Congrats, RIAA: Chilling Effects Have Killed Interest In New Digital Music Startups
from the nice-work! dept
We've noticed that pretty much every single new and innovative digital music startup that pops up eventually gets sued by the record labels. The labels seem to view this as a part of basic negotiations -- and, in fact, many of the lawsuits have ended in partnership/equity deals. But, those deals tend to be suffocating. Given that (likelihood of getting sued or getting a deal that makes a profitable business impossible), is it any wonder that entrepreneurs are shying away from any sort of digital music startup these days, in favor of opportunities with no obsolete gatekeepers demanding huge chunks of whatever revenue they might one day make?At a time when the recording industry needs innovative startups more than anything else, the record labels and their oppressive lawsuits and deal terms have basically scared off exactly the people who create those businesses.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: chilling effects, digital music, entrepreneurship, lawsuits, startups
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well...
You get registry on similar domains based on major cities similar to how Craigs List does it (i.e. www.freemusic.chicago.com, www.freemusic.newyorkcity.com, etc.). They're all ran by a local rep or reps, similar to a franchise. They all have a internet radio player playing random songs throughout the pages of the site (which can be turned off if the user would like). In the meantime, you can search by genre, band name, etc. In the results, you get streaming music, downloadable music, band/artist pages, and local show listings ONLY for groups within a certain radius of the major city.
This would be opt-in for interested bands/artists, they would be responsible for updating their pages and maintaining the uploads on the content, so overhead could probably be relatively low. In the meantime, you promote yourself as THE local resource for ONLY local music. It's the Craig's List of music.
Hell, maybe this has been done already, but if it has they've done a terrible job of marketing themselves because I don't know about it, and I'd sure as hell use it. I love my "Chicago" artists and bands. Yes because they're good, but also because they're Chicago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
Nah, they've got that covered by making their partners the only ones able to collect rents. While making sure that anyone above the board needs to pay those rents. By law.
The real brilliance is that this just ensures that stealthy delivery systems (e.g., direct-from-artist downloads, torrents, etc.) are shored up. Thanks, *AA! I'm going to chill out with some Megaran and Optimus Rhyme right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
Hey, if you can raise the VC money and impliment it, have at it friend. If you can get it going, I'd love the chance to work with you on it, particularly in the Chicago-land area.
And it's not steal, it's infringe :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
Chicago.IL.US.freemusic.com
NYC.NY.US.freemusic.com
etc
And if you are interested in where I am going with this read through my past posts, specifically the
"xxx note/entry)"
ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodbye eMusic?
I think this is ultimately a misstep by eMusic, which for a number of reasons is a wonderful service. But hey, it's their business and I do hope they continue providing opportunities for emerging and indie artists to be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Goodbye eMusic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wasnt that their plan from the start
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wasnt that their plan from the start
After all, if it worked for GM, then it'll work for us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually
Gotta keep those College interns busy, their paying them $12 an hour!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now I just need to start working on the auto industry so that my buggy whip futures will rebound. It's a crazy market out there right now!!! Long and strong!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal?
There really need to be a politician who cleans up this illegal, anti-competitive crap, because everything involving lawyers has gotten way out of hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? No credit for the story link?
I saw this and I immediately thought that this is right up Mike's alley.
It's funny how Mike's comments repeatedly just espouse the Golden Rule from the Bible.
Treat your customers the way you would want to be treated and everything works out. Treat them badly and you will eventually pay. It pretty much is that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sort of relates to the "bring the public to copyright meetings". The problem is the public wants their music, they want it all, and they want it for nothing. Giving stuff away for "FREE!" is a great loss leader style business model, and potentially functional if you aren't paying anything for what you are giving away. But once that thing starts to have an actual cost, the weak business models are a non-starter.
Mike, isn't this more a case of companies with bad business models, rather than the fault of some "obsolete gatekeepers" who are in fact just asking for a fair payment for the use of someone else's materials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm curious, if you wrote out the functional definition of "fair" for this instance, what would that be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, the public wants the best product as conveniently as they can get it and as cheaply as they can get it. This is true for ANY product and the businesses that can fulfill those desires the best will win out, which is the market's way of simultaneously ensuring consumers get a good product and rewarding producers for providing it. Music is no different, but because the market price of mp3 files is basically zero, people like you bitch that the government needs to come in to ensure the artists can get a 'fair' price--that price is zero! Many, many artists give their music out for free and still make a profit, so this market price in no way inhibits their reward for giving the best product to consumers.
So yes...this is the fault of some "obsolete gatekeepers" who are in fact completely unwilling to change business models to reflect the market's adaptation to technology, and instead spend resources lobbying governments to interfere in a way that helps neither consumers nor musicians as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Fair" is relative. To me, "fair" would be $0 up-front, and a percentage of future revenue depending on contributions of particular pieces of music to the overall equitable value. So, Song X proved to provide 2% of overall equitable value to the project, so thus the song's creator gets 2% of dividends paid to artists, which could be of a pie about 5% of revenue.
So, since that's MY definition of "fair share", you obviously agree with this price structure if I were to open up an on-line database of musical notes that searches from humming, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, that will go over really well.
A music site without music is just an empty website. The value of the music in the equation isn't 5% of the deal, it's most of it. Since most of these sites aren't barely generating enough income to cover their bandwidth, why would the music industry be interested in a percentage of a really small number?
In all business, there are fixed costs. Music for this is a fixed cost. Work your business model to meet your fixed costs, or you are out of business. The rules apply everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not theft
You cant steal an idea, you can only implement it better than someone else. Implement it TOO closely to the other guy, and it might be infringement, but its not stealing. Go ahead and take your best shot at it, if you can build it better than another guy, you win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exactly where I am going with this actually .... big old grin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If both of you contact us via the feedback form agreeing to share email addresses, we can connect you.
http://www.techdirt.com/contact.php
Just link back to this comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dammit, Mike, that guy needs 10 bucks, and I've got a goddam business plan. Why do you hate the homeless mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have it forwarding to my normal email address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Done chilled me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]