How Long Until The RIAA Kills The Best Music Service Around?
from the countdown-begins dept
Over the past month or so, there has been tremendous buzz about a startup called Turntable.fm. It's been written up in a few places and lots of the usual crew of Silicon Valley folks have been using it. In general, I tend to be skeptical of the "buzzy" startups out there, but over the past couple weeks I've been playing with the service, and have found -- like so many others who use it -- that it's incredibly fun, addictive and amazing (and not great for productivity, at times). A bunch of folks associated with Techdirt have been using it and we've spent almost as much time discussing the legality of the whole thing.If you haven't used it, it's a service that finally makes music social in a way that works. Basically, you and others go into a "room" which generally has a theme. Up to five people in the room can act as "DJs" and sit at a table in the front. Each of the DJs puts together a queue of songs and when their turn comes around, the next song in their queue plays (usually, it's still a little buggy on that front). Everyone else in the room can hear the song and can vote on whether it's "awesome" or "lame." If it's awesome, the DJ gets points, if it's lame, the song can be cut off and you can get booted from your chair (I believe, though have never seen that happen). Also, all the folks in the room have cute little avatars, and their heads bob to the music if they think it's awesome. When one song is done, it moves on to the next DJ in the row, and on you go: collaborative curated music playlists.
But I think the reason that hits me so hard, and why so many people like Turntable.fm, is the core underlying social aspect of it that so many in the music industry seem to ignore. Music isn't an individual thing. It's always been a social thing. We want others to hear the music we like. We like to share the experience. It's a cultural thing. If only you hear a song, that's one thing, but sharing that great feeling with a friend or others is something else. It's part of the reason why people flock to concerts. But the recording industry has always focused on music as a solitary thing: as in, they want each individual to buy a song or an album and that's it. The social part is an afterthought. Maybe it helps more sales, maybe not. That's not important. It's why so many music services today are kind of boring, frankly. You can listen to music, but that's about it. There's not much social about most of them (with a few exceptions).
Turntable.fm, on purpose or not, brings back that cultural sharing element. It makes just listening to music a party, and that's incredibly addictive. And, as simplistic as the graphics are, something about them completely "works" in this environment. The little bobbing heads are really quite powerful. And, as Marcus Carab said after playing around with the service: if no heads in the audience are bobbing, "IT FEELS HORRIBLE." That's a part of that cultural sharing phenomenon. We all love music, and we love to introduce others to music we love... but many of us still fear that basic feeling of social awkwardness: what if we pass this along, and no one likes it? Turntable.fm does a brilliant job of meshing together all of these elements, and really has made it work.
But is it legal?
Then we come to the big question. If there's one thing we've seen over and over again, it's that the big record labels and the RIAA simply can't stand it when "someone else" figures out how to make music valuable. The standard operating procedure is to claim that whatever they're doing is infringing, and then sue first as a part of a negotiating strategy to get massive license fees or to drive them out of business. Sometimes, as with imeem, they do both (get massive license fees, which serves to drive them out of business).
There were some questions as to whether or not Turntable.fm already had deals with the labels. The way the music works is you can do a search, and if Turntable.fm already has the track you can add it to your queue. If it doesn't, you can also upload it from your personal collection. Various reports note that Turntable.fm has a deal with MediaNet, which allows them to stream a ton of tracks at $0.002 per listener (and 10 cents per DJ, since that's an "on demand" play). It's not clear how it works with uploaded tracks. There are also some limits, as a friend of mine discovered when a bunch of DJs in a room all tried to play songs by a single artist. After a few tracks, you get a message saying you can't for licensing reasons.
That sounded similar to what the (also quite cool) startup 8tracks does, in that people can upload songs and create playlists... but with a few limitations to avoid violating copyright law. There are a few basic rules that have been put in place at the behest of the recording industry to make sure such services aren't really fully interactive (for which they want much higher priced licenses), so limiting tracks by a single artist, limiting tracks from a single album and not letting people see what's upcoming are there.
What is now official is that the company does not have any licensing deals with the labels, relying on the belief that following those streaming rules and the basics of the DMCA make it legal. The issue is whether or not the labels buy that and decide not to sue. That would be the smart move, but think about who we're discussing here. There's a pretty good likelihood that someone will get upset (or, really, jealous of the massive popularity) and decide that they're "not getting the proper cut," and initiate legal action.
That would be a shame. The service really is the sort of thing that the labels should be encouraging. It's an amazing tool for social music discovery. It clearly makes music more valuable. I've been introduced to all sorts of new music via the service, and have since purchased a bunch of CDs (yeah, make fun of me, I'm old fashioned that way) because of it. There's also tremendous user engagement here, not just in picking the songs, but in voting on them and talking in the associated chat room. Still, almost everyone seems to think that the labels will do what they always do and sue. Again, quoting Marcus, "it must be illegal, because it's awesome, and there's simply no way something this awesome would be okay with the RIAA."
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: music, social, turntable
Companies: turntable.fm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
People WANT these kinds of things, and when there is demand, there is always a way to make a profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which explains why no one's using it.... oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just like Napster. Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are tremendous monetization opportunities in turntable.fm. User engagement is very high - not only do people spend a long time on the site, they spend a much higher percentage of that time paying direct attention to the screen than most web services. The way the site works also lends itself to freemium models (not my favourite, but an approach that would likely be highly effective here)
So don't worry - if it survives, the money will come in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"capitalism" - you can't use someone else's intellectual property for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you loved capitalism, you would support the abolishment of intellectual property, not wave it around like an ugly flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For free?
The Labels would never think of a novel idea like this.
If someone else does, they would never license it at anything resembling a reasonable price. (Example: Guitar Hero)
If someone builds something novel that uses music, the dinosaurs will shut it down. (And probably 1000 other nearby innocent websites at the same time.)
If people (example TechDirt) complain, we'll hear: you freetards just want to listen to music for free.
Listening to free music is why Internet radio must be stopped!
But who is it again that had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century of digital music (eg, Amazon 99 cent mp3s, etc), and still isn't there yet?
Similarly for Hollywood. They would never build something like Netflix streaming. Netflix did, but Hollywood was too blind to believe it would go anywhere. When it succeeded beyond the tiny imaginations of tiny Hollywood minds, they want to change the deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now I buy a song, movie or book and I can't do jack with it unless I pay exorbitant license fees.
So you see, copyright maximalists want IP treated like RP when it suits them, (ie. it can be stolen), and treated like IP when it suits them (you can't use it unless I say so).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm, that's common verbiage in internet radio licensing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not about copying...
I don't think the problem is about lost music revenue from copying, but from not buying what you are told you should like by the marketing engine.
This service does an incredible job at finding what people think sounds good and will listen to. It in effect will defeat the media campaigns surrounding their latest release they are trying to market as the latest rage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not about copying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not about copying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not about copying...
They would probably require only music done by the big 4 labels, if they didn't get that in writing, they would negotiate by law suit.
I love the idea of crowd sourcing the play lists with a mini-American Idol style system. Crap would sink to the bottom of the playlists and the gems would float to the top. You could have hundreds of these crowd sourced radio stations each gaining followers.
I wonder if you could do an app for facebook or uTorrent along these lines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not about copying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tried to sign up
I HATE SITES THAT TAKE YOUR DATA THEN TELL YOU TO GO AWAY.
Sorry, they may be the best thing since sliced toast but all I know is that they tricked me into giving them all my Facebook permissions and I got zippo back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tried to sign up
You're right that it's a gaffe in terms of user experience... but I don't think it's earth-shattering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tried to sign up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tried to sign up
Call me paranoid, but do we really need Facebook integration on every site? Not even as an optional, side thing, but as the de facto only way to login?
I can't take such sites seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tried to sign up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get Busy
Or consult with Ted Cohen, and then start working with labels and publishers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is not copying of the file for more than a transient time, so I don't think there's infringement down that avenue. (106(1) and (3))
This isn't a derivative work (106(2)).
There aren't massive uploads and downloads, so I don't think there would be a case for contributory infringement.
I'm not really sure there's an actual claim based on the current case law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not a public performance(friends and family in a limited setting), so I don't think there's infringement there. (106 (4-6))
It's not "friends and family." It's like a club. Some of these rooms have over 100 people. I would bet that ASCAP would argue this is very much a public performance. Not that I agree, but your "friends and family in a limited setting" claim is almost certainly not true.
There aren't massive uploads and downloads, so I don't think there would be a case for contributory infringement.
Hmm? How do you know that? Many people are uploading tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The other thing that after re-reading I might have some doubts with is the streaming aspect, but if they feel that it's within the license I'll trust them on that.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not limited to 5 or 6. It's also not limited to just the people you're friends with on Facebook.
If you have an account you can go into any room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can only fight the future for so long.
No one needs physical media anymore, because cheap MP3 players and ubiquitous computers have made it obsolete.
Soon, no one will need record company promotion services either - internet music services will do all the work, and bands will be free to play what they love, find an audience for it, and not be restricted (or milked) in any way by parasitic labels.
It's a great future, and one I very much look forward to, but it absolutely permanently excludes the record companies, so you can understand why they're trying to destroy the future instead of help make it.
It's only a matter of time though. Music will move on to a new era (it's already well on its way), and the record companies will be left in the dumpster of obsolescence where they belong, sandwiched between a typewriter and a fax machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can only fight the future for so long.
Thats one of those things that techdirt seems to beat around the bush on. With all the talk of new business models, not a single one of them will work for the labels. The new business models will only work for the Artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They can only fight the future for so long.
You say that like it's a bad thing, when it should be quite the opposite...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They can only fight the future for so long.
It is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. The huge middle men are being removed and replaced by online companies. The dave chappelle show leaving comedy central and going HULU or NetFlix is a perfect example. While the show suck IMHO, it is a trend that will continue to grow.
My point was that techdirt doesn't say that the ISP's will become dumb pipes in the end, that the media distribution companies will all fail, that content distribution middle men will fail, and that TV networks are no longer needed. I mean when you can do the whole billionare olson twins direct to DVD thing (internet in this case) why bother with the networks or labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay to Play
Seems quite normal. Personally I decline Facebook logins if there is another way to login. Hope they revise this but I doubt it -- social is the game here.
If you want to play you have to pay. The question is how much do you pay? How far does your information travel? There is no TOS or Privacy Statement on either of these two pages. This may be an oversight while development goes on.
I Suggest adding policy statements so folks have some kind of informed consent even though it is apparent Facebook policy rules here, but that is not clearly stated.
Just an observation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The above article is just more of the idiotic hate-mongering on labels that Mike Masnick is known for; as by vilifying record labels, somehow it becomes ok to rip off music. Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that's close to the very best non-sequitur i've ever been exposed to.
please accept my congratulations young lady, you're future is bright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you just haven't used the service, but I don't see it as being anything like Pandora. (1) You can upload your own music (2) You get to choose what songs you want to play (3) others hear the songs you play. None of that is true with Pandora.
The above article is just more of the idiotic hate-mongering on labels that Mike Masnick is known for; as by vilifying record labels, somehow it becomes ok to rip off music
Huh? Where did I ever say it's ok to rip off music? I haven't. Why would you lie? And do you really not think that the labels have sued all sorts of music startups? Shall I start compiling the list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That spin being the social and competitive aspects, which may make music more attractive and enjoyable and expose people to a wider range of music than the Pandora algorithm might.
"If they have the same licenses as Pandora they won't have any problems."
Well, their problem would be that their audience would be limited to whatever fraction of the world's population happen to be sitting on US soil at the time, which would be a problem...
"The above article is just more of the idiotic hate-mongering on labels that Mike Masnick is known for; as by vilifying record labels, somehow it becomes ok to rip off music."
Who's "ripping off" music? I'm seeing a service that allows people to discover music they might want to pay for and puts a unique spin on a format that makes music more attractive. It's no more "ripping off" music than if someone plays their records at a party.
The criticism of the labels is simply based on their typical reaction to new and innovative services - they first try to shut them down, and place insanely high licences and unworkable restrictions if they licence the service.
You'll notice that the article is marked under "predictions", and is essentially Mike saying "I hope this doesn't happen, but this is the typical reaction of the labels". If his "hate mongering" is wrong, then they won't react in the way he predicts and I'm sure he'd b e glad to be proven wrong. If not, then he's right and the "hate mongering" is actually the unvarnished truth.
Over to your side, the ball's in their court now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apple
Kazaa
Limewire
Bittorrent
Pandora
Spotify
Google Music
WMP Store
Napster
...I wish I were actually kidding. Because that list is almost a Who's Who of tech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re; Spotify
I just want the music, not the social features (I'd rather listen to it than talk about it). I can put up with the occasional short ad. If not, the rates are cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, they're doing that pretty well on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and never got past the first three screens. What's the point in having a cool site if it's too impenetrable to get to any of the cool stuff?
It reminded me of my experience with blip.fm, another site I saw hyped, but when I tried it, it seemed virtually pointless, and some pretty basic features didn't work properly.
I'd love to see more and better music sites, but blip.fm crashed and burned for me, and after only five minutes, turntable.fm is already in a nosedive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you elaborate? While I've noticed a few little bugs here and there (it is in beta after all) I've found the site extremely easy to use and, for the most part, quite smooth-running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's gone!!
Quote:We're very sorry, but while we would love to let you in and rock out with us, we need to currently restrict turntable access to only the United States due to licensing constraints.
We are working very hard to try and and get you in as soon as possible.
If you believe this is a mistake and you are located in the United States, please e-mail help [at sign] turntable dot fm
Again, sorry, and we hope to see you soon.
Billy Chasen
CEO
I had fun for 3 days. Was recommending it to friends and family, but, now, it's gone. Knowing how this works, I don't expect to ever be able to use it again.
I really need to mince my words right now. Or I will say too much and regret it.
Have fun you that can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's gone!!
I hate it when I'm right about this stuff, I called this above. It's mind boggling how the labels haven't bothered to bring their licensing into the 21st century and how they seem to think that restricting their audience to whoever happens to be on US soil at the time helps or protects their content. Note: people who are *in the US at the time*, since US citizens or residents are still unable to access their favourite services if they happen to be travelling or move outside the US...
This is why the industry is failing. Not only do they refuse to bring their business models in line with customers' needs and the realities of the modern marketplace, they restrict potentially global services to a single country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]