Norway Supreme Court Signs Off On Apple's Harassment Of An Independent Repair Shop

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Apple has never looked too kindly upon users actually repairing their own devices. The company's ham-fisted efforts to shut down, sue, or otherwise imperil third-party repair shops are legendary. As are the company's efforts to force recycling shops to shred Apple products (so they can't be refurbished and re-used). As is Apple's often comical attacks on essential right to repair legislation, which only sprung up after companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sony, John Deere, and others created a grass-roots "right to repair" counter movement via their attempts to monopolize repair.

Since 2017 or so, Apple has been harassing the owner of an independent repair shop in Norway named Henrik Huseby. After Norway customs officials seized a shipment of 63 iPhone 6 and 6S refurbished, replacement screens on their way to Huseby's repair shop, Apple threatened to sue the store owner unless they agreed to stop using aftermarket screens and pay a hefty settlement. Huseby decided to fight the case, and despite being out-manned five Apple lawyers to one, managed to win in 2018. At least initially.

Apple then took its complaint to Norway's Court of Appeals, claiming that the refurbished parts used by Huseby "unlawfully appropriated Apple's trademark." The appeals court ruled in Apple's favor, and this week, the Norway Supreme Court upheld that decision (pdf). Needless to say, the US and overseas right to repair movement isn't particularly impressed by the court sanctioned bullying of a small business owner:

Apple has continually tried to claim that Huseby was importing "counterfeit" iPhone screens. Huseby, in turn, states he's simply using refurbished screens, and at no point has tried to even advertise them as "genuine" replacement parts from Apple. Again, while Apple engages in a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, the motivation here is to abuse copyright to monopolize and drive up the cost of repair:

"Apple uses copyright law as a “weapon” by putting multiple logos and QR-codes on each component part of its screens, knowing that the Chinese grey market will not specifically cater to repairers in other countries that zealously enforce copyright. This creates a kind of “roulette” for repairers who want to import affordable, refurbished parts from China. Apple can then ask customs authorities in these countries to seize refurbished parts shipments.

Meanwhile, Apple refuses to sell genuine spare parts to independent repairers in Europe. So they have a choice: buy either inferior generic parts or refurbished or after-market parts, like the kind Huseby bought.

While the company has made some caveat-laden concessions, the company continues to fiercely lobby against right to repair laws in 18 states around the United States, all of which require hardware vendors like Apple sell replacement parts and repair tools to the general public and independent repair companies. And ironically, the harder Apple and other companies fight against this trend, the more support they drive support toward these right to repair bills.

Filed Under: aftermarket, diy, henrik huseby, norway, ownership, refurbishment, right to repair, trademark
Companies: apple

Content Moderation Is Impossible: Facebook's Attempts To Block Mask Gouging Took Down DIY Face Mask Instructions

from the impossibility-theorem dept

Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well. The latest example? Facebook's rules to takedown content deemed to be people trying to price gouge medical supplies like face masks resulted in tutorials on how to make your own face masks being taken down:

Facebook’s systems threatened to ban the organizers of hand-sewn masks from posting or commenting, they said, landing them in what is colloquially known as “Facebook Jail.” They said it also threatened to delete the groups. The issue has affected do-it-yourself mask makers in states like Pennsylvania, Illinois and California, they said.

As the NY Times notes, Facebook, like most other social media sites, has been aggressively trying to block price gouging medical supplies:

At the top of its list were ads for masks, hand sanitizer and others looking to profit from the sale of safety equipment. Facebook banned advertising for such equipment last month, and has taken down nearly all posts related to the sale of masks across its Craigslist-like section, called Marketplace.

But as the company ramped up efforts to crack down on scammers and other miscreants, volunteer coordinators may have been caught in the crossfire.

“The automated systems we set up to prevent the sale of medical masks needed by health workers have inadvertently blocked some efforts to donate supplies,” Facebook said in a statement. “We apologize for this error and are working to update our systems to avoid mistakes like this going forward. We don’t want to put obstacles in the way of people doing a good thing.”

This is not an attack on Facebook, but, once again, it's important to recognize just how impossible it is to do these things well, especially at scale, and especially in the midst of a pandemic where things are changing daily. With the US only changing its recommendations on face masks last week, demand for any kind of face mask, including homemade ones, has sky-rocketed. And if you trying to build systems that are trained to look out for posts "advertising" things having to do with face masks -- which was important in the first few weeks of the pandemic -- they're inevitably going to lead to false positives flagging those who are actually trying to help.

Filed Under: content moderation, content moderation at scale, covid-19, diy, facemasks, hoarding, masnick's impossibility theorem, price gouging

Abbott Laboratories Sends Heavy-Handed Copyright Threat To Shut Down Diabetes Community Tool For Accessing Blood-Sugar Data

from the not-very-sweet,-not-very-clever dept

One of the most important recent developments in the world of diabetes has been the arrival of relatively low-cost continuous blood glucose monitors. These allow people with diabetes to take frequent readings of their blood sugar levels without needing to use painful finger sticks every time. That, in turn, allows users to fine-tune their insulin injections, with big health benefits for both the short- and long-term. The new devices can be read by placing a smartphone close to them. People use an app that gathers the data from the unit, which is typically placed on the back of the upper arm with an adhesive.

One of the long-awaited technological treatments for diabetes is the "closed-loop" system, also called an "artificial pancreas". Here, readings from a continuous glucose device are used to adjust an insulin pump in response to varying blood sugar levels -- just as the pancreas does. The idea is to free those with diabetes from needing to monitor their levels all the time. Instead, software with appropriate algorithms does the job in the background.

Closed-loop systems are still being developed by pharma companies. In the meantime, many people have taken things into their own hands, and built DIY artificial pancreas systems from existing components, writing the control code themselves. One popular site for sharing help on the topic is Diabettech, with "information about [continuous glucose monitoring] systems, DIY Closed Loops, forthcoming insulins and a variety of other aspects."

A few months back there was a post on Diabettech about some code posted to GitHub. A patch to Abbott Laboratories' LibreLink app allowed data from the same company's FreeStyle Libre continuous monitor to be accessed by other apps running on a smartphone. In particular, it enabled the blood-sugar data to be used by a program called xDrip, which provides "sophisticated charting, customization and data entry features as well as a predictive simulation model." Innocent enough, you might think. But not according to Abbott Laboratories, which sent in the legal heavies waving the DMCA:

It has come to Abbott's attention that a software project titled "Libre2-patched-App" has been uploaded to GitHub, Inc.'s ("GitHub”) website and creates unauthorized derivative works of Abbott's LibreLink program (the "Infringing Software"). The Infringing Software is available at https://github.com/user987654321resu/Libre2-patched-App. In addition to offering the Infringing Software, the project provides instructions on how to download the Infringing Software, circumvent Abbott's technological protection measures by disassembling the LibreLink program, and use the Infringing Software to modify the LibreLink program.

The patch is no longer available on GitHub. The original Diabettech post suggested that analyzing the Abbott app was permitted under EU law (pdf):

Perhaps surprisingly, this seems to be covered by the European Software Directive in article 6 which was implemented in member states years back, which allows for decompilation of the code by a licensed user in order to enable interoperability with another application (xDrip in this case).

As Cory Doctorow points out in his discussion of these events, in the US the DMCA has a similar exemption for reverse engineering:

a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

Legal issues aside, there is a larger point here. As the success of open source software over the last twenty years has shown, one of the richest stores of new ideas for a product is its user community. Companies that embrace that group are able to draw on what is effectively a global research and development effort. Abbott is not just wrong to bully people looking to derive greater benefit from its products by extending them in interesting ways, it is extremely stupid. It is throwing away the enthusiasm and creativity of the very people it should be supporting and working with as closely as it can.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Filed Under: artificial pancreas, blood sugar, blood sugar data, copyright, data, diabetes, diabettech, diy, dmca, healthcare, librelink, reverse engineering, xdrip
Companies: abbott labs, github

DailyDirt: Really Expensive (Or Just Time-Consuming) Foods

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Maybe you've heard that the word 'salary' comes from Roman soldiers being paid in salt. That's seems like a fuzzy bit of history, and no one actually knows with certainty how early Roman soldiers were paid, but at some point, they were paid with coinage -- or perhaps with some other kind of allowance to purchase salt. Luckily, most people don't get paid in spices anymore, but there are a few food items that are expensive enough that they could be used as currency. (And if you want to really get off the grid, you might want to know about how much it'll cost to really make everything yourself from scratch.)

• Saffron, by weight, is probably the most expensive spice you'll ever consume. It takes about 85,000-150,000 flowers (just the dried stigmas) to produce 1 kilogram of the spice. About 80-90% (or more?) of the world's supply is grown in Iran, and the industry and enthusiasts may start DNA fingerprinting to crack down on fake or diluted saffron. [url]
• If you want to spend a lot of money on a sandwich, you could order one with foie gras or truffles... or you could make one from scratch yourself. It'll only take you 6 months and about $1,500 to grow all the vegetables -- including the wheat to make bread -- and to raise and slaughter your own chicken. (Or spend a lot more and order lab-grown meat if you don't like killing animals.) [url]
• So you could grow your own saffron, if you really wanted to. When you get good at it, you can probably pick about a thousand flowers an hour, but it'll still take a few more hours to separate out the stigmas and dry them. Not quite a Chia Pet hobby. [url]
• If you want to try something exotic, cook a peacock recipe from 1612. Impress your 17th century spice baron friends, and remember that people used to risk their lives for a few valuable spices. [url]

If you've been thinking about doing other things yourself, like learning how to code, take a look at our Daily Deals for a collection of online courses to help you program and/or master some professional skills.

Filed Under: diy, dna fingerprinting, foie gras, food, peacock, recipe, saffron, salt, spice baron, spices

DailyDirt: Science With Lego

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

People do all sorts of creative stuff with Lego -- even though Lego hasn't always been cool about people using Lego or Lego-like bricks in various ways. But when Lego interconnecting block enthusiasts are allowed to do anything they want to do, sometimes science benefits. Here are just a few cool Lego-based science links for folks who aren't ready to put away their childhood toys.

• Scientists from the Natural History Museum London built an insect manipulator out of Lego because it was a cheap way to make a customizable specimen holder. Using these Lego-based insect manipulators, the researchers will be able to digitize a wide variety of little critters. [url]
• If you've ever wondered how tall the tallest stack of Lego anyone can make would be, the theoretical answer is 3.5km using all 2x2 bricks. That's about 375,000 bricks stacked until the bottom brick starts to deform from the weight. However, in reality, it would be extremely difficult to stack bricks without any leaning -- so the tallest Lego tower actually built has only been about 32 meters tall. [url]
• The Open Worm project has put a virtual worm brain in a Lego robot body. The software simulates 302 neurons of a worm's brain, but it's not a complete biological replica in Lego plastic -- otherwise if you put two together in a room, they'd be able to make a third robot. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: ai, diy, interconnecting blocks, open worm, robots, science, worm brain
Companies: lego

DailyDirt: Making Fusion Reactors For Fun...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Amateur fusion isn't quite a new fad. Online resources have been available since the early 2000s, and plenty of people have learned about or built a Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor for themselves. Philo T. Farnsworth (perhaps more famous for inventing TV) designed equipment that could fusion atoms together. Before anyone gets too excited, though, none of these designs look like they could ever produce any excess energy. It would be nice if fusion generators actually did exist, but we're probably not going to see any in the near future. In the meantime, playing with fusion reactors might inspire a really clever design, so here are a few links on DIY fusion.

• Making your own fusion reactor is a reasonable project for someone with a lot of spare time and a few thousand bucks to buy various obscure supplies. There's at least one open source group that's been working on various fusor improvements for over a decade. [url]
• Building a nuclear fusion reactor as a 13yo kid must be some kind of a new world record. However, other teenagers have done it (e.g. Taylor Wilson), so aspiring 9 year olds have a science project to work on now. [url]
• Doug Coulter runs an online DIY engineering forum, and he's built his own nuclear fusion reactor in his free time. He might be a crackpot, but if he can actually create an open source fusion generator, the whole world would certainly change very quickly. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: diy, doug coulter, energy, farnsworth-hirsch fusor, fusion, philo farnsworth, taylor wilson

DailyDirt: Homemade Meals And Ingredients

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Everyone likes a good home-cooked meal. And making everything "from scratch" seems to be a popular thing to do, especially if you have entirely too much free time. If you're up to the challenge, here are just a few pointers to recipes that you might want to try someday.

• Making a small batch of your own artisanal High-Fructose Corn Syrup is possible with a DIY kit that includes glucose isomerase and everything you'll need to produce HFCS in your home kitchen. That lab-produced enzyme prevents this product from being labelled "organic" -- but rest assured that the result will contain a carbon-based food. [url]
• Homemade Soylent is a DIY liquid diet, made from blending up a bunch of powdered nutrients. It doesn't taste so great, and you'll probably miss chewing and the texture of regular foods... but liquid diets are at the very least a time-saver since it doesn't require cooking (or that pesky chewing). [url]
• Gourmet marshmallows can be handmade with a wide array of flavors like lemon coconut, chai and cherry chocolate chip. Making your own marshmallows isn't rocket surgery, but the tricky part is making them shelf-stable.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: chewing, diet, diy, enzyme, flavors, food, hfcs, high fructose corn syrup, homemade, liquid, marshmallow, nutrients, organic, soylent

Trent Reznor Talks To Techdirt About His Unconventional New Record Deal, And Why He Still Loves DIY

from the not-everything-is-as-it-seems dept

Contrary to what you may have been hearing lately, Trent Reznor still thinks there's a big future in "do it yourself" efforts for musicians these days (and he expects to do it again at some point). And, no, he doesn't think that bands need a label. Nor did he go back to a major label because they wrote some huge check. It appears that there have been a lot of bogus stories floating around in response to the news that Trent Reznor signed a "major label" deal with Columbia Records (part of Sony Music) for his new band, How To Destroy Angels. As we pointed out at the time, there's nothing wrong with signing a major label deal, if you know what you're doing, why you're doing it -- and especially if you have some leverage. We fully expected that Reznor, given his earlier statements about the major labels, went into this situation with eyes wide open.

And, indeed, Reznor has now shared (exclusively, with Techdirt) that this is exactly the situation.

Last week, there was some press coverage over some comments that Reznor made, in an interview with David Byrne, that some have interpreted to mean that he felt you needed a major label to be successful today.

Seeing that story spread, Trent Reznor and his manager, Jim Guerinot, asked if I'd be interested in hearing the full story, rather than the "latest scandal" version. Reznor, Guerinot and I had a very long conversation late last week covering a variety of topics, which would be impossible to cover in a single post, but let's get to the highlights. First off, as expected, Reznor's deal is not the same sort of record deal a nobody off the street would sign these days. Guerinot made that clear:

It's a licensing arrangement. The deal that Trent is able to do at this stage of the game is different than what he would have been able to do at 19 years old coming into his first arrangement.... There are always different levels of accommodation and leverage that you're able to do. For Trent, fortunately, at this stage of the game, he's able to license it and continue to own his masters... and, really, that's the most relevant thing about the deal.

Guerinot went on to talk about how the real crime of most major label deals (and even some indie deals) is that the artists never get their masters back. They knew that any deal Reznor made would include him retaining the masters:

The toughest thing is when an artist takes an advance, pays back the advance, and doesn't own his masters. That's always been -- and I've argued this with my friends who run major labels -- that is the single greatest difficulty and why so many artists don't trust labels. At the end of the day, artists have paid 50% of every video that gets made -- it's recouped against an artist account. But they didn't benefit from the YouTube deal. They didn't benefit from the creation of Vevo, despite the fact that it's their money that went to creating that.

This was not a "typical" deal. So why do this particular deal? A few key reasons -- some of which (perhaps ironically) came about because of his previous success. Reznor pointed out that he has a huge fan base... for Nine Inch Nails. He was worried that those fans are the only ones who would pay attention -- and that they'd not necessarily appreciate How to Destroy Angels or (worse!) think that it's "just a side project with my wife." He specifically worried that NIN fans would say "this isn't what we want to hear," and that would then limit their ability to reach a wider audience. However, he thinks that HTDA is amazing and deserves to reach an audience way beyond his existing fans. In the end, it came down to figuring out what the band's goals were and they decided that they wanted to aim big, and try to reach as many fans as possible. And they weren't convinced they could do that on their own. Reznor explains:

The main reason I do what I do is I want to do something that matters. I want to be able to create art that reaches the maximum amount of people on my terms.... That was a key component... That was why we wound up considering, and ultimately going with, a label, and not just a label, but a major label, for How to Destroy Angels. Because it came down to us -- us being the band now -- sitting around and identifying what our goals were. And the top priority wasn't to make money. It was to try to reach the most amount of people, and try to reach the most amount of people effectively, that doesn't feel like it's coming completely from my backyard. Because I don't want this project, ultimately, to just be dismissed as "side project" or... (*loud sigh*) "patronizing affair with Trent and his wife." Sounds terrible, you know?

There really is something fascinating about the fact that, in some ways, his massive success and following because of NIN almost forced him back into a major label to try to get away from that same pigeon hole.

And, contrary to some of the buzz, they insist that the deal wasn't about someone writing a big check. They note that all of the advance money is either going into the recording or directly to marketing, and not into the band members' pockets.

Beyond the fact that Reznor and Guerinot could negotiate a much better deal, they also pointed out that a hell of a lot has changed at the major labels these days -- as those labels have been seriously humbled. They noted that it's been six years since Reznor was last signed to a major and plenty has happened since then. Guerinot pointed this out:

My experience as a manager who works with a label is that, what's happened with major labels over the past six years, with the attrition of business, and the lopping off of the top end of the business, and the bringing in a lot of younger people... we're just dealing with a lot of people with enthusiasm and excitement and ideas. It seems that the next wave of personnel that has come through these doors, does not have a sense of entitlement and position and stature. They feel like they have to justify their existence. And I've just been really excited working with them.

Reznor echoed similar feelings:

After thinking about it for a while, we thought some sort of label might have a benefit for us [in getting the word out beyond NIN's fans], or some sort of team that's able to work this thing, and present it like some of the other bands we'd like to be mentioned in the same breath as, it might infiltrate the consciousness of people through the same means.

So why go to a major label rather than just bringing in a team of your own or perhaps working with an indie label. Reznor offered up a few reasons, with part of it being that he didn't feel like "setting up his own label," even if it was just a temporary one for this release. Separately, they felt that -- given the specific goals with HTDA (again, to become as widely known as possible) -- the best people for that probably are still at the labels. They admit that it's opened up some useful doors, such as some artists to work with on remixes that they probably wouldn't have been able to get to otherwise. Also, as has been suggested repeatedly, they really wanted help internationally, and doing it themselves was really difficult. They noted how their UK distributor had gone bankrupt and taken all of their money not too long ago, and they didn't want to have to deal with that kind of thing again. Reznor, again, on the decision:

It didn't need to be a major label, but we have a good relationship with Mark Williams, who's our A&R guy at Columbia... and he introduced us to the team at Columbia, and the lean and mean system that they have there. That coupled with what seemed like a reasonable deal, felt like, 'hey, let's try it.' We're not locked to it indefinitely. Let's just see how it goes.

But does that mean that the new internet world is no good? Or that DIY doesn't make sense? Not at all. In fact, I think they spent more time in the conversation focusing on all the awesome things that can be done online today that weren't possible when Reznor was starting out. They think that, for many, many, many musicians today, there are amazing new opportunities to use these online tools to do amazing things, with or without a label. He did point out that the challenges facing artists today have certainly changed. In fact, echoing the exact sentiment we heard at our artists & entrepreneurs working group, the toughest thing today is the lack of an easy road map, a "logical progression" to a music career -- but there are still a lot more opportunities. Reznor again:

What I think is great right now, is that it is the wild west. As frustrating and worrisome as it can feel to hear that we're 'in-between business models' -- which we've been hearing for at least ten years now. So, okay, all the old rules go out the window, let's press reset, let's look at what assets we have now that one didn't have before. That's what the good news is. This is what David Byrne focuses on his book. The stranglehold of distribution, the cost of making records, all of that has changed....

My advice today, to established acts and new-coming acts, is the same advice I'd give to myself: pause for a minute, and really think about 'what is your goal? where do you see yourself?' When I was coming up, things weren't disrupted, and there was a logical progression.... As a 22-year-old kid in Cleveland, it seemed to me that just playing out in bars, hoping someone noticed your band, and then offered you a record contract, while that's possible, I didn't know anybody, and didn't know anybody who knew anybody that that had ever happened to. The strategy, then, was let's work on getting a band, and something that means something, music that matters, music that I feel proud of, and a vibe and name and 'brand' of this thing, and then try to reach maybe some small labels that had music in the same vein of what I liked. It didn't work exactly that way, but that type of archetype of a plan led me to focus my energies on the thing that did start, and that fuse got lit, and it wound up happening.

If I were that person today, there's a hell of a lot of things that didn't exist then, that exist now. Like, YouTube. Like the ability to self-publish. Like the ability to reach everyone in the world from your bedroom, if they're interested. And I'd focus my efforts on what seems like a logical way to do that, that maintains integrity. If my goal is to compete with Rihanna on the pop charts, I'd think that requires going through a major label system with a powerful manager. That game....

It all comes down to what is it that you want to do? I think indie self-publishing and do it yourself is great. I will certainly do it again. But it will be in the context of what I feel is right for me.

Guerinot added some more thoughts to that as well:

The beauty about today is, in the absence of [a major label being interested in a musician], the contemporary way that you can distribute allows you worldwide distribution. You can actually make that happen.... Now, you can be a tree falling in a forest, but there was a point in time where you just couldn't even do that. There was no way for someone to watch your video, buy your record, participate with you, in Australia, if you lived in Southern California. That wasn't available. Now, it's very nice that someone has said to Trent, 'hey, we'd like to do x, y and z on your behalf,' but they just as easily at some point in his career might not do that. I think it's amazing that the world accommodates the ability to do that.

They also took on the idea that the "old way" was ever a great business model. Guerinot explained:

When you look backwards, everyone thinks 'oh, gee, they had the great business model.' I guarantee, if you talk to anyone who was making music in the 60s, they would tell you they did not have a great business model. As you moved into the 70s, 80s and 90s... nobody thought it was a great. Everything looks great in the rear view mirror. And everybody, as you go forward, keeps saying 'oh we need the new music business model.' We might already be in the new music business model! This might be it!... And as a guy who's supposed to help Trent navigate and ultimately get his music to as many people as he can, and honor and respect the way that he does that, it's pretty great right now. I mean, it really is. It's pretty great.

Finally, if there was one theme that ran through the entire discussion, which came up over and over and over again, it was that what was most important to Reznor was finding the path that would hopefully be best for getting fans to enjoy the music. And, while he noted that he really relished the challenge of trying to think through business models and new opportunities, in the end, it was more important to him, personally, to focus on the music at this time. He admits that all the other stuff let him "flex a different muscle in my brain" for the past few years, but he wanted to try to focus on the music for now. He says that it was fun, and had a sense of "wow I can do that!" when stuff succeeded, but he also worried that "I'm really not the best guy at figuring that stuff out," (despite earlier admitting he was "high on arrogance" at his own ability to figure some of this stuff out). And as he got more and more focused on solving that business model riddle, it became more and more engaging for him -- but he worried that, since he became so focused on it, he almost became too focused on that new challenge, rather than on the music.

I found this part of our discussion really interesting (and it included a little tangent discussion about the energy that goes into dealing with trolls...), because he was more or less admitting that all of the new opportunities out there were too enticing, and he wanted to spend more time figuring them out, but that process alone was distracting. Interesting stuff.

Oh, and, as for the recent revelation that Reznor is working with Beats by Dre on a new project, Reznor revealed just a bit of information on that... mostly off the record, but if all goes according to plan, it sounds like it's going to be very, very interesting, and not at all what you're thinking it's about.

In the end, the overall story was pretty much what I expected. For this particular project, with these particular goals, Reznor (and the rest of the band) felt that this deal made sense -- a deal that they were able to negotiate with some leverage, as a licensing deal, where they retain the masters. They get to work with folks who are enthusiastic and different than the "old guard," while still having the ability to market on a massive scale. But none of that changes the excitement that they feel for some of the new stuff and new opportunities that are out there, and they see lots of reasons for bands to keep experimenting. In fact, they used that word over and over again -- that this new deal was also "an experiment" -- no different than the experiments they've done over the past six years with different ways to release music -- and they were upfront that it might fail. "I'll keep you posted," Reznor promised, noting that, "I may have a very different story a year from now." So, stay tuned...

Filed Under: diy, music industry, record deal, trent reznor

Once Again: Just Because You Can Go Indie, Doesn't Mean You Need To

from the details-matter dept

For years and years we've argued that there still is a role for labels -- even major labels, if they are able to do more reasonable deals that embrace new opportunities, rather than shun them. In fact, we've pointed to many different examples of pop stars on major labels doing creative things to connect with fans and give them a reason to buy. Nothing in that says that major labels have no place any more. What we have noted is that the overall market has changed and there are a lot more options. We've also noted that, historically, being used to their gatekeeper position, the major labels have treated many artists badly, signing them to questionable contracts, where very, very few of them end up making out well.

The reality today is that you don't need to go that route if you don't want to. That doesn't mean that there is no need for major labels at all -- even if some will confuse those two statements. It just means if you want to be a successful musician, it's now a choice, rather than a requirement. In short: major labels can and do play a role in helping some artists. Historically, I think they've done a pretty bad job of it (mostly representing their own interests much more than the artists'), but that doesn't mean they don't do certain things well. And for artists who need those certain things -- with radio play being a big one -- it may be reasonable to do a deal with a major, though, preferably with eyes wide open and (if possible) on their own terms, rather than the labels'. The point of what I've said all along is that you can now succeed without the labels if you want to. But for those who wish to use the labels, that should be an option to. It's just that the rise of alternatives should mean that the labels become more willing to change their terms to be less artist-unfriendly. It also likely means that we'll see more overall competition and that many artists will find alternatives appealing. As such, the majors will be forced to adjust over time, even doing more reasonable deals.

I bring up all of this again, because there's a lot of attention this week over the news that Trent Reznor has signed some sort of deal with Columbia Records (owned by Sony Music) for his new(ish) band, How to Destroy Angels, leading a bunch of people to claim that he's "abandoning the DIY" market. You can see everything there is to know in the statement Reznor released last week, which doesn't go into many details, but it certainly hints at the idea that this is not a standard-issue major label deal:

Regarding our decision to sign with Columbia, we've really spent a long time thinking about things and it makes sense for a lot of reasons, including a chance to work with our old friend Mark Williams. There's a much more granular and rambling answer I could give (and likely will in an interview someplace) but it really comes down to us experimenting and trying new things to see what best serves our needs. Complete independent releasing has its great points but also comes with shortcomings.

I'll be interested to hear about the details eventually, because that certainly hints to there being much more to this than just "signing with a major." And there's nothing I disagree with in what he says. Being completely independent does have its great points, but it also makes certain things much more difficult. I don't think anyone's denied that. Of course there are also well known shortcomings when working with a major label. So, it's a case of tradeoffs, and when you have someone in a position to negotiate a more favorable deal that can hopefully minimize the bad side of a label deal, and get the good part, that seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy for those who want it. I think that Reznor likely would have been fine staying indie for this release, but depending on what he's doing, there may be perfectly reasonable arguments for doing this deal.

I know that there are some people who think that everyone absolutely should go indie, but I've never said any such thing, nor do I believe it. I think that going indie is now a much more viable option than it's been in the past, but going to a major label certainly does not preclude being innovative. In many ways, I think of it similarly to the way I view startups as well. It's less and less necessary to raise venture capital to do a startup -- but that doesn't mean that raising venture capital is necessarily a bad thing. There are certain opportunities that really require it. If you go in with your eyes wide open and can negotiate a favorable deal that lets you do what you need to do, more power to you. In the long run, I think that there are much bigger opportunities in focusing on better connecting with your fans, and historically major labels have sometimes made that more difficult. But if an artist sees good reason to work with a major, there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Filed Under: business models, diy, how to destroy angels, major labels, trent reznor
Companies: columbia records, sony