Slashdot Mirror
Music Labels Screwed, DRM Is Dead
An anonymous reader writes "Peter Jenner, former manager of bands like Pink Floyd, T.Rex and the Clash, states in an interview with the Register that music label executives have lost faith in DRM and dollar-per-track online music selling isn't working too well as a model. He predicts that in two to three years time, many countries will have moved to a blanket licensing regime." The article goes on at some length, talking about the value of digital music, patterns in the music industry, and some business at the end about 'the tyranny of the playlist' that I'm not hep enough to follow. I'm not sure this rant has any connection whatsoever with reality, but it is something to think about.
only big label companies and their sponsored software developers believed to be so, maybe, for a short while.
It was stupid right from the start - digital environment, internet is a free medium. freedom is its nature and its result. monopoly, impending 100-year old control schemes for distribution of intellectual property was a 'clueless' idea at best, if not stupid.
Given the big label company ceos, execs are now of a generation that is in their 60-70s, it is no surprise that they have misjudged that we were still in 1950s.
Gramps, you are of a dying generation. you are passing away.
then, instead of trying to screw your label and your shareholders with dinosaur-worthy 'measures', embrace the new digital/internet revolution and leave a good name behind.
or, leave your chairs to younger ones, who are actually able to understand the contemporary times and participate in it.
Read radical news here
Jenner is wrong about DRM being dead... because DRM is not about controlling the distribution of music and video.
You can only control data by controlling the applications that run. DRM is about the centralized development of software, and about forcing people to only run that software to access certain pieces of data. That's DRM is a nutshell.
Once you understand that, you understand why DRM is not dead, and will not die just because a bunch of record/movie companies finally get a clue. The technology companies like Intel, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Apple and Sun all *want DRM very badly* because it puts them in control. Remember: the DIGITAL in DRM doesn't just refer to music and video -- it's anything. Images, emails, word processing documents, spreadsheets... software itself is just digital data as far as an operating system is concerned (remember that when you think of Microsoft and DRM).
DRM is way past being about music and video. It's an unholy alliance between the pigopolists in the record and movie industry and the technology companies greedy to make themselves controllers of the digital world.
P.S. Absolutely *everything* that Intel has done in the last ten years has been driven by the desire to implement a pan-DRM regime -- and especially to bring a controlled locked-down environment to the PC world.
Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.
You're pretty wrong. It's not losslessness that caused piracy. It's the fact that pirated music has less restrictions, is more convenient, and is (sounds odd but) is cheaper.
Using pirated music costs you: you can be sued, and you gotta use questionable service full of porn, scam ads and trojans. Not every price has a dollar value.
If official labels would offer cheap legal downloads of unencumbered formats, people would flock to it, allofmp3 was a good example of this.
So perfect digital copies changes only one thing: no more articial scarcity. You either play with open cards, or piracy replaces you.
The music industry needs to get around the mindset that they are due a monthly stipend. That pricing system rewards mediocrity and lack of creativity, which is all to prevalent in what the music industry calls its product today. There is absolutely no way I will pay any money for a license to listen to music that I may already own or music I wish to own. The fact someone is willing to pay money for a product, whether it's $15 per CD or 99 cents per download is the incentive this industry needs to give the customer what they want, not what the music industry wants. It's been written here so many times before that the reason the industry has lackluster sales is because the product isn't what the customer wants and its delivery method doesn't suit the method the customer wants.
I can't think of too many "kids" who don't like iTunes. My kids and their friends eat up iTunes gift cards downloading the exact music they want without having to pay $15 for a CD that has one or maybe two songs they enjoy. Which heralds back to what I remember as a kid where I could run up to the local drug store, fork over a dollar and get a 45 with the exact music I wanted (yeah, I'm that old). That's what the music industry was built upon before it was turned into a cash machine that ate customer good-will. And that was before the advent of downloadable music; now the music industry is vilified to the point of no return in the eyes of its customers.
The previous role of the record company was more than "sell plastic disks". The record companies were the only entities that were capable of recording music, distribute the record and market it. Now, with the development and widespread adoption and use of computers and communication networks the role that the record company once played simply became obsolete. Now everyone can afford the tools necessary to record a song and can even do it in the comfort of their room, everyone can easily distribute an album worldwide with a simple click of a button and the marketing machine that the record companies had simply doesn't work as well as it once did. To put it shortly, the record companies simply aren't needed anymore. If you ask me, that change is more than welcomed. It's progress.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Let's say I pay a music tax -- how do the ISP in collaboration with the owner of the intellectual property then figure out who should get the money for something I downloaded? Assuming an "popularity/assumption model" is one of their ideas -- I do not want the income be split according to the popularity of artists, as that could give Madonna money for downloading from a far less common artist. And how is the fee adjusted to how much copyrighted music I'd download? Because it is, right, otherwise it's completely unfair.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That's nonsense.
First of all, it's wrong if only because this would imply the similar death of the video gaming industry, which is not going to happen.
But to address what you say: there are a lot more things out there that are held in check merely by "morality and fear of the law" but you don't see society crumbling because of it.
Secondly, people DO want plastic disks. It might be easy for YOU to go online and get the music you want, but even in the absence of worrying about getting caught, much of the population has no idea how to find the music they want. It's much easier to go on iTunes or go to the store. And if someone does make something that's easy enough for 75% of the population, existing copyright laws will be able to control it to the industry's satisfaction. Look at YouTube for an example. The problem right now is that the copyright laws are more than enough for controlling the situation.
Secondly, record companies also do a lot more than control how plastic disks are created and distributed: they also make those disks VISIBLE - they're the gatekeepers of quality of music. Whenever you have media, you always have to have gatekeepers of quality that scale to the size of the industry. Even if all the record companies went bankrupt right now, and everyone went digital, you'd see the same the same pattern occuring: groups making money off of affiliating themselves with the best artists.
Even when musicians were live performers, people paid for copies of the composer's work to play on the piano at home. Nowadays, most musicians are live performers and composers rolled into one - which even counts groups like The Backstreet Boys or Britney Spears if you look at those groups as aggregates - Britney Spears doesn't write her own music, but the Britney Team has people who write it just for her. So people are going to pay for music for the foreseeable future at least. That's not even including those people who are going to purchase physical copies for the purpose of supporting the artist directly.
What the internet is going to do is make the entire process transparent - like Jenner says, you can get as much information about the artist as you want: blogs, live recordings, outtakes, etc. You're also going to get bands that are truly breakthrough artists, but aren't "commerical" enough for the majors that can now cause a buzz online instead. But even then, they are going to be affiliated with at least a small record company. Even if it's just the band and their friends under a label they started, it still lends credence to that band and makes tours easier to book and critics more amiable to reviewing your record. Record labels aren't going anywhere - but what I think IS going to change is that they'll stop being 4 mega-conglomerates and become more decentralized. You're already seeing this, but the majors are still maintaining control of the smaller groups. I think you're going to see a loss in this kind of control. I would also like to see a movement towards artist control of copyright.
There is a kernel of truth in what you say, however: the majority of a band's income comes from live performances.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
That sounds like a banal world where only 'big stadium rock' bands can survive.
Sorry. I can do without the bombast, I don't want to listen to music from the grandstands.
"This means that musicians and ALL artists will have to work just like everyone. They can create live (a show) for a fee. They can produce something unique (a jingle, or a painting) for a fee. They will have to do real jobs doing their thing if they want to make money."
One of these days, I want to find the person who started this entire myth about what the life of an artist is like and shoot them. Several times.
I've got news for you - the creative artists who get really rich off their work are the tiny minority. Most of the creative artists out there create in their spare time - they keep their day jobs, because that's the only way to support themselves.
That first novel? Well, guess what - you're lucky if when it's all said and done you make minimum wage for the hours you spent on it - and believe me, I know - my first published print book came out to around $800/month for the time I was working on it, and I worked on it full-time. Courtney Love, in a famous speech, pointed out that most recording artists make less in their first year of recording than they would waiting tables. And most actors getting started need a part-time job to keep a roof over their heads. I can't speak for the visual arts, but I haven't heard of too many who make that massive sale to a gallery.
Now, consider this - if the compensation for the creative arts was fair and equitable, you'd be paying a lot more for it, not a lot less. Perhaps instead of talking about us like we're some spoiled children, you should be grateful that we love our craft and our art to the point that despite being short-changed for it, we are still producing work for you to consume. Perhaps you should thank us for tolerating living below poverty lines to create your entertainment. And perhaps, just perhaps, you should do some research before posting, so that you don't offend those of us who actually CREATE.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.
This is what the music industry is thinking, and I disagree completely.
The filesharing we see today is not lossless copies, it is lossy MP3 files. Of course people will copy the music they buy and use the copies in their MP3 players, in the car and give some copies to their friends, just like they did before they had computers and made cassette tapes of their purchases.
And that will not kill the industry.
What the music industry needs to do is to get past their fear of people copying. They need to make the best download site ever. Combine the best of Pirate bay, iTunes Store, and eMusic, and sell DRM-free high-quality MP3s for less than $1. Make the site a joy to use and offer great reviews, bios, forums, artist facts, lyrics, videos, etc. People will come and they will buy. Because it is easier to download at the site than to search for a good copy on a pirate site. People are lazy. Offer good value for the money and don't treat the customers as thiefs and they will come.
)9TSS
Take it from someone with very close artist, artist management, and record label contacts: Only long-time artists with large back catalogues and major staying power earn even a noteworthy amount of money from royalties. The remainder tour because it is quite simply the best way of earning an income, historically through the selling of merchandise at said shows but more recently through merchandise sales combined with increased ticket prices. After producing an album, touring is required in order to pay back album production advances, only after which most actual income starts being made. You've surely noticed more and more artists touring a given album multiple times, and that's because it is both a) the single best way for them to get paid now and b) the best way to reduce the sting of advances during production of their next album later. They aren't touring it multiple times just for fun, although your post would suggest that they must be.
Even with "real" piracy in Asia (that was going on long before digital tech), the major US media producers don't seem to be having financial woes. Eisner's lack of vision (resulting is shitty movies and stagnation or creativity) at Disney probably cost the company far more than the last 30 years of Asian bootlegs.
Method of processing duck feet