Sony BMG has announced an exclusive partnership with Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide that will customize the entertainment experience at the company's nation-wide chain of hotels, including Sheraton, W Hotels, Westin and St. Regis. The two companies will work to create custom playlists, in-room TV, compilation albums, live performances and more. The first part of the partnership calls for the companies to create playlists matching the personality of the hotel chain—W Hotel is likely to play artists in the vein of Imogen Heap, while Sheraton patrons will hear more mainstream artists like Bruce Springsteen.
The two companies will also create a compilation CD unique to every hotel that will be sold for 20 dollars. W's has already been developed and includes artists such as Goldfrapp, Nina Simone, DJ Krush and Dirty Vegas. Starwood hotels have turned towards TV, giving Sony BMG a free channel that will loop artist interviews, music videos and other exclusives. And that's not all—Sony BMG and Starwood are planning a number of live perfomances, the first with Train's Pat Monahan, to be held September 19 at Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. It will be open to both guests of the hotel and the public.
Source: cmj.com
zaterdag 29 september 2007
Sony, BMG recorded music units merger set for EU clearance
BRUSSELS (Thomson Financial) - The European Commission is set to clear the proposed merger between Sony Corp and Bertelsmann AG's BMG recorded music units without conditions, a source familiar with the matter told Thomson Financial News.
The commission, which has until Oct 10 to decide on the in-depth, 'second-phase' inquiry, will be keen to present an error-proof ruling this time around after its original green light for the 50-50 joint venture in July 2004 was overturned by the EU courts in July last year.
The source said the commission has done a much more "thorough" job this time around, spurred on by greater legal scrutiny from the Luxembourg-based courts, and will set out its its reasoning more effectively. The source also said the commission's arguments would be supported by changes in the industry, with combinations now seen in a more favourable light.
The source said that it would be surprising if the EU executive attaches conditions to the transaction.
The EU's second-highest court, the European Court of First Instance, annulled the commission's decision following an appeal lodged by the Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala), representing 3,500 independent labels.
It argued that Sony BMG Music Entertainment Inc -- which has the rights to more than a million songs by recording artists such as Usher, Dido and Christina Aguilera and Beyonce as well as classic hits by acts including Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan -- would block new entrants to the market and impede effective competition.
The court said the commission did not demonstrate effectively enough that the combined music giant would not create a dominant position.
More precisely, it did not provide enough legal evidence to argue that promotional discounts for Sony/BMG products would not hamper competition. The court said this argument was impaired by a "manifest error of assessment."
The key to the present inquiry is the commission's analysis of the competitive effects that major sector consolidation has on consumer prices, based on the evolution of past, present and future market conditions.
The commission has previously noted that the case deals with an environment that is exceptionally difficult.
On the one hand, the market is characterised by the strong position of a small number of major players, while on the other hand, the entire industry has been going through significant changes such as digitalisation of music and changing consumer behaviours.
Equally, the investigation is unusual in that it is being conducted after the completion of the merger, it said.
The inquiry into Sony/BMG comes after the commission at the end of May cleared French company Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group's proposed 1.63 bln eur acquisition of Bertelsmann's BMG publishing arm, subject to conditions.
The deal combined the No. 3 and No. 4 music publishing catalogues, resulting in a 22 pct market share that would scrape ahead of current market leader, the UK's EMI Group.
Unlike the recording business, which sells CDs and other products to be sold at retail, music publishers make money by licensing songs for use in movies, TV shows, CDs, video games, ringtones and other media.
The companies also collect performance fees when songs are played on the radio or in public venues such as clubs.
The commission said its "serious doubts" as to the effects on competition of the deal would be "removed" by the remedies package proposed by the parties concerning the divestiture of a number of publishing catalogues. simon.zekaria@thomson.com sz/lam
Source: iii.co.uk
The commission, which has until Oct 10 to decide on the in-depth, 'second-phase' inquiry, will be keen to present an error-proof ruling this time around after its original green light for the 50-50 joint venture in July 2004 was overturned by the EU courts in July last year.
The source said the commission has done a much more "thorough" job this time around, spurred on by greater legal scrutiny from the Luxembourg-based courts, and will set out its its reasoning more effectively. The source also said the commission's arguments would be supported by changes in the industry, with combinations now seen in a more favourable light.
The source said that it would be surprising if the EU executive attaches conditions to the transaction.
The EU's second-highest court, the European Court of First Instance, annulled the commission's decision following an appeal lodged by the Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala), representing 3,500 independent labels.
It argued that Sony BMG Music Entertainment Inc -- which has the rights to more than a million songs by recording artists such as Usher, Dido and Christina Aguilera and Beyonce as well as classic hits by acts including Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan -- would block new entrants to the market and impede effective competition.
The court said the commission did not demonstrate effectively enough that the combined music giant would not create a dominant position.
More precisely, it did not provide enough legal evidence to argue that promotional discounts for Sony/BMG products would not hamper competition. The court said this argument was impaired by a "manifest error of assessment."
The key to the present inquiry is the commission's analysis of the competitive effects that major sector consolidation has on consumer prices, based on the evolution of past, present and future market conditions.
The commission has previously noted that the case deals with an environment that is exceptionally difficult.
On the one hand, the market is characterised by the strong position of a small number of major players, while on the other hand, the entire industry has been going through significant changes such as digitalisation of music and changing consumer behaviours.
Equally, the investigation is unusual in that it is being conducted after the completion of the merger, it said.
The inquiry into Sony/BMG comes after the commission at the end of May cleared French company Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group's proposed 1.63 bln eur acquisition of Bertelsmann's BMG publishing arm, subject to conditions.
The deal combined the No. 3 and No. 4 music publishing catalogues, resulting in a 22 pct market share that would scrape ahead of current market leader, the UK's EMI Group.
Unlike the recording business, which sells CDs and other products to be sold at retail, music publishers make money by licensing songs for use in movies, TV shows, CDs, video games, ringtones and other media.
The companies also collect performance fees when songs are played on the radio or in public venues such as clubs.
The commission said its "serious doubts" as to the effects on competition of the deal would be "removed" by the remedies package proposed by the parties concerning the divestiture of a number of publishing catalogues. simon.zekaria@thomson.com sz/lam
Source: iii.co.uk
RIAA Cracks Down On Colleges... Again
2007-09-27 10:34:22.943,
Story by: Michael Gonzalez
The Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA) will continue their fight against illegal downloading with the release of 403 pre-litigation settlement letters to 22 different universities. The letters, which are sent to the universities and forwarded to the appropriate network users, inform the school of a forthcoming copyright infringement lawsuit against one of its students or personnel. This marks the eighth wave of letters during the new block of enforcement actions that the RIAA, on behalf of the major record companies, has been taking over the following months. Arizona State University, University Of Massachusetts and University Of Wisconsin are among the top schools served with pre-litigation letters.
According to a statement released by the RIAA, they feel they've made great progress in the three and a half years since taking legal action against individuals for illegal file-trafficking and have witnessed an immense growth in national awareness of it. They also call legal action against students "unfortunate but necessary," sighting statistics that state college students alone accounted for more then 1.3 billion illegal music downloads in 2006. There are some, whoever, who feel the students are a scapegoat and the RIAA isn't getting the larger issue.
"RIAA is definitely missing the point on what's going on with illegal downloading. They aren't exploring the reasons why so many students download music this way," says Nate Honoré, general manager at WSUW Whitewater, one of the schools at the top of the list. "Who can afford [buying CDs] anymore, especially with rising cost in tuition? These pre-litigation letters are not the solution to this so-called 'problem.' Can so many people be wrong about this?"
Source: CMJ.com
Story by: Michael Gonzalez
The Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA) will continue their fight against illegal downloading with the release of 403 pre-litigation settlement letters to 22 different universities. The letters, which are sent to the universities and forwarded to the appropriate network users, inform the school of a forthcoming copyright infringement lawsuit against one of its students or personnel. This marks the eighth wave of letters during the new block of enforcement actions that the RIAA, on behalf of the major record companies, has been taking over the following months. Arizona State University, University Of Massachusetts and University Of Wisconsin are among the top schools served with pre-litigation letters.
According to a statement released by the RIAA, they feel they've made great progress in the three and a half years since taking legal action against individuals for illegal file-trafficking and have witnessed an immense growth in national awareness of it. They also call legal action against students "unfortunate but necessary," sighting statistics that state college students alone accounted for more then 1.3 billion illegal music downloads in 2006. There are some, whoever, who feel the students are a scapegoat and the RIAA isn't getting the larger issue.
"RIAA is definitely missing the point on what's going on with illegal downloading. They aren't exploring the reasons why so many students download music this way," says Nate Honoré, general manager at WSUW Whitewater, one of the schools at the top of the list. "Who can afford [buying CDs] anymore, especially with rising cost in tuition? These pre-litigation letters are not the solution to this so-called 'problem.' Can so many people be wrong about this?"
Source: CMJ.com
BETA Records Partners with Limelight Networks for Internet Streaming and Downloading of Songs and Videos
LOS ANGELES, Calif. - Sept. 24 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) -- Georg van Handel (CEO) and Chris Honetschlaeger (President) with BETA Records, LLC, announced today that they will partner with Limelight Networks to allow users to stream and download songs and videos at lightning speeds. Using their reliable network to distribute content globally, music fans will enjoy a high-quality rich media experience.
BETA Records will utilize Limelight Networks to enhance a highly immersive and engaging music experience that creates close connections between unsigned artists and indie music fans on the new site slated for release later this year. "We're excited to partner with Limelight for many reasons, including the support Limelight brings to all our partner countries," Honetschlaeger stated.
"We decided to go with a CDN to ensure the artists and fans of our upcoming site will have the best experience possible in getting music, videos, and photos quickly. Limelight Networks has proven to be a solid, flexible platform with reasonable rates, superb sales support and excellent customer service," said Chris Harper, BETA's Chief Experience Officer.
"People worldwide want to connect with each other via a common interest in music - whether they are looking to discover new talent or collaborate together on creating new music," said Lou Greco, Limelight VP of North American enterprise sales and channel operations. "By leveraging Limelight's advanced CDN service, BETA Records solves a business challenge that many user-generated music sites are facing today - providing the best possible experience to a rapidly growing community of users and ensuring reliable and high-quality delivery of rich media regardless of audience size or activity."
About BETA Records
BETA Records combines online techniques and label resources to discover independent artists and present them in an upcoming robust social music community of listeners. With localized versions of the site in multiple countries, artists can truly get exposed to a world-wide audience. www.betarecords.com
Business Development Contact
William Vablais, 760.217.5000, william@betarecords(.com)
Media Contact
Scott G, 818.223.8486, scottg@betarecords(.com)
About Limelight Networks
Limelight Networks is a high-performance content delivery network for digital media, providing massively scalable, global delivery solutions for on-demand and live Internet distribution of video, music, games and social media. Limelight Networks' infrastructure is optimized for the large object sizes, large content libraries, and large audiences associated with compelling rich media content. Limelight is the content delivery network of choice for more than 850 of the world's top media companies, including Akimbo, Amazon Unbox(TM), Belo Interactive, Brightcove, "BuyMusic" @ Buy.com, DreamWorks, LLC, Facebook, FOXNews.com, IFILM, ITV Play, MSNBC.com, MySpace, NC Interactive, Valve Software and Xbox Live. www.llnw.com
Limelight Networks Media Contact
Kristen Leon, Waggener Edstrom Worldwide
415.547.7027 - kristen1@waggeneredstrom(.com)
All trademarks acknowledged.
NEWS SOURCE: BETA Records, LLC
BETA Records will utilize Limelight Networks to enhance a highly immersive and engaging music experience that creates close connections between unsigned artists and indie music fans on the new site slated for release later this year. "We're excited to partner with Limelight for many reasons, including the support Limelight brings to all our partner countries," Honetschlaeger stated.
"We decided to go with a CDN to ensure the artists and fans of our upcoming site will have the best experience possible in getting music, videos, and photos quickly. Limelight Networks has proven to be a solid, flexible platform with reasonable rates, superb sales support and excellent customer service," said Chris Harper, BETA's Chief Experience Officer.
"People worldwide want to connect with each other via a common interest in music - whether they are looking to discover new talent or collaborate together on creating new music," said Lou Greco, Limelight VP of North American enterprise sales and channel operations. "By leveraging Limelight's advanced CDN service, BETA Records solves a business challenge that many user-generated music sites are facing today - providing the best possible experience to a rapidly growing community of users and ensuring reliable and high-quality delivery of rich media regardless of audience size or activity."
About BETA Records
BETA Records combines online techniques and label resources to discover independent artists and present them in an upcoming robust social music community of listeners. With localized versions of the site in multiple countries, artists can truly get exposed to a world-wide audience. www.betarecords.com
Business Development Contact
William Vablais, 760.217.5000, william@betarecords(.com)
Media Contact
Scott G, 818.223.8486, scottg@betarecords(.com)
About Limelight Networks
Limelight Networks is a high-performance content delivery network for digital media, providing massively scalable, global delivery solutions for on-demand and live Internet distribution of video, music, games and social media. Limelight Networks' infrastructure is optimized for the large object sizes, large content libraries, and large audiences associated with compelling rich media content. Limelight is the content delivery network of choice for more than 850 of the world's top media companies, including Akimbo, Amazon Unbox(TM), Belo Interactive, Brightcove, "BuyMusic" @ Buy.com, DreamWorks, LLC, Facebook, FOXNews.com, IFILM, ITV Play, MSNBC.com, MySpace, NC Interactive, Valve Software and Xbox Live. www.llnw.com
Limelight Networks Media Contact
Kristen Leon, Waggener Edstrom Worldwide
415.547.7027 - kristen1@waggeneredstrom(.com)
All trademarks acknowledged.
NEWS SOURCE: BETA Records, LLC
Album art gets short shrift in digital marketplace
By Antony Bruno
Fri Sep 21, 8:44 PM ET
DENVER (Billboard) - Does album art have a place in the future of digital music?
In today's digital music environment, album art -- like liner notes, lyrics and other extras considered commonplace in the physical world -- exists as a mere afterthought, if that. Its primary purpose is to serve as icons when shoppers scroll through vast music libraries on the computer or iPod.
In a move that was part protest and part publicity stunt, English band Hard-Fi in August released its album "Once Upon a Time in the West" with just the words "No Cover Art" printed on it, citing the irrelevance of album art in the digital space.
It doesn't have to be this way. There's no reason digital distribution channels can't spark the greatest innovations in cover art since the days of the vinyl LP. Animated album covers, interactive booklets and liner notes that link to other Web sites and multimedia material, customized album art where fans can place their own images -- all are possible in the digital distribution future.
The Musika game for the iPod, in which Sony BMG recently participated, is an example. Technically, it's not an album art innovation, but rather a game that draws on the metadata of Sony BMG titles. But it is a good example of what can be done with digital music as a visual format.
When given the choice, fans downloading full albums from pirate BitTorrent sites almost universally choose files that include scans of the album art and booklet over those that don't.
"It's always more extensive than the album art included in the official package," Warner Music Group (WMG) senior VP of strategy and product development George White said of the art available on pirate sites. "That alone shows that people who aren't bothering to pay for music value the album artwork enough to look for packages that contain it."
TECH LAG
So if fans want digital album art and related material as part of their digital music download, why aren't the labels and digital music services making that available?
For starters, the services don't have the capabilities to offer it yet. According to White, none of today's digital retailers or device manufacturers -- save Apple -- have implemented the technology needed to support advanced album art or other interactive features, such as Flash or Java. Nor have they added a display mechanism capable of anything other than a static image. Of all the services, only iTunes has a downloadable video feature.
WMG tried adding interactive booklets to about 75 albums sold on iTunes this spring, providing extra photos, lyrics and links to multimedia content much like extras on a DVD. But the booklets require Flash technology, which Apple later disabled in Quicktime because of a security flaw for which it has yet to release a patch. White said WMG planned to make the digital booklets a standard element for all top-line releases, but the initiative is on hold indefinitely as a result.
But the music industry needs to agree upon technological and operational standards for how to provide this material across multiple services. It's not fair to expect iTunes or others to create different album art features and technology for each label.
The only thing that will motivate labels to do that is the promise of more sales. White said advanced cover art and interactive features would be limited to full-album sales or that of smaller EP bundles, not individual tracks. The hope is that fans will buy more digital albums rather than cherrypicking singles if more features were attached.
At this early stage, the evidence is at best circumstantial, and the focus is on digital album art as a new form of creative expression.
"One of my major goals is to keep artists in the loop with what the capabilities are and get them to think through (it) as they're creating new records," White said. "It's about providing a platform for artists to get their creative vision across to consumers who have moved on to a new generation of devices that have a whole new set of capabilities and have acquired new habits for how they acquire music."
Reuters/Billboard
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070922/wr_nm/art_dc
Fri Sep 21, 8:44 PM ET
DENVER (Billboard) - Does album art have a place in the future of digital music?
In today's digital music environment, album art -- like liner notes, lyrics and other extras considered commonplace in the physical world -- exists as a mere afterthought, if that. Its primary purpose is to serve as icons when shoppers scroll through vast music libraries on the computer or iPod.
In a move that was part protest and part publicity stunt, English band Hard-Fi in August released its album "Once Upon a Time in the West" with just the words "No Cover Art" printed on it, citing the irrelevance of album art in the digital space.
It doesn't have to be this way. There's no reason digital distribution channels can't spark the greatest innovations in cover art since the days of the vinyl LP. Animated album covers, interactive booklets and liner notes that link to other Web sites and multimedia material, customized album art where fans can place their own images -- all are possible in the digital distribution future.
The Musika game for the iPod, in which Sony BMG recently participated, is an example. Technically, it's not an album art innovation, but rather a game that draws on the metadata of Sony BMG titles. But it is a good example of what can be done with digital music as a visual format.
When given the choice, fans downloading full albums from pirate BitTorrent sites almost universally choose files that include scans of the album art and booklet over those that don't.
"It's always more extensive than the album art included in the official package," Warner Music Group (WMG) senior VP of strategy and product development George White said of the art available on pirate sites. "That alone shows that people who aren't bothering to pay for music value the album artwork enough to look for packages that contain it."
TECH LAG
So if fans want digital album art and related material as part of their digital music download, why aren't the labels and digital music services making that available?
For starters, the services don't have the capabilities to offer it yet. According to White, none of today's digital retailers or device manufacturers -- save Apple -- have implemented the technology needed to support advanced album art or other interactive features, such as Flash or Java. Nor have they added a display mechanism capable of anything other than a static image. Of all the services, only iTunes has a downloadable video feature.
WMG tried adding interactive booklets to about 75 albums sold on iTunes this spring, providing extra photos, lyrics and links to multimedia content much like extras on a DVD. But the booklets require Flash technology, which Apple later disabled in Quicktime because of a security flaw for which it has yet to release a patch. White said WMG planned to make the digital booklets a standard element for all top-line releases, but the initiative is on hold indefinitely as a result.
But the music industry needs to agree upon technological and operational standards for how to provide this material across multiple services. It's not fair to expect iTunes or others to create different album art features and technology for each label.
The only thing that will motivate labels to do that is the promise of more sales. White said advanced cover art and interactive features would be limited to full-album sales or that of smaller EP bundles, not individual tracks. The hope is that fans will buy more digital albums rather than cherrypicking singles if more features were attached.
At this early stage, the evidence is at best circumstantial, and the focus is on digital album art as a new form of creative expression.
"One of my major goals is to keep artists in the loop with what the capabilities are and get them to think through (it) as they're creating new records," White said. "It's about providing a platform for artists to get their creative vision across to consumers who have moved on to a new generation of devices that have a whole new set of capabilities and have acquired new habits for how they acquire music."
Reuters/Billboard
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070922/wr_nm/art_dc
Online music fees pose digital dilemma
By Robert Plummer
Business reporter, BBC News
As record labels struggle to find new ways of selling music in the digital age, some companies are clearly more confused than others.
Even a dose of bling could not save Sony's Atrac format
Take Sony, for instance. It owns 50% of Columbia Records, the oldest and most venerable name in recorded sound.
Columbia's co-chairman, Rick Rubin, has joined the list of music industry executives who think that an online flat-rate subscription service is the way to combat digital piracy and file-sharing.
"You'd pay, say, $19.95 (£10) a month, and the music will come from anywhere you'd like," he told the New York Times earlier this month.
"In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television."
Unfortunately, no-one shared this joined-up vision of the future with Sony Corporation bosses, who announced just days earlier that they were closing down the company's download store.
The decision comes as part of what is, in effect, the wholesale scrapping of Sony's entire digital music strategy.
Until now, Sony's digital players had been primarily designed around its proprietary Atrac audio format, although initial Atrac-only players were replaced three years ago by ones that would also play MP3 files.
Now it is getting rid of Atrac altogether and phasing out its Sony Connect music store from March 2008. Future Sony players will handle a range of formats, including Microsoft's Windows Media Audio (WMA).
'Prime sub' hopes
But how likely is it that somone will realise Rick Rubin's vision of an all-embracing legal digital music service?
EMUSIC SUBSCRIPTIONS (UK)
eMusic Basic: 30 song downloads a month; £8.99 a month
eMusic Plus: 50 song downloads a month; £11.99 a month
eMusic Premium: 75 song downloads a month; £14.99 a month
Well, there are currently two types of online subscription model on offer, neither of them exactly what Mr Rubin has in mind.
One is available from eMusic, the world's number two digital music service with 10-11% of the market.
For a monthly fee, customers have the right to download a certain number of songs in MP3 format without any digital rights restrictions.
Music lovers can choose from 2.9 million tracks owned by 20,000 independent labels.
The snag is that none of the Big Four major record companies - EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner - are included.
NAPSTER SUBSCRIPTIONS (UK)
Napster PC music service: Unlimited protected downloads; £9.95 a month
Napster To Go: Also allows transfer to compatible players; £14.95 a month
The other is offered by a number of different firms including Napster, once a byword for illegal file-sharing and now one of the internet's best-known legitimate services.
Under this system, consumers essentially rent their music.
For a monthly fee, they can download as many tracks as they like, but the music sits on the computer's hard drive and cannot be transferred, although there is a more expensive service that allows copying to a compatible player.
The music lasts only as long as you keep paying the monthly subscription. After that, the licence expires and the tracks become unplayable - unless you can crack the Digital Rights Management (DRM) that controls them.
Celestial jukebox
The chief executive of eMusic, David Pakman, is understandably keen to exalt his company's system over any other possible kind of subscription. But he swiftly points out the flaw in the "Rubin model" of music service.
"Per capita spending on music in the US in 2005 was $24 a year," he says. "Music as a utility would pre-suppose that Americans are prepared to spend more on music than they did then, but speculation is that it's somewhat less than that now."
In other words, Americans probably spend in a year on music what Mr Rubin would like them to spend in a month - and there is no reason to believe that people in the UK or elsewhere are any different.
eMusic's boss says the world is not ready for music as a utility
In any case, as far as Mr Pakman is concerned, his customers simply don't want what he calls the "jukebox-in-the-sky" version of music subscription.
"We are a business that's really focused on customers who are 25 years and older," he says.
"We have a subscription-based system in that consumers pay monthly, but they are buying a pre-set number of downloads.
"Every song, you own and can keep forever. Our age group still thinks of music in an ownership capacity. They're not ready to think about a rental model.
"I think it's a long-term view. It's quite possible that music will be a service, but that's really a model that's not been adopted by consumers."
'Digital air'
The main problem with subscription-based services is that the leading name in music downloads, Apple's iTunes, has managed to corner two-thirds of the market without resorting to them at all.
With most tracks retailing at 79p each and albums at £7.99, Apple is doing so well selling digital music as goods that the idea of music as a service still seems a long way off.
But as sales of virtual music rise, traditional record shops are looking increasingly beleaguered.
David Killington calls virtual music "digital air"
In the UK, there are only two national chains of High Street record retailers left after a number of high-profile casualties. One of those, Virgin, has just changed hands and is to be rebranded as Zavvi.
Smaller shops, too, are going under - yet some store owners may still have the last laugh.
David Killington had to close his Mr CD shop in London's Berwick Street, as reported by the BBC News website in June.
But as he says, there are drawbacks to owning all your music as digitised information instead of physical artefacts.
"When [bad] times arise and you need to raise some cash, there is always a chance to sell off some rarely-played discs that can be sacrificed from your collection," he says.
"With buying downloads, you are purchasing digital air without any resale value whatsoever."
The idea of music subscriptions is not going to go away, and many in the music industry are hotly debating how to make it work.
The latest suggestion, from Universal Music Group, is to make people pay through their internet service providers for the right to swap music.
But pricing levels will be crucial - or else the cost of "digital air" could well leave consumers breathless.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6989973.stm
Business reporter, BBC News
As record labels struggle to find new ways of selling music in the digital age, some companies are clearly more confused than others.
Even a dose of bling could not save Sony's Atrac format
Take Sony, for instance. It owns 50% of Columbia Records, the oldest and most venerable name in recorded sound.
Columbia's co-chairman, Rick Rubin, has joined the list of music industry executives who think that an online flat-rate subscription service is the way to combat digital piracy and file-sharing.
"You'd pay, say, $19.95 (£10) a month, and the music will come from anywhere you'd like," he told the New York Times earlier this month.
"In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television."
Unfortunately, no-one shared this joined-up vision of the future with Sony Corporation bosses, who announced just days earlier that they were closing down the company's download store.
The decision comes as part of what is, in effect, the wholesale scrapping of Sony's entire digital music strategy.
Until now, Sony's digital players had been primarily designed around its proprietary Atrac audio format, although initial Atrac-only players were replaced three years ago by ones that would also play MP3 files.
Now it is getting rid of Atrac altogether and phasing out its Sony Connect music store from March 2008. Future Sony players will handle a range of formats, including Microsoft's Windows Media Audio (WMA).
'Prime sub' hopes
But how likely is it that somone will realise Rick Rubin's vision of an all-embracing legal digital music service?
EMUSIC SUBSCRIPTIONS (UK)
eMusic Basic: 30 song downloads a month; £8.99 a month
eMusic Plus: 50 song downloads a month; £11.99 a month
eMusic Premium: 75 song downloads a month; £14.99 a month
Well, there are currently two types of online subscription model on offer, neither of them exactly what Mr Rubin has in mind.
One is available from eMusic, the world's number two digital music service with 10-11% of the market.
For a monthly fee, customers have the right to download a certain number of songs in MP3 format without any digital rights restrictions.
Music lovers can choose from 2.9 million tracks owned by 20,000 independent labels.
The snag is that none of the Big Four major record companies - EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner - are included.
NAPSTER SUBSCRIPTIONS (UK)
Napster PC music service: Unlimited protected downloads; £9.95 a month
Napster To Go: Also allows transfer to compatible players; £14.95 a month
The other is offered by a number of different firms including Napster, once a byword for illegal file-sharing and now one of the internet's best-known legitimate services.
Under this system, consumers essentially rent their music.
For a monthly fee, they can download as many tracks as they like, but the music sits on the computer's hard drive and cannot be transferred, although there is a more expensive service that allows copying to a compatible player.
The music lasts only as long as you keep paying the monthly subscription. After that, the licence expires and the tracks become unplayable - unless you can crack the Digital Rights Management (DRM) that controls them.
Celestial jukebox
The chief executive of eMusic, David Pakman, is understandably keen to exalt his company's system over any other possible kind of subscription. But he swiftly points out the flaw in the "Rubin model" of music service.
"Per capita spending on music in the US in 2005 was $24 a year," he says. "Music as a utility would pre-suppose that Americans are prepared to spend more on music than they did then, but speculation is that it's somewhat less than that now."
In other words, Americans probably spend in a year on music what Mr Rubin would like them to spend in a month - and there is no reason to believe that people in the UK or elsewhere are any different.
eMusic's boss says the world is not ready for music as a utility
In any case, as far as Mr Pakman is concerned, his customers simply don't want what he calls the "jukebox-in-the-sky" version of music subscription.
"We are a business that's really focused on customers who are 25 years and older," he says.
"We have a subscription-based system in that consumers pay monthly, but they are buying a pre-set number of downloads.
"Every song, you own and can keep forever. Our age group still thinks of music in an ownership capacity. They're not ready to think about a rental model.
"I think it's a long-term view. It's quite possible that music will be a service, but that's really a model that's not been adopted by consumers."
'Digital air'
The main problem with subscription-based services is that the leading name in music downloads, Apple's iTunes, has managed to corner two-thirds of the market without resorting to them at all.
With most tracks retailing at 79p each and albums at £7.99, Apple is doing so well selling digital music as goods that the idea of music as a service still seems a long way off.
But as sales of virtual music rise, traditional record shops are looking increasingly beleaguered.
David Killington calls virtual music "digital air"
In the UK, there are only two national chains of High Street record retailers left after a number of high-profile casualties. One of those, Virgin, has just changed hands and is to be rebranded as Zavvi.
Smaller shops, too, are going under - yet some store owners may still have the last laugh.
David Killington had to close his Mr CD shop in London's Berwick Street, as reported by the BBC News website in June.
But as he says, there are drawbacks to owning all your music as digitised information instead of physical artefacts.
"When [bad] times arise and you need to raise some cash, there is always a chance to sell off some rarely-played discs that can be sacrificed from your collection," he says.
"With buying downloads, you are purchasing digital air without any resale value whatsoever."
The idea of music subscriptions is not going to go away, and many in the music industry are hotly debating how to make it work.
The latest suggestion, from Universal Music Group, is to make people pay through their internet service providers for the right to swap music.
But pricing levels will be crucial - or else the cost of "digital air" could well leave consumers breathless.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6989973.stm
Vivendi Calls Apple iTunes Contract Terms 'Indecent'
Vivendi condemned as "indecent" the contract terms between its Universal Music Group (UMG) unit and Apple Inc, the computer maker whose iTunes online store dominates the digital music market.
Vivendi is one of many large media companies that are trying to challenge Apple's grip on the digital entertainment market and obtain more control over pricing. It said it was in talks with rival distributors.
"The split between Apple and (music) producers is indecent ... Our contracts give too good a share to Apple," Vivendi Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy told reporters at a gathering on Monday organised by the association of media journalists in France.
At present, UMG, the world's largest record company, gets 0.70 euro ($0.99) out of the 0.99 euro retail price charged by iTunes, Vivendi said.
Among other things, Levy called for the remuneration of a new release to be higher than for a 30-year-old classic. "We should have a differentiated price system," he said.
UMG renews its music distribution contracts with Apple every month after having failed to agree a longer-term arrangement earlier this year.
The music publisher can end its contract with Apple at one month's notice, but Levy declined to say whether UMG was ready to bypass Apple altogether.
"We are in a phase during which many different actors are talking to each other ... We are trying to put in place several projects to ensure that music is better remunerated ... We are not just talking to Apple," he said.
In August, NBC Universal, a unit of General Electric, decided against renewing its contract to sell television shows on iTunes and this month reached a deal to sell TV downloads to online retailer Amazon.
Commenting on the outlook for revenues at UMG, Levy said: "At constant exchange rates, we should probably be stable again in 2007."
Fleshing out UMG's strategy, Levy said it planned to focus on better exploiting the "monetisation of an artist's image" which included branded clothes and TV shows.
"This is what we hope will revive our business," Levy said. "People indulge in piracy but spend a lot of money on many other things that are linked to an artist."
Levy forecast that "in the not so distant future", traditional music products such as DVDs and CDs would make up less than 50 percent of music publishing revenues.
At the half-year stage, digital music sales made up 15 percent of UMG's total music revenue.
Separately, Levy said Vivendi expects the profitability of its pay-TV group Canal Plus to improve in 2007, excluding restructuring costs.
"We hope to generate, excluding restructuring costs, an EBIT margin of above 7 percent this year" at Canal Plus, Levy said.
In 2006, Canal Plus's earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) reached between 4 and 5 percent of revenue, on a comparable basis excluding restructuring costs.
Levy said Canal Plus aimed to reach an operating margin of 20 percent by 2010, matching the level of British rivals and narrowing the gap with U.S. peers with margins near 30 percent.
"To get there, we need savings and particularly in (TV) content," Levy said, adding that Canal Plus planned to cut 200 to 250 million euros in TV content costs, which now hovered around 2 billion euros annually.
But Levy acknowledged that competition for good TV content such as film or sports rights remained high, particularly against new entrants such as France Telecom which he described as a "semi-public company" with deep pockets.
Vivendi shares closed down 1.2 pct at 29.74 euros.
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ib429a97580f60ae20985851c6c575e82
Vivendi is one of many large media companies that are trying to challenge Apple's grip on the digital entertainment market and obtain more control over pricing. It said it was in talks with rival distributors."The split between Apple and (music) producers is indecent ... Our contracts give too good a share to Apple," Vivendi Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy told reporters at a gathering on Monday organised by the association of media journalists in France.
At present, UMG, the world's largest record company, gets 0.70 euro ($0.99) out of the 0.99 euro retail price charged by iTunes, Vivendi said.
Among other things, Levy called for the remuneration of a new release to be higher than for a 30-year-old classic. "We should have a differentiated price system," he said.
UMG renews its music distribution contracts with Apple every month after having failed to agree a longer-term arrangement earlier this year.
The music publisher can end its contract with Apple at one month's notice, but Levy declined to say whether UMG was ready to bypass Apple altogether.
"We are in a phase during which many different actors are talking to each other ... We are trying to put in place several projects to ensure that music is better remunerated ... We are not just talking to Apple," he said.
In August, NBC Universal, a unit of General Electric, decided against renewing its contract to sell television shows on iTunes and this month reached a deal to sell TV downloads to online retailer Amazon.
Commenting on the outlook for revenues at UMG, Levy said: "At constant exchange rates, we should probably be stable again in 2007."
Fleshing out UMG's strategy, Levy said it planned to focus on better exploiting the "monetisation of an artist's image" which included branded clothes and TV shows.
"This is what we hope will revive our business," Levy said. "People indulge in piracy but spend a lot of money on many other things that are linked to an artist."
Levy forecast that "in the not so distant future", traditional music products such as DVDs and CDs would make up less than 50 percent of music publishing revenues.
At the half-year stage, digital music sales made up 15 percent of UMG's total music revenue.
Separately, Levy said Vivendi expects the profitability of its pay-TV group Canal Plus to improve in 2007, excluding restructuring costs.
"We hope to generate, excluding restructuring costs, an EBIT margin of above 7 percent this year" at Canal Plus, Levy said.
In 2006, Canal Plus's earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) reached between 4 and 5 percent of revenue, on a comparable basis excluding restructuring costs.
Levy said Canal Plus aimed to reach an operating margin of 20 percent by 2010, matching the level of British rivals and narrowing the gap with U.S. peers with margins near 30 percent.
"To get there, we need savings and particularly in (TV) content," Levy said, adding that Canal Plus planned to cut 200 to 250 million euros in TV content costs, which now hovered around 2 billion euros annually.
But Levy acknowledged that competition for good TV content such as film or sports rights remained high, particularly against new entrants such as France Telecom which he described as a "semi-public company" with deep pockets.
Vivendi shares closed down 1.2 pct at 29.74 euros.
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ib429a97580f60ae20985851c6c575e82
Some Yahoo Music and Other Entertainment Properties Changes Coming
We’ve been hearing that some changes are afoot at Yahoo’s (NSDQ: YHOO) Santa Monica-based entertainment properties, and Yahoo Music might be the one most affected, and could include Yahoo TV as well. An announcement might come as soon as tomorrow. Some changes along those line are expected as new CEO Jerry Yang is in the midst of his 100-day review of the company. WSJ suggested earlier this month on Yahoo Music changes.
For Yahoo Music, it might mean the closure of its subscription music service, which has never really gained any traction against competition. The unit has about 250 to 300 staff, and it could involve some layoffs, though nothing major. Other property which has been on the rocks is Yahoo TV, which has struggled to maintain its identity in face of other entertainment blogs and destination sites. Yahoo PR didn’t respond until publish time.
Another trial balloon I will float right now: how long before Yahoo considers closing its Santa Monica offices, and move the properties back up North? No inside info on it, just my hunch on a long term change that might come.
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-some-yahoo-music-and-other-entertainment-properties-changes-coming/
For Yahoo Music, it might mean the closure of its subscription music service, which has never really gained any traction against competition. The unit has about 250 to 300 staff, and it could involve some layoffs, though nothing major. Other property which has been on the rocks is Yahoo TV, which has struggled to maintain its identity in face of other entertainment blogs and destination sites. Yahoo PR didn’t respond until publish time.
Another trial balloon I will float right now: how long before Yahoo considers closing its Santa Monica offices, and move the properties back up North? No inside info on it, just my hunch on a long term change that might come.
http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-some-yahoo-music-and-other-entertainment-properties-changes-coming/
Sony BMG Reaches Deal With Imeem
Sony BMG Music Entertainment has agreed to make its music available to online social media network imeem.com, according to sources familiar with the situation.
Representatives for imeem and Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people ) BMG declined to comment Wednesday.
Meanwhile, representatives for Vivendi's Universal Music Group and EMI Group confirmed Wednesday that they are holding talks with imeem about possible content partnerships.
Sony BMG is the second major label to reach a content deal with the San Francisco company, which enables users to share music and video content. Warner Music Group concluded a similar deal with imeem in July.
Imeem also has agreements in place with independent labels such as Nettwerk, Beggars Group, Matador Records, XL Recordings and other labels distributed by leading indie distributor companies IODA, The Orchard, Redeye Distribution and others.
In exchange for making their content available to imeem users, Warner and the independent labels receive a cut of the ad revenue that imeem generates.
Registered users of imeem can post songs or videos on their accounts and share them with other users. If imeem has a content deal with the recording artist's label, users can stream the songs or videos in full. If no deal is in place, users see or view a 30-second snippet of the song or video.
Imeem has one of a growing number of new Web sites that allow music fans to share and listen to music online. When imeem first launched its ad-supported interactive music service in June, none of the major labels agreed to participate. But sustained declines in recorded-music sales have forced the majors to be more flexible in considering new distribution platforms.
http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/09/26/sony-bmg-imeem-biz-media_cx_lh_0926music.html
Representatives for imeem and Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people ) BMG declined to comment Wednesday.
Meanwhile, representatives for Vivendi's Universal Music Group and EMI Group confirmed Wednesday that they are holding talks with imeem about possible content partnerships.
Sony BMG is the second major label to reach a content deal with the San Francisco company, which enables users to share music and video content. Warner Music Group concluded a similar deal with imeem in July.
Imeem also has agreements in place with independent labels such as Nettwerk, Beggars Group, Matador Records, XL Recordings and other labels distributed by leading indie distributor companies IODA, The Orchard, Redeye Distribution and others.
In exchange for making their content available to imeem users, Warner and the independent labels receive a cut of the ad revenue that imeem generates.
Registered users of imeem can post songs or videos on their accounts and share them with other users. If imeem has a content deal with the recording artist's label, users can stream the songs or videos in full. If no deal is in place, users see or view a 30-second snippet of the song or video.
Imeem has one of a growing number of new Web sites that allow music fans to share and listen to music online. When imeem first launched its ad-supported interactive music service in June, none of the major labels agreed to participate. But sustained declines in recorded-music sales have forced the majors to be more flexible in considering new distribution platforms.
http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/09/26/sony-bmg-imeem-biz-media_cx_lh_0926music.html
MusicStation arrives, but will we pay for digital music? Vodafone thinks so
By Andrew Orlowski
The Great White Hope of the music business - and many network operators - has arrived in the UK. The music business hopes it will persuade people to start paying for licensed digital music, while operators hope it will persuade people to start using their expensively built, but under-utilised 3G networks.
Vodafone will launch Omnifone's MusicStation service here on three new handsets in time for Christmas. MusicStation offers unlimited downloads, file and playlist "sharing" (we'll explain the quotation marks in a moment) with no additional data charges to the subscriber - all for £1.99 a week. The goal is "any song, anywhere".
MusicStation, which operates out of the old Island Records HQ, has snagged the big four labels and about 30 carriers globally for its service, making it the biggest arrival since iTunes in 2003.
Voda will bundle it with the upgraded, 8GB version of the Nokia N95, Sony Ericsson's W910i and an updated version of Samsung's touch screen & QWERTY phone the F700. It's shunned Nokia's new music flagship the N81, but given the prototype condition of the phone on its first public outing recently, that isn't such a surprise. More importantly, existing Vodafone subscribers will also be able to download the MusicStation software and sign up for a free trial. Omnifone says MusicStation runs on 70 per cent of the world's handsets.
While industry analysts will peg MusicStation as a rival for services such as iTunes Store, Rhapsody or mobile eMusic, the newcomer will really put a much bigger proposition to the test: whether people want to pay for recorded music at all.
They're all really competing with the convenience and rich repertory of unlicensed P2P services - and no licensed digital download service has captured the imagination, or the wallets, of the public. As a consequence, while music has never been so popular, next to nothing is being returned to the creators, producers and distributors. So the music business watches one licensed business whither away, while refusing to licence another.
Because mobile offers easy billing, ubiquity, and the devices and networks are more controlled, it's long been touted as a potential saviour of the music business, and as the best way of competing with free downloads.
Ominous figures from Japan confirm that no one has got it remotely right yet. Japan is closely watched, because of the high penetration of mobile networks, the high degree of socialisation around mobile devices, and its successful history for mobile services. However, last week, the Recording Industry Association of Japan (AIAJ), reported that the volume of licensed downloads had fallen for the first time, down to 111.6m in Q2 from 114.3m.
How could MusicStation succeed where so many others - particularly subscription-based offerings - have failed?
Well, there's no nasty data charge surprises, capping or quotas - since the £1.99 includes all data costs and unlimited downloads. (A £2.99 service runs on a PC or Mac and allows you to browse the catalog and acquire music from a desktop). Unlike eMusic, it has the four major labels and unlike iTunes or Napster, it's genuinely mobile. And unlike Nokia's beta Music Store, it runs on the majority of the world's handsets. But MusicStation's biggest advantage over the networks' own music stores is that it's much easier to use, is cross-carrier, and is very forgiving. So if you lose your handset or change operator, you don't lose your music. The user interface has received a lot of thought, and offers by far the best experience we've seen on a mobile.
As for file and playlist sharing, it's actually encouraged. When one MusicStation phone receives a playlist from another, it's populated over the network.
Because the songs are locked down with DRM, much depends on how Omnifone and the carriers market it. If it's sold as music acquisition, then it has flaws, since your collection disappears when the subscription ends. If it's sold as a "radio" service, then it offers a lot more value: such as caching and user control. Being able to call up any song on demand, anywhere, is certainly an attractive goal.
But we'll soon see whether the public have an appetite for paying for digital music. It's competing with free. ®
The Great White Hope of the music business - and many network operators - has arrived in the UK. The music business hopes it will persuade people to start paying for licensed digital music, while operators hope it will persuade people to start using their expensively built, but under-utilised 3G networks.
Vodafone will launch Omnifone's MusicStation service here on three new handsets in time for Christmas. MusicStation offers unlimited downloads, file and playlist "sharing" (we'll explain the quotation marks in a moment) with no additional data charges to the subscriber - all for £1.99 a week. The goal is "any song, anywhere".
MusicStation, which operates out of the old Island Records HQ, has snagged the big four labels and about 30 carriers globally for its service, making it the biggest arrival since iTunes in 2003.
Voda will bundle it with the upgraded, 8GB version of the Nokia N95, Sony Ericsson's W910i and an updated version of Samsung's touch screen & QWERTY phone the F700. It's shunned Nokia's new music flagship the N81, but given the prototype condition of the phone on its first public outing recently, that isn't such a surprise. More importantly, existing Vodafone subscribers will also be able to download the MusicStation software and sign up for a free trial. Omnifone says MusicStation runs on 70 per cent of the world's handsets.
While industry analysts will peg MusicStation as a rival for services such as iTunes Store, Rhapsody or mobile eMusic, the newcomer will really put a much bigger proposition to the test: whether people want to pay for recorded music at all.
They're all really competing with the convenience and rich repertory of unlicensed P2P services - and no licensed digital download service has captured the imagination, or the wallets, of the public. As a consequence, while music has never been so popular, next to nothing is being returned to the creators, producers and distributors. So the music business watches one licensed business whither away, while refusing to licence another.
Because mobile offers easy billing, ubiquity, and the devices and networks are more controlled, it's long been touted as a potential saviour of the music business, and as the best way of competing with free downloads.
Ominous figures from Japan confirm that no one has got it remotely right yet. Japan is closely watched, because of the high penetration of mobile networks, the high degree of socialisation around mobile devices, and its successful history for mobile services. However, last week, the Recording Industry Association of Japan (AIAJ), reported that the volume of licensed downloads had fallen for the first time, down to 111.6m in Q2 from 114.3m.
How could MusicStation succeed where so many others - particularly subscription-based offerings - have failed?
Well, there's no nasty data charge surprises, capping or quotas - since the £1.99 includes all data costs and unlimited downloads. (A £2.99 service runs on a PC or Mac and allows you to browse the catalog and acquire music from a desktop). Unlike eMusic, it has the four major labels and unlike iTunes or Napster, it's genuinely mobile. And unlike Nokia's beta Music Store, it runs on the majority of the world's handsets. But MusicStation's biggest advantage over the networks' own music stores is that it's much easier to use, is cross-carrier, and is very forgiving. So if you lose your handset or change operator, you don't lose your music. The user interface has received a lot of thought, and offers by far the best experience we've seen on a mobile.
As for file and playlist sharing, it's actually encouraged. When one MusicStation phone receives a playlist from another, it's populated over the network.
Because the songs are locked down with DRM, much depends on how Omnifone and the carriers market it. If it's sold as music acquisition, then it has flaws, since your collection disappears when the subscription ends. If it's sold as a "radio" service, then it offers a lot more value: such as caching and user control. Being able to call up any song on demand, anywhere, is certainly an attractive goal.
But we'll soon see whether the public have an appetite for paying for digital music. It's competing with free. ®
donderdag 27 september 2007
Universal charges into legal P2P
Then charges back out again
By Andrew Orlowski → More by this authorPublished Friday 14th September 2007 18:50 GMTJobsite - find your next IT job quickly & easily The world's biggest record label is touting a scheme that would permit internet users to swap DRM-free music under a blanket license, according to a report. Universal Music Group's "TotalMusic" program would allow customers of ISPs who signed up to the program to exchange files freely - but only if the ISP signed up.
The report in Digital Music News this week also suggested that UMG was considering forcing ISPs to adopt the program - causing widespread puzzlement throughout the music business. That's because it lacks the technical, legal and financial resources to back up any threats.
Even though newer network inspection technologies give ISPs a much better idea of the activity on their networks - and AT&T recently promised to use it to identify copyright infringement - ISPs have legal protection from mandatory demands. Nor has UMG the resources to engage in a war of attrition, as a glance at the numbers illustrates.
UMG contributed around $3bn in revenue to its parent, the French-based Vivendi group, in the first six months of this year. By contrast, AT&T's "data services" business alone snagged almost $6bn last year (a mere 10 per cent of its revenues), while broadband ISP revenues will swell Comcast's cable business by around $3.5bn this year. And broadband revenues are climbing, while music sales are falling at Vivendi. So while it's the 800lb gorilla of the music business, UMG alone doesn't wield a big stick.
Meanwhile, many file sharers would welcome the end of the Digital Rights Management era, but TotalMusic as reported offers only a murky, semi-legal respite. For example, a file-sharer downloads a UMG track from another file-sharer with a licensed ISP, they would be presumably be OK - but if it's a non-UMG track, then they're liable for a steep fine. And what if UMG tracks make their way to a user whose ISP isn't a TotalMusic subscriber?
Given the ease with which unlicensed music is traded today, P2P sharers are unlikely to take the trouble to identify UMG material, and destinations, on behalf of the record giant - so presumably this is where watermarking and packet detection comes in.
"They'll end going for a subscription scheme, and like all subscription schemes so far, it'll fail. You have to offer everything," a senior industry source told us.
Nevertheless, it's a sign of how far the record labels have come in their thinking in 2007.
As recently as January, recording representatives were decrying blanket licensing as the destroyer of local culture. By June this had tempered somewhat.
And this month saw UMG's new joint boss Rick Rubin was talking up "a subscription model" so good that no one has to use unlicensed services.
If only it was 1997. ®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/14/universal_blanket_license/
By Andrew Orlowski → More by this authorPublished Friday 14th September 2007 18:50 GMTJobsite - find your next IT job quickly & easily The world's biggest record label is touting a scheme that would permit internet users to swap DRM-free music under a blanket license, according to a report. Universal Music Group's "TotalMusic" program would allow customers of ISPs who signed up to the program to exchange files freely - but only if the ISP signed up.
The report in Digital Music News this week also suggested that UMG was considering forcing ISPs to adopt the program - causing widespread puzzlement throughout the music business. That's because it lacks the technical, legal and financial resources to back up any threats.
Even though newer network inspection technologies give ISPs a much better idea of the activity on their networks - and AT&T recently promised to use it to identify copyright infringement - ISPs have legal protection from mandatory demands. Nor has UMG the resources to engage in a war of attrition, as a glance at the numbers illustrates.
UMG contributed around $3bn in revenue to its parent, the French-based Vivendi group, in the first six months of this year. By contrast, AT&T's "data services" business alone snagged almost $6bn last year (a mere 10 per cent of its revenues), while broadband ISP revenues will swell Comcast's cable business by around $3.5bn this year. And broadband revenues are climbing, while music sales are falling at Vivendi. So while it's the 800lb gorilla of the music business, UMG alone doesn't wield a big stick.
Meanwhile, many file sharers would welcome the end of the Digital Rights Management era, but TotalMusic as reported offers only a murky, semi-legal respite. For example, a file-sharer downloads a UMG track from another file-sharer with a licensed ISP, they would be presumably be OK - but if it's a non-UMG track, then they're liable for a steep fine. And what if UMG tracks make their way to a user whose ISP isn't a TotalMusic subscriber?
Given the ease with which unlicensed music is traded today, P2P sharers are unlikely to take the trouble to identify UMG material, and destinations, on behalf of the record giant - so presumably this is where watermarking and packet detection comes in.
"They'll end going for a subscription scheme, and like all subscription schemes so far, it'll fail. You have to offer everything," a senior industry source told us.
Nevertheless, it's a sign of how far the record labels have come in their thinking in 2007.
As recently as January, recording representatives were decrying blanket licensing as the destroyer of local culture. By June this had tempered somewhat.
And this month saw UMG's new joint boss Rick Rubin was talking up "a subscription model" so good that no one has to use unlicensed services.
If only it was 1997. ®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/14/universal_blanket_license/
Music industry cripples eDonkey network
File sharing reduced
By Jan Libbenga → More by this authorPublished Thursday 20th September 2007 14:34 GMTJobsite - find your next IT job quickly & easily The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has shut down six eDonkey servers in Germany through a series of injunctions from regional courts in Hamburg, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Leipzig, and Frankfurt.
The IFPI claims the actions have dramatically reduced file sharing.
According to P2P Blog, the servers taken down were known as "Donkey Server No. 1" through "Donkey Server No. 6". However, IFPI Germany says it has closed 16 servers so far this year and expects the courts to issue more injunctions.
eDonkey is a decentralised, peer-to-peer file sharing network used primarily to exchange audio files, video files, and computer software. Files are not stored on a central server, but are exchanged directly between users. However, the nodes are essential for communication.
The servers were seized despite the fact the owner of the server, after being contacted by IFPI lawyers, immediately installed filters that would stop the trading of unauthorised songs.
Last year MetaMachine, the developer of the eDonkey2000 client, agreed to pay $30m to avoid potential copyright infringement lawsuits brought by the RIAA.
It also decided to discontinue distribution of its software, but that didn't prevent existing users from exchanging files. Since then BitTorrent has surpassed eDonkey as the P2P protocol of choice.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/20/music_industry_shuts_down_edonkey/
By Jan Libbenga → More by this authorPublished Thursday 20th September 2007 14:34 GMTJobsite - find your next IT job quickly & easily The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has shut down six eDonkey servers in Germany through a series of injunctions from regional courts in Hamburg, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Leipzig, and Frankfurt.
The IFPI claims the actions have dramatically reduced file sharing.
According to P2P Blog, the servers taken down were known as "Donkey Server No. 1" through "Donkey Server No. 6". However, IFPI Germany says it has closed 16 servers so far this year and expects the courts to issue more injunctions.
eDonkey is a decentralised, peer-to-peer file sharing network used primarily to exchange audio files, video files, and computer software. Files are not stored on a central server, but are exchanged directly between users. However, the nodes are essential for communication.
The servers were seized despite the fact the owner of the server, after being contacted by IFPI lawyers, immediately installed filters that would stop the trading of unauthorised songs.
Last year MetaMachine, the developer of the eDonkey2000 client, agreed to pay $30m to avoid potential copyright infringement lawsuits brought by the RIAA.
It also decided to discontinue distribution of its software, but that didn't prevent existing users from exchanging files. Since then BitTorrent has surpassed eDonkey as the P2P protocol of choice.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/20/music_industry_shuts_down_edonkey/
A Thought for Record Labels About Mobile Music
Mark Mulligan | September 20, 2007, 11:38 AM
The hype around mobile music is building and building, with record labels looking on with starry eyes. But, counter intuitive as it may sound, now might be a good time for the record labels to take a step back and take a long hard look at their involvement in mobile.
Mobile music ironically looks less compelling in many ways now than it was a couple of years ago:
• 24 months ago ring tone sales were booming and true tones sales were ramping up. The music industry looked at ring tone growth as being indicative of major mobile music opportunity. The problem is that ring tone adoption has more in common with logo buying than it does music listening. Its identity not music consumption. Hence the anticipated mass market conversion factor hasn’t happened.
• The other factor is that 24 months ago mobile handsets were much more of a closed ecosystem where OTA downloads was the main realistic way of getting music onto your handset…unless you struggled with Bluetooth. Now handset manufacturers such as Nokia and Sony Ericsson (and of course Apple) have shifted the focus to developing devices that are designed to work with computers. Thus mobile phone music playback is going to look pretty much the same as MP3 player usage i.e. the majority of content is going to be from sources other than digital stores.
The other inherent hurdles facing mobile music are well documented (battery life, download speeds, file quality etc.) but they are improving. Nokia and Apple’s focus on WiFi downloading of full quality tracks (rather than the industry norm of dual delivery) is a smart move that dodges the download and quality issues inherent with 2.5 and 3G networks. Nonetheless, mobile music downloading will remain an inferior experience to PC music downloading. Mobile ‘broadband’ speeds will always pale in comparison to PC broadband speeds. Even with WiFi the processing power of mobile handsets means that downloads are significantly slower than to a PC or laptop.
Most crucially, these inherent limitations mean that mobile music will remain a single track dominated business for the midterm future at the very least. The music industry is already close to crisis point with PC digital music with single track downloads accounting for the vast majority of downloads, thus pushing consumers away from buying full albums and thus reducing label revenues and margins. But whereas the industry can realistically try to tackle that trend and drive sales of albums on PC stores, that is prohibitively difficult on mobile.
Thus the more weight of expectation that the record labels place on mobile music to drive digital revenues, the less able they will be to reverse the return-to-singles trend. The risk is that their short-term gain will be at the expense of long-term loss. More consumers may buy more mobile digital music over the next couple of years but those consumers will increasingly rely upon mobile for music buying and in turn become less likely to buy albums. In short, mobile music consumers will buy more digitally, but will spend less on music overall.
http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mulligan/archives/2007/09/a_thought_for_r.html
The hype around mobile music is building and building, with record labels looking on with starry eyes. But, counter intuitive as it may sound, now might be a good time for the record labels to take a step back and take a long hard look at their involvement in mobile.
Mobile music ironically looks less compelling in many ways now than it was a couple of years ago:
• 24 months ago ring tone sales were booming and true tones sales were ramping up. The music industry looked at ring tone growth as being indicative of major mobile music opportunity. The problem is that ring tone adoption has more in common with logo buying than it does music listening. Its identity not music consumption. Hence the anticipated mass market conversion factor hasn’t happened.
• The other factor is that 24 months ago mobile handsets were much more of a closed ecosystem where OTA downloads was the main realistic way of getting music onto your handset…unless you struggled with Bluetooth. Now handset manufacturers such as Nokia and Sony Ericsson (and of course Apple) have shifted the focus to developing devices that are designed to work with computers. Thus mobile phone music playback is going to look pretty much the same as MP3 player usage i.e. the majority of content is going to be from sources other than digital stores.
The other inherent hurdles facing mobile music are well documented (battery life, download speeds, file quality etc.) but they are improving. Nokia and Apple’s focus on WiFi downloading of full quality tracks (rather than the industry norm of dual delivery) is a smart move that dodges the download and quality issues inherent with 2.5 and 3G networks. Nonetheless, mobile music downloading will remain an inferior experience to PC music downloading. Mobile ‘broadband’ speeds will always pale in comparison to PC broadband speeds. Even with WiFi the processing power of mobile handsets means that downloads are significantly slower than to a PC or laptop.
Most crucially, these inherent limitations mean that mobile music will remain a single track dominated business for the midterm future at the very least. The music industry is already close to crisis point with PC digital music with single track downloads accounting for the vast majority of downloads, thus pushing consumers away from buying full albums and thus reducing label revenues and margins. But whereas the industry can realistically try to tackle that trend and drive sales of albums on PC stores, that is prohibitively difficult on mobile.
Thus the more weight of expectation that the record labels place on mobile music to drive digital revenues, the less able they will be to reverse the return-to-singles trend. The risk is that their short-term gain will be at the expense of long-term loss. More consumers may buy more mobile digital music over the next couple of years but those consumers will increasingly rely upon mobile for music buying and in turn become less likely to buy albums. In short, mobile music consumers will buy more digitally, but will spend less on music overall.
http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/mulligan/archives/2007/09/a_thought_for_r.html
BitTorrent Expands Global Reach with New Subsidiary in Japan
Monday September 24, 11:01 am ET
BitTorrent Launches BitTorrent Japan to Address Content Delivery Demands in Japanese Market
SAN FRANCISCO & TOKYO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BitTorrent Inc., home to the global standard for delivering high-quality files and media over the Internet, today announced that it has established BitTorrent Japan as a wholly owned subsidiary headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. BitTorrent founded BitTorrent Japan to address the growing demand for peer-assisted content delivery technology among Japanese content publishers and consumer electronics (CE) manufacturers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Japan has long been a leader in Internet innovation. The country has the world's most advanced broadband and mobile networks, CE devices and game consoles, and Web services. As a result, there is high demand among content publishers and electronic software providers for BitTorrent DNA, a secure, managed peer-assisted networking platform that significantly reduces bandwidth and content delivery costs. BitTorrent DNA, which stands for Delivery Network Accelerator, enables websites to provide the best end-user experience by seamlessly adding speed, reliability and efficiency to their current content delivery infrastructure. There is also high demand among Japanese hardware manufacturers to integrate BitTorrent's software development kit (SDK) into next-generation CE devices. BitTorrent is already working with Japanese device manufacturers such as Buffalo Technology and Planex Communications to integrate its technology into the latest network-attached storage (NAS) devices, wireless routers and set-top boxes.
"We are intrigued by Japan's advanced broadband environment that exists as a result of innovation and competition among ISPs. BitTorrent has the ability to leverage the capacity that exists within the Japanese Internet to create great user experiences for online applications while dramatically reducing infrastructure costs for publishers," said Ashwin Navin, President and Co-founder of BitTorrent, Inc. "Although P2P technologies are still misunderstood as a result of their abuses, we are confident BitTorrent, due to its security, performance, efficiency, and technical merits, will become the leading peer-assisted delivery platform in Japan for on-demand video, software, and video games. Having a physical presence in Japan promises an unparalleled level of support to our Japanese partners and commitment to customer success."
The newly established subsidiary, BitTorrent Japan, commenced its business operations in Q3 2007 under the leadership of general manager Hirotoshi Wakiyama. Wakiyama has over 25 years of business development and sales experience for start-up companies seeking entry into the Japanese market. As president of Netmanage Japan K.K., Wakiyama contributed a great deal to the boom of Japan's Internet community. He has established business development teams and sales channels from the ground up for companies like Liberate Technologies, Array Networks and IronPort Systems, selling services and products to customers that included Internet Service Providers (ISPs), enterprises and academic institutions.
The establishment of BitTorrent Japan will allow BitTorrent to bolster its leadership position in Japan by distributing its products and services, such as BitTorrent DNA and BitTorrent's SDK, directly to the Japanese market. BitTorrent Japan will also be able to better provide direct business development, engineering and sales support to local Japanese customers.
About BitTorrent Japan
BitTorrent Japan is a wholly owned subsidiary of BitTorrent, Inc., home to the global standard for delivering high-quality files over the Internet. Established in 2007, BitTorrent Japan is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
About BitTorrent
BitTorrent is the global standard for delivering high-quality files over the Internet. Millions of users worldwide are using BitTorrent's leading peer-assisted content delivery platform to publish, discover and download digital entertainment content quickly, easily and securely. Founded in 2004, BitTorrent is a privately held company backed by venture capital firms, Accel and DCM (formerly known as Doll Capital Management). The company is headquartered in San Francisco, California. For more information, visit www.bittorrent.com.
BitTorrent is a trademark of BitTorrent, Inc.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070924/20070924005852.html?.v=1
BitTorrent Launches BitTorrent Japan to Address Content Delivery Demands in Japanese Market
SAN FRANCISCO & TOKYO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BitTorrent Inc., home to the global standard for delivering high-quality files and media over the Internet, today announced that it has established BitTorrent Japan as a wholly owned subsidiary headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. BitTorrent founded BitTorrent Japan to address the growing demand for peer-assisted content delivery technology among Japanese content publishers and consumer electronics (CE) manufacturers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Japan has long been a leader in Internet innovation. The country has the world's most advanced broadband and mobile networks, CE devices and game consoles, and Web services. As a result, there is high demand among content publishers and electronic software providers for BitTorrent DNA, a secure, managed peer-assisted networking platform that significantly reduces bandwidth and content delivery costs. BitTorrent DNA, which stands for Delivery Network Accelerator, enables websites to provide the best end-user experience by seamlessly adding speed, reliability and efficiency to their current content delivery infrastructure. There is also high demand among Japanese hardware manufacturers to integrate BitTorrent's software development kit (SDK) into next-generation CE devices. BitTorrent is already working with Japanese device manufacturers such as Buffalo Technology and Planex Communications to integrate its technology into the latest network-attached storage (NAS) devices, wireless routers and set-top boxes.
"We are intrigued by Japan's advanced broadband environment that exists as a result of innovation and competition among ISPs. BitTorrent has the ability to leverage the capacity that exists within the Japanese Internet to create great user experiences for online applications while dramatically reducing infrastructure costs for publishers," said Ashwin Navin, President and Co-founder of BitTorrent, Inc. "Although P2P technologies are still misunderstood as a result of their abuses, we are confident BitTorrent, due to its security, performance, efficiency, and technical merits, will become the leading peer-assisted delivery platform in Japan for on-demand video, software, and video games. Having a physical presence in Japan promises an unparalleled level of support to our Japanese partners and commitment to customer success."
The newly established subsidiary, BitTorrent Japan, commenced its business operations in Q3 2007 under the leadership of general manager Hirotoshi Wakiyama. Wakiyama has over 25 years of business development and sales experience for start-up companies seeking entry into the Japanese market. As president of Netmanage Japan K.K., Wakiyama contributed a great deal to the boom of Japan's Internet community. He has established business development teams and sales channels from the ground up for companies like Liberate Technologies, Array Networks and IronPort Systems, selling services and products to customers that included Internet Service Providers (ISPs), enterprises and academic institutions.
The establishment of BitTorrent Japan will allow BitTorrent to bolster its leadership position in Japan by distributing its products and services, such as BitTorrent DNA and BitTorrent's SDK, directly to the Japanese market. BitTorrent Japan will also be able to better provide direct business development, engineering and sales support to local Japanese customers.
About BitTorrent Japan
BitTorrent Japan is a wholly owned subsidiary of BitTorrent, Inc., home to the global standard for delivering high-quality files over the Internet. Established in 2007, BitTorrent Japan is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.
About BitTorrent
BitTorrent is the global standard for delivering high-quality files over the Internet. Millions of users worldwide are using BitTorrent's leading peer-assisted content delivery platform to publish, discover and download digital entertainment content quickly, easily and securely. Founded in 2004, BitTorrent is a privately held company backed by venture capital firms, Accel and DCM (formerly known as Doll Capital Management). The company is headquartered in San Francisco, California. For more information, visit www.bittorrent.com.
BitTorrent is a trademark of BitTorrent, Inc.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070924/20070924005852.html?.v=1
Outlining the logic of the Flat Rate for Music, and more details on ‘Music Like Water’ Part 1
Lately, a lot of people have been asking me why I am so sure that a Flat Rate for Music would be a good thing, how it can be brought about and how it may actually work.
Since I have just started preparing for a potentially mind-boggling (ehem) keynote speech at the Flat Rate Music event in Iceland (Oct 17, 2007) I am getting pretty well tuned up on this, so, here is a bit of a FAQ on the flat rate and what I have come to call 'Music Like Water'.
I will publish more details as I proceed but please feel free to chime in with questions and comments that I can work into the next few posts on the topic – thanks.
First of all, these statistics below, gathered by eMarketer, clearly illustrate the current conundrum - albeit from a U.S. centric point of view so some of this may or may not apply to Europe in exactly the same way; please have mercy on me in this regard as I am still fishing for more intel on this.
Basically, what’s happening is that a much higher percentage of the total population is actually buying music today (32% of the U.S. population in 2006, versus 20% in 1980), BUT (and this is a very big but) the amount spend per capita has been almost halved – and that does not even account for inflation since $100 is obviously worth a lot less now than it was in 1980. In fact, what cost $100 in 1980 would cost $267.76 in 2006 so $198 back in 1980 would be $530 today - I guess one could safely summarize that if we adjust for inflation it has actually shrunk by 75%!
Why is this happening? Well, for one thing, people can now buy individual songs (i.e. pick the cherries rather than buy the whole album), they can download music for free anywhere (nope... not me), they can swap music on IM, Skype and via blue tooth, and they have myriads of other options to get free music (Satellite Radio, Pandora etc) - plus the competition from other entertainment categories such as gaming is huge. The entertainment share of the consumers wallet is under serious siege, no matter how you look at it, and music has not kept the top spot here (to put it mildly).
In any case, this development reflects that as far as music is concerned more and more people seem to want higher value at ever lower prices, and that they are tired of having been forced into buying an entire album only to get the 1 or 2 ‘good’ songs that were on it. Digital music has buried the concept of a ‘must-have-the-album’, finally.
The downward price pressures and value perception shifts that go with this are rock-solid trends that we can only accept as reality, and ultimately we must now counter with a radically new model: let’s lower the price of on-demand ACCESS TO MUSIC (since that is what it’s all about - i.e. NOT COPIES), get 98% of the population to auto-pay a very low minimum, every month, suck them into the music vortex (so to speak) and then take them upstream to sell them other stuff. Not rocket science, really – see cable TV, cell phone services, software, games etc.
The bottom line, however, is this: we urgently need everyone to have ‘feels like free’ access to music; access that will generate solid, recurring and expandable revenues that are build into the ecosystem rather than remain an option that a user must select (and pay for) every single time he clicks on ‘get this song’. That model simply won’t scale - the Net Generation (those ADD-prone 12-27 year olds that have grown up as ‘digital natives’) just won’t buy the OLD MUSIC FORMAT anymore – that model is asking too much, too early, too rudely, too disconnectedly.
Sounds like a tax?
It kind of does, and that may be one way of looking at it, but I would much rather see this as a voluntary collective license (again, just like Radio!). Having said that, the thought of a universally and unanimously agreed-upon or ‘common-good’ payment may seem somewhat un-American, and therefore my hunch would be that Asia and Europe will be first to implement such a concept. After all, most Europeans already pay for a public TV and Radio license, and for levies for devices and recordable CDs. And most Europeans love their libraries, too.
But anyway, here is my simple appeal to the labels and publishers (and of course to the artists they represent, and their managers): License Music on the Internet just like you licensed Radio! *at better rates of course ☺
In fact, the Internet, and social networks in particular, are already like Radio, and the likes of Facebook will be as crucial to music promotion and marketing as Radio was 20 years ago.
And just like during the humble beginnings of radio, Internet sites and services are by and large not yet licensed for the use of music because no workable, realistic and practical license model exists. The rights holders and industry bodies have miserably failed to come up with a workable model. The result: Permission denied. End of Story.
As a consequence – just like Radio! – large percentages of Internet users are now basically forced to merrily engage in unlicensed behaviors of some kind or the other (such as streaming tracks on-demand on their blogs, ripping webcast streams... never mind p2p filesharing) - a fact that is increasingly attracting the criticisms of the European Commission who wants this paradox situation to be resolved asap. There is a market, there is demand, there is revenues – how come there is no license? Hello?
So, to begin with, what IS a flat rate for music?
Basically, it's the simple concept that quite literally everyone, in some way or the other, should be able to pay for basic access to music and that everyone’s open-access consumption of music should finally be sanctioned and legitimized - but in a way that does not feel like a major decision or impending credit card transaction every single time you do it. It is the idea of a build-in, universally accepted payment for a service that one cannot and wouldn’t want to live without, akin to water, electricity, and of course TV and Radio (certain people would probably want to add the Blackberry, SMS, and email here, too;).
Similar to how cell phones only started to take off when device prices came down and flat-fee (or prepaid) offerings came about, and to how cable TV took off only after it was offered at a very low price point, the idea is to get 95% of the population engaged in the payment-already-made consumption of music so that they can become satisfied, happy and engaged users, and then be converted to active market participants that are likely to buy something 'upstream'. Again, just like the cell phone or cable TV (or... EasyJet?), the mission is to get everyone into the system, at a very low price-point, and then crank up the business with all kinds of extra offerings. Engage not enrage!
Music is not a luxury offer for an exclusive group of buyers - we must stop pushing expensive one-off deals (i.e. CDs and a la carte downloads) to a very exclusive group of buyers (e.g. 45-year olds that want to ‘do the right thing’, are not online a lot and have more money than time – and that like stylish devices) and launch offers that can bring everyone aboard at a very low entry point and with an irrefutable value proposition. A value proposition that can feel like free yet in the aggregate generate large amounts of cash.
Do the math: get 90% of the population (i.e. everyone that is connected in some way or the other, be it on the TV, the computer, or the cell phone) engaged at 1 Euro / week, and you instantly have a very sizable pool of money that would rival or even surpass the still existing revenue streams derived from CDs and downloads. And that would just be the beginning!
Without wanting to get too granular here, this is how I am envisioning the Music Flat Rate structure:
• For unrestricted streaming use: a revenue share (and / or a share of expenses, such as in the case of non-revenue earning entities) in the neighborhood of 10%; for both the use of the master and the compositions, exact split tbd. This would not include downloads (fka digital phonographic delivery) however it would need to cover any and all types of 'listening' uses including full length tracks, on-demand, and interactive and unrestricted uses, plus it would include all platforms including Mobile (remember - there is no such thing as 'the mobile web' - so why should this be any different?)
• For downloads (fka ‘copies’), a flat rate per registered user on a given site / ISP / platform / network; I'd propose 1 Euro / 1 $ / 1 GBP per user per week, with the exact fee to be adjusted in each country, of course. This would give every user unfettered access to ‘use’ i.e. download unprotected (!) music files on / via any network of their choice (e.g. ISPs, telcos, operators, search engines, portals, social networks). The catalog would need to be very substantial but quite a bit of it could also be subject to premium charges (such as live concerts etc). It is not unthinkable to have some sort of ceiling here (say, 500 downloads) but that probably wouldn’t really do anything for anyone, so…why bother.
Most importantly, do keep in mind that most users will not actually pay the flat rate charges, themselves. Rather, their service providers will wrap the payment into other payments (similar to how XM satellite radio is bundled ‘for free’ into new cars, or how 911 / emergency calling access charges are bundled into all U.S. phone bills), and they will find many new ways to subsidize this via advertising, sponsorships or upstream-selling programs. Why would they do that? Because now they can build a business around this, and count on the content being part of it, for sure (again... like radio!).
How would the artists and creators of music get paid?
Any and all use of music on the networks can be monitored and tracked, i.e. any user that streams or downloads music will create a data-trail that is used to determine which music by which artist was used in a given month / week / day / hour) and in which territory. Leaving aside the complex and possibly daunting privacy and data security issues (which I believe can and will be solved) this means that an artist’s income will be totally proportional to the level of attention he or she is actually getting on the networks, e.g. if your music amounts to 3.1% of all streaming and 2.5% of all downloads in any given month in any given territory, you would receive the exact pro-rate amount of the available pool of money in that month, as well. Of course, both rights (master and composition) would need to be covered and paid for, so the total payment would be split up in a yet-to-be-determined ratio - my proposal would be a 50-50 split but this will obviously be subject to the authors agreeing with the performers (or rather, their representatives) – that’s probably another arbitration panel heading our way.
The total aggregate of all user payments, i.e. the ‘pool of money’ as my fellow flat rate evangelist and disruptor Jim Griffin likes to say, could be collected by an appointed agency; for now, by territory, but sooner or later on a per-continent or even global basis. This is a potential job for the existing societies but I personally don’t see this happening for them since the commission for doing this IT job will probably be no more than 2% of the revenue or something in that ballpark.
As an example, if a German ISP wanted to provide ‘free’ music to all of their users they would pay, or rather, generate 1 Euro per week via advertising, bundling or simply by using their marketing budgets, and pay that money into the German pool of all providers that are licensed under the flat rate. Note that this pool would probably increase over time, as well, since more services would take advantage of the Flat Rate as it becomes apparent how they can generate new revenues with or on top of it. Also, a interesting side effect could be that any single given user may well end up having several access points such as their ISP, their wireless operator, and their favorite social network, all of which would be likely to pay the 1 Euro for the very same user, thereby increasing the total size of the pool, over time.
Would the Flat Rate completely kill CD sales and other physical products?
Definitely not. Keep in mind that buying CDs is already de-facto voluntary since anyone that has a computer and a Net connection can already search for and instantly find a myriad of ways of getting those digital copies for free. Of course, the music industry can no longer afford to, literally, bank on those voluntary actions and – to be mean - random acts of kindness, and is becoming painfully obvious in almost all territories that the percentage of people that continue do this will rapidly decline over the next few years.
The advent of the Music Flat Rate will without a doubt create a very powerful environment that will spurn the discovery of new music which may in some cases result in foregone CD sales but in many more cases actually revive them – provided of course that CDs (or whatever comes after them) can deliver real value and come down in price. Better sound quality, nice artwork, bonus material and a very competitive price should do the trick here.
www.mediafuturist.com
Since I have just started preparing for a potentially mind-boggling (ehem) keynote speech at the Flat Rate Music event in Iceland (Oct 17, 2007) I am getting pretty well tuned up on this, so, here is a bit of a FAQ on the flat rate and what I have come to call 'Music Like Water'.
I will publish more details as I proceed but please feel free to chime in with questions and comments that I can work into the next few posts on the topic – thanks.
First of all, these statistics below, gathered by eMarketer, clearly illustrate the current conundrum - albeit from a U.S. centric point of view so some of this may or may not apply to Europe in exactly the same way; please have mercy on me in this regard as I am still fishing for more intel on this.
Basically, what’s happening is that a much higher percentage of the total population is actually buying music today (32% of the U.S. population in 2006, versus 20% in 1980), BUT (and this is a very big but) the amount spend per capita has been almost halved – and that does not even account for inflation since $100 is obviously worth a lot less now than it was in 1980. In fact, what cost $100 in 1980 would cost $267.76 in 2006 so $198 back in 1980 would be $530 today - I guess one could safely summarize that if we adjust for inflation it has actually shrunk by 75%!Why is this happening? Well, for one thing, people can now buy individual songs (i.e. pick the cherries rather than buy the whole album), they can download music for free anywhere (nope... not me), they can swap music on IM, Skype and via blue tooth, and they have myriads of other options to get free music (Satellite Radio, Pandora etc) - plus the competition from other entertainment categories such as gaming is huge. The entertainment share of the consumers wallet is under serious siege, no matter how you look at it, and music has not kept the top spot here (to put it mildly).
In any case, this development reflects that as far as music is concerned more and more people seem to want higher value at ever lower prices, and that they are tired of having been forced into buying an entire album only to get the 1 or 2 ‘good’ songs that were on it. Digital music has buried the concept of a ‘must-have-the-album’, finally.
The downward price pressures and value perception shifts that go with this are rock-solid trends that we can only accept as reality, and ultimately we must now counter with a radically new model: let’s lower the price of on-demand ACCESS TO MUSIC (since that is what it’s all about - i.e. NOT COPIES), get 98% of the population to auto-pay a very low minimum, every month, suck them into the music vortex (so to speak) and then take them upstream to sell them other stuff. Not rocket science, really – see cable TV, cell phone services, software, games etc.
The bottom line, however, is this: we urgently need everyone to have ‘feels like free’ access to music; access that will generate solid, recurring and expandable revenues that are build into the ecosystem rather than remain an option that a user must select (and pay for) every single time he clicks on ‘get this song’. That model simply won’t scale - the Net Generation (those ADD-prone 12-27 year olds that have grown up as ‘digital natives’) just won’t buy the OLD MUSIC FORMAT anymore – that model is asking too much, too early, too rudely, too disconnectedly.
Sounds like a tax?
It kind of does, and that may be one way of looking at it, but I would much rather see this as a voluntary collective license (again, just like Radio!). Having said that, the thought of a universally and unanimously agreed-upon or ‘common-good’ payment may seem somewhat un-American, and therefore my hunch would be that Asia and Europe will be first to implement such a concept. After all, most Europeans already pay for a public TV and Radio license, and for levies for devices and recordable CDs. And most Europeans love their libraries, too.
But anyway, here is my simple appeal to the labels and publishers (and of course to the artists they represent, and their managers): License Music on the Internet just like you licensed Radio! *at better rates of course ☺
In fact, the Internet, and social networks in particular, are already like Radio, and the likes of Facebook will be as crucial to music promotion and marketing as Radio was 20 years ago.
And just like during the humble beginnings of radio, Internet sites and services are by and large not yet licensed for the use of music because no workable, realistic and practical license model exists. The rights holders and industry bodies have miserably failed to come up with a workable model. The result: Permission denied. End of Story.
As a consequence – just like Radio! – large percentages of Internet users are now basically forced to merrily engage in unlicensed behaviors of some kind or the other (such as streaming tracks on-demand on their blogs, ripping webcast streams... never mind p2p filesharing) - a fact that is increasingly attracting the criticisms of the European Commission who wants this paradox situation to be resolved asap. There is a market, there is demand, there is revenues – how come there is no license? Hello?
So, to begin with, what IS a flat rate for music?
Basically, it's the simple concept that quite literally everyone, in some way or the other, should be able to pay for basic access to music and that everyone’s open-access consumption of music should finally be sanctioned and legitimized - but in a way that does not feel like a major decision or impending credit card transaction every single time you do it. It is the idea of a build-in, universally accepted payment for a service that one cannot and wouldn’t want to live without, akin to water, electricity, and of course TV and Radio (certain people would probably want to add the Blackberry, SMS, and email here, too;).
Similar to how cell phones only started to take off when device prices came down and flat-fee (or prepaid) offerings came about, and to how cable TV took off only after it was offered at a very low price point, the idea is to get 95% of the population engaged in the payment-already-made consumption of music so that they can become satisfied, happy and engaged users, and then be converted to active market participants that are likely to buy something 'upstream'. Again, just like the cell phone or cable TV (or... EasyJet?), the mission is to get everyone into the system, at a very low price-point, and then crank up the business with all kinds of extra offerings. Engage not enrage!
Music is not a luxury offer for an exclusive group of buyers - we must stop pushing expensive one-off deals (i.e. CDs and a la carte downloads) to a very exclusive group of buyers (e.g. 45-year olds that want to ‘do the right thing’, are not online a lot and have more money than time – and that like stylish devices) and launch offers that can bring everyone aboard at a very low entry point and with an irrefutable value proposition. A value proposition that can feel like free yet in the aggregate generate large amounts of cash.
Do the math: get 90% of the population (i.e. everyone that is connected in some way or the other, be it on the TV, the computer, or the cell phone) engaged at 1 Euro / week, and you instantly have a very sizable pool of money that would rival or even surpass the still existing revenue streams derived from CDs and downloads. And that would just be the beginning!
Without wanting to get too granular here, this is how I am envisioning the Music Flat Rate structure:
• For unrestricted streaming use: a revenue share (and / or a share of expenses, such as in the case of non-revenue earning entities) in the neighborhood of 10%; for both the use of the master and the compositions, exact split tbd. This would not include downloads (fka digital phonographic delivery) however it would need to cover any and all types of 'listening' uses including full length tracks, on-demand, and interactive and unrestricted uses, plus it would include all platforms including Mobile (remember - there is no such thing as 'the mobile web' - so why should this be any different?)
• For downloads (fka ‘copies’), a flat rate per registered user on a given site / ISP / platform / network; I'd propose 1 Euro / 1 $ / 1 GBP per user per week, with the exact fee to be adjusted in each country, of course. This would give every user unfettered access to ‘use’ i.e. download unprotected (!) music files on / via any network of their choice (e.g. ISPs, telcos, operators, search engines, portals, social networks). The catalog would need to be very substantial but quite a bit of it could also be subject to premium charges (such as live concerts etc). It is not unthinkable to have some sort of ceiling here (say, 500 downloads) but that probably wouldn’t really do anything for anyone, so…why bother.
Most importantly, do keep in mind that most users will not actually pay the flat rate charges, themselves. Rather, their service providers will wrap the payment into other payments (similar to how XM satellite radio is bundled ‘for free’ into new cars, or how 911 / emergency calling access charges are bundled into all U.S. phone bills), and they will find many new ways to subsidize this via advertising, sponsorships or upstream-selling programs. Why would they do that? Because now they can build a business around this, and count on the content being part of it, for sure (again... like radio!).
How would the artists and creators of music get paid?
Any and all use of music on the networks can be monitored and tracked, i.e. any user that streams or downloads music will create a data-trail that is used to determine which music by which artist was used in a given month / week / day / hour) and in which territory. Leaving aside the complex and possibly daunting privacy and data security issues (which I believe can and will be solved) this means that an artist’s income will be totally proportional to the level of attention he or she is actually getting on the networks, e.g. if your music amounts to 3.1% of all streaming and 2.5% of all downloads in any given month in any given territory, you would receive the exact pro-rate amount of the available pool of money in that month, as well. Of course, both rights (master and composition) would need to be covered and paid for, so the total payment would be split up in a yet-to-be-determined ratio - my proposal would be a 50-50 split but this will obviously be subject to the authors agreeing with the performers (or rather, their representatives) – that’s probably another arbitration panel heading our way.
The total aggregate of all user payments, i.e. the ‘pool of money’ as my fellow flat rate evangelist and disruptor Jim Griffin likes to say, could be collected by an appointed agency; for now, by territory, but sooner or later on a per-continent or even global basis. This is a potential job for the existing societies but I personally don’t see this happening for them since the commission for doing this IT job will probably be no more than 2% of the revenue or something in that ballpark.
As an example, if a German ISP wanted to provide ‘free’ music to all of their users they would pay, or rather, generate 1 Euro per week via advertising, bundling or simply by using their marketing budgets, and pay that money into the German pool of all providers that are licensed under the flat rate. Note that this pool would probably increase over time, as well, since more services would take advantage of the Flat Rate as it becomes apparent how they can generate new revenues with or on top of it. Also, a interesting side effect could be that any single given user may well end up having several access points such as their ISP, their wireless operator, and their favorite social network, all of which would be likely to pay the 1 Euro for the very same user, thereby increasing the total size of the pool, over time.
Would the Flat Rate completely kill CD sales and other physical products?
Definitely not. Keep in mind that buying CDs is already de-facto voluntary since anyone that has a computer and a Net connection can already search for and instantly find a myriad of ways of getting those digital copies for free. Of course, the music industry can no longer afford to, literally, bank on those voluntary actions and – to be mean - random acts of kindness, and is becoming painfully obvious in almost all territories that the percentage of people that continue do this will rapidly decline over the next few years.
The advent of the Music Flat Rate will without a doubt create a very powerful environment that will spurn the discovery of new music which may in some cases result in foregone CD sales but in many more cases actually revive them – provided of course that CDs (or whatever comes after them) can deliver real value and come down in price. Better sound quality, nice artwork, bonus material and a very competitive price should do the trick here.
www.mediafuturist.com
Like Amazon's DRM-Free Music Downloads? Thank Apple
By David Kravets 09.25.07 | 3:00 PM
Amazon's Tuesday launch of a DRM-free music store with some 2 million tracks represents the music industry's clearest repudiation yet of the elaborate copy-protection schemes it once staked its future on. And though it may not be obvious at first, it's Apple we have to thank.
Along with thousands of independent labels, major music producers Universal Music Group and EMI have signed on to sell songs on Amazon's new service, representing half of the "Big Four" music publishers. True, both Universal and EMI had already experimented with DRM-free downloads, but there are signs that the rest of the industry will soon follow.
Edgar Bronfman, Jr., the Warner Music Group chairman, told Goldman Sachs investors in New York last week he was considering removing DRM from Warner's music downloads -- this just months after suggesting Warner would never abandon DRM. He blamed Apple for the apparent change of heart.
"We need some online competition" for Apple's iTunes Music Store, Bronfman said. He conceded the iPod is "the default device" and iTunes the "download model."
DRM -- digital rights management -- allows downloads to expire, or to be shared and played only a limited number of times or on certain devices.
The self-created headache for the industry is that the highly popular iPod and new iPhone only play music protected by Apple's proprietary FairPlay DRM solution or music that isn't protected at all. And Apple chairman Steve Jobs has repeatedly balked at licensing FairPlay for use on competing download services or devices.
That meant music companies had to choose between using iTunes or going DRM-free. The industry stood by and allowed most of its music-download sales to come from Apple. Recognizing opportunities lost to Apple's dominance, the music industry is moving toward throwing DRM overboard in a bid to open up new retail markets and promotional opportunities.
"As a consumer, when you buy a slice of bread you want to know you could put it in any toaster," said Jeanne Meyer, a vice president at EMI, in an interview ahead of the Amazon announcement.
Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media, put the industry's predicament in layman's terms.
"As long as the iPod is dominant, they're going to have to reconcile themselves with dealing with what the consumer wants: something that will play on the iPod," Leigh said. "The smartest thing they can do is sell music without DRM. It's not as though DRM is stopping pirating in other ways, anyway."
The irony of the industry's predicament was not lost on Steve Jobs, Apple's chairman. Jobs described the industry's sagging business model as self-created by EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, the so-called "Big Four" leaders of sales and label ownership, with control of 70 percent of the world's music distribution market.
"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied," Jobs wrote Feb. 6 in a letter posted on the Cupertino company's website. "The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices."
Apple announced Sept. 10 that it had sold 1 million iPhones, 74 days after their June 29 debut. More than 100 million iPods have sold since the 2001 launch of the device, and more than 3 billion songs have been purchased from its iTunes Music Store following its 2003 inception.
The Microsoft Zune, by contrast, has sold more than a million units since its Nov. 14 debut in the United States, and it does not play iTunes DRM-restricted music.
Warner's Bronfman told investors that one problem for his industry is that consumers are more loyal to the iPod than to any particular artist. That means the industry's content must play on an Apple device.
"Never before in the history of content has the hardware been more valuable than the software," Bronfman said. "You think about the VCR or the video cassette -- the video cassette always had more value than the VCR that you shoved it into. Apple has been able to turn that model on its head."
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/09/drm_part_one
Amazon's Tuesday launch of a DRM-free music store with some 2 million tracks represents the music industry's clearest repudiation yet of the elaborate copy-protection schemes it once staked its future on. And though it may not be obvious at first, it's Apple we have to thank.
Along with thousands of independent labels, major music producers Universal Music Group and EMI have signed on to sell songs on Amazon's new service, representing half of the "Big Four" music publishers. True, both Universal and EMI had already experimented with DRM-free downloads, but there are signs that the rest of the industry will soon follow.
Edgar Bronfman, Jr., the Warner Music Group chairman, told Goldman Sachs investors in New York last week he was considering removing DRM from Warner's music downloads -- this just months after suggesting Warner would never abandon DRM. He blamed Apple for the apparent change of heart.
"We need some online competition" for Apple's iTunes Music Store, Bronfman said. He conceded the iPod is "the default device" and iTunes the "download model."
DRM -- digital rights management -- allows downloads to expire, or to be shared and played only a limited number of times or on certain devices.
The self-created headache for the industry is that the highly popular iPod and new iPhone only play music protected by Apple's proprietary FairPlay DRM solution or music that isn't protected at all. And Apple chairman Steve Jobs has repeatedly balked at licensing FairPlay for use on competing download services or devices.
That meant music companies had to choose between using iTunes or going DRM-free. The industry stood by and allowed most of its music-download sales to come from Apple. Recognizing opportunities lost to Apple's dominance, the music industry is moving toward throwing DRM overboard in a bid to open up new retail markets and promotional opportunities.
"As a consumer, when you buy a slice of bread you want to know you could put it in any toaster," said Jeanne Meyer, a vice president at EMI, in an interview ahead of the Amazon announcement.
Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media, put the industry's predicament in layman's terms.
"As long as the iPod is dominant, they're going to have to reconcile themselves with dealing with what the consumer wants: something that will play on the iPod," Leigh said. "The smartest thing they can do is sell music without DRM. It's not as though DRM is stopping pirating in other ways, anyway."
The irony of the industry's predicament was not lost on Steve Jobs, Apple's chairman. Jobs described the industry's sagging business model as self-created by EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, the so-called "Big Four" leaders of sales and label ownership, with control of 70 percent of the world's music distribution market.
"When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied," Jobs wrote Feb. 6 in a letter posted on the Cupertino company's website. "The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices."
Apple announced Sept. 10 that it had sold 1 million iPhones, 74 days after their June 29 debut. More than 100 million iPods have sold since the 2001 launch of the device, and more than 3 billion songs have been purchased from its iTunes Music Store following its 2003 inception.
The Microsoft Zune, by contrast, has sold more than a million units since its Nov. 14 debut in the United States, and it does not play iTunes DRM-restricted music.
Warner's Bronfman told investors that one problem for his industry is that consumers are more loyal to the iPod than to any particular artist. That means the industry's content must play on an Apple device.
"Never before in the history of content has the hardware been more valuable than the software," Bronfman said. "You think about the VCR or the video cassette -- the video cassette always had more value than the VCR that you shoved it into. Apple has been able to turn that model on its head."
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2007/09/drm_part_one
maandag 24 september 2007
Apple: Thoughts on music
Steve Jobs
February 6, 2007
With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.
To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats.
The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.
Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.
To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be able to play on a downloader’s computer or portable music device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.
The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free (and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that, so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple’s DRM system is called FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have been able to successfully repair them through updating the iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music.
With this background, let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.
The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.
Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.
Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.
The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.
So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.
Taken from: http://www.apple.com
February 6, 2007
With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.
To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats.
The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.
Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.
To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be able to play on a downloader’s computer or portable music device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.
The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free (and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that, so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple’s DRM system is called FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have been able to successfully repair them through updating the iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music.
With this background, let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.
The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.
Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.
Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.
Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.
The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.
Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.
In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.
So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.
Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.
Taken from: http://www.apple.com
Mobile download makes history
da Corr Vs Fedde Le Grand's 'Let Me Think About It' entered the UK singles chart on Sunday at number 64 on mobile download sales alone.
This is the highest position for a mobile only release - the track, gets its full & digital download release this week.
'Let me think about it' takes Ida Corr's original track and turns it into a pure party pleaser. Already receiving massive airplay on the UK's dance stations and BBC Radio 1 with Pete Tong giving it essential new tune status.
SOURCE
This is the highest position for a mobile only release - the track, gets its full & digital download release this week.
'Let me think about it' takes Ida Corr's original track and turns it into a pure party pleaser. Already receiving massive airplay on the UK's dance stations and BBC Radio 1 with Pete Tong giving it essential new tune status.
SOURCE
Starbucks to give away music as new service starts
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Starbucks Corp said on Monday it will give away millions of songs via downloads starting next month as it launches a wireless music service with Apple Inc.
From October 2 to November 7 at more than 10,000 U.S. Starbucks locations, customers can receive "Song of the Day" cards redeemable on Apple's iTunes store for a complimentary song hand-selected by Starbucks Entertainment, the company said.
Starbucks said it will give away 1.5 million downloads per day for a total of more than 50 million free songs. Customers will have until the end of the year to redeem the song on iTunes.
Earlier this month, Apple and Starbucks said they had reached a deal to allow people to buy songs wirelessly from Apple's iTunes music store in Starbucks coffee shops without paying WiFi connection fees.
The service is to debut at more than 600 Starbucks stores in New York and Seattle on October 2, and will be expanded to other major U.S. cities later this year and next.
SOURCE
From October 2 to November 7 at more than 10,000 U.S. Starbucks locations, customers can receive "Song of the Day" cards redeemable on Apple's iTunes store for a complimentary song hand-selected by Starbucks Entertainment, the company said.
Starbucks said it will give away 1.5 million downloads per day for a total of more than 50 million free songs. Customers will have until the end of the year to redeem the song on iTunes.
Earlier this month, Apple and Starbucks said they had reached a deal to allow people to buy songs wirelessly from Apple's iTunes music store in Starbucks coffee shops without paying WiFi connection fees.
The service is to debut at more than 600 Starbucks stores in New York and Seattle on October 2, and will be expanded to other major U.S. cities later this year and next.
SOURCE
Aantal betaalde downloads in Japan daalt voor het eerst
Aantal betaalde downloads in Japan daalt voor het eerst
Dinsdag 4 september 2007, 10:56 - Voor het eerst is het aantal betaalde muziek- en videodownloads in Japan gedaald. Een duidelijke verklaring hiervoor ontbreekt.
Gedurende het tweede kwartaal van dit jaar daalde het aantal downloads in Japan van 114,3 miljoen in het eerste kwartaal naar 111,6 miljoen. Dit blijkt uit cijfers van de Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ).
Het is voor het eerst, sinds de RIAJ in 2005 met het bijhouden van de betaalde downloads begon, dat er een daling is opgetreden. De RIAJ heeft onder meer de cijfers van de Japanse iTunes Music Store en Yahoo Music meegeteld.
Niet alleen daalde het aantal downloads van betaalde muziekbestanden van internet met 9 procent, ook is het aantal downloads van ringtones in drie maanden tijd met 10 procent gekelderd tot 54,7 miljoen stuks, aldus de RIAJ.
Wel steeg het aantal verkochte ringbacktones, ringtones die klinken voordat aan de andere kant wordt opgenomen. Daarvan werden er in het tweede kwartaal ruim 25 miljoen verkocht. De Japanse muziekorganisatie heeft geen verklaring voor de plotselinge daling van het aantal betaalde downloads.
Bron: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/47804/music
Dinsdag 4 september 2007, 10:56 - Voor het eerst is het aantal betaalde muziek- en videodownloads in Japan gedaald. Een duidelijke verklaring hiervoor ontbreekt.
Gedurende het tweede kwartaal van dit jaar daalde het aantal downloads in Japan van 114,3 miljoen in het eerste kwartaal naar 111,6 miljoen. Dit blijkt uit cijfers van de Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ).
Het is voor het eerst, sinds de RIAJ in 2005 met het bijhouden van de betaalde downloads begon, dat er een daling is opgetreden. De RIAJ heeft onder meer de cijfers van de Japanse iTunes Music Store en Yahoo Music meegeteld.
Niet alleen daalde het aantal downloads van betaalde muziekbestanden van internet met 9 procent, ook is het aantal downloads van ringtones in drie maanden tijd met 10 procent gekelderd tot 54,7 miljoen stuks, aldus de RIAJ.
Wel steeg het aantal verkochte ringbacktones, ringtones die klinken voordat aan de andere kant wordt opgenomen. Daarvan werden er in het tweede kwartaal ruim 25 miljoen verkocht. De Japanse muziekorganisatie heeft geen verklaring voor de plotselinge daling van het aantal betaalde downloads.
Bron: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/47804/music
'Apple doet niet aan koppelverkoop'
'Apple doet niet aan koppelverkoop'
Donderdag 6 september 2007, 15:19 - Apple maakt zich niet schuldig aan koppelverkoop met zijn iTunes Music Store en de iPod. Tot die conclusie is de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (NMa) gekomen.
36 reacties Door Edwin Feldmann
De Consumentenbond diende in januari een klacht in over vermeend misbruik van de economische machtspositie door Apple. Volgens de bond kunnen consumenten die muziek via iTunes kopen, deze alleen afspelen op een iPod. Volgens de NMa klopt dat argument helemaal niet.
"Consumenten die muziek inkopen via de internetwinkel van Apple kunnen én mogen deze ook op andere apparatuur dan een iPod afspelen", zo stelt René Jansen van de NMa.
"Ook kunnen consumenten muziek die ze bij andere muziekwinkels hebben gekocht, overzetten naar een iPod. Van koppelverkoop is daarom geen sprake."
De Consumentenbond is teleurgesteld over het besluit van de NMa. Het is geen koppelverkoop omdat de beveiligingstechnologie op de muziekbestanden van iTunes te omzeilen is door de liedjes op een cd te branden en vervolgens weer te kopiëren naar de computer, stelt de bond.
"Hoewel Apple in de voorwaarden verbiedt om de beveiligingstechnologie te omzeilen of te wijzigen, gaan we toch niet in hoger beroep", aldus Consumentenbond-woordvoerder Ewald van Kouwen. "Door alle commotie heeft Apple aangegeven opnieuw naar de slotjes en de voorwaarden te kijken." Bovendien wordt de klacht van de Consumentenbond nog behandeld bij de Consumentenautoriteit.
Bron: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/47841/music
Donderdag 6 september 2007, 15:19 - Apple maakt zich niet schuldig aan koppelverkoop met zijn iTunes Music Store en de iPod. Tot die conclusie is de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit (NMa) gekomen.
36 reacties Door Edwin Feldmann
De Consumentenbond diende in januari een klacht in over vermeend misbruik van de economische machtspositie door Apple. Volgens de bond kunnen consumenten die muziek via iTunes kopen, deze alleen afspelen op een iPod. Volgens de NMa klopt dat argument helemaal niet.
"Consumenten die muziek inkopen via de internetwinkel van Apple kunnen én mogen deze ook op andere apparatuur dan een iPod afspelen", zo stelt René Jansen van de NMa.
"Ook kunnen consumenten muziek die ze bij andere muziekwinkels hebben gekocht, overzetten naar een iPod. Van koppelverkoop is daarom geen sprake."
De Consumentenbond is teleurgesteld over het besluit van de NMa. Het is geen koppelverkoop omdat de beveiligingstechnologie op de muziekbestanden van iTunes te omzeilen is door de liedjes op een cd te branden en vervolgens weer te kopiëren naar de computer, stelt de bond.
"Hoewel Apple in de voorwaarden verbiedt om de beveiligingstechnologie te omzeilen of te wijzigen, gaan we toch niet in hoger beroep", aldus Consumentenbond-woordvoerder Ewald van Kouwen. "Door alle commotie heeft Apple aangegeven opnieuw naar de slotjes en de voorwaarden te kijken." Bovendien wordt de klacht van de Consumentenbond nog behandeld bij de Consumentenautoriteit.
Bron: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/47841/music
Sony onthult opvallende muziekspeler Rolly
Maandag 10 september 2007, 11:53 - Sony heeft in Japan zijn nieuwste muziekspeler geïntroduceerd. De Rolly rolt en draait op de grond terwijl het muziek afspeelt.
22 reacties Door Edwin Feldmann
Over de Rolly is de afgelopen twee weken al steeds meer bekend geworden. Zo was al bekend dat er slechts één knop op zit. Dat is de aan- en uitknop. Aan de uiteinden zitten twee speakers verstopt onder een klepje.
Het volume kan ingesteld worden via een ring op het toestel. Met deze ring kan de gebruikers ook de motor van de Rolly aanzetten die het apparaat op de muziek laat meebewegen.
De Rolly weegt 300 gram, heeft een ingebouwd flashgeheugen van 1 GB en kan mp3-, aac- en atrac-bestanden afspelen. Aac-bestanden die zijn gekocht via de iTunes Music Store zijn voorzien van een drm-beveiliging en kunnen niet worden afgespeeld. Tot slot heeft de Rolly een Bluetooth-functie waardoor het ook streaming muziek kan afspelen.
De Rolly is vanaf 29 september in Japan verkrijgbaar voor 40.000 yen (circa 255 euro). Of en wanneer de muziekspeler elders in de wereld wordt geïntroduceerd, is nog niet bekend.
Bron: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/47865/music
22 reacties Door Edwin Feldmann
Over de Rolly is de afgelopen twee weken al steeds meer bekend geworden. Zo was al bekend dat er slechts één knop op zit. Dat is de aan- en uitknop. Aan de uiteinden zitten twee speakers verstopt onder een klepje.
Het volume kan ingesteld worden via een ring op het toestel. Met deze ring kan de gebruikers ook de motor van de Rolly aanzetten die het apparaat op de muziek laat meebewegen.
De Rolly weegt 300 gram, heeft een ingebouwd flashgeheugen van 1 GB en kan mp3-, aac- en atrac-bestanden afspelen. Aac-bestanden die zijn gekocht via de iTunes Music Store zijn voorzien van een drm-beveiliging en kunnen niet worden afgespeeld. Tot slot heeft de Rolly een Bluetooth-functie waardoor het ook streaming muziek kan afspelen.
De Rolly is vanaf 29 september in Japan verkrijgbaar voor 40.000 yen (circa 255 euro). Of en wanneer de muziekspeler elders in de wereld wordt geïntroduceerd, is nog niet bekend.
Bron: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/47865/music
TNO adviseert bedrijven en overheden over “the long tail”
TNO adviseert bedrijven en overheden over “the long tail”
De “long tail” is populair in de mediasector. Het idee dat in de toekomst een grote hoeveelheid nichekanalen kan zorgen voor het grootste deel van de omzet zorgt voor de nodige hoofdbrekens bij gevestigde partijen als operators, omroepen en uitgevers. Niet alleen zijn er nieuwe businessmodellen nodig, ook op het gebied van bijvoorbeeld auteursrecht zijn er veel onduidelijkheden. De overheid is zich dan ook aan het oriënteren op beleid dat anticipeert op deze trend. TNO adviseert bedrijven en overheden hoe ze kunnen inspelen op deze ontwikkeling.
“The long tail” is populair gemaakt door de Amerikaan Chris Anderson, toenmalig hoofdredacteur van Wired, die er in 2004 een artikel en twee jaar later een boek aan wijdde. Hij beschrijft hoe het internet traditionele markten als televisie, video, boeken, muziek en ook de detailhandel op z’n kop zet. Zijn stelling is dat de vraag naar online producten met een relatief kleine kopersgroep die van de traditionele ‘bestseller’ verkoop via winkels voorbij zal streven.
In een grafiek plaatste Anderson op de horizontale as producten als tv-zenders, websites en andere contentproducten. Op de verticale as zijn de aantallen klanten weergegeven. Het begin van de horizontale as, het hoofd, bestaat uit de meest populaire tv-zenders die hoge kijkcijfers halen. Daarna volgt een eindeloze reeks nicheproducten die afzonderlijk veel lager scoren, maar bij elkaar een evengrote of zelfs grotere markt vormen dan de massamarkt. De online-winkel Amazon haalt inmiddels al meer omzet uit de “staart” dan uit bestsellers.
Inspiratie
TNO-expert Sander Limonard: ‘Het kijken naar zenders van publieke en commerciële is diep ingesleten in onze gewoontes. Spotreclame is de belangrijkste inkomstenbron. Voor themakanalen op tv en internet, sociale netwerken als Hyves of videosites als YouTube gelden heel andere wetten. TNO onderzoekt alternatieve businessmodellen, de mogelijkheden die nieuwe zoektechnologie biedt, het auteursrecht en initiatieven als Creative Commons. Zo doen we veel voor de ministeries van OC&W en EZ en voor de Europese Commissie.’
Eerder dit jaar verrichte hij met collega Richard Tee een studie in opdracht van Freeband/B@Home over “the long tail” van audiovisuele content op tv en internet.‘User generated content hoort daar ook bij. Telecom- en kabelbedrijven zijn al begonnen eigen diensten aan te bieden, zoals KPN met het online video platform Shoobidoo en regionale experimenten met MediaMall. De grote vraag is wie welke kanalen beheert, wat ermee te verdienen is en hoe je gebruikers daadwerkelijk actief laat worden.’
Beeldenstorm
Partijen als operators, kabelaars, omroepen en uitgevers hebben volgens Sander Limonard allemaal te maken met sterk en snel veranderende rollen in de markt en behoeften van de consument. Nieuwe nichespelers als YouTube duiken uit het niets op en verschuiven in korte tijd van de staart naar het hoofd. De Nederlandse Esmée Denters is binnen 11 maanden 40 miljoen keer bekeken op Youtube en treedt nu op met Justin Timberlake. De staart bevat schijnbaar onbetekenende nieuwe producten waarvan vele echter potentiële groeiers zijn.
'Maar ook zonder succesnummers die populair worden is het aantrekkelijk om veel niches te exploiteren, mits daar veel vaste kijkers of bezoekers aan verbonden zijn. Interessant voor adverteerders die meer impact willen hebben in de huidige beeldenstorm. Onze boodschap aan de gevestigde partijen is dan ook je niet afzetten tegen de nichepartijen maar juist met ze partneren. Dat is de reden waarom TNO nauwlettend volgt welke mechanismen er in the long tail aan het werk zijn.’
Bron: http://www.tno.nl/nieuwsbrief_ict2/nb03ned.htm
De “long tail” is populair in de mediasector. Het idee dat in de toekomst een grote hoeveelheid nichekanalen kan zorgen voor het grootste deel van de omzet zorgt voor de nodige hoofdbrekens bij gevestigde partijen als operators, omroepen en uitgevers. Niet alleen zijn er nieuwe businessmodellen nodig, ook op het gebied van bijvoorbeeld auteursrecht zijn er veel onduidelijkheden. De overheid is zich dan ook aan het oriënteren op beleid dat anticipeert op deze trend. TNO adviseert bedrijven en overheden hoe ze kunnen inspelen op deze ontwikkeling.
“The long tail” is populair gemaakt door de Amerikaan Chris Anderson, toenmalig hoofdredacteur van Wired, die er in 2004 een artikel en twee jaar later een boek aan wijdde. Hij beschrijft hoe het internet traditionele markten als televisie, video, boeken, muziek en ook de detailhandel op z’n kop zet. Zijn stelling is dat de vraag naar online producten met een relatief kleine kopersgroep die van de traditionele ‘bestseller’ verkoop via winkels voorbij zal streven.
In een grafiek plaatste Anderson op de horizontale as producten als tv-zenders, websites en andere contentproducten. Op de verticale as zijn de aantallen klanten weergegeven. Het begin van de horizontale as, het hoofd, bestaat uit de meest populaire tv-zenders die hoge kijkcijfers halen. Daarna volgt een eindeloze reeks nicheproducten die afzonderlijk veel lager scoren, maar bij elkaar een evengrote of zelfs grotere markt vormen dan de massamarkt. De online-winkel Amazon haalt inmiddels al meer omzet uit de “staart” dan uit bestsellers.
Inspiratie
TNO-expert Sander Limonard: ‘Het kijken naar zenders van publieke en commerciële is diep ingesleten in onze gewoontes. Spotreclame is de belangrijkste inkomstenbron. Voor themakanalen op tv en internet, sociale netwerken als Hyves of videosites als YouTube gelden heel andere wetten. TNO onderzoekt alternatieve businessmodellen, de mogelijkheden die nieuwe zoektechnologie biedt, het auteursrecht en initiatieven als Creative Commons. Zo doen we veel voor de ministeries van OC&W en EZ en voor de Europese Commissie.’
Eerder dit jaar verrichte hij met collega Richard Tee een studie in opdracht van Freeband/B@Home over “the long tail” van audiovisuele content op tv en internet.‘User generated content hoort daar ook bij. Telecom- en kabelbedrijven zijn al begonnen eigen diensten aan te bieden, zoals KPN met het online video platform Shoobidoo en regionale experimenten met MediaMall. De grote vraag is wie welke kanalen beheert, wat ermee te verdienen is en hoe je gebruikers daadwerkelijk actief laat worden.’
Beeldenstorm
Partijen als operators, kabelaars, omroepen en uitgevers hebben volgens Sander Limonard allemaal te maken met sterk en snel veranderende rollen in de markt en behoeften van de consument. Nieuwe nichespelers als YouTube duiken uit het niets op en verschuiven in korte tijd van de staart naar het hoofd. De Nederlandse Esmée Denters is binnen 11 maanden 40 miljoen keer bekeken op Youtube en treedt nu op met Justin Timberlake. De staart bevat schijnbaar onbetekenende nieuwe producten waarvan vele echter potentiële groeiers zijn.
'Maar ook zonder succesnummers die populair worden is het aantrekkelijk om veel niches te exploiteren, mits daar veel vaste kijkers of bezoekers aan verbonden zijn. Interessant voor adverteerders die meer impact willen hebben in de huidige beeldenstorm. Onze boodschap aan de gevestigde partijen is dan ook je niet afzetten tegen de nichepartijen maar juist met ze partneren. Dat is de reden waarom TNO nauwlettend volgt welke mechanismen er in the long tail aan het werk zijn.’
Bron: http://www.tno.nl/nieuwsbrief_ict2/nb03ned.htm
vrijdag 21 september 2007
Study: Baby Boomers Key Group For Physical Product
Baby boomers are now the most important age-group buying CDs, according to a study conducted by the NPD Group, in conjunction with AARP, and on behalf of the National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers.
Baby boomers, those born in the period from 1941-1964, constitute and audience of 76 million consumers, 70% of whom still buy music, mainly in the CD format. Last year, boomers accounted for 33% of all CD sales, up from 30% in 2002, according to the study.
While their market share of physical purchases are growing, baby boomers’ overall purchases have dropped from 252.7 million units in 2002 to 191.2 million units last year, which can be attributed to the overall album marketplace decline of 13.6% during that time period, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Also, compared with two years ago, 35% of boomer say they are buying less music, 22% say more and 43% answered about the same.
"This report proves that there is an increased need and urgency for the music industry to improve the way it communicates, merchandises and markets to this age group," NARM president Jim Donio said in a statement.
For those buying less music, about 38% of them said the main reason is they listen to radio instead. Other reason cited for buying less include 29% of boomers citing less time listening to music nowadays; 28% cited being satisfied with existing music collection; 24% said music is more expensive now; 18% answered there is no new music they want; 14% said favorite artist hadn't release any new music recently; 13% said they spend money on other entertainment products; 11% said they have no time to buy new music, and 11% said they couldn't find what they wanted in stores.
Of the boomers who buy music, 68% of them, or about 36 million, buy physical music product only; 26%, or almost 14 million people, buy both physical and digital product; while 6% of them, or slightly more than 3 million, make digital only purchases.
When making CD purchases, 29% of baby boomers said they most likely will do so at mass merchants, 21% answered online, 12% said record stores; 9% said book stores, and 3% indicated warehouse clubs.
When listening to music, most said they do so in cars, and of those who gave that answer, 79% cited the radio as the number one way, 55% named a CD player, and 16% named satellite radio
The study suggests there is $700 million in potential incremental revenue among boomer music buyers and may hold the key to supporting the CD during the current industry transition period. If each boomer buys one more CD a year, that translates into $330 million in revenue, according to the study. "While the recording industry struggles with piracy and sharing among younger consumers, there's at least one group with the income and inclination to pay for music," NPD entertainment industry analyst Russ Crupnick said in a statement.
In order to increase purchases, the study suggests that music manufacturers partner with AARP, whose membership are the older segments of society. It also suggested that labels take advantage of anniversaries and related events to release compilations, gift sets and remaster, and create boomer-centric merchandising programs.
SOURCE
Baby boomers, those born in the period from 1941-1964, constitute and audience of 76 million consumers, 70% of whom still buy music, mainly in the CD format. Last year, boomers accounted for 33% of all CD sales, up from 30% in 2002, according to the study.
While their market share of physical purchases are growing, baby boomers’ overall purchases have dropped from 252.7 million units in 2002 to 191.2 million units last year, which can be attributed to the overall album marketplace decline of 13.6% during that time period, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Also, compared with two years ago, 35% of boomer say they are buying less music, 22% say more and 43% answered about the same.
"This report proves that there is an increased need and urgency for the music industry to improve the way it communicates, merchandises and markets to this age group," NARM president Jim Donio said in a statement.
For those buying less music, about 38% of them said the main reason is they listen to radio instead. Other reason cited for buying less include 29% of boomers citing less time listening to music nowadays; 28% cited being satisfied with existing music collection; 24% said music is more expensive now; 18% answered there is no new music they want; 14% said favorite artist hadn't release any new music recently; 13% said they spend money on other entertainment products; 11% said they have no time to buy new music, and 11% said they couldn't find what they wanted in stores.
Of the boomers who buy music, 68% of them, or about 36 million, buy physical music product only; 26%, or almost 14 million people, buy both physical and digital product; while 6% of them, or slightly more than 3 million, make digital only purchases.
When making CD purchases, 29% of baby boomers said they most likely will do so at mass merchants, 21% answered online, 12% said record stores; 9% said book stores, and 3% indicated warehouse clubs.
When listening to music, most said they do so in cars, and of those who gave that answer, 79% cited the radio as the number one way, 55% named a CD player, and 16% named satellite radio
The study suggests there is $700 million in potential incremental revenue among boomer music buyers and may hold the key to supporting the CD during the current industry transition period. If each boomer buys one more CD a year, that translates into $330 million in revenue, according to the study. "While the recording industry struggles with piracy and sharing among younger consumers, there's at least one group with the income and inclination to pay for music," NPD entertainment industry analyst Russ Crupnick said in a statement.
In order to increase purchases, the study suggests that music manufacturers partner with AARP, whose membership are the older segments of society. It also suggested that labels take advantage of anniversaries and related events to release compilations, gift sets and remaster, and create boomer-centric merchandising programs.
SOURCE
Album Buyers Show Up...And Buy CDs
Album Buyers Show Up...And Buy CDs
A couple things stuck me about the first-week sales totals for Kanye West, 50 Cent and Kenny Chesney. First, like many people I was surprised by the quantity of sales. West's Graduation sold 957,000 units, an incredible amount in a year when album sales are down 14%. 50 Cent's Curtis moved 691,000. Obviously the manufactured rivalry between the two rappers spurred sales. Chesney's Just Who I Am: Poets and Pirates moved 387,000, a number that would be for #1 in a typical week. Majors' release schedules have been flat this year and its new album launches have failed to inspire and excite consumers. Last week, there was finally some excitement in the air.
The other thing that stood out about last week's top three albums was their relatively low digital-to-total album percentage. From what I've seen over the years the higher album sales go, the lower that percentage becomes. To punch up to the high six digits, the CD needs to be as broadly distributed as possible. Digital sales are, of course, growing, but digital sales alone won't push an album to the top of the chart.
Last week, Kanye West's digital sales represented 14% of total sales. For 50 Cent and Kenny Chesney, the numbers were 8% and 9%, respectively. What those numbers tell me is those artists' labels and distributors did an good job moving the CD and getting sell-through (though I don't know what was shipped on each title). The albums' digital shares were good but lower than I expected. As a point of comparison, Grey's Anatomy Vol.3 debuted at #16 with sales of 26,000 and a digital share of 43%. Maroon 5's It Won't Soon Before Long has sold 1.24 million units in 17 weeks and has a digital share of 18%.
CD sales are down about 20% in 2007, but as these sales numbers show, the physical format still has some life left in it. The timing of the releases coincide with a season typically targeted because students are recently back to school and have money in hand. These are the same students that download music from P2P networks and by most reports have given up on the CD. So unless students suddenly discovered the CD, older consumers were the ones excited by last week's release schedule. (I'll point out that I haven't seen any new release CDs in the Vanderbilt bookstore in the last month. The one display rack, practically out of view, has product left over from last school year.)
Graduation sold more digital albums in one week than any other album. Digital sales, though, were not the reason for the huge first week. By squeezing as much as it could out of physical distribution, Def Jam and Universal Music and Video Distribution scored a fantastic first week.
Posted by glenn on September 19, 2007 10:06 AM
Bron:
http://www.coolfer.com/blog/archives/2007/09/album_buyers_sh.php
A couple things stuck me about the first-week sales totals for Kanye West, 50 Cent and Kenny Chesney. First, like many people I was surprised by the quantity of sales. West's Graduation sold 957,000 units, an incredible amount in a year when album sales are down 14%. 50 Cent's Curtis moved 691,000. Obviously the manufactured rivalry between the two rappers spurred sales. Chesney's Just Who I Am: Poets and Pirates moved 387,000, a number that would be for #1 in a typical week. Majors' release schedules have been flat this year and its new album launches have failed to inspire and excite consumers. Last week, there was finally some excitement in the air.
The other thing that stood out about last week's top three albums was their relatively low digital-to-total album percentage. From what I've seen over the years the higher album sales go, the lower that percentage becomes. To punch up to the high six digits, the CD needs to be as broadly distributed as possible. Digital sales are, of course, growing, but digital sales alone won't push an album to the top of the chart.
Last week, Kanye West's digital sales represented 14% of total sales. For 50 Cent and Kenny Chesney, the numbers were 8% and 9%, respectively. What those numbers tell me is those artists' labels and distributors did an good job moving the CD and getting sell-through (though I don't know what was shipped on each title). The albums' digital shares were good but lower than I expected. As a point of comparison, Grey's Anatomy Vol.3 debuted at #16 with sales of 26,000 and a digital share of 43%. Maroon 5's It Won't Soon Before Long has sold 1.24 million units in 17 weeks and has a digital share of 18%.
CD sales are down about 20% in 2007, but as these sales numbers show, the physical format still has some life left in it. The timing of the releases coincide with a season typically targeted because students are recently back to school and have money in hand. These are the same students that download music from P2P networks and by most reports have given up on the CD. So unless students suddenly discovered the CD, older consumers were the ones excited by last week's release schedule. (I'll point out that I haven't seen any new release CDs in the Vanderbilt bookstore in the last month. The one display rack, practically out of view, has product left over from last school year.)
Graduation sold more digital albums in one week than any other album. Digital sales, though, were not the reason for the huge first week. By squeezing as much as it could out of physical distribution, Def Jam and Universal Music and Video Distribution scored a fantastic first week.
Posted by glenn on September 19, 2007 10:06 AM
Bron:
http://www.coolfer.com/blog/archives/2007/09/album_buyers_sh.php
De nieuwe platenmaatschappij: YouTube
De nieuwe platenmaatschappij: YouTube
[di 27 feb 2007, 11:38]
Door gastblogger Ralf Hesen van Tribal DDB Amsterdam.
Ja, MySpace en consorten zijn ook druk bezig zich als muziekwinkel te profileren, maar zij menen nog steeds dat het idee is om MP3’s te verkopen. Dan is het revenue sharing model dat YouTube binnenkort zegt te zullen introduceren (en Revver.com al enige tijd aanbiedt en ongetwijfeld zal worden nagevolgd door vele anderen) veel meer web 3.0. Degene die zijn filmpjes via Si-Mi aanbiedt ontvangt nu zelfs al 90% van de inkomsten!
Wat is er voor een band makkelijker dan je eigen videoclip te uploaden en vervolgens zoveel mogelijk traffic naar die clip te genereren. Elke view levert je inkomsten op en tegelijkertijd promoot je hiermee je band. Met wellicht als afgeleid resultaat toch nog downloads van (betaalde en onbetaalde) MP3’s? Links plaatsen op de MySpace-pagina van de band, van de leden van de band, van de vrienden van de leden van de band, van de fans, van de vrienden van de fans etc. Het fenomeen Alamo Race Track, de Nederlandse band waarvan een eenvoudig filmpje van een unplugged performance in de kleedkamer zo’n 300.000 maal werd bekeken op YouTube, geeft overigens aan dat we dat begrip videoclip hierbij heel ruim kunnen interpreteren.
Mark my words: we krijgen binnenkort net als bij eBay een club zelfstandige ondernemers (in dit geval dus creatieve audio en video content ontwikkelaars) die met deze tak van sport de kost gaan verdienen. En die mannen/vrouwen worden in deze tak van sport dan vanzelf weer sterren. Dus tel die views en ontdek de nieuwe sterren!
Had ik al gemeld dat ik in mijn vrije tijd deel uitmaak van de band Lemon? Ik ga maar eens snel aan de slag. Binnenkort op YouTube en Lemonline.
Bron:http://www.molblog.nl/online/4695
[di 27 feb 2007, 11:38]
Door gastblogger Ralf Hesen van Tribal DDB Amsterdam.
Ja, MySpace en consorten zijn ook druk bezig zich als muziekwinkel te profileren, maar zij menen nog steeds dat het idee is om MP3’s te verkopen. Dan is het revenue sharing model dat YouTube binnenkort zegt te zullen introduceren (en Revver.com al enige tijd aanbiedt en ongetwijfeld zal worden nagevolgd door vele anderen) veel meer web 3.0. Degene die zijn filmpjes via Si-Mi aanbiedt ontvangt nu zelfs al 90% van de inkomsten!
Wat is er voor een band makkelijker dan je eigen videoclip te uploaden en vervolgens zoveel mogelijk traffic naar die clip te genereren. Elke view levert je inkomsten op en tegelijkertijd promoot je hiermee je band. Met wellicht als afgeleid resultaat toch nog downloads van (betaalde en onbetaalde) MP3’s? Links plaatsen op de MySpace-pagina van de band, van de leden van de band, van de vrienden van de leden van de band, van de fans, van de vrienden van de fans etc. Het fenomeen Alamo Race Track, de Nederlandse band waarvan een eenvoudig filmpje van een unplugged performance in de kleedkamer zo’n 300.000 maal werd bekeken op YouTube, geeft overigens aan dat we dat begrip videoclip hierbij heel ruim kunnen interpreteren.
Mark my words: we krijgen binnenkort net als bij eBay een club zelfstandige ondernemers (in dit geval dus creatieve audio en video content ontwikkelaars) die met deze tak van sport de kost gaan verdienen. En die mannen/vrouwen worden in deze tak van sport dan vanzelf weer sterren. Dus tel die views en ontdek de nieuwe sterren!
Had ik al gemeld dat ik in mijn vrije tijd deel uitmaak van de band Lemon? Ik ga maar eens snel aan de slag. Binnenkort op YouTube en Lemonline.
Bron:http://www.molblog.nl/online/4695
Popkomm Debates On Indies, Internet
Mike Batt, founder and managing director of Dramatico Entertainment, used his Popkomm keynote speech this afternoon to call for a truce between independent and major music companies.
"A lot of us who run indie labels tend to think of the majors as the enemy. They're not," said Batt, who in March was appointed deputy chairman of U.K. labels body the BPI. "The landscape has changed and now we need each other."
Rather than bicker among one another, Batt said majors and indies ought to fight for the common cause on broader issues, such as the topical term of copyright extension in the United Kingdom. "Instead of fighting against majors, and slagging them off, you can work with them," he told delegates, during his panel conversation with Billboard's group editorial director Tamara Conniff. "Companies buy each other. It's just trade," he explained. "Universal is buying Sanctuary at the moment partly for the live business and partly for the catalog. There's nothing wrong with that."
Batt also gave executives an insight into life at the cutting edge of running a successful independent label. "I'm an expert in failure," he admitted. "I know a little about success and a lot about failure," commented the music all-rounder, whose protégé Katie Melua's "Piece by Piece" was the best-selling British female artist in the world last year, shifting more than 3.5 million units in Europe.
"To run a record company, you have to have a mixture of being sensible and being foolish. You have to be a bit reckless, swinging through the jungle without knowing there's another piece of jungle after you take the first swing. It's exciting, but you know you're going to fall sometimes." Batt -- a self-confessed "40% sensible" executive -- admitted to one such fall, which left him £700,000 ($1.4 million) out of pocket when he backed a TV-advertised nostalgia reissue campaign for his 1970s novelty act the Wombles.
"You could say I'm a glutton for punishment, but you do learn from those things," Batt reflected. "I was so sure that Katie was the real thing that if I was advising anyone else, the most important thing of all, the best marketing of all, it's the A&R. If you get that right, the right artist, the right song, at the right time, then the marketing is so much easier. You're selling what people want."
What people don't want, panellists said in a later session titled "New Major (music) Players," is digital rights management on music files. "Today it's not about protection. Its about un-protection," said Sonific CEO Gerd Leonhard. "That's how you make money. Nobody cares about protected music. That's a fact."
The discussion drilled into the possibilities for extracting revenues from service providers and telcos. None, perhaps, more controversial than the theory proposed by Scott Cohen, founder and VP of international of the Orchard. "There's 1.1 billion Internet accounts worldwide. And there's 2.6 billion mobile phone accounts," he said. "I would go further than a blanket license. Something more radical. A tax on every access point. If there was $1 added to each of those accounts, think of the possibilities."
Hanoi Rocks frontman Michael Monroe was the star of the show at a lively "Artists as Architects" panel, which wrapped day two of Popkomm.
Chaired by Billboard global editor Mark Sutherland, the panel -- which also included Jon Tufnell of U.K. electro-rockers Plastic Toys, Robin Sato and Lene Toje from Berlin-based "organic electro" act Sanagi and Belgian singer-songwriter Sioen -- discussed issues of artistic control, Bon Jovi and rows with record companies.
Monroe revealed the time he once fell out with his label over their marketing campaign for his "Not Fakin' It" solo album, in which he was billed as "the brains behind Hanoi Rocks."
"Hanoi Rocks had no brains, that was the whole point," he quipped. "They ended up pulling the whole campaign and it killed the record. But I couldn't be portrayed as a phoney and I've never regretted the decision."
SOURCE
"A lot of us who run indie labels tend to think of the majors as the enemy. They're not," said Batt, who in March was appointed deputy chairman of U.K. labels body the BPI. "The landscape has changed and now we need each other."
Rather than bicker among one another, Batt said majors and indies ought to fight for the common cause on broader issues, such as the topical term of copyright extension in the United Kingdom. "Instead of fighting against majors, and slagging them off, you can work with them," he told delegates, during his panel conversation with Billboard's group editorial director Tamara Conniff. "Companies buy each other. It's just trade," he explained. "Universal is buying Sanctuary at the moment partly for the live business and partly for the catalog. There's nothing wrong with that."
Batt also gave executives an insight into life at the cutting edge of running a successful independent label. "I'm an expert in failure," he admitted. "I know a little about success and a lot about failure," commented the music all-rounder, whose protégé Katie Melua's "Piece by Piece" was the best-selling British female artist in the world last year, shifting more than 3.5 million units in Europe.
"To run a record company, you have to have a mixture of being sensible and being foolish. You have to be a bit reckless, swinging through the jungle without knowing there's another piece of jungle after you take the first swing. It's exciting, but you know you're going to fall sometimes." Batt -- a self-confessed "40% sensible" executive -- admitted to one such fall, which left him £700,000 ($1.4 million) out of pocket when he backed a TV-advertised nostalgia reissue campaign for his 1970s novelty act the Wombles.
"You could say I'm a glutton for punishment, but you do learn from those things," Batt reflected. "I was so sure that Katie was the real thing that if I was advising anyone else, the most important thing of all, the best marketing of all, it's the A&R. If you get that right, the right artist, the right song, at the right time, then the marketing is so much easier. You're selling what people want."
What people don't want, panellists said in a later session titled "New Major (music) Players," is digital rights management on music files. "Today it's not about protection. Its about un-protection," said Sonific CEO Gerd Leonhard. "That's how you make money. Nobody cares about protected music. That's a fact."
The discussion drilled into the possibilities for extracting revenues from service providers and telcos. None, perhaps, more controversial than the theory proposed by Scott Cohen, founder and VP of international of the Orchard. "There's 1.1 billion Internet accounts worldwide. And there's 2.6 billion mobile phone accounts," he said. "I would go further than a blanket license. Something more radical. A tax on every access point. If there was $1 added to each of those accounts, think of the possibilities."
Hanoi Rocks frontman Michael Monroe was the star of the show at a lively "Artists as Architects" panel, which wrapped day two of Popkomm.
Chaired by Billboard global editor Mark Sutherland, the panel -- which also included Jon Tufnell of U.K. electro-rockers Plastic Toys, Robin Sato and Lene Toje from Berlin-based "organic electro" act Sanagi and Belgian singer-songwriter Sioen -- discussed issues of artistic control, Bon Jovi and rows with record companies.
Monroe revealed the time he once fell out with his label over their marketing campaign for his "Not Fakin' It" solo album, in which he was billed as "the brains behind Hanoi Rocks."
"Hanoi Rocks had no brains, that was the whole point," he quipped. "They ended up pulling the whole campaign and it killed the record. But I couldn't be portrayed as a phoney and I've never regretted the decision."
SOURCE
donderdag 20 september 2007
Looking Inside An Ipod
iPod represents a wide array of moveable media players which have been designed and are sold by Apple Inc. It was first launched in October 2001. iPod models generally cover digital audio players with a central click wheel to iPod Shuffle that uses various buttons because of its small size. iPod Nano, a fifth generation, was launched in September 2006. This led to discontinuation of iPod mini, which it stored the data on an internal hard disk. iPod Shuffle and Nano employ flash type of memory for smaller size. These devices also act as an external medium for data storage.
iPod was inspired by the shortcomings of existing digital music players, which were not physically compact and the user interface were not very friendly. Apple assembled a group of engineers and within a year, it unveiled the iPod. It was launched as a product which was Macintosh compatible with a hard drive of 5 GB. Apple used PortalPlayer`s reference for its software. The company Pixo helped iPod for developing user interface. But these were refined by Apple after development. The naming of the device as `iPod` was suggested by Vinnie Chieco, who is a freelance copywriter. Coincidently, Apple had the name registered for `internet kiosks`, but it never used it for this purpose.
iPod can run MP3, M4A/AAC, AIFF, Protected AAC, Audible Audio book and WAV format. It also introduced the displaying of images ability with PNG, TIFF, GIF, BMP, and JPEG formats. The 5th generation models can even play MPEG 4. From the 2nd generation model, the software also started working with Windows along with Macs. It doesn`t support Microsoft`s WMA audio format. WMA and MIDI files can be changed using iTunes, a service provided by Apple through which you can view and download latest songs and movies on your device player. iPods having colored displays use texts and graphics which are anti-aliased and sliding animations. The operating system is stored in a dedicated storage medium of the device. Each device player has 32 MB Ram, though later ones have 64 MB Ram. Most of it is used to cache songs through the storage medium.
Apple also added PDA type functionality so that text files can be viewed and an address book can be maintained through a computer. Also, some built-in games like brick are also included. In fifth generation iPod, the brightness of the screen can be adjusted and games can be downloaded from iTunes Store. For first and second generation models, as well as Nano and Shuffle, internal lithium polymer batteries are used and for third and fifth generation models, internal lithium batteries are used. Initially, iPods came with a FireWire connection for charging the device, but with introduction of multipurpose USB ports, they became outdated. Recent iPod models can be charged using USB 2.0.
Many accessories, even by third parties, have been made for iPods. Some additional accessories developed by Apple were sound recorders, FM Radio Tuners, Remote Control and Audio-Visual Cables for TV. Other accessories are external speakers, protective cases, and wireless earphones. Third parties manufacturing most of these accessories are Griffin Technology, Belkin, Bose, and SendStation. BMW was the first car company to launch an iPod automobile interface, thus allowing newer vehicles to control iPod through steering wheels. Later Apple made this technology available to many other car brands too. Even certain Airlines started provided iPod connectors in the seat.
Apple markets its own iPod earphones and claims that they are better fitting for ears and provide better sound quality. Since it was launched, iPod has been market leader in digital players because of their high quality, supreme aesthetics and ease of use. With more cash flowing into research every year, there is no reason for this fact to change.
This article is under GNU FDL license and can be distributed without any previous authorization from the author. However the author's name and all the URLs (links) mentioned in the article and biography must be kept.
Source
iPod was inspired by the shortcomings of existing digital music players, which were not physically compact and the user interface were not very friendly. Apple assembled a group of engineers and within a year, it unveiled the iPod. It was launched as a product which was Macintosh compatible with a hard drive of 5 GB. Apple used PortalPlayer`s reference for its software. The company Pixo helped iPod for developing user interface. But these were refined by Apple after development. The naming of the device as `iPod` was suggested by Vinnie Chieco, who is a freelance copywriter. Coincidently, Apple had the name registered for `internet kiosks`, but it never used it for this purpose.
iPod can run MP3, M4A/AAC, AIFF, Protected AAC, Audible Audio book and WAV format. It also introduced the displaying of images ability with PNG, TIFF, GIF, BMP, and JPEG formats. The 5th generation models can even play MPEG 4. From the 2nd generation model, the software also started working with Windows along with Macs. It doesn`t support Microsoft`s WMA audio format. WMA and MIDI files can be changed using iTunes, a service provided by Apple through which you can view and download latest songs and movies on your device player. iPods having colored displays use texts and graphics which are anti-aliased and sliding animations. The operating system is stored in a dedicated storage medium of the device. Each device player has 32 MB Ram, though later ones have 64 MB Ram. Most of it is used to cache songs through the storage medium.
Apple also added PDA type functionality so that text files can be viewed and an address book can be maintained through a computer. Also, some built-in games like brick are also included. In fifth generation iPod, the brightness of the screen can be adjusted and games can be downloaded from iTunes Store. For first and second generation models, as well as Nano and Shuffle, internal lithium polymer batteries are used and for third and fifth generation models, internal lithium batteries are used. Initially, iPods came with a FireWire connection for charging the device, but with introduction of multipurpose USB ports, they became outdated. Recent iPod models can be charged using USB 2.0.
Many accessories, even by third parties, have been made for iPods. Some additional accessories developed by Apple were sound recorders, FM Radio Tuners, Remote Control and Audio-Visual Cables for TV. Other accessories are external speakers, protective cases, and wireless earphones. Third parties manufacturing most of these accessories are Griffin Technology, Belkin, Bose, and SendStation. BMW was the first car company to launch an iPod automobile interface, thus allowing newer vehicles to control iPod through steering wheels. Later Apple made this technology available to many other car brands too. Even certain Airlines started provided iPod connectors in the seat.
Apple markets its own iPod earphones and claims that they are better fitting for ears and provide better sound quality. Since it was launched, iPod has been market leader in digital players because of their high quality, supreme aesthetics and ease of use. With more cash flowing into research every year, there is no reason for this fact to change.
This article is under GNU FDL license and can be distributed without any previous authorization from the author. However the author's name and all the URLs (links) mentioned in the article and biography must be kept.
Source
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)