The Music Copyright Enforcers

Fascinating article in the New York Times the other day about the nuts and bolts of music copyright enforcement. I'm not sure what was more interesting, the ride-along look inside the life of a copyright enforcer, or the total cognitive dissonance displayed in the poll results cited, wherein people expressed strong support for artists being compensated fairly for their work, while expressing strong resistance to giving up their own money for said product. It's like the old saying about people who want top-notch government services but don't want to pay for them: "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree."

Mudvayne takes The New Game to the next level

Sometimes a name is just a name. And then there's Mudvayne's recent album The New Game, which turns out to be the focal point of, well, a new game.

The key is a code included in the packaging of every copy of the new album. Entering the code on the band's Web site unlocks a dossier containing the outline of a murder mystery and profiles (with photos) of 11 suspects. As Pollstar explains it, "To solve the mystery by eliminating one suspect each week, fans must use the full album packaging (lyrics, the mugshots and info provided), their historical knowledge of Mudvayne and the video for the first single, 'Do What You Do,' as well as weekly clues revealed on the band's Web site."

Grand prize is a Mudvayne "VIP laminate for life," one runner-up will settle for a signed Washburn guitar, and 10 more runners-up will receive signed copies of The New Game's deluxe edition. All in all, a pretty sweet deal -- and perhaps a sign of things to come as artists, labels and retailers begin to think more creatively about how to create the value needed to keep fans buying hardcopy product from brick-and-mortar stores.

AC/DC hit Black Ice today

The media blitz is on as headbanger heroes AC/DC return eight years after their last studio album with Black Ice, and the Vault is joining the fun with a day-of-release review.

Out of the hordes of surrounding mainstream media coverage, I would also point you to this entertaining UK Telegraph review with Angus Young, particularly his explanation for the group's decision to sell their album only in hardcopy form via Wal-mart or acdc.com, no iTunes or downloads at all:

“We don’t make singles, we make albums. We work on getting the songs on our albums to work together... So that’s how we feel about our albums being a complete piece of work. And we won’t go on iTunes unless they offer the option to us to 'lock’ our album... In the US, though, we’re looking at iTunes being the biggest music retailer in the country. We looked at who was number two and found that it was Wal-Mart. So we decided to make this album exclusively available in Wal-Mart stores... I remember when we first started touring in the US back in the Seventies, we’d arrive in these towns, and I’m talking about all these places in between New York and Los Angeles, and we’d always go straight to the local record shop. These are the places where people hung out – you could talk music, pick up a few albums and all of that. Now you go back to these places and they’re all closed down. However, there is a Wal-Mart in all these towns, so we believed this to the best alternative to iTunes."

The record shop is dead; long live the record shop. Hope it's a great run, Angus.

AC/DC still says no to iTunes

The new AC/DC disc Black Ice -- out next week -- might be one of the year's most anticipated new releases, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to buy and download it online. The band, along with the Beatles one of the most notorious holdouts against the digital download age, is distributing Black Ice only in full CD form and only through Wal-Mart stores and its own Web site. Lead singer Brian Johnson can barely hold back his disdain for iTunes and digital music in general in today's interview with Reuters, saying iTunes is "going to kill music if they're not careful."

Wampus Multimedia takes on MySpace Music

Ripped from the virtual pages of Wampus Multimedia's very own blog (see also our musical blogroll in the column at right), here's a link to bales of interesting reading about the new MySpace Music and the many devilish details that lie within.

Not that I'm going to soapbox on that particular subject today; it's really just an excuse to remind you all that Wampus head honcho Mark Doyon has been one of the wisest voices in the wilderness commenting on music industry developments for some time now -- and as a singer-songwriter, independent label owner, publicist and music blogger all rolled into one, why wouldn't he be? He sees these issues from all angles, not just one particular self-interested one. Plus, he wrote "Cuckold Of Titan," so that entitles him to your eternal attention regardless.

"Fan-funded" recording: The next wave?

We've had the file sharing wars, the Radiohead experiment, and just lately the Mudvayne twist, where buying an album gets you the full fan-club-exclusives package as well. Another growing trend in the ever-evolving music industry business model is so-called "fan-funded" recording -- projects whose recording budget is funded not by a label, but by donations from a group's fans.

The model has proven viable enough that there are actually several Web sites devoted to it now -- think Sellaband and SliceThePie and ArtistShare and CASH Music -- but equally as intriguing are acts who choose to go directly to their fans. The Brian Travis Band of LA is $5,500 into a $7,000 fundraising effort to finish off the mastering and duplication of their latest record. And D.C.-based rock band Shane Hines and the Trance have raised $30,000 of a projected $40,000 recording budget for their new album via their TeamTrance site, including raising $13,000 in the first week of their fundraising drive.

Drummer/author Jake Slichter of Semisonic famously characterized the band as "rock and roll sharecroppers," making music as debt-burdened indentured servants to their label. In the future will we call them rock and roll panhandlers? Or is the better comparison to the PBS "viewer supported" model? Finally, is this progress, or just another odd twist along the road to a destination that isn't yet in sight?

Mudvayne tries a new game

In the continuing quest to figure out how bands can make a living in an economic model where music is free, metal quartet Mudvayne has offered a clever new approach. Fans who pre-order the band's new album The New Game through Best Buy get a one-year membership to the group's fan club, an exclusive free track for download and access to presale concert tickets at a one album equals one ticket ratio. The name of the program? The Album Is The Ticket, of course.

This new strategy -- buying an album equals buying into an entire fan experience including insider fan club content and presale ticket access -- feels like it has the potential to be a breakthrough for those mid-level artists who don't sell out arenas but do have an established fan base. Another day, another twist on the ever-evolving post-file sharing music industry business model...

Pandora under pressure

Many of us on the DV writing staff have used and enjoyed Pandora -- a pioneer in what is just lately being described by the technological congniscenti (and pretentious feature writers everywhere) as "music discovery" services. Pandora was in fact the functional precursor to Apple's new "Genius" system, which I'm already having fun with at home. That said, the latest news on the Pandora front is not good. It seems the music industry is continuing to lurch from extreme to extreme trying to uncover a formula that encourages the dissemination of new music without forfeiting all economic benefits of the artists' end product. Not there yet, folks. Not there yet.

Music blogger arrested, charged with leaking songs from unreleased Guns N' Roses album

In a case likely to send shivers down the spines of music bloggers everywhere, blogger Kevin Cogill of antiquiet.com was arrested by FBI agents yesterday and charged in court with streaming songs from the infamously still-hasn't-been-released Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy. The charges accused Cogill of posting streams of nine tracks from the album, whose ten-year gestation period and repeated missed release dates have bestowed it with an almost mythic status.

What this means for the ongoing debate over creator's rights, the RIAA's heavy handed enforcement tactics, and/or the continually evolving music industry business model will no doubt be the subject of continuing speculation.

Of more immediate concern to GNR fans -- who, amazingly enough, still exist -- is the loss of access to the only new music the band has produced in the past 15 years. As one fan pointed out ruefully online, "For all we know, that could be the closest we ever get to an actual release."

The music business: the death of retail

Anyone who persists in believing the fiction that downloading music for free only hurts big corporations and is therefore morally justifiable should really read this piece from last week's Newsweek. There's a Sal -- an independent music retailer / small businessperson -- in every town. I don't want mine to go away. What about you?

Now serving: free lunch

Apparently, Trent Reznor has never heard of the famous economics maxim which states "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Today, Reznor announced that the latest NIN album was available to the fans 100% free,

This announcement comes two months after Reznor released Ghosts I-IV, a 36 track instrumental album in every format known to man. In the span of a week, Reznor sold roughly a million dollars' worth of digital downloads, lighting the internet on fire with his bold new delivery model.

As many have surmised, with the actions of NIN, Radiohead, and Coldplay, there is a paradigm shift occurring within the music industry. The old way of walking down to the local record store to pick up the latest released from Bread is going the way of the dinosaur. How much one laments the loss of such a process is growing more and more dependent on the age of individual.

Of course, it's going to be some time before this is preferred delivery model of music; the bands that are utilizing this system have huge, established fanbases. They have made it big, and can afford to take losses when announcing and delivering released of this nature. Your fledgling, indie band trying to make it big simply cannot afford to the same. At least, at the present time...

Jeff's Quick Hits O' the Week

Another Monday, another batch of random observations and such:

• It's January, which means one thing: American Idol. This year, I like Angela Martin, she really has what it takes to truly be....wait a minute, I HATE IDOL!!!! For 7 seasons now, that travesty of a television program has been foisted on the America public. You know what folks? It's nothing more than glorified karaoke, with singers who most of the time fail to stand out in any which way shape or form. Yes, some decent acts have come out of the program, but the majority have faded away into obscurity. The rest have found success, but who amongst them can be truly called a great artist? Kelly Clarkson? Daughtry? Carrie Underwood? Average at best, with a handful of catchy songs amongst them. Don't even get me started on the show's corporate sponsors, or their guest hosts, or their guest stars, or that dreadful "Idol Cares" special held last year...
  
  
• The Writer's Guild strike has been rough for some, including myself with a few shows. However, some positives have come out of it. The Golden Globes being cancelled made me very happy, and if the same fate befalls the Oscar, this guy won't be shedding a tear. Even the Grammies have the potential to be affected. This country is obsessed with awards show, and none more useless than the Grammies. God forbid the good music actually wins an award, instead, you see the entire industry jump on the same bandwagons, lavishing praise on the album that every reviewer on the planet just adores. Sure some of the works honored deserve it, no question. However, let's be honest, their choices don't cut the mustard.
  
  
• That's enough whining and ranting for one week. Let's close things out with an addition to Jason's post below. Yes, 2.5 million songs have been purchased by Rock Band users, while Guitar Hero III players have downloaded 5 million songs. But who are the top sellers? Metallica, as it turns out. (Those who are faint hearted and new to the game might want to hold off...just a tad difficult...) Now, these aren't songs you can put on an iPod, or a Zune, or even burn to a CD. There's is an incredibly limited functionality to these tracks; they solely play for Rock Band or Guitar Hero. However, users have found it worth it, and purchased 7.5 million songs. That states a lot about the continuing digital music revolution, and that when given a price and package that seems fair, consumers will respond favorably.

Guitar Hero-ics

I'm not sure this constitutes a new business model for the music industry, but it's definitely an interesting development...

When I Was 22, It Was A Very Good Year....

All things considered, 2007 was a fairly normal year for the music business. CD and Retail sales continued to drop, while digital sales continue their outstanding growth, as they did in 06. However, as we approach the end of the calendar, there's one event that could easily become one of the most important decisions made by the industry in quite some time. We're talking, boys and girls, about DRM.

If you read my Best Of 2007 list , you'll see I alluded to this event but didn't expound upon it. Well, that's why the Vault has a blog!

The whole issue of DRM is much too expansive for me to completely cover here, suffice it to say it has become one of the cornerstones of the arguments for Digital Music. For the uninitiated, DRM is what record labels and online stores use to ensure that the music downloaded from them has restricted usage. For example, anyone who is reading this probably has an iPod, and odds are some of you have downloaded a song from the iTunes store. That song contains a DRM technology created by Apple called FairPlay. That technology only allows your purchased music to be played on 5 different computers, selected by you.

On cursory glance, that wouldn't seem to impact your normal music listening habits, but to others, it is the principle of the matter. When you buy a product, it's yours. By all rights, you should be able to do what you want with it, as long as it does not infringe on the personal rights of others. You purchase a car, and decide to fix it up yourself, adding custom parts. No one sees a problem with that, yet there is a stigma with people wanting to share their music with others. Recently, in a Peer-to-Peer Sharing Trial, an RIAA executive stated that even just ripping music from CDs is a copyright infringement. (This involves the whole notion of copyright laws and art, and that's an argument for a whole other day. I will say that I, unequivocally, have never met anyone who has stolen music.)

This year, however, the tide has started to turn for the better. Apple's CEO Steve Jobs wrote a letter early in the year decrying the use of DRM, and stating Apple would support any record labels that would remove it from their product. Shortly thereafter, EMI announced it would start selling DRM-free music across the Web, and they made good of their promise in May. Apple at that time launched their iTunes Plus portion of their store, in which the consumer is able to choose is they want the DRM-free, higher quality tracks or the standard FairPlay files. Over the past few months, other labels such as Universal have engaged in implementing similar strategies. Amazon launched their own Mp3 Download store, with every song DRM-free (As a sidenote, before you go to iTunes, check to see if Amazon has the album first. Their service is terrific, the quality of the files is better, and each has artwork imbedded in it).

However, quite possibly the biggest step forward came with the release of In Rainbows by Radiohead. They completely bypassed the record labels, releasing their album on their own online. What's more, the consumer could choose how much they wanted to pay for the album, which had zero DRM. The results? Radiohead made more off the digital sales from the album than they had with all the other albums put together, according to Thom Yorke himself. Radiohead may claim that their reasoning for the release was based on practicality, however they fail to understand just what it means from this point moving forward.

To the average consumer, this may not sound like exciting news. However, I assure you, it is important. For the first time in a very long while, the record labels are responding to consumer interests, and taking a positive step forward, instead of maintaining archaic policies that do not reflect the times. Within the next year, I would find it difficult to imagine DRM existing in any relevant fashion at all. Music Lovers 1, Labels 0.

Love music, don't steal it

So, let’s say you’re into woodworking.

Not back-porch whittling, but carefully designed, completely unique, seven-grades-of-sandpaper, weeks-to-complete, beautifully inlaid woodworking. And let’s say your work becomes so popular among your friends and family that you decide to try selling it online. And let’s say one day not long after that you go out to your workshop to finish up that $2000 solid oak custom-engraved headboard you’ve been working on, and you discover that you’ve been cleaned out. There is not one single scrap of wood left anywhere in your 1,000 square-foot workshop.

To add insult to injury, you soon learn the thieves are getting rid of your work online -- not by selling it, though. They’re giving it away, and making their money on the banner ads they can sell based on their site’s high traffic – “Hey everyone, come get (someone else’s) free stuff!” They have stolen your livelihood from you, and now they’re making money by giving it away to people who might have been your paying customers, who might have supported your effort to make a living doing what you do the best and love the most. Who might have made you that rare species, a working artist.

Does this scenario make you angry? Do you feel like the woodworker is getting screwed? Do you think the thieves deserve to go to jail? Do you think the people who take the fruits of the woodworker’s hard labor for free rather than paying for it -- just because they can -- should be ashamed of themselves?

Welcome to the wonderful world of peer-to-peer file sharing. And welcome to one of the biggest generation gaps in society today.

I am old-school, I admit it. I bought vinyl for 15 years before I laid hands on my first CD and didn’t bother learning how to burn my own mixes until just last year. The technology is undeniably cool.

But the technology is killing the art form I love the most: popular music.

I’ve heard all the arguments – we’ve had most of them already on The Daily Vault’s e-mail discussion list, where the line of demarcation is pretty clear.

If you’re under 25, you most likely think of file sharing as part of the landscape, as institutionalized and expected as the post office delivering snail mail. To many of you, music has always been free and always should be.

If you’re over 25, you most likely fall into one of two categories: the queasy advantage-takers or the moralistic iconoclasts. Queasy advantage-takers sense on an instinctual level that there is something bad about file sharing -- but it’s so damn easy and everybody’s doing it and you get all this free stuff! Woo-hoo!

Moralistic iconoclasts sit around and lecture people and are typically ignored because, let’s face it, nobody likes to get lectured.

I don’t want to lecture. I just want to make three quick points:

File sharing is not free. File sharing deprives artists of income. The cost of file sharing is less artists making less music. It’s that simple.

File sharing is stealing. It’s only “giving it away” if the owner is doing the giving. If your neighbor gives you his old hammer, that’s giving. If some guy walking down your street hands you an old hammer that turns out to be your neighbor’s, that’s receiving stolen property.

Stealing is wrong. It’s a sign of how disorienting new technology is that this one is even necessary. But it seems that it is. Stealing is not a victimless crime. It harms other human beings. Don’t do it.

Ah, but there’s one further rationalization people use to justify stealing music: file sharing is a great way to stick it to The Man. This might be true if file sharing only harmed big corporate music labels. But it doesn’t. File sharing harms real people, actual individual artists.

If you think that by downloading music for free you’re sticking it to The Man, you are sadly mistaken. Because about 95% of the time, either you’re sticking it to the independent musicians who The Man hasn’t even noticed yet, or you’re sticking it to the aging musicians who already got screwed by The Man twenty-five years ago.

You’re sticking it to the good guys, and you’re deluding yourself if you believe otherwise.

If you still believe that I just don’t get it, and that file sharing doesn’t do real artists real harm, then maybe, just maybe, I can convince you not to take my word for it, and instead to read the July 13 entry on my friend Mark Doyon’s blog. Mark is a true d-i-y artist, the real-life self-employed singer-songwriter-label manager-distributor-promoter-marketing communications dude in charge of Wampus Multimedia (not to mention his band Arms Of Kismet). He is incredibly talented and incredibly hard-working. And if we continue on the path we’re currently on with virtually unlimited file sharing, we’re going to drive him and the independent musicians whose work he promotes out of business. We are going to rob them of their livelihood, and take away their ability to do what they do the best and love the most.

Do you really want that on your conscience?