Blanket online music licensing
p2pnet.net news:- EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) and Warner Music (US) have established .99 cents US, call it $1, as the artificially high price level for digital music downloads.
As far as p2pnet knows, the number has never been seriously examined or questioned, and we’ve yet to see a precise, authoritative (from an independent analysis) breakdown of how it’s arrived at.
It’s touted in the mainstream media as the accepted, and acceptable, amount, but it’s neither, as the refusals of the vast majority of online music lovers to pay it, prove. It’s nonetheless used as the basis for pricing suggestions for music downloads, even by many of those who say they espouse the cause of the hundreds of millions of music lovers around the world who are being accused by the Big 4 cartel of being thieves and pirates.
With two billion unproven online sales credited to it since 2003, Apple’s iTunes is constantly held up by the corporate press as an example of the success of a corporate download music ’store,’ despite the fact that in actuality, it’s a promotional and up-load vehicle for the iPod, paid for by users. Nothing more.
In comparison, at an absolute minimum, at least two billion digital music files move computer-to-computer every month, and that’s according to the corporate music industry itself.
It’s all about pricing ….
“There are nearly ten million people using only the most popular networks at any given time (to say nothing of private, invitation only, small group sharing etc,” Eric Garland, ceo of Big Champagne, the online media measurement which among other things, tracks file sharing in the US and overseas, told p2pnet recently.
“There are – very conservatively speaking – more than a billion files a month,” he said, but, “The IFPI and RIAA project the volume of downloads to be far greater than that (estimates approaching 3 billion/month), but we do not know the basis of these projections.”
And The Expanding Digital Universe, a new IDC white paper, says the figure may be as high as one billion a day.
But there’s nothing in it for the Big 4 (or their all-important shareholders) who continue to treat the real world of music as though it doesn’t exist, instead arranging venal, self-interested deals among and between themselves, with Apple as virtually the only corporate download service worth considering, in the sidelines.
It’s all about pricing. Charge a reasonable amount for each digital download, somewhere around 40 cents, say, the floodgates will open, and the money will come gushing in.
The content will almost take care of itself.
ISP-based licensing model
Represented by Canada’s Nettwerk Music which, not long ago, walked away from the Big 4’s RIAA, protesting it was a bad idea to be suing music lovers, the very people who put artists’ bread on the table, Canadian band the Barenaked Ladies have become virtual spokesmen for top level pro groups.
Ars Technica quotes BNL’s Steve Page (upper right) as saying an ISP-based licensing model is the way to go: it would, “allow consumers access to all the music they want and would ensure that artists get paid,” says the story, although, “the US Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, calls this a bad idea”.
BNL tracks are now available online at a variety of prices from a variety of sites.
In Canada, Puretracks is offering single DRM’d WMA track from Furtado, et al at $C1.19 each, and famous Nettwerk Music artists such as Sarah McLachlan and BNL from $C.80 to $1 per download, unencumbered by DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) consumer control software.
“That’s way too much, either way,” we thought, going on, “But neither Puretracks nor anyone else can expect to bring the rates for Big 4 Organized Music cartel tunes down to a reasonable level until Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG come to their senses and severely reduce their exorbitant wholesale rates which, the last we heard, were still at between $US.60 and close to $US.90.”
BNL was the first big time band to sign up with DRM-free download site Amie Street.com which plans to make its mark by starting sales off at rock bottom prices (like, free) and gradually increasing them to a maximum of 98 cents each when downloads of particular songs reach peak popularity.
The rate is determined by statute
If the Big 4 want an entry into the real world of online music, rather than the imaginary one represented in many, if not most, mainstream media stories and in corporate puff pieces, they’ll have to find a way to get the punters a-punting.
Here’s how an ISP-based compulsory licensing model would work, according to Ars Technica:
Compulsory licenses allow anyone to take advantage of whatever works are covered by the license without obtaining the permissions that would otherwise be required. It is essentially an exception made to copyright law that takes away a person’s right to control how copies of their material are handled. This doesn’t mean a compulsory license is free, though, only that the rate is determined by statute.
The best known of these in the US is the mechanical license. Songwriters and their publishers receive this rate – currently set at $.091 per song – for every copy of an album sold that features their song. Music labels are free to negotiate a lower rate, and many do (75 percent of the mechanical rate is common), but they can simply choose to pay the mechanical royalty rate without negotiations.
Steven Page wants to see the model extended to music consumers, who would pay a flat fee in order to legally access any digital music they can get their hands on – and no one would need to obtain a license from a record label to distribute that music.
After all, “music pirates” are actually “fans” and they shouldn’t be punished for wanting to hear music, the story has Page saying.
“They should pay for the privilege, but that payment should be low and kept as simple as possible. And they should be allowed to redistribute and mash up material.”
That says it all.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Also See:
3 billion/month – The RIAA university lament, April 27, 2007
one billion a day – 1 billion songs a DAY shared online, March 8, 2007
Ars Technica – Barenaked Ladies: If I had a compulsory blanket music license, April 19, 2007
unencumbered by DRM – Puretracks dishes up mp3s, February 22, 2007
rock bottom prices – Bare Naked Ladies for free!, March 5, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by governBryan Adams slams Net radio hikement restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the endSurvey: How Did Copyright Infringement Become Equated with Robbery? (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
OK here is why I don’t think compulsory licensing is a good idea. I’ve seen it touted about so many times.
First off why should someone who never uses the internet for downloading copyrighted works pay a premium for those that do? The only way that would work is if there was a seperate package for those that want to buy into the whole compulsory licensing thing and how do you differentiate who is who on the net?
The other thing is assuming that the artists would not all be paid a flat fee (Otherwise how do you reward the most popular artists), then each artist would be paid on the popularity of their music. So downloads of each artist would have to be monitored and the most popular would get the most money from the CL pot so to speak. This of course could be open to abuse.
I’ve never really understood why people push for CL so much. It’s a noble concept but in practice I just can’t see it working well.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Additionally, who builds and pays for the massive infrastructure to make this work on a global basis… How do songwriters and the heirs get paid? .. How do publishers get paid? … How do record companies get paid? How do artists get paid? How do pension, welfare and healthcare contributions for background musicians and singers get paid? How do producers get paid?
As far as mashups are concerned, multiply the questions above by the number of recordings used in each mashup.
Current complusory licenses apply to the use of music in substantially the same form as originally offered by the creator. Anything beyond that requires negotiations with the rights owners of all of the components (samples) used in mashups. It can be no other way.
If the mashup ‘aritst’ isn’t creative enough to provide his own music, those whose music they wish to build their reputation upon deserve to be paid… The only income many artists and song writers see today come from the use of their work in the mashup world. It’s unfair to remove the food from their tables to accommodate to those who aren’t talented enough to work without the genius that went into creating the original works upon with they rely.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
You have a better solution then? We can all see that the current model isn’t working, but I don’t think any of the solutions that we can come up with are going to solve every problem that has arisen from the current climate either. This seems to be the most logical one I’ve seen so far.
The thing to remember is that there is no absolute “best” solution to any problem, there is only a solution that seems to make the most sense at that particular time. I don’t think that grilling Jon for not providing an adequate soltuon for video mashups is very fair, considering that he wasn’t trying to tackle that problem.
April 29th, 2007 at 3:18 am
If you have another idea, then LETS HEAR IT!
But if you are wanting to compete with free p2p, the ONLY way it is going to happen is if ADS pay for the content…NOT the consumers.
Any other business model is doomed, period. I can say that because of the legal models compared to the free p2p models just does not even compare in numbers! They have not for years! So it is safe to assume they never will. People have been getting music for free for way too long to expect them to start paying now,that’s just the way it is.
The music industr will NEVER fight free downloads with thinking that people are actually going to start paying for them unless advertising pays for it and they have a compulsoy lisencing system, which they can have ads pop up to listen and download a DRM free song.
And if you think compulsory licensing is unfair….you pay taxes….yet do you know for certian that ALL of the taxes YOU pay goes for something that will benifit YOU or your community? NO!
Ever hear of “pork barrel spending”? It happens all the time, yet you don’t stop paying taxes because of it. To close your eyes to the fact that you might pay taxes for something that does not benifit you, yet complain that compulsory licensing is unfair, is a bit hypocrytical I would say.
There are NO easy answers, but you are not providing one yourself! Only griping! Mabye you should think of what WOULD work if you don’t like compulsory licensing,though I doubt seriously that you will come up with anything.
April 29th, 2007 at 3:24 am
It seems that the poster above can only GRIPE about what he does not like with compulsory licensing….notice that he does NOT offer an alternative!
To me, he is full of hot air, because he can point out what he does not like about compulsory licensing, but he has no solutions to offer to fix it!
If he would have offered an alternative, I would have said well at least he was trying to be a part of the solution….but to me, he is a part of the PROBLEM because all he can do is gripe!
April 29th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Ars Technica quotes BNL’s Steve Page (upper right) as saying an ISP-based licensing model is the way to go: it would, “allow consumers access to all the music they want and would ensure that artists get paid,” says the story, although, “the US Register of Copyrights, Marybeth Peters, calls this a bad idea”.
Sure it is a bad idea, but only because Marybeth Peters woud be embarrased by the solution. Afer all the current system for payment by radio broadcastes is so flawed that it makes her and her Copyright Office look bad.
Lets look at the flaws of the current broadcasting, restaurant, etc. icensing system:
a. The collected money is distributed based on ficticious sampling system and logs. BTW, I have many years of experience in statistical sampling i manufacturing and I know that the so called sampling and statistical methods of the performance licencing organizations are nothing more that hogwash. Marybeth Peters should know this and if she doesn’t, her job is too big for her.
b. The accounting of the collected money is done in a black room. Marybeth Peters should know this and if she doesn’t, her job is too big for her.
c. The collected money hardlygets to the creators, just the publishers, who steal most of the monet through an accounting system that takes place also in a black room. Marybeth Peters should know this and if she doesn’t, her job is too big for her.
d. Broadcasters, clubs, etc. pay for the right to use many millions of songs but have no idea which song those are. as the get no catalog of the licensed songs. Marybeth Peters should know this and if she doesn’t, her job is too big for her.
Marybeth Peters should be smart enough to know that all of the above is true but does nothing about it because she does not work for the american people or for the welfare of the creators. She works for the music industry. Which gets us to the major reason she oposes anything that smells of proper distribution of the money cllected. Gos forbid that a new system solves the obvious problems and fraud with the current broadcast, clubs, etc. licensing system.
Rafael Venegas
gvenegas.com
May 1st, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Subscription services are obviously the answer … Forget MP3s … Forget CDs … Get over the age old notion of ‘owning’ the vehicle that delivers the music. (You’ll never own the music itself, by the way.)
In the mind of today’s consumer, music has become disposable anyway … add it to your collection, get bored with it, delete it … In the digital age you have nothing to hold on to … nothing to prize … nothing to pass on… so, why clog up your computer with the stuff?
With subscription services you get as much music as you want, whenever you want it … wherever you want it. You get access to millions of songs at extremely reasonable prices … and, you can shape the playback of the music anyway you want it … You can carry it with you … trade it with friends via play lists …. and the services get better and better…
In a mobile world, subscriptions are the only services that make sense… and, of course, only those who want music pay for it …. nobody else is forced to contribute to YOUR music obsession … Furthermore, you are already a part of the mobile carriers billing process… no payment paid, no payment strain…
Mobile services can also offer music for free to attract customers or they can sell ads … they’re big boys, they can make deals that get everyone paid.
Some say, yeah, but if I stop paying my music goes away … Yes, but it’s always all there if you decide to start paying again … Reality is that a majority of those curently into music (mostly kids) will lose their interest in being heavily involved in making it a part of their daily routine as they grow older … You do have to get a life at some point … Free radio, webcasts or what is becoming thousands of other free outlets will more than quench most people’s desires for music as they age …
For those who stay tuned in, subscriptions are the only way to go … bulk down … dump the CDs, dump the MP3s… lighten your load and let the music play… and play … and play.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 am
That is very a STUPID way to get music. If YOU are willing to pay for a service where your money goes down the drain and you DON’T OWN THE SONG YOU JUST PAID FOR, then fine.
But don’t make the mistake of thinking that the MAJORITY of people who have music collections are going to gladly pay for music that “dissappears” after their subscription stops and has songs chock full of DRM!
Why do you think that free p2p is thriving? You can get a song without DRM and have it for life…not just how long a subscription lasts!
To think that somneone should be “happy” with a song they bought and paid for, but one that is chock full of DRM and dissappears after your subscription stops is the same stupidity that has gotten the music industry in the hole it is in right now! And to also say that because someone may not listen to a song 24 hours a day so they can just delete it and pay for it ALL OVER AGAIN is even crazier!
Until the music companies start to embrace creative common licensing…they will continue to lose money….just as they are right now! And if you don’t like that, then tough, but you still have to pay taxes on things you don’t like also. So creative common licensing is no different.
The only way the music companies can compete with free p2p, is to give music away and pay for it with ads! Even itunes does not hold a candle to p2p and they lie about the figures.
If you really think that people are going to pay 99 cents a pop for a tune that they cannot even keep and has DRM so that they cannnot even transport it from one player to the next, mabye you ought to go work for the music industry. It seems you both have the same outdated thinking.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
First of all for clarities sake … you never ‘own’ the song … or the recording of the song … all you own in the vehicle that delivers the music to you. (The CD, the MP3, etc.)
As far as having copies of the music you acquire for the rest of your life … for the cost of less than 10 CDs a year, you can have access to more music than you could ever download for the rest of your life. Seems reasonable to me… and, all of it fis or you to use anyway you wish except for making it freely available to others … which I’m sure you will agree is illegal.
There is DRM, of course, involved with subscription uses, but now there are so many options with what you can do with subscription music (an more coming on line all the time) that, as long as you are acting withing the bounds of the law, you have all the fair use rights you could ever want. And you don’t have to worry about having your equipment eaten by viruses, spam, and all the other crap you have to deal with with illegal P2P services.
You don’t have to worry about losing your collection either if you computer crashes because it’s not on your computer in the first place.
Also, with subscriptions you don’t have to worry when technology changes because the service will always provide you with the latest and the greatest at no extra charge … I mean if your collection is made up of cheesy MP3s you’ve downloaded from the Net and everyone switches to ACC or something better, you’ve got to re steal everything to be up to date.
You may not like subscriptions … as of this date they are not the most popular because most music users are still locked into the 1999 Napster mentality … but, once people start getting how powerful subscription services are – and will become – and once mobile is the primary way people receive their entertainment, subscriptions will clearly be the way to go …
Many people ‘rent’ their video entertainment in the form of cable or satellite transmissions … many people ‘rent’ the audio from satellite … and many people ‘rent’ the homes or apartments – all of which go away with they stop paying ‘rent’ … so, what’s the difference?
Honestly, I don’t see how people put up with all of the hassle of downloading and futzing around with music … It’s really a ‘time on your hands’ kind waist of time … Kid stuff.
As soon as you get out of the ‘gotta have it in my possession’ mentality, you’ll really be able to start enjoying music … beside, why do you have to posses it? It’s only worthless 1s and 0s. Right?