June 11, 2004
Giving the Dog a Bone
Once again, the RIAA is set to persecute and alienate more visitors to the marketplace—with a new grievance this time. The world is now hearing the weeping sounds of the violin as the RIAA opines digital radio, the new pirating frontier.
We, the reckless and degenerate masses, cannot be trusted to use digital radio technology. We are bad apples who will take advantage of the technology to record radio broadcasts, then divvy up the recordings and redistribute songs online. We are bad, malicious people out to harm the poor, downtrodden and much-maligned recording industry. We must be stopped!
I think I've heard this song before, way back when cassettes were invented. And didn't the movie studios try this one when Sony introduced the BetaMax? Obviously consumers are terrible people who must be stopped. Repent, sinners, and be saved!
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 11 June 2004 at 03:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Link
May 25, 2004
Lay Waste to Babylon
Everyone's good buddies over at Clear Channel have now cornered the market on live concert CDs. CC purchased the patent to the technology used to produce such discs, and now claims to own the rights to any such recording produced and sold at the event. This means that they are not only squeezing out competing firms, but they are preventing bands from selling recordings of their own performances at those shows. Inconceivable!
In other loathsome news, the RIAA has filed suits against an additional 493 file sharers in the on-going war against a phantom enemy.
I know that there are other sensible people out there who agree with me, but this kind of hubris is almost too much to believe. I may be cynical and world weary, but these two tidbits are taking ridiculous to new levels.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 25 May 2004 at 04:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (28) | Link
May 10, 2004
Slow News Day
A bill is set to go before the California State legislature this summer that would, if passed, require increased accountability for record companies when paying artist royalties. As the system is at present, the companies themselves are wholly responsible for appropriately compensating artists for the number of records sold; a number of lawsuits have been brought against many labels claiming that they did not pay artists the correct amount. The new system (assuming it works as intended) would alter the nature of contracts signed by musicians, giving them the right to sue if they are not properly compensated.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 10 May 2004 at 12:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Link
April 29, 2004
All I Ever Wanted To Do
The RIAA sues 477 more people! This round is primarily bringing charges against college students in the East and Midwest, and taking the total number of suits up to 2,454 since last summer. Oh, how I love the vultures at the RIAA!
Happy Birthday, iTunes! On the anniversary of the iTunes Music Store's first year of operation, sales are still strong and the catalog keeps growing. Further, there is good news for you audiophiles: Apple is negotiating the rights to digitize and release out-of-print albums on iTunes.
Jobs also noted Apple is working with labels to digitize out-of-print music and sell it in the iTunes store. On Wednesday, 45 singles and 45 albums from the Motown archive became available.
"Those (out-of-print) songs can now be monetized and preserved as part of the cultural record," McGuire said. "That's huge."
One of these days I'm going to give in and buy myself a swank little iPod, but not until the rechargable-but-not-removable battery issue is resolved in the upcoming models. Aside from that, if I'm spending that kind of money for a digital music player it's going to have to be at least a 40GB model so I can transfer as much of my CD collection over as possible. Perhaps someday I will be able to have my ultimate fantasy: a pink, 40GB iPod Mini.
*drool*
I haven't lusted over a piece of hardware like this since the introduction of the Titanium PowerBook. Mmmmmm. PowerBook.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 29 April 2004 at 10:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Link
April 15, 2004
Protecting Linux
I've blogged about this issue before, but the SCO Group's lawsuit over Linux is producing more and more interesting news. Today on salon.com there is an article about Open Source Risk Management, a firm offering insurance against future lawsuits over the ownership of Unix and the legitimacy of the Linux kernel. Basically, the firm is doing research, taking Linux apart and verifying the identity of each developer who contributed code to the system, checking the origin of each piece of code and comparing it to a massive database of software, in an attempt to have complete knowledge of the contents of Linux so as to safeguard users against claims of plagiarism, stealing or misuse.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 15 April 2004 at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Link
April 13, 2004
Bear Away
For his part, Klempner [owner of Aron's Records] laughs at the assertion that file-sharers don't hurt music sales.
"I've seen no evidence in our store to support that," he said. "I've had people walking in here saying 'I used to spend $300 a year on music and now I don't need to.'"
I have two things to say in response to Mr. Klempner's comments:
01. Why are people walking into your record store to tell you that they don't buy records anymore? That seems slightly illogical.
02. I know for a fact that Aron's has not been doing well for a number of years. The selection is mediocre and the prices are much too high (though they do have a nice selection of music 'zines); the only thing they have going for them is the bi-annual parking lot sale, and even that is only marginal.
I would venture a guess that what is hurting Aron's sales more than file sharing is the Amoeba Music that opened up a few blocks away—with six times the floorspace and selection of Aron's and better prices. Despite my fascination with music and my preference for independent music stores, I would rarely go out of my way to shop at Aron's. I consistently go out of my way to shop at Amoeba because I know I stand a much better chance of finding what I want and paying less for it.
Perhaps, Mr. Klempner, you should take into account that people can shop for the same records elsewhere and pay $200 instead of $300. That might account for the random shoppers who come into your store to discuss why they don't buy from you anymore.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 13 April 2004 at 11:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2) | Link
April 08, 2004
Dead Disney
"Dead Disney"
George Thompson / Burlesque of North America
I thought this was a really great image to illustrate the first of a rash of interesting articles from my morning surfing: "The Mouse Who Would Be King", about two books on the effect that Disney and the Empire of the Mouse have had on copyright law. Both are hopeful for a future that likely won't happen, though Lawrence Lessig's summary of digital copyright law is downright chilling. The future of creative work is stifling and not getting any better.
"When the Edge Moved to the Middle": Thurston Moore on the legacy of alternative music and the influence of Kurt Cobain. Touching and lucid explanation of the phenomenon that is Nirvana and what "alternative" rock actually is/was to the people who lived it.
In a strange related note, I just found out that Thurston and J. Mascis were in the New York Superscum, one of the backing bands that preceded the Murder Junkies, GG Allin's backing band at his death.
I don't know how many people have been following the story, but the vote on Measure 04-A in Inglewood (building a new Wal-Mart Supercenter next to Hollywood Park) was defeated.
The Inglewood vote against Wal-Mart, 60 percent to 40 percent, was a victory for a coalition of unions, churches and community groups who said the development would have driven local retailers out of business and gutted the city's legal, environmental and planning powers.
Despite the fact that the vote was defeated, as mentioned in the article, the primary impetus for the negative vote was the fact that Wal-Mart was trying to circumvent state and local regulations for development by putting the issue on the ballot after local government turned it down. Unfortunately the opposition didn't come from concerns about Wal-Mart's anti-union policies, concerns over zoning and development issues such as traffic, or the fact that Wal-Mart offers low wages and limited options for healthcare, which translates to a potential victory for future Wal-Marts when they comply with regulations.
(For an insight into what it's like to work at Wal-Mart, check out Nickel & Dimed).
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 8 April 2004 at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (29) | Link
April 05, 2004
Sidenote
I read an article today on reuters.com about how the independent label Sub Pop, best known for it's involvment in the Seattle grunge scene of the early '90s, is making a comeback with a strong roster of artists and even stronger sales. While I can't dispute that the label does put out some good stuff—I own more than a few Sub Pop releases—I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the information on the second page:
Sub Pop is 49% owned by Warner Music Group, but all its product is handled by Warner's independent arm, Alternative Distribution Alliance (ADA), rather than WEA.
Poneman says, "The mom-and-pop stores are the taste-making stores. As such, ADA is the superior distributor, because they have at this point established enduring relationships with a lot of those stores."
I already knew that Jonathan Poneman is a greedy, manipulative shithead but this is a bit much. The mom-and-pop stores are not the taste-making stores; they are the elitist-making stores where the people who care enough about music not to buy it at Wal-Mart shop. As such, whether they are the taste-making stores or not, they are also the stores where people are more likely to be just slightly annoyed that a label (insert Sub Pop, Matador, Trustkill, et al, here) that was doing just fine on its own feels the need to sell half the company to some huge, crafty, money-grubbing entity that sucks the blood of its young to sustain itself.
ADA is a better distributor because it maintains the illusion of independence (to soothe the consciences of anyone who still feels responsible to the music community) with the added bonus of major label backing. ADA is a better distributor because WEA owns half of Sub Pop and they want a return on their investment; such money is easier to get when your bands are showing up on "indie" record stations, KROQ and MTV.
Then again, I suppose it isn't that hard to give up money that you got by screwing the bands on the roster out of it.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 5 April 2004 at 03:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Link
April 01, 2004
DIY Punk Rock Since 1972
Brent Hansen, President & Chief Executive, MTV Networks Europe added: "MTV Networks Europe is and always has been the home of independent music and artists. By signing this deal we are making a firm statement of our unwavering commitment to indie artists and labels, and affirming their value and importance to us and our business."
Their value is the reason why a coalition of indie labels had to hire VPL to negotiate a compromise when MTV Europe tried to cut royalties to independent labels by 50%. That is an unwavering commitment, all right—to making money by whatever means necessary, particularly screwing the little guys.
And yet the labels keep coming back for more punishment. Haven't we all learned at this point that MTV and the rest of the industry will fuck you over as hard and as long as they can?
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 1 April 2004 at 12:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (766) | Link
March 09, 2004
Mining Without Mesothelioma
Though Google is by far the best search engine I've encountered, there are always limitations. The structure of HTML and other web coding languages makes it impossible to access every piece of information on the web through a search engine, which means that even Google, in all its power and majesty, can only crawl 1% of the web. Most of the remaining information is called the deep Web—a complex maze of databases and other structured information that cannot be searched because it exists outside of standard HTML architecture, which is the protocol used by all standard search engines.
That, however, is starting to change, resulting in what could be a major revolution in the way we view information on the internet, as well as how much and what kind of information the average person is able to view: government documents, databases of customer information and scientific research are just the beginning. Yahoo! recently announced the new direction they are pursuing with their search engine (now that they have split with Google), the Content Acquisition Program (CAP), also revealing what promises to be the future of web searching technology—mining the deep Web.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 9 March 2004 at 10:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (25) | Link
February 22, 2004
Delightfully Boring
Ms. Jones's numbers — and the fact that she's selling mainly to grown-ups — make record executives hopeful that a recovery in their troubled business is just around the corner. They are going to need to keep hoping. Their business seems to be structured against steady, long-term success. The psychology of the recording industry, like that of book publishing, is now so dependent on blockbuster sales that the idea of profitability based on modest sales across a diverse catalog has nearly vanished. The business depends on the hundred-year flood, not a steady rain.
There is no begrudging Ms. Jones her success. Part of her attraction is that she seems to be pursuing the art as it appeals to her, without pandering to her audience. But what's curious about her career so far is that she is essentially a midlist artist who broke into the big time. Her first album was rolled out in a way that suggested modest expectations — and on such modest, artful expectations, once upon a time, a gratifying career might have been based. But her niche is now the whole world. The industry will no longer be talking about Norah Jones; it will be talking about "a Norah Jones" or "the next Norah Jones," who comes out of nowhere to rescue the bottom line once again.
• • From NYTimes.com
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 22 February 2004 at 12:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (12) | Link
February 19, 2004
The Bull by the Horns
Every now and again I remember that money really can buy almost anything, particularly acceptance. Monsanto, the company which has been producing a frightening array of noxious chemicals for the better part of the last century—Agent Orange and PCBs among them—is now poised to takeover the world through genetically modified crops. The firm is now aimed solely at the biotech market, selling their modified seeds, which resist drought and insects with higher yields than traditional crops, to factory farms and third world farmers—all of whom pay annual royalties for the patented seeds.
But that's good news, right? Everyone gets food free of bugs, rot, and pesticides, it can travel long distances without spoiling; the world's food supply would be practically immune to disaster. And those things are positive and hurrah for that, but the downside to the ag biotech market is that Monsanto would control, quite literally, every crop in the world. They would also vicariously control every farm in the world, and that's just a bit too much power for any one entity to have. Chances are the Monsanto takeover would also mean the death of family farms, which have already been suffering at the hands of larger factory farms with more ready capital and, uh, flexible employment and quality standards.
Ugh. It makes my skin crawl just to think about it. This is why everyone should buy local and organic—you may find a bug or two every now and again, but you don't have to worry about what your veggies have been spliced with.
In other news, the RIAA and the FBI have officially announced their aforementioned naive and pointless plan to include a copy of the FBI seal (similar to the one you see at the beginning of a movie, warning against piracy) in the packaging for all CDs, DVDs, video games and software. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never read the FBI warning during a movie, nor do I bother to read the ratings guides on video games, nor the lyrical content warnings on CDs. Hell, I don't even read the warnings on cigarettes.
And besides this bit of nonsense, I'd like to point something out: PIRACY IS NOT HURTING THE ARTISTS ANY MORE THAN THE RECORD COMPANIES ARE. I keep hearing the impassioned pleas of RIAA spokespersons defending the rights of artists and songwriters who are losing money due to piracy. Those artists and songwriters are not losing money because the record companies have already taken it, and the record industry is worried about losing their own money. They don't care about the artists because, let's face it, there's always more where they came from.
For those of you unfamiliar with what I am saying, here is a breakdown of the economics of an average record deal:
The money being made off of an album is measured in royalty points or percentages. Each person or persons involved in the making of the album gets what are called points on the backend, meaning that they get a portion of the total number of points that comprise the costs and profits of the album. Most of the time when a band signs a record deal they are given money up front, called an advance. An advance is just that: money the record company is giving based on the projected sales of the album. If the company does not recoup that money in record sales, it must be paid back.
There are two royalty sources that an artist can make money off of: mechanical royalties and artist roytalties. Mechanical royalites are paid to the songwriters. The statutory rate is somewhere around seven cents per song, so a songwriter who writes every song on an album of, say, 10 songs would be receiving 70 cents per album sold. That doesn't sound so bad until you realize that the labels are only paying out mechanical royalites at 75%, effectively witholding 25% of the copyright income.
Artist royalties are earned through record sales; an established artist could be looking at 10–20 points, while relatively obscure bands have been known to receive 6 or 7; the industry average is somewhere around 12 or 13. Now, when a new band is signed and an album is made, there are a myriad assortment of costs involved, and quite a few of them are—surprise!—the responsibility of the artist, not the label.
For example, all of the promotional costs are recoupable from artist royalties. This means that videos, radio promotion, commercials, and/or retail tie-ins come out of the pocket of the artist, depending on the percentage lined up in the contract. The label fronts the money and decides on what and how much promotion to put behind an album; if the label does not promote an album and it does not sell, the artist is still responsible for recouping that money. Why? Because an artist does not see a profit until the recoupment is clear (this includes the advance).
So, say an artist managed to negotiate a 50% recoupment percentage with seven points in artist royalties; the promotion on the albm runs to $200,000 so the artist is obliged to pay back $100,000 of that cost. Now, in order for the artist to pay that back the label will have to make almost fifteen times the amount the artist does. How does that work, you ask? For each $100,000 in album sales, 7% ($7,000) of that hundred grand will go to the artist's recoupment and the rest to the record company to be split among the other royalty makers.
In order for the artist to recoup $100,000 in promotion expenses at 7%, the album would have to turn in sales of $1,425,000 (roughly 95,000 albums sold). Out of nearly $1.5 million, the artist sees nary a penny.
To clarify my position: I am not saying that piracy is a good thing. I think that there is a fair balance to be found between offering downloads for free as a marketing tool and the flagrant abuse of file trading that has been taking place. I, for one, do download music; on average, I might download five songs in a week, and I buy between five and ten albums per month (at independent record stores and distros, or straight from the labels and artists). I use those downloads to determine what I want to buy, and I don't keep songs that I don't like and don't intend to buy. I don't have a problem with downloading because I choose to download responsibly, and so should everyone else. No matter how poorly the recording industry treats the artists, it is the responsibility of the fans to act reasonably and with consideration for the difficulty of being a professional musician. If we, as the consumers, do not maintain that relationship while voicing our concerns we lose our bargaining power and the whole boat sinks, musicians in tow.
I'm down off my soapbox now, but heed the words of Steve Albini and Don Henley—and don't listen to the manipulative flapjaws at the RIAA.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 19 February 2004 at 03:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (30) | Link
February 17, 2004
The End of a Friend
This is my goodbye post to an old friend: Webmonkey.
In a recent round of cutbacks, Lycos has dismantled the staff of Webmonkey—the online resource where I (and a lot of other people) learned nearly everything I know about the basics of web authoring.
Such is the end of an era, I suppose, but the Monkey will be sorely missed.
Speaking of time passing, the RIAA still refuses to acknowledge that the record industry is an almost hopelessly outdated dinosaur that either needs to move with the times or perish by them. This month's lawsuits total 531, bringing the total number of suits to 1,445 since last September.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 17 February 2004 at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (6) | Link
February 10, 2004
I SO Called This
It's an interesting day in music news:
Tower Records has filed for bankruptcy, close on the heels of the demise of Wherehouse Music. It seems that the big boxes are even running the chain stores out of business. Soon the world will be one giant strip mall with Best Buys, Borders and Bed, Bath and Beyonds as far as the eye can see!
Apple is being faced with litigation over the the iPod and what users are saying were fraudulent claims about the iPod's battery life.
Sharman Networks (owners of Kazaa) are challenging the order that allowed Austrailian authorities to raid their offices last week, looking for documents to support the case against Sharman in anti-piracy proceedings.
And I totally called this protest as soon as Andre got up on stage.
Steven Bochco on the current Fear of Breasts and how it is affecting TV censorship: "To suddenly find objectionable something that three days earlier would not have been is a hysterical knee-jerk response. I can't stop them, but I think it's really lame." Amen, brother.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 10 February 2004 at 02:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (3) | Link
February 09, 2004
Hypocritical, But Did You Really Expect Something Else?
By now we're all aware that piracy is a huge problem, at least according to the media blitz. All the sharks in dark suits are whining about the losses being suffered by the artists, and about how piracy is taking the food off the table of working stiffs just like you and me. What I'd like to know is when did those rich jackasses start giving a damn about me and family?
I spent half my teenage years with my mother living in Canada because the her employer (studio shall remain nameless) decided it would be cheaper to film in Montreal than in California. That's all fine and good for the bottom line, but when my mother had to pay Canadian plus federal and state taxes, there wasn't much left over to feed the kids with.
What cracks me up is that these guys with their $1,000-an-hour lawyers have everyone running scared. One of the brilliant things about capitalism is that those who have the dollars to buy have the power. We have the dollars and the fact that no one wants to spend them on $18 CDs with maybe one decent song, or on $10 movie tickets for a film that is probably marginal at best (but with lots of CGI!), says to me that piracy is not the fault of the people doing the pirating but the fault of the people producing the crap they try to pass off as entertainment...and we're the ones being prosecuted!
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 9 February 2004 at 07:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (6) | Link
February 03, 2004
A Free Market in a Proprietary World
Not only can corporations and CEOs be ruthless, they can be childish, too!
During a speech at Harvard, two higher-ups from SCO Group—the company currently suing IBM for supposedly stealing code they added to Linux and the recent target of the MyDoom viruses—managed to sound like petulant children by declaring that they would make their code available as soon as IBM agreed to make their 10,000 patents available to the public. That has the distinct ring of "If you show me yours, I'll show you mine!"
The suit hinges on SCO's claim that IBM copied proprietary code from UnixWare, illegally duplicating a kernel for the version of Linux that IBM released for servers. In order to prove this claim, SCO must make their code public first (by court order) in order to establish exactly what code is in question, and whether or not IBM used it and, if it was used, whether or not that use was legal.
Not that I am a big IBM fan or anything, but it seems to me that SCO has a hard sell here. Not only are they avoiding showing their "proprietary" code, but they contend that they deserve to be compensated for the use of that code, written to improve the original kernel, written by Linus Torvalds. The original code and the addition, it should be noted, were released internationally by SCO under the GPL.
In fairness, they do own the patent for Unix, but Unix has been in free circulation among developers and students since its early stages of development in the '60s. So why, if I may be so bold, do they deserve to get paid licensing fees for Linux if they have already distributed the software as open-source, ceding their rights to compensation in perpetuity? I, much like many people, am baffled by the suit and by the logic behind it.
One student, who said he distributed copies of Linux outside the hall, offered to hand out more after the talks. Another asked why SCO refrained from publicizing the code they claim is infringing, so the Linux community could gut the code from the kernel and move forward without risk of violating copyrights.
McBride said that while Linux is the compilation of thousands of people donating their time and programming skills to improve kernel code created by Linus Torvalds, SCO deserves compensation for the improvements it made to Linux. Without the illegal use of SCO's code, he said, Linux isn't an attractive option anymore for high-end servers.
"We think that if you rip that code out, it's going to make Linux not nearly as attractive," he said. "But, if the common wisdom is to take that out, and to go down that path, assuming we win that court case, then absolutely that's something we'd sign up for."
Basically, they want the money and will only offer users the ability to comply with copyright law if they get what they feel is coming to them. Whatever the answers to my questions, however, SCO is planning to forge ahead in the style of the RIAA, prosecuting users of "their" software—though they "likely" won't go after individual users, such as students, who are not utilizing Linux for commercial purposes.
Their benevolence leaves me speechless.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 3 February 2004 at 03:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (3) | Link
January 27, 2004
Ushering In Your Own Demise
The culture of fear and loathing that the RIAA has created is starting to put encryption on the must-have list of every Joe and Jane Internet user. The results will be wide-ranging and will pose a threat to the movie industry, the software industry, and just about any other industry involved with the creation and sale of intellectual property.
Not to sound as though I'm tooting my own horn, but my friends and I have been saying this since Napster.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 27 January 2004 at 02:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (38) | Link
January 21, 2004
La-di Da-di, We Likes to Party
In another brilliant move to counter piracy, the record industry has struck a deal with the FBI to include the FBI logo in the packaging of all new CDs, warning about the perils of piracy. These guys are way too clever; if only they'd thought of this years ago, they might never have had to worry about it!
I love when people are even stupider than I give them credit for being. It makes my day just that much brighter.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 21 January 2004 at 02:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (3) | Link
January 16, 2004
Antitrust Does Not Mean Anticorporation
Microsoft has, after being advised to do so by the Justice Department, agreed to offer alternative software choices to Windows XP users to avoid any further tangles with antitrust legislation.
The settlement requires Microsoft to allow computer users to choose which non-operating system programs they want to use for browsing the Internet, listening to music or viewing digital videos.
I would think that this is a good thing except that Microsoft is still going to offer IE for free, and you are still going to have all those wonderful Windows files embedded on your HD, and the internet is still going to be based around an IE standard. They already have a stranglehold on the market so this might just be too little, too late.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 16 January 2004 at 05:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (40) | Link
January 14, 2004
I'm Scotch and Segregation
In the ongoing battle of privacy versus the corporation (including, specifically, the government and the RIAA), the LA Weekly recently published a sensationalistic little piece about the piracy raids being carried out by the RIAA's private police force. Now, I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that the actions of the RIAA are both outrageous and barely legal (oh, and racist!*), and that someone at the LA Weekly needs to do a better job of verifying quotations, particularly when quoting someone who is working against the increasingly invasive tactics of the RIAA.
* "A large percentage [of the vendors] are of a Hispanic nature," Langley said. "Today he's Jose Rodriguez, tomorrow he's Raul something or other, and tomorrow after that he's something else. These people change their identity all the time. A pictures worth a thousand words."
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 14 January 2004 at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (98) | Link
Apple Goes Sneaky Like Microsoft
Now, I'm just guessing here because I don't own or plan to own an iPod, but if I shelled out $400 to buy a portable electronic device I would expect it to work. For a long time. But if, say, a year later, the battery died and I was informed that the only way to circumvent that dead battery was to cough up $400 more dollars for a new one because the battery is unreplaceable, I'd be really fucking pissed. Like these people, for instance.
ipodsdirtysecret.com
ipodbatteryfaq.com
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 14 January 2004 at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (30) | Link
January 07, 2004
Weasels...or Lemmings?
Hooray for David Hinckley and good sense!
Well, Nielsen Soundscan figures for the year are out, and they show CD sales in 2003 were 687 million, compared to 693 million in 2002.
The 2003 total was boosted by a strong fourth quarter, but still, that's an overall drop of less than 1%, which is hardly apocalyptic in a rough year when purchases of everything from cars to movie tickets were also down.
One reason many folks feel no guilt about downloading is that they think record companies behave like weasels.
The business isn't offering much of a rebuttal.
Amen to that!
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 7 January 2004 at 03:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (20) | Link
Taking A(nother) Bite Out of the Youth Market
In current LA news, Clear Channel recently forged a deal with California media firm Entravision Communications, owner of what you locals will remember as Super Estrella, 103.1. Somewhere along the line in the murky depths of this deal, Clear Channel decided that 103.1 would be the perfect battleground for a war on LA's reigning alternative rock heavyweight, KROQ. Hence the birth of CC's own Indie 103. Here's an excerpt from the radio-info.com message boards explaining the changeover (accomplished in the fashion we have all come to expect from huge media conglomerates like CC):
Suddenly, right after Thanksgiving, they fired the entire airstaff and ran the format jockless for a couple of weeks. This came right after Entravision announced a JSA with Clear Channel for the 103.1 stations. Then they went to an all alternative/punk rock Christmas format for five days before going to an Alternative format...
KDLD is licensed to Santa Monica and KDLE is licensed to Newport Beach. They simulcast 24 hours a day on the same frequency.
:: Posted by KMRichards ::
Now, those of you who know me know that I hate listening to radio (because, let's face it, formatted radio blows really hard and college radio just doesn't have the punch of a professional DJ), and that I hate KROQ particuarly. They started out in the '80s with a solid idea—let's play the music that people want to hear but no one else is playing! They were successful and rolled on through the '90s slowly and steadily pulling an MTV-like shift from playing music of quality and interest to playing major-label sponsored pap that is only on air because someone paid a lot to have it there. There is nothing I would like quite so much as to see KROQ rearrange their format into something I would like to listen to (or at least like it more than I do now) but I have to say that I am firmly against Clear Channel being the one to force them to do it.
I dislike CC on principle and I don't like the notion that they are using the music I like in a bid to gain a foothold in the attractive and easy-to-sell-stuff-to youth market of Los Angeles. I think it's great that there are bands—good independent bands—that will be getting more exposure on radio and therefore, selling more independent records. The problem here, as I see it, is that if it's big corporate money that is doing the pressuring, luring the advertisers and paying for the signal, then it is also, vicariously, big money which is providing more money to those indies. I'm not generally an "ends justify the means" sort of person and in this case I think that the means (CC sponsorship) could do a lot to undermine the independence that all things indie are based on—and that is a very big, bad end indeed.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 7 January 2004 at 03:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (4) | Link
December 19, 2003
Stuck It To 'Em!
So thanks to my mother I have a new membership to Salon.com, where I found this delightful story waiting for me this morning:
Dec. 19, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday the recording industry can't force Internet providers to identify subscribers swapping music online, dramatically setting back the industry's anti-piracy campaign.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a trial judge's decision to enforce copyright subpoenas used by the recording industry. The subpoena power was established by a law passed before the explosive growth of swapping music online.
"It's an incredible ruling, a blow for the little guy," said Bob Barnes, a grandfather in Fresno, Calif., who was targeted by one of the earliest subpoenas from the Recording Industry Association of America but isn't among the hundreds who have been sued so far.
Here's hoping the RIAA will stick that in their pipe and smoke it!
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 19 December 2003 at 12:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Link
December 12, 2003
More Evil is Afoot
As the music business slowly lumbers its way toward extinction, we have another round of mergers to amuse us out in the real world, where we like music that doesn't make millions of dollars.
Sony, Bertelsmann Sign Music Merger Deal
BERLIN/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Germany's Bertelsmann AG and Sony of Japan on Friday finalized terms of an agreement to merge their music businesses, as the industry confronts competition from DVDs and video games and the threat of Internet file-swapping.
The 50-50 joint venture, first announced in November, would be the world's second-largest record label, combining the recorded music units of Bertelsmann's BMG and Sony Music, but excluding music publishing and CD production.
The deal depends on regulatory approval in the United States and Europe.
The story further details that this merger leaves megacorporations Universal Music Group and the newly formed BMG/Sony each with a quarter share in total music profits from 2003.
Man, it must suck to be able to do nothing but release a preponderance of shitty music and make money hand over fist.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 12 December 2003 at 05:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Link
December 05, 2003
Wankers, Every One
So, CMJ posted this interesting tidbit about how the RIAA are busily trying to corner the college market by pressuring universities to monitor student file sharing activity on campus. Be sure to notice how reasonable their charges are, and how they plan to slip it past the the students:
The recording industry and digital music retailers are in discussions with various colleges and universities to offer legitimate sources of music to students, either for free or at a substantial discount, in exchange for the schools agreeing to take steps to deter piracy on campus networks. The goal of the agreement would be to provide students with an extensive online jukebox that would allow them to play songs on-demand. The typical $10-per-month charge would either be waived or buried in the students’ activities fees, and songs could be burned onto CDs or transferred to MP3 players for one dollar or less per track. Insiders hope the new concept can be launched as early as the beginning of 2004.
But now the RIAA are up to their old tricks again, according to antimusic.com:
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has filed 41 new copyright-infringement lawsuits against online music traders and issued warning letters to 90 more.
The RIAA, the trade group that represents the five major record labels, announced on Wednesday that they filed the lawsuit in various jurisdictions across the United States. This is the third time the trade group has filed suit against online music traders, bring the total number of people sued under this initiative to 382. [...]
The trade RIAA has already settled with 220 file traders that were the target of earlier action such as warning letters, lawsuits or notifications from the users ISP that the RIAA was attempting to obtaining their personal information. The average settlement amount has reportedly been around $3,000.
At this rate, they should alienate at least half of their target market by 2005.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 5 December 2003 at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | Link
December 02, 2003
Hooray for the ACLU
Not that I always agree with the measures taken by the ACLU, but thankfully someone is standing up to the bullying that is going on by the RIAA. The ACLU is defending a UNC student who the RIAA is trying to wrangle for sharing nine (yes, nine) songs. From Yahoo! News:
The ACLU's interest stems from what it perceives as a violation of the unnamed student's Constitutional rights to privacy and anonymous use of the Internet. By requesting the student's name and contact information before proving any legal wrongdoing, the RIAA is violating the student's rights, Fine said.
"We don't support copyright infringement in any manner," he said. "Our motion is about due process rights. The Constitution and the First Amendment protects the right to engage in anonymous speech and that includes anonymous speech on the Internet."
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 2 December 2003 at 10:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (211) | Link
November 24, 2003
Quickly Becoming an Industry Watchdog Blog
Time Warner just sold off part of the "Warner" bit (from reuters.com):
Time Warner Inc. on Monday said it sold its Warner Music business to a group led by media mogul Edgar Bronfman Jr. for $2.6 billion, in a move to trim the media group's debts and signaling a return of the former Seagram chairman to the music business.
The Bronfman group beat out a bid by EMI for the recorded music portion of the business Group for an estimated $1 billion. By choosing the Bronfman bid, Time Warner company is forsaking $250 million to $300 million in cost savings it could have realized by combining with EMI.
On the other hand, Time Warner is getting more cash up front by selling the entire business, which includes the music publishing company, and will have an easier path to regulatory approval. In the past, European and U.S. regulators have frowned on consolidation within the music business.
Wheeee! More businessmen fucking things up!
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 24 November 2003 at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (34) | Link
November 21, 2003
Just Because I Do It On My Own Doesn't Mean I Can't Kick Your Ass
To continue with my "fat, white, managerial ass" rampage from the previous post, there is news that the major labels are not content to be even a three-headed monster any longer. It seems that while Universal is swallowing up DreamWorks, Sony and BMG will be merging to form one super-company (pending the positive outcome of antitrust investigations). Hopefully, this is just the beginning of the downward spiral, though I am not keeping my hopes up too high about the extinction of these lumbering beasts.
In happier news, digital singles recently outsold physical singles for the first time, and here is a little piece from p2pnet.net on how indie labels are using digital technology to improve their business model, as well as how labels and programs like Berklee Shares are prompting responsible and constructive uses of the GPL and P2P technology.
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 21 November 2003 at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (17) | Link
November 14, 2003
And Money Wins Again
From punknews.org:
Yesterday, MP3.com announced that it has been (partially) acquired by CNET Networks Inc. According to the release: "all content will be deleted from our servers and all previously submitted tapes, CD-ROMs and other media in our possession will be destroyed. We recommend that you make alternative content hosting arrangements as soon as practicable."
This may prove to be bad news for the many, many independent and unsigned bands out there who counted on MP3.com to get their music heard. It's not clear what the new services to be provided will be, and whether they will be pay-only or not.
Not to get on my high horse or anything, but why is it that these companies think that shafting small-time artists is a really great way to make money? The rumor is that MP3.com will become a "membership" service, meaning that bands will have to pay for the ability to offer songs through the database. May the venture flop and cause the people at CNET to fall on their collective fat, white, managerial asses!
Posted in Corporations and Creativity | 14 November 2003 at 05:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (290) | Link
