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?

By the late 90s, investors, entrepreneurs, and even music industry executives sensed a profound shift ahead. The early days of the internet witnessed a massive stock bubble, and the creation of instant millionaires, billionaires, and outrageous valuations.

Of course, that bubble popped, though society, communications, entertainment, and relationships have all experienced incredible shifts over the past ten years. And those born into a world saturated with the internet, mobile phones, and iPods represent an entirely different demographic. Plenty of older people are tech-savvy and facile on the internet, but teenagers are digital natives, and the vanguard of a completely different consumer class.

That was the focus of a recent Frontline special called “Growing Up Online,” which aired on PBS last week. “It’s been said that the internet represents the greatest generation gap since the advent of rock n’ roll,” the program asserts, hardly an overstatement for anyone connected to teenagers today.

“Growing Up” focused heavily on social networking, IM, mobile devices, and online video, all cornerstones of a “virtual society … largely hidden from parents and teachers”. Well-known names like MySpace and Facebook dominated the discussion, while older players like Yahoo, AOL, and MSN received scant attention.

According to Frontline, approximately 90 percent of teenagers in the United States are online, a figure that continues to grow. “This is the first generation to come of age immersed in a virtual world, outside the reach of their parents,” the program asserted.

For the music industry, that “society” is roiling once-solid physical and album-based models. Frontline did not focus on music-related topics, though the implications of an always-on, ultra-savvy class of internet consumers are already being felt. “It’s hard not to wonder whether a generation that uses the internet to ‘learn’ about the world for ‘free’ … will be willing to pay for content online (whether that be music, television, movies, etc…),” blogged Richard Greenfield of Pali Research.

Kicking and screaming, traditional media conglomerates have been forced to adapt to that reality, with mixed success. Of course, teenagers are only one part of a massive digital disruption, though “Growing Up Online” offers a lucid look into a quickly-changing consumer class.

Review by Paul Resnikoff.

“Growing Up Online” is available online here.

A new idea has surfaced in the music business this year: giving away tons of free CDs. First Prince did it through UK newspapers, causing quite a stir in the industry. Now Big Head Todd and the Monsters are giving away 500,000 copies of their new album to radio stations and fans, splitting the cost with radio to get the copies out there. The albums will be available as giveaways from radio stations, and on the band’s site. The album is available as a free download for fans, and according to the BHTM site, the physical album is “Available SOON from our merchandise store for just $5 or FREE with any merchandise purchase of $15 or more.”

At first glance this appears to be another groundbreaking model for the industry. BHTM used to be on a major label, and has the industry recognition and viability as a touring outfit (they are preparing for a 60 city US tour as we speak) that comes with major label artist development and promotion.

Looking closer, even at dirt cheap prices (including postage), the investment here would be a minimum of $200,000. Apparently, fans are jumping at the bit to get the free album, a testament to the credibility of BHTM. But what does this action say for the rest of us in the industry? Although not as widely recognized as Prince or Radiohead (and few artists are), BHTM has the credibility and resources to launch this kind of campaign. For the rest of us who have not had major label development, access to create a quarter million in investment, tons of willing radio contacts, and the ability to book a viable 60 date US tour, this tactic may not be fruitful in the short term.

Based on the flopping CD sales over the holiday season, CDs are set to lose major amounts of retail shelf space next year, except in major retail outlets like Wal-Mart and Target. Consider that without retail shelf space, physical distributors will rapidly become obsolete. These days, selling 100,000 copies of a CD gets you high up on the charts. Give the sorry state of CD sales, it appears that musicians will need to have some kind of sure money maker (like touring) to buffer this kind of massive promo giveaway, unless one is willing to invest tens of thousands of dollars and ‘see what happens’.

So what about the horde of mid level musicians that don’t have the clout to give away half a million (or even ten thousand) CDs? It’s a brilliant marketing ploy, but without the ability to book a viable tour with sweet guarantees and juicy crowds or the guarantee of radio play it becomes a major loss leader in an industry that is rapidly losing revenue streams.

Giving away albums to generate buzz has become the modern equivalent of the single. Let the fans hear the music, and give them the opportunity to support the band live, or by buying merch or CDs. This tactic will drastically undercut the Big Four’s ability to set prices and control music distribution over 2008.

Bottom Line: It is beginning to appear that the only way to transform the music business is to devalue music and start again with a whole new model, where art is free and the money comes from something else.

The RIAA is funded by the big four record labels, to the tune of around $130 million per year for each label. EMI was recently bought by a private group, and are now considering drastically cutting their investment to the lobbying and enforcement arm of the music industry.

Given that the RIAA’s legal moves over the last few years have been disastrous at best, it’s a great sign for artists that the RIAA’s financial base may diminish significantly. The amount of money that the RIAA has spent suing mothers and college students as been astronomical, and has led to a severe loss of credibility toward the record business in the public eye. Let’s take a moment to look at what a world without the RIAA might look like.

Without constant legal pressure to buy, audiences would begin to feel confident that albums they buy are supporting artists’ careers (this is part of consumer confidence). File sharing would continue, but people would be more willing to buy music they love knowing that they aren’t labeled as criminals anymore. The business model of turning artists into products, overcharging for albums, and using hype instead of quality would fail.

The music industry would become a free market, where any artist with great music and dedication could create a viable career. Rather than a few mega platinum artists, we would begin to see a massive amount of artists selling between 50,000 – 200,000 units on releases. This level of sales can cause an artist to be dropped from a major, but on an indie label, this is a great living for an artist, and a massive success for the label. Royalty rates for artists would also become much higher. Some artists already see similar profits selling 200,000 units with an indie label that they would see selling a million on a major.

New contracts would become the industry standard, similar to Polyvibe’s practice of leasing artist’s copyrights rather than owning them. Artists would have freedom to call the shots in their careers. The industry would shift to artists owning their masters, with labels existing to empower artists rather than to exploit them. Album advances would shrink; the amount of money owed to labels would shrink, too. In the major label world, an artist owes almost every penny the label spends on them. Label investment in artists would become the cost of doing business, rather than a loan.

The practice of shelving albums would become non-existent, as artists would have the ability to have promises for release dates in their contracts. Polyvibe currently includes release dates in our contracts, with a provision that if deadlines are not met, we will set a new release date. We even promise in our contracts that if we do not release an album within a set span of time after receiving masters, the artists is free to go elsewhere with their album. This type of provision would be standard fare, as well as other artist protection clauses.

Marketing, promotion, and booking companies would become the major players in breaking artists. The media will flock to what people want instead of what the Big Four tell them to promote. New and far reaching models and methods of grass roots promotion will become the norm. Music quality will again become the primary factor in an artist’s success; promotion and hype will be a second tier service. Radio will begin to offer a wider variety.

Without the ability to force legislation in their favor, major labels would become the victim of a music economy they no longer control. Consider that what allows major labels to force low quality music down our throats at high prices is their ability to grab politicians ears, to threaten us with lawsuits, and their near domination of media exposure and radio. We are now at the tail end of a 60 year monopoly on the music business. Rats swarm off of sinking ships, a perfect analogy for the exodus of mega-artists from major labels (getting off the ship, not the rats). In this new music environment, there will be dozens (maybe hundreds) of popular labels, and everyone will have the opportunity to create success.

Bottom Line: Without the RIAA, the major label business model will be obsolete, and a new paradigm and renaissance for music will appear within five years.

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.

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?

Having seen this post a couple days ago, I feel compelled to put my two bits into the future of albums. It is true that Prince gave his album away in a newspaper, and that Radiohead is breaking new ground with their latest album (for those of you living in a cave, you can choose how much you want to pay for the album).

Animosity toward major record companies is growing faster than US citizens contempt for their government (I’ll refrain from linking out to anything here). The entertainment industry is entering what is known as a paradigm shift. It’s a blessing that international acts who have sold tens of millions of albums are bucking the existing system, and thus speeding up its downfall. Once the major labels are gone (or reduced to distribution entities), a new paradigm for the music industry will emerge.

I’m going to speculate on two different future paradigms for the entertainment industry.
In the bleak future, there are almost no major studios, and there are only one or two companies making high end studio gear. In this future, albums are considered such a small part of an artist’s career that the effort and attention paid to them diminishes. A professional musician becomes someone who tours and sells merch exclusively, while the number of live venues and outlets for performance shrink exponentially (Have you heard what is happening in orchestras?). As internet streams and access to media continues to increase, the value of going to a live show also drops. In this future, there is zero market for music as a commodity. Almost all musicians become hobbyists, and only artists with marketing budgets to swamp the internet garner popularity. Most musicians will no longer believe that they can live their dreams, and less and less of us will be willing to take the risks that it takes to generate rampant success. In this future, acts like Metallica and Radiohead will continue to make money – their touring and merch machines can support a massive infrastructure.

While this future is depressing, it is not the future we are living into culturally. Major acts are taking actions now that will ensure that the market for music opens up, and are creating an environment where any artist can create success with dedication and commitment. In fact, going back to Radiohead (check out the comments on this article), fans are embracing the opportunity to support an artist, and are buying the album.

Depending on how you look at things now, you can say that albums sales are bottoming out, or you can say that the imbalance of major label influence is being removed from the sales figures.

The future we are actually living into (in my humble opinion) is one where albums sell, and fans want to buy music they love. Most of the animosity toward buying music has to do with pricing structures and that major labels take most of the money. Even though people can download anything they want for free, albums are still selling. While the value of albums may drop, the percentage going to artists will increase, balancing out the pot for artists (the only party that fans care about anyways). A billion downloads is not a coincidence. A la carte downloads are novel now, but just like a six pack is far cheaper than buying one can of soda, the value of buying an album will follow the same path.
We can look at the actions of multi-platinum artists as a litmus test for the music industry, but they do not represent most artists. Gauging the future of album sales on artists who have sold millions of albums is no different that gauging the future of album sales on major label methodology. The typical mid level artist has neither the resources nor the clout to write off the value of albums.

There will be a shift in the perceived value of music by fans, too. Once DRM goes away, and people stop trying to litigate file sharing away, audiences will begin to give up their resentment of buying music. With software, file sharing is also rampant. Yet software companies are selling enough units to stay in business.

People value things more when they buy them. A hard drive filled with downloaded music
will never go away (and is there any of us who have no mix tapes or downloaded songs?

While the current environment of corporate pressure raises hackles, audiences want great albums to listen to. We just don’t want to be told we’re criminals.

The future of music lies in respecting the choice of the audience. If people don’t want to buy an artists music, but they want to listen to it, more power to them. As long as they enjoy it. If people love music, they will buy it.

On a final note, we of the Polyvibe are putting our music out on p2p networks. Feel free to enjoy it. If you like what you hear, support the artists.

*The opinions expressed above are my own, and are intended to provide a perspective outside of mainstream music industry types. We are committed to creating a conversation about what is possible for the future of music outside of mainstream perspectives.

Before I break down the long and short of this issue, I want to bring your attention to something.

Companies like Media Defender are not protecting copyright and content interests. They are actually encouraging people not to buy content. The more intrusively and forcefully companies like Media Defender attempt to control our content consumption, the more the general public will revolt. If companies want to protect their revenue, the way is to embrace p2p culture, not to subvert it.

On to the details:

MediaDefender is in the business of protecting content from piiracy. Specifically, they seek
out and protect content on peer to peer networks. They use a variety or sneaky tactics, including decoy files, to catch people who are downloading music.

Here’s how they describe their services on their site: “MediaDefender uses a range of non-invasive technological countermeasures employed on P2P networks to frustrate users’ attempts to steal/trade copyrighted content…Decoying and Spoofing are the most commonly known techniques that we employ. We send blank files and data noise that look exactly like a real response to an initiated search requests for a particular title…”

Oddly enough, they also offer service to seed content onto peer to peer networks. From the Media Defender site: “Peer-to-Peer* Marketing is when we capture live search requests from your targeted demographic and respond with your clients’ files”

In other words, not only are they hunting down file sharers, they are using the data they obtain for marketing purposes. This would be like the TSA using travel information to provide us with travel discounts and promotions.
Recently, a huge amount of internal corporate documents were leaked to the public through (insert dramatic irony) Bit Torrent. The documents were obtained by a group called MediaDefender-Defenders

It appears that Media Defender has been running a secret site where uploaded files can be tracked – without any permission. I believe the legal term for this kinf od action is entrapment. I find it amusing that the same file sharing networks that are being manipulated by companies like Media Defender are being subverting for the uses of major media conglomerates by companies including Media Defender.

Even better, according to the documents, Major record companies and movie studios were paying Media Defender to protect their albums from file sharing (and for a hefty fee, too). As if it wasn;t sketchy enough, the documents show that Media Defender actively sought to divert p2p traffic to their own p2 website (the now defunct Miivi.com), so they could catch people in the act of downloading. This kind of action is similar to sending a drug dealer door to door, and then arresting people who buy something.

As if all of this isn’t embarassing enough for Media Defender, executives of the company insisted in July that “MediaDefender was working on an internal project that involved video and didn’t realize that people would be trying to go to it and so we didn’t password-protect the site” (source- ArsTechnica).
I can understand that compaines like Media Defender can make a great living out of protecting content. As a label owner, I can even understand the desire to want to sell units. However, Media Defender is denying they intentionally attempted to entrap users (can you say liar?) . And if that isn’t enough, they are using the same information to create marketing strategies.

In spite of the fact that people can get any media they want for free, records still sell. Album sales may be dropping like hailstones, but record sales continue to be a multi-billion dollar industry.

Consumers have the power now, and we get to say what has value, not corporations.

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.