ContentSphere - Music & Media in an Online Culture

I started this article two days ago (which isn’t quite correct because I started writing it about a week ago), though I have yet to come to the main part - the lessons themselves. Hope you enjoy, have your read.
Continue reading "Music Business: Lessons In Free Strategies From..." »

If talking to independent musicians about the benefits of distributing content for free you most certainly will come across four arguments in monolithic defense.


Please note: I won’t discuss copyright issues in here. But no matter if you give away your song for free to billions of people or if you sell a licence to one company - your copyright in your song remains unaffected. Please keep that in mind.

Continue reading "Music Business: Lessons In Free Strategies From..." »

[English translation of part 3 is coming soon. Due to organisational tasks at all2gethernow, it will take an additional one or two days to translate. Since the text is available in German already, I just posted it in advance for all German readers.]

Teil 1&2 findet Ihr hier:
“Die GEMA-Vermutung als Markteintrittsbarriere (Teil 1/3)”
“Die GEMA-Vermutung als Markteintrittsbarriere (Teil 2/3)”

Glaube ist gut, Wissen ist besser.

Gleichgültig, wie das Urteil eines (notwendigen) Sachverständigen zum Thema aussieht, der Beleg für die Verfügbarkeit einer hinreichenden Größe frei lizensierten Materials muss vor Gericht erbracht werden. Denn die GEMA-Vermutung ist gängige Rechtsprechung und wird erst vor dem BGH endgültig widerlegt werden können. Aber die Schwierigkeit liegt in der Nachprüfbarkeit. Der GEMA liegen neben ihren stets aktuellen Geschäftszahlen natürlich auch die Zahlen der zu verwertenden Titel vor - wo aber sind die belegbaren Zahlen frei lizenzierter Stücke?

Aufmerksamkeit.

Darüber hinaus hat die GEMA Pressesprecher und Lobbyisten. Nicht die Künstler, die ihre Werke GEMA-frei anbieten. Für die Verbraucher existieren letztere Künstler nicht. Selbst wenn international renommierte Künstler wie Trent Reznor oder die Smashing Pumpkins Titel unter Creative Commons veröffentlichen - die Masse des Publikums nimmt es nicht wahr. Es erscheint unwichtig. Die meiste Beachtung für diese Aktionen, Marketingstrategien und teilweise auch Geschäftsmodelle wird den Künstlern durch das Web zuteil. Continue reading "The GEMA Presumption as an Entry Barrier (Pt. 3/3)" »

For parts 1&3, please go here:
Part 1, Part 3


There are two issues, and each one constitutes a well functioning entry barrier in itself. But, in conjunction they are seamlessly joint: The GEMA presumption, and closely linked the free licence composers’ and providers’ scattered acting.

Why are they that closely linked?

First off, GEMA is responsible for maintaining the GEMA presumption. Secondly, GEMA does not allow members to license selected works under Creative Commons. Free licence composers are kept out of the market without having any organisation representing them. It is plain to see why Germany’s collection society does not want to offer billing and administration of Creative Commons licences (although they could get a good revenue by doing so). But, in the end this results in increasing the demand an alternative to today’s common collection society. Latest by launch of an alternative platform, organisation or institution the GEMA presumption is going to fall. Now this isn’t at all what GEMA wants. Continue reading "The GEMA Presumption as an Entry Barrier (Pt. 2/3)" »

For parts 2&3, please go here:
Part 2, Part 3

Note.

Quite often, in any part of this article I’m using the term “free licensed” or “free licences”. That might be a bit misleading. Please take your time to understand it in the meaning of “independently licensed from any collection society (in particular GEMA)”. It does not mean that for example Creative Commons licences are always free of charge. The range of Creative Commons allows for different licences (in contrast to GEMA by the way).

Most of them (at least with music) will probably be free of charge for private use. However, commercial use in most cases depends on certain conditions and the explicit permission of the author plus paying a licence fee.

I’m aware of the fact that the line between private use and commercial use is not that clear, and it is not explicitly defined by Creative Commons. The definition rather relies on the author being the licenser. But in case you are about to license a work - just ask the author if the purpose you are intending is considered private or commercial use. The metadata of any work licensed under Creative Commons should allow for a contact option.

A slight case of overbombing.

Unfortunately, usage of content licensed by Creative Commons or other free licences in Germany pretty often fails because of the so called GEMA presumption. As of now, due to this presumption, if played, performed or copied for commercial use or in public in Germany, every work of music has to be reported to German collection society GEMA. This applies for composers playing their own music as well as for songs not licensed with GEMA - say, Creative Commons. This is confirmed and supported by German jurisdiction.
Continue reading "The GEMA Presumption as an Entry Barrier (Pt. 1/3)" »

I don’t know whether this one has hit US shores already - or if there is any other country that knows about it. But there’s something going on in Germany.

Again, it’s about licensing. We already had our share of GEMA within the past few weeks (see Rapidshare and Jamendo). Read about it at ContentSphere, or do it over at TechDirt. GEMA, Germany’s only collections society, still is surprisingly entertaining (if you’re into cynism).

But, there’s some uprising fresh breeze, and it’s coming from Germany’s most southward located town: Sonthofen.
Continue reading "Germany's GEMA: Resistance is (not) futile" »

Recent articles on this blog featured the problems broadcasting services have to face in the days of the internet. Just take a look at my del.icio.us bookmarks on the right to notice that the death of Project Kangaroo has been the opener to Project Canvas.

Today's informitv newsletter is concluded by a comment by Dr William Cooper, CEO informitv, addressing current issues. It's a brilliant one. Unfortunately, I can't find it anywhere on their site ("resource not found"). So here it is, straight from the newsletter...


Continue reading "Dr William Cooper, CEO informitv, on Challenges..." »

At SIIA Industry Summit 2009, Pearson CEO Marjorie Scardino described the framework for Financial Times' digital and pricing strategy. Financial Times is published by Pearson.

Sardino, referring to print content, stressed the difference between generic content such as news and the value Financial Times provides by quality analysis. Apart from the brand value, it is in particular the supplier generated extra content which defines the product's market value.

But where is Ralph Lauren?

The newspaper's price has been increased which led to an increase in number of readers too. Now this is what Scardino calls „The Ralph Lauren Effect", in marketing more commonly known as snob effect.

Certain target audiences have a need to "feel" quality and identity of a product by price. Customers expect exclusiveness and social prestige in buying. You might compare it to car enthusiasts buying a Porsche's sound, or like the fact a vacuum cleaner has to be noisy to be efficient. It is about feeling the product and consumer’s identification with it. Lower the price or reduce the noise – sales figures will go down.

This phenomenon works well with exclusive goods. The price indicates the quality of product.

Print vs. music media

So can digital distribution in print media be compared to music in terms of pricing and product structure? Is it possible to transfer the Ralph Lauren model?

Let us start with one premise: The basic situation to be analysed here differs in print and media. Scardino refers to standing the competition within several print outlets. The core issue in music business is not based on rivalry. It is about 1) Upon which sources do I generate revenue? and 2) Is there a way to beat piracy?

Continue reading "Might Ralph Lauren Save Digital Distribution of..." »

On MidemNet Blog, Peter Jenner shares his "Thoughts on the deal between DSPs, Content Industries, and Government for Next Generation Access". Actually, his thoughts might have their origin in a news flash from last year.

Sorting it out...

The story's beginning has to be set in March 2008 when Warner Music Group hired business veteran Jim Griffin to develop a new business model to build upon. In early December, the result hit the public. Selected universities were approached to prove if the business model would work: Students would pay a small fee, and in return they were allowed to access and download all music available via internet for free - legally. According to Eliot Van Buskirk on wired.com all major record labels apart from Universal agreed to be involved.

However, in a real world environment (outside the campus) the intention is to establish a (nonprofit) company to collect the fee in cooperation with the ISPs. With Warner's and Griffin's business model, this company ('Choruss') apparently turns out be registered by Griffin's OneHouse Digital.

Cure to everything?

Another well-known media strategist, Gerd Leonhard, announced on MidemNet Blog that at Midem 2009 he was about to show "[..] why we urgently need a new blanket license for Internet music (on-demand streaming, and downloading) that is similar to what we already have for radio & broadcasting (i.e. a collective or a compulsory license that is made available to anyone), why all the efforts of controlling music content online have failed to generate relevant future revenue streams for the creators (rather than just the lawyers), and what the alternatives will be."

Peter Jenner hails this idea as the one solution which fits the situation.

Continue reading "Pay a fee at your ISP, get your music for free..." »

Three weeks ago, Andrew Dubber once again tackled the question of "Why give music away for free?" on his blog. He earned more than 140 comments. That is a lot. It stirred up the a lively argument between the contributors on more than just one level. Take your time - it is an excellent read.

Here is the comment I added. I left it unedited which means there are a few referers to other people's comments. Hope you don't mind. If you like, add your two cents by adding a comment right here (or over there).

Nothing is predictable

So what remains to be a constant in music business? There’s the product, which includes performance & composition. It’s the artists, or more generally speaking, the creative bunch (whomever that will include on the technical side). On the other side of the story we’ve got the consumer. Then there’s kind of a middleware - let’s call it the platform of distribution, no matter how many third party companies are involved (if any). There are rules and a technological as well as a economical framework to deal with the product. This includes licensing & copyright law. Anybody involved intends to get their share of money. Expect for the consumer, who’s trying to pay as less as possible. IF he’s doing so.

So everything remains more or less? No, for heaven’s sake - again I’m with Andrew. If anything’s predictable, it’s a multi-dimensional complexity which arises of any constant being altered by a multitude of parameters: technology, globalization, ubiquity, The Long Tail, individual production etc.

Upside down

What’s changing in music (or media) business? Basically, anybody’s role will change - that’s quite easy to see. It’s not only the labels. And it will not change somewhere in the future, it’s already in the making. Be open minded and keep up a good amount of analytical awareness. Your tasks have changed.

Complexity arises from multiple forms of the product’s carrier (media, format, resolution, options). More complexity arises from options in the choice of distribution channels (online, offline, label, portal, aggregator, selling by yourself). Even more complexity arises when it comes to choose whether to add added value (ltd editions etc - see Tom Robinson and Julian). If that’s not enough, you can define the pricing model and strategy as an artist yourself (depends on way of distribution of course).

Continue reading "Dubber on Music for Free" »