- ArtistshouseMusic -

Music News and Commentary: May 28, 2007

Gah650 — Mon, 28 May 2007 08:45:30 -0700

Music News and Commentary: May 28, 2007

Article:

With the self-imposed timeline running out, rumors continue to swirl regarding EMI's catalog becoming available, DRM-free, on Apple's iTunes.

It's possible in the midst of the technical jargon to lose track of the importance of this gesture (if it indeed comes to pass). The significance of a reduction in DRM basically allows other entrants into the market. This is crucial!

DRM is - in economic terms - a "transaction cost." When you encumber songs with DRM, it adds another layer of cost that the customer has to contend with - or not. In other words, faced with the "cost" of DRM (restrictions, etc.) versus the lower cost of DRM-free tracks many customers will opt for the latter.

By getting rid of DRM, it strips away one more level of "cost," and inches us closer to a place where the customer will debate more seriously whether or not to buy or steal music.

Of course, I'm not naive, and it is impossible to compete with free. However, this so-called "free" music isn't really. In addition to the less-tangible costs involved (depriving artists from royalties, etc.), there are real costs involved - again, turning to economists - that are often referred to as "opportunity costs."

These would be the cost of your time (the scarcest of all resources) that is wasted by downloading files that contain viruses; downloading files that are incomplete/corrupted, etc.

At the current model, these "costs" are less significant to the customer than the monetary cost and the DRM. As stated, stripping the DRM eliminates one of the costs. In order to reduce the others, three things must happen: 1. labels must reduce the price, 2. there must be no middle-man, 3. the credit cards must reduce their transaction charges.

Lack of DRM heads us in this direction. We must reach a place where artists are selling directly to their fans - no via CDBaby, not via iTunes, not via MySpace (SnoCap), but directly from their site to their fans (or at shows).

In order to do this effectively, the credit card companies (and PayPal) must reduce the fees and allow for so-called micropayments to take place.

Once this is done efficiencies will emerge, and - with no DRM and micropayments becoming realistic, a whole new category of "vendors" will emerge.

Bloggers will suddenly be transformed from pure mavens to people with an ability to participate financially from exposing their readers to great music.

I firmly believe that this is our future, and that this future will be a bright one for artists.

It has to start with a DRM-free world, and right now that means a DRM-free iTunes.

Thinking About The Law: Part Two

Catherine — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:33:10 -0800

Thinking About The Law: Part Two

Article:

Occasional musings on legal issues in the music business

This series will attempt to cover a wide-range of legal topics relevant to the music business in short, manageable chunks. Please ask questions by commenting on these posts.

Lessig on “opting out” v. “opting in”

In my most recent post on the subject of copyright I made the point that you don’t have to register your work to obtain copyright, but rather once you create an original work and “fix” it in a tangible medium by recording it or writing it down, you automatically “opt out,” and gain the bundle of rights associated with copyright. Prior to 1976, when the laws were changed, you had to “opt in,” and register your work in order to be granted copyright. If you didn’t register, your work entered the public domain (or the “creative commons,” as Lessig would refer to it), and thus be freely available for others to use, elaborate on, etc.

Lessig argues that that this change to the “opt out” system goes against the “traditional contour of copyright protection,” and thus should be reversed. If such a reversal were to take place it would radically change the nature of the record industry. Read more about this interesting issue on Lessig’s blog.

Attachment	Size
c.jpg	2.98 KB

Downhill Battle

John — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:45:53 -0800

Downhill Battle

Article:

As the dialog continues to increase regarding all things DRM, more and more people are joining the conversation. One of the more interesting aggregations of various (if somewhat similar) points of view on this topic can be found at a website called Downhill Battle. Downhill Battle’s mission is to "support participatory culture and build a fairer music industry." Sounds good to me, and certainly aligns with other efforts such as Lawrence Lessig’s Creative Commons.

One of the most interesting components of this site is the interview section. In this section, they’ve got some killer artists (no, not The Killers…are they still considered killer??) like TV On the Radio, Thievery Corporation, Ian Mackay, and many others, who all give their thoughts on the current state of affairs vis-à-vis copyright, DRM, file sharing, the RIAA, and a host of other issues facing those in today’s music industry.

Check it out!

Attachment	Size
cc.jpg	8.24 KB

Lessig on Ethics - Sort of

John — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:48:15 -0800

Lessig on Ethics - Sort of

Article:

Lawrence Lessig recently posted a very interesting piece on his site entitled “The Ethics of Web 2.0.” For those unfamiliar with the term Web 2.0 it is a phrase coined by O’Reilly Media in 2004 in order to describe a sort of second wave of Internet services. These services, like social networking, tagging, etc. are prominently seen in sites like Flickr, del.icio.us, and some would argue, MySpace. The main characteristics of Web 2.0 are community, sharing, open source, and user generated (and defined) content. In all, it’s incredibly exciting and incredibly important that you determine a way to understand both the nature of this movement, and how it applies to your music related activities.

In his post, Lessig talks about the difference between Web 2.0 sites that aggregate user generated content in a “true sharing” manner versus those who do so via “fake sharing.” He makes this distinction thus:

A “true sharing” site doesn’t try to exercise ultimate control over the content it serves. It permits, in other words, content to move as users choose.

A “fake sharing” site, by contrast, gives you tools to it make seem as if there’s sharing, but in fact, all the tools drive traffic and control back to a single site.

In this sense, YouTube is a fake sharing site, while Flickr, (parts of) Google, blip.tv, Revver and EyeSpot are true sharing sites.

He elaborates by saying the YouTube is a fake sharing site because while they allow people to contribute content, they don’t allow people “an easy way to actually get the content someone else has uploaded.” He then goes on to list sites such as Flickr, blip.tv, EyeSpot, and Revver who all make it easy for people to not only upload content, but also download the content to do with it what they please (no DRM, etc.); in other words, truly share.

This is important, Lessig makes the point, because, if you agree with the philosophy of Web 2.0, then, axiomatically, as O’Reilly noted, “the service automatically gets better the more people use it.” It also allows for “remixability,” and all of the other things that “hoarding” or controlling content does not. Lessig believes that this remixability that is such a crucial factor to Web 2.0, and, of course, to his entire message regarding Creative Commons is the only “ethical” manner in which to operate.

While I must take a slight bit of issue with his use of the word ethics here (I think something like “best practices” might be more appropriate, thought also certainly…uh…more boring), I take no issue whatsoever with his message. The continued evolution of the Internet, and particularly, the Internet as distribution mechanism and community aggregator as it relates to music is dependent on this idea of true, rather than fake, sharing. Judicious application of this true sharing in your marketing efforts is what will help you attract and retain a constituency for your music over the long-term.

Attachment	Size
ccc.jpg	3.18 KB

Lawrence Lessig- Full Interview