more times however it was not without its hiccups. It was very busy with a Gem Festival nearby attracting a large number of people, this led to some cramping with people squashed together in small spaces and the high demand on the staff led to some delays in service and some confusion about meals.
This was really of a secondary concern to my friends and I, and I only raise it because I was thinking at the time what a great analogy this place was for the current space of political music in the digital environment.
Political music is unique and at present it suffers from a small area in which to thrive. The artists congregate in what little architecture is available to them which is beneficial because of its intimacy and concentration, however the spaces have not grown to accommodate new creators, they have not expanded enough to house everyone comfortably and in a way that provides the greatest level of service. The distribution system (serving staff) are limited in effectiveness because of the lack of expansion and money to do more.
The business appears to be worthwhile from an economic perspective however I was not the one to pay the bill so I cannot say from personal experience whether social norms are enough to ensure that the costs are covered. At a guess I would say that most people that go there are ethically motivated enough to pay the recommended price but am sure that on occasion those that can’t don’t, and sometimes those that can, do not either. The generosity of the proprietor is both what attracts people to try new experiences but at the same time does not of itself ensure or guarantee that the business will continue without financial concerns. As I have noted recently, Trent Reznor estimates that only around 18% of consumers paid to access his bands music when a similar business model was used.
The ideological basis of the restaurant is both an attraction to those that appreciate alternative perspectives, catering (pun intended) to their desire for integtrity and respect. For others, perhaps it is something that does the opposite. It is the same for political music - not everyone who is exposed to it goes on to appreciate its true value.
I didn’t get to eat all that I ordered and some friends ate another person’s meal because of the lack of resources (serving staff per customer) – this is a direct parallel to those of us that want more political music but cannot find it.
There were delays in getting our meals (lack of cooks = lack of artists) but the uniqueness of the food was worth waiting for – it takes time to prepare something that is not generic and mass produced.
And there were things that were not welcome, such as the consumption of meat from other sources on the premises and smoking – this relates to the notion that non dedicated spaces for political expression dilute its potency and ability to get its message across.
As I said, it was a wonderful and very enjoyable evening – we all had a great time and please don’t take this as a criticism of the restaurant. This is merely me being observational and using a real space example as an illustration of what is taking place on the internet.
I had been to this restaurant some 10 or more years ago and never saw it in this way. If you ever have the chance, go, and see for yourself how special cultures express themselves and think a little of how much better the world would be if there were more chances for it to do so.
More Information
Wolf & Lamb, Wolf and Lamb: Animal Free Cooking (7th ed, 2002) <http://lis.net.au/marijonas/WOLF01.html#F200> at 17 May 2009
Your Restaurant, 20,000 Cows (2009)
<http://www.yourrestaurants.com.au/guide/20000_cows/> at 17 May 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
New Business Models
Here are a couple of great clips that complement each other.
Digg Dialogg Series: Trent Reznor
In the first, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails discusses their adoption of alternative compensation schemes for the monetizing of their music. He states that as music is already free their approach is to try to harness goodwill by making money off associated products such as concert tickets and tee shirts. He notes that the band has not done a lot to make money from online advertising, largely because they have not needed to and because he considers consumers to already have sufficient advertising exposure from other sources.
In the process of their recent experiement with new business structures, he states only 18% of consumers appeared to consider the direct payment of money to the artist (as opposed to a record label) as a factor compelling them to pay. He expresses some disappointment, suggesting that he had expected this to be higher. In the end however they did sell more records and make more money than they would have had they used the traditional model that major record labels use. He concludes that while there are a lot of opportunities to make money, that it should not always be about this.
In discussing emerging artists he suggests that new, unique artists that have a desire to 'change the world' should avoid major record labels. Reznor notes that major record labels are primarly interested in making money and that those outside the mainstream will be forced to constantly question their vision and make compromises. In the alternative he recommeds the use of websites, social networking sites such as MySpace, having great video clips and using stunts to attract attention. He notes that the landscape for music has changed dramatically since the late 1990's - instead of concentrated media sources such as radio and MTV, consumers now have access to music through an enourmous range of sources - the trick for new musicians is to overcome the cluter of the internet and one approach is to think strategically about how people find out about music now.
See the clip here on ZeroPaid.
Mike Masniick, TechDirt
In the second clip. Mike Masnick of TechDirt presents a speech on 'How Trent Reznor and NIN Represent the Future of the Music Industry'. Here Mike discusses in detail the gimmicks and strategies NIN have used to attract the attention and sustain the interest of fans.
Whilst signed to a major label in 2007 the band launched the album Year Zero with an internet scavenger hunt. They also left flash drives with music loaded on them in the bathrooms of concerts for fans to find - this music was uploaded to the internet for others to share however the RIAA issued take down notices to sites that hosted it. They also sold the album on a CD that changed colour when it got warm in the CD player.
Since that time the band has taken control over its own business activites and no longer being singed to a major label has meant far greater freedom in using alternative strategies to make money and distribute their music.
When releasing Ghosts I-IV they added value to the music by licensing 36 tracks under a creative commons license, by giving fans the first 9 tracks for free from their website and asking for a $5 donation for the remaining songs and other similar strategies.
This presentation is well worth watching (it is a little Lessig like in style).
Leadership Music Digital Summit 2009 - Mike Masnick keynote address, 3/25/09 from Leadership Music Digital Summit on Vimeo.
Digg Dialogg Series: Trent Reznor
In the first, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails discusses their adoption of alternative compensation schemes for the monetizing of their music. He states that as music is already free their approach is to try to harness goodwill by making money off associated products such as concert tickets and tee shirts. He notes that the band has not done a lot to make money from online advertising, largely because they have not needed to and because he considers consumers to already have sufficient advertising exposure from other sources.
In the process of their recent experiement with new business structures, he states only 18% of consumers appeared to consider the direct payment of money to the artist (as opposed to a record label) as a factor compelling them to pay. He expresses some disappointment, suggesting that he had expected this to be higher. In the end however they did sell more records and make more money than they would have had they used the traditional model that major record labels use. He concludes that while there are a lot of opportunities to make money, that it should not always be about this.
In discussing emerging artists he suggests that new, unique artists that have a desire to 'change the world' should avoid major record labels. Reznor notes that major record labels are primarly interested in making money and that those outside the mainstream will be forced to constantly question their vision and make compromises. In the alternative he recommeds the use of websites, social networking sites such as MySpace, having great video clips and using stunts to attract attention. He notes that the landscape for music has changed dramatically since the late 1990's - instead of concentrated media sources such as radio and MTV, consumers now have access to music through an enourmous range of sources - the trick for new musicians is to overcome the cluter of the internet and one approach is to think strategically about how people find out about music now.
See the clip here on ZeroPaid.
Mike Masniick, TechDirt
In the second clip. Mike Masnick of TechDirt presents a speech on 'How Trent Reznor and NIN Represent the Future of the Music Industry'. Here Mike discusses in detail the gimmicks and strategies NIN have used to attract the attention and sustain the interest of fans.
Whilst signed to a major label in 2007 the band launched the album Year Zero with an internet scavenger hunt. They also left flash drives with music loaded on them in the bathrooms of concerts for fans to find - this music was uploaded to the internet for others to share however the RIAA issued take down notices to sites that hosted it. They also sold the album on a CD that changed colour when it got warm in the CD player.
Since that time the band has taken control over its own business activites and no longer being singed to a major label has meant far greater freedom in using alternative strategies to make money and distribute their music.
When releasing Ghosts I-IV they added value to the music by licensing 36 tracks under a creative commons license, by giving fans the first 9 tracks for free from their website and asking for a $5 donation for the remaining songs and other similar strategies.
This presentation is well worth watching (it is a little Lessig like in style).
Leadership Music Digital Summit 2009 - Mike Masnick keynote address, 3/25/09 from Leadership Music Digital Summit on Vimeo.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
When Worlds Collide – Part 2
Following on from my last post which discussed the differences between real space and cyberspace, I would now like to consider the implications and influences of technological developments on music. Identifying how technological changes have enhanced the ability of music to communicate enables an evaluation of the current conditions offered by the digital music environment and ways in which their potential can be maximised. Socio economic conditions influence technological conditions and vice versa throughout history.
Evolution not Revolution
In the last post I referred to the conception of three worlds by Sir Karl Popper. Another of his theories is that of refutation – here he suggest that knowledge of the world is produced through a process of problem solving iterations. His model for scientific testing starts with a problem solving situation, applies tentative theories which identify false results enabling a determination of the most probable answer(s), leading inturn to more complex and interesting problem solving situations. The identification of false results in one sense is said to emulate the process of natural selection in the biological environment by identifying the most suitable or fit result.
In a similar way to Popper’s theory of knowledge and the theory of evolution, the movement of culture from an analogue environment to a hybrid analogue/digital environment with an ever increasing emphasis on the digital, takes place through a sequence of problem solving, theorising, error elimination and more problem solving.
This theory can be applied in a number of macro and micro extrapolations. The internet itself arguably follows much the same pattern, but for these purposes the focus will be on the narrower conception of the digital music environment as well as music itself.
In the digital music environment, the difficulties creating artificial scarcity led to major content owners, and in turn governments, theorising that increased protections are the most suitable response to the control of intangibles in an intangible environment. Others contend that the problem is not one of recreating scarcity but rather recognition of the impossibility of achieving this and adapting to take advantage of the new environment.
Content owners, motivated by self preservation and money rather than artist, artistic or public benefit, in misidentifying the nature of the problem entered into a cycle which has not solved the true problem and arguably has made the conditions worse for themselves and everyone else. From this perspective strategies such as DRM, file sharing lawsuits against individuals and software developers which inturn impact on overall technological development, the development of closed architectures for music distribution on the internet and the attempt to keep independent artists marginalised by refusing to adopt alternative business models, are the result of addressing the wrong problem in the first place. In contrast, identifying the problem as a need maximise the opportunities for creativity and free expression by applying a theory of positive inclusive community would lead to more interesting and productive problems to resolve such as the detail, application and subsequent revisions of an alternative compensation scheme.
In one sense the content owners have characterised the digital music environment as a context inciting revolution rather than evolution.
Culture also undergoes a constant evolution. Music provides an obvious illustration as a form of expression subjected to differing conditions which favour the existence of certain form, content, styles, accessibility, ability to communicate and in turn the production of social progress.
From its most primitive form of personal, tribal and then public performance, communication through music was, and to a relative extent remains, limited by skill, time and space. Public performances require mastery of instruments, exist for a very finite period of time and are only available to a specific and limited audience. Historically public performance represented the analogue manifestation of music and since this time there has been an ongoing evolution to the form of expression brought about by changes in technology.
The advent of radio saw the removal of space limitations enabling much larger and remote audiences to access music of live performers. This was followed by recording technology which then removed the limitations of time and space enabling audiences to access music at their convenience. Digital technologies also contributed to the production of music with the advent of instruments such as the synthesiser removing many of the barriers for the average person to compose and perform.
The advent of the internet was another major technological development which itself is dynamic and subject to constant change. Here we see the convergence of all the previous adaptations of the production and reception of culture to technology with skill, time and space being further supplemented by enabling instant, low cost and global distribution of works. In some respects for music, this is the ultimate iteration of technology with the potential for the most number of errors inhibiting communication to be eliminated. However the true potential has not yet been properly realised.
As the technological evolution has taken place so too has the content of culture evolved. The content of music has moved from anthropological and community applications to global issues. There have been detectable historical trends with respect to the prevalence of messages within music, one particular notable example being the status of protest music in the United States in the 1960s. This occurred at a time when FM radio was open and commercially ambivalent and there had been technological advances in recording equipment and techniques. Subsequent convergence of record labels and the increased influence of capitalism on the music environment ultimately led to the prevalence of emotive and dance music. If the digital music environment is able to realise its full potential there would inevitably be greater opportunity for the diversity of culture and the ability to support political music and other nonmainstream content.
At various moments in history the technological conditions have combined with the socio economic conditions to favour certain styles over others. In medieval times for example, minstrels and street performers were took on the role of illustrating current events in the commons for those largely illiterate and removed from the immediacy of royalty. Similarly the technical and socio economic conditions in the classical era saw the highest quality of music performed before limited and exclusive audiences. In contrast church music has more generally been performed in a more open environment. Over time and largely in line with changes to technology there has been an exponential growth in the number and diversity of musical styles. While there are many different conceptions to the evolution of musical styles, milestones following the dilution of the classical era include blues, jazz and folk. Rock music marks the start of a dramatic expansion of musical styles which continues unabated today.
The internet and digital technology in particular have created unique musical styles through the use of sampling techniques, mashing and remixing. Enabling limitless reproduction and variation this technology again offers the ultimate iteration by removing barriers to production of music. Similarly with the promise of open and limitless access, this context offers the opportunity to maximise receptive mediation. However the continued determination of major content owners to control music by misinterpreting the problems created by the digital music environment poses an ongoing threat to the realisation of the benefits of this technology.
By enabling or restricting expression, differing modes of communication and architectures in turn influence the effectiveness, style and content of music and therefore the ability to transfer and receive messages. The ultimate conditions for digital culture offer the maximum opportunity for expression to create social progress and without a constant review of the problem solving sequence invoked there will be delays and the possibility that the full potential of the environment will not be realised.
Further Reading
Ed. Michael Benedikt, Cyberspace First Steps (1993)
Wikipedia, Karl Popper (9 May 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Karl_Popper> at
12 May 2008
Evolution not Revolution
In the last post I referred to the conception of three worlds by Sir Karl Popper. Another of his theories is that of refutation – here he suggest that knowledge of the world is produced through a process of problem solving iterations. His model for scientific testing starts with a problem solving situation, applies tentative theories which identify false results enabling a determination of the most probable answer(s), leading inturn to more complex and interesting problem solving situations. The identification of false results in one sense is said to emulate the process of natural selection in the biological environment by identifying the most suitable or fit result.
In a similar way to Popper’s theory of knowledge and the theory of evolution, the movement of culture from an analogue environment to a hybrid analogue/digital environment with an ever increasing emphasis on the digital, takes place through a sequence of problem solving, theorising, error elimination and more problem solving.
This theory can be applied in a number of macro and micro extrapolations. The internet itself arguably follows much the same pattern, but for these purposes the focus will be on the narrower conception of the digital music environment as well as music itself.
In the digital music environment, the difficulties creating artificial scarcity led to major content owners, and in turn governments, theorising that increased protections are the most suitable response to the control of intangibles in an intangible environment. Others contend that the problem is not one of recreating scarcity but rather recognition of the impossibility of achieving this and adapting to take advantage of the new environment.
Content owners, motivated by self preservation and money rather than artist, artistic or public benefit, in misidentifying the nature of the problem entered into a cycle which has not solved the true problem and arguably has made the conditions worse for themselves and everyone else. From this perspective strategies such as DRM, file sharing lawsuits against individuals and software developers which inturn impact on overall technological development, the development of closed architectures for music distribution on the internet and the attempt to keep independent artists marginalised by refusing to adopt alternative business models, are the result of addressing the wrong problem in the first place. In contrast, identifying the problem as a need maximise the opportunities for creativity and free expression by applying a theory of positive inclusive community would lead to more interesting and productive problems to resolve such as the detail, application and subsequent revisions of an alternative compensation scheme.
In one sense the content owners have characterised the digital music environment as a context inciting revolution rather than evolution.
Culture also undergoes a constant evolution. Music provides an obvious illustration as a form of expression subjected to differing conditions which favour the existence of certain form, content, styles, accessibility, ability to communicate and in turn the production of social progress.
From its most primitive form of personal, tribal and then public performance, communication through music was, and to a relative extent remains, limited by skill, time and space. Public performances require mastery of instruments, exist for a very finite period of time and are only available to a specific and limited audience. Historically public performance represented the analogue manifestation of music and since this time there has been an ongoing evolution to the form of expression brought about by changes in technology.
The advent of radio saw the removal of space limitations enabling much larger and remote audiences to access music of live performers. This was followed by recording technology which then removed the limitations of time and space enabling audiences to access music at their convenience. Digital technologies also contributed to the production of music with the advent of instruments such as the synthesiser removing many of the barriers for the average person to compose and perform.
The advent of the internet was another major technological development which itself is dynamic and subject to constant change. Here we see the convergence of all the previous adaptations of the production and reception of culture to technology with skill, time and space being further supplemented by enabling instant, low cost and global distribution of works. In some respects for music, this is the ultimate iteration of technology with the potential for the most number of errors inhibiting communication to be eliminated. However the true potential has not yet been properly realised.
As the technological evolution has taken place so too has the content of culture evolved. The content of music has moved from anthropological and community applications to global issues. There have been detectable historical trends with respect to the prevalence of messages within music, one particular notable example being the status of protest music in the United States in the 1960s. This occurred at a time when FM radio was open and commercially ambivalent and there had been technological advances in recording equipment and techniques. Subsequent convergence of record labels and the increased influence of capitalism on the music environment ultimately led to the prevalence of emotive and dance music. If the digital music environment is able to realise its full potential there would inevitably be greater opportunity for the diversity of culture and the ability to support political music and other nonmainstream content.
At various moments in history the technological conditions have combined with the socio economic conditions to favour certain styles over others. In medieval times for example, minstrels and street performers were took on the role of illustrating current events in the commons for those largely illiterate and removed from the immediacy of royalty. Similarly the technical and socio economic conditions in the classical era saw the highest quality of music performed before limited and exclusive audiences. In contrast church music has more generally been performed in a more open environment. Over time and largely in line with changes to technology there has been an exponential growth in the number and diversity of musical styles. While there are many different conceptions to the evolution of musical styles, milestones following the dilution of the classical era include blues, jazz and folk. Rock music marks the start of a dramatic expansion of musical styles which continues unabated today.
The internet and digital technology in particular have created unique musical styles through the use of sampling techniques, mashing and remixing. Enabling limitless reproduction and variation this technology again offers the ultimate iteration by removing barriers to production of music. Similarly with the promise of open and limitless access, this context offers the opportunity to maximise receptive mediation. However the continued determination of major content owners to control music by misinterpreting the problems created by the digital music environment poses an ongoing threat to the realisation of the benefits of this technology.
By enabling or restricting expression, differing modes of communication and architectures in turn influence the effectiveness, style and content of music and therefore the ability to transfer and receive messages. The ultimate conditions for digital culture offer the maximum opportunity for expression to create social progress and without a constant review of the problem solving sequence invoked there will be delays and the possibility that the full potential of the environment will not be realised.
Further Reading
Ed. Michael Benedikt, Cyberspace First Steps (1993)
Wikipedia, Karl Popper (9 May 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Karl_Popper> at
12 May 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Ad Supported Music – Part 2
This is the second part to an earlier post in which I discussed the increasing use of advertising in business models to supplement or replace income from individual consumers in the digital music environment. Moving on from the worst case scenario, this post considers the ways in which an ad supported business model could be employed in a beneficial way.
The Most Favourable Model
Ad supported business models for music could create opportunities for the diversity of culture, free speech and democracy if developed in a way that took account of the potential negative implications and sought to overcome these. Ad supported music services offer an enormous potential for the reception of culture, enabling any person with access to the internet the ability to enjoy and explore an essentially unlimited range of material. Under the right conditions, business models of this nature also offer the potential to level the playing field for the entry of new creators. Again it is important to consider the nature of the enterprise offering the music service, the equality of access for speakers, the mode of communication and its influence on audiences as well as the independence of the opinions of creators.
In contrast to profit seeking entities, non profit associations or formal cooperatives allow a much greater opportunity to accommodate goals of an abstract nature such as the pursuit of a diverse and fair music industry; allow for democratic decision making and mutual ownership. While not all corporations possess objectives of extreme and unmitigated capitalism, any structure other than these would, if not from the outset, then certainly in time, allow for the worst case scenario as described earlier to develop. Employing an alternative structure does not mean operating without creating revenue but that this is not the primary objective. Any profits are returned to the members or used to enhance the service itself for the ultimate benefit of the public.
By employing such a structure there is a far greater opportunity to secure equality of access for creators thus promoting active public participation. In discussing an alternative compensation model for open peer to peer file sharing, Professor Terry (William) Fisher suggests that rather than just considering the number of times a track is downloaded or streamed from a digital music service, that an alternative or hybrid satisfaction determinant may be achieved through a public voting or rating system. Media corporations could continue to operate in such an environment but would be no more powerful to control the direction or development of the service(s) than any other member.
The democratic structure also provides for an open and transparent division of advertising revenue. By ensuring that independent, particularly politically motivated artists have equal access, enhances the likelihood of this genre of music to be created reducing the present commercial preference for emotive and dance music.
The mode of communication is also a fundamental determinant in the ability to secure free expression to the benefit of democracy. Unlike the closed internet architecture models discussed in the previous post, and while again a matter of degree in each instance, open peer to peer file sharing networks, particularly those written with open source code, offer no limitations to participation and unlimited file formats. Whilst the issue of digital rights management for individual files is not directly prevented by this model, typically it has been the case that unprotected files have been uploaded to open networks. If the remuneration of artists were to be facilitated on open networks there would more than likely be a need to track downloads or streams in some way, for example, through the use of non-invasive watermarks or other software. The non profit nature of the structure would therefore aid in limiting the incentives to implement digital rights management technology to the extent used in closed networks, allowing far greater reception, interpretation and mediation of culture.
The independence of the expression of creators would also be ensured to a far greater degree if an advertising model were adopted within a democratic/non private structure. There would also be less incentive to exclude or favour particular advertisers and the potential to allocate a quantity of advertising space to non profit or socially beneficial endeavours.
Conclusion
In the end the adoption of ad supported business models may not be identical for each music service presently in place or developed into the future. Nonetheless there are conditions in which political music and a diversity of culture will thrive over others. Left to the interests of powerful corporations it is far more likely that the potential for creativity, free speech and democracy will not be realised. Some parallels may be drawn with the implications of commercial television compared with the more liberal programming of public television. In order to enhance the quality of music and to create the conditions in which deliberative democracy can take place, there must be equity between creators, an open communication model and expression independent of the overbearing influence of capitalism.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Report: ad-supported content will soon dominate digital media (5 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080505-report-ad-support-content-will-soon-dominate-digital-media.html> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Advertising is Content; Content is Advertising (19 March 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Content Is Advertising... On TV (23 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/022513915.shtml> at 26 April 2008
Digital Music News, We're Number Three: SpiralFrog Claims Third-Place Download Crown (28 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032708three> at 30 March 2008
CNet News, Ad-supported SpiralFrog finally launches music site (7 August 2007) <http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6201315.html> at 12 August 2007
Digital Music News, SpiralFrog Grabs $2 Million...With Serious Strings Attached (2 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/010207spiralfrog> at 11 January 2008
Digital Music News, MySpace Scores Gold Record (In Ad-Supported Terms) (24 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032308pennywise> at 26 March 2008
Digital Music News, Back from the Brink: Qtrax Licensing Deals Emerge (3 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/030308qtrax> at 5 March 2008
Digital Music News, Details Bubbling on Major-Backed, Ad-Supported Venture (19 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021708ad> at 21 February 2008
Digital Music News, Gabriel Pumps Serious Cash Into Ad-Supported Startup (22 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012008gabriel> at 30 January 2008
William Fisher III, Promises To Keep (2004) <http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Keep-Technology-Entertainment-Stanford/dp/080475845X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210219722&sr=8-1> at 5 May 2008
Christopher J Sichok, The Free Market: An Erosion of Free Speech, eLaw - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 7 Number 3 (September 2000) <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n3/sichok73.html> at 6 May 2008
Wikipedia, Deliberative Democracy (7 February 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy> at 6 May 2008
Wikipedia, Public Television (25 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_television> at 6 May 2008
Free Press <http://freepress.net/> at 6 May 2008
The Most Favourable Model
Ad supported business models for music could create opportunities for the diversity of culture, free speech and democracy if developed in a way that took account of the potential negative implications and sought to overcome these. Ad supported music services offer an enormous potential for the reception of culture, enabling any person with access to the internet the ability to enjoy and explore an essentially unlimited range of material. Under the right conditions, business models of this nature also offer the potential to level the playing field for the entry of new creators. Again it is important to consider the nature of the enterprise offering the music service, the equality of access for speakers, the mode of communication and its influence on audiences as well as the independence of the opinions of creators.
In contrast to profit seeking entities, non profit associations or formal cooperatives allow a much greater opportunity to accommodate goals of an abstract nature such as the pursuit of a diverse and fair music industry; allow for democratic decision making and mutual ownership. While not all corporations possess objectives of extreme and unmitigated capitalism, any structure other than these would, if not from the outset, then certainly in time, allow for the worst case scenario as described earlier to develop. Employing an alternative structure does not mean operating without creating revenue but that this is not the primary objective. Any profits are returned to the members or used to enhance the service itself for the ultimate benefit of the public.
By employing such a structure there is a far greater opportunity to secure equality of access for creators thus promoting active public participation. In discussing an alternative compensation model for open peer to peer file sharing, Professor Terry (William) Fisher suggests that rather than just considering the number of times a track is downloaded or streamed from a digital music service, that an alternative or hybrid satisfaction determinant may be achieved through a public voting or rating system. Media corporations could continue to operate in such an environment but would be no more powerful to control the direction or development of the service(s) than any other member.
The democratic structure also provides for an open and transparent division of advertising revenue. By ensuring that independent, particularly politically motivated artists have equal access, enhances the likelihood of this genre of music to be created reducing the present commercial preference for emotive and dance music.
The mode of communication is also a fundamental determinant in the ability to secure free expression to the benefit of democracy. Unlike the closed internet architecture models discussed in the previous post, and while again a matter of degree in each instance, open peer to peer file sharing networks, particularly those written with open source code, offer no limitations to participation and unlimited file formats. Whilst the issue of digital rights management for individual files is not directly prevented by this model, typically it has been the case that unprotected files have been uploaded to open networks. If the remuneration of artists were to be facilitated on open networks there would more than likely be a need to track downloads or streams in some way, for example, through the use of non-invasive watermarks or other software. The non profit nature of the structure would therefore aid in limiting the incentives to implement digital rights management technology to the extent used in closed networks, allowing far greater reception, interpretation and mediation of culture.
The independence of the expression of creators would also be ensured to a far greater degree if an advertising model were adopted within a democratic/non private structure. There would also be less incentive to exclude or favour particular advertisers and the potential to allocate a quantity of advertising space to non profit or socially beneficial endeavours.
Conclusion
In the end the adoption of ad supported business models may not be identical for each music service presently in place or developed into the future. Nonetheless there are conditions in which political music and a diversity of culture will thrive over others. Left to the interests of powerful corporations it is far more likely that the potential for creativity, free speech and democracy will not be realised. Some parallels may be drawn with the implications of commercial television compared with the more liberal programming of public television. In order to enhance the quality of music and to create the conditions in which deliberative democracy can take place, there must be equity between creators, an open communication model and expression independent of the overbearing influence of capitalism.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Report: ad-supported content will soon dominate digital media (5 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080505-report-ad-support-content-will-soon-dominate-digital-media.html> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Advertising is Content; Content is Advertising (19 March 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Content Is Advertising... On TV (23 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/022513915.shtml> at 26 April 2008
Digital Music News, We're Number Three: SpiralFrog Claims Third-Place Download Crown (28 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032708three> at 30 March 2008
CNet News, Ad-supported SpiralFrog finally launches music site (7 August 2007) <http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6201315.html> at 12 August 2007
Digital Music News, SpiralFrog Grabs $2 Million...With Serious Strings Attached (2 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/010207spiralfrog> at 11 January 2008
Digital Music News, MySpace Scores Gold Record (In Ad-Supported Terms) (24 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032308pennywise> at 26 March 2008
Digital Music News, Back from the Brink: Qtrax Licensing Deals Emerge (3 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/030308qtrax> at 5 March 2008
Digital Music News, Details Bubbling on Major-Backed, Ad-Supported Venture (19 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021708ad> at 21 February 2008
Digital Music News, Gabriel Pumps Serious Cash Into Ad-Supported Startup (22 January 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/012008gabriel> at 30 January 2008
William Fisher III, Promises To Keep (2004) <http://www.amazon.com/Promises-Keep-Technology-Entertainment-Stanford/dp/080475845X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210219722&sr=8-1> at 5 May 2008
Christopher J Sichok, The Free Market: An Erosion of Free Speech, eLaw - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 7 Number 3 (September 2000) <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n3/sichok73.html> at 6 May 2008
Wikipedia, Deliberative Democracy (7 February 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy> at 6 May 2008
Wikipedia, Public Television (25 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_television> at 6 May 2008
Free Press <http://freepress.net/> at 6 May 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ad Supported Music – Part 1
In a recent digital media survey concerning ad supported, subscription and pay per play business models, 62% of senior media executives stated an expectation that content creators will develop ad-supported business models by 2013. Twenty-five percent considered content creators would focus on subscription-based models and only 11% favoured pay-per-play services. While this survey did not specifically consider the pay per download model, the anticipation of an increase in adoption of ad supported services reflects current trends within the music industry and is a reasonable prediction. With this is mind it is pertinent to consider the ways in which such a model could develop, with the potential for both positive and negative attributes.
Traditional notions of free speech suggest that public spaces enable a market place of ideas which further the ends of liberty and justice. This conception of free speech depends on three vital assumptions – active public participation facilitated by equality in access for speakers; the mode of communication and its influence on audiences, and the independence of the opinions of speakers. The degree to which these attributes exist in the digital music environment reflects the potential opportunities for, or impediments to, free expression.
In this post I will outline some of the conditions least likely to realise the benefits cyberspace offers. In a follow up post I will counter this discussion with an outline of the ways that ad supported business models could be used to produce conditions favourable to creators and society.
The Worst Case Scenario
The use of advertising to supplement or replace direct consumer payments for music could have detrimental consequences if developed without adequate foresight. Where ad supported music services are owned privately and operated on a for-profit basis there are inevitably implications for free expression and democracy. These manifest primarily in a negative way by reducing the equality of access to speakers, in the selection of communication models and by influencing the content of creations. At present there is already a low level of competition within the legitimate digital music market. The natural tendency of capitalist corporations is to consolidate through mergers and in the event that a reasonable level of competition could not be maintained between web services, there would again be further threats to the diversity of culture, free speech and democracy.
In evaluating the ability of creators to equally access digital music services, the position of independent artists is of fundamental importance. Artists should have equal opportunity to communicate their works to the public and the same opportunities to produce financial rewards. Where such web services are related to major record labels there is an extremely high possibility that independents will not be given equal treatment. Even if such web services are owned and run separately from major content providers, the profit seeking motive of a private enterprise may nonetheless be enough to create a similar level of favouritism. This could occur in direct ways through limiting the participation of unsigned artists altogether or through indirect ways such as the allocation of prominent spaces, reviews and other promotional activities in an unfair manner.
The internet itself is a communication mode separate and distinguishable from others such as the mass media. Within this mode of communication a number of architectural models can be employed. For-profit, private music services are more likely to engage closed architectures. These include structures such as streaming subscription services, digital media stores and closed peer to peer networks. Whilst a continuum and matter of degree in each instance, a closed architecture by definition limits the ability of creators and consumers to participate by imposing requirements such as formal identification, entry payments and limiting the range of file formats. In addition to this, restrictions on the life span and subsequent uses of the content through the use of digital rights management technology influences the reception, interpretation and mediation of expression.
Another important factor in evaluating the ability for ad supported music services to achieve these goals is the independence of opinions expressed by creators. Two important factors are the strength of the connection between individual artists and commercial sponsorship, and the content of the advertising itself.
If implemented in a way that created direct sponsorship arrangements with individual artists, the use of advertising to supplement or replace the income of creators could amount to a level of commercialism within the music industry not seen even today. While many consider the present concentration of major record labels as harmful, by directly tying commercial sponsorship to the production of music and remuneration of artists, there would be a further constriction of free expression. If on the other hand, ad supported business models were connected only to the internet based music services themselves, there may be less influence over the content of creations and artists that are rewarded.
The nature of advertisements available on such web services also raises an interesting issue. It is feasible to suggest that whilst such services could cater to an enormous range of sponsors, that any site with a critical level of popularity will attract specific and demanding corporate advertisers. The size and the placement of the advertisements may be one factor to consider but the content and the nature of the advertisers is also a central concern. As Mike Masnick of TechDirt writes, advertising is a form of content just as content is a form of advertising.
Where corporate interests determine what music is produced and which artists will succeed, this inevitably results in a lack of cultural diversity and an absence of political or thought provoking material. This leads to less social and political awareness, therefore reducing civil participation and progress.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Report: ad-supported content will soon dominate digital media (5 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080505-report-ad-support-content-will-soon-dominate-digital-media.html> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Advertising is Content; Content is Advertising (19 March 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Content Is Advertising... On TV (23 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/022513915.shtml> at 26 April 2008
TechDirt, On Content, Promotions, Basic Economics... And Loutish Statements (25 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080324/000718629.shtml> at 27 March 2008
TechDirt, Just Because Content Is Free Doesn't Mean It's Worthless (15 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/153919828.shtml> at 17 April 2008
Digital Music News, We're Number Three: SpiralFrog Claims Third-Place Download Crown (28 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032708three> at 30 March 2008
Wired Listening Post, Qtrax Inks Deal With Universal for Legal P2P Music (6 May 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/05/qtrax-inks-deal.html> at 7 May 2008
Christopher J Sichok, The Free Market: An Erosion of Free Speech, eLaw - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 7 Number 3 (September 2000) <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n3/sichok73.html> at 6 May 2008
Traditional notions of free speech suggest that public spaces enable a market place of ideas which further the ends of liberty and justice. This conception of free speech depends on three vital assumptions – active public participation facilitated by equality in access for speakers; the mode of communication and its influence on audiences, and the independence of the opinions of speakers. The degree to which these attributes exist in the digital music environment reflects the potential opportunities for, or impediments to, free expression.
In this post I will outline some of the conditions least likely to realise the benefits cyberspace offers. In a follow up post I will counter this discussion with an outline of the ways that ad supported business models could be used to produce conditions favourable to creators and society.
The Worst Case Scenario
The use of advertising to supplement or replace direct consumer payments for music could have detrimental consequences if developed without adequate foresight. Where ad supported music services are owned privately and operated on a for-profit basis there are inevitably implications for free expression and democracy. These manifest primarily in a negative way by reducing the equality of access to speakers, in the selection of communication models and by influencing the content of creations. At present there is already a low level of competition within the legitimate digital music market. The natural tendency of capitalist corporations is to consolidate through mergers and in the event that a reasonable level of competition could not be maintained between web services, there would again be further threats to the diversity of culture, free speech and democracy.
In evaluating the ability of creators to equally access digital music services, the position of independent artists is of fundamental importance. Artists should have equal opportunity to communicate their works to the public and the same opportunities to produce financial rewards. Where such web services are related to major record labels there is an extremely high possibility that independents will not be given equal treatment. Even if such web services are owned and run separately from major content providers, the profit seeking motive of a private enterprise may nonetheless be enough to create a similar level of favouritism. This could occur in direct ways through limiting the participation of unsigned artists altogether or through indirect ways such as the allocation of prominent spaces, reviews and other promotional activities in an unfair manner.
The internet itself is a communication mode separate and distinguishable from others such as the mass media. Within this mode of communication a number of architectural models can be employed. For-profit, private music services are more likely to engage closed architectures. These include structures such as streaming subscription services, digital media stores and closed peer to peer networks. Whilst a continuum and matter of degree in each instance, a closed architecture by definition limits the ability of creators and consumers to participate by imposing requirements such as formal identification, entry payments and limiting the range of file formats. In addition to this, restrictions on the life span and subsequent uses of the content through the use of digital rights management technology influences the reception, interpretation and mediation of expression.
Another important factor in evaluating the ability for ad supported music services to achieve these goals is the independence of opinions expressed by creators. Two important factors are the strength of the connection between individual artists and commercial sponsorship, and the content of the advertising itself.
If implemented in a way that created direct sponsorship arrangements with individual artists, the use of advertising to supplement or replace the income of creators could amount to a level of commercialism within the music industry not seen even today. While many consider the present concentration of major record labels as harmful, by directly tying commercial sponsorship to the production of music and remuneration of artists, there would be a further constriction of free expression. If on the other hand, ad supported business models were connected only to the internet based music services themselves, there may be less influence over the content of creations and artists that are rewarded.
The nature of advertisements available on such web services also raises an interesting issue. It is feasible to suggest that whilst such services could cater to an enormous range of sponsors, that any site with a critical level of popularity will attract specific and demanding corporate advertisers. The size and the placement of the advertisements may be one factor to consider but the content and the nature of the advertisers is also a central concern. As Mike Masnick of TechDirt writes, advertising is a form of content just as content is a form of advertising.
Where corporate interests determine what music is produced and which artists will succeed, this inevitably results in a lack of cultural diversity and an absence of political or thought provoking material. This leads to less social and political awareness, therefore reducing civil participation and progress.
Further Reading
ArsTechnica, Report: ad-supported content will soon dominate digital media (5 May 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080505-report-ad-support-content-will-soon-dominate-digital-media.html> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Advertising is Content; Content is Advertising (19 March 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567.shtml> at 6 May 2008
TechDirt, Content Is Advertising... On TV (23 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080422/022513915.shtml> at 26 April 2008
TechDirt, On Content, Promotions, Basic Economics... And Loutish Statements (25 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080324/000718629.shtml> at 27 March 2008
TechDirt, Just Because Content Is Free Doesn't Mean It's Worthless (15 April 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080411/153919828.shtml> at 17 April 2008
Digital Music News, We're Number Three: SpiralFrog Claims Third-Place Download Crown (28 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032708three> at 30 March 2008
Wired Listening Post, Qtrax Inks Deal With Universal for Legal P2P Music (6 May 2008) <http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/05/qtrax-inks-deal.html> at 7 May 2008
Christopher J Sichok, The Free Market: An Erosion of Free Speech, eLaw - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 7 Number 3 (September 2000) <http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v7n3/sichok73.html> at 6 May 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Museums, The Public Domain and Profits
Most interestingly he notes:
[T]he McCord Museum of Canadian History in Montreal has poured significant resources into digitization, amassing more than 135,000 digital images that are freely accessible online. Similarly, the Canadian Museum of Civilization (which includes that museum and the Canadian War Museum) attracted a record 1.8 million visitors in 2006, but more impressively hit 66 million page views for its web-based content.
He goes on to discuss how museums are seeking to engage citizens in the digital environment through the use of things such as virtual museums, social networking and blogs. However it seems that not all uses of public domain works by museums are being offered on a non-profit basis. Geist refers to The National Gallery of Canada which is reported to have charged for the reproduction of some 250 public domain works in 2006:
The Access to Information Act records covered requests to the NGC for copies of public domain artworks between February 2006 and January 2007. The NGC received approximately 250 such requests, for which it imposed contractual restrictions on use of the images and levied an average fee of $379. While requesters were not advised of the cost breakdown, internal documents reveal that some of the price went to an administrative fee (typically $20) and a photographic fee.
Disturbingly, not only did the Gallery attach license conditions limiting the use of the reproductions but the costs levied included a permission charge higher than for works subject to copyright. This was justified on the grounds that as the works were not subject to copyright and no royalties would have to be paid, an increase in the cost levied by the gallery would be reasonable.
This comes in the same week as a story about the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Here the public were prevented from taking photographs of a Nicholas Poussin exhibition, who died in 1655. Usually the museum allows photographs provided no flash is used. When questioned about the restrictions in place for this exhibition, representatives of the museum suggested initially that this was due to copyright. Of course this is incorrect because the works are clearly within the public domain. Excess Copyright reports that the works were loaned to the museum and the restriction may have been a contractual condition imposed on their display.
These examples illustrate the use of contract law in a way which impedes access to public domain works. In establishing the copyright bargain, the United States Constitution specifically states that the copyright term shall be for a limited time. In doing so the law reflects the desire to limit the monopoly power conferred to copyright holders and to provide for full access to works on the expiration of the copyright term. Without a robust and diverse public domain, future creativity, free speech and democracy are undermined.
It is increasingly apparent that steps need to be taken to ensure that private interests cannot deprive the public of their rightful access to these works. Simply put there needs to be greater awareness of how these works are being dealt with, the ability to challenge any limitations which are imposed on the public's right to access the works, and greater education as to the vital importance to society of the public domain.
In short, it defies logic that private owners should continue to own and control works that are within the public domain.
Articles
Ottawa Citizen, National Gallery looking for profits in all the wrong places (15 April 2008) <http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/bustech/story.html?id=eea40d92-2682-458f-81ab-4926a2ae1283> at 17 April 2008
The McCord Museum of Canadian History in Montreal <http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/en/> at 17 April 2008
The Canadian Museum of Civilization <http://www.civilization.ca/visit/indexe.aspx> at 17 April 2008
The National Gallery of Canada <http://www.gallery.ca/> at 17 April 2008
TechDirt, Since When Has Copyright Become Life Plus 343 Years? (14 April 2008)<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/013157727.shtml> at 17 April 2008
Excess Copyright, Life + 343 years (1 April 2008) <http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2008/04/life-343-years.html> at 17 April 2008
The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City <http://www.metmuseum.org/> at 17 April
Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture (2004) <http://www.amazon.com/Free-Culture-Technology-Control-Creativity/dp/1594200068/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208401055&sr=8-3> at 17 April 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
360 Contracts and MySpace
At present there are reportedly around 5 million artists with MySpace pages.
Three of the major labels (not EMI as yet) are to form a separate company, owned and run by them as a joint venture, to work with MySpace to enable artists to sell music as well as a whole range of other products. This raises questions of the potential for anti-competitive practices and the impact that the domination of the labels might have on both signed and unsigned artists.
Signed Artists
In recent times and quite apart from the MySpace initiative, there have been reports suggesting that the very survival of the major record labels depends on their ability to alter the traditional contractual arrangements with artists. Recording contracts were already notorious for being unfavourable to the artist given the small royalties, the need to recoup advances, marketing, production and other costs prior to seeing any real money as well as their length and what many see as a loss of artistic control. In the past labels have recovered their costs and profits long before the artists signed to them break even. But as the trend continues whereby labels are increasingly unable to rely on the sale of CDs to sustain their business model, a new, much broader record contract has been developed.
The newer flavour of record contract tends to allow the label to recover costs from other aspects of the artists business such as merchandising, concerts and sponsorship deals. Most signed artists realise fairly quickly that they are unlikely to make money from music sales and in the past relied primarily on these sources to support themselves. Naturally, as record companies are demanding more of this money, artists are left further financially disadvantaged.
Reports regarding this new initiative with MySpace indicate that it will not simply be music that will be sold through this avenue. Indeed it will be all of these aforementioned sources of income that will now be bundled together. This gives an enormous amount of power to the record labels to control all aspects of a signed artist’s career. One argument is that it benefits the artist because by limiting the infrastructure and coordination costs there can be a cost saving. The other side of this though is the possibility that individual artists will be worse off as they have no choice but to accept any deal offered by the labels. Without the ability to negotiate these aspects of the business independently and with the labels essentially controlling the distribution of music in this forum, signed artists may well face a much greater form of contractual slavery than they currently do.
Unsigned Artists
Around 40% of the music market (a proportion that continues to grow) are currently independent artists. One report suggests that the music service, whilst initially being developed by the major labels, will eventually allow independent artists to sell their music and associated items. Remembering however that this initiative will be owned and run by the major labels there are two points of contention. The first is that it is highly unlikely that independent artists will be treated equally. One can easily imagine a situation where the artists signed to the major labels are promoted ahead of independents, where bandwidth is prioritised in favour of signed artists or the possibility that independents may end up paying more for the privilege of having this avenue to sell their work. This later point raises a second area of contention. As the industry itself moves away from music as the primary product, it seems that paying the major labels to distribute the work of independent artists, allows them to access royalties by default. Without having to support the artist, coordinate their careers, cover the costs of their recording or marketing; major labels nonetheless will still be able to make money out of them.
The Public
Of course there are also flow-on effects to the public from this proposal. As I often note, an environment that is not supportive of the best artists inevitably results in the promotion of music that is commercially viable rather than socially advantageous. While, fortunately, not all people use MySpace and there will continue to be some competition from other music initiatives, this business model will further impede the movement to a collective licensing model. There are already suggestions that most of the music will be protected with DRM (with a possibility of some unprotected tracks). More importantly however, such a model continues to depend on the stifling of innovation through the continued persecution of file sharing technology and users.
One commentator concludes discussion of this issue by stating ‘Welcome to Feudalism 2.0’. Unfortunately this captures much of my sentiments regarding this proposal. In many ways this is much worse than the current market dominance of iTunes. It smacks of the potential for anticompetitive behaviour and does nothing to overcome the current difficulties of artists and the public in the digital music environment.
Articles
TechDirt, Major Record Labels Form Joint Venture With MySpace (3 April 2008)
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080403/111142739.shtml> at 7 April 2008
The Register, MySpace Music leaves creators cold (4 April 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/04/myspace_music_coup/> at 7 April 2008
The Register, MySpace trumpets music service (3 April 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/03/myspace_music/> at 7 April 2008
SiliconValley/Associated Press, MySpace starts music service with 3 major record companies
(3 April 2008) <http://www.siliconvalley.com/personaltech/ci_8796093> at 7 April 2008
Digital Music News, It's Coming: More Dealmaking Details Leak on MySpace Music (25 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/032408myspace> at 26 March 2008
Digital Music News, Fog Starts Lifting on MySpace, Major Label Discussions (21 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/022008myspace> at 25 February 2008
Digital Music News, Upstreaming Disrupted:Why Major Label Survival Depends on Transformed Deals (18 March 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031708upstream> at 19 March 2008
Digital Music News, 360 + Change: Labels Pushing Harder on Broader Deals (10 February 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/021008change> at 19 February 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Bebo
Billy Bragg raised some interesting questions recently as to whether artists should be entitled to some of the revenue raised from the sale of Bebo which was sold to AOL for $850 million. Media reports highlighted two opposing opinions; Bragg (and others) suggested that they should be entitled to a cut of the profits because a large part of the success of the site is due to the participation of musicians. On the other side, others argued that artists were free to chose whether or not to use the site, that if the site had made a loss they would not be offering to meet the debts, and that in having the opportunity to gain exposure and make contact with fans they have already benefited sufficiently. These are all compelling arguments. As well as highlighting the difference between contractual rights and what some might see as equitable rights, this issue also raises the need for musicians to collaborate together for their own benefit.
Contractual rights and equitable rights
Bragg’s argument is that the value added to the site was sourced from outside the software developers and operators. In essence he makes an equitable argument for a share of the sale funds. Equity is a strand of law developed by the courts over a very long period of time that does not rely on legislative enactment to gain its force. Examples of grounds for entitlement include the doctrine of unjust enrichment, constructive trusts and the like. Some remedies such as injunctions are also seen to be equitable in nature.
Musicians Doing It For Themselves
There are three important points I think should be highlighted from this story:
- It is the aggregate value of the artists rather than any one individual’s value that is important
- Private ownership of the site has been a major disadvantage for artists
- Artists need to recognise how emerging technologies such as blogging can create new financial opportunities for them
If artists truly wish to realise their independence and embrace the potential that the internet offers they need to work together. Private companies are profit driven. Unless musicians are owners of those companies the decisions that are made will only ever be in their interests whilst their interests are clearly aligned with the pursuit of profit.
Articles
TechDirt, It's Not Exploitation If You Chose To Take Part (24 March 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080322/142342625.shtml> at 3 April 2008
New York Times, The Royalty Scam (22 March 2008) <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22bragg.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin> at 3 April 2008
e-consultancy, These crazy bloggers still think they understand the music business (25 March 2008) <http://www.e-consultancy.com/news-blog/365309/these-crazy-bloggers-still-think-they-understand-the-music-business.html> at 3 April 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Authenticity by profit use
Last night I remembered this article I read around a week ago and thought to add to the discussion of authenticity by using it as an example. This refers to the Forbes List of Cash Queens which details the top earning female recording artists for the past 12 months.
It occurred to me that perhaps authenticity of use for profit could be characterised as authenticity based on quantity – here it is depicted in terms of dollar amounts while in the popular music charts it is depicted on the quantity of CD/Digital sales. From one view this chart attempts to support the authenticity of these artists but of course many would say that it actually does the opposite.
Authenticity of use in terms of social change, in contrast, could be characterised as a qualitative authenticity of use – the term can be seen to concern itself with uses that attempt to support the music in a more qualitative way.
This week I have been examining the (double) CD film by Martin Scorsese – No Direction Home: Bob Dylan, and in the second part of the film Bobby Neuwirth (musician/visual artist) states:
In those days artistic success was not dollar driven... those were simpler times;... if you had something to say ...was basically the way people were rated... did they have anything to say or not?
Authenticity of use for social change supports the content of the music in a practical way whether that be in conjunction with protest action, social movements, written publications etc.
Perhaps it’s a matter of personal opinion (or general consensus) as to whether, or the degree to which, the music of the artists on the Forbes list have authenticity of use for purposes other than profit, but the point to make is that regardless, this type of rating is generally seen as undermining any such authenticity if it exists. This type of list does nothing to reflect the social utility of their music - of course it would be unfair to compare them to protest musicians as they are clearly not this – but each genre has different qualities of authenticity – so if you were to say they were dance music artists, surely a much more important measure would be how many people danced to their records – I realise this is impossible to measure but this is the type of use that would give these artists real authenticity.
... oh and... in terms of my own authenticity, yes I have had the realisation that this blog is itself my isolated act of agency for while my creation these days is literary this is the use that supports it to the limited extent that my regulation allows...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
