Ingjerds world...

Bye bye birdie....

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:46:00 +0000

This blog will no longer be updated. Please go to http://socialbydesign.wordpress.com for my writings....

Thanks for following this blog folks :-)

Selfcast Beta application now open!

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:38:00 +0000

If you're dreaming of creating your own TV channel or radio for FREE, there's no need to pinch yourself: A soon to be lauched user generated broadcasting tool Selfcast developed by RawFlow will make it happen.

Register to try the beta here.

Last.fm moved into video

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Fri, 11 May 2007 11:47:00 +0000

London-based recommendation service Last.fm is now layering music videos into its offering, an aggressive challenge to YouTube. The enhancement will allow users to create customized video channels, based on expressed preferences. The concept is getting started with content from UK-based indies Ninja Tune, Domino, Warp, and Mute, as well as artists from Vancouver-based Nettwerk Music Group. Last.fm also pointed to agreements with EMI and Warner Music Group, as well as a collection of roughly 20,000 independent labels. That forms the underpinning for an immense video collection, one that will offer broad exposure to new and established artists. "Last.fm aims eventually to have every music video ever made on the site, from the latest hits to underground obscurities to classics from the past," the group indicated.

According to the company, videos will be streamed sequentially, and users can rate the content in a more passive model. That lean-back approach allows users to determine their level of involvement, similar to the Launchcast radio rating system on Yahoo. From a broader level, the video rollout will appeal to dedicated music fans, though users are already accustomed to finding any video on YouTube. In a competitive stab, Last.fm is hoping to trump its well-established target on quality, though it remains unclear if fidelity issues are critical to end users. "The quality of videos on Last.fm will be significantly higher than that of YouTube, with audio encoded at 128kbps compared to YouTube's 64kbps," the company indicated. Meanwhile, bands are artists will be able to upload their own content onto the service, a move that almost guarantees gargantuan content volumes.

Permalink: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051007last

MySpace is dead. Long live Facebook!

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:42:00 +0000

If someone thought I was in love with MySpace, they're wrong. MySpace is a good place to be because it allows you to mess up the pages and customise them yourself, and it has proven a good way to get in touch with and discover new bands. However, there's also a lot of problems with MySpace. First of all, nothing WORKS! Secondly, it is too big to be a true community. Most of my friends on MySpace are completely unknown to me, and search feature is crap. Third, the whole site is loaded with ads. Fourth, MySpace lost cred after being bought by News Corp. What's next then?

Contrary to analyst's prediction, Facebook has continued to grow. It is now the sixth most-trafficked site in the U.S. and 1 % of all Internet time is spent on Facebook, and some estimates suggest it will bring in $100 million in revenues this year. Why? Well, it provides an easy way to keep in touch with friends and family, links between people are defined, you can start groups and there's a real-time news feed where you can see what your friends are up to (who uploaded new photos, who's going to Glastonbury etc).

AND unlike MySpace which sold out as soon as it could, Facebook has turned down $750 million -$1 billion offers, and wants to stay independent, according to a recent article in FastCompany.

However - Among the only holes in Google’s portfolio is good social networking play, and after Google’s DoubleClick buyout goes through (if it goes through), this might be the next in its sight? Let's see shall we.

Finally - EMI and Itunes to offer non-DRM sales

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:45:00 +0000

EMI, Apple Announce DRM-Free Digital Sales Plan

EMI and Apple will now sell DRM-free catalog on the iTunes Store, according to a joint announcement issued today. The move is groundbreaking, and shatters a previously ironclad commitment to digital protections by the major labels. The decision means that well-known tracks from artists like the Rolling Stones, Norah Jones, Lily Allen, and Janet Jackson can now be downloaded in a protection-free format, an approach that eliminates usage and sharing restrictions. The company pointed to a refreshed product line that will feature "a much higher sound quality than existing downloads," and one that will be "free of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions". Specifically, the label will offer its catalog to digital music stores in a range of higher bitrates, including CD-quality fidelities. According to Steve Jobs, the DRM-free offering will be exclusively unveiled by iTunes in May. Other stores will offer the DRM-free catalog at dates thereafter.

The move represents a major shift, though several asterisks are dangling. The tracks themselves are being branded as "premium downloads," and will carry an elevated price tag above "standard," DRM-protected tracks. Instead of a standard, 99 cent, 79 pence, or 99 euro price tag, the premium tracks will be priced at $1.29, 0.99 pence, or €1.29. Both premium and standard tracks will sit alongside one another, and consumers will have the ability to upgrade their standard versions by simply paying the difference. That approach breaks an iTunes commitment to uniform pricing and format, and conflicts with earlier philosophies expressed by Jobs. But during the unveiling, Jobs noted that the offering means greater choice, and a more fine-tuned offering. "We think our customers are really going to appreciate this," Steve Jobs said. "iTunes will continue to offer its current catalog at the same price, alongside the DRM-free, higher quality versions." Jobs also disclosed that the iTunes Store has now sold more than 2.5 billion tracks.

MySpace has now added online music sales shop

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:05:00 +0000

From digitalmusicnews.com 20/03/07

MySpace Boots Hoooka Widget, Tila Tequila Miffed

MySpace has now removed a portable music sales application from the Tila Tequila page, a development that has angered the model-turned-artist. The widget, known as the Hoooka and supplied by Los Angeles-based indie911, was positioned just days ago on the Tequila MySpace page. The application can be placed on any webpage, including social networking spots like MySpace, and revenues are distributed between indie911, the artist, and a distributing fan if present. As reported earlier, MySpace executives have been actively reviewing the status of third party music widgets, and the latest removal suggests that the company will not be playing ball with outsiders. And according to Tequila, non-MySpace providers can probably expect a greater level of exclusion moving forward. "MySpace recently asked me to take down all of the things on my page that don't involve just MySpace ... but it never used to be that way," Tequila noted in a recent blog on her website, tilahotspot.com. The
post is not available on the Tequila MySpace page, allegedly because it was removed by the social networking giant.

The move follows the removal of other third party applications from providers like Revver, part of a difficult balancing act for MySpace. On one hand, the company is interested in preserving a sense of freedom and user-generated chaos. On the other, unregulated third party applications often spell missed revenues and usability issues. For Tequila, the reaction has been decidedly sour. "I just want to express how I am feeling right now about MySpace and I am sad to say that I am pretty bummed out about all the changes," the model continued. "If MySpace decides to delete my page due to me having other cool stuff up such as my Hoooka feature, or other embedded videos that I have recorded ... then so be it. I'm just really bummed how everything has changed so much." MySpace was not available to respond, though the move comes just as the company is ramping its partnership with Snocap, a provider of digital music sales and screening software.

The solution to the music industry is simple: Fix the product!

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:21:00 +0000

...could not have said it better myself!

Forget DRM, It’s the Music
Excerpted from CNET News Report by Charles Cooper

Pushing my vacuum cleaner around the living room last week, I suddenly did a double take. Chockablock with records, cassettes, and CDs, the wall unit across from me contained my 35-year-old history as a music consumer.

Truth be told, I did download a few digital-music files here and there during Napster’s heyday in the late 1990s. (Personal note to the RIAA: They’ve all since been deleted. I swear on my pet rock.) But I paid for most of the rest of my collection, down to the last penny. I bet you can say the same for the majority of the music-listening public.

So it was with a mix of amusement and disappointment that I read about the recent get-together for music industry executives, where the folks invited as talking heads took turns bashing Apple CEO Steve Jobs and offering pale prescriptions about how to fix what ails their business.

I don’t want to get into an argument about which generation created the best music. Personally, I’m partial to jazz and classical, though I can’t deny that I dig a lot of hip-hop. But is it possible – or even likely – that the falloff in music sales has more to do with the quality of contemporary music than with digital infringement? We obviously have an enormous appetite for schlock, but there are limits.

With all due respect to the high-quality bands working for a living, the studios have always chosen the easy out by shoving numbingly formulaic, bad music down the public’s throat. For most of the postwar era, that was the way things worked. Then came the Internet, which ushered in the revenge of the music buyer.

The studios shouldn’t be surprised at what happened. Throughout their history, they routinely targeted Top 40 titles at teenagers and early twenty-somethings. The irony is that these folks make up the demographic most likely to infringe music copyrights.

Instead of threatening to sue their own (potential) customers, why don’t they do more to monetize the growing demand for oldies and indie music? Fans clearly are willing to pay it. What’s so hard about finding a way to make that work? With a little creativity, the studios could find ways to better promote musicians who cater to these – and other – demographic categories, in which digital infringement isn’t the fashion. All the consumer wants in return is a fair value.

Instead, the industry’s best and brightest continue to look elsewhere.

For instance, they insist on clinging to DRM as if it were a lifeboat. Pardon the cliché, but that ship has sailed. The endless wrangling over Jobs’ call to get rid of DRM is so irrelevant. Same goes for their tired refrains, blaming the likes of you and me for their plight.

To wit: Ted Cohen, who directs music consulting for Tag Strategic, says the solution is “to get money flowing from consumers and get them used to paying for music again.”

Really? It’s not as if we haven’t been paying all along. With all the high-powered MBAs in their employ, it’s hard to fathom why the music industry can’t move beyond finger-pointing and develop a more creative approach. I can understand the angst expressed by Cohen and his music industry cohorts about the future, but squeezing music fans for a few more shekels isn’t the answer.

These folks are still shell-shocked from the Napsterization of their business, which has suffered a 23 percent decline in worldwide sales the last six years. Blaming P2P technology has become the convenient undertaking of our times. But it’s useful to recall that people didn’t stop buying books or maps when the Xerox machine hit.

Customers will pay for worthwhile products, even if they can get free lower-quality copies. There’s a better reason to explain what’s gone wrong. It’s the product, stupid. Then again, maybe I’m simply showing my age.

Out of office!

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:07:00 +0000

My dear readers,

I am a bad, bad, blogger! I have not been posting much lately and i won't do either for the next couple of days!

Basically, I am out of office now until Thursday because RawFlow, the company I work for, has an exhibition stand at the IPTV World Forum in London's Kensington Olympia to promote our new product; Selfcast. This means loads of work and late hours for me, so no blogging these days I'm afraid! But if you're in the area, feel free to drop by (we're in booth 70).

Just some quick notes on news of the day:

- More royalty payments for web radio: The US Copyright Royalty Board has announced higher royalty rates for internet radio use of mastering recordings. Fair enough perhaps, but I must say that I agree with some of the webcasters who will run into trouble based on this, because costs of live streaming can be high and many of these radio stations are relatively small and not for profit. Kurt Hanson commented (editor/publisher of RAIN, the radio and internet newsletter): "The math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties — is in the in the ballpark of 100 percent or more of total revenues." As Hanson noted, the master recording schedule is separate from payments related to the underlying compositions, which are collected by ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. The latest rate announcement replaces an earlier system based on a percentage of gross revenues, a structure that is currently used for satellite radio providers XM and Sirius.

- EMI rejected initial Warner bid: EMI rejected a early bid proposal from Warner Music Group, citing reasons of price and regulatory uncertainty. In a statement, EMI pointed to a "non-binding proposal ... indicating that WMG might be prepared to make an offer, pre-conditional on regulatory clearance, of 260 pence per share in cash for EMI, subject to numerous assumptions and conditions." But that price point, which equates to about £2.1 billion ($4.1 billion), was not high enough for EMI, and a protracted regulatory review process was deemed highly disadvantageous. The development closely follows a broadened reexamination of the Sony BMG merger by the European Commission, a process that is expected to last though June.

...another bissi day in the business of music in other words!

What else is there to report? Well, I finally caved in, and have registered for Facebook, so another network to maintain! Oh dear. But it is quite good acually, and I am getting v. sick and tired of Myspace, so always good to try out something new, eh?

....And now, back to focusing on IPTV and TV over net...!

Hugz :-)

EMI puts non-DRM talks on hold - demand large advance payments

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:31:00 +0000

After so much anticipation on this, the talks seem to have ended, reports Bloomberg. The story says talks aimed at removing copyright protection from songs didn’t go anywhere because they couldn’t agree on the size of an advance payment.
EMI demanded an upfront payment to compensate for its risk in releasing the music sans DRM, but the retailers countered with a lower offer, which EMI rejected, and negotiations with the likes of Microsoft, Apple, RealNetworks, Yahoo and Amazon.com are now on hold. The upfront demanded by EMI would come on top of the per-song charge that retailers pay...the new fee would make it less profitable for retailers unless they raise prices, these companies argued.

Apple wasn’t initially involved in the talks with EMI and was added after the famous Jobs letter... again goes to prove the power of blogs!

Don't blame lost sales on P2P! They wouldn't buy it anyways...

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:06:00 +0000

This article pretty much proves what I have believed all along - you download for free the stuff you wouldn't have bought anyways. The albums you REALLY want, you purchase (artwork, support of band, etc), so don't blame lost sales on P2P networks - it does not tell the full story about consumer behaviour.

P2P Music CD Sales Effect Virtually Zero
Excerpted from Bit-Tech Report

Has everyone noticed that the first thing the RIAA goes for when it discusses copyright infringement is lost sales? Often, those who infringe argue that if they didn’t do it, they wouldn’t buy the music anyway. Apparently, they aren’t lying. A new study takes a look at empirical sales data over two quarters in 2002, following over 1.75 million songs through both sales and unauthorized downloads.

The findings? P2P network activity has a whopping 0.7% negative effect on sales - well less than the margin of error for the study. Even taking the most negative figures (counting the margin of error in favor of the RIAA’s claims), the study can only account for 6 million out of the 80 million units of lost sales the RIAA blames on infringement in 2002. This means 74 million units just plain didn’t sell, and that had nothing to do with infringement - even if everything that could have gone wrong with the study did.

According to the study, much of the loss of sales has to do with how the RIAA chooses to account for units in the first place. Rather than counting units sold to consumers, it counts units shipped to retailers. Therefore, since many retailers have reduced how much they order as stock to sit on shelves, the RIAA says “sales are down” and blames the numbers on rampant copyright infringement.

Before online shopping became such a big thing, stores that carried music would order a plethora of stock and let it sit - since there was nowhere else to conveniently buy it, it would eventually move. Nowadays, in order to keep prices down and competition high, most stores just don’t keep as large of an inventory at one time.

Of course, this will all likely end up as every other study on the issue does - buried ten feet deep on some desk somewhere while the execs keep spouting off about lost revenue. However, at least there is an empirical study now to back up the claim everyone has been saying for years - the people who infringe either weren’t going to buy the music anyway, or go and buy it afterwards.

O2 Spins Music Into User-Generated Mobile Play

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:26:00 +0000

Mobile phones now represent another venue for the the user-generated explosion, and action is happening across all major markets. Even in the United States, often a laggard in mobile-based technologies, MySpace is now accessible to both Helio and Cingular subscribers. And in Europe, operator O2 has gained traction with a service called LookAtMe, a video-focused initiative that allows users to upload clips in a YouTube-style format. But unlike YouTube, at least in its current version, the O2 play actually pays users if others subsequently download (and purchase) the shared content. That helps to create some incentive for quality control, and mirrors some newer concepts in the user-generated realm.

Now, O2 is layering music-related aspects into LookAtMe. The expanded aspect, called Your Show, allows users to upload homemade ringtones and audio clips. The result is a richer LookAtMe offering, a natural evolution for the service. "Our customers love it," said O2 executive Russ Shaw. "Your Show is the logical next step for the home of music - it's a chance for everyone to get creative and begin selling videos and tracks and make money out of it." LookAtMe first launched in June of last year.

David finally beats Goliath? Reign of majors as we know it is over...

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:15:00 +0000

The recent malaise at EMI could soon be followed by layoff rounds at other majors, according to sources. Sources claim possible reductions are ahead at Sony BMG, particularly "on the Sony side." A restructuring would touch the Columbia and Epic labels, according to the information, though action may be "a ways off". Warner Music Group was another label tossed around, though one executive warned that layoff predictions are still in a "chatter stage".

In particular, sinking CD sales have plunged labels into a struggle for survival, despite rapidly increasing digital sales.

Meanwhile, the employment picture remains a bit rocky outside of the labels as well. Intense disruption and consumer change are magical ingredients for entrepreneurs, though the space has serving plenty of highs and lows. That has smaller companies entering, exiting, buying and being sold, while larger companies struggle to concoct meaningful digital strategies.

Against heavy pressure from heavyweights like MySpace, MTV Networks recently shed 250 employees, part of a shift towards new media initiatives.

This means: Highly qualified employees availble and a market ready for disruptive innovation. And exciting times ahead. And quite frankly, I don't think the quality of music will suffer for it - au contraire mon ami....

MySpace Prepares UK-Based Concert Mini Tour

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:17:00 +0000

MySpace is about to rock British crowds once again, this time with a four-city, ten band assault. The live concert trek, called the Bleep Bleep Tour, will feature bands Hadouken, Pull Tiger Tail, Ali Love and I Say Marvin. Tickets are already on sale, and the tour officially starts March 11th in Leeds. The tenth gig, and ending date, happens March 21st in Glasgow. The tour follows last year's MyFestival, an ambitious five-city tour that featured fifty bands. The tour will translate a great deal of online energy into offline pastures, and broaden the importance of MySpace in the process. MySpace will also gain credibility as a tastemaker and music source, an overarching goal of the company.

The promotional impact of MySpace can be incredibly strong, though the social networking giant is now playing defense against the majors. Late last year, Universal Music Group issued a lawsuit against both MySpace and its corporate parent, News Corp., alleging broad copyright infringement. The reason is that users frequently toss around streams of well-known tracks, and embed them into their profiles. Labels are not compensated for the favor, though it could be argued that the sharing - which almost always applies to streamed audio and video content - offers immense promotional benefit. Meanwhile, MySpace recently announced a video filtering partnership with Audible Magic, a deal that follows an audio-specific filtering pact with Gracenote. Both will help to cleanse the site, though it remains unclear how users will react to the increased limitations.

...interesting!

MTV Continues Shift Towards Digital, 250 Dismissed

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:16:00 +0000

The ongoing digital disruption has a dark side, one that is dampening moods at MTV Networks this week. As expected, the Viacom-owned group will lay off 250 staffers, part of a larger shift towards digital opportunities. MTV Networks chairman and chief executive Judy McGrath issued the somber news, and outlined changes across a number of areas. That includes both domestic, US-based departments and overseas divisions. The changes started several months ago with the departure of Viacom chief executive Tom Freston, a near-legend at MTV who was pushed by chairman Sumner Redstone. That was followed by the departure of chief financial officer Michael Dolan, and a number of other high-level MTV Networks executives.

In an email to employees issued Monday morning, McGrath pointed to a shift of resources towards "interactive properties and some of our new networks," and a reduction in others. That is part of a broader restructuring happening across traditional media companies, especially as digital upstarts-turned-giants like YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook gain ground. Meanwhile, the mood remains equally grim at EMI, a company that is now in the throes of a difficult staff reduction. The latest casualties are reportedly coming from the Capitol Records sales department, and other departments have also experienced heavy cuts. Like MTV, the reductions at EMI started with high-level executives, and eventually trickled to the larger staff.

Story by news analyst Alexandra Osorio.

Jobs command, and EMI obey?

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:11:00 +0000

From TimesOnline:

EMI may end digital copy protection

EMI is considering whether to abandon copy protection for digital music, in a move that would set the British company dramatically apart from three principal rivals.

The British group behind Norah Jones and Robbie Williams has sounded out online music retailers about switching to the MP3 format, abandoning the proprietary digital rights management technology developed by Apple.

However, industry insiders believed that EMI was getting cold feet, because the plan could lead to a precipitate drop in its already flagging revenues. The decision would leave its entire catalogue without any protection in the digital era.

This week, Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, to the music industry, in which he suggested that the majors drop their demand for copy protection, to ensure that songs sold from iTunes can be copied on to any digital music player.

However, EMI’s thinking is at odds with its competitors, who believe that Apple should instead try to license its copy protection software to permit interoperability with other digital music players — a stance that Mr Jobs rejects, arguing that the security technology may leak.

Edgar Bronfman, Warner Music’s chief executive, hit out at Jobs on Thursday, saying that abandoning copy protection was “without logic or merit” in words that found private support at market leader Universal. They hope to maintain the pressure on Apple, at a time when the hardware company is coming under increasing pressure from European governments.

All the music majors have tried to release some MP3 downloads, with EMI releasing songs from Lily Allen and Norah Jones, which it said “went down well with fans”. However, it is not clear that many people opted to pay for the songs, and other music groups question whether there is a viable business at this stage.

It is not certain that Apple will be able to open up its Fair-play digital rights management technology, as there is speculation that the company does not have all the patent rights to the software. In 2004, Microsoft paid InterTrust, a digital rights management software company, $440 million (£255 million) to license its technology. It is possible that if Apple made clear what technology it was using, a similar issue would arise.

Welcome to the Machine!

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:56:00 +0000

"Welcome my son, welcome to the machine", is the introduction to a great Pink Floyd song. The thing about Web 2.0 is that increasingly, we ARE the machine. Web 2.0 means we have to rethink everything: how we interact, how we share, how we meet people, how we work - and how we create new things.

This video probably the most inspirational video you'll see today and posted by Michael Wesch, Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Kansas State University.

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

Jobs's New Tune Raises Pressure On Music Firms to let DRM Die

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:41:00 +0000

A movement to pressure the music industry to drop its primary weapon against online piracy has gained a high-profile convert: Steve Jobs, the man who helped build the market for selling music via the Internet.

In an 1,800-word online essay, Apple Inc.'s chief executive said the world's major music companies should consider allowing Apple and others to sell songs unfettered by anticopying software that prevents them from being shared or played however a consumer chooses.

Mr. Jobs contends that the recording industry isn't solving piracy with the technology, and could spur the market further if music lovers could buy music DRM free.

Here is the full text essay (published on apple.com):

Thoughts on Music

Steve Jobs
February 6, 2007

With the stunning global success of Apple’s iPod music player and iTunes online music store, some have called for Apple to “open” the digital rights management (DRM) system that Apple uses to protect its music against theft, so that music purchased from iTunes can be played on digital devices purchased from other companies, and protected music purchased from other online music stores can play on iPods. Let’s examine the current situation and how we got here, then look at three possible alternatives for the future.

To begin, it is useful to remember that all iPods play music that is free of any DRM and encoded in “open” licensable formats such as MP3 and AAC. iPod users can and do acquire their music from many sources, including CDs they own. Music on CDs can be easily imported into the freely-downloadable iTunes jukebox software which runs on both Macs and Windows PCs, and is automatically encoded into the open AAC or MP3 formats without any DRM. This music can be played on iPods or any other music players that play these open formats.

The rub comes from the music Apple sells on its online iTunes Store. Since Apple does not own or control any music itself, it must license the rights to distribute music from others, primarily the “big four” music companies: Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. These four companies control the distribution of over 70% of the world’s music. When Apple approached these companies to license their music to distribute legally over the Internet, they were extremely cautious and required Apple to protect their music from being illegally copied. The solution was to create a DRM system, which envelopes each song purchased from the iTunes store in special and secret software so that it cannot be played on unauthorized devices.

Apple was able to negotiate landmark usage rights at the time, which include allowing users to play their DRM protected music on up to 5 computers and on an unlimited number of iPods. Obtaining such rights from the music companies was unprecedented at the time, and even today is unmatched by most other digital music services. However, a key provision of our agreements with the music companies is that if our DRM system is compromised and their music becomes playable on unauthorized devices, we have only a small number of weeks to fix the problem or they can withdraw their entire music catalog from our iTunes store.

To prevent illegal copies, DRM systems must allow only authorized devices to play the protected music. If a copy of a DRM protected song is posted on the Internet, it should not be able to play on a downloader’s computer or portable music device. To achieve this, a DRM system employs secrets. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets. In other words, even if one uses the most sophisticated cryptographic locks to protect the actual music, one must still “hide” the keys which unlock the music on the user’s computer or portable music player. No one has ever implemented a DRM system that does not depend on such secrets for its operation.

The problem, of course, is that there are many smart people in the world, some with a lot of time on their hands, who love to discover such secrets and publish a way for everyone to get free (and stolen) music. They are often successful in doing just that, so any company trying to protect content using a DRM must frequently update it with new and harder to discover secrets. It is a cat-and-mouse game. Apple’s DRM system is called FairPlay. While we have had a few breaches in FairPlay, we have been able to successfully repair them through updating the iTunes store software, the iTunes jukebox software and software in the iPods themselves. So far we have met our commitments to the music companies to protect their music, and we have given users the most liberal usage rights available in the industry for legally downloaded music.

With this background, let’s now explore three different alternatives for the future.

The first alternative is to continue on the current course, with each manufacturer competing freely with their own “top to bottom” proprietary systems for selling, playing and protecting music. It is a very competitive market, with major global companies making large investments to develop new music players and online music stores. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all compete with proprietary systems. Music purchased from Microsoft’s Zune store will only play on Zune players; music purchased from Sony’s Connect store will only play on Sony’s players; and music purchased from Apple’s iTunes store will only play on iPods. This is the current state of affairs in the industry, and customers are being well served with a continuing stream of innovative products and a wide variety of choices.

Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.

Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. Its hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

Apple has concluded that if it licenses FairPlay to others, it can no longer guarantee to protect the music it licenses from the big four music companies. Perhaps this same conclusion contributed to Microsoft’s recent decision to switch their emphasis from an “open” model of licensing their DRM to others to a “closed” model of offering a proprietary music store, proprietary jukebox software and proprietary players.

The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

In 2006, under 2 billion DRM-protected songs were sold worldwide by online stores, while over 20 billion songs were sold completely DRM-free and unprotected on CDs by the music companies themselves. The music companies sell the vast majority of their music DRM-free, and show no signs of changing this behavior, since the overwhelming majority of their revenues depend on selling CDs which must play in CD players that support no DRM system.

So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.

Much of the concern over DRM systems has arisen in European countries. Perhaps those unhappy with the current situation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRM-free. For Europeans, two and a half of the big four music companies are located right in their backyard. The largest, Universal, is 100% owned by Vivendi, a French company. EMI is a British company, and Sony BMG is 50% owned by Bertelsmann, a German company. Convincing them to license their music to Apple and others DRM-free will create a truly interoperable music marketplace. Apple will embrace this wholeheartedly.

Industry Ponders CD Sales Cliff, Post Physical World

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:31:00 +0000

From DigtalMusicNews.com

Are CD sales headed for a cliff this year? Sales tallies from the first few weeks of this year have certainly supported that notion, particularly in the United States. During a keynote presentation in West Hollywood on Thursday, Yahoo Music chief David Goldberg pointed to a 20 percent drop in 2007, a prediction that is being driven by several forces. On the consumer side, demand is sliding away from a commodity that combines predefined bundles and higher price points. But Goldberg asserted that retailers themselves will also accelerate the decline. Big-box retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy have traditionally positioned CDs as loss leaders, a strategy that helps to generate extra foot traffic. But softened consumer demand could decrease the emphasis on that approach. "Once CDs stop drawing people in, there’s less reason for stores to keep large collections on their floor," Goldberg noted. The result will be less opportunities for consumers to make impulsive CD purchases.

But the shiny disc still has staying power, despite the gloomy forecasts. Sales have been decreasing year after year, though the numbers so far suggest a slowly-leaking balloon - not a pop. On Wednesday, a focus group of teenagers and twenty-somethings hadn't entirely abandoned CDs, though they did reserve purchases for favorite artists. "I've purchased every one of Shawn Carter's albums," one participant said while pointing to lures like album art, organized track listings and better sound quality. But the specter of a flattened physical is now looming, and Goldberg pointed to markets like Taiwan and Korea, both of whom have experienced physical drops of about 70 percent over a 3-4 year period. For the most recent week, album sales were 14 percent below year-ago tallies, part of a multi-week trend.

EMI restructuring: Virgin and Captiol merge

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:59:00 +0000

From paidcontent.org:

EMI Consolidation Continues: Flom In, Slater Out

Posted by Jimmy Guterman

Thu 25 Jan 2007 07:21 PM

More shoes are dropping as the EMI consolidation/restructuring/whatever continues. Capitol and Virgin are being merged into a combined Capitol Music Group, with Virgin head Jason Flom taking control of the unit. The odd man out is longtime (well, six years is longtime in the music industry) Capitol prez Andrew Slater. According to a release, the full restructuring program is “designed to deliver a £110m ($217 million) in annual savings across [EMI’s] business. For those who like to think about org chars, Flom will report to Eric Nicoli, CEO of EMI Group, and will Blue Note head Bruce Lundvall, EMI NA COO Ivan Gavin, and EMI NA CFO Colin Finkelstein. On his instant analysis blog, Bob Lefsetz praises Flom (smart), sees the overall consolidation as easing an eventual merger with Warner (astute), and comes across crankier than usual (understandable).

But if someone should be cranky, it’s EMI. If it’s 2007 and your hottest act is the Beatles, you’ve got a big problem to solve. But, with the physical CD market shrinking and the remaining major labels both fighting to keep their share of a shrinking pie and unable to figure out a coherent online strategy (the rumors coming out of Spiral Frog are as unpleasant as a Crazy Frog song, moving around executives has a deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic feel. Forget consolidation—how about delivering something people might want to listen to and even ... pay for?

...you know what? I couldn't agree more!

Norway Deems iTunes As Illegal, Based on Non-Operability With Other Devices

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:54:00 +0000

This is the first such definitive country action against Apple and its iTunes store: Norway's powerful consumer ombudsman ruled that its iTunes was illegal because it did not allow downloaded songs to be played on rival companies’ devices, reports FT. This could lead to other European countries, already sitting on the fence on this, to review the situation.

The ombudsman has set a deadline of Oct 1 for the Apple to make its codes available to other technology companies so that it abides by Norwegian law. If it fails to do so, it will be taken to court, fined and eventually closed down.
Meanwhile Norwegian Consumer Council, who originally launched the complaint, is in negotiations with pan-European consumer groups to present a unified position on iTunes’ legality, the story says. Sweden and Finland have already backed Norway’s stance, but have yet to take action, and the campaign was joined on Wednesday by Germany and France.

OutLaw: “It doesn’t get any clearer than this. Fairplay is an illegal lock-in technology whose main purpose is to lock the consumers to the total package provided by Apple by blocking interoperability,” said Torgeir Waterhouse of the Council. “For all practical purposes this means that iTunes Music Store is trying to kill off one the most important building blocks in a well functioning digital society, interoperability, in order to boost its own profits.”

Finally - Norway ahead of the crowd! I'm so proud! Now, all that remains is to demand that Napster etc also removes it's Windows based DRM system....

UPDATE:
Not just iTunes

Many other music download services operate with similar terms and conditions. “CDON.com, prefueled.com and MSN.no are examples of other affected services. We are therefore asking the Consumer Ombudsman to investigate the terms and conditions of these download services,” says Torgeir Waterhouse.

Read more here.

Filesharing is now legal in Italy (as long as it's not for profit)

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:11:00 +0000

Italian court says copyright infringement is not a crime- Unauthorized downloads are fine if no profit is made

ROME — In a blow to Italy's ongoing campaign against digital copyright infringement, a high level Italian court has ruled that the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted movies, music, and video games is not a crime if the downloader does not profit from the action.

In 2005, a court in Turin sentenced two men to jail time and issued them several hundred euros in fines for taking control of a computer server at the Turin Polytechnic Institute and using it to store and distribute various copies of video games, films and CDs. Last week, an Italian Supreme Court judge overturned the sentence saying the act wasn't criminal because the duo saw no commercial gain.

The ruling comes at a difficult time as Italian authorities continue to struggle against film and music infringement from groups and individuals.

The Silvio Berlusconi government in 2003 passed one of Europe's toughest copyright laws, modeled on the EU's copyright directive, passing down stiff fines for commercial infringers and individual downloaders. But, critics lament, the law is rarely enforced.

FIMI, Italy's trade group for professional musicians, on Monday downplayed last week's court decision saying the Turin judgment will have little impact on the current anti-infringement law as the two men were charged under an older, weaker law.

Still, as Italian media observers point out, last week's legal decision is one of the few to have reached the Italian Supreme Court.

Glaser: Get rid of DRM!

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:08:00 +0000

from paidcontent.org

[By Robert Andrews] The music business will not make significant enough gains until it drops restrictive DRM, and it won’t be saved by the long tail either, according to two music industry bosses.
RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser used the MidemNet forum in Cannes to call on companies to develop rights standards that were interoperable and more open.
He said the business was “seeing some signs the industry is open to” ... “giving consumers a way to purchase music with the flexibility that you can only get if you take the DRM off”.
“For purchases, move away from DRM,” he said, adding that the replacement of siloed digital rights management standards would be the first year that digital growth overtakes physical decline. Glaser said DRM should remain for customers who subscribe to a monthly download service and therefore don’t own the track.
Global sales of online music almost doubled to $2bn last year, according to research published by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry last week - but had still not reached enough to offset the decline in physical-format sales, what the IFPI called “the holy grail”.
Meanwhile, Universal Music Group’s eLabs president Larry Kenswil warned that the ”long tail” -the subject of Wired editor Chris Anderson’s book illustrating how the net leverages small but everlasting value in archive material -was not enough to make up the shortfall.
“It’s an interesting catchphrase. Many more products will sell to a larger audience, that’s true,” he said. “But the question is - what is the offset of the most popular products selling less?
“It’s obvious that shelf space on the internet means people have access to things there wasn’t storage for before.
“But the long tail means that most of that will be listened to [only] once. So, even if you have 300,000 songs being listened to once, it doesn’t make up for the fall-off of the number one this year from what the number one was last year. No album sold 4m last year.”

SpiralFrog CEO goes before launch

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:55:00 +0000

The much-hyped online music service Spiral Frog, which got a lot of press a few months ago because it was going to be a fr*ee, ad-supported service, has lots its CEO even before it has launched. CEO Robin Kent was ousted, reports The Key blog on B2.0. Kent who was the former CEO of ad agency Universal McCann. Also, its launch has been delayed (was supposed to launch in December) and we had been hearing some rumbles for a while now. The service has signed deals with EMI and Universal to offer their music on the service.

Previous posts on SpiralFrog in this blog:
Future of Spiral Frog in doubt?
If I could download my trainers for free, I would buy the records!
EMI follows Universal and signs with Spiral Frog
New music distribution system

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:42:00 +0000

MySpace preps download store

By Jim Welte - MP3.com

Social networking giant hopes its massive user base will pony up for MP3 downloads powered by original Napster creator Shawn Fanning's Snocap.

The trunk of the car, which has famously served as the do-it-yourself retail store for acts like Wu-Tang Clan and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah--is about to get a lot more shelf space.

The Format's download store on MySpace.

In a move tipped last month by Nettwerk Music Group CEO Terry McBride, MySpace is set to allow bands to sell digital downloads to its more than 106 million users, hoping to turn its social networking clout into yet another rival for Apple's vaunted iTunes Music Store.

"The goal is to be one of the biggest digital music stores out there," MySpace cofounder Chris DeWolfe told Reuters. "Everyone we've spoken to definitely wants an alternative to iTunes and the iPod. MySpace could be that alternative."

The tentatively dubbed MyStore began previewing on MySpace last month with Nettwerk rock band the Format, which has been selling MP3 downloads of its music for 79 cents per song.

Under the expanded partnership between MySpace and Snocap, indie and unsigned artists with MySpace pages will be able to use Snocap's Linx service and sell music directly to their fans. Bands themselves will have the ability to set the price for their music, with MySpace and Snocap reportedly splitting the processing fee of about 45 cents per track.

Bands already use MySpace to stream music on their pages, often allowing fans to preview unreleased music. For their MyStore, bands will upload their songs to Snocap's online music database so the company can make sure the band isn't seeking to sell music for which someone else has a copyright. Once added to their MySpace pages, friends of the band are then able to place the online music storefront on their pages.

But unlike every major digital download store except eMusic, the second most popular digital store behind iTunes, MySpace and Snocap haven't yet brokered deals with the four major labels to allow their bands to sell music on MySpace. Fans of the likes of Justin Timberlake and the Killers will have to wait until such deals are in place.

But with record labels showing signs that they are willing to try anything to find additional revenue streams and dilute the stranglehold that the iTunes/iPod combo has on the digital music business, those talks are reportedly under way. Citing a source close to negotiations, Reuters reported yesterday that EMI and MySpace are discussing a deal that would allow EMI artists, including Coldplay and the Gorillaz, to sell music straight from the artists' MySpace pages.

The majors and MySpace would need to agree on song format, however. For indie artists and unsigned bands, MyStore will sell songs in the MP3 format, without the digital rights management (DRM) technology that major labels have insisted on using in selling digital downloads. DRM applies usage restrictions to downloaded music, such as how many times a song can be transferred to an MP3 player or burned onto a CD.

In his blog, Jupiter Research analyst David Card noted that MySpace will need to get major label content on its artist pages to make MyStore a viable entity.

"No company in the entertainment business can make a lot of money off of supporting only the [long] tail, without also delivering the hits," he wrote. "And for now, no rock stars or major labels are going to be interested in unprotected MP3s, which is what MySpace will offer, except for promotional purposes."

That means MySpace and Snocap still have their work cut out for them to make MyStore fly. But Snocap isn't putting all its Linx in one basket, so to speak. The company is also hoping to power download service on other social networking sites, a stark expansion of the company's initial strategy of powering P2P services hoping to go legit. Linx hopes to make everyone a music retailer.

"In 18 months the biggest music retailer in North America and maybe the world will be the consumer," McBride said. "P2P is going to arrive in a way that nobody saw. Fans will be selling to each other and getting micropayments into their Paypal account."

Future of Spiral Frog in doubt?

noreply@blogger.com (Ingjerd) — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:34:00 +0000

"Spiral Frog CEO Robin Kent has pulled out of an appearance at Midemnet, prompting speculation about the company's future", wrote MusicWeek yesterday. Interesting - very interesting. Perhaps they could not get the advertisers/brands behind it? As we know, all the major record labels have signed letters of intent with spiral frog - so I don't see lack of content as the reason. We'll see....