Why Starting a Legal Online Music Vendor Is Tough

Hodejo1 writes "Former MP3.com CEO Michael Robertson offers commentary at The Register saying any attempts to build a sanctioned digital music site today is doomed from the outset. 'The internet companies I talk to don't mind giving some direct benefit to music companies. What torpedoes that possibility is the big financial requests from labels for "past infringement," plus a hefty fee for future usage. Any company agreeing to these demands is signing their own financial death sentence. The root cause is not the labels — chances are if you were running a label you would make the same demands, since the law permits it."

Comments

Business logic or monopolistic cartel?

[StrategicIrony]

Just because I'm allowed by law to charge someone whatever I wish for the fruits of my business, this doesn't mean I would, or that I should. I would go out of business very rapidly.

However, if I ran a cartel, controlling a monopoly share of a highly desirable resource... then I guess I understand where they're coming from.

But... wait... aren't monopolies illegal for this very reason?

Re:Business logic or monopolistic cartel?

[bsDaemon]

No, the problem is the problem with any other sort of art -- either people like it or not, and whatever arguments made, for or against, by music/art/literature majors aren't going to change (at least not in any significant way) the way that "regular" people view a piece.

Then there is also the problem of perception associated with the source. I could pay to self-publish a volume of my poems, but it'll be ignored by critics, unavailable to most readers and, ultimately, be a waste of money on my part. If I can't get in a literary magazine or picked up by a traditional publishing house, then the perception is that I'm not any good.

The same is only marginally less true for music, and the only reason that's the case is because of the whole punk/hardcore scene which morphed into "indie," and even then Sub Pop was just a stepping-stone to Geffen for Nirvana, and most "indie" labels have major-label distribution contracts, or try to sell their bands to the big boys so they can take their cut.

So, is most of what's out there today on MTV crap? Yes. Are the new offerings on college radio stations "interchangeable?" Functionally, yes, aesthetically, no.

But, if artists and the public realized that you don't need the distribution channel to be good, then it wouldn't be a problem -- the internet makes record labels and publishing houses anachronistic in the extreme.

Maybe I missed it ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

... but I didn't see the word "iTunes" anywhere in that article.

It is possible to build a profitable, long-lasting, and legal online music business, Mr. Robertson. I'm genuinely sorry you failed to do it, but to pretend that the biggest player in the online music world simply doesn't exist is kind of childish.

Re:I tried and failed

[Technician]

But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame.

It's a common scapegoat, but missing the mark. Percieved value and retail price are an order of magnitude out of place.

Instead of wasting money on a shiney disk with about 45 minutes of stuff along with one good song, I can buy a DVD for half the price.

I can carbonate water at home and add my own flavoring and sugar, but I still purchase fountain drinks for the convience.

CD's are now the oposite of convience for more money. Downloads go right on to an MP3 player. CD's have to be found if still in print, ripped and put on a player.

Online is a-la-carte. CD is a canned package.

Some compainies wanted to make and install in store CD burning kiosks. Guess who killed that in the bud?

For an industry who doesn't listen to their consumers, they sure scream P-P a lot for their lack of adjusting to the market.

If you scream P-P enough, will the death of your scapegoat really fix your root problems?

Some people are offended by my blacklist system.

This would be mostly your best customers. Those who don't listen to music don't buy CD's. Those deeply into music purchases CD's and shares copies of out of print stuff or the one good song on a CD. Blacklisting them is a great way of killing the biggest part of your business. Thanks for providing great evidence the industry doesn't understand the market.

Much of the industry is selling pig in a poke packages. I bought the DC Talk album Supernatural because our church performed Red Letters, and I enjoyed the choir rendition. I hated the album, even the good track. I'm not into acid rock. Needless to say, once burnt, twice shy.

How many times have you bought an album because you only heard one song and then didn't like the rest of the album at all?

P-P expands music horizons. Most of the time when I bought albums, I heard it from friends first. (I quit buying entirely when the industry started dropping the nuke bomb on some unlucky few as a protest.)

My peak buying days was when I was in the military while in my peak piracy days with cassette tapes. The industry doesn't understand their consumers or the market.

Re:Horsepucky.

[Teancum]

One of the problems here is that the author of the article seems to think the authority to change the situation lies with the court system, when in fact this is a legislative problem that is compounded by a massive mis-interpretation of what the general public thinks it ought to be about.

While I understand that the Register is a UK publication, it reads like it was written by an American (perhaps a personal bias). From an American perspective, the record companies are fighting something even tougher: The U.S. Constitution. More to the point, if the copyright clause of the constitution were to be properly interpreted to understand that the protection was only for a limited time (life + 75 years isn't a "limited time" in spite of what the U.S. Supreme Court claims). Retroactive copyright term extensions make the situation even worse... but I'm barking up the wrong issue here anyway.

The point here is that legislative bodies of the world like Congress, Parliament, and other similar bodies have been dealing with this issue as if the publishing bodies (including recording studios in the case of music) are the only individuals that need to be served when these laws are drafted. Individual consumers as well as the artists/authors/composers/performers need to be strongly considered as well, and the real point of legislation ought to be asking this question:

What can changes in the current copyright legislation do to expand the number of creative works, and "promote the useful arts and sciences"?

This is certainly not something that is being asked by legislators (MPs or Congressmen), and nearly all legislation in the past couple of decades on both sides of the pond works to kill off incentives by individuals to create these kind of artistic works. International agreements, while they do seek to "equalize copyright laws", tend to take the lowest common denominator approach and offer the best possible protection for the publisher as any of the countries in the treaty organization (aka the "Berne Convention"). This question about what can be done to promote the development of these artistic works certainly isn't being asked at these treaty conferences either, nor by the legislative bodies when the treaties are being ratified.

That's one person's opinion...

[xednieht]

The article clearly states that it is merely an 'Opinion' note the upper left hand corner tag.

Other than that I would offer another view. There's still plenty of opportunity to grow online music.

When the dust settles, many moons from now, the emerging model will be a hybrid between what Napster was and iTunes is. It will probably emerge outside of the US because the morons on Capitol Hill are too quick to appease the idiots at RIAA. But it will emerge. Think Janis Ian and many more like her.

Of course if by some miraculous turn of events RIAA decides to invest in technology instead of lawyers it may start here, but don't hold your breath. Blinded by greed, crippled by stupidity.