“When the history of our digital times comes to be written, one of the questions that will puzzle historians is why the record companies missed the significance of the internet.”

What a great thought (and a very catchy headline). Here is a summary of the article, with some commentary.

Since World War II, the record industry had a total monopoly on the recording, packaging, and distribution of music. They controlled the careers or artists, the way the music was disseminated, and dictated terms to music retailers. When the CD came around in the early 1980′s, and as the article says “recording studios converted the sounds made by musicians into bitstreams – long sequences of ones and zeroes – while, at the consumer end, CD players converted those bits back into high-fidelity sound.”

The sales model for this era was to create the plastic disks and packaging, ship them distribution houses, and then off to retailers. While this model proved to be profitable, the overhead costs were astronomical, with up to 50% of the retail price of a CD eaten up by production costs.

The internet was poised to change all of this for major labels. It presented the opportunity to drop production costs to the floor, while expanding profits. But the internet was ignored at first, and then it was treated as a realm for legal prosecution. Even bands chimed in, complaining about the evils of the internet. This practice got so widespread that the RIAA began prosecuting teenagers and single moms. And as the industry resisted the internet, CD sales bottomed out.

To put it simply, the major labels did not want to let go of CDs in the face of an evolving marketplace. Rather than adapt to the climate, they attempted to maintain the status quo. The writer of the article states “The obvious hypothesis – that the senior executives of all the record companies were idiots – has always seemed implausible to me. Or it did until I read the recent interview in Wired magazine with Doug Morris, chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group.”

Because CDs were so profitable, the music industry turned a blind eye to what was next, and settled into a short sighted approoch rather than looking at the big picture.

Bottom Line: The record industry can turn itself around virtually overnight by embracing and adapting to technology. Welcome to the Future.

An interview with the Flashbulb about his recent calamity with iTunes, and putting his album up on BitTorrent. It turns out iTunes is selling his albums without permission, and not paying royalties.

The Flashbulb (Benn Jordan) has been releasing albums for 14 years, the last 5 have included various commercial endeavors. The label deal he has is a 50/50 split, but he hasn’t been seeing the money. Benn says he has no agreement with iTunes to sell his music, and many of his fans have told him they bought his music there. When he investigated the issue further, his label asked him to drop it, and his calls went unreturned.

Here’s a great quote from Benn: “Who’s the pirate I should go after? A kid who downloads my album because it isn’t available in non-DRM format and costs $30 on Amazon? Or a huge multi-billion dollar corporation that has been selling thousands of dollars worth of my music and not even acknowledging it?”

Benn is being labeled in the press as pro-piracy, but his true stand is that people buy what they like. “What I’m promoting is the artist’s freedom to choose what can and can’t be done with his/her music, and more importantly, the listener’s freedom to do what he/she wants with their own computer, MP3 player, or internet connection.”

Benn makes a poignant case that the RIAA has spent so long dictating people’s taste and choices that they are now threatened by the opportunity for people to choose the music they want. He suggests that “music will be judged by it’s content again and will be subjected to it’s own Darwinism.”

Bottom Line: Where are all those billions in album sales really going?

Ghosts is a variation on a theme created by Radiohead. The latest NIN album is part free, part paid, part digital, and part traditional. And a broad range of consumer preferences and budgets are accommodated by the initiative.

Reznor and Radiohead are important market-movers and fearless risk-takers. But are these experiments really relevant to the broader music industry?

The problem is that only part of the consumer population is going to play along. Radiohead found that a disproportionate number of fans downloaded In Rainbows for free, an offered option. But an even larger number of fans downloaded the album for free outside of the Radiohead page, on BitTorrent, P2P, and other sharing protocols.

These fans wanted the album on their turf, not Radiohead’s. And that has been the bigger story for the recording industry for the past ten years. Sure, the iTunes Store has sold 4 billion downloads, but that is just a tiny fraction of the free downloads obtained from other channels.

Outlets like Limewire offer instant, on-demand bulk downloads and comprehensive recording catalogs for free. The iTunes Store offers a cleaner copy, but for a price that makes collection volume difficult to achieve.

Now, Trent Reznor is about to learn a similar lesson. Most likely, fans will grab the first, free volume of the album in heavy numbers, and a smaller percentage will pay for the expanded collection.

But that is only part of the story. Outside of that sandbox, volumes II-IV will quickly creep onto Gnutella, BitTorrent, and IM. Sure, Reznor seeded the first volume onto BitTorrent. But who are we kidding? Fans are in charge of this channel, not Reznor.

That means far lower volumes for NIN, or any other established artist, compared to the 90s. Other factors are also sapping energy, including an increasingly-fragmented media market, and the lowered attention spans that come with it.

Then again, who needs 90s volumes when the major label is suddenly optional? After all, Reznor can now keep the revenues (almost) all to himself, and achieve robust revenues on far smaller volumes.

The math is alluring, and a major disincentive for signing with a label. Marketing specialist Seth Godin urges artists to cultivate targeted, niche audiences, and any business school graduate will lecture you on the value of consumer targeting. Why not translate those principles and percentages into a healthy, more controllable career?

The question is becoming less and less academic, and artists like Trent Reznor are putting the possibilities into motion. But it remains unclear if artists can healthily sustain themselves using this philosophy, at least in scalable numbers.

And smaller artists will have difficulty applying the Radiohead model, at least until their recognition grows. Why? The reason is that most lesser-known artists have trouble getting people to download their content for free, much less pay for it. Why pay for something blind? That is a game for pre-2000 consumers.

In contrast, Reznor and Radiohead have established names, thanks to a massive, major label publicity machine. That tailwind is a critical component of the current models – and a major reason why media outlets are focusing heavily on their initiatives.

In the middle are artists like Saul Williams, a poet and rapper that exists outside of the mainstream. Reznor actually helped Williams create a Radiohead-like model with the help of Musicane, and the results were mixed. Less than 20 percent opted to pay $5 for the album – a total of nearly 28,000. Then again, that translates into roughly $142,000, a revenue total that easily pays the bills.

And any starving artist knows that six-figures is a goldmine for a life in the arts. A major would drop Williams in a heartbeat after a performance like that. But sailing solo, Williams could command a decent and consistent payout.

So is the Radiohead model relevant? For more established, post-label artists, the concept probably maximizes recording profits, and creates momentum for other revenue generators. And the results are boosted if the recordings are dispersed across a broad number of sales outlets, including the artist page, iTunes, Amazon MP3, and even traditional brick-n-mortar.

Sure, the result is smaller than 90s recording sales potentials, but it is something nonetheless. And if the consumer elects to pay, they have the opportunity to do so.
What about everyone else? For mid-size artists, the concept can translate into meaningful revenues, and for smaller artists, the idea is probably premature ahead of broader audience awareness. But more than ever, artists have the potential to reach super-targeted audiences, and that greatly increases the chances of a paid transaction.

Here are some of tasty quotes :

“it’s always very difficult going from something that’s free to an industry to something that has a cost to the industry.”

“I think what we have to do is far more flexible about price. The industry has been very bizarre over the years – it’s essentially a one price industry.”

“I don’t want to destroy physical sales … We find physical and digital are both viable markets that people enjoy using. But clearly, there’s an opportunity for music on tap, and as a service, and it’s something we should explore.”

“I would like to see copyright modernized in 2008, with people enabled to do what they want to do, and those who profit from it allowing the practice [third parties] to be monetized. I’d like to see barriers taken away from the enjoyment of music.”

“I think P2P does have a discovery element to it, and it you may discover something on P2P that makes you buy a product. CD burning is much more domestic piracy, and is much more somebody avoiding paying for something.”

“I think the whole “DRM as a policeman” policy was doomed to failure – the independent companies never supported it to any extent whatsoever. We have never believed in putting obstacles into what the consumer wants to do.”

“We inhabit a mature industry that’s grown on a multi-territorial basis. And, frankly ,if you were reinventing it today you’d reinvent it way differently. It would be global, not territorial.”

“…[T]he market is in the control of one or two parties, and we don’t think that’s healthy.”

“The patrons are going to be largely commercial so brands that see an advantage to a certain kind of artist, and that is putting art far to close to commerce. That would mean marginal music wouldn’t exist, you’d only have music that had a commercial upside for sponsors. That’s a world none of us really want to see.”

Here’s something novel:

Dependent Records recently uploaded their entire catalog on Pirate Bay (Dependent specializes in aggrotech, electro-industrial and futurepop). Well, sort of. Apparently a group pretending to be Dependent posted the albums on the p2p site.

The quote from label head Stefan Herwig – well, an impersonator – is “I closed down my record label Dependent Records for good. But since I want my music to be heard by the people out there, everything I have ever published is now available on The Pirate Bay.”

While artists are turning to file sharing networks for promotion, it;s unusual to see a label do this (although there are some net labels giving away music, such as Kikapu and Lacedmilk).

Herwig (or his imposter) feels that p2p technologies are killing labels, not boosting sales. However, this article claims file sharing is a boon for new music. Perhaps availability adds to desirability.

Do you think file sharing is boosting or dropping album sales?

Mega online retailer Amazon is preparing to offer their MP3s in every language.? The company cites an overwhelming demand from customers for their DRM-free music downloads (which includes titale from all of the major labels).

Given the size and power Amazon carries on the internet, they are poised to set a new precedent for selling music digitally.? The largest online retailer of music by far is iTunes, and it will be interesting to see how Amazon’s shift to DRM-free music changes the playing field.

Bottom Line: Amazon offering their MP3 catalog worldwide will shift the landscape and methodology of digital music sales.

As if throttling Bit Torrent, blocking access to sites like AllofMP3.com and PirateBay, and endless industry litigation aren’t eroding net neutrality enough, the IFPI is taking it a step further.? The IFPI is an international version of the RIAA, and the recently sent a memo to the European Union about file sharing.

The IFPI wants to see Europe’s internet monitored, managed, and controlled.? They are presenting a “complete solution to piracy”.? This three step process looks something like this:

1.? Scan the entire internet for audio files, and block files that don’t match up to a database of music.? This practice is called content filtering.? Although it seems benign, the practice of monitoring the entire internet is a slippery slope toward full scale surveillance.? Aside from harming commerce and academic research, having a huge government database of people’s web activity can be used for more malicious purposes then chasing down people who are illegally downloading music.

2.? Blocking peer to peer protocols.? A protocol is a standard for connecting and sharing data, and p2p networks have their own protocol.? If ISPs systematically ferret out and block these protocols, academics and businesses won’t be able to share large files, either.

3.? Blocking websites that offer illegal content.? Although the practice of blocking sites that offer pirated music is a method of controlling the practice, it is a legal precedent that governments can block web sites.? The power of the internet is its freedom, and blocking sites is a step toward censoring that freedom.? Once governments are free to block one kind of website, where will they draw the line?
Consider that a corporation is lobbying a government to restrict and monitor the internet airwaves.? If the IFPA has their way, they are setting the stage for full scale internet controls and censorship. While the intention of protecting their corporate interests isn’t truly malicious, the methods they suggest pave the way for an internet that is no longer open and free.
Bottom Line:? Setting a precedent for government control of the internet is a precursor to full scale internet censorship.? Considering the human tendency to use any means at our disposal, creating this kind of monitoring and control apparatus is a disturbing action for personal liberty.

Bit Torrent throttling is becoming a real issue. Although it has not yet seen much mainstream attention, controlling users access to internet bandwidth is a disturbing precedent to flow of free information. Seemingly an effort to control the illegal sharing of files, the impact of throttling can be far reaching.

Somewhere around a third of all web traffic is Bit Torrent File Sharing. Keep in mind that a significant amount of Bit Torrent traffic is legitimate, such as file backups for large companies, or as a tool for academic research. A neurocognitive scientist posted on the DSLReports forum how bandwidth throttling is hindering scientific research in a field where leading researchers live great distances from each other. In other words, limiting people’s ability to use their internet waves affects more than porn and Britney Spears.

People transferring large files across the internet can affect other uses online experience negatvely. However, if the uses are legal (and more and more users of Bit Torrent are using it for legal purposes), what legal right do ISPs have to limit our uses of their service? As Slashdot elegantly posed the question in February, “Do they want to irritate their BitTorrent-using contingent, or let BitTorrent flow unhindered at the risk degrading the experience of those who don’t download torrents?’”

Comcast, the # 2 internet provider in the United States, is being served a class action suit for limiting the bandwidth of Bit Torrent users. The suit alleges that it is a breach of contract for a user’s bandwidth to be limited. “The filing asserts that Hart upgraded his internet service to Comcast’s high-speed internet… package in September 2007 to gain faster speeds specifically for the blocked applications in question. In the subscriber agreement… none of the terms stated that Comcast would impede or limit the blocked applications.” (quoted from the Half Life Source article).

According to the The Consumerist, A recent internal ComCast memo gave call senter emplyees a strict script to deliver if customers had questions. Any employee who says anything not in the script would be subject to immediate termination. Adding oddness to the issue is a recent MSNBC article that shows tests confirm the throttling is happening.

Recently, a major Canadian ISP admitted they have been throttling Bit Torrent traffic for months, even going as far as to refuse service to users that consume large amount of bandwidth. An analysis on Bell Sympatico’s tactics can be seen on p2pnet.net.

The CEO of Bit Torrent, Ashwin Navin, said in an interview that throttling is “a symptom of a larger problem”.

Net Neutrality – Not just a fancy term

Network neutrality “…refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached and the modes of communication allowed…” (quoted from Wikipedia).

Simply put, once companies can set limits on our ability to use the internet, where will it stop? Once the door cracks open, how do we close it?

I can sympathize with broadband companies that are concerned with Bit Torrent users sucking up all their bandwidth. It can get quite expensive to have to conitnually upgrade internet servers to meet capacity. The same thing happens in grocery stores when they have to open another checkout line. In capitalism, we often refer to this as “the cost of doing business”.

Bottom Line: Bit Torrent is the biggest single use of internet traffic. ISPs can save lots of money by throttling our use of bandwidth, or charging us if we pass monthly limits. To do so based on what we are doing violates network neutrality, and sets a precedent for controlling the internet.

The original article was in TheWeekDaily.com

I suggest you read the whole article yourself.? Here are a few of my favorite quotes, along with a bit of snappy patter:
“Ringtones, in fact, are now the fastest-growing source of music-industry revenue. “I find myself, when I’m signing a record deal now, asking, ‘Can this sell as a ringtone?’” said Steve Rifkind, president of SRC, a label affiliated with Universal.” - I’ll know I’ve made it when I’m #1 on Nokias…

“…seven years ago—an album would have to sell about 500,000 copies to reach No. 1. But Johnny Cash’s posthumous release last June reached the top of the Billboard charts after selling only 88,000 copies.” - The business model of major labels fails under these conditions.? Great news for indie labels though.

“The industry seems to have devoted most of its energy to largely futile efforts to prevent illegal downloading…big companies hunting and suing single moms and students has been a public-relations disaster. ”? - Is there anyone who doesn’t see this?

“The record industry has to find new ways of making money that do not depend on selling CDs for $16 apiece…the companies are devoting more resources to parts of the business that just a few years ago were mere afterthoughts or that didn’t even exist… some record-industry visionaries say the future won’t have much to do with making physical “records” at all.”? -? They knew all this ten years ago.

With every passing day, we see the continuing deterioration of the old guard.? The question becomes:? How will musicians make a living in the post major label environment?

This has been all over the internet this morning. I was forwarded the link above, so TechConsumer gets the nod. Here’s the official statement from Radiohead regarding the recent sales reporting of In Rainbows, first reported by comScore Inc.

Let’s look at it from a different angle.

Consider that no one but the band’s organization has accurate sales totals, and they are not required to release those figures. While comScore may have a powerful system to approximate results, it’s still speculation. Fans don’t care how many albums the band sells, they’re buying it for the music. So why is the industry racing to release information that the ‘experiment’ is a ‘failure’, and why is the media scrambling to report sales totals for In Rainbows?

If In Rainbows proves to be a success (and I predict the band will make more money for themselves then they did on Kid A), then platinum artists don’t need major labels to promote them anymore. Major labels are scrambling to show the experiment doesn’t work to protect their interests. Their marketing machine propelled Radiohead to the spotlight, and now the band can generate media frenzy on their own. If this works for Radiohead, it can work for all artists with millions of loyal fans.

Thanks to the overwhelm of media coverage on the album, Radiohead doesn’t need to spend a penny on promotion if they choose. Once an artist reaches iconic status, they need no entity to propel their career, as long as the music is quality (and the reviews of In Rainbows are glowing). This kind of free publicity eliminates the need for huge marketing pushes. Without multi-platinum artists to buffer the bottom line, major labels are nothing more than upper-tier indie labels with massive back catalogs. Thus, the need to publicly show that the method doesn’t work. The reporting of In Rainbows isn’t about album sales or revenue, it’s about keeping mega-stars on major label rosters.

This story does not represent a shift in the music industry, it represents a shift for mega-artists. Once an artist has broken into international stardom, they no longer need the promotional muscle of major labels. The echo chamber of media almost guarantees releases from superstar artists will be plastered all over media outlets, with the hopes of generating readers, viewers, or web hits. The major label business model does not account for artists leaving the label after they are mega-stars. That’s where the major labels became major in the first place.

However, In Rainbows has little or no effect on the rest of the industry, as there are not many bands that can be compared to Radiohead in terms of success. For the 95% of artists that have not had a decade of major label development and promotion, Saul Williams‘ new release (produced by Trent Reznor) is the one to watch. Released with an option to buy or download at a lower bit rate, his sales figures are a measure of what is available for a mid level artist using this tactic. Of course, Saul Williams’ Q Score is much lower than Radiohead’s, so we haven’t heard much about this.

The story here isn’t Radiohead’s actions around In Rainbows, but rather the power they have to cause huge ripples in public conversation without the major label that broke them. Regardless of the amount of money made, In Rainbows shows that superstar acts can release an independent album and maintain their media spotlight.

The sales figures are a red herring for the real issue: Major labels have lost their ability to be the only avenue for mega-artists success, and these artists represent a huge part of their revenue.