[Sunday Business Post] Irish music industry hit by downloading (1 Viewer)

[pete]

Agi knows her music carries a different price tag in the UK than in China. The singer made about $2000 (£1,000) a month from music royalties and live shows with her band Mika Bomb when she lived in London.
But in China, her band Long Kuan Jiu Duan can almost double that by singing just one song at a commercial gig.
At these gigs, artists get paid a set amount by companies or promoters regardless of how many tickets they sell.
With no royalties, pirated CDs and illegal downloading, this is one of the ways bands have learned to survive in China.

At the height of her popularity in China a few years ago, Agi says she would do two to three performances a week, making as much as 30,000 yuan (£2,100; $4,100) each time. "It's really hard to earn money from records because of illegal downloading from the internet and pirated CDs," says the singer.
Whereas the US and Europe are still finding ways to counter piracy, Chinese record companies have already decided it is a lost cause, finding other ways to make money which are not directly related to music sales.
This comes from necessity rather than by choice, says Shen Lihui, the head of China's largest independent label, Modern Sky, based in Beijing.
The firm's entire record collection can be downloaded for free through the country's largest search engine Baidu.com.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7251211.stm

 

[pete]

Pure bonkers.

not levying the ISP's, but similar...

Apple mulls unlimited music bundle

By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in London
Published: March 18 2008 22:01 | Last updated: March 18 2008 22:01

Apple is in discussions with the big music companies about a radical new business model that would give customers free access to its entire iTunes music library in exchange for paying a premium for its iPod and iPhone devices.
The “all you can eat” model, a replica of Nokia’s “comes with music” deal with Universal Music last December, could provide the struggling recorded music industry with a much-needed fillip, and drive demand for a new generation of Apple’s hardware.
Apple would not comment on the plan, but executives familiar with the negotiations said they hinged on a dispute over the price the computer maker would be willing to pay for access to the labels’ libraries.
Nokia is understood to be offering almost $80 per handset to music industry partners, to be divided according to their share of the market. However, Apple has so far offered only about $20 per device, two executives said. “It’s who blinks first, and whether or not anyone does blink,” one executive said.
Detailed market research has shown strong appetite among consumers for deals bundling music in with the cost of the device, or in exchange for a monthly subscription, executives said.
One executive said the research had shown that consumers would pay a premium of up to $100 for unlimited access to music for the lifetime of the device, or a monthly fee of $7-$8 for a subscription model.
Apple, which is thought to make relatively little money from the iTunes store compared with its hardware sales, is also understood to be examining a subscription model.
Subscriptions would work only for its iPhone devices, where it has a monthly billing relationship with customers through the mobile phone operators offering the device, while the “comes with music” model would work with iPhones and with iPods.
The subscription models under discussion in the music industry include the provision for customers to keep up to 40 or 50 tracks a year, which they would retain even if they changed their device or their subscription lapses.
Other music groups are understood to be in talks with Nokia, which is keen to sign up as many of the major labels as possible before launching its first “comes with music” devices in the second half of this year.
Additional reporting by Kevin Allison in San Francisco

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b55a0d64-f523-11dc-a21b-000077b07658,Authorised=true.html?nclick_check=1

 

[Anthony]

The subscription models under discussion in the music industry include the provision for customers to keep up to 40 or 50 tracks a year, which they would retain even if they changed their device or their subscription lapses.

wtf?

 

[pete]

Details of a controversial plan to make money from music piracy are beginning to emerge.
Spearheaded by Warner Music Group, the plan aims to get internet service providers to pay a few dollars per user per month into a fund that would then be divided among rights holders. The scheme would essentially give P2P users a get-out-of-jail-free card for file sharing activity.
Wired.com has learned that industry consultant Jim Griffin, hired by Warner to implement the idea, has already set up an independent company to act as a digital-rights clearinghouse. Griffin's company would be like an ASCAP for the internet, collecting fees from ISPs and divvying them up among rights holders.
In addition, BigChampagne, a company that measures digital-media consumption, would be one of the major sources supplying the necessary data to track file sharing activity.

The hoped-for result: a truce in the music wars. 

"The music industry has no choice," says Bob Kohn, a music-licensing expert and CEO of RoyaltyShare, which manages digital revenues for both majors and indies. "It's significantly weaker than it was in 2000. And the longer this drags on, the more difficult it will be to succeed."

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/04/music_plan

 

[Froog]

can't see how that would ever work. isp's could just say "there isn't any piracy from our users, if you think there is, prove it in court."

 

[theoootini]

well they could say it but they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. something like this is the way to go i reckon.

a publicly maintained fee paying torrent service like oink where the public's fee goes straight to the artists they download. no overheads and money goes straight to the artist. i would gladly cough up a substantial yearly subscription for such a service.

 

[timbot]

well they could say it but they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. something like this is the way to go i reckon.

a publicly maintained fee paying torrent service like oink where the public's fee goes straight to the artists they download. no overheads and money goes straight to the artist. i would gladly cough up a substantial yearly subscription for such a service.

While I agree I would like to see how the money is actually distributed. Is it per artist that you d/l or is it split % wise between the artists depending on the d/l ratio? I would much prefer that my €20 a month go to the people I am actually d/ling than 20% to U2, Coldplay, etc...

 

[timbot]

can't see how that would ever work. isp's could just say "there isn't any piracy from our users, if you think there is, prove it in court."

Given that in the past record companies have sued an 8 year old girl for d/ling the Barnie theme song then I think they would be ready, willing and able to prove it in court. Sure all you have to do as a prosecutor is take out an account with an ISP, d/l something off UTorrent and hey presto! - case closed.

(Of course it would be fun if the record company then sued their prosecutor, ah, in an ideal world...)

 

[theoootini]

While I agree I would like to see how the money is actually distributed. Is it per artist that you d/l or is it split % wise between the artists depending on the d/l ratio? I would much prefer that my €20 a month go to the people I am actually d/ling than 20% to U2, Coldplay, etc...

well obviously you would want it to go to the artist you are downloading. otherwise why bother?

 

[timbot]

well obviously you would want it to go to the artist you are downloading. otherwise why bother?

I know and agree, it strikes me that where Record Labels are negotiating in a room then MGM or Universal is going to have much more clout than Leaf or Planet Mu or whatever. So the deal may be to allocate the total pot by ratio of d/l rather than each user paying towards their favourite artist. Not sure how the math would work on that but the smaller labels could end up getting screwed...

 

[Anthony]

well obviously you would want it to go to the artist you are downloading. otherwise why bother?

Just buy it then.

 

[theoootini]

Just buy it then.

I do.

standing on the sidelines and boo hissing isn't going to do help is it? maybe you should just blow up the internet.

 

[timbot]

I do.

standing on the sidelines and boo hissing isn't going to do help is it? maybe you should just blow up the internet.

 

[Anthony]

I do.

standing on the sidelines and boo hissing isn't going to do help is it? maybe you should just blow up the internet.

It wasn't directed at you, I know you were just commenting on the nutty "solution" posed.
I just thought this thread had gone full circle to one of, "oh my, how can I make sure the bands I'm downloading get the money I'm prepared to pay for the music I'm downloading for free?"

 

[theoootini]

this thread does have a tendency to go on and on..

 

[Froog]

myspace to join with record companys for new site:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/technology/03cnd-myspace.html?ref=business

SAN FRANCISCO — In the latest effort by the ailing music industry to bolster its declining prospects, three of the four major music companies have struck a deal with MySpace to start an music Web site.
As part of the deal, MySpace will spin out its popular MySpace Music service as an independent joint venture in partnership with Universal Music, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group. EMI, the fourth major label, is not a part of the deal at this time, but people involved in the negotiations said it would probably join soon. The music companies will own minority stakes in the venture and will make their entire music catalogs available.
Chris DeWolfe, chief executive of MySpace, a division of News Corporation, described the new service, which will be introduced later this year, as a one-stop source for all music, in all its various digital incarnations.
Visitors to the site will be able to listen to free streaming music, paid for with advertising, and share customized playlists with their friends. They will also be able to download tracks to play on their mobile devices, putting the new site in competition with similar services like Apple, Amazon and eMusic.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

throwing a promo CD in the bin is "unauthorised distribution"

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080408/231307794.shtml

ew RIAA Argument: Throwing A Promo CD In The Garbage = Unauthorized Distribution

from the next-upicking-your-nose=distribution dept

Last summer, the EFF sued Universal Music Group, after UMG had eBay takedown the sales of certain CDs. The CDs were promotional CDs, purchased legitimately by a guy going to LA record stores. However, UMG claimed that the CDs, as promotional items, were still the property of Universal Music Group. The EFF charged that UMG was abusing the law, specifically by ignoring the right of first sale, which is enshrined in copyright law allowing you to resell CDs or other works that contain copyrighted material. In response, UMG has now filed a brief that says that throwing out a promotional CD is unauthorized distribution.

Effectively, UMG is saying that merely by putting some fine print on a CD, it can effectively "own" that CD forever. If the court agrees, this would have some rather stunning ramifications, effectively wiping out the first sale doctrine. Record labels could then include similar language on all CDs, not just promo CDs, and then basically create its own copyright rules, preventing any use other than what the record label decided to allow. That would seem to go against much of historical precedent (and basic common sense) surrounding copyright. Courts in the past have noted time and time again that just because you say something is true, it doesn't mean it necessarily is true. Hopefully the court will make that point once again.

 

[pete]

Hasn't that always been the case with promo CDs, though - that you're effectively being loaned them and the label can ask for them back at any stage?

that's what the stickers on the ones i used to buy in secondhand record shops used to say anyway.

 

[Popeye]

It has some impact of course, I'd say the actual impact is only a small fraction of the total downturn in music sales.

It's all beside the point regardless - it doesn't really matter whether or not filesharing has an impact now on record sales. If record companies are going around trying to figure how big the impact is in unit terms and how to recover it then in the long run they are fucked.

The real impact of filesharing will not be that downloads supplant sales (allthough no doubt they will at an increasing rate) it is that the idea of intellectual property will change, and every time a record company sue some teenager they hasten their own demise but pointing out the ridiculousness of their position.

Whether or not filesharing is having an effect on record sale now is irrelevant - record companies are never going to win the war againt the technology, they are just going to have to accept that. However if they continue as they are going they will loose the wider debate of how copyright should operate in a modern society - if that happens thay are fucked.

Well said.

My own take on it is that people are consuming more music than they used to...but, the amount of money they spend on music has dipped. i.e. every downloaded freebie mp3 is not a sale lost. In other words, if illegal downloads stopped tomorrow, music sales wouldn't suddenly jump to the same level as the filesharing stats.

Music is the audio equivalent of wallpaper...i.e. people listen to music when they're doing something else. Whether it's sitting on the dart or a bus, playing a computer game, blogging, surfing, walking, running. And there';s more competition on the wallet. kids top up their mobiles and pay their dealer now, before they think about buying music.

What worries me is that IRMA and their ilk are using the statistics to scaremonger the introduction of the ISP music tax...i.e. where everyone pays an extra €5 or €10 euro on their ISP bill to compensate for illegal downloads.

Technically, every downloaded freebie is a breach of copyright, so there is some semblance of credibility to a legal argument, but, I think even the laziest lawyers would agree that copyright law belongs more in the 19th century than this one.

So, if we're looking for someone to blame...I wouldn't blame the downloaders, I would blame IRMA and the legal sector, who have failed spectacularly to come up with a contemporary copyright framework that bears some sort of relevance to modern times.

 

[BonsaiSuperstar]

noticed this article the other day. originally i thought it was a law to target people who look at child p0rn or to possibly view times someone was online to use as maybe evidence in murder cases and the like.

but this line made me wonder was it music orientated? anyone know what its about, seems like its a very vague article.6 months seems very short to me for the above charges of child p0rn and murder etc

Gardaí will be able to access the data when investigating a 'serious offence', one that could lead to a maximum sentence of six months if convicted.


here is the article link. http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0422/internet.html?rss



the article in full.
Internet charges may rise with new data laws


Internet access charges could go up when new regulations on data retention come into effect, according to the Internet Service Providers Association.
Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan has published proposals for new rules that will force providers to keep a record of communications conducted on their networks.
As part of the implementation of Europe-wide Retention of Data Regulations, Mr Lenihan has published the draft of a Statutory Instrument.
Advertisement

He is proposing to introduce regulations to log information about emails, internet access and voice communications over the web.
The actual content of the communications does not have to be recorded by Internet Service Providers, but they will have to keep data for a 12-month period about the how the connection was generated.
That would include things like the name and address of the customer, their IP address and the length of time they were logged on for.
Gardaí will be able to access the data when investigating a 'serious offence', one that could lead to a maximum sentence of six months if convicted.
When these plans were first mooted a few years back, ISPs raised objections but now they accept that they have to obey the new laws.
The Internet Service Providers Association says it will work with the Department of Justice on agreeing a timescale for the implementation of the new rules.
But ISPA General Manager Paul Durant says it will be a complex process with a number of legal and technical issues to be addressed.
He says his members are concerned about the possible cost implications of the regulations.
At the moment, providers have no requirement to gather the data covered under these proposals.
They will have to put new procedures and software in place to enable them to monitor and store the information and Mr Durant says the Government has ruled out a cost recovery agreement, where it would assist in financing this.
He says that if a lot of requests for data are forthcoming the associated extra costs will have to be borne by consumers