Music Exec Says Too Many Silly Things To Put In This Headline
from the 34%-of-statistics-are-made-up dept
If anything, Apple's announcement of iTunes MusicMatch has made opposing sides equally uncomfortable (a sign of disruption?). Whereas some are concerned about its possible use as a tool to identify infringers, others are more concerned about it 'legitimizing piracy' and are not afraid to pull numbers out of thin air to back up their claims.
One of these people is PRS for Music's chief executive Robert Ashcroft. Ashcroft claims collection societies like PRS for Music could experience an 80% drop in online licensing revenue if unauthorized downloads were to be admitted in locker services and then legitimized. It seems very unlikely that collection societies would even exist if one innovation would cut 80% of their business, but I'm very curious to see evidence to back up this claim.
I've been trying to come up with a scenario that would warrant this 80%, but most would be too far-fetched for a non-fiction blog like Techdirt. The existence of these locker services would have to lead to governments deciding there is no reason to keep downloading illegal. Then either new 'pirate' platforms would have to start outcompeting already existing platforms or most legitimate platforms would have to decide there is no value in having good relations with the artists and labels their users adore. Then most users must stop spending money on music. Why is this not realistic? Despite the increasing convenience of unauthorized downloads, authorized platforms such as Netflix are beating piracy in terms of traffic. If the suggested 80% decline would be realistic, it would have already happened. It didn't.
He further stated that:
“We are at a turning point. Either the internet becomes an economically viable replacement to CDs or else there is an admission you can’t get fair value from the internet, which would lead to lasting damage to the music industry.”
No, just no. Either the internet becomes an economically viable replacement to CDs or else? The internet is a revolution in computer networking and communication - it was never intended to be a replacement to CDs. The internet is a disruptive technology which among many great things has helped thousands (if not millions) of artists and musicians reach global audiences they would otherwise not have reached. It has helped artists gain exposure and popularity to generate the licensing revenue which helps pay for the salary of collection societies' staff. For this reason the new generation doesn't blame the internet (although sometimes they forget where they came from). Just recently I interviewed Para One, a successful French electro producer, who said:
“I personally see the internet as a blessing. It would be unfair to hate it, since it pretty much kickstarted our careers through forums, then MySpace, etc, a while ago.”
Let's just label the part where he says that the internet should be a CD replacement "or else" as the FUD that it is and move on. Actual research into this suggests there's actually money to be made for the music industry. Of course that remains to be seen and depends on a few factors such as how good consumers are at predicting their own behaviour. It's also dependent on the moves of other competing platforms such as Spotify and Google Music.
However, these are intelligent platforms, built in a reality where they have to compete with free and in which they must convert 'free users' into paying users. This is why I cringe when I hear people from a less reality-based side of the business say "piracy" needs to be stopped in order for these startups to succeed. A piracy-free internet would have to be so restricted (three strikes is not enough) that it would devastate these startups and most other future innovation along with human rights.
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: copyright, icloud, itunes, music match, stats
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Para One knows that the internet kickstarted them, which in theory should lead to economic return. The record exec is looking for the same thing, building a marketplace that can actually sell the products they are pushing.
If there isn't any money directly in selling on the internet, don't be surprised if companies move away from it.
The mutual acceptable middle ground will likely have the internet as a place of promotion, but not by giving away everything and hoping some money appears somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Pushing"
Well, then in internet meme fashion:
He's doing it WRONG.
building a marketplace that can actually sell the products they are pushing.
And this is a perfect example of why they're doing it wrong. Why the recording industry is burning up faster than the Hindenburg. (I'm sick of Titanic and ship comparisons.)
They want to sell ("push") things in ways their customers do not want them.
If I go to the bank and try to get a small business loan, and it involves "trying to sell things to customers they do not want", can you guess how fast I'd be laughed out?
Secret to success: You sell things to customers that they want at prices they are willing to pay.
Not-so-secret to failure: Trying to sell things to customers they don't want at prices they wouldn't pay even if they wanted it.
If customers aren't willing to pay for something (recorded music) at a non-zero price, then you sell things they are willing to pay for (concerts, access, merchandise, exclusives, subscriptions, etc) and still make a profit.
The mutual acceptable middle ground
The recording industry has no concept of "mutually acceptable" - they have controlled talent search, production, post-production, marketing and promotion, distribution, and sales for far too long to realize there are better ways to do every one of those now, and they're not willing to give up any of them. if they can't own and control it all, its not acceptable to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reality is that the internet is not a marketplace that you can just move away from. It's a disruptive technology that will impact every part of society and business ultimately.
For this reason there can not be a 'mutual acceptable middle ground', since an increasing amount of 'things' can be turned into information. And information wants to be free.
That does not mean free as in monetary, but it's very hard to control information. Especially in the digital age of which we're just seeing the very beginnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What will continue to be the long term problem is that the creation of high end content is done mostly through invested / seeded money. Most struggling artists just don't have the time to take off from their regular job to work on their music, to produce product. Some do, most don't. The labels have always been the investors, the ones who put the money up in form of up front money to make it possible to produce the content in a reasonable time frame, and to make it possible for that content to be delivered to the potential audience in an organized form.
When you take the economics away, when you make it into a zero income game, you take away the ability for labels to invest. They won't intentionally make product and put it online if they cannot get a return on it. If piracy reaches a point where they no longer make enough to justify their investments, they will just stop. Then you are back to your free information problem, as the lack of information means there is nothing free.
I am sure we can all enjoy the wonderful amateur material that will come out to replace it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
What will continue to be the long term problem is that the creation of high end content is done mostly through invested / seeded money.
Just because it used to be done that way doesn't mean it has to be done that way. Just look at Kickstarter.
When you take the economics away, when you make it into a zero income game, you take away the ability for labels to invest.
Strawman argument alert! Or is this today's talking point? "Free" doesn't break the laws of economics, it never has, it never will.
They won't intentionally make product and put it online if they cannot get a return on it. If piracy reaches a point where they no longer make enough to justify their investments, they will just stop. Then you are back to your free information problem, as the lack of information means there is nothing free.
You can't fight free. Learn to use free. You'll make tons more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but more people can publish information than ever, so the information does not go away. This is, in part, due to a democratization of the means to produce and publish, which no longer inquires the type of investments we saw in the past.
"What will continue to be the long term problem is that the creation of high end content is done mostly through invested / seeded money."
I agree. Although this depends on your definition of high end. Personally, I don't see Justin Bieber or most pop stars as high end since they're usually replaceable.
"The labels have always been the investors, the ones who put the money up in form of up front money to make it possible to produce the content in a reasonable time frame, and to make it possible for that content to be delivered to the potential audience in an organized form."
Many of these things the internet can take care of now. Especially when new platforms are given the chance to develop (which they are not sufficiently, in my eyes).
"When you take the economics away, when you make it into a zero income game, you take away the ability for labels to invest."
I never suggested taking the economics away.
"If piracy reaches a point where they no longer make enough to justify their investments, they will just stop."
Good thing legal platforms are now taking over from piracy then, eh? As highlighted in the above article by the way.
"Then you are back to your free information problem, as the lack of information means there is nothing free.
I am sure we can all enjoy the wonderful amateur material that will come out to replace it."
And the music industry is still a multi-billion dollar business. Another trend I see is artists signing to brands instead of labels. People and companies are interested in investing in music. It's just that the game is changing.
And I resent how you're patronizing 'amateur material'. There is loads of great music coming from small, independent, "amateur" labels that I would pick over the mass-produced nonsense from the radio any day.
Shpongle is one of them.
Also, please specify how any of what you said is relevant to locker services and the conversion of pirates into paying consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It's from the latin root, 'to love'. To be an amateur is to love the game."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"What will continue to be the long term problem is that the creation of high end content is done mostly through invested / seeded money."
That's not "high end content" any more; for the most part that's short-lived pop music, usually sold as soft-core porn :-), which is expected to produce a massive return to the investors, who would be just as happy to be investing in fast food.
Increasingly, the real high-end music -- classical, jazz, world -- has been funded through grants. Kickstarter, already mentioned by a previous response, just takes the patron concept down to "micropatrons" and opens it up to all sorts of populist art projects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am sure we can all enjoy the wonderful amateur material that will come out to replace it.
I certainly already am. 100% of the music and the vast majority of films and videos I currently watch are non-retail, although not necessarily, as you say, "amateur." The guys behind Rooster Teeth productions, for example, make very entertaining original series (available for free, no less), and make a living doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
>> ability for it to be made. It is a bit of a chicken and the egg thing, you
>> cannot have free information without having information first.
Do people get more information or less than before the internet? Has the information available for free increased or decreased as the internet has grown? The answers are more and increased, respectively. I guess there's no problem with getting information.
>> What will continue to be the long term problem is that the creation of high end content is done mostly through invested / seeded money.
High end doesn't automatically mean expensive, and funding changes over time. At one time the kind of content you are talking about was funded solely by wealthy benefactors. As businesses formed around selling such content it was funded by investors, and as a result increased in volume.
This change isn't taking place in a vacuum. It's the entire nature of entertainment, not just the cost to produce it, that's changing. So no, the funding model that worked in the 20th century doesn't any longer in the 21st. Likewise, a model from the 19th century wouldn't have worked in the 20th. It's called progress.
>> Most struggling artists just don't have the time to take off from their regular
>> job to work on their music, to produce product. Some do, most don't. The labels
>> have always been the investors, the ones who put the money up in form of up
>> front money to make it possible to produce the content in a reasonable time
>> frame, and to make it possible for that content to be delivered to the
>> potential audience in an organized form.
You're aware that most recording is already done without labels, and it was the standard way to operate before the internet came along, right? Not to mention, most of the really good musicians I know, and being a musician myself I know quite a few, either make their entire living playing or their day job is giving lessons. And it's not like labels were out combing the fields for part time musicians. In most places if you want a label to "discover" you it means a touring schedule (at least regionally) that makes it pretty much impossible to hold down another job.
But let's say your scenario has some basis in reality. Even if you have a great artist, even if you commit unlimited money to pay for an album or 10, even if you do everything right, success has more to do with being in the right place at the right time playing the right music in front of the right people. In the past artists needed labels for the exposure. Now many can get the same, or even more, exposure without them. They used to need them to provide a good recording environment and expensive recording equipment. Now you can set up a recording studio for a small fraction of the cost 10-20 years ago. And without either the label or producer sticking his hand in your pocket to take most of the profits. The label used to provide access to distribution chains. Internet distribution, even through the biggest outlets like iTunes, is available to everyone.
A label discovering you and paying to record, release and promote an album was never anything more than a small multiplier on your chances of hitting it big. It was never enough to come close to tipping the odds in your favor. Mostly what we are losing with the dominance of big labels is a handful of winning lottery tickets spread among millions of artists. For the average musician that means losing the dream of getting one of those winning tickets. For most it was a mirage anyway so what they've really lost is an illusion which like as not wasn't helping them in any way to begin with.
What we're really talking about is reducing artists to "just business men." I've got news for musicians who thought otherwise. Making art is about creativity. Making money is about business. Making money for your art is both.
In most cases, being a professional musician makes you a small business operator whether you want that or not. You can contract that part out or do it yourself, but in a professional sense you are a contractor. You need to look out for your own business interests, and winning the lottery is a poor business model.
>> When you take the economics away, when you make it into a zero income game, you
>> take away the ability for labels to invest. They won't intentionally make product
>> and put it online if they cannot get a return on it. If piracy reaches a point
>> where they no longer make enough to justify their investments, they will
>> just stop. Then you are back to your free information problem, as the lack of
>> information means there is nothing free.
Why stop with theory. This is a completely verifiable hypothesis. Are the economic rewards less on the internet for those who were very successful before? Absolutely. Has that resulted in any less content? Nope, more content than ever, and more of it is free as well.
The question isn't "Will it work?" It's "How will it work?"
>> I am sure we can all enjoy the wonderful amateur material that will come
>> out to replace it.
Ignoring the giant-sized strawman you are arguing against here, let's focus on the whole amateur vs professional quality debate. I'll stick to my first hand experience.
I've been playing music most of my life. At one time I was a full time professional musician. I'm now an amateur musician who occasionally plays with professionals, but I'm much more skilled now than I was 20 years ago. Which would you rather listen to, the inferior professional musician or the skilled amateur?
A few years ago I started writing amateur technical guides which were offered for free (ad supported) on a website. I was once "paid" with a t-shirt, but that had nothing to do with why I wrote. I've since been hired to write professionally for that site and continue to do that today. The quality of my work, and more importantly, its value to my current employer, allowed me to become a professional.
While I'm certainly a better writer now than I was then, that's not because I'm a professional except in a tangential way. I'm better because I write more and have gotten more feedback on what I write. I'm also better at creating content specifically oriented to a particular audience, which is a direct result of being ad supported.
In other words I learned the same way writers have always learned. I write. Ask any professional writer for advice on being successful. The most common response will be to write. The second most common will probably be "don't," but that's always been the case as well. Writing has never been a particularly lucrative career for most.
There are 2 reasons your FUD is unwarranted. First, losing the old funding doesn't mean there won't be any at all, or even that there won't be enough. It means the funding will come from different sources, and as my employer shows, not necessarily that different. Newspapers and magazines have been ad supported for most of their existence.
Second, being an amateur doesn't mean you aren't good enough to be a professional or that you won't become one. Just as with the music industry, success is a crapshoot. You have to be talented and skilled, but you also have to be at least a little bit lucky.
There certainly has been, and will continue to be, an influx of amateurs. But that's a good thing. When I was 20 (in 1990) fewer people wrote or made videos as a hobby than today. Not that they didn't want to, but the barriers to entry made it too difficult for most talented people to bother when you either had to convince a gatekeeper to pay you or spend a substantial amount of money to get your work in front of the public. With those barriers gone, the number of amateurs learning to be professionals, or at least as good as most professionals, has increased geometrically.
In other words, the talent pool is much bigger and competition fiercer. That seems like the beginning of a strong market to me. Yes, it means the death of some old markets. And as a musician, writer, and recently also a videographer, let me just say good riddance to bad rubbish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Certainly!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UALSKBc_Hk4
That is my friends' sons' band.
His son also plays with 16 yr old Austin Carson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEMqWoYwOvk&feature=related
Note that these are original tunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "replacement" can't come soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the mark again...
Take the decimation of singles and the fact that there is no more forced media churn and you have your gravy train starting to look like a 20 car pileup with mangled bodies everywhere.
Even without the Internet, I don't have to buy stuff over anymore. This includes works I might have had in 3 different formats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good riddance and good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pet peeve
I'm getting so sick of people saying that. Even if they are correct and magically the Internet makes it impossible to make money from music, the "music industry" will be fine. The recording industry is screwed (which may or may not be a bad thing).
It's like those damn "Save the Planet" people. The planet's fine, it's lived threw much worse before we came along. We're the ones that are screwed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pet peeve
I actually doubt this, even. iTunes, We7, Spotify, AmieStreet, Amazon, eMusic, Jamendo and so on - they all prove that different markets exist for different musical tastes. For example, I've had people say to me "wow, Spotify paid subs are so much easier than piracy!", and " I don't care for Spotify, but music on Amazon is so cheap!", and "I don't want to pay the subscription but the free Spotify is cool", and so on...
The trick is to realise that the customer controls the modern marketplace via the internet, and to learn how to leverage that. If done correctly, I don't see why recorded music should be doomed, but it's sure as hell headed there with the current tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight... Break the internet to support us or else? Smooth move, and GREAT PR...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fair value is set by the market for something, not by some sanctioned cutpurse like this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, no. We are already way past the apex. In fact, we are already speeding away down the track. If you're still stuck in the "turning point", then guess who's not in first place anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best headline ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best headline ever
Thanks Dark Helmet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best headline ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Best headline ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Best headline ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Best headline ever
You are my laughter machine, in a good way, ok I will admit that it is starting to sound creepy so I will stop here LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best headline ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Best headline ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Best headline ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should collection agencies exist?
He might be right.
If you think about it, most of the US collection agencies are around because the law protects collection agencies to hassle business with copyright law. I'm familiar with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC here in the US, who take 16% of the revenue for themselves, and mainly give revenue to the top 200 acts in the US.
IIRC, PRS is infamous for disallowing people to play the radio in shops and salons without collecting a fee. In the end, how can they represent the diverse culture of music, if they're too busy trying to shut down the businesses to build new acts?
They really ARE the legacy gatekeepers. A part of a past that is no longer necessary. It's near the same as copyright law, but they're continuously attaching themselves to crazier and crazier ideas (such as charging cloud services) in order to remain solvent in the digital world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exaggerating here, are you, Mike?
It's possible that everyone would agree to NOT pirate, thus by your notions, ending future innovation and human rights. Let's hope that honesty doesn't break out all over, either. -- Oh, I know, you're like the Red Queen from Alice In Wonderland: what you says means exactly what you intend it to, nothing more and nothing less.
By the way, the main quote there is fine with me; it's just that most here wish ill to the "music industry" /as Ashcroft defines it/.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exaggerating here, are you, Mike?
Everyone does agree to NOT pirate. It's just that the legal system is lagging behind, which turns them into pirates. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exaggerating here, are you, Mike?
But if you click and hear that, you're a pirate, so you probably shouldn't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exaggerating here, are you, Mike?
And yet another reading comprehension fail by you. Classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The smaller the mind, the greater the conceit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mission Accomplished!
eBooks
Blu-ray players
Streaming video services
Video appliances (aka internet connected set-top boxes)
Connected HDTVs
Game consoles
Video games (networking and downloading content)
Humor websites like The Onion or Cracked.com
DVD (not technically built around the Internet, but the Internet was instrumental in its level of success)
That doesn't count anything that's not specifically entertainment related, like home and mobile data connections, computers and related hardware, mobile phones and accessories, MP3 players, online shopping, or a multitude of other things.
The economic value of the internet has long since dwarfed the combined recorded and published music industries by several orders of magnitude.
What was his point again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is exactly because of the above that I truly hope the music industry bites the big one and sinks never to rise again in the fashion it is now configured in. If I had my fondish wish, it would be to lock that industry in a wooden barn and see it burnt to the ground in hopes that the phoenix that rose from it would not be as bad as what is now there.
You can thank my views on this from all the industry lobbyists, the MIAFFA groups, and the trolls that are present in almost all forums; being paid to be there.
I hope to see the rest of the public join me in this view point as they wake up to see the results of an industry that can not change, resists change, and activity fights change so they don't have too.
Face it, the day of the cd is gone and it's not coming back. What exists as music today is pretty much a shallow pale comparison to what it once was. With money tight in today's economy and many more entertainment forms existing with more bang for the buck, the last thing the entrenched industry wants to do is be honest about it's problems and what to do about them.
I've done my part and continue to do so in boycotting them. Not one penny goes to these charlatans trying to sell snake oil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whom would THAT inconvenience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't collect anything and they also don't want to be accountable since every instance to modernize or try to automate the process was turned down by European and American collection societies, oddly enough the trend is different in Asia where collection societies are automating everything and I suspect people there get their fair share more then with ASCAP or BMI.
And those guys from these shady collection agencies don't even seem to realize that the internet is more than just a revenue stream to their little part of the big pie.
Why they didn't die yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]