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?

This article looks at the impact that huge MP3 collections has on our perception and enjoyment of music, and really got me thinking.

Music has value because it moves us. That special album that takes us back to some magic moment, or the songs we love to dance to. What has people by albums us the love of the music.

MP3 collecting is similar to collecting baseball cards. Grab an artist’s entire discography, and trade among your peers. Our music collections expand almost as fast as the national debt, and often music sits on our hard drives unlistened, unappreciated, and unacknowledged. We become overwhelmed with the amount of music we have to listen to, and start to lose our love for the music that touches us.

When music is downloaded and listened to only once or twice, it becomes a single serving item, like a hamburger. The joy of music is in the artistic expression, and the way we are moved when we hear something we love.

Could the current frenzy of MP3 downloading (both legal and illegal) be eliminating our love for music? There’s a phenomenon known as information overload. One way to look at the current consumption of MP3s is that music is in an information overload stage.

With so much music to choose from, both free and bought, and huge MP3 collections, the line between having music we love and having music because its there is getting blurred.

Most of the time, we relate to this in terms of album sales, and the music industry. What if we looked it as a shift in the perception of music? While music is always special, it’s apparent that we are now starting to view it as a thing to have. What effect this will have on our appreciation of music is anybody’s guess. Based on the habits of the general public, music is losing it’s intrinsic value as art, and becoming more like a piece of furniture.

Bottom line: We used to buy CDs because we loved the music. It is starting to appear that we now collect MP3s because they’re accessible.

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.

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?

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.

Many artists that experience high volumes of downloads on p2p networks also experience brisk sales. The days of mega-platinum albums are pretty much at an end, so I’m defining brisk sales as between 50,000 to 7 million units sold. This is abroad spectrum, as it includes middle tier artists as well. The future of music will most like include far more middle tier artists, making a decent living, and fewer multi million dollar pop sensations.

The actions of Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Saul Williams are not meant to devalue music to nothing. These artists want people to buy their music. They pay their mortgages, buy their gas, and feed their kids off music sales and gigs. The intention behind these artists’ actions are to move forward a major shift in the music business. The sooner major labels are out of the picture, the sooner our culture can have a conversation about the value of music. It;s great that people can choose how much they want to pay to support artists. At the same time, all of us in the middle or lower tiers of the industry cannot sustain a vibrant career without revenue. Digital music sales are expanding rapidly; obviously people are buying music.

Consider that people can get almost any music they want for free. With a small amount of effort, any album can be found, downloaded, and added to a collection as an MP3. So when people do buy music, what does it measure?

The Love of the Music

Album and track sales measure artist support, and appreciation of the music itself. When major albums are leaked well in advance of release dates and still sell well, it’s clear that the people buying it don’t have to. Why would people buy something they can get for free? It’s not consistent with a capitalist mentality.

Music is in a post capitalist environment, and totally uncharted territory for any commodity. There is no scarcity of music, and the supply outstrips the demand by miles. When people buy an album, they are saying “I like this music or artist enough to support them. I want them to continue to make great music, and I am moved and touched by what they create.”

Sales dynamics and trends for non-major label releases follow a completely different set of rules than mainstream music sales do. Mega-Artists that are joining the ranks of independent musicians aren’t breaking new ground as much as they are creating a public awareness of the way the music business works for most of the artists in it. For those of us in the trenches of our careers, they are putting a spotlight on how we do business.

Free downloads from major artists are simply a proving ground that in the post major label era of music, people will still buy music they support. The only difference between downloading an album for free on an artist site or off Bit Torrent is the amount of effort one has to put in (i.e. clicking a link instead of typing a name into a search prompt).

Although accurate sales totals for In Rainbows won’t be available till the end of the year, it’s clear people are willing to pay for music when they are not forced to. Now that big time acts are involved in the independent music world, there’s no denying that people buy music they love, even if it’s free. The only thing that has changed with In Rainbows is the kind of market analysis we are seeing in major media publications. Major labels can’t whitewash entertainment news about the reality of the business anymore.

When people have access to the music they want for free, and without being treated like criminals, supporting the artist is a natural action to take. it’s when we are treated like criminals, or asked to pay large sums of money for long dead artists, that the public begins to resent buying music.

The Bottom Line: Album sales no longer measure marketing ability or brand placement, they measure people’s love of the music.

What do you think?

What do album sales measure?

Are Radiohead/Saul Williams/NIN breaking new ground, are are they amplifying a message that most of us already hear?