Site Feed

contact me


my Flickr

Sad Salvation Fotolog

Super Karate Monkey Fist

Costume Checklist

Home

Technorati Profile

Reads

Imaginary Year

Invisible City

Raccoon

It Is What It Is

Aaron's Weblog

CraBlogged

Me(ish)

faisal.com

Adventures in Trouble- shooting

Sugary Sweet Machine

San Jose Blogs

Daily C

Random Curiosity

Elkit in Wonderland

Ego, Ego, Ego!

GuysBlog

Sci-Fi Hi-Fi

Intricate Plot

Torches Over the Wino

is that all there is?

BotzBlog

are you there god? it's me, margaret.

Dahlshouse

post-hip chick

Kadavy.net

Mike's Blog

Zeigen

ALL ART BURNS

Slacy's Blog

Paul's Time Sink

Disorderly Content

fling93 loves fishies

UnNatural History

Munich-
maedchen


Introspection/ Extroversion

derf content, blog-style

antwon.com

SF Bay Bloggers

San Francisco Bay Area Journals

The Bay Area Is Talking

Random Blogs

Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?

Inactive

Photo-a-day

Better Than Reportingly

Sans Sheriff

House Band

Here Are The Facts You Requested

Other Things

Jeremy's Superfun Portal of Mystery

Invisible City

Angela's Daily Planet

Bob Pence

Peter Conrad

biscoRADIO

Powered by Blogger Pro™

Welcome to Sad Salvation. Day by day by day by day ... this is my attempt to make sense of the world.



Current | Archives


Thursday, February 15, 2007


Zero Impact, Staring the RIAA

According to a new study P2P effect on legal music sales "not statistically distinguishable from zero". I did not see that one coming. I always thought the impact was low, but I never thought it was as low as zero.

This means the music industry is losing more money putting DRM on music than it is saving by keeping sales. This is money that could be coming to the labels bottom lines. This money could be helping you. Instead you are wasting it. Just think of all that money you wasted suing people using P2P networks. That must have been a pretty penny.

I know that the music industry will come out against this report. They will say it is cutting into their bottom line. They will say that something has to account for the lack of sales. It could not be that the music coming out sucked and that the people running record labels are out of touch. It could not be that you had no idea how to promote your music on the internet until Myspace dropped. I think I am going to believe the study.

Labels: , , ,


Sunday, February 11, 2007


More about DRM

It looks like the forces of status quo in the music world are lining up against Steve Jobs in the fight over DRM. I expect the Record Companies will not just rollover to for Steve Jobs. My guess is that think the record labels think they have the control when it comes to iTunes and Apple.

Here is a quote from Edgar Bronfman made during the Warner Music Group F1Q07 Earnings Call:

Let me be clear: we advocate the continued use of DRM in the protection of our and of our artists’ intellectual property. The notion that music does not deserve the same protections as software, television, film, video games or other intellectual property simply because there is an unprotected legacy product available in the physical world is completely without logic or merit.

But let’s not lose sight of the core issue. By far the larger issue for consumers in the music industry is interoperability. As a content company, we of course want consumers to seamlessly access our music and to use the music they have purchased on any platform and with any service, physical or digital.

The issue is obscured by asserting that DRM and interoperability is the same thing. They are not. To suggest that they cannot co-exist is simply incorrect. At Warner Music, we continue to seek a balance between appropriate protections for our intellectual property and a robust and satisfying music experience for consumers. Interoperability sure would enhance that balance, while eliminating DRM would do just the opposite.

We will not abandon DRM, nor will we disadvantage services that are successfully implementing DRM for both content and consumers.


I recognize that there are interesting music business models that only work with strong DRM. Any kind of music rental service like Rhapsody only work DRM. You have to be able to turn off the music if the customer quits paying for it. The problem with this business model is that it depends on the music companies putting DRM an the rest of their music also. It is the only way money can be made off the business model.

Bronfman makes a classic mistake in his argument above. He claims that Music deserves the same protection as Movies, Software, or Television. He is saying that Intellectual Property is Intellectual Property no matter what the form. He is making the mistake of viewing music the way he wants to view music, not the way his customers want to view music. Most of the customers I know view all these forms as different from each other. That is what is important in the end.

I think Apple has more control than the companies recognize. I am not sure if the average person could tell you what label their favorite artist is on. The average record label might say this is unimportant. The record label controls distribution. A major artist would not need to be with a able to get their album on iTunes. If they cut out the record company, they might be able to take the smaller sales that would come from not having a physical CD.

Labels: , , ,


Thursday, December 28, 2006


Treating Customers Like Customers

It looks like labels might be seeing the advances of music on MP3. I hope that MP3 or open formats like MP3 win out. I looks like music labels might start treating customers like customers. That can only be a good thing. I think it will be good for everyone in the long run. Lets see what happens.

Labels: , , ,

 

Current | Archives

Contact me