Showing posts with label Digital Downloads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Digital Downloads. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Do It Yourself: Modern Music Distribution

On October 10, 2007, legendary rock-and-roll band Radiohead released their latest album, In Rainbows, with an innovative new business model. They sold the album on their website via mp3 download, and fans could pay whatever price they chose, whether it be $0 or $50. This event was widely covered by the media, and proved to be quite profitable for the band. However, some argue that the success was brought by the media. Sarah Lewitinn, co-founder of Stolen Transmissions Records told the New York Times that "for one thing, only established acts with an extremely dedicated fan base could prosper that way. For another, the novelty would wear off quickly." Whether or not Radiohead started the trend, or was merely the most public example, many models of digital music distribution circumventing music labels are beginning to gain popularity. The most successful of these are CD Baby and TuneCore (at right), the latter of which was financed $7 million by Opus Capital on October 27, 2008. These companies distribute music through Amazon MP3, iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, and more, with no need to be signed to any record label. Artists also retain ownership of the master recordings, and 100% of the royalties. While businesses like these do not help the major labels recover from their already faltering album sales, I think that they are ultimately good for the music industry, because it puts power in the hands of artists, and allows for young artists to grow.

CD Baby's business model works as a percentage cut of income received from the purchase of an artist's work. They keep 9%, and pay the artist 91% of the money made on digital downloads, they also will sell artist's physical CD on their site, of which they keep $4. This is a great way for small bands to have a national distribution for nothing more than the one-time $35 start-up fee. Part of the mission statement for CD Baby reads: "We only sell music that comes directly from the musicians. No distributors... In a regular record deal or distribution deal, musicians only make $1-$2 per album, if they ever get paid by their label. When selling through CD Baby, musicians make $6-$12 per album, and get paid weekly." TuneCore delivers a similar service with a slightly different method of setting up accounts. With TuneCore's setup, the artist pays a $19.98 annual fee per album for maintenance and storage, $0.99 per song, and $0.99 per online store, per album. Once these fees are paid, the artist receives 100% of the income received from purchases of their music, regardless of how popular they are. Cnet writer Matt Rosoff calculated in his blog, Digital Noise, that TuneCore will always be the better deal in the first year, because of the start up fees, but after that, an artist must sell around 370 downloads a year to do better with TuneCore than they would with CD Baby. For large acts, 370 downloads would be no problem at all, and a few established bands have already taken advantage of this, Nine Inch Nails probably being the most notable.

Around the same time as Radiohead ditched their label and tried alternative distribution channels, Nine Inch Nails front-man, Trent Reznor, announced that they too would be self-distributing their album Ghosts I-IV. Their sales system would include a 9-track free sampler, and a 36-track album for $5 available only on AmazonMP3 through TuneCore. In his blog Music Business and Trend-Mongering, Berklee Music professor Mike King does the math and shows that Trent Reznor only had to pay $56.61 to list his 36-track album on AmazonMP3. A TuneCore spokesman who commented on the blog verified this fact: "He did! He paid the same as everyone else, no special deals. I suspect Mr. Reznor can afford it. :)." After being listed, that album went on to make $1.6 million dollars in the first week. This is an extreme example, but makes the point that services like TuneCore and CD Baby have the ability to make an artist's income from record sales directly linked to their success, which is not always the case in the major label system.

Radiohead's system requires that the band be already established, and just making music available is not enough to make it popular or successful, no matter what the distribution channel. Major labels can promote musicians in unrivaled ways, and that is why artists still sign with them, and in doing so, forfeit most of the money made in their name. That's why do-it-yourself distribution is good for the artist. Although it is harder to gain attention as a new band, if any notoriety is reached, there is much more to be gained. More importantly, the success will be based on musical merit rather than marketing dollars. In his blog, Future of Music, Dave Kusek writes: "There is a lot of discussion these days about free music and the decline of the power and influence of the major record labels. However, I would argue that music has always been free in one form or another, throughout history and that the relationship between the artists and their fans - the artists and their patrons is what really matters." In my eyes, distribution companies like CD Baby and ToneCore do more than ever to directly, and globally, connect musicians and fans, and in doing so help pioneer the future of the music industry.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Digital Rights Management: Wal-Mart's Double-Edged Sword

The best workable model for legal digital downloads has been under debate since the fall of Napster and the rise of the iTunes music store. The solution, for many digital download companies, has been some sort of "digital rights management." DRM is a feature embedded within downloaded music files that control how that file may be used. It could control, for instance, how many times a song may be burned to CD, or if it may be burned at all. The exact DRM regulations vary from digital download provider, and the deals they have with the labels providing the recordings.

Wal-Mart Music sent out an email on Sept. 26th to all its digital download service members. It informed them that beginning October 9th, they would no longer be offering DRM support. The Wal-Mart Music Store (seen at the right) began selling DRM-free only downloads starting in February of 2008. This means that any song that was purchased before February 2008 would no have the DRM system to support it, and so would no longer work at all. Their advice was to back up those songs on a CD, to be ripped back off onto your hard-drive and in doing so, losing the DRM limitations.

It is impressive that Wal-Mart would offer nothing but DRM-free downloads at the same price as they offered before. That said, it seems unfair, irresponsible, unethical and even greedy that those songs which were legally purchased would simply cease to work, since many people will be forced to re-buy the same songs they will lose. The only option they offer is to burn CD's in their Wal-Mart default .wma format and rip them back in .mp3 format which means serious loss of quality in the reformatting. This, along with the sheer number of music files people have, makes Wal-Mart's proposed solution a fairly poor one.

If the top music retailer in the country is moving towards a DRM-free format, certainly the whole industry will move that way. This will prove beneficial to consumers and fans, as long as older downloaded songs do not become obsolete. In my research of Wal-Mart's issue, I offered my thoughts in the commentary of two different heavily discussed blogs. The first was on www.readwriteweb.com, the post was titled Wal-Mart Gives Consumers Number 1 Reason Why DRM is Not the Answer. The second was on www.boingboing.net titled Wal*Mart shutting down DRM server, nuking your music collection. The first criticizes the notion of DRM, specifically citing Wal-Mart's move as an example of " the music industry... struggling to gain a foot-hold in the battle with online piracy." The latter argues that by making the older songs obsolete, Wal-Mart is basically punishing those who acted legally, because those with illegal downloads have no such issues with DRM. As well as posting my comments on these blogs, I have posted them below.



Wal-Mart Gives Consumers Number 1 Reason Why DRM is Not the Answer
Post:
I certainly appreciate your laments on the downfalls of DRM protected songs. They cause frustration and inconvience invariably. However, I do think that it is important as well to consider and remember why DRM was put into place to begin with. Not only from a business point of view, but from a historical point of view as well. Granted, it was not too long ago, but the music industry has been forced to change quite a bit over the past 10 years. At the time when iTunes was just unleashing the iTunes Store, Napster had just been shutdown, peer to peer was king of digital downloads, and the record labels were terrified of the idea of any sort of downloading of music. They tried to protect their intellectual property in any way possible, even creating CDs that couldn't be recognized by a computer at all, and part of this protection was the use of DRM in audio files. While it is certainly a hassle to deal with, it was necessary to have for the record labels to get the piece of mind they needed to allow iTunes and all subsequent legal download businesses to get started. Now, the distributors of digital downloads are slowly moving towards rescinding DRM restrictions, and I think you are entirely correct in saying that Wal-Mart has done a poor job of making that move. Whether through oversight or lack of caring, they have not considered the consumer at all. ITunes also is already offering some of their songs in a DRM-free format, and for previously downloaded songs, they offer a 30-cent upgrade. Even without the upgrade, the songs will not become obsolete. Wal-Mart should certainly offer a similiar protection program for those who will otherwise be left with inoperative audio files.



Wal*Mart shutting down DRM server, nuking your music collection.
Post:
Thank you for bringing up the relatively recent moral dilemma that DRM and digital downloads present. The way that Wal-Mart has dealt with moving away from DRM songs is just one more reason to shy away from legal digital downloads. You now can't even be sure that if you do purchase something legally, it will continue to play for years to come. While you don't have to have the hassle of DRM downloading through peer to peer networks, you do have to worry about being sued by the RIAA, and the potential heavy conscience from stealing intellectual property. According to slyck.com, you have a higher chance of being killed in day-to-day living than you do of being sued by the RIAA (http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=769), but that doesn't mean it can't happen to you. Jammie Thomas is a single mother from Minnesota who was the first person to let an RIAA suit go to trial. She lost the case and had to pay $222,000. Copyright infringement is not cheap to mess with if you do get caught. This hasn't stopped the youth of today, and the disregard for musical intellectual property is changing the way that the industry works. A survey of British kids ages 14-24 revealed that "Around 90% of respondents now own an MP3 player. They contain an average of 1770 tracks - half of which have not been paid for." (http://www.futureofmusicbook.com/2008/06/18/survey-of-british-youth/) This is astounding. Along with new technology comes the slow adoption of it, and eventually the exploration and regulation of it's limitations. This is what happened with file sharing, and now with DRM. They are being pushed into the technological age.
 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.