Ness Rowlah
Norwegian Wood
Not as as clear and structured as I would have liked, but I am starting to believe in 80-90% solutions.
The problems with the current digital music payment models
and why Open Source DRM might be the solution.
I am warming up to the idea of using Open Source Digital Rights Management (DRM) as a possible solution for artists getting their rightful piece of the massive music industry (prediction: 2005 will be the music industry's best year ever). While I am opposed to DRM in principle we have to find a solution for that the artists and the "consumers" are happy with.
The rest is just fluff. Managers, music magazines, record labels, radio stations, copyright agencies, award ceremonies, the BPI/RIAA --- they are all eating of the profit that belong to the performing artist or author.
I do believe that artists should be rewarded or at least make a decent living.
As a "customer" I want as much money as possible of what I pay for the music to go to the creators --- not the middlemen, the agents (think Simon Cowell).
I do not have a ready made solution --- these are just thoughts for later fine tuning.
Recording <a href="http://www.halvorsen.org/business/arts_and_entertainment/music/musicripoff">artists are not rewarded the way they should be</a>. If a band sells one million records and end up with just $38 000 for doing so something is clearly wrong. If the CEO of EMI at the same time makes $7.2 million something is rotten and deeply unfair. I do not mind people making money: but status quo is simply not satisfactory.
My generation prefers to own a physical object, the kids have no problems with just owning the MP3s (that's the theory anyway, I still see young kids with portable CD players and even walkmen). The kids are happy to pay one quid for a ring tone --- how to get them to pay 69p or 50p for a music track remains to be found out. My point is that the kids <em>are willing to pay for digital content</em>.
I have never posted complete MP3 tracks of decent quality for <q>evaluation purposes only</q>. While I do not see posting unknown tracks as a crime, I respect the rights of the rightful owner --- the artist. There is no way the lone artist can keep track of his own works on the web. I've had emails from musicians and photographers about me using their works without permission. Rightfully so.
If the artist decides to post content for free on his web site, then fair cop. If not, it's not --- the art belongs to the artist: unless he has given me permission to do so (explicit (mail, CC-license) or implisit (by posting a track for free on a website).
It boils down to this: the art belongs to the artist, it's her work. She <em>cares</em> about it. I care about the smaller artist. And I want to reward the artist. This does not mean that I have never copied music to a cassete or not downloaded <cite>The Grey Album</cite>. It simply means that I might want to support the artist in a <em>direct way</em>. At the moment I cannot do that in an easy way for digital music.
DRM as it works today belong to the big media corporations (Sony) and their technological allies (Microsoft, Apple). This ensures that the current regime will stand and the big record companies can extend their lifespan by artificial means by ensuring we get entrapped in their DRM-schemes forever. The record companies are not there to protect the artists --- just like any organisation that grows to a certain size (say 10 000 people) they are only their to ensure that power is preserved or increased. With music the power should not belong to anyone else but the creator and performer (and the end-user if we purchase a "product").
When digital music, MP3 and DRM come up the big five recording companies say they are only doing what is "right". They are protecting the artist. Maybe they are, but more than anything they are protecting themselves and jostling for position for next-generation DRM market share. If the DRM was Open Source, then the record companies would not hold that power. If DRM was Open Source we would not have the problem of trust. How can you trust companies like Microsoft and Sony?
What we need is a simple way of paying artists direct for their "product".
We need transparancy: how much goes to the artist? how much goes to the middlemen?
Todays situation is not satisfactory.
If the DRM was Open Source the "music industry" (and it is an industry)
would not win the moral argument of "we provide the DRM for protecting the artists,
if there is no DRM the artist will be poor". Well let the artist decide if he wants the old regime
to collect the monies for him. Let the DRM be Open Source. Either by using OpenSource
alternatives or by making the DRM code itself OpenSource.
Sakamoto of YMO said in 1998:
The number of middlemen needs to be reduced.
At the moment we have something like:
artist (-- manager) -- recording label -- transaction agency and watchdog (RIAA) -- shop -- credit card company -- the consumer.
Ten years down the line it could look a lot simpler: artist -- agency -- us.
The window of oppurtunity is the next three or four years - nothing has really changed since
1998.
The artist has her website and sells recordings, T-shirts, tickets from the site.
The payment transaction itself is carried out using Open Source DRM through a company
like PayPal or VISA (trusted carriers <em>are needed</em>). And that's it.
The viral nature of music and the internet means it's just a matter of time before we have another <a href="http://www.halvorsen.org/arts/music/bands_and_artists/w/wilcorporate">Wilco</a>. Wilco is now firmly back as a corporate band. Simply because the mechanisms to reward them directly are/were not in place.
Until we have a decent alternative (I do not believe in subscription models (nothing changes), a <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/">digital pool</a> might work (but I think even the artists struggle with the concept of being paid "a bit" --- hence the grimers belief in making millions (why else are there almost no free grime tracks out there) and that guy from Busted "being a fucking conservative").
As the situation is at the moment I see an Open Source'd DRM as the best alternative forward,
the lesser of all evils, the way which can make both artists and us "satisfied".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/
http://www.authena.org/
http://22surf.org/
<a href="http://www.ntticc.or.jp/pub/ic_mag/ic026/html/072_073e.html">Sakamoto interview</a>
(besided this subject: but of interest: the Sakamoto interview is from 1998. I have always
claimed that the music "industry" has been sleeping, and this interview proves it.
Ever since I first heard radio over ethernet around 1990 I believed that digital was the future. )
The problems with the current digital music payment models
and why Open Source DRM might be the solution.
I am warming up to the idea of using Open Source Digital Rights Management (DRM) as a possible solution for artists getting their rightful piece of the massive music industry (prediction: 2005 will be the music industry's best year ever). While I am opposed to DRM in principle we have to find a solution for that the artists and the "consumers" are happy with.
The rest is just fluff. Managers, music magazines, record labels, radio stations, copyright agencies, award ceremonies, the BPI/RIAA --- they are all eating of the profit that belong to the performing artist or author.
I do believe that artists should be rewarded or at least make a decent living.
As a "customer" I want as much money as possible of what I pay for the music to go to the creators --- not the middlemen, the agents (think Simon Cowell).
I do not have a ready made solution --- these are just thoughts for later fine tuning.
Recording <a href="http://www.halvorsen.org/business/arts_and_entertainment/music/musicripoff">artists are not rewarded the way they should be</a>. If a band sells one million records and end up with just $38 000 for doing so something is clearly wrong. If the CEO of EMI at the same time makes $7.2 million something is rotten and deeply unfair. I do not mind people making money: but status quo is simply not satisfactory.
My generation prefers to own a physical object, the kids have no problems with just owning the MP3s (that's the theory anyway, I still see young kids with portable CD players and even walkmen). The kids are happy to pay one quid for a ring tone --- how to get them to pay 69p or 50p for a music track remains to be found out. My point is that the kids <em>are willing to pay for digital content</em>.
I have never posted complete MP3 tracks of decent quality for <q>evaluation purposes only</q>. While I do not see posting unknown tracks as a crime, I respect the rights of the rightful owner --- the artist. There is no way the lone artist can keep track of his own works on the web. I've had emails from musicians and photographers about me using their works without permission. Rightfully so.
If the artist decides to post content for free on his web site, then fair cop. If not, it's not --- the art belongs to the artist: unless he has given me permission to do so (explicit (mail, CC-license) or implisit (by posting a track for free on a website).
It boils down to this: the art belongs to the artist, it's her work. She <em>cares</em> about it. I care about the smaller artist. And I want to reward the artist. This does not mean that I have never copied music to a cassete or not downloaded <cite>The Grey Album</cite>. It simply means that I might want to support the artist in a <em>direct way</em>. At the moment I cannot do that in an easy way for digital music.
DRM as it works today belong to the big media corporations (Sony) and their technological allies (Microsoft, Apple). This ensures that the current regime will stand and the big record companies can extend their lifespan by artificial means by ensuring we get entrapped in their DRM-schemes forever. The record companies are not there to protect the artists --- just like any organisation that grows to a certain size (say 10 000 people) they are only their to ensure that power is preserved or increased. With music the power should not belong to anyone else but the creator and performer (and the end-user if we purchase a "product").
When digital music, MP3 and DRM come up the big five recording companies say they are only doing what is "right". They are protecting the artist. Maybe they are, but more than anything they are protecting themselves and jostling for position for next-generation DRM market share. If the DRM was Open Source, then the record companies would not hold that power. If DRM was Open Source we would not have the problem of trust. How can you trust companies like Microsoft and Sony?
What we need is a simple way of paying artists direct for their "product".
We need transparancy: how much goes to the artist? how much goes to the middlemen?
Todays situation is not satisfactory.
If the DRM was Open Source the "music industry" (and it is an industry)
would not win the moral argument of "we provide the DRM for protecting the artists,
if there is no DRM the artist will be poor". Well let the artist decide if he wants the old regime
to collect the monies for him. Let the DRM be Open Source. Either by using OpenSource
alternatives or by making the DRM code itself OpenSource.
Sakamoto of YMO said in 1998:
"With all existing rights it's only natural that jobs too big for the individual are consigned to large organizations. However, when it's a job that can be effectively managed by the individual, I believe that the option should be kept open to let the individual look after themselves. Projects on the Net can be managed by an individual, and I believe that I should be allowed to decide to manage my web presence myself, while still asking them to monitor other media, and collect a handling charge for doing any task which I authorize them to do. I believe that this is the normal way to conduct business.
Sooner or later there will be organizations on the Internet capable of managing copyright issues. Because the Net does not involve only one country, there will naturally be many agencies which will appear, not bound to any one country's laws, free to compete within a global market for suppliers bearing valuable intellectual properties and sellers interested in them. It's normal market logic. Price would come down, service would go up, and the users would get the best deal that competition can provide.
...
Now, with the Internet, music can be distributed in its digital state, and the whole industry is about to be turned on its head. Music becomes the property of its producer, not his management office. It can go directly from the artist to the end user�without passing through agencies of any kind. This is pretty revolutionary. I can't help the people who deal in the material aspects of the industry when they tell me that they have a right to control my music. All I can tell them is do what they do well in the "material" world. Then, if JASRAC, or anybody else, wants to come onto the Net, and offer competitive price/service contracts, it's not up to me to deny them their right to compete.
Sooner or later there will be organizations on the Internet capable of managing copyright issues. Because the Net does not involve only one country, there will naturally be many agencies which will appear, not bound to any one country's laws, free to compete within a global market for suppliers bearing valuable intellectual properties and sellers interested in them. It's normal market logic. Price would come down, service would go up, and the users would get the best deal that competition can provide.
...
Now, with the Internet, music can be distributed in its digital state, and the whole industry is about to be turned on its head. Music becomes the property of its producer, not his management office. It can go directly from the artist to the end user�without passing through agencies of any kind. This is pretty revolutionary. I can't help the people who deal in the material aspects of the industry when they tell me that they have a right to control my music. All I can tell them is do what they do well in the "material" world. Then, if JASRAC, or anybody else, wants to come onto the Net, and offer competitive price/service contracts, it's not up to me to deny them their right to compete.
The number of middlemen needs to be reduced.
At the moment we have something like:
artist (-- manager) -- recording label -- transaction agency and watchdog (RIAA) -- shop -- credit card company -- the consumer.
Ten years down the line it could look a lot simpler: artist -- agency -- us.
The window of oppurtunity is the next three or four years - nothing has really changed since
1998.
The artist has her website and sells recordings, T-shirts, tickets from the site.
The payment transaction itself is carried out using Open Source DRM through a company
like PayPal or VISA (trusted carriers <em>are needed</em>). And that's it.
The viral nature of music and the internet means it's just a matter of time before we have another <a href="http://www.halvorsen.org/arts/music/bands_and_artists/w/wilcorporate">Wilco</a>. Wilco is now firmly back as a corporate band. Simply because the mechanisms to reward them directly are/were not in place.
Until we have a decent alternative (I do not believe in subscription models (nothing changes), a <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/">digital pool</a> might work (but I think even the artists struggle with the concept of being paid "a bit" --- hence the grimers belief in making millions (why else are there almost no free grime tracks out there) and that guy from Busted "being a fucking conservative").
As the situation is at the moment I see an Open Source'd DRM as the best alternative forward,
the lesser of all evils, the way which can make both artists and us "satisfied".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/28/fisher_promises_to_keep/
http://www.authena.org/
http://22surf.org/
<a href="http://www.ntticc.or.jp/pub/ic_mag/ic026/html/072_073e.html">Sakamoto interview</a>
(besided this subject: but of interest: the Sakamoto interview is from 1998. I have always
claimed that the music "industry" has been sleeping, and this interview proves it.
Ever since I first heard radio over ethernet around 1990 I believed that digital was the future. )
Last edited: