Do Your Rights To Listen To Legally Licensed Music Stop At The Border?

from the rights-holders-fuck-up-everything dept

Two rather successful venture capitalists, Brad Feld and Fred Wilson, have been at the forefront of bucking the ridiculous claim that VCs only invest in companies that have patents, as both have spoken out about how patents tend to stifle innovation, and how their portfolio companies are often held back by patents, rather than helped by them. It looks like both of them are also quite aware of how copyright gets in the way of basic innovation as well. Brad Feld has a post up about how he created a Pandora station based on Fred's blog post detailing his top albums of the decade. Pretty cool, right?

Well, the problem is that Brad sent Fred an invite to this "station," and Fred is traveling for the holidays in Argentina with his family. So, because of ridiculous demands from copyright holders that make it so Pandora is only available in the US, Brad gets informed that Fred cannot access the station that Brad created for Fred solely due to ridiculous copyright holder demands. Yes, even though Fred almost always accesses Pandora from the US, but just happens to be in Argentina this week, Pandora says he can't listen to the station that Brad created for him. Brad makes a good point, that any human can understand why this situation is silly, but computers still can't quite figure it out, noting: "The level of interaction of human and machine is high, although the level of sophistication is pretty low." As for Fred's summation of the situation? "Rights holders fuck everything up." Indeed.

Filed Under: brad feld, fred wilson, licenses, music, rights holders

Interscope And Best Buy Team Up To Give You A Free Twitter Application For Free (With Purchase)

from the well,-hot-damn dept

Dear major record labels: when we suggested you learn how to embrace "free" in your marketing and promotions, this isn't quite what we meant. Consumerist points out that Interscope (part of Universal Music) has put together a promotion with Best Buy, whereby if you buy a CD from certain Interscope artists, you get a free copy of the software Tweetdeck. Well, that's nice... other than the fact that Tweetdeck is already free. Great deal! Now, to be fair, the copy of Tweetdeck you get is a special "customized" version that automatically has you following 16 Interscope artists (even if you only bought a CD from one of them). Of course, you could also just follow any of those artists yourself (again, for free), so it's not quite clear what the promotion is. But, they sure seem to suggest it's a big deal in the Best Buy newspaper ad: Now, I guess, to some extent, we should note that it's a good thing that a major record label is admitting publicly that "free" can act as a good promotion -- so kudos to Interscope for taking that big step. It's also nice to see Interscope recognize that an infinite good (software) can potentially help sell more scarce goods (CDs). But, on the whole, it definitely seems like this promotion could have been handled a lot better. Pumping up the "free" aspect of something that's already free just doesn't seem that compelling.

Filed Under: free, music, tweetdeck
Companies: best buy, interscope, tweetdeck

Former Musician Now Lawyer Comes To Terms With What's Happening To His Music Online

from the welcome-to-the-internet dept

G Thompson sends in this absolutely wonderful read by law professor Ben Challis, a former punk musician, explaining the mental back-and-forth he went through after discovering that some of his band's old music is available online -- specifically discovering that some sites are selling unauthorized copies of it. He reacts naturally at first -- which is to get upset -- but then as he thinks about it some more, he begins to recognize that this isn't all that productive. Eventually he seems to come all the way around to realizing that this actually is really good market research for him.

He begins to reason through the arguments, recognizing that he and his (one surviving) bandmate haven't actually put their own music online for sale, and they probably would have put some of it up for free anyway, so maybe having some free music out there isn't that bad. But more importantly, he realizes that this means there's actually both interest and demand in his old band (he even discovers that old copies of the band's single are selling for £35), and he might as well do something about it, rather than worry about what others are doing:

And should I really worry at all? Well clearly at this scale, no, not really. But even so, it does get you thinking and suddenly you see beyond the immediate problems of 'piracy' to the new opportunities that come with the web. First of all, now I know we have fans, I have my new blog (I know you are desperate to know, it is www.theignerents.blogspot.com). I then began to think of what other opportunities there are beyond those that just pander to my ego. Well with the Blog, I will soon have set up a mechanism for collecting fan data -- and databases are king now (I think!). And if we were still a band we could try and get a gig at the annual Rebellion Festival in Blackpool in March, the highlight of the punk calendar in the UK -- and maybe try for a European punk festival or two too! And we could definitely try and sell those last few boxes of CDs I have somewhere -- fans in Japan and Germany seem increasingly keen on Ignerents' collectibles, or I could empty out my cupboards and try and find those last few copies of our first single I have -- at £35 a pop that would pay for quite a few nice winter warmer! And what if I autograph them? Hang on, will the value go down? And maybe some PRS monies will come through - eventually I imagine they will; and hang on, and what about that Glastonbury Festival thingy -- I work there -- I know the main booker! So many possibilities, so little time!

It's a funny old thing the internet: yes it has destroyed a number of traditional business models in the music industry, and maybe "Ignerence was bliss" for me until a few weeks ago -- but the internet has created many many other new and interesting opportunities. The clever bands of the future will be the ones who can seize these opportunities and move quickly and nimbly from technology to technology and embrace and react to ever changing patterns in consumer behaviour.

This is really important. It's totally natural for people to react the way Challis does above when they first see their work copied online. Even though we encourage people to copy our stuff, there are brief moments when I feel the same way when I see it. But then you think logically about it, and you realize that it's up to you to do something positive about it, and use it to your advantage. Flipping out and going negative is a waste of time and does nothing valuable for anyone. But learning from it and realizing that it's actually valuable market research can be quite powerful.

Filed Under: ben challis, business models, ignerents, internet, music

Are New Music Tiers Segregating Fans?

from the hasn't-that-always-happened? dept

Chris O'Donnell alerts us to a post from someone who originally thought things like Trent Reznor's massively successful Ghosts I-IV business model experiment was a good thing, but who is now worried about the eventual consequences of somehow segregating fans. The argument is that only a small group of true fans will buy these really high end offerings, that include certain things that other true fans will recognize, making them part of an elite tribe. The fear is that these tribes will exclude those who don't pay up for the super duper deluxe versions.

It's an interesting theory, but I don't think there's much to support it in reality. First of all, as a recent excellent Hypebot piece explained, true fan tribes are nothing new, nor is the fact that many will shun outsiders or newbies until they've really shown themselves worthy of acceptance. So I don't see how this is particularly different. Also, a lot of these super deluxe packages aren't necessarily about stuff you can "wear" that would be noticeable in gatherings. On the whole, it just doesn't seem like that much of a problem. There will always be elitist fans and some will always snub less enthusiastic fans. I don't see how that changes now that those more enthusiastic fans have more ways to support the artists they love.

Filed Under: business models, music, segregating fans, tiers, tribes

Vancouver Olympics Demands All Copyrights And Royalties From Musician Just To Hear Her Song

from the nice-one dept

Ah, the Vancouver Olympics. The example of intellectual property entitlement insanity that just keeps on giving and giving and giving. It's no secret that the Vancouver Olympics has convinced the Canadian government to grant it extra special intellectual property rights that go way beyond what would be allowed for any normal business. This includes getting special control over words like "2010," and "Vancouver" if you use them in any way associated with the sporting event known as the Olympics (also protected). It's using these extra rights to stop ticket reselling and to take down signs they don't like (even on private property).

And, of course, acting in a maximalist manner also means little respect for anyone else's intellectual property or free speech rights. We've already noted that some musicians have complained about a contractual gag order, that forbids any musician performing at any Olympics event to speak ill of the Olympics ever. However, it appears that the Vancouver Olympics folks are taking the maximalism even further. Michael Scott points us to a complaint from a musician who wrote a song which she thought the Olympic committee might like. She sent it to them, and was surprised to get back a contract demanding she sign over all ownership and royalties associated with the song before they would even listen to it. And, of course, it would also grant them the ability to do whatever they wanted with the song.

Now, I recognize that many folks in these sorts of business will not listen to/view/read/etc. any sort of "unsolicited" material for fear of later running into a legal fight if something they do is similar. But, as such you just make it clear that you refuse to pay attention to any unsolicited material sent in. You don't send a contract that would require the creator to hand over all copyrights and royalties in a work. I guess, if you're the Olympics, however, you do exactly that.

Filed Under: copyright, music, olympics, vancouver

BPI Survey Suggests Spotify Hasn't Magically Decreased Desire For Unauthorized Music Access

from the sorry,-spotify dept

There was some buzz earlier this year concerning reports that new streaming apps, like Spotify, somehow decreased unauthorized access to music. And yet, a new study from BPI suggests unauthorized access to music continues to grow, despite the rise of authorized services like Spotify. Now, there are some caveats. BPI isn't exactly known for being entirely accurate with data and these results are from an online survey. While you would think that fewer people would admit to unauthorized access in an online survey (people don't like to fess up), counteracting that is the fact that BPI has incentives to suggest the issue of piracy is a big deal, as it's pushing hard to force ISPs to kick people offline for file sharing. Still, what strikes me as interesting is that BPI still keeps insisting that this is a "problem," without any evidence that this is true. The only real "problem" is the failure of the record labels that BPI represents to adjust their business models. If they did that, there wouldn't be much of a problem at all. But, the labels don't want to do that. They want the government to rescue them and to pretend they can keep doing business they way they always did.

Filed Under: music, piracy, surveys, uk, unauthorized access
Companies: bpi

More Charts The Record Labels Don't Want You To See: Swedish Musicians Making More Money

from the artists-are-doing-better-than-ever dept

We've already discussed the research on the UK music industry that shows both that live revenue is more than making up the decline in recorded revenue and that musicians themselves are making more revenue than ever before. Some people have suggested that this is a UK-only phenomenon, but a worldwide study found the same thing as well. And, now it looks like the same is being found in Sweden as well -- home of The Pirate Bay, which we keep being told is destroying the industry. Swedish indie record label owner Martin sends in the news on data from the Swedish music industry, which looks quite similar to the UK data. First, it shows that while there was a tiny dip in overall revenue, it's back up to being close to it's high, mostly because of a big growth in live music:
Chart by Daniel Johansson

Basically, recorded revenues dropped. Collections stayed about the same, but live grew. More importantly, though, is the second chart, which shows the revenue for actual musicians. And that's going in one direction: up.
Chart by Daniel Johansson

And yet, The Pirate Bay is destroying the ability to make music, right? Funny that the numbers don't seem to support that at all. Basically, these charts are showing the same thing that those other studies have shown. More music is being created. There is greater "discovery" of new music. There are greater revenue opportunities for musicians, and the only part of the business that appears to be suffering is the part that involves selling plastic discs. Yes, that sucks if your business was based on selling plastic discs, but for those who can adapt and adjust, there is more money than ever before to be made. That sorta goes against the claims that "piracy" is somehow destroying the industry, doesn't it?

Filed Under: live, music, revenue, sweden

Artists: Don't Expect To Get Paid For What Imeem & Snocap Owe You

from the sorry,-too-bad dept

We always hear the record labels and politicians screaming bloody murder over the concept that musicians aren't being paid "what they're owed" due to piracy -- but when there's a situation where musicians might actually not be getting paid what they're owed? Silence. A few weeks back, MySpace "bought" Imeem in a fire sale. But, the details of the deal suggest they didn't actually buy the company, but "certain assets," which means they get to ignore the liabilities. Guess what those liabilities include? You got it: paying artists what they're owed. Now, as the Wired article notes, there's nothing technically wrong with MySpace acquiring just the assets, but it is notable that it's the musicians left without getting paid what they're actually owed (not some theoretical concept like what they might be "owed" due to unauthorized file sharing). And, yet, we don't seem to hear any politicians or record labels screaming about this. Funny, since they keep insisting that they're really just interested in helping artists...

Filed Under: copyright, money, music, paid
Companies: imeem, myspace, snocap

Bow-Wow-Wow-Yippie-Yo-Yippie-Yea Is Infringing, And Fair Use Won't Save It

from the dog-me dept

This one came out about a month ago, and I'd been ignoring writing about it because it was too frustrating (even though we wrote about the case earlier). But people keep submitting it, so we might as well dig in. This particular case involves Bridgeport Music, a company that claims to own a bunch of composition copyrights, including (most importantly) those of many songs by funk legend George Clinton -- though, Clinton himself claims that the guy behind Bridgeport forged signatures to get the copyrights, and Clinton himself doesn't have a problem with hip hop artists sampling his music. However, Bridgeport has filed hundreds of lawsuits over these copyrights, and while it has lost or settled a bunch of cases, it has had a few stunning and confusing victories that seem to ignore the concept of fair use in music.

This particular case involved a song by the band Public Appearance, called "D.O.G. in Me" that apparently samples a part of Clinton's track "Atomic Dog" and uses the phrase "bow wow wow yippee yo, yippee yay" near a rhythmic repetition of the word "dog." Now, for the most part, the two songs are incredibly different, and at most you could consider the latter one to be an homage to the first -- most likely creating more interest in the original song. However, a jury (with limited instructions in the matter of fair use) ruled for Bridgeport. And while we found it amusing that Universal Music suddenly is concerned about fair use and how high the penalties for copyright infringement are when they're suddenly on the other side in Bridgeport cases, we were happy to see Universal Music appeal the ruling.

Unfortunately, however, the same 6th Circuit that gave Bridgeport its earlier ridiculous win has done so again in this case, with a rather bizarre interpretation of the four factors of fair use. To be honest, I can't see how any of the four factors used in judging fair use would go against Universal or Public Appearance. It used a tiny part of the song, and even if it was an important part of the song, it hardly harms the market for the song. Furthermore, the claim that the use of the word "dog" is part of the infringement is absolutely ridiculous, not the least of which is because Bridgeport only owns the copyright on the composition, not the recording -- and the sheet music for the song doesn't even include the rhythmic use of the word "dog."

Unfortunately, this is yet another dreadful ruling that basically eliminates fair use rights when it comes to music sampling.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, george clinton, music
Companies: bridgeport

Corey Smith Details His Experience In Becoming A Massively Successful Indie Artist

from the it-can-be-done dept

About a year ago, we wrote about the massive success of musician Corey Smith, creating not just a sustainable living as an independent musician, but a multi-million dollar operation -- built on a combination of closely connecting with his fans, using free music, touring relentlessly, working hard to gain new fans (including reserving some cheap tickets to shows) and (the important part) really great music. What caught everyone's attention was that this totally independent musician, with no record label, no radio play, no massive publicity campaign had grossed about $4 million in 2008. Now, of course, tour grosses (which made up the lion's share of that amount) are a bit misleading, as the venues take a cut of that, and there are certainly other expenses to be paid, but as a starting number it's still really impressive. Luckily, Corey is now sharing some more details about his path to success.

Corey recently did a fantastic podcast with CDBaby where he details how he went about building up a fan base and building up support, and it basically involved exactly what we discussed before: good music, a real connection with the fans, hard work through touring and careful targeting. While he jokes about the $4 million gross touring number, he does admit that his "corporation" (as he now has a support staff) netted over $2 million last year. Frankly, that's more impressive than the $4 million gross numbers. He notes, of course, that there are still expenses on top of that, including staff (manager, accountant, full-time salaried musicians who play with him, recording expenses and touring expenses -- especially in support of new markets, where the return isn't guaranteed). But, even with all that, bringing in over $2 million in topline revenue is really impressive for a musician without any additional outside backing.

One of the things that he discusses in the podcast is that what really got him started down this road was realizing that it could be done. He read Dave Kusek and Gerd Leonhard's excellent The Future of Music, and it made him realize "hey, this is possible." And that, alone, made a huge difference. It's amazing what you can do once you realize that something is possible -- and one of the great things we've seen in writing about Corey and numerous other musicians and their success stories is that they, in turn, inspire many other musicians who realize that it really is possible to do quite well despite the naysayers and the doom and gloom. There are a bunch of people who seem to have a vested interest in tearing down the success stories (in many cases because they profit from having naive musicians sign over their lives), but the obvious success stories shine through and inspire many more who follow. It doesn't mean that every musician is guaranteed success. In fact, Corey's story highlights the amount of hard work and dedication that was needed, combined with some great music and a bit of luck as well, to make all of this work.

The podcast also has an interesting section where Corey discusses the various major labels who have approached him, and how it's even tempting at times to go that route, since it could lead to more people hearing his music (especially by getting radio play, of which he doesn't get very much). But, so far, he's realized that it just isn't right -- and that everything that's made this model work for him probably would work against him at a major label (for example, they would try to polish up his sound and clean up his lyrics, which would actually make his music sound less authentic to his biggest fans who have supported him all along). As he notes, one of the key things that he and his manager and other partners have been doing is trying to build a business model for the long term, rather than the typical music industry "flash in the pan" model, whereby a label tries to make a musician huge and then squeeze as much money out of them, as quickly as possible, before that artist dries up. While that star might burn brighter, it's a lot less likely to ever burn at all, and the chances of a very quick flame-out are high. Instead, Corey has shown what's possible by focusing on what makes the most sense for building a long term, sustainable, and quite successful music career.

Filed Under: business models, corey smith, music