EMI's 'New Approach' To The Internet Looks A Lot Like The Old Approach

from the sue-sue-sue-sue dept

Apparently, EMI is finding it harder than expected to shackle its lawyers. The major record label was taken over by private equity guys who claimed they were going to take a new approach to the music industry, pointing to examples like Radiohead as the way to go. The company has made a few steps in the right direction -- such as threatening to leave the RIAA and the IFPI, as well as hiring some tech savvy talent. But, it just keeps sending out those lawyers filing all sorts of questionable lawsuits.

The latest is that EMI has sued both Hi5 and VideoEgg over user-uploaded videos that include some EMI music. Of course, under the DMCA, these sites are not responsible for any infringement from its users -- and if EMI has a legal beef with anyone, it would be those who uploaded the content. But, of course, it sues the companies who might actually have money. That "new approach" to the industry is looking an awful lot like the old approach. EMI is going to learn that the results are about the same too. Pissing off your fans and the websites that actually help promote your acts isn't going to go very far.

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, music, video
Companies: emi, hi5, videoegg

Newly Independent Pop Band McFly Gives Away Free CD With Newspaper

from the it's-all-in-the-tour dept

Last month we wrote about the British pop band McFly, who had announced that it was ditching its record label, because the label wasn't interested in experimenting with new ways to get music to fans. So now that the band is independent, it's jumped right on the bandwagon of experimentation. In fact, it's following the footsteps of Prince, back before he started freaking out. That is, they've done a deal with a big UK newspaper to distribute copies of their new album for free with the newspaper (thanks to Nick for sending this in). As we've noted in the past, this is a fantastic strategy for both newspapers and musicians. It helps both sides quite a bit, which is exactly what the band sees, noting that they just want to get more fans, and are hoping more will come see them on their latest tour.

Yet, of course, it's not making some happy: specifically those who have based their entire business models around the concept of selling plastic discs. Music retailers flipped out when Prince did this, and it's likely that they'll be upset about McFly as well. But, you don't jump into the next generation by appeasing the old generation. Also, the article quotes a former recording industry exec who complains that if bands keep doing this, record labels will lose money and won't be able to find and promote new bands. That's missing the point, of course. It assumes that it's the record labels skilled hand that is necessary in finding and promoting new bands -- which is not true at all. The same guy also suggests (in a video on the site) that record labels also won't want to give tour support. That's also quite ridiculous. If the band is making so much more money from concerts now, the smart label will still give tour support, after making sure that it gets a cut of the touring revenue as well. And, if the record labels decide not to do it, then have no fear that concert promoters will step in and provide the necessary support in their place.

Filed Under: cds, mcfly, music, newspapers, uk

Grammy Winner: Piracy Is Brilliant; I Love It

from the more-musicians-getting dept

Slowly, but surely, we're seeing more and more musicians understand that "piracy" isn't a threat but an opportunity. Take the latest example, as Grammy-award winner Joss Stone apparently stunned a television reporter by telling him that piracy was "brilliant." First the reporter asked her if she had an iPod, and she complained about losing a few. So then he asked what she thought about people downloading songs, and she cheerily said it was "Great!" The reporter then pauses, as that wasn't the answer he was expecting, and then repeats back "Great?" So, she responds:

"Yeah, I love it. I think it's brilliant and I'll tell you why. Music should be shared. It's ok, if one person buys it, it's totally cool, burn it up, share it with your friends, I don't care. I don't care how you hear it as long as you hear it. As long as you come to my show, and have a great time listening to the live show it's totally cool. I don't mind. I’m happy that they hear it."

I was curious to find out what her record label thought of all of this, and it didn't take long to discover that Stone is quite unhappy with EMI as her label, and is looking for legal ways to get out of her contract with them. Maybe if they weren't suing all of those people who are helping to promote Stone's album, she wouldn't be so angry with them.

Filed Under: copyright, joss stone, music, piracy

Prince Sues Musicians For Making A Tribute Album For His Birthday

from the happy-birthday! dept

It's been really disappointing watching how Prince has squandered what had been seen as a enlightened view of how music works in this day and age. Instead of continuing to embrace that, and use it to his advantage, Prince has become fantastically anti-fan, and day-by-day seems to be destroying his reputation. It started with threatening fan sites, quickly followed up by lawsuits against YouTube, eBay and the Pirate Bay, and more recently has involved a bizarre and ill-advised strategy of taking down YouTube videos that he probably had no right to take down.

The latest case involves fifty Norwegian musicians, who teamed up with a Norwegian record label to create what they thought was a nice 50th birthday present for Prince: a "tribute" album with 81 covers of Prince songs. They figured that it would be a nice gesture to send Prince a copy, and contacted his representatives to figure out where to send a copy. What they didn't expect was for Prince, instead, to turn around and sue the label and all fifty musicians. He's also demanding that all copies of the album be destroyed.

There is a question of compulsory licenses here -- as Norway requires about $0.10/song, and with 81 songs, that's about $8 per album. The label (potentially incorrectly) believed that since it wasn't making any money on the album, it didn't need to pay. Even if the album ran afoul of copyright laws, this response from Prince is just dumb. Here are a group of musicians who are paying tribute to him, and he sues them. What better way to piss off a group of truly devoted fans?

Filed Under: birthday, copyright, music, norway, prince, tribute album

Doesn't The FBI Have More Important Things To Do Than Chase Down The Guy Who Leaked The New Guns N' Roses Album?

from the just-wondering dept

There's this whole "war on terror" thing going on out there, and you'd think that folks in the FBI would be pretty busy taking care of their role in that. But, apparently, some agents are busy trying to track down who leaked the latest Guns N' Roses album online. Why? Well, because our various Attorneys General continue to think that music piracy really is funding terrorism while also a threat to our economy. However, it's hard to believe that some random guy leaking an album is either going to have any impact on terrorism or on actual money made by Guns N' Roses. The album was going to get online eventually. The fact that it was leaked isn't going to change a thing about how much money the band makes. Yet, the FBI is apparently spending taxpayer money trying to track down the leaker.

Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that the actual leaker was someone involved in the production of the album (who else would have a copy?). In fact, history has shown that insiders are responsible for plenty of entertainment industry leaks. If so, it would seem that this should be an internal issue, dealt with by the band, its record label and production staff, rather than involving the FBI, who if they must be policing infringement issues could at least go after ones that matter.

Filed Under: copyright, fbi, guns n' roses, music, pre-release

The New Music Business: Enabling Musicians To Take Advantage Of New Business Models

from the nice-to-see dept

It seems that whenever we write about various bands embracing new business models, one of the criticisms raised is this idea that we're somehow expecting musicians to also become businessmen to embrace these new models. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we've pointed out that this is exactly the space on which record labels should be focused: helping musicians embrace these new business models, helping to handle the business and the technology, while the musicians focus on the music. Unfortunately, most major record labels still haven't figured this out, due to either legacy issues and contracts, an unwillingness to let go of old business models, or simple cluelessness.

Of course, the longer the major labels take to realize that this is where the market is headed, the bigger the opportunities there are for others to come in and fill that "enablement" gap. There are going to be more and more interesting startups entering the space. One that's starting to get some buzz is TopSpin, which just revealed its business late last week. TopSpin got some press a few months back by getting Yahoo Music boss Ian Rogers to join as CEO. We've written about some of Rogers' cogent writings on the music business before.

TopSpin isn't a record label, but it wants to basically enable all sorts of internet-based business models to work for musicians so that they can focus on making music. From the sound of it, that involves plenty of backend infrastructure, as well as front-end components, so that musicians can easily pick and choose custom, scaleable business models for their website with little effort. The company already has a nice headstart (and even some high profile customers). What may be most interesting, however, is to see how the business model opportunities evolve over time, as TopSpin may grow to have the best understanding of what business models really work, depending on what the circumstances are for the band. That could be incredibly powerful data by itself.

Filed Under: business models, enabling, marketing, music
Companies: topspin

Less Well Known Musicians Embracing 'Pay What You Want'

from the small-musicians,-big-musicians-alike dept

It still amuses me how often when we talk about specific music business models, defenders of the old system rush in to explain why any particular example is an exception. For years, we showed examples of less well known musicians embracing these kinds of new business models, critics would complain that they might work for unknown musicians who have "nothing to lose" and need attention more than anything else, but it would never ever work for a big star who has too much to lose. Then, of course, we talked about big time musicians like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails embracing these kinds of models, and the critics said "well, sure, it works for them with their well recognized name, but it would never work for unknown artists." Hell, someone said that just yesterday in response to a post here, leading another commenter to jokingly (I hope) coin the phrase "Masnick's Law", which is loosely defined as

"in any conversation about musicians doing something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will inevitably attempt to make the argument that 'it only worked for them because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the opposite,' no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily available."

I might expand on that definition a bit to have it go beyond just big/small. People will keep looking for excuses why each example is an exception, (big/small just being an easy such reason) to the point that they'll eventually miss the fact that all of those exceptions are the rule.

Anyway, based on all of this, it will be interesting to see how Girl Talk's new album does. Girl Talk is a one man DJ once mentioned (positively) in Congress as an example of why traditional copyright laws might not make sense anymore. With the release of his latest album, he's decided to use a Radiohead-style model, with a few improvements. That is, rather than just a pure "give it away and pray," he's giving people an additional reason to buy -- though I think he could still put together a better model. His is set up so you can pay what you want (including nothing at all) and get 320 kbps MP3 files, but if you pay over $5, he offers FLAC files as well, and at $10 you'll also get a copy of the physical CD when it comes out. If you pay $0, he does ask that you fill out a little survey explaining why. There still are some problems with this model (it's still a little too much like a give it away and pray model), but overall, it's quite similar to Radiohead's experiment.

Now, of course, all the folks who insisted that Radiohead's model would never work for a relatively obscure musician are supposed to now insist that this model won't work at all for Girl Talk, right? But what happens if Girl Talk is actually happy with the results, whether in direct payment amounts or in the fact that it gets him more publicity? Will they finally admit that the model isn't just an exception?

Filed Under: business models, girl talk, music, pay what you want, radiohead

Will The RIAA Sue Judge Kozinski For Sharing MP3s?

from the just-wondering dept

While judge Alex Kozinski is getting a ton of press for accidentally sharing pornographic images from his webserver, Justin Levine notes that the report concerning what was on the server also found music MP3s from musicians like Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan and Weird Al Yankovic. Levine wonders if the RIAA will now sue this federal judge as well. In fact, things could get tricky in that some research suggests not only was Kozinski storing MP3s, he may have actively been sharing some of those MP3s as well. That same link mentions that in one of many copyright infringement lawsuits concerning the company Perfect 10, Kozinski wrote a dissenting opinion suggesting that facilitating copyright infringement should be seen as infringement as well:

"When it comes to traffic in material that violates the Copyright Act, the policy of the United States is embedded in the FBI warning we see at the start of every lawfully purchased or rented video: Infringers are to be stopped and prosecuted."

There's a lot more involved in his opinion, which really focuses on credit card companies profiting from infringement -- but considering how he much he writes against those who help others infringe, it's probably not a wise idea that he was out there sharing music files himself.

However, to be fair, as the details come out, this whole thing is quite clearly a witch hunt by someone who seriously dislikes the judge. As we noted when the story broke, it's perfectly ridiculous to try to suggest this makes him any less qualified to judge cases. And, indeed, as the details come out about the content on his server, it's becoming clear that it is, as he noted "funny" stuff. It's all basically the sort of silly viral content that gets passed around all the time, much more for the amusement factor than any sort of titillation.

This post certainly isn't to slam Kozinski, who seems like a genuinely thoughtful judge -- with a sense of humor to boot (he famously nominated himself for a mocking "Judicial Hottie" contest run by a blog, noting: "While I think the list of female candidates is excellent, the list of male candidates is, frankly, lacking. And what it's lacking is me.... I have it on very good authority that discerning females and gay men find graying, pudgy, middle-aged men with an accent close to Gov. Schwarzenegger's almost totally irresistible." The fact that he was also sharing MP3s, again, is just yet another reminder that, contrary to the entertainment's claim that "education" will solve music sharing, many people just think it's perfectly natural and reasonable to share a song with some friends.

Filed Under: alex kozinski, contributory infringement, copyright, file sharing, mp3s, music

Didn't Expect This: Disney Records Finds A Business Model That Works

from the so-can-we-roll-back-the-mickey-mouse-copyright-extensions? dept

Perhaps no company has been more involved with the disastrous expansion of copyright than Disney, which pushes for new laws and copyright expansion every time Mickey Mouse approaches the public domain (despite the fact that Disney's history is filled with using the works of others). However, it appears that Disney's record label subsidiary Disney Records has learned how to do quite well in an age when many consumers ignore copyright. That's because it focuses not just on selling the music, but selling a much wider overall "experience" -- mainly targeted at young kids. For example, both Hannah Montana and High School Musical have been Disney Records efforts that involve not just music, but television shows, plays and movies -- to create a much broader overall experience, including plenty of scarcities worth purchasing. And it's working. The company grew 40% last year -- something you don't hear from the big record labels these days.

Of course, Disney Records would still claim that copyright is important to all of its activities, but that's not really true. In giving people specific scarcities beyond copyright content that they can consume (including ad-supported television shows, concerts and movie tickets), it's really helped drive the business forward without having to seriously worry about any sort of copyright infringement. While it may not be possible for others to easily copy the overall Disney model (given Disney's vast media properties that it leverages), it still does seem ironic that Disney Records seems to be one of the "brand names" that has built a more infringement-proof business model.

Filed Under: business models, music
Companies: disney, disney records

CDs Have Another Thing To Fear: Vinyl?

from the life-is-analog dept

There has been no doubt that CD sales have been declining due to the growth of digital music. Well, CDs are now being flanked by an old format: vinyl. Although vinyl LPs have always enjoyed a niche popularity with dance djs and indie rock fanatics, large mass-market retailers like Fred Meyer are starting to stock vinyl versions of albums in response to broad increasing consumer demand for the "obsolete" format. Though vinyl enthusiasts claim that the analog sound from records is of higher quality than that of their digital counterparts, audiophiles are not necessarily the ones leading this resurgence in vinyl demand. Consumers like the larger format's liner notes and the nostalgic experience of owning and playing a vinyl LP -- both things that cannot be replicated with the digital version of a song. Unlike the declining sales of CDs, Vinyl LP sales are expected to grow 60% this year over last year. However, the actual volume of vinyl sold (1 million albums sold versus 450 million for CDs) is very low, so clearly the resurgence is not an indication of a shift in consumer's primary demand. That said, as more consumers are exposed to the music, the market for related non-digital goods will grow, and the increasing demand for vinyl albums is yet another indication of this trend.

Filed Under: music, vinyl