Slashdot Mirror
MySpace Teams With Record Companies To Create Music Site
The New York Times reports on a deal between MySpace and three of the four major music labels to develop a new music website. Users will be able to stream songs for free, purchase downloadable tracks, and (possibly) pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited access. From the Times:
"Exact terms of the deal and details about the new site, like prices for downloaded music tracks, were not disclosed. But MySpace did say the site would offer songs free of digital rights management software or D.R.M., which is used to prevent illicit copying but can create technical hurdles for buyers. The songs would be playable on any portable music device, including Apple's iPod. For the music industry, the deal is partly born of desperation. In the face of widespread, escalating online piracy, music sales dropped to $11.5 billion in 2006 from a peak in 1999 of nearly $15 billion."
It almost sounds as if they are considering treating their customers as *gasp* customers!
There's a few things like this and I've seen several people attribute them to the iTunes 'stranglehold' on the market.
I think its sort of awesome; we're seeing more variety and more competition in the market now than ever before. Of course that's not saying much when before was more or less == 0, but hey - it's a start.
While I have long been skeptical of the record industries ability to do anything other than try to ream consumers, the fact that they seem finally willing to ditch DRM en masse is certainly giving me some hope for the future.
I'd like to see if they let independent artists who haven't signed with a label for a record deal yet sell their music on MySpace. TFA provides too little information, but this could end up as a good way for starving artists to stop starving.
Doesn't last.fm already offer this, save the monthly fee?
Ten years ago I predicted .04 cents per song to be the natural price for an mp3, and that's all they need to do to get me to pay.
Who wants to keep track of all this crap on your hard drive? I'll pay four cents every time I want to hear most songs.
And if, for some reason, I want to save it as an mp3, I expect to be able to do so, with no arguments.
You serve me, RIAA bitches, not the other way around. Maybe you're starting to understand this you stupid fucking bastards.
expandfairuse.org
Ya, it's piracy's fault that music sales dropped 3.5 billion in seven years.
I'm sure that the cost of gasoline doubling in that same time had nothing to do with people buying fewer CDs.
There, fixed it for you.
I expect great things in audio streaming from a company that can't get all of the pictures on even the most meager of its pages to load, and has a typical page load time of minutes for what it is able to show. I'm guessing they'll be strong proponent of glitch techno music.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think piracy is to blame. Its the music industry's inexplicable urge to present themselves as greedy, morally bankrupt fat cats who don't care about the artists, or anyone other than themselves really. I just can't bring myself to financially support those assholes, so I don't buy music.
Cry me a river 'industry'. If there was an objective way to measure the quality of music coming from the big labels, I'm sure it would be would be in the red as well. The only good music I'm hearing is odd little acts going it alone, and mostly by choice.
The new indie is no record. Just free tracks, and an invitation to come to a show. Sadly, even doing this is a incredible money sink. Driving an hour to shows is ridiculously spendy; my drummer lives over one hundred miles away as well! Since we don't play covers, we draw less than your AC/DC/Zepplin/80's/Classic/Rock band. A crap economy, DVDs, PS3s, and other distractions don't help either.
I say, ignore this site - why again would I make someone buy a track, or put any obstacle in the way of more people hearing my music? Since it's a label partnership, the 'names' are going to get pushed, and get preferential placement anyway.
Support your local band and buy a t-shirt! It's pretty much the only business model left.
I think this is too little, too late on the part of MySpace. Their site fell out of fad (in favor for Facebook, but Facebook will eventually be a fad too), and was and still has a terrible site design.
Last.Fm will be a tough competitor to face off against, especially if the same "brilliant" minds behind the MySpace site layout try to crack Last.Fm's bread & butter.
The statement in the article seeks sympathy for an industry that needs none. Read enough books about the business aspects of record deals and it's clear Major Labels are scumbags.
When the industry thinks of the billions lost do they even take into account the amount of independent artists that are booming right now? Their website says "RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States" which is pure malarkey. Independents have a bigger slice of the pie and this also doesn't take into account many international artists. These self-produced, sometimes even self distributed, artists gain respect all around because they know some jerk with a ponytail didn't tamper with the creative talent that makes good bands, amazing. This is the age where you can spend a couple thousands of dollars or less, in recording equipment, to produce a semi-professional album. Kids don't need to beg Record companies to back them financially for studio recording sessions, they do it themselves, drop $900 to manufacture 1000 professional CDs, and sell em for $8-$10.
Maybe the fact that MP3's are cheaper than CD's period? iTunes has destroyed the album, people only spend $3 for 3 songs instead of $13 for the album. Maybe they'd buy the whole album if many mainstreams bands sucked at creating strong albums. No one wants to pay $17 for a brand new CD anymore because the scam has gone on far too long, everyone knows better, produce a bad album iTunes enforces it and makes you pay.
I'm sure there's a lot of discrepancy in those numbers because of the declining Used CD market as well.
More money is thrown around nowadays but the music market is complicated compared to yesterday. RIAA is just getting hammered because people are spending their money elsewhere and many artists can survive without standing under the RIAA umbrella.
INTERESTING FACTS:
If you are not an artist that pays royalties to the RIAA your money from records sold is not counted in this figure AND if you do not join the RIAA you are incapable of obtaining a Gold or Platinum record, true story.
-AKA
...deserves his MBA revoked. Cut the middlemen. Cut DRM. Team up with a bunch of garage bands, make them famous. They have the popularity to do that, which is precisely what all those unseen talents need...
3 of the 4 major music labels? Make your own!
And give us some GOOD music, ferchrissake!
"In the face of widespread, escalating online piracy, music sales dropped to $11.5 billion in 2006 from a peak in 1999 of nearly $15 billion."
Misleading at best. Why are we supposed to automatically assume that piracy is the sole cause of the flatlining record industry profits? Digital distribution methods have increased exponentially, and they offer music at a far greater convenience and far cheaper price than physical media. Perhaps the mass exodus to cheaper digital downloads -- rather than ponying up 20 and 30 dollars for CDs -- has something to do with it? Maybe?
"It almost sounds as if they are considering treating their customers as *gasp* customers!"
Quote from the Slashdot story: "In the face of widespread, escalating online piracy, music sales dropped..."
To me, that sounds like the music industry saying, "If something bad happens, it must be someone else's fault."
I think the falling sales are the industry's fault. I was supposed to by a Britney Spears CD to hear her singing something about abusing men? If the music industry wants strong sales, it can be kind to the customer and produce something valuable.
Music sales administered by the litigious middlemen and self proclaimed gatekeepers of music dropped to $11.5 billion.
If you include sales from independent entities distributing by themselves for themselves (i.e. ignore the vacuous wailing of sidestepped middlemen) overall music sales where actually up 14%
I'd love to know how much of the drop in sales is due to "escalating on-line piracy", and how much is due to the fact that people no longer have to accept a bunch of crap being shoved down their throats so they can get the one or two songs on a CD that are worth listening to. If I like even three songs, it's a pretty safe bet that I'll be forking out the cash. One or two songs? Not so much.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have every song on a particular CD available on a site like this, then track how much money each had made after a year, or how many times it had been downloaded. There'd certainly be some tunes that caught on slowly and eventually overtook the initial hit tune. "Ball and a Biscuit" off the same White Stripes CD as "Seven Nation Army" would be an example in my particular case. But those are the exception. Finally, we'd finally get a chance to see objective proof of just how much filler there is on your basic $20 CD.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
So now you have imeem as this monster service where you can essentially listen to any tune ever recorded, and it's all paid for by advertising.
Similarly, myspace has been in litigation with the record labels and has taken a page from the imeem playbook, copying the deal making, the business model and everything else. Only this isn't some tiny startup, this is Fox Interactive with it's massive pockets.
I really hope myspace loses this time.
.04 dollars or .04 cents?
"In the face of widespread, escalating online piracy, music sales dropped to $11.5 billion in 2006 from a peak in 1999 of nearly $15 billion."
This has got less to do with piracy and more to do with Amy Winehouse's crack bill.
This is hardly progress. This is just another attempt to keep alive one of the most archaic and outdated marketing models still in widespread use. They say "before anyone did anything, Elvis Presley did everything" but in reality his unprecidented success screwed everything. Music marketeers have been blindly flogging the same horse ever since, despite the endless painfully obvious indicators that a paradigm shift is imperative to their survival.
The fundamental flaw in the Elvis marketing model is that the product is not the music, it's the idols. To the labels, the artists aren't considered the purveyors of the music, they're just the packaging. They create idolization of the artist among consumers and then cash in on it. Music is only barely relevant to the process. Look at Paris Hilton... what does she do again?
That's why there are so few major labels. It's not a matter of signing the right talent, it's an incredibly cut-throat competition to manufacture the most influential icons. Making cars is far more expensive and complicated, yet there are 10 international auto makers for every major music label.
But now consumers can access anyone's music just as freely as the radio spewing out any big label's next wannabe hit. So traditional mass media is losing its dominance over the preferences of consumers to the internet, which by definition cannot be bought or controled. As a result, idols have less influence these days, and are becoming increasingly expensive to create.
So what's the next step? If I knew I sure wouldn't post it to a public forum! But what I will say is that the next successful music marketing model will not generate its profits from selling "music units", be they albums, songs, subscriptions, etc.
As a touring musician, live/studio engineer, and producer, I can assure you that there is a powerful motivational force between musical performers and their audiences that has never been engaged for profit to even a fraction of its potential. A bar owner paying a band 10% of sales to pack his bar and sell $12k in booze in one night makes much more sense than a label spending $5M on promotions hoping it holds a candle to the other label's $5M promotions.
But as long as labels treat their talent like packaging, they will continue to falter with repeated "innovations" on the same old game. Consumers have free access to all the content they could ever desire. Fancy packaging simply isn't enough to sell ice to eskimos.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
With the site design prowess of MySpace and the customer care and business ethics of the RIAA, how can they fail?
And free tracks doesn't make much sense either
I disagree. I know a couple of emerging (and kick ass) bands in the Phoenix area, and I always tell them to have at least one or two free tracks (as in downloadable) so people can put them on their iPods or such. It keeps things fresh between shows (especially if they tour), and reminds them that the band exists as more than an anomalous myspace friend or such. Say you have 5 recorded tracks, that one you give away isn't going to harm you, but will be a nice nod to your fans.
One of the bands I know are releasing a studio CD soon (indie), I told them to release a free track on their page. Free is a good draw, it makes people more willing to buy (social psych 101 there), also it gives the music time to grow on people who are not convinced they want to part with $10-15 bucks for an obscure indie band.
Granted I never say "give it all away for free", I want my friends to succeed, meaning they need profits. And the more albums they sell, the more rounds are on them.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
That's right. Someone who doesn't know the first thing about tall structures and engineering failures thinks it was a controlled demolition. Great.
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is