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?

The RIAA’s head, Cary Sherman, wants to put encryption on our computer that will force us to decrypt music before listening to it. In other words, the filter will scan all your incoming data and then either allow or deny your ability to listen to it. since this idea likely won’t be popular (who’s going to willingly put a filter on their computer that blocks the files they are downloading?), the next suggestion is to put the filters in our modems.

Despite the predictable public backlash against these tactics (in an environment where the RIAA already has public approval that rivals the US Congress), some ISPs are moving ahead with these filters. The technical specifics are a bit thick, suffice it to say that various file encryptions can bypass these filters unless entire protocols are blocked.

Here’s a video of Mr. Sherman lauding the glories of filtering:

Bottom Line: Being out of touch with your consumers’ needs does not improve your financial picture, or your credibility.

The record industry is at it again, seeking to further limit our use of our catalogs of recorded music. In a current Arizona case, Atlantic vs. Howell, RIAA is now claiming that ripping our own CDs onto our computers for our own use is copyright infringement.

We already have DRM, which limits our enjoyment of music to a platform (iTunes and Windows Media Player are the prime examples of this). This new motion would force us to buy the same song over and over again, to listen to it in our car, on our stereo, on our computer, and on our portable MP3 player.

Is it any wonder that record sales are crashing and burning? Music is not a necessity, and people buy it because they want to enjoy it. The more we are backed into a corner, told that we cannot copy or back up our own music, the greater the backlash toward the record business and the faster album sales slump.

Maybe there’s a totally different angle we’re missing. If the RIAA and the big labels see that their model has failed perhaps all of this litigation is an attempt to squeeze every last penny they can out of us before they collapse under their own weight. All the claims of protecting copyrights and artists may be a sham. The more ridiculous the legal environment about copyright infringement becomes, the more damage is done to artists.

Within five to seven years, there won’t be major labels like there are now, and we will be free to buy the music we want one time and convert it to any format we choose.
However, the resentment that the RIAA is generating toward buying music may be around far longer. Mainstream media outlets tend to only trumpet the loudest voices (in this case the RIAA), and most of the alternative opinions and methods of distributing music are relatively unheard.

Without all of the DRM, root kits, and legal controls of our music catalogs, music will continue to be made and bought. The more restricted our music catalogs become, the less willing we will be to buy it. And who loses is the artist. Musicians make a living off their music. If people are unwilling to buy it, musician will not be viable career. And this backlash hits independent artists even harder. As music loses its value at the mainstream level, it loses it on the underground as well. Artists and labels that do not believe in DRM or controlling the use of their music suffer from the same public opinion that people have toward major labels. The only difference is the major labels positions are available on the newsstand, and to lobby for laws. In fact, indie labels are the second largest entity selling music, and are left with the same restrictions and laws set by the RIAA and the Big Four.

Bottom Line: The continued attempts to regulate music is the biggest source of the current collapse we see in music sales, and the devaluation of music as a commodity.

The RIAA finally got their first case in court over people who serve MP3s on file sharing platforms. So all bland arguments aside, here’s the bottom line.:

The new argument is that if we rip or download songs we already own, we’re stealing.
Let’s cut through all the fancy arguments and cogent dissections and get right to the nitty gritty of it all.

Major media companies complain people aren’t buying music (as if over 500 million album slaes is some kind of small number), so they try to force us to buy music by restricting our access to it. The general public (that’s us) then gets indignant that we are being limited in our ability to enjoy music, and we download everything we can. The major labels then raise the prices of CDs, and add malware to their products (with some benign name so we don’t make the connection that a rootkit is a kind of virus).

We are told that when we buy music online, it will include some form of control, so that we can only enjoy it on proprietary software or hardware (think about how cellphone companies have 400 different adaptors to their chargers). Now they want us to believe we have no right to backup our data.

Now they are finally in court with us for downloading and sharing content, and they accuse us of stealing from them if we rip music we already own. There are now record players that will turn your albums into MP3s as you play them. I own lots of vinyl, and some of it is hard or impossible to find, even as an MP3. Am I criminal if I want to preserve my record collection? Most of these albums can only be obtained second hand at this point, anyways.

Where does it stop? At what point will they sue for the right to audit every harddrive on the planet, or require us to carry some sort of permit to listen to the music we have? Are we all to be fined for singing Happy Birthday?

Let’s look at it another way. People still pay for HBO. People still buy CDs, and digital downloads are a robust market (just not robust enough to support the behemoth of major record labels). It’s possible that if people weren’t forced to buy music, and told that everything we did with our music was a crime, we would be more inclined to buy more. What would happen if everyone stopped using DRM, and file sharing was accepted as part of society? What if intellectual property wasn’t treated like another flavor of soda?

If major labels want to revive their fiscal bottom lines, perhaps they could invest in developing talent, instead of suing us into buying music. Perhaps the answer to selling music lies inside of the music itself (this might explain why artists like Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd never stop connecting with younger generations).

This is an absolute amazing interview with Peter Jenner. Peter is a world famous rock promoter and manager, who helped guide the careers of Pink Floyd, Billy Bragg, and a bunch of other awesome acts.

This interview is Peter’s take on what the future of the music industry looks like, and to him, it looks like a community.

He also goes into great detail about how royalties are dispersed. Basically, there’s a bunch of money paid to collection societies for licenses and performaces of music. Groups like ASCAP and BMI collect the money for their members, and then pay out the money quarterly.

So what happens to all the money that isn’t paid when artists can’t be found, or it’s unclear who the money goes to? Peter tells us about black boxes, or a big bucket where all that money sits. Now, in the real world, this has worked out fairly well for almost everyone. Plenty of artists are able to receive small check of less than dollar for what they’re owed. No one in the industry will admit these black boxes exist. Now that digital licensing is moving toward a post DRM (we hope) phase, the conversation is shifting toward how the money will be collected, and distributed.

The major news mongers report that major labels want to set up a structure for collection and disbursement of royalties through them, because they own so many copyrights. Where will that leave the independent musician, who has no right to audit a major label they’re not on?

Peter is an absolute genius, and if you haven’t seen his interview yet, check it out. His insights are profound, and he clearly knows what he’s talking about. My favorite insight form his article is his observation that unbundling albums online (selling singles) has ahd mroe of an impact on the death of record sales than any other factor. His thoughts on how major labels have “raped their own business model” are absolute genius.

So if you haven’t read it yet, check it out.

A recent Wall Street Journal article talked about how the music industry is extending their influence into the world of file sharing. Jay-Z and Coca Cola recently agreed to allow an eight minute video clip to hit the p2p networks, hoping that the exposure for the soda will be worth giving the content away. With this turn of events, major companies are changing their position on file sharing, and admitting that people sharing music online are fans, and maybe the most loyal fans of all.

The new mode of thinking by transnational entertainment conglomerates appears to be ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.’ Groups like Big Champagne are collecting data about all of the files shared online (see this article on them in Wired), and the major labels are using those stats to measure public interest in music at the most specific levels.

It doesn’t take much to realize that the people sharing music for free online are still buying media of some kind, but it’s still surprising the see major media companies admitting to this. By using services like Big Champagne, marketing departments will tweak their promotional schemes based on what’s hot. If major labels know that a track is generating huge interest on Bit Torrent in a particular city, they can just invest in heavy radio rotation on that area.

It seems we will soon be seeing more and more marketing from major brands and labels popping up on peer to peer networks. Just like product placement changed advertising in TV and movies, the p2p networks will soon fill up with free content designed to create brand loyalty and sell products. I wouldn’t be surprised to see corporate sponsorship of p2p networks in a few years, in return for premium advertising, or built in ads on p2p software platforms.

Now that Big Champagne has partnered with SoundScan, the major companies have access to the listening preferences of the largest group of consumers they have ever had access to. The rest of us will be locked out of this system in the same way we always have been.

The co-opting of the p2p landscape by corporate interests will merely push listeners on to a new platform. Considering the continuing row about DRM, it will be interesting to see how that is countered. As mega corporations pour more and more content and marketing tactics into file sharing, and continue to tune their marketing, it will invite a new platform to emerge in the underground of the interweb. Or maybe we’ll all just head back to IRC channels.

The good news is that by shifting their step, the major labels are also admitting defeat to file sharers. The fact that they are now using it as a marketing resource is the only proof required to see that they have lost their battle to control the freedom of information.

Of course, through all of this, there is still very little discussion about what the artist is getting out of all these deals, or even the value of artistic integrity.

Limewire was sued recently by the RIAA in yet another attempt to control the public’s consumption of media.? Once again, the RIAA has selected their own interpretation of MGM vs. Grokster.? Although that case defined the infrigement as having to be active by a group or service, the RIAA and MPAA continue to chase any group that offers p2p portal sfor file sharing. They contuinue to claim that organizations like Limewire bear the entire responsibility for how their users behave.? I always love this argument, becuase it;s the same as saying that if you sell a gun to someone, you are responsible if they use ti to rob a bank.? Of course, there’s no constitutional amendment protecting our right to bear file sharing software.
So now Limewire has filed a countersuit, accusing the RIAA of anti-trust violations.? This suit claims the RIAA is trying to “destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.” (Counterclaim, paragraph 26, page 18)

It’s good to see that someone is finally standing up to the transnational conglomerates, although it remains to be seen what will come of it.? The good news about all this is it would appear the balance is finally tipping, and the death knell for the music ‘industry’ is ringing louder than ever.

“Linkie Winkie is a bit of a social experiment and we want to see what happens. We’re not going to tell you much about it, except that its a very altruistic little site and loves to be talked about.

So if you can work out what it does, and get your timing right, then Linkie Winkie might help you out for a while.”

From what we can tell, by giving a shout out to Linkie Winkie, they will in turn to give you a shout out. How it does this, is still a mystery, but one blog discusses the effect of Linkie Winkie, while the other provides a bit on who is behind the experiment.

I’ll provide an update here if anything comes of this, but participating in a social experiment of the web 2.0 variety just seemed like a fun think to do on a Friday evening.