creative deconstruction » file sharing

The Broken System: Deconstructing Music Consumption

refe — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:48:05 +0000

Kyle Bylin, of Hypebot (@kbylin)
Edited by: Refe Tuma (@refeup)

The traditional system has broken for good.

In our previous post we wrote about the barriers of music consumption, gave an overview of how those barriers shaped the experiences of previous generations, and examined in great detail why the removal of such barriers recontextualized the ways in which those who were born digital consumed music.

The next step is to deconstruct the traditional music consumption system.

The traditional system is biased towards hoarding and scarcity; it promoted the gradual development of taste and encouraged the act of collecting music. So that each fan could have their own access point to the artist’s songs, and scrutinize and divine meaning from them in isolation. To listen to music independently—in the absence of the artist—meant that each individual fan could develop their own perspective of the artist and their music.

In doing so, many fans formed a rather intimate, parasocial relationship with the artist—where they knew of the emotions of the artist and filled in the details of their lives, but the artist didn’t know of theirs. The artist spoke to the fan through their music, but the fan did not “speak” to them.

And, through specific delivery mechanisms—primarily commercial radio, MTV, big-box retail, and print—their music was advertised to the fan

These institutions stimulated demand for their music—over other artists—in the marketplace. They established a sense of trust between fans and their corporate-created brand, and elevated them from performer to idol. This transformation allowed for a common musical, yet commercial culture to form—where fans belonged to something bigger than themselves, and socially identified with each other through the relationships that they had with these abstract, top-down artist brands. The act of collecting their music, owning it, and displaying it—this is how fans signaled their preferences, taste, and identity.

In this consumption system, since the taste in music of each fan developed gradually—if not stayed the same—over the course of most their lives, the artist could disconnect themselves from the fan and create new albums without fear of losing their audience. And since the artist’s creativity time line, more often than not, lasted several years, a new album was to be anticipated, cherished, and hoarded. In turn, fans viewed the artist’s music as a scarcity, which is why they waited outside of the store—hours before it opened—to purchase the new album.

Biased Mediums

Fans did not, however, have any control over the traditional system. As individual fans—and by definition “passive” listeners—they didn’t actually know what they music they wanted to listen to. Nor did they want to take the time to find it.

Therefore, the music of the artist had to intersect with “their physical or psychological environment.”1 Their newest album and its hit single had to “intrude on their day to day existence and generate a strongly positive association.”2

To penetrate their environment, the single would have to receive heavy rotation on commercial radio, the video played on MTV, the album would need to be available at all big-box retail outlets, and a review would have to appear in Rolling Stone.

These mechanisms—when utilized together—formed an abstract consumption system that major labels used to influence passive listeners and their taste in music, and to regulate the flow of culture into their lives. This often resulted in a bond between the mechanisms and the individual that grew stronger than their connection to the actual music that they delivered.

If you focus on these specific mechanisms and how they convey commercial culture—rather than on the particular songs that the major labels use them to deliver—it becomes clear that we essentially miss the effect of their structural influence. How they promoted the gradual, yet subtle development of taste in music over long periods of time.

These mechanisms are biased towards familiarity and conformity. Even more so, they’re biased towards major label interests and the needs of their advertisers.

Commercial radio, for instance, typically cannot play “new” music. In order to keep the listener’s attention for the longest period of time—so that they are exposed to the station’s advertisers—they must achieve the lowest tune out rate possible. And, what is required of them to accomplish this feat is that they must maintain the least objectionable programming possible.

When these stations do introduce new music, it can’t be radically different from the current playlist—so the comfort of the listener isn’t obstructed to the degree that they tune out. The artist’s hit single, then, must be familiar to the fan and conform to the rest of the stations programming and that of the current popular music trends. In other words, the music that they play can be new for as long as it offends the fewest people and serves as a buffer between two advertisements.

As for MTV, “They are,” in the words of media critic Douglas Rushkoff, “not dedicated to creating new kinds of music and entertainment in order to promote a richer culture. Corporations depend on understanding trends so they can sell people whatever it is that they already have.”3

Together, these specific mechanisms created a focal point in the mindless feedback loop between production and consumption in the traditional system—where industry executives researched teen culture for indications on what music they should play—while teens themselves scoured these mediums for models of new artists to imitate and for the theme songs of their generation.4

Taste in Music

Thus, when a fan discovered music through these mechanisms, it is quite likely that their taste in music would only broaden ever so slightly. And, due to the biases of these mechanisms—that their taste would constantly be reinforced, but never challenged; it would evolve along the taste continuum, from one finite state, to the next, without dramatically changing.

For the passive teenage listener—whose taste in music was primary influenced by specific delivery mechanisms—the Internet changed all of this.

Prior to the digital revolution, we tended to think of taste as something that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition—with very few abrupt changes. During our teenage years, interest music peaks and we move through the states more rapidly, which carries onward to college—where we were confronted with a multitude of new influences and musical tastes.

After these critical stages in our development, it is understood that this process slows down, and, for the most part, that our musical tastes are fully formed. Yet, this conventional model of how musical taste develops isn’t representative of the personality of each individual fan as much as it is the biases of the consumption systems they interacted with and the ranges of social behavior they promote.

This raises an important question, that if the traditional system facilitated an environment where taste develop gradually, what did the Internet enable?

In short, it permitted a population of digital youth to rethink their role as passive listeners in the traditional system, and to become more actively engaged in their culture experiences in a way that wasn’t possible a decade ago. First, came file-sharing. Then, in an attempt provide legal services that were more in step with the emerging social norms of those who were born digital, many companies began inhabiting this new landscape. This lead to the rise of the personalized music experience and the networked audience.

Finite to Fluidity

Through this ‘social ecology of music culture’ that formed online, listeners could now exercise a higher degree of control over how they discovered, acquired, consumed, and discarded music. And, out of this chaos and transformation, an ‘unplanned and unforeseen’ Internet era consumption system emerged.

Where the traditional system operated on the assumptions that a fan’s taste developed gradually; where collecting music consisted solely of the ownership of physical albums; and where the biases of the consumption system promoted compatible ranges of social behavior, the Internet era system did not.

In contrasting the traditional music consumption system with that of the ‘Internet era’ system that those born digital also experienced, what becomes clear is that it is biased towards different things.

The traditional system and its specific mechanisms—commercial radio, MTV, big-box retail, and print—are biased toward familiarity, conformity, and façade, and facilitate the gradual developmentof taste. On the other hand, the Internet era system and its equivalent mechanisms—YouTube, Pandora, iTunes and blogs—are biased towards personalization, specialization, and relevance, and enables a much more rapid evolution of taste.

Therefore, the ranges of social behavior that it promotes are different too.

As a result, those who were born digital—who actively engaged with and readily immersed themselves in this ‘Internet era’ system—have shifted from finite to fluidity, both in the terms of how their taste in music develops, and how it reflects upon the music they collect. What this means is that their tastes no longer progress gradually along the continuum from one finite state to a different state. Instead, they evolve continuously, ultimately reaching a constant state of fluidity.

Also, where the traditional system is biased towards hoarding and scarcity, and encouraged the act of collecting music in the physical or finite form, the Internet era system is biased towards sharing and abundance. It thrives on the collecting of music—across multiple channels—in the digital or fluid form.

The ‘Broken’ System

In conclusion, the traditional system is optimized for a different era than the one we are living in today. The Internet era music consumption system has promoted ranges of social behavior in those who were born digital which are incompatible not only with the traditional system, but with the assumptions that the record industry currently operates under.

In the digital age, there will only be many different systems, promoting evermore complex and different ranges of social behavior. If each fan personalizes their own consumption system to their needs, then, their behavior will no longer align with any one particular system. In a sense, how their taste in music develops, and how it reflects upon the music they collect will be unique to them.

The traditional system has broken, for good. And, by treating it as if still defines how those who were born digital consume music, we are only denying ourselves access to its ongoing redesign.

Has this been your experience? How have your habits changed related to consuming or distributing music?

References:

1-2: Observations About Passive Listeners
3-4: Rushkoff, Douglas. (2009). Life Inc. New York: Random House Inc.

Share it if you like it:

Music Technology Recap – November 2009 Edition

refe — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:38:16 +0000

Music Tech November 2009

This is a guest post by Gabriel Nijmeh, a business analyst and music technology enthusiast.

Another month whips by since Refe first asked me to write the October music tech recap and I’ve really started feeling deja vu. You probably are feeling the same way but doesn’t it seem like we keep discussing the same issues and topics endlessly and yet feel like we are no further ahead? Here’s someone who wrote: “it feels like we need to graduate from the discussion into the “doing” of what we know to be true” which captures the sentiment. And I came another blog post I think nails what ails the music industry (and any industry facing mass disruption) was written by Steve Lawson who articulately describes the difference between transformative vs incremental change.

We will make serious strides forward when more people throughout the industry begin to accept and embrace transformativeand sustainable change. But of course, change is so much easier for those who have little or no interest in preserving existing models, so understandably given the tangled web of the industry, patience is critical and change will be excruciatingly slow. Many tend to see things as black or white. You take a position, become emotionally attached & entrenched. With all that being said, I came across this line in a post: “unless you understand both sides of the subject you understand neither” which is good to keep in mind when reading about and trying to make sense of everything that is happening in the business.

Where did the money go?

It was a quiet month on the funding/investment side. The biggest news being MySpace scooping up Imeem for chump change. Looks like MySpace is becoming the digital music consolidator grabbing “failed” music start-ups. Given the talent and assets MySpace has acquiredwith the purchase of iLike and Imeem, will MySpaceMusic, enabled by the music search deal with Google and backed by the labels (indie music aggregator Merlin now brought into the fold) become a relevant, long-term player in the digital music destination or are they themselves destined for a flame out but on larger scale?

In other funding news:

Frothiness On the Line? Muzicall Gets $13.5 Million

Zenph Sound Innovations, Inc. Announces $10.7 Million Funding, New CEO and Board Member

Indie Music Tech: Win Seed Capital for your Music Tech Startup

Spotify, Spotify and more Spotify

All eyes are on Spotify and their US launch, which according to recent reports has been delayed until 2010 because the labels believe an ad-supported model isn’t sustainable. The more important discussion is when or even if music streaming subscription services will find that right balance that satisfies labels, artists and music consumers. Hopefully one day, blog posts like: How Major Labels Try To Overwhelm Startups are truly a thing of the past. Many influential people are starting to believe that subscriptions can save us and I would agree to a certain extent that given a compelling and innovative service, there is a chance but don’t think this model only will “save us”. Realistically, music is too expensive to be free, too free to be expensive. What the average music consumer will be paying for is less for the music and more for the convenience of anytime, anywhere access, mobile streaming and management (tagging/backup/storage) of a near endless music catalog.

Robin Kent, former Universal McCann CEO and then CEO of Spiralfrog offers his perspectives and experiences on the economics of ad-supported media by answering the question posed by Music Ally: Can Music Be Free?

And then there is speculation that MySpace Music is considering moving to a paid model. Is the service compelling enough in its current state to even consider charging for it? Are the days of free, legal music services slowly coming to an end?

Opinions, Insights and Analysis

On Middle Men — Joe Hewitt, made this very good observation: “The Internet has been incredibly empowering to creators, and just as destructive to middle men. In the 20th century, every musician needed a record label to get his or her music heard. Every author needed a publishing house to be read. Every journalist needed a newspaper. Anyone who wanted to send a message needed the post office. In the Internet age, the tail no longer wags the dog, and those middle men have become a luxury, not a necessity.”

Anti-file sharing legislation gets go ahead — There is this false sense of security and delusion that legislation is going to eliminate file sharing. Is this issue really being dealt with? File sharing will go underground and it will be much harder to detect. More importantly, laws and legislation don’t address the real business question which is how best to serve music fans with innovative products and services. It is just a knee jerk reaction. What if by all measurements file sharing is curbed but sales/revenues continue to drift lower and lower. What will be the next excuse?

Resnikoff’s Parting Shot: The Verizon Problem– Resnikoffas always has some valuable insights: “Then again, who cares about this game anyway? The bigger discussion is whether control-oriented approaches are worth it, or just a misguided drain on precious resources. Instead of chasing three-strikes, why not develop three new revenue streams and better ways to compete with free? Why not skip the fruitless battles, the attempts to force consumers back into the 90s? Why not build 2015 before it arrives? And remember, all of those lawyers, lobbyists, and media-shapers, they all drain finite reserves of money and time”.

The Radiohead ‘In Rainbows’ Experiment: Did It Work?– Radiohead and NIN keep coming up as case studies for the “free” download experiment. It’s one tactic that needs to be understood as part of an overall marketing/sales strategy and within a band’s position in the marketplace. I think the problem is in searching for a one size fits all cookie cutter solution and being left disappointed when it doesn’t produce the same results. Ideas, innovations and solutions will need to be dynamic and custom to each artist.So, the question is did Radiohead succeed in creating a new system for producing and distributing music?

Why does Mandelson favour the Analogue Economy over the Digital?– Cory Doctorow: “Mandelson argues that Britain’s Digital Economy will be based on the contra-factual premise of a steady decrease in computer speed, drive capacity, technical competence, network versatility and network ubiquity. Of course, the real digital economy is in those British companies that figure out how to thrive whether or not copying occurs – companies that use networks to reduce their costs, reach larger customer bases, and provide services whose demand and profitability grow with network use, companies such as Last.fm or Moo.com.”

Copyright Time Bomb Set to Disrupt Music, Publishing Industries — This is going to be very, very interesting and lucrative for some artists: “The late ’70s, when punk exploded and disco imploded, were tumultuous years for the music industry. A time bomb embedded in legislation from that era, the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, could bring another round of tumult to the business, due to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants — or at the very least renegotiate much sweeter deals by threatening to do so.”

Also, here are a few blog posts that I’ve grouped together that questions the role of the record label, file-sharing and music blogs and the impact on artists:

Music Services and Mobile Apps

The Rocketsurgeon Blog is a great site that tracks the latest in new music and entertainment web services.

Looking ahead a few years, here’s a forecast of the top 10 mobile applications of 2012. Mobile music, which is already here, is on the list. Give it a couple of more years and mobile streaming will be mainstream.

Is Apple intentionally blocking DJ apps? Some music developers think so as a slew of DJ apps remain unapproved. Mind you, one of the apps mentioned, Touch DJ was approved and now available for sale. In the same blog post, there are calls for Apple to introduce more granular categorization of music apps. This would be a welcome relief!

Behind every song there’s always an emotion and Stereomoodis the emotional internet radio, providing music that best suits your mood and your activities. Pick a mood or feeling, and a playlistis generated for you. I’m quite impressed with this service.

Too bad it’s taken this long considering bands like Pearl Jam, Barenaked Ladies have been doing this for a few years but LiveNation and Apple have teamed up to sell live shows and videos on iTunes.

Are music labels bi-polar? We keep hearing that ad-supported music is not sustainable yet we see Universal stepping up to support Guvera which is set to launch another ad-supported music (last month it was Free All Music) download service. The problem is free is not sustainable, unless underwritten by somebody.

Vevo, the music industry’s attempt to create a Hulu-like site for its music videos, will formally launch Dec. 8. Universal and Sony are in on it while EMI and Warner are not (but could) participate.

WineDJ Helps Set the Mood by Pairing Wine with Music– Here’s an iPhone app powered by Grooveshark which Liberty School wines is using to promote their wines. Pick a wine and a mood, and a playlistis created for you. There are numerous opportunities to pair the right products with music that won’t turn-off consumers away. And as a side note, you can use this app for mobile streaming until the Grooveshark iPhone app is approved by Apple.

Soundcloud has released their iPhone app this month for music professionals who want to collaborate, promote & distribute their music. Amazing how in a few short years, passing around demo tapes and CDshave been replaced with online, wireless music distribution technology like Soundcloud

Grooveshark went under a site makeover that is winning rave reviews. As you will read in this interview, Sam Tarantino, the 22 year-old CEO is an example of a passionate music fan who isn’t going to ask for permission to shake things up in the music industry. I’m sure he’s ruffled a lot of feathers but innovators push the envelope and lead by making no apologies.

16-yr old launches Vye music-sharing site. Another Napster? — Calling this new mash-up service another Napster is a bit over the top. The fact they provide direct download links to MP3s probably means this site won’t last very long once the labels release the hounds.
Given the fact that playlist sharing sites are a bit cheaper to run, could playlists be free music’s killer app? Interesting tidbit here is that advertisers like to reach people who listen to programmed music and 8tracks founder and CEO David Porter points out that, “the global radio sector ($38 billion) is 2X the size of the recorded music sector.”

And finally, if you happen to be in San Francisco, CA or want to make it out, the SF Music Tech Summit is set for Monday, December, 7 2009.

The Music Industry in 2010

Now that we are in the last days of 2009, love ‘em or hate ‘em, 2010 predictions and forecasts have probably started to cross your screens. Looking back at everything that has happened this year, let’s indulge in a little Creative Deconstruction prognostication fun. If you could build a new music industry business model what would it be? What new services would you offer? Which artists do you think will break-out next year? Will Spotify ever launch in the US? We would love to hear what your music industry predictions, hopes or even dreams are for a better 2010!

Gabriel Nijmeh

Gabriel Nijmeh is a software business analyst, passionate music lover and guitar player. He currently advises a couple of music startups, including Mediazoic, a real-time social DJ platform and co-founded the Toronto edition of OpenMusicMedia which brings people together to openly discuss the intersection of digital music, media and culture.

Share it if you like it:

Forrester Report: The Way Forward for the Music Industry or a Step Backward?

refe — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:35:24 +0000

A new report from the Forrester Research Group has been getting a lot of buzz lately, fueled largely by the fact that due to its hefty $500 price tag very few people have actually read it. Nothing like a bit of mystery to spice up what is being heralded by some as “a plan to save the music industry.”

The 18 page report is called Music Release Windows: The Product Innovation That The Music Business Can’t Do Without by Mark Mulligan. The Forrester Group was kind enough to send me a copy, so I thought I’d put together a brief summary of the report, adding my own two cents as I go. If you really want to drop five-hundred bucks on a copy of your own, by all means click here.

The Context

The report is built on the premise that free digital distribution has transformed recorded music from a scarce good into an infinite good. In Mulligan’s words “content scarcity is dead.” Digital music files can be copied an unlimited number of times without degradation and without cost. Infinite goods are next to impossible to monetize, unless they can be paired with other forms of scarcity that add value. So far so good. I don’t think there are too many people out there who still disagree with this concept. If you don’t quite get what I’m talking about read this before going any further.

Mulligan suggests that this presents the music industry with the opportunity for the “album straight-jacket” to be thrown off so that “releases can become part of a continual artist-fan relationship.” He goes on to say something we’ve been saying around here for a while, “We want to see labels empower artists to think outside the confines of the album and maintain steady, continual streams of creative output.” (Emphasis mine.) This includes not only recorded music, but other types of content as well such as music videos, interviews, behind the scenes features, etc.

The Plan

The bulk of the report deals with Mulligan’s plan to “establish structured release windows that communicate value.” Mulligan argues that the “proliferation of new music services makes it difficult for consumers to discern any one service’s relative position in the product range and to understand value and premium.” Basically, with all the options consumers now have to discover, enjoy and purchase music it has become too hard for them to figure out how much music should be worth. Some services are paid, some are free, etc.

Mulligan’s answer to this is to establish a 3-tiered system of release windows, similar to what has been used in the movie industry for years. Music is first released to premium channels, then to mainstream channels such as conventional retailers, and finally to “free and feels like free” services like online streaming. The chart below provides an illustration of how this might look.

Aside from establishing a clear hierarchy of value, Mulligan also proposes that this system would provide additional value through the scarcity of convenience. “At the top of the release window chain will be highly convenient services that deliver real premium value with the best content first. At the other end will be services that are less convenient with less content last.” (Emphasis mine.)

The Problems

Unfortunately, this plan doesn’t really do what it sets out to do. It doesn’t add convenience – it only adds an artificial sense of convenience.

Right now, when music comes out it just comes out. You can get it online, you can get in the store, you can stream it on Last.fm, – all at the same time. Listeners have the choice to get their music the way they want it. What Mulligan’s plan does is put up artificial restrictions to keep various groups of consumers from having access to content until as long as six weeks have passed. This may establish a value hierarchy, but it also completely ignores what consumers actually want. As Mike Masnick of Techdirt puts it, “Artificially holding [content] back doesn’t do much good and doesn’t give anyone a reason to buy.” Sounds more like inconvenience, doesn’t it?

Which brings us to the elephant in the room: unauthorized file sharing. These release windows are meaningless if someone leaks the content early. If the U2 album bundled with that fancy black and red iPod suddenly becomes widely available, for example, the value of that ‘premium channel’ goes way down.

Here’s what the report has to say about that:

Of course, music will still leak onto file sharing networks and reduce the scarcity. But that’s why we’re focusing on convenience first. And there will even be content scarcity of sorts: in the legitimate arena. This will still be important, as it will be a valuable asset for high-end buyers who want to pay to get stuff first. Freeloaders will still turn to filesharing, but that’s not who the services at the top of the release window chain are aimed at.

I agree that in the ‘legitimate arena’ content scarcity still exists. I purchase every track that I download. I don’t download unauthorized music and I won’t even if Mulligan succeeds in convincing the industry to make me wait six weeks to stream an album to find out if I like it enough to buy. But there remains a large number of people aren’t likely to play along with this plan.

The report attempts to address these issues, but isn’t very convincing:

It might seem a bit contrary to be talking up the idea of release windows just as the movie industry is compressing its windows as global TV release schedules start to become harmonized. But we think there are valuable lessons to be learned (including learning from the movie industry’s mistakes.) Also, it is worth noting that movie releases are unlikely to ever end up entirely compressed and that global release synchronization is both long overdue and essential in the digital age for TV as much as it is for music. If you don’t synchronize globally, BitTorrent and a host of others will do it for you. (Emphasis mine.)

Isn’t this very report suggesting that the music industry un-synchronize?

Conclusion

All in all I found the report to be a mixed bag.

The good:

Recognizes the need to add scarce value to recorded music.
Attempts to establish a clear value hierarchy between various music formats.
Embraces the idea of artists producing a steady stream of creative output rather than staggered album releases.
Advocates an increased focus on product innovation. (I didn’t cover this idea much in this post due to space. I will talk a lot more about it in a subsequent post.)

The bad:

Fails to produce a true value-adding scarcity
The convenience offered to some consumers by release windows is only relative to the inconvenience they impose on everyone else.
The effects of unauthorized file sharing are all but ignored.
The solution offered (release windows) is a step backward at a time when the industry should be looking to the future.

That should just about cover it. I tried to be as comprehensive and clear as possible for those of you who have not had a chance to read the actual report. Let me know if you have any questions about it that I don’t seem to cover here.

What do you think? Are release windows the way forward or a step backwards?

Share it if you like it:

The Music Business Gets Leaky – Radiohead, Jay-Z, Muse and More

refe — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:59:07 +0000

It’s incredible how quickly news bunches up these days thanks to the social web. Seems like only a week or two ago that the online music community was all a twitter about the leak of Radiohead’s new single These are My Twisted Words.This week Jay-Z’s new album Blueprint 3 was rushed out a week ahead schedule due to a full-length leak that has spread like wildfire. Then, just this morning I got word that the new one from Muse has now leaked in full as well. Leaks are the new reality, folks.

Initially, Jay-Z shrugged off the reports that his album had leaked, calling it a “preview.”

“I’m excited for people to hear the album,” he told MTV News last week, ”I’m very proud of the work I’ve done, so enjoy it.”

Based on the new release date it looks like Jay-Z has reassessed his approach. Not a big surprise – according to TorrentFreak the Blueprint 3 leak has been downloaded by “some 400,000 people on BitTorrent alone in the past days, making it last week’s most pirated music album.” Musformation.com reports another 100k+ copies being shared on filesharing sites, Usenet, and AIM. Those numbers must have had him very worried about lost sales. The original September 11 US release date was chosen because it would have been exactly eight years after the release of the original Blueprint in 2001.

Radiohead, on the other hand, turned out to be the source of their leak. They released an mp3 of These are my Twisted Words anonymously to drive buzz. It worked wonderfully as fans, bloggers and even some news organizations quickly picked up the story.

I have not seen any official reaction from Muse regarding the leak of their upcoming album The Resistance, but if you follow me on Twitter I’ll make sure to post something on it when I know.

Unauthorized (and authorized) leaks appear to be here to stay - we’d all better get used to them quickly.

Share it if you like it:

Deconstructing the Week in Music 8.10-8.16

refe — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:45:36 +0000

Here’s a recap of what went on in the music industry this week. Make sure to check out anything you might have missed and leave your comments. Know something we don’t? Submit a story.

Also check out my guest post over at www.OneMovementWord.com, the official blog of Australian music industry conference One Movement for Music Perth. One I was asked to write on the topic ‘What will it take for artist, industry and fan unite?’ That’s a rather loaded question and I’m not sure how qualified I am to answer it, but I did my best. I’ll be re-posting it here on Creative Deconstruction early next week, but I’m sure my Australian friends would appreciate it if you stopped by to check it out. Let me know what you think.

Most Popular:

Is ‘Joel Fights Back’ really the David to the RIAA’s Goliath? – Many, many people want to see the RIAA knocked down a peg, but was this the right case to try and make that happen?

Sufjan Stevens to release BQE Multi-media set in October – It seems quite a few people are anticipating new material from Sufjan.

This Week:

What the music industry and the credit crisis have in common – Some interesting and worrisome parallels I have observed…

New music releases for August 11th 2009 – Modest Mouse, Japandroids, Fruit Bats, and more.

The return of the Supergroup – Surely declining record sales have nothing to do with this, right?

Imogen Heap shows us that DIY pays off – and takes a lot of work - Some great discussion happening here over the past few days. Check it out and add your thoughts.

Music Video Picks:

Coldplay Strawberry Swing – Stunning new video. You’ll never look at sidewalk chalk the same way again.

This Week in Music History:

1977 – Elvis Presley was found dead lying on the floor in his bathroom by his girlfriend Ginger Alden, he had been seated on the toilet reading ‘The Scientific Search For Jesus’. He died of heart failure at the age of 42. His first record for RCA, ‘Heartbreak Hotel’, was also his first US No.1. He starred in 31 films. Elvis holds the record for the most entries on the US Hot 100 chart with 154. (This Day in Music)

Share it if you like it:

What the Music Industry and the Credit Crisis Have in Common

refe — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 04:06:09 +0000

I stumbled on an interesting animation that attempts to explain the United States’ ongoing credit crisis in easily understood terms. It’s a great video, which you can see in its entirety here.

At a certain point in the video the narrator begins to explain the problem of sub-prime mortgages. Basically, the banks and investors were getting so rich buying and selling huge groups of mortgages that they began running out of qualified home buyers. But the scheme was working so well that they weren’t willing to give it up. Banks began giving out mortgages to unqualified buyers without any of the safeguards they used to require – down payments, good credit, etc. Meanwhile, house prices continued to rise. Eventually, these unqualified home buyers ended up getting in way over their heads and couldn’t repay their loans which resulted in a huge number of foreclosures. The bank’s revenue dried up, investors weren’t paid back and eventually everybody was so broke that no one could get a loan. A vicious cycle was born.

The video explains the situation much better than I, but you get the idea. As I listened to all of this I was struck by the parallels that can be found with the current state of the music industry.

Think about it:

For years the recording industry was getting rich selling vinyl and later CD’s. The business was so lucrative that eventually they began to run out of quality acts, but CD sales had to keep rising. So they begin to take middle of the road talent (or simply manufacture their own) and hype it so big that it had to sell. Eventually these acts fizzled out or listeners simply moved on and more and more acts had to replace them. Meanwhile, the price of CD’s kept on climbing higher and higher. Before long the listeners realized that they were paying way too much for way too little and began searching for cheaper ways to get better music. File sharing takes off and CD sales plummet.

Of course, instead of recognizing the root issues at the heart of the new ‘crisis,’ the industry retreats deeper into the safe-but-mediocre product it had been pushing for years, and spent the remainder of its resources fighting to bring back the status quo.

Kind of eerie, isn’t it?

Fortunately, this crisis has left a gaping hole for independent artists and entrepreneurs to fill. The same innovations that sent the old guard into a tailspin have given resourceful indies a powerful boost to find an audience on their own. There are likely similar potential opportunities waiting to be seized as a result of the nation’s credit crunch. That’s the great thing about crises – whether credit, music or whatever else – they have a way of deconstructing old boundaries and setting the stage for incredible progress.

Share it if you like it:

Deconstructing the Week in Music 8.3 – 8.8

refe — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:29:29 +0000

Here’s a recap of what went on in the music industry this week. Make sure to check out anything you might have missed and leave your comments. Know something we don’t? Submit a story.

Most Popular:

5 Reasons Why the Performance Rights Act is a Bad Idea – The judicial hearing to discuss this bill last week put this issue back in the spotlight.

3 Ways to Make Music Worth Paying For - The first 3 of 6 concepts for driving value in a world of free. Based on Technium’s ‘Eight Generatives of Free.’

This Week:

Is ‘Joel Fights Back’ Really the David to the RIAA’s Goliath? – I want to see the RIAA challenged as much as the next guy, but was this the right case to do that?

New Album Releases August 4th 2009 - Find and download the week’s best new releases – and Japandroids, Modest Mouse, The Fruit Bats, and Lightning Dust.

‘Performance Rights Act’ Discussed in Heated Senate Hearing – A commentary on last week’s Performance Rights and Parity hearing in the Senate.

Connect with Creative Deconstruction – A quick thank you to the wonderful readers here at Creative Deconstruction, as well as information on the different ways to connect.

Lawmakers Praise Napster for File Sharing Innovations in 2000 – A surprising look back at lawmakers’ all but forgotten excitement over Napster and it’s young creator.

Music Video Picks:

No new videos this week – check out the archives.

This Week in Music History:

1969 The photo session for the cover of The Beatles ‘Abbey Road’ album took place on the crossing outside Abbey Road studios. Photographer Iain McMillan, balanced on a step-ladder in the middle of the road took six shots of John, Ringo, Paul, and George walking across the zebra crossing while a policeman held up the traffic. The band then returned to the studio and recorded overdubs on ‘The End’, ‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy)’ and ‘Oh! Darling’. (This Day in Music.com)

Share it if you like it:

Lawmakers Praise Napster for File Sharing Innovation in 2000

refe — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:24:46 +0000

This little gem appeared today on the blog of Charles Nesson, the attorney representing Joel Tenenbaum in his recent bout with the RIAA. In a letter addressed to Nesson, Robert John Smith of the Louisiana Capital Appeals Project makes the argument that the laws used by the RIAA against Joel Tenenbaum were never intended to cover the sharing of music files over peer to peer networks. In it he transcribes large sections of an October 9, 2000, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Provo, Utah called “Utah’s Digital Economy and the Future: Peer-To-Peer and Other Emerging Technologies.” The hearing featured then 19-year old Napster creator Shawn Fanning, and offers an often surprising look at the way file sharing was viewed by policy makers when it first arrived on the scene.

Senator Orin Hatch (pictured above) introduced Fanning to the rest of the committee and a group of students who were present. The Senator seemed to have no shortage of praise for him and the Napster platform itself:

“It’s this peer-to-peer technology approach that basically has formulated opportunities for people like never before. And we’re moving more and more into peer-to-peer technology; and when you look at Gnutella, which doesn’t even need a server, it’s a slow system, but nevertheless someday somebody is going to break through on that. Napster was the reason I think we’ve been able to even move in that direction. So let’s turn to Shawn Fanning, who at 18 years of age developed this application and this process, and deserves an awful lot of credit. We’re very proud of him, and he’s been with us back in Washington and agreed to come to Utah especially today just to chat with us a little bit about what his perspectives are. And if some of you young students would like to come up and sit on the floor up here, for those of you who are standing, we would be glad to have you come up here and surround this place, and we’ll turn the time over to Shawn Fanning at this point.”

Smith notes that ”it is important here to remember that Napster was not selling licensed songs at this point. People were uploading and downloading their music, and Naspter provided the platform and indexing. In other words, Hatch is praising the very activity that costs Joel $675,000.”

Smith again quotes Senator Hatch as he goes on to quite accurately describe to potential benefits of peer to peer networks for both personal communication and business:

“Peer-to-peer means that everyone’s home computer becomes like a server, so that rather than many customers browsing through the content stored on large servers, individuals search for information or entertainment on each other’s computers. This technology could reduce costs for individuals who want to be their own publisher. It allows for more up-to-date information to be more quickly searchable, and could make more efficient use of computing power. It could further connect us to each other.”

According to Smith, “Fanning went on to explain exactly how Napster works, how as of then they were not paying artist royalties, how wide the practice of sharing music files had becomes (among both children and their parents), how the technology can benefit independent artists, how music sampling can lead to increased revenues for artists and the industry, etc. Shawn even downloaded a song from Napster for Hatch and the Audience to listen to during the hearing.”

It’s incredible how far we’ve come in the decade since that hearing took place. In the wrong direction, unfortunately. It seems that policy makers had a much better understanding in 2000 of the potential that platforms such as Napster provided for progress in not only the music industry, but in other sectors as well.

Am I wrong in thinking that we’ve gone backward in our views of copyright and file sharing since the beginning of this millenium? Leave your comments and let me know what you think.

Share it if you like it:

Is ‘Joel Fights Back’ Really the David to RIAA’s Goliath?

refe — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:30:36 +0000

As many of you will have already heard, the RIAA won the second of two high profile cases this past Friday. This time it was against 25 year-old graduate student Joel Tenenbaum, described by the plaintiffs as a “hardcore, habitual, long-term, persistent infringer.” The jury awarded damages totaling $675,000. “It’s a bankrupting award,” remarked Tenenbaum’s attorney, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson when asked about the number. And Joel thought paying off his grad school loans was going to be difficult. Most of the action during the trial was posted on Tenenbaum’s blog joelfightsback.com, or in real time via Twitter.

A lot has already been said about this trial, and I’m not interested in rehashing the details. However, this was certainly an important event, and there are a few things that I do want to weigh in on.

Let’s start with Joel Tenenbaum. Joel’s legal team (PR team?) has been trumpeting the slogan “Joel Fights Back” tenaciously over the course of this spectacle, painting their client as David bravely standing up to a terrible Goliath. The RIAA certainly fits the bill as Goliath – but does Joel Tenenbaum really make much of a David?

The RIAA has threatened approximately 18,000 individuals who they accuse of file sharing. They send a letter demanding settlements of up to $3,000, or, as the letters explain, they would drag them into court. I’m glad that that someone stood up to that kind of bullying and I’m happy that somebody “fought back.” I’m just not sure that this was the right case, or that Tenenbaum was the right defendant.

The Tenenbaum case has been something of a circus since well before the trial itself began. There have been all sorts of questions and allegations on both sides of the aisle as to the legality of certain witnesses and exerts, including Media Sentry, the company who captured screenshots of Tenenbaum’s computer which revealed over 800 songs in his share file. According to RIAA attorney Timothy Reynolds, as reported by Ars Technica:

Tenenbaum was a repeat miscreant, who started using Napster in 1999, turned to numerous other peer-to-peer services when the last one got shut down, and continued his infringement despite multiple warnings—including at least one from his own father—that he should stop. “Did he stop? Did he even consider it? Not at all… He actually increased both the size and scope of his infringement,” said Reynolds.

Tenenbaum apparently continued sharing music over P2P networks well into 2008. Perhaps the man thought he was proving a point, or sticking it to the man, or was simply confident that he could beat the RIAA at their own game. Or, more likely, Nesson had him convinced that his fair-use argument would make make his file sharing activity irrelevant (it was actually thrown out by the judge 8 hours before the trial even began.) Tenenbaum even admitted to lying on his written depositions. “Why did you lie at that point?” asked Nesson. “It was kind of something I rushed through,” replied Tenenbaum. “It’s what seemed the best response to give.” Why incriminate himself like that, only to then take the stand and admit to everything?

Joel Tenenbaum should have never gone to trial. Of the 18,000 people strong-armed by the RIAA there has to have been a better poster child. He was clearly guilty, which means that the only real option he and his legal team had left was to argue that the law itself is flawed. I think the law is certainly flawed in many ways, but that was never what this trial was about. So how was all of this ‘fighting back?’

As for the RIAA – I am consistently appalled by this organization in new and surprising ways as each new day passes. Is it unfair to accuse the RIAA of being a bully?

Bully – noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Verb. To use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone) typically to force him or her to do what one wants.”

I’d say that the word ‘bully’ paints a pretty accurate picture. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars (where do you think that money comes from, by the way?) to take or threaten to take legal action against tens of thousands of individuals they accuse of file sharing? During the trial one of the recording industry’s lawyers was asked whether the reason for these lawsuits was to “teach people a lesson.” His answer? A simple “yes.”

What does it say about the state of the recording industry that it bankrupts it’s own listeners in order to send a message? What is the message that they are sending? “We’ll get your money, one way or another.”

During the trial the recording industry’s expert economist, Dr. Liebowitz, declared music piracy to be the ‘only reason for the fall of the music industry after 1999.” For an ‘expert’ Dr. Liebowitz appears to be severely misguided. “Piracy” – which is really not piracy at all, but rather copyright infringement – is a symptom of the music industry’s disease, not the cause. The P2P movement, for all its flaws, is in many ways simply the fans’ reaction to years of being overcharged and under-served. Platforms such as Napster could have been an opportunity for the industry to recognize and respond to the way fans wanted to get their music. Instead, they have reacted by criminalizing an entire generation of music lovers.

Maybe Joel Tenenbaum’s quest to ‘fight back’ will bear positive fruit, maybe it won’t. In my mind this trial was a lose-lose situation for the parties involved. The RIAA gets to dive ever deeper into the pit of negative publicity, and Joel Tenenbaum is out six-hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars.

What do you think? Do you believe Tenenbaum was right to go to trial? What are your thoughts on the RIAA, P2P or copyright in general?

Photo: Josh Reynolds/AP

Share it if you like it:

Deconstructing the Week in Music: 6.8-6.14

refe — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:10:55 +0000

Here’s a recap of what went on in the music industry this week. Make sure to check out anything you might have missed and leave your comments. Know something we don’t? Submit a story.

Most Popular:

Amazon to Torrent Site: Stop Letting your Users Buy our Music - Amazon.com refuses to let ‘pirates’ pay for music. Solid business strategy?

Trent Reznor Quits Twitter – How Real is Too Real in Social Media? - Some fans didn’t like Reznor gushing about his love life. What happened to leaving a little mystery?

This Week:

Why Free Music Was Inevitable – Technically from last week, but there’s a lot of important stuff in here. Read this before checking out the ’3 Ways’ articles.

3 Ways to Make Music Worth Paying For – The digital age has caused the value of music to drop. Here are a few ways to counter that trend.

3 More Ways to Make Music Worth Paying For - The last three sources of additional value.

Last.fm Founders Hand Over Keys to CBS - Two years after a $280 acquisition by CBS, the founders are out. What will this mean to users?

BitBlinder Baits RIAA with Free Anonymous File-Sharing - Can the RIAA outgun the file-sharing community?

Music Video Picks:

St. Vincent – Actor out of Work

Carina Round – Backseat

White Rabbits – Percussion Gun

This Week in Music History:

1970, The Beatles started a two week run at No.1 on the US singles chart with ‘The Long And Winding Road’, the groups 20th US No.1. The album ‘Let It Be’ started a four-week run at No.1 the US album chart on the same day. (From This Day in Music.)

Share it if you like it: