[sarcasm]

Let’s see how many comments this controversial post generates. So exciting.

[/sarcasm]

After burning out on he-said-she-said politics last year, I started blogging about digital technology, digital music technology, to be exact. I’m not a music or tech blogger, but it was an oddly satisfying distraction. A reporter quoted from one of my tech posts, and I picked up a few readers genuinely interested in the new stuff.

But I returned to political blogging because…hmmm.

Anyway, I blogged about the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) case against a man who illegally shared music files, Atlantic Recording Corporation v. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell. The RIAA is a trade organization that represents major record labels. For those who care about the outcome of the case, here’s an update:

The RIAA won, sort of. (Source)

Then: Jeffrey Howell was accused of copyright infringement for sharing files over a peer-to-peer file sharing network called Kazaa. After various claims were made back and forth, the judge sided with Howell. Making files available for illegal downloading didn’t constitute distribution, he said; therefore, the recording company had not proved that Howell infringed copyright, or some such.

Now: Last week, the judge ruled that Howell “willfully and intentionally destroyed evidence” after he learned the RIAA was suing him. He was fined $40,500.

As you may recall, the RIAA is under the gun for going after individuals, especially college students, for downloading music files without paying. Colleges and universities are rebelling against the RIAA for “cutting into their faculty’s work day” by requiring them to look for and turn in students illegally downloading files. (Source)

It’s a tough situation. Artists should be paid for their work, but the music industry model is broken. Suing fans is bad form.

[sarcasm]

I know this is controversial stuff, so please be civil in the comment section!

[/sarcasm]

Previous posts:

• RIAA’s ‘Make Available’ Claim Smacked Down Again
• RIAA and the ‘Make Available’ Claim
• Stop, Thief! Before You Rip That CD…

Update: A few months ago, I mentioned a song called “Beautiful Life” by Annie Barker. It’s beautiful. I bought it on iTunes even before it finished playing on a music podcast I listen to. Want to hear it? Listen to the full track on my MySpace page music player. I asked her to add it to her music player so I could upload it to mine and share it with you. I hope other artists listen and respond to their fans!
————————————————————————————————————–

In an ideal world, bands could focus solely on the craft of creating, composing, and recording music while earning a decent living, almost passively, through the sale of that recorded music. Making a lot of money performing that same music would be—pardon the tired cliché—icing on the cake.

But unless you’re signed to a label with star-making machinery churning in the background for you, that ideal world is just that. Today, artists have to do a lot more than sell recorded music to support themselves.

By now we know all about the ground-shifting little MP3 file. Digital downloading, legal or otherwise, has cut deeply into the sale of physical media like CDs. Even if users choose to pay for digital music, they have the option of buying only one or two songs from an album. An entire album: $12. Two songs: $2. Somebody’s earning less money, wouldn’t you say?

I’ve heard and read enough “music in the digital age” stuff that I can say this with confidence: artists must find other ways to make money besides selling recorded music if they want to earn a “full time” income. This month’s Rolling Stone magazine has a story about that very issue: Rock’s New Economy: Making Money When CDs Don’t Sell.

Among the ways artists are making money in the digital age:

• Licensing music for movies, TV shows, commercials, and video games – “While up-and-coming bands may find most of their licensing offers in the $2,500 range, established bands can make much more: from $30,000 at the high end for TV shows to $100,000 for movies and $250,000 for commercials.”

When artists own all rights to their music, they can do with it whatever they want. At the risk of being labeled a sell-out, they can seek and obtain lucrative licensing deals.

• Touring – Grow the fanbase, tour like crazy, and put on a good show.
• Selling merchandise online and offline – “[T]he White Stripes have focused on touring and coming up with creative merch: The band sells limited-edition CD singles on the road, as well as unique posters created for each show.”

Besides selling CDs, flash drives loaded with music, T-shirts, jewelry, and other products, bands can generate income online and offline creating and offering things fans can’t get anywhere else, such as special posters and recordings of live concerts.

Bottom line: You can practice your craft and maintain “artist integrity” by eschewing marketing, public relations, and income-generating licensing deals, or you can be a full-time musician building your brand, attracting more fans, and getting paid to do what you love. And still maintain your artistic integrity!

Related posts:

• David Byrne On Digital Age Music Distribution
• Fan Connection = Big Cash
• Fan Marketing

Back on the east coast. It’s raining.

Looking for more evidence of digital music downloading’s impact on CD sales? Remember 12-CDs-for-a-penny music clubs? At least one is closing down. BMG Music Service announced that it would close shop by 2010. CDs sales are down, and DVDs aren’t selling well, either. From the article:

One of the problems music continuity clubs face is the growing popularity of MP3 players, which give consumers access to music whenever they want it.

“Consumers want control of the process instead of the other way around, like it used to be,” Benjamin says. As a result, “continuity is in the process of reinvention” as clubs try to figure out how to give members more control. She points to HCI’s Silkies hosiery club, which now allows members to decide how often they want shipments as an example.

The growth of digital music is behind Bertelsmann’s decision to shut down the BMG Music Service club, company representatives said during its annual analyst meeting in March. The company’s US CD business fell in line with market declines in physical music sales, which dropped off by more than 20% in 2007, according to Bertelsmann. The US DVD club also didn’t perform well, and Bertelsmann is considering shutting it down, too. Book clubs, however, are relatively stable.

I can’t articulate clearly why I like reading about things like this. I’ll try. Businesses have always depended on the habits and desires of consumers. But the proliferation and popularity of the digital music file (along with file sharing services) caught the music industry unawares. I’m fascinated that the majors are scrambling to figure out what’s going on and how to capitalize on it. They slept too long. They woke up, and the party was over.

Music streaming/sharing services and music blogs/social networking sites have sprung up to fill consumer demand. In addition to covering major music news, these sites cover independent music news. They give indie bands the kind of publicity they can’t get from mainstream media.

Unfortunately, major labels are “investing” in these services to get a piece of the action. The people running these sites say they’ll remain independent and credible, despite the fact that major labels have dropped millions into their laps. OK.

Social networking site Buzznet acquired the blogs Idolater and Stereogum and news site Absolute Punk. Universal Music Group (UMG), one of the “big four” record labels, gave Buzznet $25 million. Quite a few mainstream, high-profile artists (read: moneymakers) are signed with UMG. So Stereogum, now part of Buzznet, will continue to cover independent and unsigned artists at the same rate as before? Not a chance.

But…these acquisitions leave room for other enterprising folks or just plain old music fans to start their own music web sites and blogs to fill the inevitable void left by sites that sold out, so to speak.

I’m just a bystander for now, observing, learning, and commenting. What I have to offer in the way of something substantive remains to be seen.

3:19 p.m. PT: Whenever I feel like blogging (like today), I have a ton of other stuff to do (like today). When I have free time to blog, I don’t feel like blogging. For instance, I feel like blogging some more, but I have to finish a book review (due tomorrow), do some heavy lifting on my book proposal, and I just finished a telephone interview with Essence magazine. I don’t think I can mention what the story’s about yet, and I’m not certain my quotes will make the cut. I’ll let you know!

Anyway, let’s talk about bands and fans.

I like this guy, Bob Lefsetz. He’s somewhat famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) in the music industry commentary/music blogosphere. Lefsetz is a lawyer, I think, who used to be in the music industry. He turned his one-time subscription-based, hard-copy newsletter into an electronic one, which is also published as blog entries. Or something like that.

Back in the day, bands played hard and hoped for a major label to come a-knockin’, with big checks and powerful publicity machines in hand. Radio and print media (and later, MTV) were the pathways to stardom. These days, the digital age has diffused radio and print media’s influence but has driven down the costs of recording and distributing.

What bands should strive for now — in my non-musician, non-music industry insider, layman’s lightly researched opinion — is to make a good living writing, playing, recording, touring, and selling merchandise. I know for a fact bands that receive no radio airplay, no major media coverage (print or otherwise), and no hype whatsoever can and do sell out venues and turn good profits touring and selling stuff.

The golden key to all of this is the fans. Not an indistinguishable mass of faces at concerts, but real people who pay fan club membership fees for exclusive access, buy everything you have to sell, and follow you all around the country while you’re touring. They join street teams and promote and publicize you, and they sing your praises to anyone who’ll listen. It’s about empowering the fans.

But you must be proactive. Lefsetz says:

***
“A Website is no longer just a repository of information, it’s the front door to your fan club. You may be a musician, but second to that, you’re running a club. You have to spread the word on your music, you have to create demand for your tour. This is especially true for so called ‘heritage’ artists.

“Elton John laments that he can’t sell a record, that no one’s interested in his new music. That’s not true. He’s just going about marketing his music in the old way…Elton needs to find a track, and give it away for free on his site, for an e-mail address. Sure, said track can ultimately be acquired for free via P2P, but the track isn’t the only thing the fan gets…He gets $5 off a concert ticket. Discount merchandise. Hell, you’re selling direct, the profit margin is huge already! You’ve got your own store, developing your own fan base.
…
“I’m not saying you have to give up the old ways completely. There’s nothing wrong with radio play or record reviews…they just have less impact than ever before…people don’t even write songs about the radio anymore.

“How can you get your fans to feel a connection with you? How can you create a bond? How can you create a base that will always deliver? This is the Marillion model. Getting the fans to pay for the record. Other acts, squeezed out of the system, are attempting the same thing. But, the next wave will be giant artists. The ones who fill arenas and sheds playing their old hits. These acts have to hunker down. They may still think they’re stars, but really, stars today are Heidi and Spencer, and they’re working it!

“Maybe the musician can’t do it himself. Maybe he needs a team. But do not focus on radio and print to help you along. The public, your fans, don’t have time to wade through the clutter. They’ve got to hear from you directly. They’ve got to have a direct investment in your future. They’ve got to feel like they’re INVOLVED!”
***

I like it.

Update: Indie music band helper/promoter dude Bob Baker is making an offer:

“Will you be in the Los Angeles, CA, area on Sunday, June 1?…I’m looking for 15 to 20 people who want to work directly with me to kick their music publicity into high gear. If you attend this intimate workshop — the first I’ve ever done exactly like this — I will help you craft a customized plan to reach more editors, music journalists, bloggers and podcasters.”

I’ll be back in DC on June 1, and I’m not an indie musician (although I played clarinet in junior and senior high), so I guess I can’t go.

Related posts:

• Blogging Bands Connect with Fans
• The Masses Remake Music Industry
• The Passion of 1,000 True Fans

Tuesday, May 6 @ 6:42 a.m. PT: Thanks for the birthday wishes, everyone!

I met country singer Rissi Palmer last Friday at the Stagecoach Festival. The photo of us isn’t the best quality, but there it is. As people I meet often tell me about my photos, Rissi’s photos don’t do her justice. She’s downright radiant. I reviewed the show for Blog Critics. I’ll link when it’s up.

Later…Check out the review.

—————————————————————————————————-

5:38 p.m. PT: Just to see if I have the discipline, I’m going completely offline Friday. No e-mail, no Twitter, no Facebook, no MySpace, no blogs, no news sites. (And no Treo-surfing, either.) Nada. If you e-mailed me this week, I’ll reply next week.

The work week is done, and I’m Stagecoach Festival-bound. Yee-haw! And I’ll be 41 on Monday, May 5. Woo-hoo! I think I’ll take that day off, too.

“‘Scuse me, while I kiss this guy!”

But before I go, a word about independent music blogs and news sites selling out to The Man.

You like money, right? Who doesn’t? Money makes the world go ’round, as they say. Money’s quite useful for paying bills, obtaining clothes and shoes, food, a new computer, a birthday cake and 41 candles, digital music, etc.

While the RIAA sues music fans and lobbies Congress for tougher copyright infringement laws (to the tune of $2.1 million last year), at least one major label is climbing into bed with the revolutionaries. Music blog and social networking site Buzznet acquired music blogs Idolator (formerly Gawker Media property) and Stereogum. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. But Buzznet also received $25 million from Universal Music Group (UMG) as an “investment.” UMG is one of the notorious Big Four major record labels.

Desperate to gain a foothold in the aftermath of a digital seismic shift that’s shaken the music industry’s foundation, UMG is licensing its catalog for streaming music and videos and also will provide “editorial content” from artists. In other words, UMG’s artists/clients will guest blog at Buzznet. Smell a potential conflict of interest?

Listening Post blogger Eliot Van Buskirk does. UMG’s investment and content could taint Buzznet’s independence, or at least its perceived independence. Will users rebel against UMG’s artists, embrace them, or fall somewhere in between? And aren’t music blogs’ independence part of their allure? They are havens for independent musicians, advocates of the obscure. What kind of blog-press will they get once major record labels buy up popular music blogs? Accepting ads for revenue is one thing; accepting multiple millions from a major record label is quite another.

This morning I read that the corporation Viacom may have bought a music blog post aggregator called Hype Machine, which I browse occasionally, for $10 million. (Source) Viacom, as you may know, is a “media conglomerate” that owns MTV, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, TV Land, Nickelodeon – in other words, everything. Will Hype Machine become a tool of the corporation and promote Viacom’s properties at the expense of what it does best: help people discover music?

Who among us would have the will to resist a deep-pocketed mogul waving money in our faces? Mama does need a new pair of shoes.

The Man just can’t keep his hands off the latest, hot new (and profitable) thing, can he?

Bruce Houghton of Hypebot asks, Will Indies Be Left Out Of Music 2.0?

Related posts:

• Warner Music Sues to Squash The Search
• RIAA’s “Make Available” Claim Smacked Down Again
• Glimpses of God: Rissi Palmer

9:15 a.m. PT: I’ve blogged about a case called Atlantic Recording Corporation v. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell a few times, and I wanted to give you an update.

You may recall that the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) sued a couple for transferring copyrighted digital music files to a peer-to-peer network (P2P) called Kazaa.

According to an earlier RIAA motion for summary judgment, Jeffrey Howell admitted to loading Kazaa file-sharing software onto his computer and placing the files at issue into the folder. The court granted the motion for summary judgment. (A summary judgment means that a court makes a judgment in a case without a full trial.)

Howell later said he admitted no such thing. In his motion to reconsider, he admitted creating a Kazaa account, installing Kazaa software, and authorizing “certain types of files to be shared through KaZaA.” But he denied placing copyrighted files into the shared folder or authorizing sharing those files. He claims that his computer placed the files into the Kazaa folder.

It wasn’t me. It was my computer! Sounds strange (as a defense), but it makes a difference legally.

The RIAA filed another motion for summary judgment. On Monday, a federal court denied it on two grounds. Download the 17-page order in PDF.

As I mentioned before, the RIAA wants to nab people on a “make available” claim. If a user has placed copyrighted files in a P2P folder, the files have been made available for distribution. Regardless of whether the user intends to distribute the files or actually distributes the files, he has infringed copyright and should be held liable.

Last month, the court in Elektra v. Barker rejected the make available claim, as did the court in the present case. After some discussion about what constitutes “distribution” under the Copyright Act and how courts have interpreted the term, the court said that infringement of a copyright holder’s distribution right requires actual dissemination of the work. Making a copy available doesn’t constitute distribution.

The court denied the motion because there is a “disputed issue of fact” whether Howell was responsible for the file sharing. As I noted earlier, he said that his computer placed the files in the shared folder. This was the court’s first ground for denying the motion.

The court also discussed primary and secondary copyright infringement. If someone places a file in a P2P folder and another copies it, the one who placed it in the shared folder is potentially liable as a secondary infringer. From the motion:

The courts and commentators have recognized that making a copyrighted work and the facilities to copy it available to another implicates contributory, not direct, liability for copyright infringement.

If the owner of a shared folder gives the public access to a file and the means to make an unauthorized copy, the owner is not the primary infringer but potentially a secondary infringer.

The RIAA’s motion for summary judgment is based on a direct or primary liability theory, and there is insufficient evidence to “determine conclusively whether the owner of the shared folder distributes an unauthorized copy (direct violation of the distribution right), or simply provides a third-party with access and resources to make a copy on their own (contributory violation of the reproduction right).” This is the second ground on which the motion for summary judgment was denied.

The court added that in order to hold Howell even contributorily liable, the RIAA has to prove a third party actually obtained an unauthorized copy of the file. Howell can’t be secondarily liable unless the RIAA proves the existence of a “direct and primary” infringer. Back to the drawing board!

The court concluded (emphasis added):

The court is not unsympathetic to the difficulty that Internet file-sharing systems pose to owners of registered copyrights. Even so, it is not the position of this court to respond to new technological innovations by expanding the protections received by copyright holders beyond those found in the Copyright Act.

Indeed. It’s up to the legislature (Congress, in this case), the branch of government that writes laws, to expand the Copyright Act for “new technological innovations.” (And the laws should be updated for the digital age.) The judiciary branch merely interprets those laws.

Check Google News for more about the case.

Other bloggers:

• Recording Industry vs. The People
• Wired’s Listening Post
• CNet’s News Blog

Previous posts:

• RIAA and the “Make Available” Claim
• RIAA Brief: Washington Post Gets It Wrong
• Stop, Thief! Before You Rip That CD…

***Scroll down for updates***

Since I started blogging about digital music late last year, I’ve heard from readers who say they don’t listen to popular music but find the whole illegal downloading and file sharing debate interesting.

Others have suggested artists and bands I might like, and some said they’ve become fans of artists I blogged about. Some of you have turned me on to new artists and new sounds. I may buy a track or two or three. I rarely buy albums. Rarer still will I buy a physical CD. In fact, I may never buy another CD, unless a favorite band decides to release a new album on CD only.

The point is that in a small way, readers and I have been engaged in “digital discovery.”

Musically

In the digital age, it’s both easy and difficult to find new bands and artists. Let’s take file sharing web sites out of the equation for a moment. If someone suggests an artist or band, and you want to hear the music, all you’d need to do (most of the time) is surf to the artist’s or band’s site and listen to a song. Hopefully, they’ll have at least two songs available for full streaming. If not, the artist or band probably has a MySpace page, where you can listen to full versions of a few songs. In this way, the Internet has made music discovery easy.

Back in the day, people bought music based on what they heard on the radio. If bands (esp. independent) can’t get radio airplay, how do they get their music out there for discovery? They need to promote like crazy, online and offline, and allow users to listen to full versions of their songs.

On the other hand, there are “tens of millions” of music tracks out there. People who create and promote this music are competing with each other for our attention, which is already stretched to capacity. With scarce attention and a seemingly limitless supply of stuff out there (again, thanks to the Internet), finding new artists that we might like is difficult.

Media consultant David Jennings, author of Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll: How Digital Discovery Works and What it Means for Consumers, Creators and Culture, wrote about how music services are trying to make digital discovery easier and more productive. Music streaming sites like Pandora, Last.FM, and iMeem allow users to listen to full tracks. The services and their users make recommendations based on your listening habits. Review sites like eMusic and All Media Guide help users navigate a vast sea of stuff.

But even these aren’t enough.

Personally

Of course, there are more important things going on in the world than “digital discovery,” but I’m on a quest to help people interested in finding new music and reading about tech issues in the context of music digitally discover me.

My blog has changed focus, and there’s a readership mismatch. How do I help readers trying to find digital music info find me? Ah, the age-old question for any blogger! One way is to become fully immersed in all things digital tech, blog in earnest about digital music, and write related articles for print and online publications. (Ah, the age-old quest of any freelance writer!)

(Side note: My latest aspirations are to land cover stories in Christianity Today and Wired magazines and sell, for six figures, a book proposal about…still hammering out the topic. Ha! Who do I think I am?)

Because I’ve blogged about politics for so long, I still feel the residual effects. I get e-mails from TV news show and others producers asking me to talk about the political race in the context of race (can’t stomach it anymore). Echoing country singer Rissi Palmer, who turned down a potentially star-making deal offered by R&B producers Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis because they wanted to tone down the twang, “[T]his could be the dumbest thing I’ve ever done before in my life, but I just don’t feel right about it.”

People still send links to political stories and posts, hoping I’ll take the bait and offer a rant or a reasoned critique. Even as I write, readers are landing on and bloggers are linking to old posts and analyzing them as if they were fresh.

My political past is a part of me, and it follows me everywhere. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I just want to do something else, talk about something else, blog about something else.

Alas, I’m attending a rather high-profile political event tonight, having accepted a gracious invitation from a blogging friend. Couldn’t turn it down. Who knows what will happen? Perhaps I’ll meet a jaded former political blogger or two who showed up hoping to find fellow former political bloggers. Perhaps we’ll have a long conversation about our growing mutual interest in something other than politics.

One great thing about doing the unexpected is the chance to gain fresh perspective. Discovering new things about yourself and the world, digitally or otherwise, can be habit-forming.

Update (11:42 p.m.): I’m glad I didn’t shun this political event. Tonight I met Tony Snow, President Bush’s former press secretary. Earlier today I wrote that perhaps I’d meet jaded former political bloggers who wanted to do something else. Well, Tony’s not a blogger, and he’s not giving up political commentary. After I told him I stopped blogging about politics, but will always blog about my faith, he said he wanted to write more about his faith.

And he plays in a band.

Rest easy this weekend, readers.

I’m geeking out over this news.

Have you heard? Flickr users with Pro accounts ($25 a year) can now upload videos along with photos (90-second limit). I’ve got at least 50 short clips from family gatherings and other events going back to 2005. They were on two hard drives, waiting patiently for me to convert them to an acceptable format and upload them to YouTube. Sometimes, procrastination is worth the effort.

With Flickr, you don’t have to convert the videos. Just upload from a digital camera as is. Solid.

My brother snapped that photo of me last month as I prepared to do a cheerleader jump. (I was a cheerleader eons ago in 8th and 9th grades.) He was laughing at me, naturally. We were on a soccer field, there was a nice breeze blowing, and I was feeling kind of, well, youthful. I did a cartwheel, too. It wasn’t half bad for an almost 41-year-old who hasn’t done a cartwheel since…man, where has the time gone?

Head over to Flickr and start uploading!

So I’m reading a post about another Radiohead-related “innovative” move, a social networking space called Waste Central.

I don’t know if Radiohead’s officially endorsed the site, but fans are creating profiles and blogs, uploading photos, music, and videos, signing up for special e-mail addresses, inviting friends, and communicating with other members on W.A.S.T.E. (which, by the way, is U.G.L.Y.).

So I follow a link to Ning, the platform on which W.A.S.T.E. was created, and I think, “Good grief! As if Facebook and MySpace didn’t take up enough time and energy, here’s yet another site that walls up users inside closed networks. Ning gives users the tools to create their own social networks. Walled gardens beget walled gardens.”

Just for fun, I performed a few faith-related searches on Ning and found social networking sites like Christians of America, Christian Music, and Christian Fiction. Revealing…

(Side note: Ning has been around since 2004, and people have been writing and talking about it just as long. I’m late as usual, but Radiohead’s newly announced W.A.S.T.E. space is the news peg I need to blog about it. You’ll rarely read “breaking news” here at LBC, as I’m sure you already know. I offer long-winded opinion and “analysis” on what’s been reported elsewhere.)

Here’s my spin. I like putting all my proverbial eggs in one basket. This blog is Centralized Me. I use Facebook and MySpace to promote my blogging and writing. MySpace is where I reach out to bands (and they reach out to me), drop hints for backstage passes, and cross-post music-related blog entries. Not to denigrate bloggers who’re really into social networking sites, but I’d rather devote time and energy to LBC – my blog and my brand.

I understand the appeal of certain social networking sites. They’re private (except to advertisers?). Google doesn’t index pages on these sites. For now. These walled digital gardens serve as sanctuaries, places to “socialize” with like-minded people, share updates on what they’re doing at any given moment (eating, reading, about to take a nap – it’s wild), and upload photos that won’t end up in Google search results.

There’s something that bugs me about social networks I can’t quite put my finger on. “Closed networks” comes close, but it’s more than that. I’ll think about it and get back to you.

I don’t listen to rap. I don’t know anything about rapper/producer Jay-Z’s music. Even if my life depended on it, I couldn’t tell you a thing other than “rapper.” But his deal, announced yesterday, is noteworthy.

Many Millions

Jay-Z dumped his record label, Def Jam, and cast his lot with Live Nation, a concert promotion company that also handles recording, publishing, touring, merchandising, and web sites for artists. Over 10 years, he’ll rake in $150 million. (Source)

Jay-Z will get $25 million in advance, $5 million a year in “seed money” for his label, $10 million for every album over the next 10 years, and “significantly more funds available for future acquisitions and expansion.” An obscene amount of money in any case, but if people are paying to see and hear him…

Last year, Madonna left Warner Music and signed a 10-year, $120 million deal with Live Nation. U2 cut a 12-year deal for touring, promotion, and web site only. The band is still signed with Universal Music.

Also see Live Nation rocks the music industry.

So What?

Back in the day, record labels got paid only when music sold. Artists typically kept whatever they made touring and selling merchandise. Thanks to falling CD sales, illegal downloading, etc., labels aren’t making as much money.

That’s why the multiple rights deal, also known as the “360 deal,” is so attractive to labels. They still make money when music sells, but they get a cut of touring and merchandising profits. Even if music sales are slow, labels with 360 deals earn a profit from everything else.

For the most part, touring is where the money is, and Live Nation is a more profitable business model for the digital age.

Whether or not you dig my music blogging or care about any of this, the trend is worth watching if only for sociological purposes. The music industry is changing right before our eyes, and we’ve got front row seats. I find it fascinating that “we the people” have caused such upheaval, what with our affinity for free music tracks, available for the taking. We’re rebelling against overpriced CDs and opting to get our music at the lowest price possible (including for free) and in a medium that’s convenient for us.

Clear away all the dust and debris of the music industry explosion, and you’ll find the digital music file, innocently lying at the bottom of the ground-zero pile.

Related:

• David Byrne On Digital Age Music Distribution – brief discussion of various deals
• How can I sell my music online?: “[I]t has always struck me as odd that a group of people who spend more time training for their career than most brain surgeons, and who spend every waking hour of their day creating value from thin air believe that the little slice of time they spend in a darkened room fashioning idealised versions of their songs and turning them into things for sale is the only way through which they can earn a living.”
• ABC News: Record Labels Struggle to Stay Relevant

Do a Google search on any band or individual artist. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

The top three search results turned out to be an official web site, a Wikipedia page, and a MySpace page, right?

If you want to know more about a band or individual artist — where they’re from, how long they’ve been together, discographies, biographies of each member, etc. — Wikipedia usually is the better choice. Unlike MySpace pages, Wikipedia is mostly text. It’s easier on the eyes than crowded, bulky MySpace pages. The downside/upside of Wikipedia is that anyone – fan or foe, amateur or pro – can edit it.

According to a new study, people searching for information on artists choose to view Wikipedia pages over MySpace pages two to one. An excerpt of the story:

“The interest that people had to go to MySpace to find out more about their favorite band is waning in favor of going to Wikipedia,” Yahoo head of programming and label relations John Lenac says. “In the last six months, it’s surpassed it.”

Yet when compared with the number of artist profiles on MySpace, Wikipedia entries are noticeably fewer. MySpace claims 3 million artist profiles. Wikipedia does not have an exact count of artist entries, but estimates that it’s in the “tens of thousands,” according to Wikipedia Foundation head of communications Jay Walsh.
…
What’s more, because of Wikipedia’s low profile relative to the MySpace hype machine, many artists and their managers remain ignorant of the resources available to them.

“There’s been many people I’ve talked to that didn’t even know they could upload a Wikipedia page,” Lenac says. “There’s been some managers that didn’t even know what it was.”

Having a page on MySpace is still important for musicians, but love it or hate it, you can’t ignore Wikipedia. It’s here to stay. It comes up high in search engine results, so anyone who’s got an entry listed should pay attention to the page’s content. Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone (though editors supposedly keep a close watch), even someone who has no idea what he’s talking about, it’s important to check pages now and then for accuracy, signs of bias, etc.

Takeaway for bands and individual artists: If you have a Wikipedia page, don’t ignore it. Check it periodically. If you don’t have one, don’t create one yourself. Eventually, a fan will do it for you.

The last time I blogged about the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), I called out Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher for neglecting to read a legal brief that was the subject of one of his stories. (See Washington Post Gets It Wrong)

According to Fisher, the RIAA contended in a brief filed in Atlantic Recording Corporation v. Pamela and Jeffrey Howell that copying your own CD to your computer hard drive was illegal. There is some debate whether the RIAA holds this view, but it did not make this assertion in the brief. While it may seem like a minor point, people reading Fisher’s story — and relying on his reporting — were bound to get the wrong impression about the issue before the court.

The point wasn’t so much that Fisher didn’t read the brief before writing the story. It’s that he attributed statements to the document that weren’t in the document. The Post eventually issued a correction. Too bad fun things like that don’t happen every day.

RIAA Update

The RIAA, around since 1952, is fond of filing lawsuits against regular old private citizens for what it considers illegal downloading.

The main issue comes down to this: Does placing copyrighted files in a shared peer-to-peer (P2P) network folder on a computer constitute a violation of the Copyright Act, whether or not the user intends to share or actually shares the files with others?

The RIAA says YES, it does constitute a violation. By merely placing copyrighted files in a P2P folder, the user has made the files available for distribution.

The RIAA alleged in Howell that placing files in a shared P2P folder made the files “available” for distribution, in violation of copyright. In Elektra v. Barker (25-page PDF), the RIAA alleged that Tenise Barker (misspelled as “Denise” in the opinion) infringed copyright by distributing and/or making available for distribution 611 music files (!) in a shared Kazaa folder. Barker filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied on Monday. (Billboard)

Although the court did not rule in Barker’s favor, it said it was not prepared to rule that making music files available to others was copyright infringement. The court denied Barker’s motion to dismiss, because the RIAA “adequately alleged that, in addition to making Plaintiffs’ works available, Defendant distributed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Thus, dismissal is not appropriate at this stage.” (emphasis added)

In other words, the RIAA adequately alleged that Barker actually distributed (or transferred) the files and not merely made them available for distribution. However, the court provided a blueprint for how to allege copyright infringement under a “make available” claim, citing an argument made by the Motion Picture Association of America. The RIAA has 30 days to amend the complaint.

What Say I?

“The new tech boom’s fighting the RIAA/Got the kids downloading and refusing to pay/Cause they don’t like the music that the radio plays” – Hanson, “Take Our Chances”

I’m torn. On the one hand, I understand why recording artists need to be protected by groups like the RIAA. It’s heartbreaking when someone steals your work. Many artists grant people a license to use their work under certain conditions, and under Fair Use, people can reproduce copyrighted works, with certain limitations.

On the other hand, copyright can impede the free flow of information. This is one reason Larry Lessig founded Creative Commons, which helps creators grant good-faith, customized licenses for use of the work. Many bloggers license their work under Creative Commons.

Some recording artists don’t mind when fans share their music. Others even encourage fans to download and share music without paying for it and to record and share recordings of live shows. But many others do mind. Creators have a right to be compensated for use of their creation. It’s up to them whether they want to give it away.

On the third hand, artists and the RIAA are fighting a losing battle. People will not stop downloading and sharing music. They’ll just find a more covert way to do it. Illegal downloading is here to stay. Artists should adapt to digital technology by:

• Encouraging fans to buy music in exchange for something more.

Build interactive Web 2.0-style web sites and ask fans to contribute comments and ideas. Develop strong and interactive fan clubs and give fans an incentive to join street teams and buy merchandise and attend multiple shows in one tour. And tour a lot.

• Adopting a Creative Commons approach to music and grant some rights to the public while retaining others.

This approach probably is better for independent artists. The RIAA is a whole other story. It represents record companies, not artists per se. I don’t believe the RIAA cares much about artists, just the money-ed, record label bottom line. (I mean, fining people $200,000+ for sharing music? It’s ridiculous.) You don’t need to charge or sue users for every single music file download. Encourage people to share music. Sharing means exposure, and exposure produces more fans (and haters who also give you free publicity).

• Retaining publishing rights, so you’ll get paid whenever “someone covers, samples, or licenses your song for a movie or commercial.” Veteran rocker David Byrne calls this an artist’s pension. (Source)

Law, Order, and Respect

I like knowing that federal law protects what I create on this blog and elsewhere, and the federal Constitution gives me the right to express it. The law and the Constitution give you and other bloggers, writers, musicians, painters, etc., these same rights.

Remember that next time you infringe on someone’s copyright, whatever your excuse. (That goes for you, too, self.)

Update: Others writing/blogging:

• News.com: Judge to RIAA: You can’t sue over songs ‘made available’ via P2P
• Audioholics: Judge to RIAA: You Have Burden of Proof
• Recording Industry vs. The People (blogger and lawyer Ray Beckerman represents Tenise Barker, mentioned above)

I found a link to an old story in the New York Times magazine called “Sex, Drugs and Updating Your Blog.” It was published last year, but in web time, that’s old.

The gist of the well-written and appealing story is this: new and/or struggling musicians can make a decent living without record labels and big marketing machines if they harness the power of the web by starting blogs, running discussion boards, and interacting with fans, who want to feel connected.

Musicmakers and Blogupdaters

Heavily featured in the piece is a musician named Jonathan Coulton, who quit the 9 to 5 to write and perform music. He posts a new tune on his blog every week. Coulton’s earning a decent income selling his music online, and he’s managed to build quite a fan community.

One fan creates illustrations (for free) for each of his songs. Other fans make videos for his songs and post them on YouTube, which promotes his music and creates even more fans. Yet another fan built a web site to archive fan-made videos.

Coulton makes (and saves) money when traveling by doing what I call “target touring.” He polls readers to find where they live and schedules a concert if there are more than 100 fans in a given area. That way, he knows a show will sell well, and he endears himself to fans even more by hitting smaller towns where other acts rarely tread.

Coulton says he makes between $3,000 to $5,000 a month selling his music, and a few thousand people visit his blog every day. What’s the “secret” behind his success? Connecting with fans. His fan devotion quotient runs high because he spends up to six hours a day responding to blog comments and e-mail.

“‘People always think that when you’re a musician you’re sitting around strumming your guitar, and that’s your job,’ he said. ‘But this’ — he clicked his keyboard theatrically — ‘this is my job.’”

Interacting with fans and readers is a sometimes tedious, oftentimes joyful task, but it’s necessary for new and struggling artists of any kind in the digital age. For those who want to make money, at any rate.

Long Tale About the Long Tail

The article is almost 5,000 words and contains what I consider fascinating information on how bands like The Hold Steady became successful posting music and videos online and through online word-of-mouth. The band has generated a legion of fans who volunteer their services, making concert posters and helping organize other fans.

(Side note: If you’ve never heard of The Hold Steady, it doesn’t matter. Thousands have, and that’s more than enough to garner a band some measure of success.)

Bands who manage to connect with fans in a sincere way have, in essence, created a promotion department. The “employees” don’t want money; they want to be part of the band’s world, to feel connected. I know I do.

An independent band called OK Go ended up finding mainstream success and winning a Grammy for best video after they posted a low budget, homemade video of the band dancing on treadmills to one of their songs. (Sounds weird to me, but I’m not part of their demographic.) Naturally, the video went viral, and the rest is history. Yes, musicians can survive and even thrive in the long tail, if they persist. And a little creativity and originality doesn’t hurt.

Unshrouded and Unguarded

Bands without a label or on independent labels trying to make it can’t afford not to interact with fans. And the ground is fresh for mining! Where else but online can you create an instant connection to thousands of people, most of whom only want to adore you and listen to your music?

But there’s a trade-off. The Hold Steady’s lead singer Tad Kubler waxes nostalgic about days when rock stars were mysterious. Fans knew little about their day-to-day lives. The mystery was part of the draw, because you could only imagine what their lives were like.

The era of the elusive hermit-like rocker is over, unless the rocker is already signed to a major label or very successful independent label with a powerful marketing machine.

What about bands who like to party hard with fans? Ah, the good old days! In the digital age, drunk and rowdy musicians can and do end up being talked about on blogs. With photos and videos! As the article notes, journalists aren’t the only people musicians have to watch out for these days. As a result, some musicians may be more guarded when interacting publicly with fans.

Elusive or otherwise, bands should add discussion boards to their main web sites, at the very least. Blogs are better; however, blogs are like open confessionals, and there’s the temptation (compulsion?) of getting too personal with strangers (I face it, too). Kubler says he gets around the too-much-information problem by keeping his home life offline.

Here’s another problem: If you’re any good, you will attract the attention of nuts and stalkers (a bigger concern for bands who can’t afford to hire security people) and other cowards.

I have so much more to say about this, but the post would be five blog pages long. Note to self: Must turn these ideas into salable articles…get paid and have fun writing about bands and fans.

Once again, I urge you to read the entire article.

(Top photo credit: Jennifer Karady for The New York Times)

Related post:

• The Masses Remake Music Industry

For 17 years, Jeff Price owned an independent label called spinART Records. He managed to do great things, but that was before the so-called digital revolution. In 2004, Price realized the label was no longer sustainable.

“The advent and general adoption of the Internet, digital media and hardware took control of the global music industry away from the record labels and media outlets and handed it to the masses,” he writes. (Source)

Rather than cursing the masses and resisting changes brought on by the Internet, Price decided to adapt. He wanted to stay in the music business but needed to make money. “[W]hat could I do to remain in the music industry under a model that would not rely on selling music (the exploitation model),” he asked himself. “And thus the idea for a new model was born, turn distribution into a service for a simple up front, one time flat fee.”

Digital Label

Price created a service called TuneCore, which allows artists to upload songs and create albums. TuneCore places these albums in online music stores, and artists keep all the profits and all their rights. And they can cancel their accounts at any time. The catch? Well, if you want to call it that, TuneCore charges 99 cents a track, 99 cents a store per track, and $19.98 a year per album for storage and maintenance. Not a bad deal.

What’s the opposite of digital label? Analog label? That doesn’t sound right. But you get the idea. Under the new model, Price makes money storing music instead of selling it. He makes no judgment about whether a band stinks or is good enough to sign. He just stores and maintains the uploads. Artists with enough talent and perseverance can control their own careers, and make music and money in the process.

Price alludes to the long tail theory posited by Wired editor Chris Anderson. In the old days, the only feasible way to sell products to the masses was to get products placed on store shelves (or through mail order), which were often limited to only those items that sold well. The Internet has created virtual shelf space, and anybody can set up online stores to sell products and services. Long tail virtual shelf space is financially do-able even if you move only a few units a year. The Internet also has brought down the cost of marketing and promoting those products and services.

Artists are no longer slaves to major record labels, radio, and media outlets like MTV. They can market and promote themselves with their own web sites and blogs, through music blogs and music news sites, various online music services like Last.FM and iLike, and through social networking sites like MySpace and YouTube.

Price concludes with this (emphasis added):

Allowing all music creators “in” is both exciting and frightening. Some argue that we need subjective gatekeepers as filters. No matter which way you feel about it, there are a few indisputable facts — control has been taken away from the “four major labels” and the traditional media outlets. We, the “masses,” now have access to create, distribute, discover, promote, share and listen to any music. Hopefully access to all of this new music will inspire us, make us think and open doors and minds to new experiences we choose, not what a corporation or media outlet decides we should want. It is then the public, not a corporation that gets to decide what is bad and good. The revolution (pun intended) has truly begun.

As always, I encourage you read the articles I link to. Price’s essay on how he moved from independent label owner making money to independent label owner making too little money to digital distributor making money and helping artists make money is priceless.

Digital Diversion

Yesterday I interviewed an artist signed to an independent label. I’m writing an article about how the person’s faith in Christ affects the music, similar to this piece I wrote on Hanson. I like being a tease, so I won’t tell you who it is. I’ll link to the article when it goes live.

Speaking of Hanson, check out one of my favorite songs:

Related post:

• Flux, Kicks, and New Tricks

I dig these “music industry in flux” articles.

Change can make one feel unsteady, but we all need to be shaken up from time to time. The old ways of doing things pass away, opening up new and sometimes fresh ways of buying, selling, living…

The article begins with a reference to Amy Winehouse and rehab and ends with this advice to an industry staring at the digital revolution like a deer in headlights: “[T]o shake off its blues, the record business must itself continue to break old habits. Saying yes to rehab is a start, but returning to health is going to take a sustained dose of discipline and imagination.”

In between are issues familiar to regular LBC readers and others following music/digital tech news: CDs sales are down, illegal downloading is up, record labels are trying to lay claim to artists’ concert ticket and merchandise sales (known as 360 deals) because CDs sales are drying up, etc. If you have the time (and inclination), read the entire article. It’s a concise, information-packed overview of the state of the music industry today.

Why Not ConcertKick?

Have you heard of a new venture called Songkick? The British-based service works much like other music services. Songkick is to live music what Last.FM is to recorded music. It kicks out concert alerts and recommendations based on your tastes in music. Instead of looking through concert listings in your local paper or combing through music blogs or signing up for intrusive e-mail alerts or surfing to your favorite bands’ web sites to find out when they’re touring, just sign up for Songkick for a convenient, all-in-one-place listing.

Songkick also aggregates ticket vendors. You can look for a show and tickets (and compare prices from different vendors) in one place. I wonder, though, why Songkick isn’t called ConcertKick. Seems more apt, don’t you think?

Goals, Digital and Otherwise

One of my goals in the coming years is to learn all I can about how digital technology has changed the music industry, help artists market themselves in the digital age, help fans discover new music and connect with artists, and attend more concerts (small clubs preferred over arenas). I’m a blog evangelist, a blog consultant with online marketing experience, and a music fan who likes finding new music. I’m trying to figure out how to continue doing what I love, mingle with my favorite bands, and get paid at the same time. Possible?

Most of all, I want to be invited to events like SXSW and speak on panels about digital tech and the music industry and meet artists and listen to good, live music. Why? At this point in my life, I want to deal with conflict of a different kind (because no matter what you do, there will be conflict). I want to learn how to harness the collective power of user-generated content (blogs, wikis, reviews, recommendations, shared experiences, etc.), help artists figure out how this collective power can earn them a decent living, and contribute to the cultural shift that is upending the gatekeepers.

I could accomplish this in the political arena, but politics and I have had our run. There’s no challenge in it, and it bores and frustrates me. I find delight in these ideas as applied to the music industry specifically. Why? How do I articulate it? Whoever said or wrote that music soothes the savage beast knew what he was talking about.

Blogging and writing about downloadable digital music is my latest thing, and I want to ride it out and see where it takes me. Check out my MySpace band friends, some of whom found me. That, I dig.

Good Friday to you!

Related article and posts:

• Playlists Are the New Albums
• Music Pie
• The Passion of 1,000 True Fans
• Modern-Day Music Patronage