|
Jim Griffin to lead Warners's Digital front.
Fee for All
by Sam Gustin Mar 27 2008
Jim Griffin will lead Warner Music's fight to tame the Web's lawless music frontier.
Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s Warner Music Group has tapped industry veteran Jim Griffin to spearhead a controversial plan to bundle a monthly fee into consumers' internet-service bills for unlimited access to music.
The plan�the boldest move yet to keep the wounded entertainment industry giants afloat�is simple: Consumers will pay a monthly fee, bundled into an internet-service bill in exchange for unfettered access to a database of all known music.
Bronfman's decision to hire Griffin, a respected industry critic, demonstrates the desperation of the recording industry. It has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade. Compact disc sales are plummeting as online music downloads skyrocket.
Also on Portfolio.com:
MySpace and Friends Need to Make Money
The answer may lie in creating "social ads."
Future Pop
CDs are history. U.S. labels should look to Jin-Young Park if they hope to survive.
"Today, it has become purely voluntary to pay for music," Griffin told Portfolio.com in an exclusive sit-down this week. "If I tell you to go listen to this band, you could pay, or you might not. It's pretty much up to you. So the music business has become a big tip jar."
Nothing provokes sheer terror in the recording industry more than the rise of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. For years, digital-music seers have argued the rise of such networks has made copyright law obsolete and free music distribution universal.
Bronfman has asked Griffin, formerly Geffen Music's digital chief, to develop a model that would create a pool of money from user fees to be distributed to artists and copyright holders. Warner has given Griffin a three-year contract to form a new organization to spearhead the plan.
Griffin says he hopes to move beyond the years of acrimonious record-industry litigation against illegal file-swappers, college students in particular.
"We're still clinging to the vine of music as a product," Griffin says, calling the industry�s plight "Tarzan" economics.
"But we're swinging toward the vine of music as a service. We need to get ready to let go and grab the next vine, which is a pool of money and a fair way to split it up, rather than controlling the quantity and destiny of sound recordings."
Warner Music Share Price
In the last year, the Recording Association of America, the industry group that represents the major labels, has sent 5,400 threatening letters to students at more than 150 schools, and reached settlements with more than 2,300 them. It has filed formal lawsuits against 2,465 others, who did not respond.
"I don't think we should be suing students and I don't think we should be suing people in their homes," says Griffin. "We want to monetize the anarchy of the internet."
Griffin says Warner Music is "totally committed to this." The fundamental issue, he says, is whether music consumers will buy songs and albums individually, or whether they will subscribe monthly to access a "universal" database of songs.
Will Tanous, Warner Music's communications chief, said Griffin's initiative is part of Warner's "ongoing effort to explore new business models in the music industry."
In recent weeks, major music industry players have signaled their interest in the "music as a service" model.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment is said to be developing an online music subscription service that would give users unlimited access to its catalog.
Apple is reportedly negotiating with the major record labels to offer consumers free access to the entire iTunes library in exchange for paying a premium for Apple hardware.
Warner's plan would have consumers pay an additional fee�maybe $5 a month�bundled into their monthly internet-access bill in exchange for the right to freely download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions.
Griffin says those fees could create a pool as large as $20 billion annually to pay artists and copyright holders. Eventually, advertising could subsidize the entire system, so that users who don't want to receive ads could pay the fee, and those who don't mind advertising wouldn't pay a dime.
"Ideally, music will feel free," says Griffin. "Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It's already been paid for."
While few of the plan's details have emerged, critics have begun their attacks.
David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai, says he's opposed to it on principle. Griffin's plan, he says, is tantamount to extortion, because it forces everyone to join.
"It's too late to charge people for what they're already getting for free," says Barrett. "This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation."
Griffin, who in 1994 was part of the team that made Aerosmith's "Head First" the first song available on the internet, goes to great pains to emphasize that the collective licensing plan is not "his" plan.
"This isn't my idea," says Griffin. "While I would gladly take the credit, blanket licensing has over 150 years of history behind it."
"Collective licensing is what people do when they lose control, or when control is no longer practical or efficient," Griffin says. "A pool of money and a fair way to split it up replaces control."
Griffin was quick to point out that the $5 figure is arbitrary.
"We negotiate in every place," Griffin says. "Clearly $5 per month would be an insane number in China or India. If you could get a nickel a month you could grow the business tenfold in those countries. In another country that had a high G.D.P., a nickel per month would be ridiculously cheap. So you negotiate. Fair is whatever you agree upon."
Griffin says Bronfman and Michael Nash, the company's digital-strategy chief, brought him into Warner to create an organization to negotiate collective licensing deals. But Griffin's ambitions extend far beyond just Warner Music.
"We're building a [as yet unnamed] company inside Warner that is not intended to be solely owned by Warner," Griffin says. "We hope all of the rights holders will come in and take ownership with us, and Warner will not control it. Our goal is to create a collective society for the digital age."
Meanwhile, critics have already attacked the plan as a kind of mandatory "culture tax."
"Jim will vehemently deny the 'tax' label," says Akamai's Barrett. "But it's a tax nonetheless. It'll be a government-approved cartel that collects money from virtually everyone�often without their knowledge�and failure to pay their tax will ultimately result in people with guns coming to your door.
"Jim's proposal does nothing but direct money to the very people that tried to prevent this future from coming to be," Barrett adds, "while further legitimizing the terror being waged in the courtrooms against their members."
Griffin dismisses such criticism.
"I understand what David is thinking, but I assure you, we have no such interest in government running this or having any part of it," he says.
Griffin says that in just the few weeks since Warner began working on this plan, the company has been approached by internet service providers "who want to discharge their risk."
"But more important than the risk for an I.S.P. is the marketing," Griffin says, drawing a comparison to Starbucks' marketing of "fair trade" coffee.
"I.S.P.'s want to distinguish themselves with marketing," Griffin says. "You can only imagine that an I.S.P. that marketed a 'fair trade' network connection would see a marketing advantage."
Gerd Leonhard, a respected music-industry consultant who has advised Sony/BMG, which recently announced plans for a flat-rate-subscription model for digital music, rejects Barrett's argument that the monthly fee amounts to a tax.
"This is not a tax," says Leonhard. "It's bundled into another charge."
"People should not be too harsh on Jim for trying to get the ball rolling," says Leonhard. "At this point, 96 percent of the population is guilty of some sort of infringement, whether they're streaming or downloading or sharing.
"What we have here is the widespread use of technology that declares all of the population to be illegal."
Portfolio.com © 2008 Condé Nast Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
News
* Facebook in talks with major music labels: report Reuters
* Sony BMG Developing Online Music Service AP
* Industry Group Sues China Search Engine AP
* Woman to Record Industry: Stop Spying AP
* Apple Said to Weigh Unlimited Music Deal AP
See All Related Content
Warner
Warner Music Group chairman and C.E.O. Edgar Bronfman Jr.
Photograph by: Eric Thayer/Reuters/Landov
Warner Music Group Corporation (WMG)
Industry:
Leisure
Summary:
A music content company which is composed of two businesses: Recorded Music and Music Publishing.
Primary executive:
Edgar Bronfman, Jr.,
View Full Profile
Apple, Incorporated (AAPL)
Industry:
Technology
Summary:
The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries design, manufacture, and market personal computers, portable digital music �
Primary executive:
Steven P. Jobs,
View Full Profile
Edgar Bronfman, Jr.
Industry:
Leisure
Biography:
Edgar Bronfman, Jr. has served as our Chairman of the Board and CEO since March 1, 2004. Before joining Warner Music Group, �
View Full Profile
Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s Warner Music Group has tapped industry veteran Jim Griffin to spearhead a controversial plan to bundle a monthly fee into consumers' internet-service bills for unlimited access to music.
The plan�the boldest move yet to keep the wounded entertainment industry giants afloat�is simple: Consumers will pay a monthly fee, bundled into an internet-service bill in exchange for unfettered access to a database of all known music.
Bronfman's decision to hire Griffin, a respected industry critic, demonstrates the desperation of the recording industry. It has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade. Compact disc sales are plummeting as online music downloads skyrocket.
Also on Portfolio.com:
MySpace and Friends Need to Make Money
The answer may lie in creating "social ads."
Future Pop
CDs are history. U.S. labels should look to Jin-Young Park if they hope to survive.
"Today, it has become purely voluntary to pay for music," Griffin told Portfolio.com in an exclusive sit-down this week. "If I tell you to go listen to this band, you could pay, or you might not. It's pretty much up to you. So the music business has become a big tip jar."
Nothing provokes sheer terror in the recording industry more than the rise of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. For years, digital-music seers have argued the rise of such networks has made copyright law obsolete and free music distribution universal.
Bronfman has asked Griffin, formerly Geffen Music's digital chief, to develop a model that would create a pool of money from user fees to be distributed to artists and copyright holders. Warner has given Griffin a three-year contract to form a new organization to spearhead the plan.
Griffin says he hopes to move beyond the years of acrimonious record-industry litigation against illegal file-swappers, college students in particular.
"We're still clinging to the vine of music as a product," Griffin says, calling the industry�s plight "Tarzan" economics.
"But we're swinging toward the vine of music as a service. We need to get ready to let go and grab the next vine, which is a pool of money and a fair way to split it up, rather than controlling the quantity and destiny of sound recordings."
Warner Music Share Price
In the last year, the Recording Association of America, the industry group that represents the major labels, has sent 5,400 threatening letters to students at more than 150 schools, and reached settlements with more than 2,300 them. It has filed formal lawsuits against 2,465 others, who did not respond.
"I don't think we should be suing students and I don't think we should be suing people in their homes," says Griffin. "We want to monetize the anarchy of the internet."
Griffin says Warner Music is "totally committed to this." The fundamental issue, he says, is whether music consumers will buy songs and albums individually, or whether they will subscribe monthly to access a "universal" database of songs.
Will Tanous, Warner Music's communications chief, said Griffin's initiative is part of Warner's "ongoing effort to explore new business models in the music industry."
In recent weeks, major music industry players have signaled their interest in the "music as a service" model.
Sony BMG Music Entertainment is said to be developing an online music subscription service that would give users unlimited access to its catalog.
Apple is reportedly negotiating with the major record labels to offer consumers free access to the entire iTunes library in exchange for paying a premium for Apple hardware.
Warner's plan would have consumers pay an additional fee�maybe $5 a month�bundled into their monthly internet-access bill in exchange for the right to freely download, upload, copy, and share music without restrictions.
Griffin says those fees could create a pool as large as $20 billion annually to pay artists and copyright holders. Eventually, advertising could subsidize the entire system, so that users who don't want to receive ads could pay the fee, and those who don't mind advertising wouldn't pay a dime.
"Ideally, music will feel free," says Griffin. "Even if you pay a flat fee for it, at the moment you use it there are no financial considerations. It's already been paid for."
While few of the plan's details have emerged, critics have begun their attacks.
David Barrett, engineering manager for peer-to-peer networks at Web content-delivery giant Akamai, says he's opposed to it on principle. Griffin's plan, he says, is tantamount to extortion, because it forces everyone to join.
"It's too late to charge people for what they're already getting for free," says Barrett. "This is just taxation of a basic, universal service that already exists, for the benefit a distant power that actively harasses the people being taxed without offering them any meaningful representation."
Griffin, who in 1994 was part of the team that made Aerosmith's "Head First" the first song available on the internet, goes to great pains to emphasize that the collective licensing plan is not "his" plan.
"This isn't my idea," says Griffin. "While I would gladly take the credit, blanket licensing has over 150 years of history behind it."
"Collective licensing is what people do when they lose control, or when control is no longer practical or efficient," Griffin says. "A pool of money and a fair way to split it up replaces control."
Griffin was quick to point out that the $5 figure is arbitrary.
"We negotiate in every place," Griffin says. "Clearly $5 per month would be an insane number in China or India. If you could get a nickel a month you could grow the business tenfold in those countries. In another country that had a high G.D.P., a nickel per month would be ridiculously cheap. So you negotiate. Fair is whatever you agree upon."
Griffin says Bronfman and Michael Nash, the company's digital-strategy chief, brought him into Warner to create an organization to negotiate collective licensing deals. But Griffin's ambitions extend far beyond just Warner Music.
"We're building a [as yet unnamed] company inside Warner that is not intended to be solely owned by Warner," Griffin says. "We hope all of the rights holders will come in and take ownership with us, and Warner will not control it. Our goal is to create a collective society for the digital age."
Meanwhile, critics have already attacked the plan as a kind of mandatory "culture tax."
"Jim will vehemently deny the 'tax' label," says Akamai's Barrett. "But it's a tax nonetheless. It'll be a government-approved cartel that collects money from virtually everyone�often without their knowledge�and failure to pay their tax will ultimately result in people with guns coming to your door.
"Jim's proposal does nothing but direct money to the very people that tried to prevent this future from coming to be," Barrett adds, "while further legitimizing the terror being waged in the courtrooms against their members."
Griffin dismisses such criticism.
"I understand what David is thinking, but I assure you, we have no such interest in government running this or having any part of it," he says.
Griffin says that in just the few weeks since Warner began working on this plan, the company has been approached by internet service providers "who want to discharge their risk."
"But more important than the risk for an I.S.P. is the marketing," Griffin says, drawing a comparison to Starbucks' marketing of "fair trade" coffee.
"I.S.P.'s want to distinguish themselves with marketing," Griffin says. "You can only imagine that an I.S.P. that marketed a 'fair trade' network connection would see a marketing advantage."
Gerd Leonhard, a respected music-industry consultant who has advised Sony/BMG, which recently announced plans for a flat-rate-subscription model for digital music, rejects Barrett's argument that the monthly fee amounts to a tax.
"This is not a tax," says Leonhard. "It's bundled into another charge."
"People should not be too harsh on Jim for trying to get the ball rolling," says Leonhard. "At this point, 96 percent of the population is guilty of some sort of infringement, whether they're streaming or downloading or sharing.
"What we have here is the widespread use of technology that declares all of the population to be illegal."
Portfolio.com © 2008 Condé Nast Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 27, 2008 @ 8:26 PM
A bad idea gets worse!
Clearly $5 per month would be an insane number in China or India.
It's just as clearly insane here. For an arbitrary figure, that $5 keeps showing up. It's way too high to even consider.
Adds up to $10.5 billion a year.
The recording industry... has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade. That's only if you pretend that every CD sells at the "manufacturer's suggested retail price." Reality is closer to $7 billion for the four majors combined.
They'd make an extra $3.5 billion a year without making a single CD.
There is also the problem that the record labels are not to be trusted to pay the artists fairly because they have never paid the artists fairly. Two years ago, Warner's annual financial report warned investors that, due to their royalty calculations, they might have a hard time complying with new federal accounting rules. It's the only industry under perpetual audit.
Of course, ...few of the plan's details have emerged... because there aren't any.
An RIAA member in charge, responsible for the accounting, no conception of an accurate tracking system that would include all music, much less a payment plan to divvy it up, and an "arbitrary fee" that would add up to more than the entire industry is worth, with no guarantee that the artists would see a dime.
All the record labels working together on "the boldest move yet to keep the wounded entertainment industry giants afloat." Not quite as bold as price-fixing or payola. If this doesn't create an antitrust issue, then the Justice Dept. might as well close that division.
What was a questionable idea a few weeks ago now belongs to the RIAA.
Level playing field?
Accurate statistics?
Transparent accounting?
Pay the songwriters?
Pay the artists?
Make even a half-assed effort to find them?
If they're not going to do all six of these things (and a few more), musicians will have little reason to put any faith in the integrity of the system.
Record labels don't do ANY of those things of their own volition, which is why we don't trust them in the first place. SoundExchange only does one.
The artists and the audience deserve better than anything which can possibly come from the bowels of Warner Music. |
|
leflaw
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 1:59 AM
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/28/008207 |
|
byteme
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 4:55 AM
Well said, George.
"...says Leonhard. 'At this point, 96 percent of the population is guilty of some sort of infringement...'"
Talk about pulling numbers out of your wazoo!
I can only assume that he means 96 percent of those people with internet connections.
According to the RIAA's definition of infringement, 100% of people who have ever been on the internet in any way, shape or form have committed infrigement...what with all that caching going on.
I would be willing to bet that the percentage of active "infringers" on p2p, bittorrent, etc, compared to the total number of individuals with internet access, would not exceed 20 percent.
So, basically, they think it is fair to charge the other 80 percent a $5 per month tax...oops, sorry..."bundled fee" for all of that minor infringing going on.
I'm sorry, if the number of people forced to pay for something they won't use, far exceeds those who will use it...that's a tax. Just because it isn't collected by the government doesn't change what it is. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 10:54 AM
Thanks for that link, leflaw.
After a lengthy exchange with Mr. Griffin concerning his vision as reported in the media, the only thing I could ascertain with certainty is what that vision does not include.
What it does include is still an unanswered question that's apparently going to require the creation of a new company just to figure out. Stockholders will want to see the profit margin.
Next, we put Microsoft in charge of developing web standards.
Conveniently, Shmoo and I just spent about 18 feet of cybertext hashing out a plan that has actual realistic details. It requires several characteristics which no record label has ever exhibited. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 4:23 PM
I wish we could get them to read it: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/29684 |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 4:40 PM
"We're building a [as yet unnamed] company inside Warner that is not intended to be solely owned by Warner," Griffin says. "We hope all of the rights holders will come in and take ownership with us, and Warner will not control it. Our goal is to create a collective society for the digital age."
I have been warning you all for years this was coming down the pike!
And my worst fears seem to be coming true. Warner is gonna spearhead the writing of the rules.
This is DIRE news folks!
Because the mass music listening public couldn't break its' addiction to the RIAA's music and seek out the more deserving independent tunes instead, the RIAA now gets to survive and be a pain in our ass for decades to come.
I blame the ripping groups and p2p seeders (yes, folks like YOU RaidHHI) for saving the RIAA's ass from the fire. You gave them the excuse to take control of the music marketplace on the Internet.
Now hear this!!! Once this "plan" goes into effect, Boycott-RIAA will have lost the war!
Guess we better get a seat at that table as soon as we can George. (IF they let us participate! You know damn well that only the big industry players are going to be invited unless we can garner a LOT of pressure from the EFF and an apathetic/disinterested public.)
DAMN IT, DAMN IT ALL TO HELL! |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 4:45 PM
All I know is that Step One involves not letting the industry run the show. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 5:18 PM
Good luck with that.
----------------------
"This might well mean that for your fee, the only thing you can legally do is "access" music in Windows-only formats from an unreliable and poorly maintained RIAA server, whose notion of "all music" is limited to top-20 stuff." --nguy at /.
Yup, that's about what it'll be. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 5:22 PM
Music Fee $5
Movie Fee $10.50
TV Fee $7
News Fee $12.32
Voice Transmission Fee $3
Software Fee $15
Slashdot Fee $3
Google Fee $6
Photo Fee $5
Book Fee $8
-------------
The absurdness of each and every sector jumping on the bandwagon MIGHT cause the plan to fail muster. We can only cross our fingers and hope that Congress will be influenced by that thought. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 5:32 PM
I blame the p2p junkies downloading and sharing RIAA's crack.
I blame seeders and rippers.
And I am mad at Eric Von Lohmann and the EFF for the damn "White Paper" (.pdf) which gave the RIAA the idea on how to save its' ass and royally screw us all in the process.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 5:35 PM
by SeekerDarksteel (896422) on Thursday March 27, @10:27PM (#22889486 at Slashdot)
"I'd be much less repulsed by this idea if I had any belief that the fees would be distributed in a fair fashion. As someone who listens to a fair deal of indie stuff (and virtually no major label stuff), I'm concerned that there's no way in hell anyone not on a major label would get to see a dime of the money. (Not that anyone ON a major label will see a dime of the money either, what with the soul-stealing contracts they make bands sign).
Ultimately then, it becomes about subsidizing an industry in a manner that provides absolutely no incentive for any major label to make desirable music. They can produce whatever they want and take the flat fee, preventing us from voting with our wallet. As a result, music would become even more controlled by the major labels than it already is now. And that's a particularly disgusting thought."
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 5:44 PM
Fred Von Lohmann says:
Monetizing File-Sharing: Collective Licensing Good, ISP
Tax Bad
Last week at SXSW, music industry veteran Jim Griffin
broached the idea that file sharers pay a small fee through
their ISPs in exchange for unlimited file sharing. There
are many reasons to recommend an idea like this (as we've
been saying since 2004), but there's a right way and a
wrong way to go about it.
We are big fans of a collective licensing solution for the
music file-sharing dilemma: music fans pay a few dollars
each month in exchange for a blanket license to share and
download whatever they like; collecting societies collect
the money and divvy it up between their member artists and
rightsholders. It's not a radical idea -- that's roughly
how we pay songwriters for radio play, concert hall
performances, and the music playing in your favorite
restaurant.
But this should not turn into, as some have called it, an
"ISP tax." Any collective licensing solution should be
voluntary for fans, artists, and ISPs alike. We don't have
a compulsory "restaurant tax" for songwriters -- there's no
reason to have a compulsory "Internet tax" for file
sharing. It should give fans what they want, rather than
trying to withhold things from them -- after all,
artificial scarcity is what got us into this mess. And it
must give artists the freedom to choose among competing
collecting societies, which is the only mechanism that will
guarantee the kind of transparency and efficiency that much
of the current music industry lacks.
For Wired's coverage of Jim Griffin and collective
licensing:
link
For EFF's Voluntary Collective Licensing Proposal:
link
For this complete post by EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred
von Lohmann, including a quick reference guide to help
distinguish a good collective licensing plan from a bad
"ISP tax":
link
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 5:47 PM
Do you see your mistake yet Fred? |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 6:22 PM
Here's a question that needs asked:
Where does Griffin/Warner (ie, the RIAA and whomever they invite to the table) get the right to be the ones who decide on these things? Market power?
Do we live in a democratic society or a fascist corporate dictatorship?
I fear the answer.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 7:06 PM
Ray Beckerman weighs in:
-------------------------------
When Big 4 move towards online subcription services, please do not patronize them
We have read, on Conde Naste Portfolio.com, that the Big 4 -- Warner Bros. Records, SONY BMG, EMI, and Vivendi/Universal -- are finally trying to get on board with selling music online on a subscription model, and that the person heading up this effort at Warner Brothers now says "I don't think we should be suing students and I don't think we should be suing people in their homes".
Well it's very nice to hear him say that, now, while his employer continues to bring new lawsuits, and to wreck the lives of innocent people, on a daily basis.
But I hope that when these idiots finally do open their subscription services, none of my readers will patronize them.
The lawsuit campaign is a campaign launched and managed by idiots, who have accomplished nothing except to hurt the lives of others while destroying their own companies.
We, the public, should remember what they have done, and not do business with them when they finally cave and beg the public to come back to them.
If you consider any subscription service, please be sure it's not one affiliated with, or even peddling the music of, any of those 4 companies or their labels (if you want to identify the labels to stay away from, that's real easy... go to the Index of Litigation Documents table of cases and look at the names of the record company plaintiffs. Here's a list: Arista, Atlantic, BMG, Capitol, Elektra, Fonovisa,
Interscope, LaFace, Lava, Loud, Maverick, Motown, Priority, SONY, UMG, Virgin, and Warner. As a matter of principle, we should never buy music from any of those companies.)
Please stick to independent music. Here's my partial list of places to get independent music online.
Thank you. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 10:16 PM
Where does Griffin/Warner (ie, the RIAA and whomever they invite to the table) get the right to be the ones who decide on these things? Market power?
Because everyone else is a pirate. Duh!
Look, these guys have to create an entire new company in hopes of coming up with a plan. This means they don't actually have one yet and are going to waste a few more million of the artists' money trying to figure it out.
Every story about this mentions the $5 fee, which no one actually admits to.
The monthly fee should be the last issue to be considered, as it is going to depend greatly upon factors which cannot be apparent until you have a plan to assess.
As this fee is the only thing consistently cited, it is apparent that the first question they asked was, "How much money can we get?" They're hoping for $10.5 billion. It all depends on how gullible we are.
This is not a music problem; it's not a business problem.
It's a database problem. They are really bad at math and worse at logic. They have yet to ask any of the questions relevant to creating a solution. I guess that's why they make the big bucks, eh?
It's not like they're going to start something up next week. It'll take them that long to furnish the conference room and get telephones installed.
In the end, what happens will depend on the database programmers. Some programmers will guide you through the process, pointing out flaws in reasoning and information flow, improving efficiency and accuracy as the project develops.
Then are the kind of programmers that the FBI paid a bazillion dollars to and ended up with useless software. Here's how that goes:
Programmer takes the specs for the project and does it exactly as described. Programmer gets paid.
Flawed concept in the original specs becomes apparent. New specs are drawn up. Programmer takes the specs for the project and does it exactly as described. Programmer gets paid.
Rinse. Repeat.
You never know which type of programmer you're going to get until after you sign the contract. Warner's business is music and they pick the wrong acts more than 90% of the time.
The odds are in our favor. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 28, 2008 @ 11:45 PM
It's gonna be one big clusterf**k to be sure. From a tech standpoint AND from all the other standpoints.
I don't think it is even going to be legal without an act of congress. There's going to have to be at least one copyright amendment (if not more) to make the whole shebang fly. |
|
leflaw
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 3:34 AM
im Griffin says ISP music tax only one possibility
Posted by Greg Sandoval | 5 comments
The controversy over whether an internet service provider should charge for music is once again coming to a boil.
Pundits, music-industry insiders and members of the public are bashing Warner Music Group exec Jim Griffin after he acknowledged in a interview that he is working on a plan to collect music fees from consumers via their ISP bills.
I haven't see backlash like this since rocker Trent Reznor told me in an interview two months ago that an ISP tax might be a good idea. It didn't matter to some that Reznor also made a seemingly conflicting statement in the same interview when he said perhaps music should be given away for free.
This kind of off-the-cuff musing was enough to make Reznor a target of widespread criticism. Nobody seemed to care that the leader of the band, Nine Inch Nails, was a digital-music innovator and had long called on the record industry to improve its treatment of fans. What happens is that people hear the word "tax" and objective analysis goes out the window. People condemn and vilify. Out comes the torches and pitchforks.
"It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment."
--Jim Griffin, Warner Music Group
Nearly two weeks after our Q&A appeared, Reznor disavowed his statements about the ISP tax. Griffin now appears to be tip-toeing away from some of his comments.
"We are in the earliest stages of what is a dynamic conversation about licensing opportunities in the global digital marketplace," Griffin said in a statement issued by Warner Music on Friday. "It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment about what was simply my own illustrative example of one of many concepts I have in this space."
The proposal outlined in the interview Griffin gave Portfolio.com suggested that ISP fees could create a $20 billion pool that would go to artists and copyright holders. Consumers would have the option of paying the fee or submitting themselves to advertising.
"All stakeholders stand to benefit from the kind of process that results from the willingness to consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice," Griffin said in the e-mail.
But there's plenty of prejudice and Griffin should know this. The reality is music fans are distrustful of record companies. They resent talk about charges being quietly tucked into their monthly bills.
Griffin could have hardly done more to stoke paranoia than to attempt to sell his plan with comments such as this: "Music will feel free," Griffin told the magazine (the italics are mine).
He could be a digital-music genius for all I know. But Warner Music should have been smarter in broaching the subject of ISP fees than to allow Griffin to casually toss out ideas in print if--as he said in his e-mail--this is only one of "many concepts" the label is considering.
Warner Music now has a firestorm on its hands and few are trying to assess the idea dispassionately. That's too bad because the label, like its the top three competitors; Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and the EMI Group have appeared to be headed in the right direction of late. They've been experimenting with models and ideas they flat out rejected not long ago.
The labels have finally embraced open MP3s and struck deals to offer ad-supported music (albeit only in a streaming version) with social networks Imeem and Last.fm.
"There's a lot of experimentation in the marketplace right now and that's ultimately a good thing for the industry and for fans," said Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. "It's important to note that all of the many ideas being floated out there involve voluntary payment systems, and not a government-imposed compulsory license. This would be the marketplace at work."
Bundling subscription fees into ISP bills on a voluntary basis may prove to be a bad idea. At this point, nothing is certain so shouldn't every proposal at least be explored?
We won't know if the public will embrace an all-you-can-eat music service from the ISPs until the music industry presents a formal plan, one that will hopefully be coolly and carefully analyzed. |
|
leflaw
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 3:35 AM
oops
from
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9905952-7.html |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 3:45 AM
"Bronfman has asked Griffin, formerly Geffen Music's digital chief, to develop a model that would create a pool of money from user fees to be distributed to artists and copyright holders."
:lmao: who is he trying to fool? artists and copyright holders still won't get shit from this.
i don't buy major label music, i listen to some but not a lot, of that i either own it on originals from years gone by or they were free downloads, like NIN's latest offerig. why the fuck should i pay them just for the privilege? if they force that onto me, then i'm going to rob their entire back catalogue, burn it to disks and sell them down the local boot sale. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 5:03 AM
"What happens is that people hear the word "tax" and objective analysis goes out the window."
I agree it is not exactly a "tax" (...it's a "levy")
"It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment."
Creative HOW? Creative in the artistic sense ...or in how everyone but the big RIAA labels are going to get fleeced?
And, there will be no "fruit" unless TRUE independent music gets represented.
"The proposal outlined in the interview Griffin gave Portfolio.com suggested that ISP fees could create a $20 billion pool that would go to artists and copyright holders."
I'm afraid that we are going to fight a very steep uphill battle to get the artists (songwriters and performers) paid instead of the "copyright holders" (which I fear is "code" for the RIAA labels and affiliated publishers who already dominate radio, Tv, etc.)
Folks, this whole thing is a huge power/land-grab for the reigns of digital music marketplace!
I'm glad they didn't try it back in the old Napster days. The RIAA was stupider then (thank God) ...but they would have had less resistance had they tried this at that time.
We MUST work together harder than ever befor to throw up roadblocks and ensure that the RIAA labels and big media don't get this to go all their way.
I'd have preferred that the RIAA had fully and completely went the way of the dinosaurs before we got around to blanket licensing talks. Unfortunately, Mr. Griffin (and others) have gave the Beast ideas which the Beast will pervert to it's advantage.
Folks, I can't say enough that I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!
We supposedly still live in a democratic free society. Make your voice heard on this matter! Don't let the RIAA get away with the theft of our digital music future!
Don't let the Internet become ANOTHER telecommunications failure. (Terrestrial radio being a good example of what COULD happen if you don't fight now!) |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 5:08 AM
"The reality is music fans are distrustful of record companies."
And they SHOULD be! (And don't forget that songwriters and musicians ALSO have every reason to mistrust them, perhaps even more-so!) |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 5:16 AM
And here's PROOF why we mistrust:
"We won't know if the public will embrace an all-you-can-eat music service from the ISPs until the music industry presents a formal plan, one that will hopefully be coolly and carefully analyzed."
Read that over and take note of the phrase:
"until the music industry presents a formal plan"
...as if Itchy Bunghole's "industry" owns all the music in the world and that there isn't any independent alternative to what the RIAA sells.
Again I ask, WHAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT to bargain over the future of music on the Internet in general in lieu of the rest of us who ALSO make music? |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 5:33 AM
Bronfman has asked Griffin... to develop a model that would create a pool of money..."
"The proposal outlined ... suggested that ISP fees could create a $20 billion pool..."
This merely proves my earlier assertions. The first question they asked was "How much money can we get?" They think they can get triple their annual income -- without making a single new recording all year.
What we need is a model for accurately tracking and reporting all the music downloaded and streamed over the Internet. They're trying to "develop a model that would create a pool of money".
Their second question will be, "How do we keep the riff-raff out of the deep end?" |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 6:18 AM
Warner has given Griffin a three-year contract to form a new organization to spearhead the plan.
Three years, just to form a plan. Then they find a programmer to build it according to those specs..
Does Griffin have to pay the money back if they never actually develop one that works? I think not.
Warner is going to spend 3 years worrying about what to do with the results and how to divide up the money.
The Internet Archive has the moral advantage of being non-profit. They also have the "music as art" advantage as illustrated by the lengths they go to provide each submitted song in a wide selection of bitrates.
But they're trying to archive the entire Internet and we're only concerned with the mp3 files. They've got the stuff which the record labels are not interested in but almost nothing current.
Apple could have the thing running in 3 days, maybe three hours. Take the iTMS, drop the DRM, drop the barriers to artist entry, stop charging for downloads, and just count and report them accurately. They already do that last one anyway. The same cannot be said for Warner Music. |
|
independentm...
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 7:25 AM
I agree with you almost fully and completely George.
But you are an "Apple fan-boy" (lol) and I wouldn't trust Apple in charge of the whole shebang either. (But, it would be better than Warner or any other of the RIAA of course!)
Google wouldn't be a good choice either.
YOUR suggestion of the Internet Archive is the most sound.
If wishes were fishes and government agencies were above corruption, this job actually would then belong to the Copyright Office... but HELL NO to that! (BECAUSE the Copyright office is continually too damn politically influenced.)
|
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: March 29, 2008 @ 2:02 PM
If I were a fanboy, I wouldn't still be using OS9 on a 366MHz machine. I'm keeping it until DRM disappears.
This has nothing to do with PC vs. Mac.
Apple has to sell a billion songs to earn $300 million. Or sell 2 million iPods.
It's been taking almost a year to reach each billion-song milestone. They probably sold 2 million iPods the week after Thanksgiving.
Apple is not running the iTMS with the intent of getting rich from the music. Never has. Add in the hassles of dealing with the record labels, defending claims of antitrust because Jobs gave the record labels exactly what they asked for.
In exchange for developing the digital income stream and selling billions of songs for the record labels, they all hate him and publicly call Apple their enemy. Kind of like Tower Records were their enemy, I guess.
From a business perspective, the wisest thing for Apple to do at this juncture would be to close their store. If I were a stockholder, that's what I'd be asking for. The iTMS is not a money-maker and Apple's insistence on selling music has only exposed stockholders to the risk of antitrust battles across Europe.
If I were Steve Jobs, had done all this, and the record labels called me their enemy, the iTMS would suddenly experience a "maintenance and upgrade" outage that lasted until a formal apology arrived.
Being branded as an enemy of the RIAA is one of the highest honors one can receive in the music business thus far in the 21st century. If this was something to build from scratch, that would probably be enough for me.
Beyond any political considerations, Apple's primary real advantage in our hypothetical is that it has is a system that is already in place, already has delivered billions of downloads, their accuracy has not been questioned, no one has complained about their accounting.
They have already built the repository we need. It works. If you don't trust Apple, then don't let them hold the money -- just pay them for providing the service. The money which is or is not available for distribution to artists, writers, etc., has nothing to do with determining which music is downloaded and streamed.
It's the other way around. Apple already built it. WMG is going to spend 3 years to design a "money pool" before they think about figuring out how to collect the data required.
Time to think different. Our enemy's enemy is the best ally we could have to solve this particular problem at this particular point in time.
We don't need a voice at Jim Griffin's bargaining table. The fate of music will not be decided there.
We need a voice in an Apple conference room. |
|
|
Navigation
