Always A Gatekeeper: RIAA Backs .music Proposal... If It's Only Limited To 'Accredited' Musicians
from the gates-have-come-down dept
For years there have been a few efforts underway to try to create a .music top level domain. While I'm not totally convinced such a TLD really is needed, it's been interesting to watch the RIAA's allergic reaction to the general idea. About a year ago, we wrote about how the RIAA was complaining that any such TLD might (gasp!) be used to infringe, and arguing that ICANN shouldn't allow it unless it was completely locked down. Apparently, the RIAA has now found the plan it likes, siding with a company called Far Further on its bid to run .music, and going against the company that has fought the hardest for .music... a company called dotMusic. If you want to understand why the RIAA is now endorsing Far Further's proposal, it's pretty simple:Its .music would be restricted, along the same lines as gTLDs such a .pro, to card-carrying members of what the company calls "accredited Global Music Community Members".In other words, it goes against the reality we know today, which is that new technologies are allowing anyone to become a musician. Instead, it's based on the obsolete notion that only those in a special club are "really" musicians. What you end up with is exactly what the RIAA wants: a system where it gets to "accredit" musicians. In other words, a system where gatekeepers still matter. Of course, what they don't realize is that if .music uses such a system, it almost immediately becomes irrelevant, and sets itself up as an exclusionary club in an era when such things aren't necessary any more.
"It's not open to everyone," Styll said. "You'd have to join an organization."
Amateur bands would have to be members of an accredited songwriters association to get a .music address, for example.
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, accredited musicians, gatekeepers, top level domains
Companies: far further, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Turnabout is fair play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout is fair play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but they would have to be proud of being part of the riaa for it to get them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is no different from .xxx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if they and their members could be taken to court over anti-competitive practices if this were to get implemented, due to them intentionally trying to shut down all musicians that are not part of one of their labels. Of course, then the question would be if it would be investigated, or if the government is too busy investigating Google for succeeding by providing what consumers actually want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
B U L L S H I T ! ! !
Show me where that is the case, because that is a big fat lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well for starters, you can look here to see how little musicians actually make from label deals:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
And next you can check out how the labels don't want to give back the musicians the rights to their own music:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110816/09574115549/dear-musicians-riaa-is-about-to-tota lly-screw-you-over-again.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Works both ways. I would trust the SkyIsRising report because at least it is transparent. It doesn't use upper echelon numbers from 1986 counterfeit studies (which also provide worse-case-all-hell-breaking-loose numbers).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretend it's like Wikipedia and click on the reference links in the articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
But you just want to make noise, don't you? It's okay. The more screaming you do, and the more valueless screeds you post without any factual evidence, the more people will reject your position outright.
And the more people reject the idea that associations of media conglomerates and trade groups have value or the right to have their priorities made into law, the better off we'll all be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If record labels did nothing but rip off musicians, then no one would sign with them and their owners would be in jail.
But that's obviously not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Any vocalization of it will come out as 'what a F* retarded shill'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm. Not sure where anyone said label contracts were illegal. Unfair, one sided and misleading maybe, but not necessarily illegal.
As for the "no one would sign with them" part, before all these new distribution and marketing models came about to compete with the labels, a musician had only two choices, sign with a label or disappear into obscurity. It wasn't really a choice at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Watching ignorant nerds try to demonize companies they know nothing about is most amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know asking you this is pointless, but, do you have some data to back that up with?
It's my understanding that a lot of artists are now DIY or signing limited distribution or marketing contracts with the labels while still retaining the copyrights to their work. Which isn't the same thing as the old sign over all your rights to get the advance which you then have to recoup contracts.
If I am wrong on this, please prove it to me.
Watching ignorant nerds try to demonize companies they know nothing about is most amusing.
While I may be a nerd, I don't believe I am ignorant. And I am not really trying to demonize anybody here, but after reading story after story about the labels screwing the artist over at every turn (and I have been reading those stories for many years before I even discovered Techdirt), one has to start believing there is some truth to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't mean there's any value in it either.
Thing is, via the old model, a very small number of people got stupidly rich* and that's always going to appeal to a pretty broad segment of the population who've bought into the myth.
An increasing number of people have done the reading and done the maths though, and they're looking at the old model and working out that, unless they're really, really lucky, there are better models out there.
If you're a music fan and want to support musicians you should be pretty happy about this. If you're connected to the legacy businesses you wouldn't be. Where are you?
* some of them were even artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And they're just as unlikely to be financially successful as they've always been. Proud of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why?
Because, for the longest time, it was the ONLY way to get their music onto the radio and into stores.
Not so much these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're going to troll, at least put some effort into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2011/05/riaa-settlement-may-be-empty-win.html
Ding us, dingus, dingus.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-9865856-17.html
Dingus, dingus, dingus.
http://www.gplusmath.com/riaa-mpaa-internet-lies-and-other-deceptions/
Dingus, dingus, dingus.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/04/24/327063/-Is-the-RIAA-Pulling-a-Scam-on-the-Music-In dustry
Dingus, dingus, dingus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NcwgdB0NltY
And how could I forget our beloved TechDirt:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/03264014993/riaa-accounting-how-to-sell-1-milli on-albums-still-owe-500000.shtml
Dingus, dingus, dingus.
YOU:
http://www.v3im.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/BP-Busienss-Man-Photo.jpg
Dingus, dingus, dingus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'll continue to get screwed long after you're dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Instead, you go off on a rant about label accounting. Fuck me, don't you guys read?
[ 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:
Also, the internet is worldwide, who would regulate Chinese, Indian, Russian, etc. "accreditation". Another stupid idea from some of the stupidest people to every exist. Ohh, RIAA, when will stop putting your hand on the stove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One of the links in that story points here, and this touches on my point from yesterday about how record companies are doing their best to see that musicians who are national or world treasures die quickly and impoverished -- since of course sick and/or broke musicians can't sue them. It includes a quote from Joyce Moore, wife of Sam Moore -- of Sam and Dave, one of the seminal groups of blues and soul. (If you don't know them, then read the Wikipedia entry and learn.) And then look at how their record company is STILL screwing them over, decades later -- probably figuring that if they drag it out long enough, Sam and Dave will be dead and the record company's bloated, greedpig executives can just keep the money...or maybe settle out-of-court for ten cents on the dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"accredited Global Music Community Members"
That means whatever an organization decides its members need to do you got do it or you are not accredit, if they want people to sign off their rights away they will need to do it for whatever reason is there just like scientific journals ask others to sign off their rights so they can exploit those or else you don't get in, that is also why scientific journals are trying to make laws that forbid others from posting on free open journals, which means probably this would be the next step for the RIAA to outlaw any other venue that music can be shown to the public so people have no other place but the .music TLD and be forced to accept whatever rules they will impose there.
This is bad in so many levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't go out much do you?
So, no. It's not bullshit. It's par for the course with the RIAA. Do your research.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/04/24/327063/-Is-the-RIAA-Pulling-a-Scam-on-the-Musi c-Industry-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ideas is that .music would be all about music, not about anyone who can just pay for a domain. It would help to assure that the sites aren't scammers, people with fake "you need to download this codec" to listen to the music, etc...
It's a situation where a gatekeeper isn't a bad idea... Where the gatekeeper helps to build the brand and gives the public the assurance that these sites are at least truly music related.
Your negativity is so strong, you cannot seem to see any of the good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would be NICE if the gatekeepers' goal was to actually add value for the consumer, but it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the RIAA are supposedly doing good then what would a world without them be like?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Porn.com and Music.com? These seem to be working fine, as is, right now, for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 10th, 2012 @ 9:42am
We don't need gatekeepers to tell if a site is related to music. U r living in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they'll be the gatekeeper into non-existence
the internet culture has shown that it will not accept your pitiful choices/limitations, nor will it allow you to ram it down our throats
the internet is now the crowd-sourced middle man giving us the choices we want
you are not needed; go away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't. You apparently are SOOOO intent in trying to find good that you've put on shades AND blinders.
I know many indie musicians... heck... I come from a FAMILY of indie musicians.
I can tell you right now, none of them would want to pay and be in an organization that doesn't nothing for them... all for the "HONOR" of having a .music domain.
It's not like music is a regulated industry - like education or medicine - that REQUIRES accreditation or licenses. Music is something ANYONE with talent - and arguably those without talent - can engage in.
There is no reason to have a gatekeeper and EVERY reason to NOT have one.
To say otherwise displays either ignorance, stupidity or a propensity for Cool Aid drinking.
"Your negativity is so strong, you cannot seem to see any of the good."
You blind devotion to an evil corporate entity has so blinded you that you can't see the OVERWHELMING bad, instead trumpeting the teeny, tiny little spec of good that MAY or MAY NOT come out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Freedom in exchange for security, which is a valid argument. Just look at Apple. Most people are perfectly happy spending ridiculous amounts of money so they can be spoon-fed.
It is a free market and TLDs can be purchased by anyone and controlled by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then came Napster and the mp3, sonic vomit that it is.
It may be a situation where a gatekeeper may (just may) be a good idea. The problem here is that the gatekeeper is the RIAA and they don't give a damn about musicians or their customers or the musicians fans.
The reality is that with RIAA member companies there's lots to be negative about. Their track record is enough, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP and other nonsense is more then enough to be negative about them and their intentions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've never stood out side of a concert and said "I am not going in there. That's not a real band they have a .net website."
How many people go directly to a band's website instead of clicking a link from a Facebook post, tweet, newsletter, or RSS feed? No one will ever notice the address, no one will ever care.
Please allow the RIAA to waste their money on something incredibly pointless. Any idea that helps the RIAA waste funds their is a wonderful thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, nobody said that anyone can be a good musician. But anyone can try.
You actually make the point quite nicely. Space agencies are the gatekeepers for the astronaut industry, because they are the only ones with the means to put someone in space. Once upon a time, record labels were similar gatekeepers, because they were the only ones with the means to record and distribute music. Technology changed the latter - and you can bet that if we ever invent a DIY spaceship, it will change the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not for long! Arguably not even in the present, depending on your definition of "space".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Making music is an exercise in expression, it doesn't need to be a certain kind, it doesn't need to be a certain genre, it doesn't even need a certain quality to be able to be judged as worthy by someone. Ask any parent that's listened to their young child sing a tune.
When some organization gets to decide how people can express themselves, we have a problem.
Your attitude in your post is much more troubling though because of the fact that if you can't see that music, all music, has the power to move people.
You must be dead inside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my opinion, the Beatles suck...so you have that.
I've also decided that I'm an astronaut.
So the Russians are sending monkeys to Mars now, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Glad I don't live in your twisted reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll do the Accreditation
The MPAA and RIAA are welcome to apply as authoritative accreditors of the film and music worlds, however they should remember that without our graciousness they'll be relegated to the status of 'pirate association' operating outside the providence of an actual Association of America. Don't mess with the legacy player I've just invented or we'll slam the gates shut on your tangentially related business prospects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll do the Accreditation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll do the Accreditation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why does ICANN decide for me, .com.edu.xxx.org etc.....
funny you cherry pick your bad guys...........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you are also free to run your own DNS service that supports whatever TLD you want.
ICANN does have the monopoly on IP address allocation though, so your point is somewhat valid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. Techdirt has criticized ICANN for their gatekeeper status on several occasions:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041213/1526210.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/art icles/20060817/1237204.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/02272116882/icann-sued-ove r-xxx-porn-company-points-out-that-its-pure-money-grab.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200 60414/1120256.shtml
So, sorry: no cherrypicking happening here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
someone wanted the domain idea enough that ICANN created them
but he has 8 gaziilion posts about riaa, so yes, he is cherry picking his bad guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? Oh, you want the big paddle now? Oh you're a bad one aren't you? Yes you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that it's a big deal should concern people, not because of the RIAA actions, but because ICANN are actually listening to them, which proves they're not impartial and could even stretch to not following their own rules.
THIS is why we need to decentralize everything that has to do with the structure of the internet from US-based corporations and government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no music, only riaa music, and your ma, singing, with permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets hope they get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on, Mike!
Everyone knows they enjoy things better when an authority tells them it's good!
We need faceless, profiteering organizations telling us who is worth giving our money and paying attention to. Lord knows we can't ask our friends or think for ourselves...
Sheesh.
I bet you're one of those people who "like" things too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone can create music and the public will decide what is good and what is not.
There are many people who do better as hobbyists than professionals (as programmers, musicians, actors, electricians, etc...).
They won't maintain shit by restricting, it's only to block competition!
Talent should NOT be judged by some corporation who's bottom line depends on exploiting talent. There are far better musicians on YouTube than some "professionals" as you call them who are under the employ of the labels.
You will NOT end up with meaninglessness because of a lack of restriction.
Here's the problem with capitalism in this day and age, it doesn't work because it isn't capitalism if you have to have laws to restrict who can compete!
Music is no different. If you have to restrict who can compete (ie: those willing to sign away their rights to their art), instead of relying on actual talent (those unwilling to sign away their rights) then you do not have a free market. You have a monopoly.
The Internet did more for culture and creativity than the labels ever did. Hollywood only had creativity when they had the balls to screw Edison's MPCC group. Now look how's acting like their one-time nemesis?
Sorry, but you are flat out wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are there judges? If I like the Beatles and someone elses does not does that mean they are less professional?
Do professional musicians get ID cards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn cant even TROLL right.
mu�si�cian - One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.
"Just because someone can create sounds doesn't make them a musician" - Pure opinion, and a crappy one at that. (My opinion)
Can we please have the paid trolls back that flooded TD while SOPA was going on? All these hobbyist trolls just suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah because every professional musician is born whole with full talent from birth and vaults directly to the top of the music world and lands a record contract the first time they play a single note. They never have to train, work, struggle, practice, or wallow being a nobody for even a millisecond, because professionals just spring into being, no one ever turned their hobby into their job in the history of mankind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I ask because i want to make damn sure i stay the right side of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techno? That's a computer, not a composer, in fact, if it uses a synthesizer or electronic playback system, I don't believe it qualifies as music being performed by a musician.
Arbitrary rules are awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And just who decides who is or is not a musician? You want to limit it to professionals but I know tons of amateurs who can play circles around pros in different genres but mostly just do it for fun so they never perform or play for money.
And you the hell are you to say they're not musicians? Or the RIAA for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dotBlackHole
Then, the RIAA could stop trying to destroy the internet in order to "stop piracy" and everyone else could go on about their lives.
As the commenter up thread said, we need a .movie and .cable domain too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dotBlackHole
320 x 240 is much too large a thumbnail for them
Why, you might be able to read some words...
Without paying to remember them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same fate as .museum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think big picture, folks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmmm. I guess Merriam will have to change the definition to:
mu�si�cian - An artist that is signed with a major label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck with aaallll that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always a Gatekeeper....
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backhand deals by RIAA
I know as I was part of a group who meet with the RIAA end of last year looking for their support which they promised to our group if we would cooperate with them.
Same rules apply for many of the other TLDs which will be created including .movie, .news etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was a big article in The Economist explaining how they do it with tricks like the 'Double Dutch Sandwich' and other tricks so all their losses are claimed in the US and most of their profits are claimed overseas, hidden from the IRS and the artists.
They should be charged under the RICO act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why am I not surprised?
If they want to create their own exclusive club, who cares? Let 'em. Most business-wise, self-respecting artists will steer clear of this scam and continue to produce regardless of what the RIAA is up to. Nobody needs these mafia middle-men in order to produce artistic works, let alone profit. As the saying goes, 20% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Far Further vs. Roussos
The person who came up with the idea for .music, Constantine Roussos, basically said he would do the same thing:
- .MUSIC (dotMusic) Supporters
(Also, it is a bit ironic that the RIAA complains about people "stealing" the fruits of musicians' labor, yet has no problem "stealing" the fruits of Roussos' labor.)
Though it doesn't mention it in the article, a list of "accredited organizations" can be found on Far Further's web site. It is not limited to RIAA clients; it also includes PRO's like ASCAP, BMI, and SEAC.
Now, that still wouldn't be enough to represent the global music industry (in particular, America is rather over-represented). There is no mention of TuneCore or Jamendo, for example. Simply glancing at my own collection, over half the music I own is not produced by members of a PRO (and certainly most were not when they were starting out). That does seem to make it more of a gated community geared towards older, already-established acts.
The kicker, however, is SoundExchange. They are an accredited organization, according to Far Further. They are also required, by law, to collect digital royalties for all musicians (whether you want them to or not). Registering with them is free, so if that's the only barrier to entry, then it's not such a "walled garden" after all.
...Having said all that: Is this anything an artist would actually want to do?
I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want major media industries conducting searches on my website, looking for an excuse to shut me down.
Furthermore, with anything like this (which is more a "service" than an actual domain), there are questions about the rules. Would you have to stream music in a DRM-laden format? Would you be prevented from releasing CC music? If you put your own music on the Pirate Bay, would they be allowed to remove your site? How much are you allowed to integrate other services (e.g. Soundcloud), and how easy would it be? Would you even be allowed to run your own backend (e.g. install Drupal rather than whatever web software they're using)?
And why oh why would this walled garden be in any way preferable to something like BandCamp, which pretty much accomplishes exactly the same thing, without needing the approval of a board of censors?
My predictions for how this will turn out:
- The .music gTLD will move forward. Roussos will be squeezed out (among other reasons, his views on stopping piracy are 180 degrees opposite the legacy players').
- The RIAA membership will set up .music sites "on behalf of" their artists, and will control the content of those sites. Artists won't have much say in the matter, since they're not the rights holders. Still, the RIAA believes, for some reason, that this will make other musicians want to join up.
- Musicians, like anyone else, are "bandwagon jumpers" when it comes to signing up for online entities. They will wait for everyone else to get a .music domain first. Nobody does, and .music becomes the de facto location for the RIAA alone.
- It will get a few hits at first, but peter out rather quickly. Nobody trusts the RIAA as far as they can throw them, and nobody wants to be limited to "official" sites alone. Not even artists.
- As it's failing, Far Further and its affiliates will demand that search engines place .music sites at the top of their search hits. Search engines refuse, because that's crazy.
- As it's failing even more, Far Further et. al. will demand that search engines remove every single link from artist searches that don't lead to a .music site. Search engines will refuse, because that's even crazier.
- Far Further et. al. will sue Google. (They won't sue Bing or any other search engine, naturally.)
- After years of costly litigation, Google will win. Public statements from the RIAA about how "Google profits from piracy" will follow.
- By then, every artist on .music will have said "eff this" and moved back to their .com domains.
- Or just stayed on BandCamp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]