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?

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.”

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?

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.

Capgemini? recently broke down album sales in Britain since 2004.? While the report is still confidential, The Register reported on a few details.? And what is the reported main source of lost revenue in the British recording industry?? Album Unbundling.? (Files sharing came in at 18% of the projection).

The iTunes music store was originally launched with the blessing and backing of the four major record labels, who thought unbundling albums would be a boon to business.? it wasn’t until the major labels unbundled their catalogs that the idea was popularized. In unbundling albums, audiences have lost the incentive to buy a whole musical work.

Considering that the major labels are upset over their falling revenue, it doesn’t seem like a shining moment when they devalued the recordings in their catalogs.

Would you buy part of a painting?? As Jim Griffin pointed out in 2004, would you unbundle books of poetry?

It is valid that many albums only have a couple of good tracks, and are mostly filler.? However, most albums are created and put together as a total piece.? Ciccone Youth released an album quite a while back titled “The Whitey Album”.? The second track is “Silence”, and consisted of a little over a minute of… silence.? Admittedly, this is not the first track of its kind (the band joked that the track was a speeded up version of John Cage’s 4:44).? This track sold for 99 cents on the iTunes store, until stories started popping up in the media.? Artistic visions are undermined through unbundling, and shorter or more experimental tracks are not always as valuable as stand alone.

What do fans lose from unbundled albums?? When I think of some of my favorite albums, I can see that I would miss some gems through album unbundling.? Polyvibe artist Zoltan Dobi has several tracks of under a minute each.? Many Pink Floyd albums are meant to be listened to as a continuous piece.? Primus‘ (Primus’s?) early albums contain many short interludes that I love, but wouldn’t buy as a single.? What about artists that put experimental ramblings or noise tracks in their albums?? Clearly these tracks are intended to be part of those musical experiences.

Does it serve artists to have their musical works picked apart?? While the single is still a viable format, it has a specific design.? A track meant to generate interest in an album, and often the best track (sometimes colloquially referred to as the “money track”).? By unbundling albums, all tracks become singles, and fans often miss the gold in favor of a single serving mentality.? Radiohead’s In Rainbows is not available on iTunes for this very reason.? The album can only be obtained the way it was created: as an album.

I’m a proponent of freedom of choice, and I believe that audiences have the right to buy the music they want, and how they want it. I’m a believer that if a song is a hit, don’t withhold the single.? When you buy your tracks in single servings, the overall cost is higher.? It costs between $2,000-$10,000 to fill a 40GB iPod, depending on whether you buy the music as albums or singles.

However, as an artist, I want my vision to be experienced.? When my albums are split apart, listeners do not get the full scope of my musical vision.? As as a lesser-known artist, the incentive for people to buy a single track over the album is apparent.? While it’s an honor to have people tune in at all, is there an incentive in creating a full album if people only buy one or two tracks?

The Bottom Line:? Album unbundling has the potential to eliminate the art of the album entirely, although it does provide an opportunity for fans to expand their musical tastes in low cost increments.

Digital Music News bills itself as “the news and information authority for music industry and technology executives. Our readership is a … digital music executive audience representing … traditional labels, music subscription and download stores, online music stores, digital radio companies, P2P applications, legal services, portable mp3 player manufacturers, and micropayment firms, just to name a few”

So far, approximately 38% of fans have bought the new Radiohead album In Rainbows. Considering that Radiohead reaps 100% of the profits, they’re probably making more than they did before.

“According to the data, 17 percent [of fans] paid an average of $4 for the album, while 12 percent paid between $8 and $12…Radiohead sold well past one million units on the album.” If the numbers above are accurate reflections of what people are paying, the total rake for this album so far is a significant amount of money. And in short span of time.

“The result deflates the excitement surrounding the effort, heralded by many as a groundbreaking model. It also challenges the levels of loyalty that established bands can expect from longtime fans.” How does this deflate the model? If a million people buy an album they can get for free, doesn’t that show there’s still a demand? Apparently even when music is totally free people still choose to buy it. The only group of people disenfranchised by this development are major labels, who will be forced to abandon almost all artist development and marketing models in the face of this trend.

“Elsewhere, large numbers of fans continue to grab the album outside of the Radiohead website on free file-sharing networks, another unexpected development.” Unexpected? How can anyone who follows the current industry trends see file sharing as an unexpected development?

Kudos to Alexandra Osorio on having a detailed breakdown of the sales of In Rainbows. As far as the analysis goes, its obvious who their readership is when they call file sharing of In Rainbows unexpected.

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?

Our friends at The Seminal caught our attention with their take on the RIAA “victory”.? I put the word in quotes because the nature of a victory is that it advances your cause in some way.

I invite you to check this astute commentary. Here’s my favorite part:

“That’s right, the artists who slave for years to make records, pour out their souls into their CDs, and enrich our lives in a myriad of ways don’t actually get any of the money recovered through these ridiculous lawsuits. Not one red cent.”

The commentary on this case is already so powerful, there;s little left to add.

Over the next few weeks, we will begin to look at other ways artists and musicians can generate revenue besides signing their futures over to transnational behemoths, and the future of record labels.