I wrote up a brief three pager offering a possible structure for music licensing online.  The idea was simply to simplify the challenge of licensing so many sorts of music users, even file sharing.

Click here to download: A modest proposal for structuring the resolution.

The text version:

From a platform mindset, our approach to not only licensing but also providing music on networks might dramatically change.  In the following section I will briefly describe a simple three-tier structure for music licensing that could be considered.

Importantly, the structure described below does not involve a fundamental shift in how we approach and design music licenses.  Licensing music rights by way of collectives and blanket terms is a premise that is more than 100 years old.  The intent of the platform structure is to recognize music rights as a commons environment, rather than try to enact technical or legal measures that might somehow attempt to treat these rights as truly, privately controlled property.  The intent of the tiered structure is to make plausible the licensing of a range of consumer-facing services.  Essentially these services would operate “on top of” a licensed platform.  This three-stage structure is an intentional modification of what might otherwise be seen as a two-part tariff.  As the reader will see, I have broken up the enactment of the tiers so as to weaken the concerns for monopoly control.

Three-Tiered License

In an effort to resolve the music providers’ dilemma, I propose a three-tier license structure for establishing music as a platform underlying the infrastructure of internet service provision.  Tier One licenses would be granted directly to ISPs, while Tier Two licenses would be granted by ISPs to MSPs in exchange for the latter partys’ reliance upon the primary platform for the development of consumer-facing products, services and experiences.  Tier Three licenses involve the relationships between FANS, and their associated ISPs and/or MSPs.  This third tier involves the business models through which music is ultimately experienced by FANs.

Tier One

The Tier One license is provided directly to ISPs for the provision of music on their networks.  This primary tier of service license essentially establishes the music platform.  Music files are made available to ISPs, who then can resolve requests for these files on behalf of end users.  This licensed platform for music might even inherit its own informal URL space (e.g., music://  ), and a request made for some location within this space would be resolved by ISPs and fulfilled (i.e., served from some recognizable location) by the assigned representative of a music rights holder.

An immediate benefit of such a platform structure can be seen in the phenomena that are URL linking and bookmarking – the simple act of sharing the location of a web page (http://www.website.com/really_cool_webpage).  Given linking to a web page is so damn easy – merely a function of copy-paste – and generally reliable, the average web user does not choose to download and pass along the raw HTML file of interest with all of the associated media.  Instead, we simply copy a link, paste it into an email, and share with friends some experience we find compelling.

The objective of music:// as a URL space is to make acquiring and sharing licensed music files just plain easier and more reliable than transmitting these files through alternative venues.  Any end user wishing to share a file simply needs to share the music:// URL associated with that file.  This URL, when selected, transmits the file to the end user by the preferred method (e.g., streaming or download).  In the results as presented within the file sharing applications or search engines, these verified and reliable files would likely be granted higher priority given their greater likelihood of satisfying user requests.

Furthermore, by converting music to a URL space mediated by ISPs we can introduce not only the ability to gather data relevant to the distribution of royalties, but also the capacity to gather these data anonymously.  ISPs release to the rights representatives the usage of files that have been served, while user-specific data would be gathered separately and used independently.  These user-specific data would only be associated with usage upon the user’s permission.

Tier Two

A Tier Two license might be provided by ISPs to MSPs for the reliance of these commercial operators upon the hosted music platform in the development of consumer-facing products, services and experiences.  Essentially, copyright holders would invite ISPs to become relevant and relied upon actors in the music value chain, with the capacity to develop licenses and fee structures for downstream MSPs.  A portion of these downstream license fees might pass through to MRPs, the assigned representatives of music rights holders.  As a result, a sort of secondary marketplace forms for the provision of music to end users – this secondary market providing a means for informing the negotiated price for the Tier One license.

Quite truthfully, the availability of tens of millions of music files presents end consumers not only with a clear opportunity, but also with a very clear problem – navigating and organizing such a vast catalog of music. The purpose of the Tier Two license is to empower MSPs with not only the rights but also the infrastructure through which the problems of end consumers might be reasonably solved.

For example, search providers such as Google and even file sharing applications such as Limewire, rather than being populated by links to unqualified files and transitory IP addresses, would instead be populated by URLs resolving upon qualified and reliable music files.  Music services such as Rhapsody, iLike or Project Playlist would be supported by a platform of consistently available media.

Tier Three

A Tier Three license is the final bridge between FANs, ISPs and MSPs.  The third tier involves the innovations and associated business models, through which music is ultimately experienced by FANs.  By separating this tier from direct influence by MRPs, the goal is to empower innovation, while permitting the gains from these innovations to filter through the system to music rights holders.  The price paid by FANs and MSPs for the provision of music filters through to the license paid by ISPs for the right to provide such music openly.

A visual of the layers and tiers:

Recent data put through the ringer by my collaborator Will Page are suggesting the hopes and dreams of the Long Tail may be farther from reality than many have hoped.

Essentially, by way of transaction data from a large digital music retailer that shall go nameless, the tail wagged as follows:

Roughly 80% of the available inventory of music tracks sold nothing over the course of a year. Unfortunately, that outcome alone is enough to really question how life is for those artists operating in the tail.

Of the 20% of tracks that did sell something, the great majority of sales (more than 80%) came from a tiny sliver of tracks.

You end up with less than 5% of the available inventory accounting for more than 80% of the sales, during a year.

And unfortunately, that outcome is a far cry from “the future of business is selling less of more.”

Given the ongoing and at time spicy debate that surrounds the Long Tail, as presented by WIRED’s Chris Anderson, I believe its time we ask a very simple question:  Is “The Long Tail” a Theory or an Ideology?  If this question has already been asked, then consider this simply the time for me to ask this very simple question.

By Theory, I simply mean a statement of some causal relationship(s), and/or conditional process(es) that can be proven to be false.  Notice, I did not say that a theory is something that can be proven to be true.  This distinction – falsification – is fundamental to what it seems we call our scientific method.  Furthermore, as highlighted by the Oxford dictionary, a theory involves “general principles independent of the thing to be explained.”  The outcome and conditions are not the theory – the theory is in the spaces in between the cause and the consequent.

By Ideology, I simply mean “a system of ideas and ideals” that can be shown to be true.  Importantly, these principles may not be independent of the thing to be explained.  Instead, ideologies are alternatively explanations or interpretations.  The cause and the consequent are fused together, no longer independent.

For example, the various disciplines of the social sciences – economics, sociology, political science – are supported by various ideologies.  These disciplines are cornerstoned, and at times distinguished, by certain ideas and assumptions about the world such that explanations make sense. These ideologies then give birth to all sorts of theories about human behavior, at the level of individuals or the aggregation of individuals we call markets or societies.

The Long Tail may in fact be an Ideology – a system of ideas and ideals that once in place can be shown to be true.  I am coming to this conclusion given most challenges to the claims of the Long Tail are met with re-stated conditions and exceptions.  The objective of the Long Tail thesis appears to be to describe a set of conditions under which both the cause and the consequent would be shown to be true.

As such, the premise(s) of the Long Tail may not form a Theory to be tested, but an Ideology to be adopted and adapted.

So.  The Google comic made for the release of their browser is pretty nifty.  Clicking through each and every page in a browser however, is no real fun.  Therefore, I have pooled all of the images into a single PDF file.  I included the credits for this comic on the final page.  All rights involved ultimately belong to Google.  This is just a PDF of the images, easier to read.

Here is the link to the Google Chrome Browser Comic Book in PDF form.

Just a quick test of the iPhone app for WordPress.

Seems the blogoland is officially in a tizzy over the next iPhone.  Per protocol, the Apple Store is closed for “restocking,” and a flurry of fuzzy and poached screen shots have appeared in the last week.

Quite honestly, as an iPhone owner, I can say that this thing makes other phones just look like toys.  Not that toys are a bad thing.  But as more phones live and work like iPhones, social life will have to be impacted in unexpected ways.

A brief paper written by WIll Page (of MCPS-PRS Alliance, in the UK) and myself has been made publicly available.  The piece was meant to stir a larger discussion around alternative licensing structures rights societies might put to use, particularly in the context of new, music-related startups.  These startups usually (1) cannot afford the rates societies have set based upon the financials of more mature businesses, and (2) are trying to use music in novel ways, for which a collective license may not already exist.

The paper can be downloaded from the MCPS-PRS Alliance site for independent research. 

That’s the question that directs my research.  We have made a great many of assumptions, and produced a number of theories over the years regarding the relationship between technology, work and organizations.  Most of these assumptions and theories have run into a few bumps when information technologies are concerned.

So where are we headed, as our capacity to automate work increases?  Are we running out of things to do?  Or do increasingly capable, and (gasp) intelligent  technologies simply take our work and organizations in direction we never anticipated?

As someone who has been exposed to a fair amount of research in the management realm, I am often shocked/awed/dismayed by the use of psychological testing in the hiring process. These tests play a statistical game that really should only be played by those understanding the rules.

When I see these new products in the world of genetic data, like 23andME, I get a little concerned. We might as well accept at this point in time that someday, you will exchange these kind of data either before or after an employment agreement. Many people would consider the privacy factor too overwhelming to expect genetic information to be part of the employment process, but the facts of the reality suggest that private employers are not bound by the same rules for private data as many assume. We are often and quite legally monitored at work, depending upon the state in which we are employed, we can be fired for our political beliefs (even if those beliefs are expressed outside of the workplace).

Anyhoo. Arrington, over at TechCrunch, released some screen shots and thoughts on his test data courtesy 23andME. As the tests that underlie these kind of services grow in size and focus, the data will only get more “reliable.” Firms can and will hire on the basis of the odds expressed in these results.

A good test of a new pharmaceutical would rest upon whether or not the team who developed the drug would use it on themselves, or their children. Unfortunately, what’s good for the gander is not good for the goose, when it comes to being free.Long Tail Anderson (the editor in chief of WIRED) has been able to make use of Wired magazine to promote his upcoming book. Note: the particular WIRED magazine (in paper form) is only available for free to the first 10,000 people to sign away their right to a spam-free mailing address here (“You may at times receive e-mail offers or information from Wired or carefully selected third parties.”).Unfortunately, judging from the article in WIRED, and the article in The Economist, Mr. Anderson strings together a great many buzzwords, sufficient to distract anyone from paying attention to the strings being pulled behind the curtain.Right from the start, the whole things sounds a little wonky:(excerpt) “The new model is based not on cross-subsidies — the shifting of costs from one product to another — but on the fact that the cost of products themselves is falling fast. It’s as if the price of steel had dropped so close to zero that King Gillette could give away both razor and blade, and make his money on something else entirely.”(excerpt)Never mind that cross subsidies are later listed as one of the business models for free, described as “any product that entices you to pay for something else.” SO  the new business model is based upon cross-subsidies for those who keep their attention.Regardless. The real bummer here is the ease with which this whole article repackages the past as the future of business.  Nothing in particular is the future of business.  However, this future will always involve someone opening their wallet and paying for something.