Why Spotify is not Netflix (But Maybe It Should Be)

If we are to explore the digital marketplace for both streaming and transactional downloads the music business might do well to look at what the film business is actually doing in the same space. We will quickly see that Spotify is not Netflix, but maybe it should be.

Readers will note the film business has not bought into the faulty logic that the only way to combat internet piracy is to make every film ever made, available instantly, on an all you can eat service for $9.99 a month. Some might argue that is what Netflix is, but people making that argument are obviously not current subscribers!

One thing that has struck us in the comparisons between Spotify and Netflix is that Netflix does not have every film, or even every current film, or even a large percentage of popular films. For the vast inventory that Netflix has, you also realize the service has a lot missing. But then again, what do you expect for nine bucks a month?

This is not to say that most in demand films are not available, somewhere (and legally). It’s just not available on Netflix. Other services such as Itunes, Vudu and Cinemanow (to name just a few) offer some films for rental while they are still in the theater, some for streaming rental prior to a home video “dvd” date, and there are constantly new variations and options.

Generally speaking films arrive at Netflix last in the distribution chain, if at all. This is a problem for Netflix in a lot of ways so they have responded to this by 1) offering competitive advances to film producers to get films earlier (generally in the cable window) and 2) they have begun investing in producing original content to differentiate themselves from the competition (this strategy worked particularly well for HBO).

Netflix in responding to their needs in the marketplace is actually investing capital directly into content creation in a meaningful way. Perhaps some artists should charge an advance for high profile new releases that will attract listeners to the service. Likewise, perhaps Spotify should provide funding for the financing and development of new artists.

So here is the question, is the record business really utilizing the new digital platforms correctly to address the current market place? Perhaps by looking at the options available to consumers from movie streaming, rental and download businesses we can find more robust and flexible opportunities for artists.

One thing we’ve noticed absent from the current offerings for example, is say, a $1 a day transactional streaming rental for an album. Why doesn’t this exist?

FILM RELEASE WINDOWING

The movie business releases films in what is known as “windows”. A typical feature length film is generally released in a pattern that looks something like this:

1 Film Released in Theaters
2 Film Released later on Video on Demand (Rental)
3 Film Released later on Cable and/or Broadcast
3 Film Released Later on Home Video (Rental and Purchase)
4 Film Released Later on Netflix (Subscription)

There are variations on the above, but the point being that you can not buy the DVD of a blockbuster film the day it opens in theaters, nor can you view it on TV that night from the usual cable movie channels. Today these windows are being rethought as the film industry explores different release models including how digital platforms are utilized as part of a theatrical release.

RECORD RELEASE WINDOWING

We’ve heard people say that the record business historically has not windowed releases. This is only sorta true. It is true that a record is released to all outlets in all configurations more/less simultaneously on a single release date. There may be some exceptions with the availability of say vinyl, but mostly it is true that labels do not withhold music releases from different markets or distribution channels. But maybe that’s not exactly either right if we look at it closer.

Generally speaking, a historical record release “window” looks like this:

1 Radio Airplay prior to a commercial release of the single
2 Commercial Single Release
3 Album Release at Full List Price, but “Discounted” at Retailers

There’s not much more that is done until the album gets to be a catalog title, which the record industry would refer to as a mid-line title. Some records, drop one more step from midline to budget. Records that generally make the last drop may have been albums by artists who had one hit on the album.

Today, these traditional old physical model windows built around pricing incentives don’t really make sense on digital platforms. New Releases on Itunes are not discounted on release date and then return to their suggested list price a week or two later when the discounting ends. So if record release windowing is not based in pricing incentives, perhaps it should be based in accessibility incentives.

DIGITAL PLATFORM MUSIC RELEASE WINDOWING

What comes next is the starting point for a discussion to break free from much of the current controversy over whether or not Spotify is fair and sustainable. It is an attempt to rethink the digital music distribution landscape in the same way the film business has with varied consumer offerings and options.

We’d love to see some new players in the marketplace for music that function much in the same way that Vudu or Cinemanow do for films. These would be transactional streaming rentals.

1 Single Release Digital Transactional Download 99 cents
2 Single/Song Release Digital Transactional Streaming Rental 10 cents for 24 hours
3 Album Release Digital Transactional Download 9.99
4 Album Release Digital Transactional Streaming Rental $1 for 24 hours
5 Select Songs Released to Subscription Streaming Services, not whole albums.
6 Album Release Subscription Streaming Services

The key to a future where streaming may be the preferred delivery method is dependent upon more variations and flexibility in the the business model than currently offered by Spotify. There are a range of opportunities in exploring business models that allow for streaming rentals, and limited access to different material at different times.

If every decision we make is based upon the extortion of illegally operating and infringing businesses, surely we will pay the price in a race to the bottom where eventually everyone loses except the companies getting our labor for next to nothing.

Timothy B. Lee’s Epic Fail in the Washington Post on Piracy | CJR

We know there is a lot of bias reported that serves the corporate interests of Silicon Valley corporations but watching this story being reported, and revised, over the course of the day yesterday was truly stunning.

A piracy defense walks the plank at the Post

A blogger gets schooled by the meanies of Big Copyright
By Ryan Chittum

There are many problems with Timothy B. Lee’s Washington Post blog post on Hollywood’s supposed culpability for the theft of its own movies, beginning with the morally unserious jujitsu deployed in arguing that Hollywood is culpable for the theft of its own movies.

The Mercatus- and Cato-connected editor of the Washington Post tech blog that aims “to be indispensable to telecom lobbyists and IT professionals alike, while also being compelling and provocative to the average iPhone-toting commuter” also had a major correction that undermines the entire premise of the piece and reveals its one-sided reporting.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE AT THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_piracy_defense_walks_the_pla.php

Spain to make providers of ‘pirated’ Web content walk the plank | Digital Journal

Madrid – Well, not walk the plank exactly, but tough new laws are to be introduced in Spain and were set for approval in Parliament on Friday. The new laws call for six years in prison for linking to “pirated”, copyright-protected material from webpages.

Spain is changing the rules due to what is called “rampant” and “endemic” piracy in the country.

Anyone linking to “pirated” material, such as films or music, from their webpages are likely to see six years behind bars.

End users, who downloaded the content using those links, won’t be punished apparently. Also, according to Reuters, peer-to-peer file-sharing sites and search engines are exempt from the the new laws and will not face legal action.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/358787#ixzz2fyo4p1Vj

Google’s Fallacious Piracy Self-Study (Part 1) | Music Tech Policy

The Context

Even if you discount the moral hazard involved with funding a study of yourself, the Google survey of Google’s involvement with piracy is a breathtaking document. I would suggest that the self-study rests on a number of core principles for Google’s business:

1. Nothing to See Here, Move Along: First and foremost is Google’s deep and abiding desire to deflect criticism in the press, avoid civil lawsuits and settle criminal investigations. It has both succeeded and failed at all three. The fact that a company tries to avoid these things is not special; the degree to which Google tries to manage them is quite special.

The self-study is itself an exercise in all three and supports the most important public perception that Google draws on daily to succeed in its consumer facing business: Sympathetic trust. To paraphrase an old California pol, you know all the bad they’ve done, but you like them anyway.

This magical thinking only lasts for so long. Whether its Eric Schmidt’s New York soundproof man-cave from which no scream can emerge, doing a favor for journalist Tom Brokaw by providing a private jet for a Silicon Valley speaking engagement with jet fuel subsidized by the American taxpayer, siphoning piles of data to the National Security Agency under circumstances the average citizen will probably never learn the details of, or paying a $500,000,000 fine for violating the Controlled Substances Act for indiscriminately promoting the sale of prescription drugs (e.g., to addicts and kids), the press and the public is starting to wake up to the game.

And not just the game, but the magnitude of the game. As a senior chief once said, sorry pal, the BS filter is full.

Read The Full Post At Music Tech Policy:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/googles-fallacious-piracy-self-study-part-1/

David Byrne: ‘The internet will suck all creative content out of the world’ | The Guardian UK

In future, if artists have to rely almost exclusively on the income from these services, they’ll be out of work within a year. Some of us have other sources of income, such as live concerts, and some of us have reached the point where we can play to decent numbers of people because a record label believed in us at some point in the past.

I can’t deny that label-support gave me a leg up – though not every successful artist needs it. So, yes, I could conceivably survive, as I don’t rely on the pittance that comes my way from music streaming, as could Yorke and some of the others.

But up-and-coming artists don’t have that advantage – some haven’t got to the point where they can make a living on live performances and licensing, so what do they think of these services?

We were also very happy to see this plug for the Content Creators Coalition. Be sure to read the full interview at The Guardian, the link is below.

The major labels are happy, the consumer is happy and the CEOs of the web services are happy. All good, except no one is left to speak for those who actually make the stuff. In response to this lack of representation, some artists – of all types, not just musicians – are forming an organisation called the Content Creators Coalition, an entity that speaks out on artists’ behalf.

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE GUARDIAN UK:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world

The music industry may be streaming towards a cliff | Business Spectator

In August the cellist Zoe Keating published a spreadsheet of her earnings from various streaming sites. In the first half of 2013 she scored 232,000 streams, for which she was paid $906.41.

I used the word “legitimate” above because by far the biggest “publisher” of music is BitTorrent, which is simply the internet protocol for enabling peer to peer sharing of files, and the foundation of Napster’s many successors. Some people I know have zettabytes of music and movies they have downloaded; BitTorrent has been estimated to account for as much as 70 per cent of all global internet traffic.

READ THE FULL POST AT THE BUSINESS SPECTATOR:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/10/9/information-technology/music-industry-may-be-streaming-towards-cliff

Media Lecturers at London School of Economics Misquote Professor Danaher | MTP

Not only did the LSE lecturers fail to provide the proper context for the Danaher et al conclusions, they also missed what I believe to be the most important issue of all when it comes to ad supported pirate sites (which is all the big ones).

There are no lost sales. All sales are monetized. If they are going to analyze the economics of file barter, they should take a hint from Google’s UK policy manager: Ad supported piracy is big business.

And none of the money flows to the artists. Including the knighted ones who as a group probably added a zero to the UK GDP–and that is something that the London School of Economics should be able to actually measure accurately.

In case you were interested in what Professor Danaher actually said in his team’s study, you can watch this video from Canadian Music Week:

READ THE FULL POST AT MUSIC TECH POLICY:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/media-lecturers-at-london-school-of-economics-misquote-professor-danaher/

“Luddite” Artists Point Out That BitTorrent Doesn’t Know Shit About Their Own Technology.

Like Germans BitTorrent is “mostly unitentionally  funny.”*  The  company has decided that they should attempt to legitimize their artist exploiting torrenting system with a charm offensive by buying billboards in Los Angeles.  Check this one out.

It seems to me that BitTorrent is suggesting that by using their product you are somehow safe from snooping by the NSA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nope you aren’t even safe from a so-called luddite musician. Check it out.

Here are the IP addresses, ports  and some sample Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven songs being hosted and illegally torrented by 33 Bit Torrent users.  This is using one of the vast number of tools available to snoop on Bit Torrent traffic–think the NSA doesn’t use this for jihadi communications????

And to the folks illegally sharing my music?   You might want to ask what other naughty stuff I can see on your computer?

Seriously, if I could figure this out in 20 minutes how hard is it for the NSA? FBI? Local PD? Hacker?

Apparently BitTorrent doesn’t even understand how it’s own product works. Luddites.

*No offense Germans, I’m simply paraphrasing my favorite German Author Thomas Meinecke.

The IP Address The Port Sample File Name
98.194.45.42 45832 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.125.248.153 16079 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.122.163.166 53855 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.187.147.156 31163 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.180.160.68 49992 12 – Circles.flac
68.35.217.145 48451 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.173.109.168 39167 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.131.219.101 43611 12 – Circles.flac
71.198.221.119 47128 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
69.245.16.52 19150 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.126.53.161 46736 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.159.89.238 20533 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.255.69.205 61427 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.121.64.84 11373 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.225.183.21 21709 05 – Peaches in the Summertime.flac
174.60.188.235 32303 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.185.200.229 38984 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
71.228.181.111 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
68.61.76.14 44025 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
24.130.205.30 16422 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
71.207.200.119 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.232.177.136 39146 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.49.180.22 33418 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.239.116.29 56239 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
71.207.226.46 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.230.67.200 61161 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.106.137.141 33912 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.252.25.93 50437 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.101.248.189 16076 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.63.112.223 26424 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
98.211.89.34 45985 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.23.241.13 50364 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
66.229.199.147 55914 10-Cracker-Lonesome Johnny Blues.flac

Internet Exploitation, Not Just a Problem For Artists | Nick Lewis

Guest Post by Nick Lewis (Copyright in the Author)

Nick Lewis is a mastering engineer from Brighton, UK. Visit his website at www.brightonmastering.co.uk

Most talk about the exploitative internet is focused on artists. But they’re just the headline. Artists may be the front-line, the visible face, but the effects go much deeper.

Artists being paid less due to piracy, pay-what-you-like and advertising funded models has a direct effect on entire subsections of the economy. And these sectors serve as omens for the future of increasingly information-based economies like the UK.

The trickle-down effect

Think about everything that goes into making and releasing a record. Recording engineers, mixing engineers, mastering engineers, mixing desks, outboard, microphones, speakers, software, computers, pressing plants, their staff and equipment, blank stock manufacturers, distributors, warehouses, vans, drivers, PR agencies – the list goes on.

No one gets paid if no one buys the record.

I can’t count the number of times artists have promised to send a single/EP/album to me for mastering by a certain date only for that date to slip because they can’t get the money together. Very often it never materialises: they’ve given up and either forgone mastering, tried to do it themselves or got their hobbyist mate to do it. This isn’t good for me or the band.

The same goes for mixing. Probably 90% of everything I work on has been mixed by the artist themselves. And I’ll tell you something – you can immediately tell when something has come from a proper studio mixed by a proper mixing engineer. It’s night and day. Sure, sometimes it’s a conscious choice on the part of the band, but most of the time they just can’t afford to mix in a proper studio.

The fewer working studios there are, the less money spent on high-end equipment and the fewer techs can afford to keep working. You see where this is going.

Loss of expertise

 This isn’t just bad for people losing money. Less money means less investment which means lower quality. Fewer people can afford to make a living doing the things that make a difference to how a record sounds (for example).

Yes you can make a record on a laptop. But it won’t come close to Abbey Road. This is about time with experts where artists can concentrate on their art and not worry about anything else. This is about a level of technical knowledge, let alone appropriate acoustic spaces.

People can’t afford to take on apprentices like they used to. A lot of the top mixing and mastering engineers now work from private facilities at home. Eventually all these people will retire and their skills will go with them. The people that replace them will never have learnt from them, and very likely never had the money to invest in the same quality of equipment.

Soft skills are already suffering because there’s not enough money in it. People have to get day jobs and pursue them as a hobby or not at all. That means a lower quality end product.

Beyond music

 This isn’t just about music. It’s not even just about creative enterprises. The downward trajectory of price to zero will eventually affect anything transmittable in binary. Data, software: anything that can be distributed with a computer.

For countries like mine, the UK, which is increasingly moving towards an information based economy, where manufacturing is taking a backseat and media and services dominate – this can only spell disaster. When competition from open source projects, piracy and vastly under-priced international alternatives hits everything from financial services to software development we will have nothing left to sell.

Free market fallacy

The internet has provided the mechanism for the biggest, fastest, unregulated free market the world has ever seen. And its sheer size is exposing the flaws in the system.

The free market theory is that competition will drive price down, which is good for the consumer. Adam Smith couldn’t possibly have predicted what would happen in the face of intangible, easily copyable assets and hyper-globalisation. The trend towards zero is not good for the consumer in the long-term as the quality of product degrades or disappears altogether along with the skills and supportive infrastructure that go into it.

A sustainable internet isn’t just about ensuring musicians and artists get paid fairly for their work, it’s about protecting our economies. Further, it’s about choosing what kind of a world we want to live in.

The French (among others) have a fixed book price agreement, recently extended to include e-books, to protect their publishing industry. The net effect is 2,500+ book shops in France, while the UK sector, left to laissez faire, dwindles. This is a direct expression of the value placed on literature in France – both in itself and as an economic sector. It’s also an example of the kind of measure we need to fight for online. As musicians queue up to descry the new business models of the digital economy, it’s clear the ‘invisible hand’ isn’t working for artists, listeners or the jobs and skills that depend on both.

This isn’t just about art. Art is just the beginning. This is about restoring the link between price and value in an information economy.