Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
3: There is always an easy solution to every problem — neat, plausible and wrong
I'm going to depart from the meat of U2's manager's speech for a bit to get into the alternatives to the assumptions that are the basis of Mr. McGuinness' assertions: that the music business has been ruined by illegal file sharing.
One part of this is the question of just how badly the industry is doing - indeed whether they are doing badly at all. Although it references only one player in the Australian industry, this opinion piece suggested that industry’s gloomy pronouncements were hiding all-time high sales. While they may bemoan the state of the industry when discussing the impact of file sharing, when discussing their position as publicly traded companies the picture that’s painted tends to be more optimistic. All this can be confusing stuff. There are sales, and then again there are revenues, and then again there are profits. And what the hell is a “margin”?
In general though, since I’m no economist I have to go by the trends in reporting and it seems pretty clear that there is a consensus that the business of selling mainstream CDs is in trouble, revenues have tumbled sharply over the last decade, many retail stores dedicated solely or primarily to music have gone out of business, and the stocks of the publicly traded companies have taken major hits. You’d be hard pressed to find an analysis that suggest that the record business as a whole is doing anything but worse. And while projections are just that, they suggest that the decline will continue and that to the degree digital downloads counter declining CD sales, they won't completely make up for these declines.
Far more uncertain is a core argument at the center of McGuinness’ speech: that the blame, or at least the majority of the blame, for these declining fortunes can be laid at the feet of illegal file sharing. Certainly for an industry insider to hold this position is not surprising. It has been pushed hard by industry representative groups like the RIAA and the IFPI. You can find plenty of research that supports the position (of course, you have to consider the source: SafeMedia is selling technology that purports to remove illicit copyrighted materials from P2P traffic. Nevertheless, many of the cited articles are legitimately argued by relatively unbiased sources). Personally, I think that an important and largely undiscussed element in the prevalence of this argument is that it is driven by uncomplicated causal logic. Napster hit, file sharing became a phenomenon, record sales declined. Do the math, right?
I reviewed a fair amount of both primary research and media interpretations of the situation. My own unsatisfying conclusion is that I’m not equipped to make a particularly sophisticated judgment of the primary research, a situation that makes the scientist in me very leery of coming to conclusions that “happen” to support my personal biases. I think it is fair to say, however, that there is honest disagreement between the better-equipped and less biased researchers on the topic of the role and extent of of filesharing’s impact on the CD business. So I’m not going to argue my own specious conclusion on the subject. Instead, as food for thought I hope I can shine some light on just how complex and ambiguous the situation is.
That file sharing of unauthorized copies of copyrighted songs is occurring at a large scale isn’t a subject of dispute. The essential question - the one that is almost never addressed or indeed acknowledged by the record industry, is the degree to which file sharing is displacing sales. The logic contrary to the party line is simple: the fact that someone will download a song for free does not imply that they would necessarily purchase the song legally if it weren’t otherwise accessible. A trivial demonstration is that an individual could easily download free music worth, if it were purchased legally, far more than the individual has available to spend. Preventing the downloads couldn’t possibly generate the supposed revenue selling them would have generated: the money simply isn’t available.
There are a variety of different approaches to researching the attachment of music revenue losses to illegal file sharing. Data on overall file sharing volumes over time, specific files being shared, and demographics of individuals engaged in file sharing can be compared to similar data for revenue from conventional sales. Furthermore, individuals can be surveyed about their habits and beliefs about how their file sharing and music purchasing intersect.
The problems with this data are numerous. By its nature, illegal file sharing is not exhaustively or accurately tracked. Any specific data on file sharing statistics must involve a significant amount of assumption, and it is not much of a stretch to suggest that the bias of the observer will affect what sorts of assumptions are made (it is fair to point out that the issue of bias cuts both ways - plenty of biased analysis is made to argue that file sharing does not impact conventional music revenues).
Even going directly to the consumer for information provides uncertain conclusions. If individuals projected their own purchasing decisions with absolute accuracy no well-funded movie would ever bomb and no major product would ever fail. The decisions that people make with their wallets in actual consumer venues are notoriously difficult to predict. Frankly, a possible conclusion that merits greater attention is that the impact of file sharing on CD sales cannot be accurately determined.
If the case for a cause and effect relationship yields uncertain conclusions, is is only sensible to look for alternative explanations. In the case of declining music revenues there are many potential causes that have gone largely unexamined by the record industry.
The hardest to prove one way or another, while ironically the most important to correct if it is a serious factor, is the charge that the record industry basically screwed up its product. Critics point out that the major labels have progressively issued fewer new releases, in essence cutting variety and consumer choice. While essentially impossible to quantify, many have pointed to a fundamental decline in the quality of mainstream recorded music, as the age of the video favored image over substance. An interesting corollary to the quality argument is the issue of independently produced music. It is possible that the declines in major label CD sales are being displaced to a greater degree than is commonly recognized by independent music sales. Arguing an increased relevance of independent music meshes well with the Long Tail concept, which asserts that while the traditional media retail model of stock carrying costs and shelf space discourage catering to niche markets, online retail and particularly the sale of digital information via download thrives on them - virtual shelf space is infinite, and carrying “stock” of digital information is virtually costless.
Whether from truly independent self-publishers or independent labels ranging from basement startups to major-minors like Matador and Sub Pop, the true numbers on independent music can be hard to pin down, since not all are tracked by SoundScan, the major music industry data tracker run by Nielsen (of television ratings fame). Even lacking concrete numbers, it can’t be discounted that independent champions like CD Baby and eMusic have quietly risen into the top tiers of online sales of CDs as well as digital downloads. Indeed, there could be no clearer testimony to the increasing importance of this market than the fact that SoundScan is tracking more of these markets - CD Baby recently arranged for artists to have the ability to have their sales tracked, while SoundScan started tracking eMusic’s downloads in 2006, three years after they started tracking legal downloads at all. As the data on these alternative sources of music come together we might seem some very interesting and different presentations of the state of the music business. Already certain aspects of the independent markets are suggestive: eMusic, for example, places the median age of its users in the upper thirties, an underrepresented demographic in mainstream music, and gains more revenue from full album downloads than from singles.
The state of the single is a topic in itself. The CD single experienced some of the earliest and most precipitous drops in sales, and was one of the first and least contested areas where blame was placed at the feet of file sharing. But it isn’t quite so clear cut, since at the same time the industry itself attracted blame for hindering the singles market for its own purposes - namely, because it would prefer to sell more expensive full albums, regardless of whether listeners want the rest of the songs on them or not. So you could argue that the record industry actually drove file sharing trends by restricting access to legitimate singles. The fact that the largest mainstream market in legitimate digital downloads, iTunes, is driven by singles rather than albums purchases supports a common quality argument about mainstream music: that the record industry is frequently selling albums with a few hits padded by filler. And while legal digital downloads may be picking up some of the slack of declining CD sales, the fact that the digital marketplace has made virtually every song available as a single would certainly be consistent with the failure of digital download sales to make up declining CD revenues. People may be literally buying less music because they never wanted all the songs they were compelled to buy for anything that was only available as a full CD in the first place.
Another argument is that the driving force behind declining record sales is that they are being displaced by other media purchases - primarily DVDs and video games. While proving it gets into very similar kinds of complexities as equating file sharing with lost CD revenue, it is a straightforward fact that DVD and gaming revenues have been climbing. If we can assume that consumer entertainment spending has been relatively flat (an assertion I haven’t yet found a good citation for) then it is certainly consistent that declining CD sales would necessarily follow. This is an interesting argument because it again raises the question of whether it would make any difference if file sharing could be prevented. If the money isn’t available it isn’t available, and arguably the cash-strapped file sharer would simply eschew recorded music in favor of their preferred media and seek access to free music through other avenues: in this context it might be considered constructive that the top feature consumers would like in an MP3 player is an FM radio receiver - and that this desire is stronger in the 12-24 age group than it is for those 25 and over. The fact may be that, no matter how much an anathema to the record industry, people - and especially kids - may consider “free” music to be a simple necessity for their entertainment budget - and one that they will find, one way or another.
What’s interesting, and important, about these alternative causes of major label sales declines are that for the most part they suggest realistic solutions - and that these solutions uniformly have to do with acknowledging consumer expectations and desires and responding to them by offering consumers more variety, more options and better values.
But in the next installment we’ll be returning to the alternate universe inhabited by U2’s Mr. McGuinness and take another look at the solutions he’s pinning his hopes on. You’ll find they sum up quite a bit differently. And then hopefully to soon wrap this up with a little coda about whither the Record Industry, and whether I care, and then back to reviews, hurrah!
It’s important that I acknowledge the intelligent input I received from this question I asked in Ask Metafilter - a great resource (and Metafilter has a neat area for members to post their musical creations also - well worth the $5 membership fee).
Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Sympathy for the Devil: the plight of the record industry, Part 2
Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
2: Thieves, Burglars and Pirates
Before I get into analyzing U2’s manager’s version of the “what went wrong with the record industry” party line, let me clarify some personal stances. I’m not a proponent of file sharing as a method of mass transgression of copyrights. I never used Napster. I’ve never used KaZaA, eMule, Limewire, BitTorrent or any of the many other file sharing networks or applications to access copyrighted content, and I’ve never held an account for any of the networks that require one. I am a proponent of strong and durable copyrights (though not of the duration Disney recently purchased from Congress), I believe in paying copyright owners for their intellectual property (though I am happiest when most of the money goes to the actual creator). To this extent I’d guess I’m substantially in agreement with U2’s Mr. McGuinness.
On the other hand, like the majority of people I have a history of copyright transgression. A clear memory of my history with recorded music is buying a box of Radio Shack 90 minute tapes and recording a couple dozen records from my family’s LP collection the summer before my freshman year of college. I’ve made and received my share of mix tapes (and these days, CDs). I’ve gotten a few copies of CDs burned by friends, although it’s something I don’t ask for and don’t encourage. I’ve downloaded a few oddments that are technically infringing though not copies of commercially available materials, like Danger Mouse’s Grey Album remix, and I’ve downloaded a few (literally, a few) things, via various unorthodox tools, that by my own standards I really should have purchased.
I’m not a saint or a purist about copyright. I’m a realist and occasional opportunist. I bring it up not to proselytize my position or justify my transgressions but to stress that while I’m about to disagree strenuously with most of what Mr. McGuinness has to say about problems in the record industry, my objections are not based on a moral disagreement of what and artist or even that less empathy-inviting organism, the copyright owner, deserves. What I object to is stupid ideas that won’t fix anything and which would cause harm disproportionate to the problem they purport to solve anyway.
Revisit with me a moment the purported motive of Mr. McGuinness’ speech:
What I’m trying do here today is identify a course of action that will benefit all: artists, labels, writers and publishers.
In the first part of this essay I invited examination of this sentiment for what might be missing from it. Of course, the omitted party is the listener, the consumer, the fan.
Is this an inadvertent slip or a rare piece of unvarnished honesty? Have things come to the point that the industry insider sees the listener, the sole and absolute foundation of every iota of their fortunes, as nothing except a problem to be controlled?
I’d argue that whether it is conscious or not, leaving the listener out of the benefits equation is no mistake. One thing that’s clear in this speech is that the party line position is obsessed with the idea of stealing. Mr. McGuinness invokes the idea of stealing (and related concepts like thievery, burglary, crime and of course piracy) sixteen times in this speech. This is critical for two reasons. The first is that it is indicative of how thoroughly the listener experience, listener desires and listener rights have been left out of the equation. Mr. McGuinness does not pay even the smallest lip service to the value consumer of recorded music, or to the solution of the industry’s woes as having anything to do with satisfying the consumer’s desires or expectations. The closest he comes to addressing the fan as anything other than a presumed thief is his argument that people are enjoying live concerts more than ever, as based on the “generally unresisted” trend towards increasing ticket costs.
The second thing this identification of listener as thief illustrates is that it has become fundamentally unquestioned dogma within the record industry that the decline of major-label CD sales has been caused exclusively by illegal file sharing. There is not a hint of alternative or complimentary causes for the declining fortunes of the CD in this speech. And indeed this sentiment has been largely picked up and echoed by most mainstream media coverage. For the most part, the only thing that varies in this assessment are opinions on how the industry let the situation get so out of hand, and what can be done to rectify it now.
Leading the charge on the “what now” front is another commonplace component of the party line: the belief that there is, at least theoretically, a technical fix for the problem of file sharing. The speech invokes the SDMI as an example of what went wrong with the industry’s response to the problem of file sharing in the 90s. It is telling that the only culprit identified for the failure of this initiative is the US government’s “overzealous” protection of the public from “cartel-like behaviour.”
The latest take on DRM isn’t the only technical fix McGuinness proposes. A somewhat new facet of his thesis is the preposterous claim that ISPs could easily detect and disrupt file sharing traffic of unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials if they wished to do so. The examples McGuinness provides in the full speech reveal a depth of ignorance about what the internet is - indeed, what it means to “share files” - that is all too common in the record industry - and that might amuse if it was not the foundation of so much ill-founded and harmful ideas about changing government policy.
Which leads us to the third predictable leg on this tripod of industry-standard arguments. First, the dominant role of the consumer is intrinsically as a thief. Second, that the offending activity - file sharing - could be disrupted by a technical fix. And finally, that if the gatekeepers of this nefarious filesharing paradise, the ISPs, cannot be convinced to voluntarily deny the thieving consumer access to their stolen files via technological intervention, they should be compelled to do so by law.
These are all pretty much versions of arguments that the industry have been pushing for a decade - the relatively new component is the focus on ISPs and digital hardware manufacturers as the primary targets of ire and the perceived source of remedy.
It’s not really a surprising change in position. The industry’s only extant “solution” to the issue of file sharing - civil suits against individuals - have been an extravagant failure, and indeed statements made during the recently publicized first such suit to go to trial suggest that it has been a costly failure.
The shift of focus to players with deep pockets is inevitable. McGuinness takes what is coming to be a common tactic, to lay the blame of the situation at the anarchistic leanings of the silicon valley crowd - their “hippy values.” Of course, the same sort of pejorative assessment of communistic values has been slapped on anyone who has suggested that the increasing accessibility of information is an inevitable outcome of the information age, and that demanding that the technology makers and gatekeepers of the information infrastructure fundamentally alter their business to cater to the content crowd is rather the tail wagging the dog.
And really that part of it is just smoke, anyway, a bit of rhetorical flourish. The real meat of the argument is summed up in one question: “who’s got our money?” It is a sentiment that is mirrored in the idea that music industry “assets are exploited by the buyers” of MP3 players (the legal use of format-shifted tracks from legally owned CDs is ignored as usual), or the response to the existence of premium cost internet access for “heavy downloaders” with the rhetorical question “isn’t that our money?”
While it’s impossible to say for sure, I suspect that this line of reasoning will characterize the next act in this sad farce of the record industry’s decline. In the next chapter, I’ll examine these arguments about the causes and remedies of the record industry’s sad estate, and whether they’re likely to find much relief out of the pockets of Apple and Comcast.
Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
2: Thieves, Burglars and Pirates
Before I get into analyzing U2’s manager’s version of the “what went wrong with the record industry” party line, let me clarify some personal stances. I’m not a proponent of file sharing as a method of mass transgression of copyrights. I never used Napster. I’ve never used KaZaA, eMule, Limewire, BitTorrent or any of the many other file sharing networks or applications to access copyrighted content, and I’ve never held an account for any of the networks that require one. I am a proponent of strong and durable copyrights (though not of the duration Disney recently purchased from Congress), I believe in paying copyright owners for their intellectual property (though I am happiest when most of the money goes to the actual creator). To this extent I’d guess I’m substantially in agreement with U2’s Mr. McGuinness.
On the other hand, like the majority of people I have a history of copyright transgression. A clear memory of my history with recorded music is buying a box of Radio Shack 90 minute tapes and recording a couple dozen records from my family’s LP collection the summer before my freshman year of college. I’ve made and received my share of mix tapes (and these days, CDs). I’ve gotten a few copies of CDs burned by friends, although it’s something I don’t ask for and don’t encourage. I’ve downloaded a few oddments that are technically infringing though not copies of commercially available materials, like Danger Mouse’s Grey Album remix, and I’ve downloaded a few (literally, a few) things, via various unorthodox tools, that by my own standards I really should have purchased.
I’m not a saint or a purist about copyright. I’m a realist and occasional opportunist. I bring it up not to proselytize my position or justify my transgressions but to stress that while I’m about to disagree strenuously with most of what Mr. McGuinness has to say about problems in the record industry, my objections are not based on a moral disagreement of what and artist or even that less empathy-inviting organism, the copyright owner, deserves. What I object to is stupid ideas that won’t fix anything and which would cause harm disproportionate to the problem they purport to solve anyway.
Revisit with me a moment the purported motive of Mr. McGuinness’ speech:
What I’m trying do here today is identify a course of action that will benefit all: artists, labels, writers and publishers.
In the first part of this essay I invited examination of this sentiment for what might be missing from it. Of course, the omitted party is the listener, the consumer, the fan.
Is this an inadvertent slip or a rare piece of unvarnished honesty? Have things come to the point that the industry insider sees the listener, the sole and absolute foundation of every iota of their fortunes, as nothing except a problem to be controlled?
I’d argue that whether it is conscious or not, leaving the listener out of the benefits equation is no mistake. One thing that’s clear in this speech is that the party line position is obsessed with the idea of stealing. Mr. McGuinness invokes the idea of stealing (and related concepts like thievery, burglary, crime and of course piracy) sixteen times in this speech. This is critical for two reasons. The first is that it is indicative of how thoroughly the listener experience, listener desires and listener rights have been left out of the equation. Mr. McGuinness does not pay even the smallest lip service to the value consumer of recorded music, or to the solution of the industry’s woes as having anything to do with satisfying the consumer’s desires or expectations. The closest he comes to addressing the fan as anything other than a presumed thief is his argument that people are enjoying live concerts more than ever, as based on the “generally unresisted” trend towards increasing ticket costs.
The second thing this identification of listener as thief illustrates is that it has become fundamentally unquestioned dogma within the record industry that the decline of major-label CD sales has been caused exclusively by illegal file sharing. There is not a hint of alternative or complimentary causes for the declining fortunes of the CD in this speech. And indeed this sentiment has been largely picked up and echoed by most mainstream media coverage. For the most part, the only thing that varies in this assessment are opinions on how the industry let the situation get so out of hand, and what can be done to rectify it now.
Leading the charge on the “what now” front is another commonplace component of the party line: the belief that there is, at least theoretically, a technical fix for the problem of file sharing. The speech invokes the SDMI as an example of what went wrong with the industry’s response to the problem of file sharing in the 90s. It is telling that the only culprit identified for the failure of this initiative is the US government’s “overzealous” protection of the public from “cartel-like behaviour.”
The latest take on DRM isn’t the only technical fix McGuinness proposes. A somewhat new facet of his thesis is the preposterous claim that ISPs could easily detect and disrupt file sharing traffic of unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials if they wished to do so. The examples McGuinness provides in the full speech reveal a depth of ignorance about what the internet is - indeed, what it means to “share files” - that is all too common in the record industry - and that might amuse if it was not the foundation of so much ill-founded and harmful ideas about changing government policy.
Which leads us to the third predictable leg on this tripod of industry-standard arguments. First, the dominant role of the consumer is intrinsically as a thief. Second, that the offending activity - file sharing - could be disrupted by a technical fix. And finally, that if the gatekeepers of this nefarious filesharing paradise, the ISPs, cannot be convinced to voluntarily deny the thieving consumer access to their stolen files via technological intervention, they should be compelled to do so by law.
These are all pretty much versions of arguments that the industry have been pushing for a decade - the relatively new component is the focus on ISPs and digital hardware manufacturers as the primary targets of ire and the perceived source of remedy.
It’s not really a surprising change in position. The industry’s only extant “solution” to the issue of file sharing - civil suits against individuals - have been an extravagant failure, and indeed statements made during the recently publicized first such suit to go to trial suggest that it has been a costly failure.
The shift of focus to players with deep pockets is inevitable. McGuinness takes what is coming to be a common tactic, to lay the blame of the situation at the anarchistic leanings of the silicon valley crowd - their “hippy values.” Of course, the same sort of pejorative assessment of communistic values has been slapped on anyone who has suggested that the increasing accessibility of information is an inevitable outcome of the information age, and that demanding that the technology makers and gatekeepers of the information infrastructure fundamentally alter their business to cater to the content crowd is rather the tail wagging the dog.
And really that part of it is just smoke, anyway, a bit of rhetorical flourish. The real meat of the argument is summed up in one question: “who’s got our money?” It is a sentiment that is mirrored in the idea that music industry “assets are exploited by the buyers” of MP3 players (the legal use of format-shifted tracks from legally owned CDs is ignored as usual), or the response to the existence of premium cost internet access for “heavy downloaders” with the rhetorical question “isn’t that our money?”
While it’s impossible to say for sure, I suspect that this line of reasoning will characterize the next act in this sad farce of the record industry’s decline. In the next chapter, I’ll examine these arguments about the causes and remedies of the record industry’s sad estate, and whether they’re likely to find much relief out of the pockets of Apple and Comcast.
Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Sympathy for the Devil: the plight of the record industry, Part 1
Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
Prologue
Recently I went looking for commentary about the decline of the record industry. Before anything else, I’ll say that what I’m defining as the “record industry” for these purposes is the Big Four: EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner. My motivation is that there is a tale being told about what’s supposedly gone wrong in the business of music. Indeed it has been repeated so frequently that it is virtually uncontested in the mainstream media. And that’s a shame, because if the story isn’t critically examined the opportunities to learn from it is lost. Lots of other people, many better equipped than me, are examining this story. But the party line is so overwhelmingly over-represented in the media that there is always room for another perspective.
1: U2, Brutus?
What got me thinking about all this again was the transcript of this speech, proudly displayed on U2’s official website [Note - it's since dropped off their front page, and U2 does not seem particularly interested in people accessing older website content, so I've switched this link to a hopefully more stable location], by their longtime manager Paul McGuinness, regarding the woes of the music industry. Mr. McGuinness states his goal in the speech:
What I’m trying do here today is identify a course of action that will benefit all: artists, labels, writers and publishers.
Take a moment to reread that statement and see if you can spot the stake holder that is arguably missing from this assessment, because this omission contains the thesis of my later arguments.
It is very worthwhile to read this entire speech as a representative sample of how an industry insider with every reason to consider himself an expert on the topic understands the declining fortunes of, in particular, the CD business for the 4 major labels. But I’ll highlight what I see as the major points and trends in this analysis. Here’s a excerpted rendition of his speech.
Record companies... allowed an entire collection of digital industries to arise that enabled the consumer to steal with impunity the very recorded music that had previously been paid for...
The SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative)... and similar attempts... have partly been thwarted by competition rules. The US government has sometimes been overzealous in protecting the public from cartel-like behaviour...
...Though I may be critical of the ways in which the digital space has been faced by the industry I am also genuinely sympathetic and moved by the human fallout... it is terrible that a direct effect of piracy and thievery has been the destruction of so many careers...
...There is one effective thing the majors could do... I quote from Josh Tyrangiel in Time Magazine: -“The smartest thing would be for the majors to collaborate on the creation of the ultimate digital-distribution hub...’
There is technology now, that the worldwide industry could adopt, which enables content owners to track every legitimate digital download transaction... This system... is called SIMRAN... I should disclose that I’m one of their investors...
Sadly, the recent innovative Radiohead release... seems to have backfired to some extent. It seems that the majority of downloads were through illegal P2P download services like BitTorrent and LimeWire... Even Radiohead’s honesty box principle showed that if not constrained, the customer will steal music...
It’s interesting to look at the character of the individuals who built the industries that resulted from the arrival of the microprocessor. Most of them came out of the so-called counterculture on the west coast of America. Their values were hippy values...
I’ve met a lot of today’s heroes of Silicon Valley. Most of them don’t really think of themselves as makers of burglary kits... I call on them today to start... taking responsibility for protecting the music they are distributing and... by commercial agreements, sharing their enormous revenues with the content makers and owners...
For ISPs in general, the days of prevaricating over their responsibilities for helping protect music must end... [W]hen the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the EU Electronic Commerce Directive were drawn up, legislators were concerned to offer safe harbours restricting the responsibilities of ISPs who acted as a “mere conduit”... [A]s it turned, the “Safe Harbour” concept was really a Thieves’ Charter... It is time for ISPs to be real partners. The safe harbours of the 1990s are no longer appropriate, and if ISPs do not cooperate voluntarily there will need to be legislation to require them to cooperate.
...The truth is that whatever business model you are building, you cannot compete with billions of illegal files free on P2P networks.
ISPs could implement a policy of disconnection in very quick time. Filtering is also feasible... There are many other examples that prove the ability of ISPs to switch off selectively activity they have a problem with... We must shame [ISPs] into wanting to help us. Their snouts have been at our trough feeding free for too long.
There’s a huge commercial partnership opportunity there as well. For me, the business model of the future is one where music is bundled into an ISP or other subscription service and the revenues are shared between the distributor and the content owners.
I believe this is realistic; the last few years have shown clear proof of the power of ISPs and cable companies to bundle packages of content and get more money out of their subscribers. In the UK, most ISPs offer different tiers of services, with a higher monthly fee for heavy downloaders. Why are there ‘heavy’ downloaders? Isn’t that our money?
Universal – U2’s label - recently struck a deal with Microsoft that sees it receive a cut of the revenues generated by sales of the Zune MP3 player... [it] follows from the U2/Apple deal, the principle that the hardware makers should share with the content owners whose assets are exploited by the buyers of their machines. The record companies should never again allow industries to arise that make billions off their content without looking for a piece of that business.
So, to conclude – Who’s got our money and what can we do?
I suggest we shift the focus of moral pressure away from the individual P2P file thief and on to the multi billion dollar industries that benefit from these countless tiny crimes... the message to government is this: ISP responsibility is not a luxury for possible contemplation in the future. It is a necessity for implementation TODAY – by legislation if voluntary means fail.
All emphasis added.
Oh my, I seem to have consumed the bulk of my first chapter restating Mr. McGuinness’ copyright-protected content. But I’m sure he wouldn’t mind... After all, I’m helping to spread his good word about the salvation of the record industry, right?
The next chapter will be an examination of whether the party line gives a complete picture of the plight of the record industry.
Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Prologue
Recently I went looking for commentary about the decline of the record industry. Before anything else, I’ll say that what I’m defining as the “record industry” for these purposes is the Big Four: EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner. My motivation is that there is a tale being told about what’s supposedly gone wrong in the business of music. Indeed it has been repeated so frequently that it is virtually uncontested in the mainstream media. And that’s a shame, because if the story isn’t critically examined the opportunities to learn from it is lost. Lots of other people, many better equipped than me, are examining this story. But the party line is so overwhelmingly over-represented in the media that there is always room for another perspective.
1: U2, Brutus?
What got me thinking about all this again was the transcript of this speech, proudly displayed on U2’s official website [Note - it's since dropped off their front page, and U2 does not seem particularly interested in people accessing older website content, so I've switched this link to a hopefully more stable location], by their longtime manager Paul McGuinness, regarding the woes of the music industry. Mr. McGuinness states his goal in the speech:
What I’m trying do here today is identify a course of action that will benefit all: artists, labels, writers and publishers.
Take a moment to reread that statement and see if you can spot the stake holder that is arguably missing from this assessment, because this omission contains the thesis of my later arguments.
It is very worthwhile to read this entire speech as a representative sample of how an industry insider with every reason to consider himself an expert on the topic understands the declining fortunes of, in particular, the CD business for the 4 major labels. But I’ll highlight what I see as the major points and trends in this analysis. Here’s a excerpted rendition of his speech.
Record companies... allowed an entire collection of digital industries to arise that enabled the consumer to steal with impunity the very recorded music that had previously been paid for...
The SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative)... and similar attempts... have partly been thwarted by competition rules. The US government has sometimes been overzealous in protecting the public from cartel-like behaviour...
...Though I may be critical of the ways in which the digital space has been faced by the industry I am also genuinely sympathetic and moved by the human fallout... it is terrible that a direct effect of piracy and thievery has been the destruction of so many careers...
...There is one effective thing the majors could do... I quote from Josh Tyrangiel in Time Magazine: -“The smartest thing would be for the majors to collaborate on the creation of the ultimate digital-distribution hub...’
There is technology now, that the worldwide industry could adopt, which enables content owners to track every legitimate digital download transaction... This system... is called SIMRAN... I should disclose that I’m one of their investors...
Sadly, the recent innovative Radiohead release... seems to have backfired to some extent. It seems that the majority of downloads were through illegal P2P download services like BitTorrent and LimeWire... Even Radiohead’s honesty box principle showed that if not constrained, the customer will steal music...
It’s interesting to look at the character of the individuals who built the industries that resulted from the arrival of the microprocessor. Most of them came out of the so-called counterculture on the west coast of America. Their values were hippy values...
I’ve met a lot of today’s heroes of Silicon Valley. Most of them don’t really think of themselves as makers of burglary kits... I call on them today to start... taking responsibility for protecting the music they are distributing and... by commercial agreements, sharing their enormous revenues with the content makers and owners...
For ISPs in general, the days of prevaricating over their responsibilities for helping protect music must end... [W]hen the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the EU Electronic Commerce Directive were drawn up, legislators were concerned to offer safe harbours restricting the responsibilities of ISPs who acted as a “mere conduit”... [A]s it turned, the “Safe Harbour” concept was really a Thieves’ Charter... It is time for ISPs to be real partners. The safe harbours of the 1990s are no longer appropriate, and if ISPs do not cooperate voluntarily there will need to be legislation to require them to cooperate.
...The truth is that whatever business model you are building, you cannot compete with billions of illegal files free on P2P networks.
ISPs could implement a policy of disconnection in very quick time. Filtering is also feasible... There are many other examples that prove the ability of ISPs to switch off selectively activity they have a problem with... We must shame [ISPs] into wanting to help us. Their snouts have been at our trough feeding free for too long.
There’s a huge commercial partnership opportunity there as well. For me, the business model of the future is one where music is bundled into an ISP or other subscription service and the revenues are shared between the distributor and the content owners.
I believe this is realistic; the last few years have shown clear proof of the power of ISPs and cable companies to bundle packages of content and get more money out of their subscribers. In the UK, most ISPs offer different tiers of services, with a higher monthly fee for heavy downloaders. Why are there ‘heavy’ downloaders? Isn’t that our money?
Universal – U2’s label - recently struck a deal with Microsoft that sees it receive a cut of the revenues generated by sales of the Zune MP3 player... [it] follows from the U2/Apple deal, the principle that the hardware makers should share with the content owners whose assets are exploited by the buyers of their machines. The record companies should never again allow industries to arise that make billions off their content without looking for a piece of that business.
So, to conclude – Who’s got our money and what can we do?
I suggest we shift the focus of moral pressure away from the individual P2P file thief and on to the multi billion dollar industries that benefit from these countless tiny crimes... the message to government is this: ISP responsibility is not a luxury for possible contemplation in the future. It is a necessity for implementation TODAY – by legislation if voluntary means fail.
All emphasis added.
Oh my, I seem to have consumed the bulk of my first chapter restating Mr. McGuinness’ copyright-protected content. But I’m sure he wouldn’t mind... After all, I’m helping to spread his good word about the salvation of the record industry, right?
The next chapter will be an examination of whether the party line gives a complete picture of the plight of the record industry.
Part One - Part Two - Part Three - Part Four
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Thursday, January 24, 2008
If it was about my album it would be a self-link
Only the Very Greatest Hits, a collection of my favorite recordings of my original music from the last 10 years, is available for sale as a digital download. You can preview the whole album here, and here's a sample:
I've been working on this collection for several months, and arranged for it to be published online soon after I finished writing the 2,000th Song of the Day.
In April of 1998 (I'll be announcing a 10 year anniversary event shortly) I began writing the first sequence of the song of the day project (A.K.A. Songs of Days volumes 1-7) which persisted for 1,001 consecutive lyrics. I took a break of about 5 years. On Friday, January 25 2008 I wrote "Beautiful," the 999th song of the current sequence (titled A Song A Day second iteration: The Book of Hours - volumes 1-6 and counting...).
Comics artist Dave Sim wrote: The cliché (which isn't a cliché, it's the truth) is that you have two thousand bad pages in you and until you draw them, you won't start producing good pages.
I realize it's just a number but even so I've been looking forward to it. In celebration of having written my 2,000th bad song, I'm publishing a album of what I feel is my best recorded solo work. The album has 29 tracks of 160 kbps MP3s and comes with artwork and lyrics, and costs $1.35 for an 85-odd MB digital download. That is $1.35 total cost transacted through PayPal. PayPal will accept payments via credit cards from non-PayPal members. If you're determined to have the album but don't want to use PayPal or a credit card, email me and we'll come to an arrangement.
Although it shows many hallmarks of amateur production, I am pleased with and proud of this album, and I feel that it's an excellent value. If you're feeling starved for text you can read a long essay about issues of pricing here.
Buy it here.
The first 5,000 purchasers will receive, absolutely free of charge, a copy via email of the lyrics for the 2,000th song of the day projects song and free access to unlimited copies of it, once it gets recorded, someday. Everyone else will have to wait 1,764 songs (1,764 days plus however many I skip) for it to be published normally in the Fairly Secret Song of the Day blog.
Write a review of your Digital Commerce Experience at Spirit of Salt Dot Com. It could appear on the internet!
Donations Suck! Thank you for supporting the Phree Musique blog, the Fairly Secret Song of the Day blog, and of course the Jonathan Mark Hamlow 2nd Lifetime Memorial Text Museum by purchasing this album.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
I've been working on this collection for several months, and arranged for it to be published online soon after I finished writing the 2,000th Song of the Day.
In April of 1998 (I'll be announcing a 10 year anniversary event shortly) I began writing the first sequence of the song of the day project (A.K.A. Songs of Days volumes 1-7) which persisted for 1,001 consecutive lyrics. I took a break of about 5 years. On Friday, January 25 2008 I wrote "Beautiful," the 999th song of the current sequence (titled A Song A Day second iteration: The Book of Hours - volumes 1-6 and counting...).
Comics artist Dave Sim wrote: The cliché (which isn't a cliché, it's the truth) is that you have two thousand bad pages in you and until you draw them, you won't start producing good pages.
I realize it's just a number but even so I've been looking forward to it. In celebration of having written my 2,000th bad song, I'm publishing a album of what I feel is my best recorded solo work. The album has 29 tracks of 160 kbps MP3s and comes with artwork and lyrics, and costs $1.35 for an 85-odd MB digital download. That is $1.35 total cost transacted through PayPal. PayPal will accept payments via credit cards from non-PayPal members. If you're determined to have the album but don't want to use PayPal or a credit card, email me and we'll come to an arrangement.
Although it shows many hallmarks of amateur production, I am pleased with and proud of this album, and I feel that it's an excellent value. If you're feeling starved for text you can read a long essay about issues of pricing here.
Buy it here.
The first 5,000 purchasers will receive, absolutely free of charge, a copy via email of the lyrics for the 2,000th song of the day projects song and free access to unlimited copies of it, once it gets recorded, someday. Everyone else will have to wait 1,764 songs (1,764 days plus however many I skip) for it to be published normally in the Fairly Secret Song of the Day blog.
Write a review of your Digital Commerce Experience at Spirit of Salt Dot Com. It could appear on the internet!
Donations Suck! Thank you for supporting the Phree Musique blog, the Fairly Secret Song of the Day blog, and of course the Jonathan Mark Hamlow 2nd Lifetime Memorial Text Museum by purchasing this album.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
On Pricing
The cost of my new digital album is $1.35. The simple explanation of how I arrive at this figure is that it nets me about a dollar. If a nobody like me somehow got a record deal it would be a reasonably thrilling to realize a $1 per album royalty. Thus do I explain what would otherwise be an excessively low price by almost any going standard.
For this price you get 29 160 kbps MP3s, a digital cover image and a rich text format file of album notes and lyrics. The album is 47.3 minutes long and the whole package is 86.4 MB of data.
My feelings about pricing for digital downloads of music are complicated but easily summarized: I think they are uniformly far too expensive.
Consider a minute music pricing in the conventional model. Let’s say I head over to the Billboard charts, find the number one album de jour (As I Am by Alicia Keys), and then head over to Sam Goody for the purchase price. It doesn’t get more conventional than that, Right? The price when I engaged in this exercise (well, I didn’t actually purchase it, but you know) is $16.99 for a 14 track album with a duration of about 50 minutes. That works out to $1.21 per track.
As far as I’m concerned $0.99 a track at iTunes is pretty much the same price. The accepted standard for a digital downloads, which can be placed unreservedly at the feet of Apple, falls squarely inside the conventional model. I’ve got a problem with this because I think a number of factors should mitigate the download costs as compared to CDs:
1. Lossy compression (encoding tracks in a lower-fidelity format like MP3) should reduce the price of the digital information
2. Lack of physical media, which serves as a data backup, and is still necessary when a computer or MP3 player isn’t available (e.g. I have to burn copies of my digital downloads on media I pay for to use them in my car), and lack of physical packaging (lyrics and artwork) should reduce the price of the digital information.
These issues are basically built into the digital download package - artwork and lyrics are seldom included and MP3s are the standard format. For these issues alone I think Apple’s $0.99 standard is too high. I also think a number of contextual issues should affect the price of a digital download. This is getting into territory where my opinions are more idiosyncratic.
3. Cultural prevalence and lack of currency. I think newer and rarer materials command a natural premium. They’re fresh, they haven’t been played out in the various public arenas. They tend more to represent an individual’s immediate work and there tend to be production costs that must still be covered. Conversely, the older and more common something is, the less willing I am to pay a premium cost. On a very basic level of practical value, I am comparing the price of the download to the price of a used CD, a comparison more suited to its availability and ubiquity.
This gets into my general rejection of the idea of uniform pricing. It’s another one I blame on Apple and while it might have made sense in the very restricted context of launching the iTunes Music Store it makes no sense in the evolving real marketplace of digital music downloads. If I went into Cheapo Records and found them charging the same price for a used copy of Dark Side of the Moon as for a brand new copy of the latest from, say, Tinariwen (I just picked the first thing of Pitchfork’s top fifty albums of the year list), I'd turn around and walk right out again. Of course I allowed the Apple iTunes Music Store to do just that thing to me not six months ago, but that was a gift card and prices just didn't seem that important.
In any case, I know the analogy doesn’t hold up. For one thing, I’ll download Tinariwen off of eMusic for less than 3 dollars, but that’s a whole other conversation. We’re talking conceptual spaces here, okay? Whatever, anyway:
4. The rare factor is mitigated by music quality, sound quality, and degree of independence of production and distribution. Music and sound quality are easy: less quality should mean less cost. Relatively, of course, all of these value judgments are relative. I’ve paid for plenty of low-fi, home recorded, even somewhat less than professionally played music. Let’s not be coy: if you purchase my greatest “hits” album, you will be purchasing an album of songs that are low-fi, home recorded, and yes, somewhat less than professionally played. I would be loathe to pay full retail CD cost for them, no matter how much I love some of the misbehavers.
Independence, though, can work both ways. On one hand I understand that independents have to support themselves, they do not have an organization to carry them or exploit economies of scale on their behalves. On the other hand, there are less mouths to feed between you and the artist, less overhead. On the other hand, it is almost certainly more work for the artist. I respect and want to support the artist who is starving one of the big four of their corporate graft, of money spent to people who are both stupid and, excuse me, assholes. But I expect them to cut me in on at least a small consideration of that action.
All of these things added up together translate to, you pay $1.35 for my album as opposed to, say, $7.99 for higher quality MP3s of Yellowcard’s Live from Las Vegas at the Palms, which is the first thing I see when I open a window onto the iTunes Music Store. Which is, like, what the fuck, Apple. Yellowcard? I’ve never even heard of it.
But it’s on iTunes Plus meaning I’m going to end up purchasing the goddamn thing, sight unseen (dear iTMS and eMusic, your live previews suck, love Jon). To review it, it’s like, you know, symmetry.
Anyway.
That’s like a saving of $6.64, two cents less than the Discount of the Beast! And may I thank you most kindly for your consideration.
By Sunday, I review my experience purchasing the Yellowjackets ahem, sorry, I mean Yellowcard from the iTunes Music Store iTunes Plus. Let me just drop a slight spoiler here: it’s not going to be a positive review. I’m gonna keep an eye on those Yellowjackets guys, though. I probably need a little jazz-fusion in my collection.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
For this price you get 29 160 kbps MP3s, a digital cover image and a rich text format file of album notes and lyrics. The album is 47.3 minutes long and the whole package is 86.4 MB of data.
My feelings about pricing for digital downloads of music are complicated but easily summarized: I think they are uniformly far too expensive.
Consider a minute music pricing in the conventional model. Let’s say I head over to the Billboard charts, find the number one album de jour (As I Am by Alicia Keys), and then head over to Sam Goody for the purchase price. It doesn’t get more conventional than that, Right? The price when I engaged in this exercise (well, I didn’t actually purchase it, but you know) is $16.99 for a 14 track album with a duration of about 50 minutes. That works out to $1.21 per track.
As far as I’m concerned $0.99 a track at iTunes is pretty much the same price. The accepted standard for a digital downloads, which can be placed unreservedly at the feet of Apple, falls squarely inside the conventional model. I’ve got a problem with this because I think a number of factors should mitigate the download costs as compared to CDs:
1. Lossy compression (encoding tracks in a lower-fidelity format like MP3) should reduce the price of the digital information
2. Lack of physical media, which serves as a data backup, and is still necessary when a computer or MP3 player isn’t available (e.g. I have to burn copies of my digital downloads on media I pay for to use them in my car), and lack of physical packaging (lyrics and artwork) should reduce the price of the digital information.
These issues are basically built into the digital download package - artwork and lyrics are seldom included and MP3s are the standard format. For these issues alone I think Apple’s $0.99 standard is too high. I also think a number of contextual issues should affect the price of a digital download. This is getting into territory where my opinions are more idiosyncratic.
3. Cultural prevalence and lack of currency. I think newer and rarer materials command a natural premium. They’re fresh, they haven’t been played out in the various public arenas. They tend more to represent an individual’s immediate work and there tend to be production costs that must still be covered. Conversely, the older and more common something is, the less willing I am to pay a premium cost. On a very basic level of practical value, I am comparing the price of the download to the price of a used CD, a comparison more suited to its availability and ubiquity.
This gets into my general rejection of the idea of uniform pricing. It’s another one I blame on Apple and while it might have made sense in the very restricted context of launching the iTunes Music Store it makes no sense in the evolving real marketplace of digital music downloads. If I went into Cheapo Records and found them charging the same price for a used copy of Dark Side of the Moon as for a brand new copy of the latest from, say, Tinariwen (I just picked the first thing of Pitchfork’s top fifty albums of the year list), I'd turn around and walk right out again. Of course I allowed the Apple iTunes Music Store to do just that thing to me not six months ago, but that was a gift card and prices just didn't seem that important.
In any case, I know the analogy doesn’t hold up. For one thing, I’ll download Tinariwen off of eMusic for less than 3 dollars, but that’s a whole other conversation. We’re talking conceptual spaces here, okay? Whatever, anyway:
4. The rare factor is mitigated by music quality, sound quality, and degree of independence of production and distribution. Music and sound quality are easy: less quality should mean less cost. Relatively, of course, all of these value judgments are relative. I’ve paid for plenty of low-fi, home recorded, even somewhat less than professionally played music. Let’s not be coy: if you purchase my greatest “hits” album, you will be purchasing an album of songs that are low-fi, home recorded, and yes, somewhat less than professionally played. I would be loathe to pay full retail CD cost for them, no matter how much I love some of the misbehavers.
Independence, though, can work both ways. On one hand I understand that independents have to support themselves, they do not have an organization to carry them or exploit economies of scale on their behalves. On the other hand, there are less mouths to feed between you and the artist, less overhead. On the other hand, it is almost certainly more work for the artist. I respect and want to support the artist who is starving one of the big four of their corporate graft, of money spent to people who are both stupid and, excuse me, assholes. But I expect them to cut me in on at least a small consideration of that action.
All of these things added up together translate to, you pay $1.35 for my album as opposed to, say, $7.99 for higher quality MP3s of Yellowcard’s Live from Las Vegas at the Palms, which is the first thing I see when I open a window onto the iTunes Music Store. Which is, like, what the fuck, Apple. Yellowcard? I’ve never even heard of it.
But it’s on iTunes Plus meaning I’m going to end up purchasing the goddamn thing, sight unseen (dear iTMS and eMusic, your live previews suck, love Jon). To review it, it’s like, you know, symmetry.
Anyway.
That’s like a saving of $6.64, two cents less than the Discount of the Beast! And may I thank you most kindly for your consideration.
By Sunday, I review my experience purchasing the Yellowjackets ahem, sorry, I mean Yellowcard from the iTunes Music Store iTunes Plus. Let me just drop a slight spoiler here: it’s not going to be a positive review. I’m gonna keep an eye on those Yellowjackets guys, though. I probably need a little jazz-fusion in my collection.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Friday, January 18, 2008
Stupid linear progression of time.
My best intentions founder under the weight of commitment and necessity, overwhelming my schedule so thoroughly that I can't even find the time to buy cheap music. Soon, soon I say! In the meantime, some extracurricular reading - another link roundup in what is surely shaping up to be an unprecedented year for the transformation of commercial music distribution.
Radiohead Revisited: Critics didn't give In Rainbows, the object Radiohead's alternative distribution experiment, a whole lotta love - but while the band was initially cagey with download and sales figures (inspiring a crop of disputed rumors), figures cited in a Wired interview between frontman Thom Yorke and longtime genre-buster David Byrne confirmed that the online album was an unqualified commercial success.
An interesting though less discussed fact is the apparent success of the ultra-atomic alternative to the digital download, the costly discbox with its vinyl 12" 45s (about as old school as it gets) and enhanced CD. While sales figures are again ambiguous, there's little doubt it's in the vicinity of 100,000 - at around $80 a pop, certainly a money-maker. The ironic footnote to the story is that while demonstrating the potential of pure digital distribution Radiohead simultaneously confirmed that the opulent physical package the CD era left behind still has a solid place in the business of music (another Wired article presents an interesting take on the ongoing impact of vinyl). Is the conventional industry really taking note of either lesson?
(Well, EMI is certainly trying, although with disappointingly dickhead timing to coincide with the independent release of the conventional CD of In Rainbows, and attended by total exclusion of the band from the release, and whiny statements to the press about the break with Radiohead being the sole fault of the band's unfair demands in their final negotiations. The thing is, there might be plenty of truth in EMI's side of things. But the devil is in the details, which combine to give the impression that the message EMI wants to put out is, we're certainly willing to try new things if it looks like there's some money in it, but screwing over artists is still Job Number 1! Even the ones that get it don't get it).
Byrne's article on the variety of distribution options available to artists today makes a nice companion to the Yorke interview. While there is nothing particularly earth-shattering in the facts presented (particularly to anyone who has been following these developments in the business of music), it is a nicely organized and presented package of these facts - and Byrne brings both a breadth of experience and a viewpoint that is relatively free of rhetoric and politics that make the article a must-read for this topic.
Moving on: I have mixed feelings about Ian Rogers. He doesn't miss an opportunity to insert the Yahoo! brand into the discussion (to be fair, it sort of is his job), and I think he's overselling the "context as product" message. But he's got interesting things to say, and he's not afraid to repeatedly tell the Industry that they've still got their heads up their asses. He's refined his pitch in this presentation to the Aspen Live Conference, and it's worth a read.
Finally: and then there were none. Second to last DRM-free holdout Warner Brothers announced near the end of the year that they would be allowing the sale of MP3s through Amazon's digital store. And finally, Sony BMG succumbed. The spectacle of the once and future king of failed proprietary formats, stinging from the interminable rootkit CD scandal and the humiliating failure of the once-mighty Walkman brand in the MP3 player market, dragging its ass in dead last in the move to abandon the technical and marketing fiasco of DRM, honestly invites speculation on whether being the biggest douchebag in the room is actually a branding strategy.
You have to keep this in perspective: Napster the First demonstrated an overwhelming demand for a simple, straightforward product, the MP3, almost a decade ago. It is easy to fall for the industry fallacy, which is that all Napster was about was pricing, or the lack thereof. And of course getting things free was attractive, and important to the meteoric rise of Napster. But it wasn't the whole story. People who understood also wanted MP3s because they made a digital music collection manageable by a ordinary home computer possible. Apple understood this and made a pile of money out of the fact with iTunes and iPods. People like me were dreaming a decade ago of a world where there was no need for anything to ever be allowed to fall out of print, and where reasonably priced singles were no longer the sole domain of flavor-of-the-month pop hits. And it was hard to believe it could take more than a couple of years. As I say, it's been almost ten and we're STILL not there. There is nothing impressive or laudable about the record industry's grudging stumble into this marketplace. Anyone will grasp at straws when they're sliding into a ditch.
Enough of that. An elephant in the bedroom that doesn't seem to be getting much discussion is the fact that the majority of tracks available on at Apples iTunes Music Store are still saddled with DRM. I mean, I sure as hell won't buy another FairTunes-encumbered track. If it's not on Amazon yet I'll wait it out. Many are saying the rectification of the entire iTMS catalog is inevitable - and it probably is - but the fact that Amazon has been allowed to scoop Apple so badly on DRM-free major-label downloads has to mean something, and I'm honestly confused there isn't more speculation about it. It is frankly an embarrassment to Apple, particularly in the context of Steve Job's famous essay. Could it really be a general industry move to punish Apple for past hubris? That seems like a Pyrrhic bit of revenge at best. Is it about Apple's notorious resistance to variable pricing? In that case the shame is on Apple, particularly when Amazon is generally undercutting their prices. Or did Amazon quietly cut some sweetheart profit-sharing deals in exchange for at least temporary exclusion of Apple from the lion's share of the DRM free market? If you hear anything, let me know.
Okay, jeeze I'm a windbag. More reviews soon, I promise. I'm thinking about trying out the MySpace/Snocap thing. Anybody got any artist recommendations? Just kidding, I know nobody's reading this. Oh, I laugh through the tears. Back soon!
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Radiohead Revisited: Critics didn't give In Rainbows, the object Radiohead's alternative distribution experiment, a whole lotta love - but while the band was initially cagey with download and sales figures (inspiring a crop of disputed rumors), figures cited in a Wired interview between frontman Thom Yorke and longtime genre-buster David Byrne confirmed that the online album was an unqualified commercial success.
An interesting though less discussed fact is the apparent success of the ultra-atomic alternative to the digital download, the costly discbox with its vinyl 12" 45s (about as old school as it gets) and enhanced CD. While sales figures are again ambiguous, there's little doubt it's in the vicinity of 100,000 - at around $80 a pop, certainly a money-maker. The ironic footnote to the story is that while demonstrating the potential of pure digital distribution Radiohead simultaneously confirmed that the opulent physical package the CD era left behind still has a solid place in the business of music (another Wired article presents an interesting take on the ongoing impact of vinyl). Is the conventional industry really taking note of either lesson?
(Well, EMI is certainly trying, although with disappointingly dickhead timing to coincide with the independent release of the conventional CD of In Rainbows, and attended by total exclusion of the band from the release, and whiny statements to the press about the break with Radiohead being the sole fault of the band's unfair demands in their final negotiations. The thing is, there might be plenty of truth in EMI's side of things. But the devil is in the details, which combine to give the impression that the message EMI wants to put out is, we're certainly willing to try new things if it looks like there's some money in it, but screwing over artists is still Job Number 1! Even the ones that get it don't get it).
Byrne's article on the variety of distribution options available to artists today makes a nice companion to the Yorke interview. While there is nothing particularly earth-shattering in the facts presented (particularly to anyone who has been following these developments in the business of music), it is a nicely organized and presented package of these facts - and Byrne brings both a breadth of experience and a viewpoint that is relatively free of rhetoric and politics that make the article a must-read for this topic.
Moving on: I have mixed feelings about Ian Rogers. He doesn't miss an opportunity to insert the Yahoo! brand into the discussion (to be fair, it sort of is his job), and I think he's overselling the "context as product" message. But he's got interesting things to say, and he's not afraid to repeatedly tell the Industry that they've still got their heads up their asses. He's refined his pitch in this presentation to the Aspen Live Conference, and it's worth a read.
Finally: and then there were none. Second to last DRM-free holdout Warner Brothers announced near the end of the year that they would be allowing the sale of MP3s through Amazon's digital store. And finally, Sony BMG succumbed. The spectacle of the once and future king of failed proprietary formats, stinging from the interminable rootkit CD scandal and the humiliating failure of the once-mighty Walkman brand in the MP3 player market, dragging its ass in dead last in the move to abandon the technical and marketing fiasco of DRM, honestly invites speculation on whether being the biggest douchebag in the room is actually a branding strategy.
You have to keep this in perspective: Napster the First demonstrated an overwhelming demand for a simple, straightforward product, the MP3, almost a decade ago. It is easy to fall for the industry fallacy, which is that all Napster was about was pricing, or the lack thereof. And of course getting things free was attractive, and important to the meteoric rise of Napster. But it wasn't the whole story. People who understood also wanted MP3s because they made a digital music collection manageable by a ordinary home computer possible. Apple understood this and made a pile of money out of the fact with iTunes and iPods. People like me were dreaming a decade ago of a world where there was no need for anything to ever be allowed to fall out of print, and where reasonably priced singles were no longer the sole domain of flavor-of-the-month pop hits. And it was hard to believe it could take more than a couple of years. As I say, it's been almost ten and we're STILL not there. There is nothing impressive or laudable about the record industry's grudging stumble into this marketplace. Anyone will grasp at straws when they're sliding into a ditch.
Enough of that. An elephant in the bedroom that doesn't seem to be getting much discussion is the fact that the majority of tracks available on at Apples iTunes Music Store are still saddled with DRM. I mean, I sure as hell won't buy another FairTunes-encumbered track. If it's not on Amazon yet I'll wait it out. Many are saying the rectification of the entire iTMS catalog is inevitable - and it probably is - but the fact that Amazon has been allowed to scoop Apple so badly on DRM-free major-label downloads has to mean something, and I'm honestly confused there isn't more speculation about it. It is frankly an embarrassment to Apple, particularly in the context of Steve Job's famous essay. Could it really be a general industry move to punish Apple for past hubris? That seems like a Pyrrhic bit of revenge at best. Is it about Apple's notorious resistance to variable pricing? In that case the shame is on Apple, particularly when Amazon is generally undercutting their prices. Or did Amazon quietly cut some sweetheart profit-sharing deals in exchange for at least temporary exclusion of Apple from the lion's share of the DRM free market? If you hear anything, let me know.
Okay, jeeze I'm a windbag. More reviews soon, I promise. I'm thinking about trying out the MySpace/Snocap thing. Anybody got any artist recommendations? Just kidding, I know nobody's reading this. Oh, I laugh through the tears. Back soon!
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The loss of physical media: literal and figurative
True story: I was running late the other day, trying to get out of the house with my three-year-old son in tow. Somewhere out on the road I realized I didn't have the CD wallet we keep in the car. I was pretty sure I'd brought it out with me from the house and I had a bad feeling I knew exactly where I'd last seen it: sitting on the roof of the car where I'd set it before rushing back to the house to pick up some forgotten item.
By the time I was somewhere where I could safely pull over and take a look it was predictably gone. Its recovery now is beyond a long shot, I have to assume all those CDs, almost 30, are gone. In many cases I don't even have a back-up - I've been lazy about ripping new stuff to iTunes and of the newest CDs tend to get into the car rotation.
As financial losses go it's on par with a medium car repair or perhaps some dental work - the sort of thing that happens pretty regularly, in other words, though I'm finding myself considerably more irked by this somehow. Maybe because replacing what was lost is going to involve considerable work. Going through all the empty cases, figuring what I've got a copy ripped to iTunes for, deciding what to let go, what to burn a fresh copy and leave it at that, what to replace with a new CD.
Quite a different wrinkle in the range of choices there, and it's been making me think about this transition to a standalone-media-optional world. Digital downloads have dominated my music purchases recently, and I haven't been losing any sleep over issues of lower audio quality, lack of packaging or the arguable ephemerality of a digital purchase. But this recent loss has made me realize there is still a pretty sharp line between a digital download and a physical CD in my mind. Where I have (or had) a CD I think of that as the master copy; even if I have MP3s ripped to my hard drive I don't feel like I still have that album: I still have to decide whether I think it essential enough that I'll need to replace it with a new CD.
There are excellent reasons for valuing a CD in the digital download age - not least because when technological development eliminates the need for compression of audio files, anything on CD will allow a free fidelity upgrade. But I have a feeling the distinction I'm making is primarily psychological. I don't feel like digital purchases I've made recently are less of an album than CDs I've bought. But I bought those CDs I lost and mentally, I'm feeling the loss of an object.
I think about loss differently with digital files. To me, psychologically, there is no "original" or "master" copy. The data on my hard drive is regularly reiterated in backups, and total loss of anything that's been backed up, while not impossible, would certainly involve something fairly catastrophic.
The distinctions I'm chewing over are not really practical or technical ones. The interesting inner reality it boils down to is that my purchasing habits have evolved to a new environment but there is still a lot of an old mentality present as far as how I view my music as possessions. It is a distinction I expect to continue eroding until the possession of a physical object becomes genuinely obsolete.
A final thought this whole consideration puts me in mind of is that, while I currently scorn the "subscription" model of digital music (I mean, where you pay for access that you lose when your subscription lapses), I can see a real place for the underlying service model where maintenance of the "master copy" is handled remotely. Already, managing the footprint music occupies on my hardware memory is an issue. I might well find it worth paying for some centralization that could render loss obsolete and provide me with software and statistical tools for managing it all - downgrading the seldom-used to remote maintenance, optimizing the currently popular for distributed access, and so forth. In the current environment it would probably be a legal tangle, and memory, bandwidth and wireless developments will radically change how it all pans out. But I suspect the model of data management as a service will play a big role in the future of music as commerce. The end of physical ownership that could, ironically, render the music one "owns" far less ephemeral than mere disks of plastic - which can disappear with a momentary lapse of attention.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
By the time I was somewhere where I could safely pull over and take a look it was predictably gone. Its recovery now is beyond a long shot, I have to assume all those CDs, almost 30, are gone. In many cases I don't even have a back-up - I've been lazy about ripping new stuff to iTunes and of the newest CDs tend to get into the car rotation.
As financial losses go it's on par with a medium car repair or perhaps some dental work - the sort of thing that happens pretty regularly, in other words, though I'm finding myself considerably more irked by this somehow. Maybe because replacing what was lost is going to involve considerable work. Going through all the empty cases, figuring what I've got a copy ripped to iTunes for, deciding what to let go, what to burn a fresh copy and leave it at that, what to replace with a new CD.
Quite a different wrinkle in the range of choices there, and it's been making me think about this transition to a standalone-media-optional world. Digital downloads have dominated my music purchases recently, and I haven't been losing any sleep over issues of lower audio quality, lack of packaging or the arguable ephemerality of a digital purchase. But this recent loss has made me realize there is still a pretty sharp line between a digital download and a physical CD in my mind. Where I have (or had) a CD I think of that as the master copy; even if I have MP3s ripped to my hard drive I don't feel like I still have that album: I still have to decide whether I think it essential enough that I'll need to replace it with a new CD.
There are excellent reasons for valuing a CD in the digital download age - not least because when technological development eliminates the need for compression of audio files, anything on CD will allow a free fidelity upgrade. But I have a feeling the distinction I'm making is primarily psychological. I don't feel like digital purchases I've made recently are less of an album than CDs I've bought. But I bought those CDs I lost and mentally, I'm feeling the loss of an object.
I think about loss differently with digital files. To me, psychologically, there is no "original" or "master" copy. The data on my hard drive is regularly reiterated in backups, and total loss of anything that's been backed up, while not impossible, would certainly involve something fairly catastrophic.
The distinctions I'm chewing over are not really practical or technical ones. The interesting inner reality it boils down to is that my purchasing habits have evolved to a new environment but there is still a lot of an old mentality present as far as how I view my music as possessions. It is a distinction I expect to continue eroding until the possession of a physical object becomes genuinely obsolete.
A final thought this whole consideration puts me in mind of is that, while I currently scorn the "subscription" model of digital music (I mean, where you pay for access that you lose when your subscription lapses), I can see a real place for the underlying service model where maintenance of the "master copy" is handled remotely. Already, managing the footprint music occupies on my hardware memory is an issue. I might well find it worth paying for some centralization that could render loss obsolete and provide me with software and statistical tools for managing it all - downgrading the seldom-used to remote maintenance, optimizing the currently popular for distributed access, and so forth. In the current environment it would probably be a legal tangle, and memory, bandwidth and wireless developments will radically change how it all pans out. But I suspect the model of data management as a service will play a big role in the future of music as commerce. The end of physical ownership that could, ironically, render the music one "owns" far less ephemeral than mere disks of plastic - which can disappear with a momentary lapse of attention.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Friday, November 30, 2007
Brad Does Not Suck: real indie at last.
Update: September 2008: Brad Sucks recently released a new CD, Out of It. Given the minor technical glitch I experienced with the sale in the review below, a note on my most recent retail experience: my pre-order sale went through without a hitch, I got a head's up email on release day that my downloads were enabled, and got the album with no problems. Everything I like about Brad Sucks has stayed just as good, though. This recent blog update gives details about how he's sticking with the "open source" mentality that characterized the first album release. And those dumb humps over at Pitchfork still never heard of him.
Original Review
Ottowa-based Brad Sucks has everything a person ought to need to be a mainstream success. Musically solid, catchy, lots of smartly-woven musical threads drawing on sources from dance to Detroit rock guitarsmanship to country. All delivering sharply written, economical lyrics sung in an appealing baritone (Brad informs me he thinks he's actually a low tenor) that's a perfect fit to the words. But of course I'm not reviewing music here, I'll have to leave that up to Pitchfork. Apparently nobody over at Pitchfork reads William Gibson's blog, though, as Brad Sucks is of this writing unknown there. In summary, new media or not, there's still a lot of holes in the net, and my opinion is not yet a significant factor in what "blows up."
Now I've known of Brad Sucks for a while, and in fact shared space on a compilation album I may have mentioned previously with him (he and I appearing as alter egos frenetic and nanojath respectively, lower case represent!), and I've been looking forward to listening to his full album, I Don't Know What I'm Doing, for a long time, but I had this idea rolling around in my brain that I was going to start the Phree Musique Blog again as a digital music store review site, so I squirreled away that link in a folder with lots of company and, you know, years passed.
Of course my unreliable writing strategy need not have interfered with my listening to all the music and then some, since Brad offers lower quality free downloads, full production files for the remix-minded (and plenty of the remixed for free as well). But this is one of the persistent downsides of the internet: out of sight, out of mind.
So after taking something like three years after deciding I wanted to own it to purchase the album I don't know how much I should complain that it took four or five days for my digital album to be available to download. It was my own fault for mindlessly agreeing to whatever PayPal defaulted to and electing to pay with an e-check, the banking industry's for its "shit don't happen weekends or holidays" policy (I ordered just before Thanksgiving), and it must be said a glitch in Brad's self-coded store that the download stayed hung up even after the e-check cleared (the open source store software is still another totally cool Brad service, though). I did eventually have to clear it up with an email, which was quickly and politely dealt with. Doubtless the kink is already worked out. I also don't doubt that an email at any point in the transaction would have gotten the files unlocked.
Other than that the store itself is simple with lots of options (OGG and FLAC files are available for you purists, along with the 192k MP3s for us philistines) and the commerce half is the standard PayPal experience. If I'd used a credit card (or trusted PayPal to hang on to more of my money) it would have been transparent commerce. My only other complaint is that I still think a buck a track is too steep, particularly for direct sale, and though the full album gets a price break it's the same cost as the physical CD (though you save shipping): I imagine this is a conscious choice and I suppose there's an argument for uniform pricing. I still crave a bargain when shopping digital files, and more than the "save on shipping" variety.
Still, the package when it arrived pretty much blew away the competition thus far: I've been complaining about the stinginess with the metadata in a context where delivering additional data is all but free: I was very pleased to see files for the full CD booklet (with lyrics) and even a circular formatted label if you're the sort of person who prints labels for your CD-Rs.
In short, I expect great things from Brad Sucks: definitely one to watch. I think in most respects he sets the bar higher for the pure digital commerce experience. Pitchfork take note.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Original Review
Ottowa-based Brad Sucks has everything a person ought to need to be a mainstream success. Musically solid, catchy, lots of smartly-woven musical threads drawing on sources from dance to Detroit rock guitarsmanship to country. All delivering sharply written, economical lyrics sung in an appealing baritone (Brad informs me he thinks he's actually a low tenor) that's a perfect fit to the words. But of course I'm not reviewing music here, I'll have to leave that up to Pitchfork. Apparently nobody over at Pitchfork reads William Gibson's blog, though, as Brad Sucks is of this writing unknown there. In summary, new media or not, there's still a lot of holes in the net, and my opinion is not yet a significant factor in what "blows up."
Now I've known of Brad Sucks for a while, and in fact shared space on a compilation album I may have mentioned previously with him (he and I appearing as alter egos frenetic and nanojath respectively, lower case represent!), and I've been looking forward to listening to his full album, I Don't Know What I'm Doing, for a long time, but I had this idea rolling around in my brain that I was going to start the Phree Musique Blog again as a digital music store review site, so I squirreled away that link in a folder with lots of company and, you know, years passed.
Of course my unreliable writing strategy need not have interfered with my listening to all the music and then some, since Brad offers lower quality free downloads, full production files for the remix-minded (and plenty of the remixed for free as well). But this is one of the persistent downsides of the internet: out of sight, out of mind.
So after taking something like three years after deciding I wanted to own it to purchase the album I don't know how much I should complain that it took four or five days for my digital album to be available to download. It was my own fault for mindlessly agreeing to whatever PayPal defaulted to and electing to pay with an e-check, the banking industry's for its "shit don't happen weekends or holidays" policy (I ordered just before Thanksgiving), and it must be said a glitch in Brad's self-coded store that the download stayed hung up even after the e-check cleared (the open source store software is still another totally cool Brad service, though). I did eventually have to clear it up with an email, which was quickly and politely dealt with. Doubtless the kink is already worked out. I also don't doubt that an email at any point in the transaction would have gotten the files unlocked.
Other than that the store itself is simple with lots of options (OGG and FLAC files are available for you purists, along with the 192k MP3s for us philistines) and the commerce half is the standard PayPal experience. If I'd used a credit card (or trusted PayPal to hang on to more of my money) it would have been transparent commerce. My only other complaint is that I still think a buck a track is too steep, particularly for direct sale, and though the full album gets a price break it's the same cost as the physical CD (though you save shipping): I imagine this is a conscious choice and I suppose there's an argument for uniform pricing. I still crave a bargain when shopping digital files, and more than the "save on shipping" variety.
Still, the package when it arrived pretty much blew away the competition thus far: I've been complaining about the stinginess with the metadata in a context where delivering additional data is all but free: I was very pleased to see files for the full CD booklet (with lyrics) and even a circular formatted label if you're the sort of person who prints labels for your CD-Rs.
In short, I expect great things from Brad Sucks: definitely one to watch. I think in most respects he sets the bar higher for the pure digital commerce experience. Pitchfork take note.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Screw Up: a Thanksgiving essay on unintended consequences
So I made an online purchase from a single artist store a couple days ago, which is still pending as of this writing. I know, right? Intolerable. But it's complicated, I'm not sure if I myself, the artist, or PayPal is primarily to blame. Obviously a review of the experience is out of the question for now, anyway. I'll tell you all about it when my download clears. Anyway, it seemed like a good excuse to slip in an essay.
I get lost sometimes in contemplation of how badly the record business screwed up their business model with the CD. I tend to be well behind the curve, technologically, but I knew they'd blown it when one of my more with it friends explained to me that their computer's CD-ROM drive played music CDs and did so by virtue of some 3rd party, unaffiliated software. Actual mix "tapes" were still the norm at this point: we're talking about ten, twelve years ago.
Pushing a media transition to a completely unprotected data format on what is shaping up to be the first popular post-diskette media for computers probably isn't the sort of mistake the record boys would make today but then I doubt they'll get another opportunity to screw around with formats. Music went post-media without them.
What I was thinking about recently though was that they also screwed the product aesthetically in the shift to the CD and that this in no small part is facilitating the disappearance of a discrete object from the recorded music equation. As a general rule I'm perfectly happy to have a bit of digital image the size of four postage stamps replace the packaging of my CDs. The artwork's just barely superior, the metadata tends to the mundane (and marginally usable). And the jewel case? The jewel case is the cruel joke of an arrogant orthodoxy.
Maybe this is one of the opportunities of the nascent marketplace in the pure digital sound: can anyone deliver an aesthetic experience along with the megabytes? Because the evidence of my explorations so far suggests that no, you can't. Maybe that's done now, for music, and your four postage stamps is what you get, or maybe your video is your new jacket art, filmed in Canada to replace printed in. Still, if you're looking for some stand out angle to distinguish your little pop stand along the fabled superhighway, it might bear considering.
Give thanks for unintended consequences. Back after the holiday.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
I get lost sometimes in contemplation of how badly the record business screwed up their business model with the CD. I tend to be well behind the curve, technologically, but I knew they'd blown it when one of my more with it friends explained to me that their computer's CD-ROM drive played music CDs and did so by virtue of some 3rd party, unaffiliated software. Actual mix "tapes" were still the norm at this point: we're talking about ten, twelve years ago.
Pushing a media transition to a completely unprotected data format on what is shaping up to be the first popular post-diskette media for computers probably isn't the sort of mistake the record boys would make today but then I doubt they'll get another opportunity to screw around with formats. Music went post-media without them.
What I was thinking about recently though was that they also screwed the product aesthetically in the shift to the CD and that this in no small part is facilitating the disappearance of a discrete object from the recorded music equation. As a general rule I'm perfectly happy to have a bit of digital image the size of four postage stamps replace the packaging of my CDs. The artwork's just barely superior, the metadata tends to the mundane (and marginally usable). And the jewel case? The jewel case is the cruel joke of an arrogant orthodoxy.
Maybe this is one of the opportunities of the nascent marketplace in the pure digital sound: can anyone deliver an aesthetic experience along with the megabytes? Because the evidence of my explorations so far suggests that no, you can't. Maybe that's done now, for music, and your four postage stamps is what you get, or maybe your video is your new jacket art, filmed in Canada to replace printed in. Still, if you're looking for some stand out angle to distinguish your little pop stand along the fabled superhighway, it might bear considering.
Give thanks for unintended consequences. Back after the holiday.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Intellectual Property: a study in contrasts
It seems to me a grave discourtesy, to say no more, to issue my book without even a polite note informing me of the project... However that may be, this paperback edition and no other has been published with my consent and co-operation. Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it, and no other. And if the many kind readers who have encouraged me with their letters will add to their courtesy by referring friends or enquirers to Ballantine Books, I shall be very grateful.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, internationally famous author and cultural icon, foreword to the 1965 paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings
Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask.
Gene Simmons, minor reality television celebrity and cultural dinosaur, 2007 Billboard Interview
I was finally getting around to patching up my battered paperback boxed set of The Lord of the Rings - nostalgically purchased for a few dollars for being twins to the set that introduced me to the trilogy - my father's original set that he purchased when he was just a few years out of the Seminary. I first read that statement about the authorized edition over twenty years ago: reading it again I was struck by the contrast to Simmons' tough guy melodrama I'd read the day before.
My dad has related to me many times how he picked up the first book of Ace's unauthorized (and hastily assembled, and error-ridden) edition off a rack without knowing anything about the book, only to discover it was part of a trilogy. His attempts to mail order the rest of the series ran afoul of the publicity backlash Ace experienced when Tolkien spread the word that the edition had been produced without his consent (and without payment to him), which spurred Ace to pull the volume and pay Tolkien a compensatory pittance. Ace's edition was probably legal, as it exploited a loophole in U.S. copyright law, but popular outcry led them drop the book without legal compulsion.
Some interesting comparisons could be contemplated between the current business situation of the "record industry" and Tolkien and his British publisher's plight in the mid 1960's, though the situations are very far from perfectly analogous. Indeed, there is a whole other article to be had picking apart Simmons' assertions about the business of music - his comparison of the perceived value of music to the price of gold is in itself a lesson in twentieth century information psychology (extending the analysis to a slightly more apt comparison, such as to the market in diamonds as the age of inexpensive engineered gemstones evolves might make for particularly interesting investigation).
But what really struck me is the contrast in the tone and content of these two statements. Simmons' tirade, while nominally directed against the record industry, bears every hallmark of the party line. From the dire assumption of the death of commercial music (with a quick violin riff for all the little people whose livelihoods will be destroyed), to the conflation of file sharing with robbery, and particularly the assumption that the only possible solution would have been massive, heavy-handed legal retribution against individuals to cow the public into respecting copyright out of fear.
Tolkien doesn't warn of some cataclysm in the business of publishing books or even suggest that his own fortunes will be destroyed by the unauthorized publication of his works. He does not treat the legalities of the issue at all, and he certainly does not suggest that individuals who might have taken advantage of Ace's cheaper edition (by selling or buying it) deserved to suffer some consequence for their action. His formal, almost courtly plea suggests that the reader might find the critical question to be of all things one of courtesy.
The appeal to courtesy is something that the the major labels and their chattels have utterly lost access to in the midst of their ongoing assault of legal attacks, specious and ham-handed social engineering, and the technological insults of DRM. More independent players who elected not to stumble along with this failed campaign might yet make very good use of it, I think.
Tolkien aside, it perpetually blows my mind that the press is willing to give a pass to the assertions of self-appointed experts like Gene Simmons that the financial woes of the record industry can be devolved to one thing: college kids with computers and their devilish P2P voodoo. It leads me to seriously consider whether the primary function of the RIAA is not so much the Sisyphean task of staunching the industry's ongoing hemorrhage as to ensconce firmly in the public mind this particular scapegoat. Which wouldn't necessarily be a surprising goal since common sense and an increasing body of empirical evidence suggest a raft of alternative contributions to the decline in music industry revenues, which mostly boil down to stupid business practices by a lazy, profligate industry that lost any serious engagement with innovation somewhere around the mid-nineties. There could be no more blatant example than the fact that the industry's current, tentative forays into selling DRM-free digital downloads comes a good seven years late (and five years after finally suing fresh-faced college student Shawn Fanning's Napster off the face of the earth, Mr. Simmons take note) - a decision based solely on the almost unimaginably technologically incompetent assertion that unencumbered digital files would somehow contribute to illicit file sharing in a manner that conventional CDs would not.
There are lessons of opportunity in every one of these examples. Every year the conventional industry fails to adapt is a year of opportunity for everyone else to take advantage of customers like me: I'm spending more money on music than ever, to a large degree because of the superior value I'm getting from alternative markets and my conviction that for the most part I'm buying through avenues that give the artists themselves a better deal. And when my (at least) third-hand copy of The Lord of the Rings wears out completely I'll be sure to buy a new copy that contributes to the estate. As a courtesy.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, internationally famous author and cultural icon, foreword to the 1965 paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings
Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid's face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning. Those kids are putting 100,000 to a million people out of work. How can you pick on them? They've got freckles. That's a crook. He may as well be wearing a bandit's mask.
Gene Simmons, minor reality television celebrity and cultural dinosaur, 2007 Billboard Interview
I was finally getting around to patching up my battered paperback boxed set of The Lord of the Rings - nostalgically purchased for a few dollars for being twins to the set that introduced me to the trilogy - my father's original set that he purchased when he was just a few years out of the Seminary. I first read that statement about the authorized edition over twenty years ago: reading it again I was struck by the contrast to Simmons' tough guy melodrama I'd read the day before.
My dad has related to me many times how he picked up the first book of Ace's unauthorized (and hastily assembled, and error-ridden) edition off a rack without knowing anything about the book, only to discover it was part of a trilogy. His attempts to mail order the rest of the series ran afoul of the publicity backlash Ace experienced when Tolkien spread the word that the edition had been produced without his consent (and without payment to him), which spurred Ace to pull the volume and pay Tolkien a compensatory pittance. Ace's edition was probably legal, as it exploited a loophole in U.S. copyright law, but popular outcry led them drop the book without legal compulsion.
Some interesting comparisons could be contemplated between the current business situation of the "record industry" and Tolkien and his British publisher's plight in the mid 1960's, though the situations are very far from perfectly analogous. Indeed, there is a whole other article to be had picking apart Simmons' assertions about the business of music - his comparison of the perceived value of music to the price of gold is in itself a lesson in twentieth century information psychology (extending the analysis to a slightly more apt comparison, such as to the market in diamonds as the age of inexpensive engineered gemstones evolves might make for particularly interesting investigation).
But what really struck me is the contrast in the tone and content of these two statements. Simmons' tirade, while nominally directed against the record industry, bears every hallmark of the party line. From the dire assumption of the death of commercial music (with a quick violin riff for all the little people whose livelihoods will be destroyed), to the conflation of file sharing with robbery, and particularly the assumption that the only possible solution would have been massive, heavy-handed legal retribution against individuals to cow the public into respecting copyright out of fear.
Tolkien doesn't warn of some cataclysm in the business of publishing books or even suggest that his own fortunes will be destroyed by the unauthorized publication of his works. He does not treat the legalities of the issue at all, and he certainly does not suggest that individuals who might have taken advantage of Ace's cheaper edition (by selling or buying it) deserved to suffer some consequence for their action. His formal, almost courtly plea suggests that the reader might find the critical question to be of all things one of courtesy.
The appeal to courtesy is something that the the major labels and their chattels have utterly lost access to in the midst of their ongoing assault of legal attacks, specious and ham-handed social engineering, and the technological insults of DRM. More independent players who elected not to stumble along with this failed campaign might yet make very good use of it, I think.
Tolkien aside, it perpetually blows my mind that the press is willing to give a pass to the assertions of self-appointed experts like Gene Simmons that the financial woes of the record industry can be devolved to one thing: college kids with computers and their devilish P2P voodoo. It leads me to seriously consider whether the primary function of the RIAA is not so much the Sisyphean task of staunching the industry's ongoing hemorrhage as to ensconce firmly in the public mind this particular scapegoat. Which wouldn't necessarily be a surprising goal since common sense and an increasing body of empirical evidence suggest a raft of alternative contributions to the decline in music industry revenues, which mostly boil down to stupid business practices by a lazy, profligate industry that lost any serious engagement with innovation somewhere around the mid-nineties. There could be no more blatant example than the fact that the industry's current, tentative forays into selling DRM-free digital downloads comes a good seven years late (and five years after finally suing fresh-faced college student Shawn Fanning's Napster off the face of the earth, Mr. Simmons take note) - a decision based solely on the almost unimaginably technologically incompetent assertion that unencumbered digital files would somehow contribute to illicit file sharing in a manner that conventional CDs would not.
There are lessons of opportunity in every one of these examples. Every year the conventional industry fails to adapt is a year of opportunity for everyone else to take advantage of customers like me: I'm spending more money on music than ever, to a large degree because of the superior value I'm getting from alternative markets and my conviction that for the most part I'm buying through avenues that give the artists themselves a better deal. And when my (at least) third-hand copy of The Lord of the Rings wears out completely I'll be sure to buy a new copy that contributes to the estate. As a courtesy.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Amazon.com: test driving the big Kahuna
I'm not a big fan of Amazon.com, to put it right out front, mainly because of their patent hijinx and "relaxed" attitudes towards privacy. In fact, I'm pretty sure I pompously "canceled my account" in an energetically written email inspired by some outrage de jour, several years back. Of course, they never flushed my data, as I discovered to little surprise when I came slinking back at some later date, snared in the unethical pincers of the lowest available price...
Indeed, I was moderately horrified upon signing in for the first time in quite a while to discover that my account (with credit card info preloaded and ready) was still hanging out there guarded only by my old, pre-paranoia, weakish password that I used to secure EVERYTHING with before some weird though inconclusive anomalies turned up on a credit card account and spooked me into converting anything identity-theftalicious over to strong, pain-in-the-ass long strings of gibberish passwords. Take that, NSA!
Anyway.
So despite my ambiguous relationship with the great flagship of ye olde internette bubble the first (another list in that long line of things I never thought I'd find myself doing: pining for the nineties), I found it very significant and exciting when Amazon announced the launch of its DRM-free MP3 download store. Let's not mince words: this is the first and at this point only competition to iTunes. I'm talking, of course, about the mainstream here, and I don't expect this bicameral hegemony to last long. Still, although my credentials as a capitalist are shaky, I believe in the value of competition to optimize transactional systems, and seeing this unfold in a nascent marketplace in real time definitely turns my crank. And honestly, I've been fairly impressed with what I've been seeing out of Amazon recently, as regards commoditization of data transaction, so I've been eager to check the new kid on the block out.
It would be real interesting to find out what sort of wrangling it took to get a serious chunk of the major labels' catalogs available without DRM. I have a sneaky suspicion that the prospect of sticking it to Apple, which seems to have a less than idyllic relationship with many of its content providers, had a place in this equation. But alas such questions are beyond the scope of my little review project. Perhaps someone will write a book someday. Let's get to the core commerce experience.
I'm proceeding on the assumption that Gentle Reader comes with previous experience with the Amazon shopping paradigm. Up to checkout shopping the online store is pretty identical. You're encouraged to grab a little download manager app, and indeed I believe it is mandatory to download full albums, but the process is conventional and painless (as long as you don't mind clicking "I agree" boxes without first doing a lot of tedious reading to find out which rights you're clicking away this time). I'd recommend installing it up front.
The MP3 Downloads Department front page is the same witlessly organized, overstuffed (six page-downs of scroll!) mess we've all come to know and love (amusingly led, in this case, by shameless exploitation of iPod iconography, universal symbol of the digital music). I'll freely admit I don't have ready alternatives for the apparently inescapable melange of useless genre category sidebars, "hot new picks," and row after row of brainless categories... featured artists (why look honey, Jay-Z is featured. Let's check that young man out), the spotlighted, the new, the hot, and in the basement, the inevitable blogged. I won't let my lack of solutions stop me from pointing out what a travesty this sort of virtual mall experience is on the downhill side of the 21st century, decade one. At least the search toolbar, the only thing on the page that's worth a damn, is at the top.
Search is, of course, rendering ever-widening swaths of data presentation obsolete, and to be honest I had to kind of force myself to notice what a junkyard the front page was. My inclination is to automatically ignore it and just start looking for what I want. Amazon's search is perfectly functional, I found what I was looking for first time out 3 tries in a row.
For purchasing, it appears Amazon has adopted the iTunes "pay as you go" system: there isn't a shopping cart feature for downloads: everything goes through 1-click (and you can stick your registered trademark up your @-hole, Amazon). While this isn't such a burden if you're buying albums, it's as stupid system for a la carte downloads on Amazon as it is on iTunes, maybe more so as Amazon already has the architecture of a shopping cart in place.
Beyond this, the downloads went mostly smoothly. They went into my iTunes library automatically, a welcome feature for a third party vendor. The album art showed up as well, though at this point I've got so many widgets and doodads managing musical metacontent that it's hard to tell if Amazon had anything to do with that.
I had one scare with my purchases. Some downloaded content stopped showing up in iTunes in the middle of the process, apparently as the result of my dicking around with unrelated iTunes files while the transfer was ongoing. When I saw the missing songs listed as complete in Amazon's download manager window I feared an interaction with customer support was in my future. I should say it's hard to say whether this error was Amazon's fault, something to do with iTunes, or the result of my overstuffed hard drive, which is causing my aging G4 iMac to gag over pretty much any kind of multitasking these days.
Whatever the case, a handy "Reveal in Finder" button on the download manager showed that only the transfer to the iTunes library had been arrested - the files were safely ensconced in a welcome new Amazon downloads folder in my iTunes music files. My buddies over at eMusic (I'll get to you, I'll get to you!) could take some lessons from Amazon's download management protocols. I called the missing tracks up from within iTunes and all was well.
The prices are pretty conventional, too high in my book, in other words - mostly $.99, occasionally $.89 a track. M.I.A. gave me a break for buying the whole album on Kala (yay), no such love from Steely Dan, however (boo). I bought three LPs and spent a little under $23, not terrible, but hopefully that competition factor will actually kick in at some point. Still, I ended up with well-organized albums of 256 kbps MP3s intelligently fed into my computers music filing system.
Bottom line: Amazon delivers an impressive catalog of DRM-free albums and tracks at market-fair but uninspiring prices. The browsing interface is typically clunky but the download manager is simple and helpful, and the mesh with iTunes virtually seamless. I have no reservations saying that Amazon has earned its place as an essential vendor for any serious consumer of digital downloads. Amazon, my grudging props to you.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Indeed, I was moderately horrified upon signing in for the first time in quite a while to discover that my account (with credit card info preloaded and ready) was still hanging out there guarded only by my old, pre-paranoia, weakish password that I used to secure EVERYTHING with before some weird though inconclusive anomalies turned up on a credit card account and spooked me into converting anything identity-theftalicious over to strong, pain-in-the-ass long strings of gibberish passwords. Take that, NSA!
Anyway.
So despite my ambiguous relationship with the great flagship of ye olde internette bubble the first (another list in that long line of things I never thought I'd find myself doing: pining for the nineties), I found it very significant and exciting when Amazon announced the launch of its DRM-free MP3 download store. Let's not mince words: this is the first and at this point only competition to iTunes. I'm talking, of course, about the mainstream here, and I don't expect this bicameral hegemony to last long. Still, although my credentials as a capitalist are shaky, I believe in the value of competition to optimize transactional systems, and seeing this unfold in a nascent marketplace in real time definitely turns my crank. And honestly, I've been fairly impressed with what I've been seeing out of Amazon recently, as regards commoditization of data transaction, so I've been eager to check the new kid on the block out.
It would be real interesting to find out what sort of wrangling it took to get a serious chunk of the major labels' catalogs available without DRM. I have a sneaky suspicion that the prospect of sticking it to Apple, which seems to have a less than idyllic relationship with many of its content providers, had a place in this equation. But alas such questions are beyond the scope of my little review project. Perhaps someone will write a book someday. Let's get to the core commerce experience.
I'm proceeding on the assumption that Gentle Reader comes with previous experience with the Amazon shopping paradigm. Up to checkout shopping the online store is pretty identical. You're encouraged to grab a little download manager app, and indeed I believe it is mandatory to download full albums, but the process is conventional and painless (as long as you don't mind clicking "I agree" boxes without first doing a lot of tedious reading to find out which rights you're clicking away this time). I'd recommend installing it up front.
The MP3 Downloads Department front page is the same witlessly organized, overstuffed (six page-downs of scroll!) mess we've all come to know and love (amusingly led, in this case, by shameless exploitation of iPod iconography, universal symbol of the digital music). I'll freely admit I don't have ready alternatives for the apparently inescapable melange of useless genre category sidebars, "hot new picks," and row after row of brainless categories... featured artists (why look honey, Jay-Z is featured. Let's check that young man out), the spotlighted, the new, the hot, and in the basement, the inevitable blogged. I won't let my lack of solutions stop me from pointing out what a travesty this sort of virtual mall experience is on the downhill side of the 21st century, decade one. At least the search toolbar, the only thing on the page that's worth a damn, is at the top.
Search is, of course, rendering ever-widening swaths of data presentation obsolete, and to be honest I had to kind of force myself to notice what a junkyard the front page was. My inclination is to automatically ignore it and just start looking for what I want. Amazon's search is perfectly functional, I found what I was looking for first time out 3 tries in a row.
For purchasing, it appears Amazon has adopted the iTunes "pay as you go" system: there isn't a shopping cart feature for downloads: everything goes through 1-click (and you can stick your registered trademark up your @-hole, Amazon). While this isn't such a burden if you're buying albums, it's as stupid system for a la carte downloads on Amazon as it is on iTunes, maybe more so as Amazon already has the architecture of a shopping cart in place.
Beyond this, the downloads went mostly smoothly. They went into my iTunes library automatically, a welcome feature for a third party vendor. The album art showed up as well, though at this point I've got so many widgets and doodads managing musical metacontent that it's hard to tell if Amazon had anything to do with that.
I had one scare with my purchases. Some downloaded content stopped showing up in iTunes in the middle of the process, apparently as the result of my dicking around with unrelated iTunes files while the transfer was ongoing. When I saw the missing songs listed as complete in Amazon's download manager window I feared an interaction with customer support was in my future. I should say it's hard to say whether this error was Amazon's fault, something to do with iTunes, or the result of my overstuffed hard drive, which is causing my aging G4 iMac to gag over pretty much any kind of multitasking these days.
Whatever the case, a handy "Reveal in Finder" button on the download manager showed that only the transfer to the iTunes library had been arrested - the files were safely ensconced in a welcome new Amazon downloads folder in my iTunes music files. My buddies over at eMusic (I'll get to you, I'll get to you!) could take some lessons from Amazon's download management protocols. I called the missing tracks up from within iTunes and all was well.
The prices are pretty conventional, too high in my book, in other words - mostly $.99, occasionally $.89 a track. M.I.A. gave me a break for buying the whole album on Kala (yay), no such love from Steely Dan, however (boo). I bought three LPs and spent a little under $23, not terrible, but hopefully that competition factor will actually kick in at some point. Still, I ended up with well-organized albums of 256 kbps MP3s intelligently fed into my computers music filing system.
Bottom line: Amazon delivers an impressive catalog of DRM-free albums and tracks at market-fair but uninspiring prices. The browsing interface is typically clunky but the download manager is simple and helpful, and the mesh with iTunes virtually seamless. I have no reservations saying that Amazon has earned its place as an essential vendor for any serious consumer of digital downloads. Amazon, my grudging props to you.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Monday, November 05, 2007
Stay tuned, new soon...
Ambition. Well, it surely was not my intent to get the recreation of this underway and then immediately get stalled by day to day circumstances. But I did. But I'm looking to get back rolling next week, look for a new music buying experience November 12, you can read a bit more about the details over at the song of the day weblog.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
The times, they are a'changin'... Link roundup
In between reviews I plan to do some topical roundups of relevant links and the occasional essay.
It's been a hell of a couple of weeks for the major labels. EMI's new moneyman owner notices his newly acquired industry has been getting run into the ground by fat cat executives with no vision. The music guy for the last relevant internet portal business tells said fat cat executives "your business model sucks, so I'm not going to use it anymore." But the big news is without question the artists. Radiohead. Trent Reznor. Jamiriquoi and Oasis. The currently unsigned and soon-to-be-released are making news with announcements and rumors of taking to the heady waters of self-distribution.
Even download-hating, "what the fuck do you think you're doing" label queen Madonna is said to be in negotiations to ditch Warner Bros. for a decidedly unconventional relationship with a concert promoter, though that particular deal sounds more like "I reject you, Satan, in favor of you, Satan Prime!" It's still an industry, after all. Nevertheless, as far as the business of music is concerned, we do seem to be blessed with the curse of living in interesting times. Let's observe a moment of silence together and imagine a record company executive shitting a brick.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
It's been a hell of a couple of weeks for the major labels. EMI's new moneyman owner notices his newly acquired industry has been getting run into the ground by fat cat executives with no vision. The music guy for the last relevant internet portal business tells said fat cat executives "your business model sucks, so I'm not going to use it anymore." But the big news is without question the artists. Radiohead. Trent Reznor. Jamiriquoi and Oasis. The currently unsigned and soon-to-be-released are making news with announcements and rumors of taking to the heady waters of self-distribution.
Even download-hating, "what the fuck do you think you're doing" label queen Madonna is said to be in negotiations to ditch Warner Bros. for a decidedly unconventional relationship with a concert promoter, though that particular deal sounds more like "I reject you, Satan, in favor of you, Satan Prime!" It's still an industry, after all. Nevertheless, as far as the business of music is concerned, we do seem to be blessed with the curse of living in interesting times. Let's observe a moment of silence together and imagine a record company executive shitting a brick.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at that Index Page
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Okay... Computer? Radiohead imitates some dude in a basement
As Radiohead's "historic" offer is now defunct and they show little interest in continuing as a download provider I'm decommissioning this review, so to speak. Read more here. I'm also downgrading my assessment to "shrugs" out of pure spite.
Of course I'm pushing two weeks behind the curve of the hype on the Radiohead "pay what you like" digital download of their latest album, In Rainbows.
And I'll admit: a part of me is a little annoyed by the degree of swooning, "this changes everything" coverage Radiohead's payment-optional experiment has received. I covered Jane Siberry doing this very thing in March of '06, and it was old news then (what Siberry calls "self-determined pricing" is still the standard at her site and it is still well worth checking out, incidentally). From "try it for free, buy if you feel it" presentations like Harvey Danger to every unsigned solo with free MP3s and a virtual tip jar, "payment optional" is hardly a new deal.
Even so, the distinction here is obvious. Radiohead is a major international act that has demonstrated its ability to debut an album at the top of the charts and sell a million copies in the U.S. alone. After wrapping up their contract with EMI in 2003 they could have rung up any of the major or major-minor labels and entered serious negotiations for a big money record deal. Not selling out is a different kind of decision when there are plenty of interested buyers with deep pockets.
And like a lot of people, I'm happy to see anything that motivates more public dialog about getting past the absurdly counterproductive artificial restrictions of the conventional market for music (and indeed for information in general).
So much for philosophy: on to the commerce experience.
I'll lead with the negatives. If Radiohead deserves bigger kudos for risking an unconventional distribution strategy as a big ticket act, then I give them worse marks for delivering a somewhat clunky, confusing sales experience. When I used it the website was very slow, and the actual transaction was not straightforward.
There are only two products for sale on the site - a costly (around $80 U.S.) discbox that includes vinyl LPs and CDs in premium packaging, and the price-unspecified digital download. Since a download is included in the price of the discbox, there is no reason to purchase more than one of these items. So the fact that the purchaser is forced to go through an "add item to cart/proceed to checkout" sales process is pointless and particularly irritating when each redundant click initiates another glacially slow page load (to add insult to injury, you have to click through two pointless front pages to get to the point where you can actually elect to purchase. I could have saved you the trouble by linking directly to the order page, but I'd hate for you to miss out on the complete Radiohead experience).
Now I could be accused of nitpicking, so I want to reiterate: to the extent that Radiohead made a statement about the roll affordable digital downloads can and should play in commercial music, they diluted this statement by delivering a poorly executed and tedious commerce experience.
Other cons included the fact that the site failed to deliver specifics about the download - format, number of tracks, or overall length - details I considered important to setting a price for the download (I eventually found these facts reported by third parties), some glitches in the checkout process resulting in getting kicked back to blank forms, and the fact that the download delivered only the MP3 tracks, no artwork or lyrics (I know I'm bucking established trends but damn it, delivering data is cheap. If you've got more, give it! Particularly when the purchaser's only options are a very expensive premium physical product versus a bare-bones digital download). Finally, I'm never thrilled when a purchase form requires I enter a mobile phone number. What if Radiohead won't stop texting me?
Moving on to the positives: I'd say that purchasing the album was not a terrible experience, merely substandard. Once I made it to the actual payment screen things went smoothly enough, and I quickly ended up with a link to a reasonably speedy download. The price was right - I elected to pay what I consider a very reasonable $3 (I'll tell you right now that my opinion that the general cost of music online is inflated is going to be an ongoing theme here) - which came out to £1.47. They tacked on a £0.45 service fee for a total £1.92 or about $3.92 U.S. For this I received a 48.4 MB zip archive of 10 160kbps MP3s. The tracks had correctly encoded metadata (mangled or absent track metadata is a HUGE pet peeve) so firing it up in iTunes was a cinch. I had successfully purchased my first Radiohead album. I liked it.
The bottom line: while I wouldn't tolerate this sort of technical incompetence from a website dedicated to selling digital music, I'm going to give Radiohead the benefit of the doubt in assuming that inexperience in the digital market and underestimating the volume of response the offer would receive were more at work in what was wrong with this transaction than actual indifference to the purchaser experience. So on the three point scale I just this moment invented of Props, Shrugs or Hate, I give Radiohead Props. Congratulations, Radiohead, you can now proudly display "the Phree Musique Blog gave the In Rainbows purchase site props!" on your website. Note: not anymore, as noted above. You mopey Limey bastards.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at the Index Page
Of course I'm pushing two weeks behind the curve of the hype on the Radiohead "pay what you like" digital download of their latest album, In Rainbows.
And I'll admit: a part of me is a little annoyed by the degree of swooning, "this changes everything" coverage Radiohead's payment-optional experiment has received. I covered Jane Siberry doing this very thing in March of '06, and it was old news then (what Siberry calls "self-determined pricing" is still the standard at her site and it is still well worth checking out, incidentally). From "try it for free, buy if you feel it" presentations like Harvey Danger to every unsigned solo with free MP3s and a virtual tip jar, "payment optional" is hardly a new deal.
Even so, the distinction here is obvious. Radiohead is a major international act that has demonstrated its ability to debut an album at the top of the charts and sell a million copies in the U.S. alone. After wrapping up their contract with EMI in 2003 they could have rung up any of the major or major-minor labels and entered serious negotiations for a big money record deal. Not selling out is a different kind of decision when there are plenty of interested buyers with deep pockets.
And like a lot of people, I'm happy to see anything that motivates more public dialog about getting past the absurdly counterproductive artificial restrictions of the conventional market for music (and indeed for information in general).
So much for philosophy: on to the commerce experience.
I'll lead with the negatives. If Radiohead deserves bigger kudos for risking an unconventional distribution strategy as a big ticket act, then I give them worse marks for delivering a somewhat clunky, confusing sales experience. When I used it the website was very slow, and the actual transaction was not straightforward.
There are only two products for sale on the site - a costly (around $80 U.S.) discbox that includes vinyl LPs and CDs in premium packaging, and the price-unspecified digital download. Since a download is included in the price of the discbox, there is no reason to purchase more than one of these items. So the fact that the purchaser is forced to go through an "add item to cart/proceed to checkout" sales process is pointless and particularly irritating when each redundant click initiates another glacially slow page load (to add insult to injury, you have to click through two pointless front pages to get to the point where you can actually elect to purchase. I could have saved you the trouble by linking directly to the order page, but I'd hate for you to miss out on the complete Radiohead experience).
Now I could be accused of nitpicking, so I want to reiterate: to the extent that Radiohead made a statement about the roll affordable digital downloads can and should play in commercial music, they diluted this statement by delivering a poorly executed and tedious commerce experience.
Other cons included the fact that the site failed to deliver specifics about the download - format, number of tracks, or overall length - details I considered important to setting a price for the download (I eventually found these facts reported by third parties), some glitches in the checkout process resulting in getting kicked back to blank forms, and the fact that the download delivered only the MP3 tracks, no artwork or lyrics (I know I'm bucking established trends but damn it, delivering data is cheap. If you've got more, give it! Particularly when the purchaser's only options are a very expensive premium physical product versus a bare-bones digital download). Finally, I'm never thrilled when a purchase form requires I enter a mobile phone number. What if Radiohead won't stop texting me?
Moving on to the positives: I'd say that purchasing the album was not a terrible experience, merely substandard. Once I made it to the actual payment screen things went smoothly enough, and I quickly ended up with a link to a reasonably speedy download. The price was right - I elected to pay what I consider a very reasonable $3 (I'll tell you right now that my opinion that the general cost of music online is inflated is going to be an ongoing theme here) - which came out to £1.47. They tacked on a £0.45 service fee for a total £1.92 or about $3.92 U.S. For this I received a 48.4 MB zip archive of 10 160kbps MP3s. The tracks had correctly encoded metadata (mangled or absent track metadata is a HUGE pet peeve) so firing it up in iTunes was a cinch. I had successfully purchased my first Radiohead album. I liked it.
The bottom line: while I wouldn't tolerate this sort of technical incompetence from a website dedicated to selling digital music, I'm going to give Radiohead the benefit of the doubt in assuming that inexperience in the digital market and underestimating the volume of response the offer would receive were more at work in what was wrong with this transaction than actual indifference to the purchaser experience. So on the three point scale I just this moment invented of Props, Shrugs or Hate, I give Radiohead Props. Congratulations, Radiohead, you can now proudly display "the Phree Musique Blog gave the In Rainbows purchase site props!" on your website. Note: not anymore, as noted above. You mopey Limey bastards.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at the Index Page
Digital Music Sellers Review Index
Note, January 17 2010: I won't be updating the index any longer. The way I've got it set up is just too tedious to modify for the nominal utility it offers.
Index of Digital Music Sellers reviewed on the Phree Musique blog. Updated as reviews are added. To submit a site for review or note a change, mistake or disappearance of any previously reviewed link please leave a comment on this entry.
Multiple Artist Sites
Site Link : Review Link : Site Notes and Genre Info : Bottom Line*
1. Amazon.com : Review : Eclectic catalog of mostly mainstream downloads, all genres : Props
2. eMusic : Review : One of the originals with a huge indie catalog : Props
3. iTunes Music Store : Review : Apple's original Big Box digital infotainment megastore : Shrugs
4. Rhapsody MP3 Downloads : Review : Routine retail with the bonus of full streaming previews : Props
Single Artist Sites
Site Link : Review Link : Site Notes and Genre Info : Bottom Line*
1. Radiohead DOWNLOAD SITE CLOSED : Review : Download site for single album, Alt Rock : Shrugs
2. Brad Sucks : Review : Two solid alt-rock albums with lots of diverse freebies on the site : Props
*Sites judged on 3 point scale from Hate to Shrugs to Props where Hate is bad and Props are good.
Index of Digital Music Sellers reviewed on the Phree Musique blog. Updated as reviews are added. To submit a site for review or note a change, mistake or disappearance of any previously reviewed link please leave a comment on this entry.
Multiple Artist Sites
Site Link : Review Link : Site Notes and Genre Info : Bottom Line*
1. Amazon.com : Review : Eclectic catalog of mostly mainstream downloads, all genres : Props
2. eMusic : Review : One of the originals with a huge indie catalog : Props
3. iTunes Music Store : Review : Apple's original Big Box digital infotainment megastore : Shrugs
4. Rhapsody MP3 Downloads : Review : Routine retail with the bonus of full streaming previews : Props
Single Artist Sites
Site Link : Review Link : Site Notes and Genre Info : Bottom Line*
1. Radiohead DOWNLOAD SITE CLOSED : Review : Download site for single album, Alt Rock : Shrugs
2. Brad Sucks : Review : Two solid alt-rock albums with lots of diverse freebies on the site : Props
*Sites judged on 3 point scale from Hate to Shrugs to Props where Hate is bad and Props are good.
We'll Get a New Deal for Christmas This Year
Previously on the Phree Musique blog...
I'd been posting links to free, available-for-the-download MP3s that were, to the best of my ability to determine, pretty much legal. Which equivocating phrase indicates that, even eschewing the gang of plainly illegal MP3 blogs which infest the Tubes, there was an awful lot of ambiguity in the free music biz.
Well, no more. We turn our attention now to music which is free as in, well, as in not free. While Apple, Amazon, EMI and Yahoo! have been making news lately by offering or at least talking about selling digital music without digital rights management (DRM) technology in place, many independent labels have been doing it for years. I'm going to try them all out and report back on the new digital music shopping experience.
My rules for inclusion:
1. You must be able to purchase digital files outright.
2. The files must be totally free of DRM. I'm not going to get into issues some have raised like dodgy, personally identifying metadata in the files (iTunes Plus) or overzealous terms of use (Amazon).
And that's about it. If you want to submit a site for review please leave a comment on the Index Page
I'd been posting links to free, available-for-the-download MP3s that were, to the best of my ability to determine, pretty much legal. Which equivocating phrase indicates that, even eschewing the gang of plainly illegal MP3 blogs which infest the Tubes, there was an awful lot of ambiguity in the free music biz.
Well, no more. We turn our attention now to music which is free as in, well, as in not free. While Apple, Amazon, EMI and Yahoo! have been making news lately by offering or at least talking about selling digital music without digital rights management (DRM) technology in place, many independent labels have been doing it for years. I'm going to try them all out and report back on the new digital music shopping experience.
My rules for inclusion:
1. You must be able to purchase digital files outright.
2. The files must be totally free of DRM. I'm not going to get into issues some have raised like dodgy, personally identifying metadata in the files (iTunes Plus) or overzealous terms of use (Amazon).
And that's about it. If you want to submit a site for review please leave a comment on the Index Page
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Totally not phree musique!
To order the CD click here!
I recently participated in the creation of a collectively arranged and managed music CD featuring pieces by members of the community weblog metafilter.com.
This CD is now complete and will be shipping by the end of November, and features a recording I made of one of the songs of the day, Obsession, among 24 other tracks.
Profits will be donated to a nonprofit music education charity for children. I hope you'll consider buying a copy, because otherwise I will deny any knowledge of you when I am rich and famous. But seriously, I think it's going to be a great and quirky CD and well worth owning for 12 bucks, shipping included (17 for international delivery).
You can read about the album by clicking here
And read my artist profile by clicking here
Order the CD click here!
Thanks for listening -
Jon/aka nanojath/aka Scrivener
-=-
In the meantime... there remains one last thing that I am will persist in trying to keep up with daily... behold the fairly secret song of the day blog.
To order the CD click here!
I recently participated in the creation of a collectively arranged and managed music CD featuring pieces by members of the community weblog metafilter.com.
This CD is now complete and will be shipping by the end of November, and features a recording I made of one of the songs of the day, Obsession, among 24 other tracks.
Profits will be donated to a nonprofit music education charity for children. I hope you'll consider buying a copy, because otherwise I will deny any knowledge of you when I am rich and famous. But seriously, I think it's going to be a great and quirky CD and well worth owning for 12 bucks, shipping included (17 for international delivery).
You can read about the album by clicking here
And read my artist profile by clicking here
Order the CD click here!
Thanks for listening -
Jon/aka nanojath/aka Scrivener
-=-
In the meantime... there remains one last thing that I am will persist in trying to keep up with daily... behold the fairly secret song of the day blog.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Corn Dogs for the Pickin'
MF Doom is one of these rappers who seems to generate loose, loping flows of laid back rhyme much like an apple tree generates apples. DJ Dangermouse may currently be best known for the "Grey Album", a conflation of the Beatles' White Album and Jay Z's Black Album which is enough of a cultural artifact now that it is reliably available despite being totally illegal. This aside, Dangermouse is a prolific remixer.
When these two radical vectors collide with the Cartoon Network's experimental media laboratory Adult Swim, the resultant "Danger Doom" is a free roaming, monstrously self-referential acid treat I can't make heads or tails of. But they're giving away free MP3s, so hey. I think the lyrics may be, you know, unsuitable for minors. But I can't really tell.
Scrivener downloaded...
A full EP is now available at Adult Swim - download Occult Hymn here.
Don't know what this is? Read the FAQ
Monday, May 15, 2006
Summer Vacation is Almost Over
Alright, I've been needing a bit of a break. Regular updates will resume in June, though still at a reduced pace (probably only one a week) until the garden no longer needs attention, which will be I dunno, some time in September or so? Please do check back in around the first week of June.
Don't know what this is? Read the FAQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)