When it comes to the online world and music you got to admit the music industry trade groups like RIAA and ASCAP are tenacious, stupid but tenacious.

Recently ASCAP has been trying to convince the courts that streaming or downloading of music from digital music lockers like Yahoo and Rhapsody constituted a “public performance” and as such companies like these needed to pay an extra licencing fee meant to go to the songwriters.

In the first decision by a district court ASCAP came out the winner as the court also came up with an extremely convoluted formula that involved all the revenue from the offending companies. This meant that companies like Yahoo would have had to pay some of its search revenue to ASCAP – explain that one.

Lucky for Yahoo and Rhapsody an appeals court overturned the ruling and in the process noted that a download does not constitute a public performance. Well obviously ASCAP wasn’t overly happy with the decision and appealed to the US Supreme Court.

It was announced today that the Supreme Court will not hear the case which means that the lower appeal court’s decision will stand and ASCAP can go back home with its tail tucked between its legs.

Finally some sense from the courts on what should have been common sense to begin with.

via Techdirt

US Supreme Courts says music downloads are not public performances is a post from: The Inquisitr

When it comes to demonizing no-one holds a candle to the record labels and their constant assertion that pirates are the worst scum on the planet and they are costing the industry boatloads of money.

This attitude has been laughed at for some time by anyone who really understands how our new media distribution system works but you have to admit that when someone of former Google CIO and EMI executive Douglas C Merrill stature says that this whole pirate thing is crap you might want to listen.

At a recent keynote speech in Sydney, Australia, Merrill had some rather interesting things to say about pirates and the music industry.

At EMI he took up the impressive position of Chief Operating Officer of New Music and President of Digital Business, despite admitting this week that he knew the music industry was “collapsing”.

“The RIAA said it isn’t that we are making bad music, but the ‘dirty file sharing guys’ are the problem,” he said during his speech as quoted by ComputerWorld.

“Going to sue customers for file sharing is like trying to sell soap by throwing dirt on your customers.”

But those “dirty file-sharing guys” had an even dirtier secret. During his stint at EMI, Merrill profiled the behavior of LimeWire users and discovered something rather interesting. Those same file-sharing “thieves” were also iTunes’ biggest spenders.

via TorrentFreak

It was this kind of talk, which Merrill expressed publicly while at EMI that ended up getting him tossed from the company.

The truth record companies don’t want to hear – pirates are biggest iTunes customers is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to a post just showing up on The Register says that Warner Music has been bought for a price of $3.3 billion.

The man behind the surprise deal is  U.S. businesses man Len Blavatnik who through his Access Industries also owns Top Up TV and saw him paying 34 percent over the market price for Warner Music.

t’s a minor surprise, given that rivals Universal and Sony were thought to have a head start in the auction for Warner. EMI had a short and unhappy period in the hands of an equity investor for years. Warner had tried hard to buy EMI before Terra Firma acquired it in 2007.

Having made his fortune in property and the former Russian nationalised industries, Blavatnik has faith that content companies are where future growth will be; he tried to buy MGM Studios last year.

 

Russian born businessman snaps up Warner Music is a post from: The Inquisitr

Steve Jobs “killed” the music business, at least that’s what Jon Bon Jovi thinks. The musician recently spoke with The Times Sunday Magazine and said that the move to digital music, lead by iTunes, all but ended the “magical” experience of listening to music.

According To Bon Jovi, gone are the days when you would discover new music while donning headphones in a music store, cranking the music up to 10 and ignoring the problems in your life.

He goes on to say that buying music “by the track” has taken away the mystique of music buying:

“Kids today have missed the whole experience of putting the headphones on, turning it up to 10, holding the jacket, closing their eyes and getting lost in an album,” while he added, “And the beauty of taking your allowance money and making a decision based on the jacket, not knowing what the record sounded like, and looking at a couple of still pictures and imagining it… I hate to sound like an old man now, but I am, and you mark my words, in a generation from now people are going to say: ‘What happened?’ Steve Jobs’ personally responsible for killing the music business.”

For their part, Apple developers have tried to give a full listening experience, for example iTunes LP allows listeners to listen from end-to-end of albums with full album art, but unfortunately that program lacks pre-listening discovery, which can be remedied with programs such as GrooveShark.

If you ask me, it has been the last decade of record label greed that has killed the enjoyable part of the industry. I remember watching CD’s rise in price on what seemed like a monthly basis, while the quality of music turned into a turnkey type business full of pop recycling from a handful of producers, if anyone killed the music business, it was the music business.

These days I can download the songs I want, watch their music videos on YouTube, find song meanings and lyrics using Google search and even watch interviews about those albums online with live performances thrown in for good measure.

Sure the “magical” aspect of popping on a Vinyl may be gone, but if used properly there is a lot more to discover about the music we buy when online “magic” is thrown into the mix.

Bon Jovi: Steve Jobs “Killed” The Music Business is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a last ditch attempt to arrest the terminal decline in CD sales, Universal Music has decided to make CD’s cheaper than digital downloads.

According to AllThingsD

The world’s biggest music label is pushing a plan to sell all its CDs at a retail price of $10 or less, Billboard reports. Given that all the big labels are currently selling discs at wholesale prices of $10 to $12, that’s a big price chop

An update notes that Universal hasn’t confirmed the strategy yet, only that the company will begin “looking at such variables as greater selection at sharper pricing on front-line releases. We expect to begin the test in Q2.”

There is some evidence that price cuts do work, but isn’t this a case of too little, too late?

The shift away from physical media to digital distribution hasn’t been about price exclusively, although that’s obviously a factor for some. The main driver is a shift in consumption of music to players that support digital music only. While most people may still be able to play a CD via their computer, fewer and fewer would actually own a dedicated CD player (indeed, do they still make them?) Convenience is the key: a download works straight away vs the need to rip a CD. They’re also more convenient, being available 24/7 on demand, and come at a lower marginal cost to the consumer: you have to travel to a music store to acquire a CD, an exercise that costs money. You might be able to order a CD online, but then you add shipping. A digital music download: press a button, do not pass go.

If the move does see an increase in CD sales, it can only be a short term blip because despite the best efforts of the industry, physical media will soon be dead.

Too Little, Too Late: Universal To Make CD’s Cheaper Than Digital Music is a post from: The Inquisitr

Universal Music Group’s (UMG) copyright suit against online video provider Veoh has been dismissed, establishing a precedent that may help similar companies in the online video space.

According to a media release from Veoh, the Summary Judgment ruling “legitimizes online video sites as source for publication and consumption of video content” by “affirming Veoh`s Compliance with [the] DMCA.

“This is a great victory for Veoh that allows us to continue our focus on innovation in online video, unshackled by the distraction of this lawsuit,” said Veoh Networks Founder and Chief Executive Officer Dmitry Shapiro. “We can continue to support our many content partners, including Disney, CBS, Viacom, Sony and Time Warner, who understand the need to innovate and work together to create value in the emerging business of Internet distribution. From an industry
perspective, this decision is a big deal as well, as we now have a second clear victory showing that companies who work diligently to respect property owners and the DMCA will be able to run their businesses and be successful without the fear of those select content owners who may be uncomfortable with emerging technology.”

The decision that Veoh was DMCA compliant even when users had uploaded infringing material will offer relief to the likes of YouTube, Ustream and others who still face legal action on similar grounds.

Good news: Universals’ copyright suit against Veoh given the arse is a post from: The Inquisitr

Well color me surprised but not all of the record companies are happy with UK ISP Virgin Media’s planned subscription service for downloading music.

The UK company believes that consumers want to be able to download as much music as they want and without it being loaded down with DRM restrictions. It’s newly announced subscription service is built around this idea that will allow their subscribers to download as much music as they want for an additional monthly fee and allow them to keep it permanently. The fee for the service hasn’t been announced but people in the know are suggesting it will be around the £15 mark.

At this point only Universal and some smaller indie labels have signed up with the ISP’s service. The other record companies, like Warner Bros, EMI, and Sony Music aren’t too happy with the service as they believe that it will cannibalize their existing digital sales. They also don’t believe that it will do anything to convert persistent file-sharers.

A Virgin Media spokeswoman said it’s committed to launching a “comprehensive” service this year. “We’re making good progress in developing the service and are on track to launch before Christmas,” she said. “We’re in talks with both major and independent labels and are committed to launching a comprehensive service.”

However, while record labels are keen to work with Virgin because of the reach it offers via its 3.7m broadband subscribers, they argue the music download service needs to make commercial sense.

A label executive involved in the negotiations said the labels support Virgin Media’s music plans in theory, but any service must deliver both feasibility and scale.

“We want to work with Virgin Media as a partner but any deal has to sit comfortably with how we value our assets against how it values its customers,” he said. “We have to evaluate each deal as it comes in and make sure we’re happy with the overall value of the proposition.”

Source: New Media Age – Record labels cast doubt on Virgin Media’s music model

Somehow I don’t hold out much hope that the Virgin Media subscription idea will end up seeing the light of day.

Virgin’s solution to piracy not sitting well with all record companies is a post from: The Inquisitr

Word is beginning to trickle out of Japan that the country’s government and music companies are trying to get a pioneering system in place that is designed to stop unauthorized copying of music on mobile phones. As well repeat offenders could find their phone’s music playing capabilities disabled.

The system would be dependant on a centralized database containing information about music that is authorized to be downloaded as well as verifying that cellphone users weren’t downloading illegal copies of music files.

According to the folks over at FreakBits the system is planned to be in service by April 2010. I bet the RIAA is getting the biggest woodie possible at the thought of being able to do the same thing here.

Play illegal music on cellphone and find it shut down is a post from: The Inquisitr

Name any trade group that claims to represent songwriters and/or musicians and they well all tell you how they are all about making sure that the musicians are getting their fair share of money earned by their music. It’s a nice fallacy which I am sure helps record executives and trade group thugs sleep easy at night  but the truth of the matter is that money collected on their behalf very rarely makes it to them.

Lately a lot of noise has been made of a music service called Spotify and how it will let people listen to music for free as long as they don’t mind advertising mixed it; or they could pay for the service and not have to put up with the ads. The publicity around the service was that this was a legitimate that would make sure that the artist got their fair share unlike the thieves running sites like Pirate Bay.

The thing is this isn’t the case, or at least as far as Swedish artist and composer Magnus Uggla it isn’t. When he first came across Spotify he thought is was great, a free service that offers just about everything and because of the involvement of all the music labels – including his own, Sony BMG, there was a feeling that finally artists would start seeing reasonable payments for their music.

Experience has proved otherwise as Magnus says that his first earnings statement from Spotify made it quite apparent that a Busker (street musician) could earn more in one day than what Spotify and his label wanted to pay him for six months.

… Uggla was as surprised as most people when he learned last week that the major labels, including Sony, all have a stake in Spotify. A mere 30,000 kroner ($4,000) investment bought the company 5.8% of the service now valued at around 1.8 billion kroner ($251m).

Referring to the valuation, Uggla questions how this company can do so well – and comes to the conclusion that it’s at the artist’s expense. He says that Sony Music, after “suing the shit out of The Pirate Bay” is acting just like them by not paying the artists.

“I would rather be raped by Pirate Bay than by Hasse Breitholtz and Sony Music and will remove all of my songs from Spotify pending an honest service,” he says.

Source: TorrentFreak :: I’d Rather Be Raped By Pirate Bay Than Go With Spotify

The Internet might be a hard place for musicians to earn a living but at some point it has to be better than signing everything over to record companies who do nothing more than pimp out musicians and then pocket most of the money.

The farce of musicians actually getting paid is a post from: The Inquisitr

In some ways you have to admire the audacity and amount of hot air that lawyers for the entertainment industry can expel. Nowhere though is this type of verbal buffoonery more apparent than the defense they use to prop up the concept of DRM’ing our music and movies.

A good example of this attitude can bee seen in the submissions made to the Copyright Office during its triennial DMCA review by Steven Metalitz, a Washington lawyer who represents the MPAA, RIAA and other rights holders. This is his response to the Copyright Office over the possible exceptions that would allow users to legally strip DRM from content if a store closes and takes down the authentication servers.

"We reject the view," he writes in a letter to the top legal advisor at the Copyright Office, "that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so."

Source: Ars Technica :: Big Content: ludicrous to expect DRMed music to work forever

Talk about priceless but it doesn’t stop there. He continues on with this

"To recognize the proposed exemption would surely discourage any content provider from entering the marketplace for online distribution… unless it was committed to do so… forever. This would not be good for consumers, who would find a marketplace with less innovation and fewer choices and options."

Even as Amazon and iTunes make music available without any form of DRM we still get this lawyer blow hot air up everyone’s butt. It’s no wonder that people are getting fed up with the whole entertainment industry.

Lawyer says it’s stupid to expect DRM’d goods to work forever is a post from: The Inquisitr

Just last week I posted about the second largest aquarium in the world and how cool it was. Well it turns out that the song by Barcelona used in the video had been pirated. Now in this day and age of YouTube takedowns at the slightest finger wagging by record companies the guys in Barcelona are saying a great big thank you to the person who made the video. The band claims that the video has actually boosted their album sales and concert ticket sales.

So bucking the takedown trend the guys in the band posted a video response to the "Kuroshio Sea" video in which they thanked the uploader of the video and all their new-found friends that came as a result of the posting.

Now that’s the way to handle the times when a fan creates something really cool and actually adds value to your music. Good on ya Barcelona!

Yet another band says thank you for pirating our song is a post from: The Inquisitr

The music industry in general likes to paint all young music listeners as nothing more than downloading pirates out to destroy the music business as we know it. They have been labeled as the killers of the album (CD) format instead being more inclined to cherry pick their favorite songs to download. This opinion though could actually be far from the truth if there is any truth in some research conducted by The Leading Question, a media agency, and Music Ally, a digital music consultancy.

The research is the results of questioning 2,000 music fans about their listening and buying habits. Interestingly enough it found that among teenagers – 66% – there is a stronger preference for downloading CDs rather than just singles. Most striking though was the finding that the percentage of people getting their music via file-sharing – aka piracy – has fallen from 22% to 17%. Even more astonishing according to the research is that among the 14 – 18 year old demographic the fall has been even greater decline going from 42% to just 26%.

The conclusion drawn by the researchers is that habits amongst those digitally aware consumers who don’t buy CDs are changing – they’re moving from downloading illegally to streaming legally.

They’re still not paying for online music then, but at least they’re using legitimate services. And here in the UK, it’s one business, Spotify, which is getting a lot of the credit for that change.

Source: BBC News – Green shoots in the music industry?

As the post pointed out – the industry bosses think they’ve finally started coming up with services that just might convert pirates into legal consumers – the problem is finding ways to pay for those new ways and services.

Is there finally light at the end of the dark music industry tunnel? is a post from: The Inquisitr

A British study by a music industry consulting firm has claimed that CD’s are still the most popular way to consume music.

According to the Music Ally Speakerbox survey 73% of people were still happy purchasing CDs rather than downloading and 66% of 14 to 18 year olds prefer CDs. If that’s not already sounding a little strange, wait for the next figure: the survey claims that 59% of all music fans still listen to CDs every day.

But wait, we haven’t finished yet. The survey also claims that burning music onto CD’s is still the most popular way people share music (23%), then bluetooth (18%) and then eventually online (17%.) The survey of 1000 people concluded by saying that there “is little evidence to show that digital music consumption is simply replacing physical consumption.”

Now although I have a natural skepticism when it comes to surveys, there’s only two possible conclusions you can make about these results: 1: the English are retarded or 2: the results are complete and utter bollocks. I’m going with two because you only have to take a look at the sales figures for iPods in the United Kingdom to know that 66% of 14-18 year olds prefer CD’s in epically wrong. You also have to factor in lying as well: people who illegally download files are hardly going to confess on the phone that they do to a company that works with the music industry…no, they’re going to say that they never download anything and love CDs. The only thing missing though is the agenda in coming up with these results, and I don’t know enough about the company to guess what it might be…but nine times out of ten there is an agenda behind the results.

Study finds CD’s still popular. In related news, they still make CD’s is a post from: The Inquisitr

Where are your lawsuits now, music industry?

Piracy was down by roughly a third in the UK in 2008, but streaming was way up in the same period. Savvy UK teenagers are using sites like Pandora, YouTube, Grooveshark and Spotify to stream content and music to their computers in lieu of filesharing. One former pirate and current streamer told the Guardian:

“I didn’t even realise it was illegal for a long time, until I heard that the government were trying to stop it. That did put me off, but one of the big reasons I stopped doing it was because I would get viruses, more pop ups on my computer. While I was at uni I started listening to streamed music using MySpace. Bands would be friends with other bands and it was a great way of discovering new music. I don’t really feel the need to own all that music, I know it’s always there.”

The shift seems largely inspired not by some moral obligation to maintain music industry profits, but rather, sheer convenience. As has been shouted at the music industry time and again, the business models that will flourish alongside technology are those that offer convenience and aren’t ripping consumers off left, right and center.

It seems that the music industry can accept that the entire revenue generating model has changed and change with it, using tangible merchandise like tour tickets, memorabilia and the like to boost profits alongside ad-supported streaming. Or they can continue to behave like litigious buggy-whip factories and keep trying to circumvent technologies that bring fans to music most efficiently. Which do you think it will be?

Piracy down, streaming up in the UK is a post from: The Inquisitr

While there is a lot of discussion going on in the music industry and their related trade groups on how best to keep screwing the consumer there are musicians that seem to have no problem making money in this new world of distribution. Trent Reznor while among the first to really publicize the different ways that musicians can utilize the web and the idea of free to earn a living he isn’t alone.

One other artist, one of my favorites, has found that even giving away a hit single for free has helped with the sale of that same single. The musician is Moby and as he pointed out in an email to Bob Lefsetz, a well known name in the music industry, the fact that he was giving the song away for free had turned into a chart topper.

How’s it going?
The album just came out and it would be #1 euro charts if not for michael jackson re-releases.
So that’s good.
But here’s something funny: the best selling itunes track is ‘shot in the back of the head’.
Why is that funny?
Because its the track we’ve been giving away for free for the last 2 months and that we’re still givng away for free.
Odd.
How are you?
Moby

Way to go Moby.

hat tip to Techdirt and TorrentFreak

Musicians could teach the music industry a lesson or two is a post from: The Inquisitr

When one things of the Recording Industry Association of America, otherwise known among other names as the RIAA, is well known for questionable legal actions and suing old women and single mothers. The last thing that most of us would think when it comes  to the organization is that they would take up blogging.

Well they have and you can find their blog called Music Notes here.

This appears to be a fairly new blog as there are only eight posts but you can already see that this is just going to be another avenue for them to spin their crap. Here’s samples of the content that you will expect to find on the blog.

Here We Are

Jammie Thomas-Rasset Part Deux, Day 1. An encouraging first day. After a morning of jury selection, the jury was seated by lunch (five men, seven women) and opening arguments kicked off the afternoon. We’re very pleased with the jury. My favorite highlight of the day was the juror who, during jury selection process, noted that he used LimeWire once to get music illegally – but stopped immediately because he “didn’t want to get caught and be here.” How’s THAT for deterrence value of our lawsuit program?? Doesn’t get much better than that folks…

Posted: June 15, 2009

1700 songs later: The Thomas-Rasset II Verdict

By now everyone knows what the verdict was. It’s fair to say that the damages were unexpected given the size of the award in the previous trial. But when it comes down to it, the jury heard a case about Ms. Thomas-Rasset distributing more than 1700 songs to potentially millions of people – not merely downloading 24 songs. We will settle this case if she allows it. We’ve always wanted to settle this case. But she has consistently refused, which has led us to today’s verdict.

Posted: June 18, 2009

Sample Sizes (and Minnesota Juries)

Last week we got a chance to listen to one of these groups outside the usual circumstances.  It wasn’t a research project, and it wasn’t by sitting behind a two-way mirror.  This group of 12 industry outsiders likely hadn’t engaged in debates about long-tail sales theories, the effectiveness of DRM schemes, or consumption patterns of digital media when marginal costs approach zero.  Which isn’t to say they were disengaged – most of them had mp3 players, and at least some knew what peer-to-peer software was.  But overall, they were probably a good cross section of ‘real world’ music listeners.

Posted: June 23, 2009

Anyone surprised?

Surprise, the RIAA has a blog and yes it’s boring and biased is a post from: The Inquisitr

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) is pushing to receive royalties for ringtones played in public.

ASCAP claims that ringtones that sounds in public constitutes a public performance, a categorization that is beyond the purchased rights of those who have legitimately purchased a ringtone. If ASCAP wins, you, or your telco would have to pay a royalty every time your phone rang using a musical ringtone outside your own home. Did I mention we’re not making this up.

The EFF is dutifully on the case, and is arguing that if the incidental mobile phone playback of a short snippet in a public place were viewed as a “public performance” the Copyright Act has a specific exception, 17 U.S.C. 110(4), that covers performances made “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.” The EFF also notes (and again, we’re not making this up) that if ASCAP were to win, playing your car radio with the window down could also constitute a public performance as well.

The greed of the music industry continues to have no bounds. The EFF has more details here, and a copy of ASCAP’s brief as follows:

Music industry now wants to be paid public performance royalties for ringtones is a post from: The Inquisitr

The copyright case against Australia’s second largest ISP iiNet went to court today with an interesting twist: the entertainment industry wants iiNet to disconnect customers accused of illegal downloading as soon as they are notified.

The action against iiNet was filed in the Australian Federal Court by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network. The studios claim iiNet in effect “authorized” customers’ copyright infringement by failing to disconnect them when notified of the infringements by the movie studios.

iiNet told the court that they were was not required to act on a “mere allegation of copyright infringement” and that the case was “like suing the electricity company for things people do with their electricity”.

Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald notes “if iiNet loses, all ISPs could be forced to disconnect customers identified by the movie studios as illegal downloaders.” Not three strikes and you’re out as is the case in France, or as recently proposed in New Zealand, but one accusation and you’re gone. Australia is starting to look more and more like China and Iran every day.

Court case could force one strike and you’re out on downloaders in Australia is a post from: The Inquisitr

Popular CBS owned online music service Last.fm has announced that it will cease providing free access to users outside of the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. Instead, users outside these countries will have to pay €3.00 (US$4.05) per month to have access to music on the site, as we reported earlier.

Last.fm did not specify the reason behind the decision, and instead rattled on about what a wonderful job they do. Speculation (and reason) suggests that the decision may be related to royalty payments and/ or the need to increase revenue at a time that the online advertising market is being hit hard by the great recession.

The fail in the decision is demand: why would users pay Last.fm to listen to music when they can obtain it online via a variety of other sites, both legal and illegal, for free. Add to this that Last.fm doesn’t have access to Warner Bros music, so even if you did pay, you don’t get access to 15% of the market and some of the biggest names in music (a full list here.) Alternatives services like Grooveshark will be rubbing their hands with glee.

Fail: Last.fm to charge for access outside US, UK and Germany is a post from: The Inquisitr

Virgin Megastores Closing

There are currently six Virgin Megastores locations still open across America, including the store in New York City’s Times Square. That store, according to published reports, was set to make $56 million last year — but when the nationwide economic trouble began, the trends suddenly dropped and the store did not meet its projection. Overall, the stores are said to ring in $170 million a year, compared to $230 million a year back in 2002 (at which point Virgin had 23 U.S. locations).

The 52,000-square-foot Times Square Virgin store will close first, with a final day scheduled for April. The other five stores will shut down in June. About a thousand jobs will be lost in all.

Virgin Megastores first opened in 1992 with a store on Hollywood’s Sunset Boulevard. The U.S. branch of the company was bought by Related and Vornado Realty Trust in 2007.

About 150 Virgin Megastores will remain open in parts of Asia, the Middle East, and France. Those locations, unlike the closing U.S. ones, are all still owned by the Virgin Group.

Virgin Megastores Closing All U.S. Locations is a post from: The Inquisitr