New York, NY (November 14, 2008) - In anticipation of his new record, “808’s & Heartbreak,” it seems there’s been a deluge of Kanye West appearances in the media, both positive and negative. Maybe the deluge is always running and it’s only now more apparent because he’s got an album coming out, but either way, if you’re a fan or a hater, there were a few articles floating around this week that should satiate your appetite for the biggest ego on Earth. Maybe I’m alone here, but I’ve pretty much OD’d.
In this article, Kanye calls himself the voice of a generation, something akin to Michael Jordan. Maybe. But here’s my question: Can you really be the voice of a generation just because YOU say you are? I know he’s not my voice, and in all likelihood, he’s not your voice, either. And I can speak confidently that there are many other more important voices that people have gravitated to since “Blueprint” put him on the map, and even more, in my lifetime.
Maybe I’m not sure what “Voice of This Generation” is supposed to mean? Did the Beatles actively call themselves that? Or did they wait until a writer or commentator did it for them before acknowledging it? I have no shrine built to Kanye West in my apartment; and I don’t look to his music to guide me through the down times or lift me higher during the good ones. In fact, he’s probably the last person I’d go to for that. I dunno, when someone SUGGESTS to me that they are the voice of my generation… I’d probably have to tell them to shut the fuck up.
Fader: great magazine; stylish; cool stories; ahead of the curve. A great rag to even be associated with. So… what’s the problem? I don’t know. It’s a picture dude posed for. I’ve seen a lot worse from Ye and many other celebs. Shit, if this is bad, I’ve taken atrociously awful photos then. When was the last time anyone, celeb or scrub, took a nostril shot that came out good, though? I mean, c’mon; I get it. But… really?
From everything I’ve heard from people that have worked on Ye’s concerts, if homie doesn’t like something, he’s not afraid to let you know right then and there. And I can’t imagine that a person with that sort of personality, coupled with his star power, would even take this sort of picture if he or she didn’t approve of it first; and if he or she DID agree to take it, they would at least demand to see the results before they were broadcast to the entire world. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but there are some artists who would kill for that type of exposure. I can think of a few on this particular site.
Having to endure the loss of his mother, I understand where these comments come from. It’s a hardship that can shape the rest of your life, having a loved one taken so suddenly. And let’s face it: everyone is looking for love, at least at some point in their lives. Some people are lucky to find it; some never will. If they do stumble upon it, though, a good number of fairly intelligent folks have blindly pushed it aside for material or personal pursuits when the demands became too great. Others keep it close, but are keen on abusing it more than embracing it.
Whatever you do with love, though, it’s a tough thing to find at all, and when it is finally found, realizing the impact it can have on your life takes awhile. Which is why a lot of people remain unhappy; even when they’re IN love. Your chances of meeting the person you’re going to be with are highest when it’s through someone that you trust. It’s not likely she’s going to be in gold paint, though. Again… just sayin.
I’m not trying to hate on the dude, but I’ve seen him be whisked out of the Knitting Factory in NYC without so much as being touched. In a hallway about 3 feet wide. Into a waiting car that had the engine running and about 300 screaming kids around it, all with picture phones, video cameras and dirty hands. In about 60 seconds flat. The physics were actually pretty astonishing. Which leads me to my question: how can he escape unscathed from a place like that, yet, at a posh nightclub with security and a spacious exit surrounding him, manage to mush a photog’s camera, who was likely behind a velvet rope, that is solely there to give him more publicity? Smh.
Epilogue:
Look, I’m not trying to bash the dude. He’s achieved a lot in a short time. And he’s worked hard for it, without a doubt. And I won’t lie, I’ve danced to his songs; there’s been many times where the words have been stuck in my head. “Gold Digger” is a great party song and “Stronger” is a work of genius. I got chills the first time I heard “Through The Wire.” And it’s human nature that EVERYONE will make mistakes or be hypocrites or say things in the heat of the moment that have other people perceiving them a different way than is intended. It happens to me daily. And probably to everyone reading this. That’s really the best thing about Kanye: he is unabashedly exposed at all times (pause) and doesn’t seem to mind.
However, it’s when those moments are overshadowed by a non-stop ego-trip, set inside the life he lives, peppered with an attitude like the world owes him something… I have to draw the line. I can’t get down with people like that on a personal level, regardless of inner-demons or circumstances I may not fully understand or the dopeness of the instrumentals they make. It just doesn’t process. Sort of like when he says we’re not allowed to feel sorry for him because he did a Louis Vuitton ad, right? Ok, but… what if I could give a fuck about a Louis Vuitton ad in the first place? What then?
I dunno, I guess you can just call me the silent scream of the minority. In the background, doing my best not to pay attention to the noise. Hoping things will eventually fade to black, but still loving the culture despite the bright lights. At least until cardiac arrest takes over.
New York, NY (November 16, 2008) - Spotted on that Nah Right Lite section. This one comes from Unkut and asks the yearly question: Blogs or Magazines?
Portability - It’s kinda hard to read blogs on the can, unless you want to risk dropping your iPhone into the john.
Winner: Magazines.
Affordability - Free = the price is right. Although when you add up the cost of your laptop and internet connection, it’s a tough call.
Winner: Blogs.
Photography - Google image search stays losing.
Winner: Magazines.
Audio - A free CD tacked to the front is always nice, but it doesn’t exactly compare to being able to download the latest Blaq Poet banger.
Winner: Blogs.
I say yearly, because, as the number of magazines going under continues to climb, the validation of blogs and free media gains credibility. But does it? Personally, I’m always going to favor a magazine or newspaper’s opinion more than a bloggers. Why? Because writing is a craft that takes time to perfect and blogging merely takes time. Perhaps it’s ingrained into my head from journalism school that hard copies offer a more authoritative opinion and tangible facts than a blog; but that of, course, begs the question: What if someone like Mike Lupica started his own Sports Blog and was no longer affiliated with The New York Times… would that make him any less credible?
No, it wouldn’t, but he’s established his credibility through years of toiling in newspaper ink, mixing it up with the people on the ground and field, asking the tough questions and being an asshole. Bloggers, for the most part, are armchair reporters. For me, unless your voice is as dirty as your hands, I can’t take your pristine keyboard for what it’s telling me.
New York, NY (October 26, 2008) - As if we needed anything to further amp up those Facebook Music rumors, adding more fuel to the fire comes news that iLike, a major contender for the rumored Facebook Music, has partnered with TuneCore in order to offer monetary compensation to independent artists.
Indie artists that submit their music through TuneCore now have the opportunity to have it played and distributed through iLike, which means exposure on major social networks like Facebook, Bebo and Hi5, and more opportunities for earning royalties. A major advantage of TuneCore is that the artists retain 100% of the money they earn through the site, which attracts both indie and major label artists alike.
This was the next necessary move to further establish iLike’s lead over other music apps in the race to for inclusion on Facebook Music, should it happen. Opening up iLike’s accessibility to better-serve indie artists means that the app is now one of very few that can accommodate the needs of the indie and mainstream markets, and will have rates and contracts ready to go for nearly any possible artist situation. Plus, by partnering with an established distribution service like TuneCore, they’ve eliminated a presumed hurdle Facebook Music would have to deal with.
All in all, if the other apps still want to remain in the race for alleged music partner for the alleged Facebook Music, they are going to have to step their game up seriously.
Another huge development for artists, especially indie artists with a limited production budget, is the launch of IndabaVox, a new service that allows musicians to “call into” recording sessions using VoIP technology. People can call in using their mobile phones or landlines, enter a PIN, and begin laying down their tracks as part of an already established recording session with another artist. It’s basically instant gratification when it comes to recording over long distances, which will mean less time to wait to finish production on a song, and more opportunities for collaborations between artists that may have not gotten a chance to work together otherwise. JamNow has already established a leg-up on a service like IndabaVox with a computer-based link-up and studio, so it will be interesting to see what happens moving forward with both.
In theory, using these new services, an Indie artist can put together a brand new collaboration within a day, and have it uploaded through TuneCore/iLike by the next. Artists will be able to not only track fan demand, but respond to demand faster and more effectively, which means more money and more satisfied listeners.
New York, NY (October 16, 2008) - In the latest attempt at suppressing worldwide piracy of intellectual copyrights, President Bush signed into law on Monday (October 13th) that calls for stricter penalties in fighting music and movie piracy. The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act will involve more comprehensive copyright enforcement, the appointment of a yet to be announced “Piracy Czar”, and the creation of an intellectual property policy that can be applied across all aspects of the federal government. The government is hoping that by passing this bill into law it’ll send a stern warning to anyone even considering taking even a small part in piracy. The PRO IP Act was thoroughly supported by the RIAA, the MPAA, and basically every major record label and Hollywood studio. Although all of these entities already had a through enforcement regiment in place, they feel like they can only benefit from a federally backed version of the loosely based enforcement model they were relying on.
According to the government, they want to use this alliance to go after the major criminals committing mass piracy, instead of teenagers simply downloading single songs. Along with the passing of this act comes some more severe penalties for parties found guilty of copyright infringement. Very similar to the way a drug dealer is dealt with, those found guilty can face forfeiture of property. If the government feels that your bootleg DVD kiosk paid for your new Benz, they can now simply take any property that is even slightly linked to funds accrued from your piracy assets. This quote from an article on p2p.net sums up the complicated issues that arise from these new initiatives:
…”Although some may feel that forfeiture is an appropriate response to serious large scale drug dealing, those same draconian measures can now apply to copyright infringement cases. It can cause more stress and difficulty in defending cases when defendants have to prove in a separate court action, that the materials seized were not used for the actions claimed. Wikipedia indicates that 3 years, and $10,000 is the typical cost of fighting such cases. Public Knowledge opposes these forfeiture measures, with spokesman Art Brodsky saying: “Let’s suppose that there’s one computer in the house, and one person uses it for downloads and one for homework. The whole computer goes.”
Wow. That really puts a new spin on trying to save a few dollars by downloading that new album instead of buying it. Who wants to save $10 just to spend $10,000 trying to prove they weren’t trying to save $10 in the first place? The other interesting point is that they can easily remove any electronics associated with piracy from your home. Just because a computer was used for piracy doesn’t mean it’s a piracy computer. We’re not talking about stacks of CD duplicators; probably just half-obsolete desktops that barely have a graphic interface.
The government is specifically stating that they don’t plan on going after simple downloaders, but if that were really true, why would they even pass this act in the first place? According to the Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. spends $250 billion to fight piracy, annually, and for some reason, that’s not enough, monetarily or from an enforcement point of view. It seems that money could be better spent figuring out the origins of this problem in the first place instead going after these trickle down after-thoughts. This quote from the same p2p.net article really hones in on this concept:
“The person filling this Copyright Czar role will, presumably, be in a similar position to that of the Drugs Czar, and will listen mainly to lobbyists and ’safe’ peer pressure. Just as in the case of narcotics, symptoms will be dealt with, and not causes. Targeting causes means targeting contributors, while targeting symptoms just means targeting voters, and there are millions of them.”
That’s exactly it. The MPAA and RIAA have been going after those who aren’t tech savvy enough to not get caught. You’ve heard about tons of examples like 80-year-old grandmothers downloading some song from when she was a teenager off Limewire and she didn’t even comprehend that she was “stealing”. People aren’t getting caught downloading mixtapes off of torrent sites or leaked singles from hip hop blogs; it’s always the one-off cases that usually arise from really innocent circumstances.
I think more than anything, the PRO IP Act will serve more as an ominous threat for everyone to keep in the back of his or her head; something along the lines of how you only think about getting pulled over when you see a cop or someone else getting pulled over. If you don’t have the idea that the government is monitoring your illegal downloads, then you’re probably never going to stop or have qualms about it. So it completely makes sense why this bill got easily passed, but A, is it going to be able to accomplish anything that the RIAA / MPAA haven’t been able to, and B, is just the threat alone enough to stop causal pirates?
If $250 billion a year can’t solve a problem that’s only existed for the last ten years, then it makes sense that they’re not focusing on the right issues. As stated in the p2p.net article, they’re only going after the end result of the problem, not the top of the hierarchy where it originated. If they would only assess the origin / reasons why mass piracy is so epidemic, then they could potentially suppress the “virus”; your doctor doesn’t give you cold medicine for a fever, or you can’t put a band aid on a broken femur. The entertainment industry loves using the Emergency Room for every paper cut that emerges.
As far as the PRO IP being an effective enough threat for the common downloader, it’ll be a matter of time before we see the results of the new “piracy brigade”. Can’t you just picture someone’s grandpa getting ushered into the street by riot cops for hooking up his phonograph to an iPod so he can Bose-dock some 78 and listen to it in his breakfast nook? A lot of people envision a futuristic military state, but not for downloading “White Christmas” onto a flash-drive necklace. It’s a scary scenario that just may become all too realistic…
New York, NY (October 13, 2008) - A new website has emerged that’s hoping to become everyone’s middleman in the lucrative music licensing industry. The site, YouLicense, is looking to become “the Ebay of intellectual property” according to site founder Maor Ezer. YouLicense is trying to take the sometimes complicated and intricate process of licensing music for other media into a realm where a few mouse clicks can give the same opportunities to any budding musician.
The structure of the site works like this: artists and copyright holders looking to license their music can offer it on YouLicense for free, and then if someone decides to use their music, they pay a 9% commission fee when their song gets licensed. The other option musicians can use is to pay a flat fee of $30 (for individuals) or $60 (for organizations) to offer an unlimited amount of music to the site for 6 months, without paying any additional commission.
People or companies looking to license the music can search the site’s database by genre or type of song, then they’ll make an offer describing to the artist how the song’s going to be used and how much they’ll be paid. The musician then gets an email alert with the enclosed offer, which they can then accept, decline, or decide to negotiate further. Once an agreement is met, the licensing fee is transferred via PayPal, and YouLicense immediately generates an agreement with the specific details. Within a matter of minutes, the licensee has a download link, and the transaction is complete. Another important aspect is that all license deals are non-exclusive, so the artist doesn’t have to worry about retaining their rights just because their song, beat, or instrumental was licensed.
YouLicense initially thought their service would be a big hit with production companies looking for cheap alternatives for their film and television products, but they were really surprised when a huge new market emerged for their site. Instead of big name production studios, the little guys ended up being the exact customer they didn’t know they were looking for, as Ezer explains in this quote: “When I sit with a big company and they tell me, ‘we don’t need you to get us film studios and ads, we’ve got them,” explained Ezer. “But they have no wedding videos, and no websites, or Flash intros.”
A huge portion of their new business ended up being small production companies or just individuals looking for licensing opportunities on a very small scale. Everything from wedding videos, photographer’s online portfolios, and even teachers making presentations have become the new licensees for very homegrown projects. A schoolteacher even paid $85 to license music for a school presentation in front of 400 students. He wanted to make sure everything was legally sound and that the school didn’t have any issues.
What YouLicense is attempting is an interesting take on a facet of the industry that beforehand was basically only corporate oriented. The only companies seeking licenses were major studios or corporations looking for placement in commercials. YouLicense might have potentially tapped into an entirely undiscovered market, where owners of small companies or small production firms can now utilize the very same methods that Hollywood studios have used for years. For as little as $20 or $30, a photographer can add an original composition to their online portfolio for an entire year. Not only does this benefit the photographer, but it creates a variety of venues for unsigned musicians to potentially make a lot of money. You could be unsigned for years, but with the success of even some very small licensing deals, you might be able to subside on it long enough to tide you over until the majors come calling.
YouLicense is just another addition to the Internet’s unprecedented recent run of cultural innovations. Technology is allowing new business opportunities to exist that years before were absolutely unconceivable. What a site like YouLicense and tons of others are doing, which coincidentally is the scariest thing for the big corporations, is they’re leveling the playing field. YouLicense is cutting out the old middleman, and in turn, has become to new middleman. What they’re doing would have been impossible even three or four years ago. Now, in the matter of a few mouse clicks, some kid making beats in his bedroom could become the new soundtrack for your sister’s wedding video, and that equation is both stupefying and very, very strange.
New York, NY (October 4, 2008) - Paper tickets are so 2007, y’all. Tickets@Phone, new technology from tickets.com, is allowing Oklahoma event-goers to download their purchased tickets directly to their mobile phones, complete with scannable bar codes. When they enter the BOK Center Arena in Tulsa for the event, all they’ll have to do is show security their mobile phone. Security will then be able to scan the bar code directly from the phone and allow them into the event.
In addition to concerts, the BOK Center Arena will also be hosting major sporting events featuring, among others, their arena football team Tulsa Talons and the Central Hockey League’s Tulsa Oilers. Tickets.com has also been behind innovations in the ticketing industry like Access Control, which allows venues to track event attendance in real-time as well as track multi-day event ticket and pass usage.
So what does this mean for event-goers beyond Oklahoma? Well, if this new venture proves to be successful in Tulsa and expands its reach to venues nationwide, scalping tickets outside a show may soon be a thing of the past. The individualized bar codes on each ticket will definitely minimize the sales of fake tickets, but the practice of scanning codes over your phone might also prove difficult for patrons of legitimate ticket brokers and online ticket swap sites. No word on what phones or mobile providers the service is or is not compatible with, or what happens if, say, your phone battery dies. Or your phone is stolen.
In other tech news, just when you thought the iPod couldn’t get any more interactive, here come Notescasts, cached versions of webpages downloadable to your iPod. You can access Notescasts on just about any current iPod, including the Nano or Classic. The information on the pages won’t update in real time, but they are interactive multi-page files that include multimedia and pictures.
TimeStream Software, which developed Notescasts, claims that each file can contain up to a thousand different pages of information, more than enough for most businesses to include product information, images, directions, or pricelists if necessary. The pages can also include video and audio, a valuable feature for artists looking for a new means of promotion. We should probably expect to see Notescasts included with EPKs or embedded as extra content on CDs in the very near future.
New York, NY (September 30, 2008) - In this stage of the Internet’s development a lot of grey area still exists. Websites come and go, offering a new take on how we use digital media, but very often, they’re ahead of corporations in their experimental methods of distribution and interaction. Muxtape.com is one recent casualty of the blurry “legal” lines that define the age of rapid technological developments that outpace laws that define the digital realm.
Muxtape started innocently enough. Founder Justin Oullette was a former college DJ looking for a very simple way for people to share their love of music with friends. On an investment of $95,000 from his former boss, Justin started the site in March of 2008 and within 2 months it had nearly 100,000 users. Muxtape’s popularity was essentially based on a very simple concept: Any user could upload mp3s to make a digital mixtape that existed as streaming links, and then they could embed the playlist anywhere they wanted, to share it with as many friends as possible. Seems pretty simple and harmless, right? Not according to the RIAA and the major labels. Six months later, Muxtape was taken offline amid discussions with the RIAA over legal issues and licensing problems.
Talks with the RIAA and the majors have since dissolved, and Muxtape is now being relaunched as a portal where musical artists can upload their own mp3s, and create a profile to promote any aspect of their musical output, which includes a calendar, photos, comments, or downloads and sales of their mp3s. The average person would chalk up this situation as the major labels overreacting and the RIAA stepping into maintain a sense of damage control, but this is really just another case of an industry that’s stuck in a perpetual state of technological limbo. In actuality, they’re probably just as confused as everyone else, which leads to their all-or-none perspective. If they let Muxtape.com continue on its path of “legitimizing” piracy, tons of other websites would use them as a model for what was acceptable in an online environment.
What Muxtape was intended for is a tricky legal issue as far as digital media is currently defined. They weren’t acting as a source for pirated material in the same way as a bit torrent site, but they were complicit in “alleged” piracy by allowing users to upload their own mp3s, where some could have been legally obtained. That’s the sticking point, though: it’s the assumption of the RIAA that illegal mp3s were consistently uploaded. It’s understandable that major labels can’t possibly encourage any form of piracy, so even a small tinge of it on the site would be cause for alarm; what is interesting, though, is that Muxtape was in the process of obtaining licensing and dispensing proper royalties through talks with the RIAA and the major labels. These discussions subsequently dissolved, however, and the RIAA had Muxtape’s Amazon account shut down and their password changed.
For a little while it seemed like the major labels saw promise in the simplicity of the technology Muxtape had created, but they obviously considered it more of a threat instead of understanding its potential as a promotional tool. This concept is what’s repeatedly been surging through the music industry for, essentially, the last 10 years. Does a middle ground exist for these major labels where they can benefit from new technologies while still maintaining control of their most valuable asset, their intellectual property copyrights? Right now, the Internet is in a perpetual state of flux and no one completely knows what the future of the digital realm is. What is important, though, is that these technological advances aren’t stymied by a nervous industry the second their profit margins are called into question. As it is, we’re seeing a lot of reluctance on the side of the industry towards embracing the massive potential that these new technologies offer. Having been so successful with an ancient model for so long, the industry is scared to embrace anything that might possibly “reinvent the wheel”.
Right now is a very important time because everyone is watching the tiniest development for what may become the answer to everyone’s question: Where is the compromise that meets the needs of the average consumer and the corporate behemoth? In truth, every major label wants to get their product out to the largest possible consumer sector; that’s the bottom-line of every for-profit business. But it’s exactly why the issues that arise around Muxtape.com are so pertinent. The industry could have a monster of a promotional tool on their hands for promoting any type of artist, from the most obscure to the most mainstream, but instead, they would rather quell original, simple innovations, and try to control every aspect of the hierarchal distribution model. They’re basically doing themselves a disservice by trying to use their own resources to maintain order in an industry that’s been completely turned upside down.
Record labels and the RIAA have the infinite spectrum of the Internet to tap any new technology or innovation they’d like. Yet with an army of programmers designing software/tools/concepts that the average consumer wants, the suits are disregarding almost all of these ideas as a parasite in the very fabric of government copyright. The real value of the Internet is that these average users have an ability to pinpoint specific issues and then create software/websites to distinctly solve the dilemma. No one even knew what a social networking site was until some guy named Tom came up with it, probably in his bedroom, and now an ancient Australian billionaire (Rupert Murdoch) made Tom a cultural milestone, likely, forever. The music industry needs to realize websites like Muxtape only benefit the big picture of the industry’s monetary stability, even though at first glance, they seem to be harming it. It’s very shortsighted to only assess these new mediums in what they’re doing for us now, instead of realizing the massive potential they could effectively unleash.
New York, NY (September 26, 2008) - When MySpace first emerged, it was heralded by indie artists and labels as an innovative way for artists lacking the promotional budget of those signed to the majors to develop a fan base and reach an audience they may not have been exposed to otherwise. As MySpace grew and became more mainstream, though, it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (which also owns Fox), and slowly began to offer services that catered more directly to larger corporations. It’s understandable, then, that as the changes progressed, indie record labels that had used MySpace’s services from jumpstreet would start to feel slighted.
Now, with the launch of MySpace Music with all it’s bells and whistles, there are not only hurt feelings amongst the indie population, but also rumors of potential antitrust lawsuits against the popular social networking site rumbling. While MySpace has already reached agreements with all the major record labels as far as distribution of music and streaming rights are concerned, they have yet to even attempt negotiations with smaller independent labels, much of whose material was already accessible through previous incarnations of the service.
The new version of MySpace Music will not only serve as a go-to for streaming music, but it also features a platform for users to purchase ringtones, artist branded merchandise, and, in the future, even concert tickets - all huge earning possibilities not only for the smaller artists, but for the smaller labels, as well. Though there is a part of the site specifically for indie labels and artists to upload their tracks on MySpace Music, some labels claim their music has been blocked from being uploaded. According to MTV News, Impala, an overseas indie label, has officially begun to look into the possibility of an antitrust lawsuit against MySpace. Another possible complication in this whole ordeal is that in many instances, music owned by indie labels overseas is distributed by major labels elsewhere, which means that the issue of the rightful recipient of the royalties from all possible purchases and streaming would be up for debate.
MySpace Music, with the support of Universal Records, Warner Music, and Sony BMG, has already gotten some huge sponsorship deals with the likes of McDonald’s and Toyota, and will be offering the songs it streams for download and purchase through Amazon.com. Derailing this venture in the face of antitrust lawsuits, which is possible considering overseas indie labels have been victorious in similar suits brought against major labels about to merge, would certainly be a major blow to the company.
New York, NY (September 24, 2008) - To say that the Internet has shaken up the music industry is an understatement; recent technological developments have caused the industry to rethink its entire structure, from signing of new artists and creating street buzz, to the actual distribution and marketing of the final product. The major force the RIAA has been fighting is the massive onslaught of p2p networks, which gives users a super simple format for instant exchange of any and all media, which for the most part, is copyrighted. This is where the main issue comes in for the industry: how can the major record labels maintain their razor thin profit margins when their only source of income is not only being stolen, but instantly sent around the world to any other lazy thieves operating from the security of their couches, or let’s say, cushy computer chairs?
The RIAA started noticing the impact of p2p networks around 1999 when the ease of technology became simple enough that almost anyone could figure out how to download a full-length album. Napster was really the first one to blow the door off the whole p2p debacle right as it erupted across every dorm room in the country. Napster made pirating music so easy that physically going out and buying albums actually became an inferior method of obtaining new music. Just as quickly as it began though, Napster soon came under Federal scrutiny and was forced to alter its structure, which meant offering a new pay-by-month program that soon faltered, especially compared to its initial popularity. Napster became a harbinger for the entire industry with most majors thinking they had quelled the beast of music piracy, while in fact, diligent hackers were staying up late, powered by mold-encrusted Red Bulls, to come up with technology that could sneak around intricate copyright laws and again, bring the entire music industry literally to its knees.
This new beast became known as Bit torrent, and currently, torrents are the pirate’s number one method in the distribution of absolutely all varieties of copyrighted material. The real important difference between peer-to-peer networks and torrent networks is how the user receives the data, which is where the legality issues start to arise. A p2p network creates a direct connection between two users own home networks, which then allows a file transfer to take place from one computer’s hard drive to another. In essence, its like my computer calls up your computer, asks for a song, and then your computer sends me the song in a language the computer understands, which in the most common compressed form, is an mp3.
Bit torrent sidesteps this whole process by implementing the idea of a central server, which makes a p2p network obsolete. For example: User A uploads a whole album in a single zipped file to a bit torrent website’s central server; this file then stays in storage on the server until a different user makes a request for the file. The bit torrent server then “seeds” the file to the user, and the user now has the album transferred from the server to their home computer.
The genius of bit torrent is that technically, the only one’s that can be held responsible are those who own the bit torrent servers or those people initially uploading the file. Although some gray area does exist as far as lawsuits for people simply downloading files from torrent providers, the majority of lawsuits have been aimed at the owners and operators of bit torrent sites. One of the largest bit torrent sites, Mininova, is just one of the current entities coming under Federal focus for skirting international copyright laws, but at the same time, they’re looking to expand their current market by launching a free content distribution service.
Mininova is not only one of the largest bit torrent sites in the world, but actually, one of the most popular websites in general. In a recent search of Alexa’s top global sites, Mininova was ranked 84 in the world, overall. Those type of numbers are huge in general, but especially for a website that literally specializes in mass copyright infringement, those numbers should be a warning sign for any company looking to protect its intellectual property.
Mininova’s launching of a free content distribution service puts an odd spin on the current state of the music industry. First, the Internet usurps the music industry’s property, and freely distributes it based on simply the fact that it can. Second, the industry fights back with RIAA lawsuits and attempts to enter the digital realm by introducing their own version of digital content distribution. Now, the industry realizes they basically can’t compete with the speed of technological developments, and they’ve begun to embrace these pirated mediums as a promotional tool of sorts. Lastly, the industry has come full swing, where the entities that initiated the first movement of mass copyright infringement, are the same ones that are being used to save the very industry that initially regarded them as parasitic and destructive.
Mininova has very few guidelines for anyone looking to upload their own original content: first, you have to be the owner of the copyright for the content, second, it has to be DRM and spam free, and lastly, it has to be “quality” content, which is left up to the content manager of Mininova to determine. Once you have your files uploaded, Mininova then embarks on seeding your file to 35 million potential users, and that’s on a monthly basis. As of May 28th, over 5 billion downloads have taken place, and that is only on Mininova. If you start to calculate all torrent sites combined, you could easily hit a billion downloads per month. When you to look at these numbers, you really get a good idea of just why the music industry is starting to get really, really scared.
The development of bit torrent sites in general and especially Mininova’s recent foray into more mainstream distribution methods are both major signs that the industry needs to be revamped, and quick. What the four major labels need to realize is that technology will always be ahead of the industry’s curve, and its just a matter of time before the major’s realize they need to start teaming up with these piracy svengalis. This is a move the industry has feared for a long time; literally shacking up with their most infamous opponents, but sometimes you have to realize you’re fighting a losing battle, and just cut your losses, which is exactly where the industry is headed.
Just the fact that Mininova’s owners are trying to legitimatize the most full-fledged form of all piracy mediums shows that the future of music may be out of hands of mega conglomerates. Mininova has a fully established venue for any independent artist looking to simply reach a wider audience, so why not just bypass the time consuming grassroots promotional method, and just jump right into the market, the 35 million strong monthly market. Any band or artist that doesn’t take advantage of this is doing themselves a huge disservice.
Mininova, and basically the entire torrent community, has the potential to offer any independent artist an instant worldwide market for their original content. The one snafu of bit torrent sites is that most major labels feel that although these sites do promote their artists to a wider audience, they also do a disservice by losing out retail sales on the physical product. The major labels are stuck in a catch-22 where they love the promotion they’re getting for free, but they’re losing more money on album sales then they’re saving in promotion. There has yet to be a perfect merging of the two diverse arenas, where hackers and industry execs can both agree on a method that benefits each group’s separate interests. This is at least in small part due to that fact that hackers, who basically invented the bit torrent protocol, don’t feel comfortable on the “right” side of the law, or by teaming up with corporations, they feel they’re basically “sleeping with the enemy.”
At this point in the debacle, the major labels and the RIAA keep spending more money and using more resources to quell a battle that is basically impossible to win. Either the industry needs to crossover to encourage some sort of compromise, or they might be forced to change the entire structure of the industry and its focus on the physical product.
New York, NY (September 18, 2008) - Funk Flex is for the children. R. Kelly is not. And he’s a fuckin creep. Hot 97’s most notorious mouthpiece lets Kels have it. Deservedly so. GO IN!!!
To categorize some of these sites as “Hip-Hop” is a mislabeling at it’s finest. “Celebrity gossip” that often includes Hip-Hop, these sites would be at the top of the list.
I don’t put much stock in these particular awards & accolades because regardless if the congregation never paid us any attention, we’d still be puttin out material for you, the choir members. At the same time, I can think of a fewothersites that keep it Hip-Hop as Timb boots & Yankee hats. Sites that reflect thecore of what Hip-Hop is - which is a culture that revolves around the music & not necessarily its celebrity. Those that remember that theDJ is just as important as the emcee standing @ the front of the stage & in the spotlight. Sites that can trace part of their roots back to having a little spraypaint on their fingertips & shoes. Cats that can tell you the B-side of a OOP single from the 90’s. You know, the ones you know live, breath & truly enjoy Hip-Hop. Individuals who have dusty crates & broken cd cases to go along with their hard drives.
New York, NY (September 12, 2008) - David Leonard over at Fortune Magazine (via CNN Money) posted this article today, highlighting the impending launch of MySpace Music. He spoke with execs at Amazon, News Corp. and MySpace, asking the question that all of us have: Can it really revive the music industry’s slumping bottom-line? Read:
…MySpace Music, scheduled to launch in September, promises to be the most significant rollout of a digital-music service since Apple’s (AAPL, Fortune 500) iTunes. It will enable MySpace users to listen to any song from the catalogs of the three music giants free. There will be on-screen ads along with that music, but yes, it will be free. And that includes U2 and Jay-Z-and Christina Aguilera, Kid Rock, and rap superstar T.I.
DeWolfe says the key to the new service is this: Users will be able to visit the pages of major label artists and click on the songs they like as they listen. Then they’ll be able to create playlists on their own pages made up of those tracks: “There will be a button that says, FOR THE FULL CATALOG, CLICK HERE,” he says. “That’s what’s never been done before.” The idea is that people will use the playlists to personalize their MySpace page, which, in turn, boosts traffic. “Think about why people go to a music service,” he says. “They go to iTunes because they just want to get the songs and get out. MySpace is different. It’s like going to your friend’s house, and they have cool music playing in the background that makes the experience that much better.”
“This is how people discover music now,” says Luke Wood, executive VP of Universal’s Interscope Geffen A&M. “It’s not happening through people reading Rolling Stone. It’s not happening through the radio. It’s happening through social networks online.”
I’m sure that the industry will see a jump in sales, and combined with iTunes and other networks, they might recoup SOME of their initial CD loses (which are guaranteed to mount as the months and years go by as long as their a part of retail). But I don’t think ad-supported music in the form MySpace has it will keep pace with those losses, nor do I think it’s the entire answer. People don’t click on random ads; they click on things that interest them. I already know what McDonalds and Toyota are… presenting me with ads doesn’t do much for me. Just saying.
To be honest, this model seems a little bit like a short-term solution. It’s certainly great for artists because their music is out there and available, and could potentially influence people to generate their own “personal albums” from the catalogs of artists - ala Muxtape (which recently got closed down), but this approach isn’t exactly geared towards the long tail model. It’s really a play to get major artists and their tunes up on the site to sell them and make money. Maybe that’s a pessimistic view, but for the independent artist, this move shoves you further down the list.
The Internet was once the leveler and an uneven playing field. Now, it seems these folks want to turn it into the big bully on the block. Thoughts?
New York, NY (August 26, 2008) - There are a few things that can stir the beehive quicker than religion and politics, so if I ever post about both, believe that it will be a concerted effort to do so without bias.
In much the same way the web has dictated the evolution of music, this year’s presidential election will without doubt be more concentrated on the Internet than ever. Many pundits out there could argue that Barack Obama’s friendly relationship with the media may in fact stem from his campaign’s tech-savvy beginnings (a sign he’s a “man of the times”), but TechCrunch is citing a report by Attributor that suggests Obama is losing ground to Republican hopeful John McCain.
While I can’t say for sure if the race will be won on the Internet, it’s a surefire way to keep the ball in your court. My question is: Who wins if the Ludacris and Daddy Yankee squared off? More from TechCrunch:
…In general blogs still favor Obama by about two to one, but the opposite is true for traditional news sites. McCain’s speeches and position statements appear on traditional news sites 80 percent more often than Obama’s. And on the sites of the major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox), McCain has a 3 to 1 advantage. (This ratio should come down with the Democratic convention this week).
What is behind McCain’s surge? One factor is negative attacks on Obama, such as the Paris Hilton ad or John Corsi’s propaganda book. Over the past two weeks there have been twice as many attacks on Obama’s positions than on McCain’s, and those attacks were seen 2.8 million times so far in August versus 1.1 million views for attacks on McCain. (Attributor’s technology can identify negative or positive words). And it is not just the traditional news media that is eating up the attacks. Bloggers love them too. As the attacks have increased, so have blog matches citing McCain’s positions. In the past week, 350 new bloggers wrote about McCain’s views, marking the first time that McCain gained more new blog coverage than Obama (who picked up about 250 new bloggers). Going negative works.
Still not a fan of ANY candidate attacking the other for personal gain. Leave the schoolyard tactics at home and do your job.
New York, NY (August 5, 2008) – Vibe gives their list for the 10 best remixes of all-time. Below is my pick from their list. Before all the beefs and killings of course:
…“California Love” (Remix)- 2pac- produced by Dr. Dre- the original was all big horn loops and hard drums, where the remix was rolling bass lines and blurping synth sounds. It was like the original was made for the East Coast, and the remix for the West.
New York, NY (August, 4, 2008) - That’s the question asked today by Seeking Alpha, a tech/analytics website based in Seattle. With the continual devaluation of music, where will the music industry make its money? Read:
…In the mid 90s, $15.99 bought you a single CD and now it can buy you access to nearly every CD you could want for a single month. Alternatively, you can buy 15 songs across multiple albums that you would’ve had to buy in full and separately at that time.
The math here is pretty clear. It’s more profitable for Universal (GE) to sell you 10 CDs via a retail chain than it is to give you subscription access to that music or sell it to you via iTunes.
Just the other day I used Rhapsody to drop music on to my Mp3 player to create a quick workout mix. The whole process took 5-10 minutes and I had access to new music that would’ve cost me nearly $200 at Best Buy. I suppose you could argue that over the course of a year I’ll pay close to $200 in subscription fees, but the record companies who produced the 12-15 or so albums I transferred have to share that revenue with the hundreds of other artists I’ll listen to (or transfer to my Mp3) player over the next 12 months. They’re getting pennies per song/album vs. the $200.00 or approximately $15.00/album they would get otherwise.
It’s analogous to Toyota suddenly selling new Camrys for $100 instead of for $25,000.00.
It’s hard to disagree with his point, and solutions are slim. Record companies are already figuring out ways to license their library, and are in talks with adding a flat fee to ISP’s to circumvent the free music slipping through their fingers. There’s also talk of monetizing sites like zShare, sharebee, etc., the places most people upload tracks for free download. The lingering question remains, though: Is that it?
The next revenue model will be something no one has seen before; a whole new economic platform and way of thinking about money. Because, while the cost of albums and songs has fallen, so too has the cost of creation (think: dorm rooms and garages = gold). I’ll stick with my original idea that the record company will simply have to modify it’s roll in the process and when it finally gets comfortable doing that (ha!), you will see a new model emerge, one that is dynamic and for the most part, (gasp) balanced. Regardless of their new look, labels will always have the upper hand; you can’t supplant a giant that has deep pockets. What you can do is change the way it fills those pockets.
So sober up. For all you “I-just-want-to-get-paid” motherfuckers, the days of the uber-rich rock star are over. You too, will need to adjust your strategy. Holler.
