January 11 -- Copy
protection mechanisms on current audio CD's have no chance of
success, in the opinion of Royal Philips Electronics. Philips
spokesperson Klaus Petri says the company counts on the fact
that the refusal of consumers will convince the music industry
to step back from copy-protected CDs. Then he pointed out that
Philips could sue the manufacturers of CDs with copy protection
(as managers of the world-wide CD patents), because they would
not correspond to the standards. "those are silver disks
with music on them, but which do not resemble CDs".
February 3 -- Dave
Marsh writes...
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel questioned
whether the record companies have copyrights that apply to digital
distribution of music, and said she'd permit Napster to fish
for evidence that the companies collude.
The cartel cannot afford scrutiny
of its rights claims. Some of them rely upon highly selective
interpretations of contracts. Even where it has clear contractual
language, it has often obtained the master recordings without
a clear title. Most important, many of those contracts have been
breached in so many different ways that there is no way they
would hold up under judicial, let alone public, scrutiny. (To
strip it down: If you don't pay the music-maker you made the
contract with, you don't own the rights the contract gives you.)
Legal research might point the way for clever lawyers to do to
the RIAA what the RIAA did to Napster. It might even open the
door for artists to reclaim the material purloined from them.
But unless you're a fool, don't
believe for a second that the RIAA owns what it controls, either.
Stolen property doesn't belong to the possessor just because
the possessor has the biggest gun in the room.
February 8 -- Princeton
professor Edward Felten and his team of scientists said they
would not appeal a New Jersey federal court's decision to dismiss
their case against the RIAA. which invoked the DMCA to prevent
him from publishing research that exposed holes in recording
industry-backed anti-piracy technology.
Although the RIAA admits that
it sent a letter to Felten last year warning him that he could
face prosecution under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
should he publish his research, the industry group later retracted
the threat, calling the letter a "mistake." That retraction,
coupled with assurances from the U.S. government that the DMCA
does not apply to scientific research, prompted the New Jersey
court to dismiss the case last November.
February 9 -- U.S.
Rep. Howard L. Berman has called for an investigation of "the
negative effects of consolidation in the radio and concert promotion
businesses", specifically targeting radio giant Clear Channel
Communications.
February 18 -- The
Federal District Courts and the Supreme Court this past year
have re-enforced the artists rights to own their work. In two
different landmark cases they say that unless a writer has explicitly
given the permission to the copyright holder to sell their work
electronically, that the publisher does NOT own those rights.
February 20-- The day before granting the legal stay
in January, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said she was planning to
allow an investigation into how the labels have accounted for
ownership of the songs they say have been stolen through Napster.
Patel also said she would open an investigation into the issue
of copyright misuse, or whether the labels have abused their
control of music copyrights.
February 21 -- Lester
Chambers, The Main Ingredient, the Original Drifters, The Coasters,
have won a reversal of Judge Rakoff's decison to dismiss the
case in the Federal Appeals Court. In a David vs Goliath like
case, recording artists from the past have finally won one. Rhythm
and blues artists who recorded albums dating back to the 1950s
won a court battle on Thursday when an appeals court reinstated
a copyright suit against major record companies over digitized
works sold on the Internet or downloaded from Web sites.
The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated a lower court ruling that had thrown out the
case filed by members of The Chambers Brothers, The Coasters,
The Original Drifters and The Main Ingredient.
At issue is whether or not
record labels automatically assume rights that did not exist
at the time contracts were negotiated.
February 22 -- Fahrenheit
Entertainment, Music City Records, and Sunncomm have decided
to settle with the consumers who sued over the copy-protection
scheme on Charley Pride's CD "A Tribue to Jim Reeves".
Sunncomm and Music City Records agreed to resolve the consumer
music "CD-Cloqueing" lawsuit by "providing better
notice and enhancing consumer privacy."
February 22 -- Marilyn
Hall Patel ruled that the five major record labels must prove
they own thousands of music copyrights, and prove those copyrights
weren't used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital
music.
February 24 -- Dave
Marsh explains why allowing the record company cartel to run
the copyright-approved versions of computerized music delivery
will make money only for the cartel, not artists.
February 26 -- After only two months into 2002...
March 4 -- RIAA
PR: "Why CD Copy-Protection is Necessary"
March 7 -- Rick
Boucher says he plans to introduce legislation banning, or at
least regulating, compact discs outfitted with anti-copying technology.
April 25 -- RIAA
requested additional funds from the House Appropriations Committee
for federal anti-piracy law enforcement efforts and is pushing
for a renewed agenda on protecting intellectual property.
May 13 -- Certain
music CDs are designed not to play in personal computers
as a deterrent to digital copying. Each CD comes with a small
warning label: "Will NOT play in PC/Mac". The CDs can
cause Mac computers to freeze and then reboot to a grey screen.
The computer may then refuse to restart until the CD has been
manually ejected.
May 20 -- Sony
Music's elaborate disc copy-protection technology is deated by
scribbling around the rim of a disk with a Sharpie marker.
May 25 -- Maverick
Records and Vivendi Universal's online division are asking listeners
to pay a buck for an unprotected MP3 version of a new single.
June 27 -- The
RIAA, back in April, sued the crap out of the Arizona company,
IIS, for running its own internal mp3 server for the benefit
of its employees. The two sides settled out of court for one
million dollars.
July 1 -- Major
record labels have launched an aggressive new guerrilla assault
on the underground music networks, flooding online swapping services
with bogus copies of popular songs.
July 1 -- Word
has it that the RIAA is in the early phases on planning out this
legal onslaught, but is certainly already tracking and monitoring
users sharing high volumes of music for future litigation to
be brought up against them.
The recording industry also
continues their tactics of pushing for legal backing by someone
inside the U.S. political system, with House Representative Howard
Berman proposing new laws which allow the direct attack of peer-to-peer
file sharing services by the industry without being legally liable.
Not surprisingly however, it should certainly be noted that Howard
Berman has received the largest amount of money in donations
from the entertainment industry totaling $186,891.
July 8 -- U.S.
Congressman Rick Boucher, moving to strengthen "fair use"
provisions under federal copyright law, said he is introducing
a bill that would essentially restrict the record industry from
selling copy-protected CDs.
July 23 -- The
California Senate Select Committee on Entertainment, in conjunction
with the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on record labels
accounting practices. Before it was over the labels had a bloody
nose, and the RIAA spokesperson left before the hearing was over,
supposedly to catch a plane, but a rail might have been more
appropriate.
July 24 -- Singers
and entertainment attorneys criticized California's $41 billion
recording industry, testifying that it routinely underreports
royalties and cheats artists of millions of dollars.
July 24 -- Major
record companies, seeking to quash a brewing revolt by pop stars
over royalty payments, released a study backing its claim that
the embattled industry has negotiated past contracts fairly.
August 9 -- U.S.
lawmakers have asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to go after
Internet users who download unauthorized songs and other copyrighted
material, raising the possibility of jail time for digital-music
fans.
August 12 -- In
order to stem this growing tide of massive piracy on the Internet,
we urge the Justice Department to utilize its powers to:
The copyright industries account
for 5% of our gross domestic product. Increased criminal enforcement
will ensure that this industry remains a driving factor for economic
growth, and we ask that you make this a priority for the Department.
Sincerely,
House Judiciary Committee
August 12 -- The
members of Congress who signed the letter (above) and the contributions
they have received from TV/Movies/Music according to opensecrets.org
August 13 -- Until
now, the entertainment industry has relied on civil lawsuits
aimed at companies, not individuals, to limit widespread copyright
infringement on peer-to-peer networks. The new plan appears to
extend the target beyond companies with an apparent declaration
of legal warfare against individuals using peer-to-peer networks.
August 14 -- California
Senator Kevin Murray is continuing his push to repeal the 'Seven-Year
Rule', which allows record companies to lock artists into unfair
limitless contracts for their artistic works.
The RIAA issued a public statement
last week outlining the five concessions they are willing to
make to satisfy the concerns of artists' groups (such as the
Recording Artist Coalition). In response to this "outline
of concessions", Senator Murray has publicly stated his
concern with what the RIAA calls "compromises" are
in fact tailored to represent demands of the labels and not that
of the artists.
"For the RIAA to present
their demands as compromises or concessions was an insult to
the recording artists, attorneys, and managers that have been
working for months to resolve this issue." - Senator Kevin
Murray
August 16 -- Sen.
Kevin Murray announced that, "at the request of artist
representatives," he had decided not to move
forward this legislative session with California Senate Bill
1246. After listening to artists testify at hearings last year,
lawmakers told their representatives to work out a compromise
on the bill with the major record labels. The two sides have
been struggling for months to negotiate a deal but failed to
come to terms on several key points.
Also August 16 -- RIAA
members sued AT&T Broadband Corp., Cable & Wireless
USA,, Sprint Corp., Advanced Network Services, and UUNET Technologies,
alleging their routing systems allow users to access the China-based
Listen4ever.com Web site and unlawfully copy musical recordings.
The copyright infringement suit, filed in Manhattan federal court,
seeks a court order requiring the defendants to block Internet
communications that travel through their systems to and from
the Listen4ever site. The suit says the plaintiffs have not been
able to determine who owns the Web site.
August 19 -- Information
Wave Technologies has announced it will actively deny the RIAA
from accessing the contents of its network. Earlier this year,
the RIAA announced its new plan to access computers without owner's
consent for the sake of protecting its assets. Information Wave
believes this policy puts its customers at risk of unintentional
damage, corporate espionage, and invasion of privacy to say the
least.
August 20 -- John
Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, said Americans
should realize that swapping illicit copies of music and movies
is a criminal offense that can result in lengthy prison terms.
Malcolm said the Internet has
become "the world's largest copy machine" and that
criminal prosecutions of copyright offenders are now necessary
to preserve the viability of America's content industries.
September 7 -- Sen.
George Allen, R-Va., withdrew his support for an anti-piracy
bill that would make it a crime to distribute counterfeit authentication
features including digital watermarks because of changes that
came just before a committee voted in July to send it to the
Senate floor.
September 16 -- Writers
receiving review copies of two soon-to-be-released albums from
Epic Records, a unit of Sony Music, are finding the CD's already
inside Sony Walkman players that have been glued shut. Headphones
are also glued into the players, to prevent connecting the Walkman
to a recording device. By locking up the discs, Epic hopes to
keep writers from converting the music to MP3's that can then
be traded over the Net.
October 3 -- Congressman
Rick Boucher (VA) argues that fair use is threatened.
October 4 -- The
music industry wants a federal judge to force Verizon to identify
a subscriber accused of illegally trading copyrighted songs.
Such an action would pave the way for ailing record companies
to scare alleged music-swapping pirates into submission through
reams of cease-and-desist letters, rather than court action.
Verizon general counsel Sarah Deutsch said a record company win
in the case would harm the privacy rights of its subscribers
and force Internet providers to give up the names of customers
without judicial review.
Verizon has already agreed
to hand over the subscriber's name if the music firms' trade
group, the Recording Industry Association of America, files a
separate "John Doe" suit against the subscriber. The
RIAA refused. RIAA lawyer Cary Sherman said anti-piracy laws
don't require a separate suit, which would require more time
and expense.
"One of the things we're
discovering is that people are not aware that they are engaging
in conduct that is clearly illegal," Sherman said. "If
you got a letter from RIAA saying we know that you're doing this,
I'd say there's a pretty good chance that you would stop."
In one case, Warner Bros. demanded
a particular subscriber be disconnected for illegally sharing
the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone."
But the computer file identified by Warner Bros. in its letter
indicated it wasn't the "Harry Potter" movie but a
child's written book report. Another
letter, to Internet provider UUNet, wanted a subscriber cut off
for sharing songs by former Beatle George Harrison. But some
files were not songs at all. One was an interview with Harrison,
and another was a 1947 photograph of a "Mrs. Harrison."
October 4 -- Music
industry price-fixing settlement announced.
October 18 -- Universal
Music Group has initiated a new download policy, meant to make
downloads more financially meaningful to artists.
November 1 -- Robert
Kramer, of IBOB Digital Productions, suggests Hilary Rosen "seems
to neglect to consider a few other alternatives to the reasons
why there might indeed be a 7% decline in the shipments to music
retailers." For instance:
Why am I, as an independent
artist (read that as an artist who does *not* have a major-label
contract), being prevented from getting MY OWN MUSIC to be played
on internet radio?? Because the music industry monopoly who pulls
the strings says that the internet radio broadcasters have to
pay a prohibitive amount for broadcasting music over the internet,
using "getting my fair share" as justification, and
further, are told they are not allowed to play a certain amount
of the same artists songs in a row. As a result, many internet
broadcasters have ceased broadcasting. Major market broadcast
radio has no such restrictions. Why not? Shouldn't radio stations
be paying artists their FAIR SHARE for the FREE USE of their
music??
Is Hilary Rosen REALLY concerned
about getting the artists their fair share?? What about all the
FREE promotional copies of music given away by the major label
distributors that artists aren't getting a dime for?? If "stealing
is wrong," then its wrong for EVERYONE, the radio stations
included. Notice how no one wants to address the radio station
issue?? There's a reason for that.
Wake up, Hilary Rosen. The
labels would have to admit they've been in bed with the radio
stations all these years, and that the radio stations pay NOTHING
to the artists for the use of their music.
That's not about to happen
anytime soon. And this doesn't even address the little creative
accounting practices used by the record industry to manipulate
the demographics to "prove an economic downturn" in
record sales. Sure, payola is illegal. Go on, Hilary, prove it
doesn't happen.
Anyone remember the little
debacle Frank Zappa had with Warner Bros. some years ago? Look
it up. Among other things, WB used a little accounting trick,
they inventively called "pressing overruns," to try
and slick artists out of deserved cash.
They'd have the plants press,
say 200,000 units, for example. Then they'd show 100,000 shipped
and sell off the extra 100,000 at a discount to sleaze bags who
would then turn around and sell the boxes of albums off the back
of some truck to record stores. The whole thing was creatively
buried in their ENRON style accounting practices and it took
awhile before artists finally broke their little scheme. The
artists never saw a DIME from the sales of those "pressing
overruns".
Remember, the industry gauges
their figures on HOW MANY UNITS *SHIPPED*, NOT *SOLD*. Are those
figures really telling the whole story about record sales?? I
doubt it.
After all the discoveries of outright thievery uncovered in corporate
America in this last year, it would be fascinating to have someone
dig into some of the major label distributors finances. I'm *sure*
they're all above reproach and have kept the highest moral and
ethical standards in dealing with the artists money, right, Hilary???
Riiiight.
I can just picture record executives
being hauled off in handcuffs on TV and courtrooms FILLED with
major-label artists and fans to witness the "Trial of The
Century" as they uncover the billions of dollars STOLEN
over the years from truly deserving artists, musicians, producers
and those on the front lines of music. It'd make the ENRON hearings
look like simple shoplifting by comparison.
I guess stealing is only ok
when the thieves are allowed to run the industry, right Hilary??
November 6 -- John
Halderman, a computer scientist from Princeton University in
New Jersey, plans to show delegates at a digital copyright conference
in Washington DC next week that the idea of CD copy-prevention
is "fundamentally misguided".
In 2001, Princeton University
scientists debunked the technology the music industry planned
to use to inaudibly watermark sound. Halderman is now doing a
similar job on copy prevention systems.
Halderman reckons he has a
solution for the RIAA. "Reduce the cost of new CDs; if discs
cost only a few dollars each, buying them might be preferable
to spending the time and effort to make copies or find them online."
November 11 -- By
John Lettice
One mad consumer relations
team might be an isolated incident, two begins to look like a
trend. The dismissive response Bertelsmann Music Group's copy
protection team recently issued to a consumer's query essentially
boiled down to, 'all Cds will be copy protected, it's not our
problem that they won't play on some devices, so tough.' But
apparently, it's a competition. EMI Germany is taking pretty
much the same attitude, and its humorously-tagged Consumer Relations
team is calling the customers pirates while it's about it.
...we think the following loose
translation captures the flavour of the atrocity.
"Dear Mr. xxx,
We will refrain from addressing the points in your email that
are clearly erroneous. We also don't want to bore you with a
lengthy explanation of why the music industry is forced to use
copy protection measures, even though we would prefer to do something
else. Only this much: There are 250 Million blank CDRs and tapes
bought and used this year for copying music in comparison to
213 Million prerecorded audio media. This means the owners are
only being paid for 46 per cent of the musical content. For a
comparison: In 1998 almost 90% of all audio media was paid for.
Even without a degree in economics everyone should realise that
such trends will result in the music industry ceasing to exist.
Only one measure can be used against widespread cloning of prerecorded
audio media by burning CDRs: copy protection! This is also the
reason why record companies increasingly have to protect their
CDs. An alternative solution for stopping this abuse is unfortunately
not within sight. But we fear that these facts don't interest
you at all. Because these measures mean the end of free music,
something that must cause you much grief.
"Should you really have
a problem with playing the CD in question, we would like you
to name the exact model of your player. Then we can compare this
model with the list we have of players that our CDs run on without
any trouble. Then we'll see if the problem really is the copy
protection or if there are completely different reasons. The
case you are reporting that even multiple players refuse to function
can, in our experience, only originate from the realm of fairytales.
The copy protection we employ is state of the art, this means
there's nothing better available to date. If there will be something
better, we won't hesitate to use it. Problems with playing on
common CD-players are minimal, but every now and then it happens
that copy protected CDs don't work on a player. We forward these
cases immediately to our copy protection-provider, which is trying
hard to adapt the technology accordingly and solve the problems.
"If you plan on cracking
copy protection measures and burning the CD by other means we
must point out to you that this will be illegal in the near future
when the new European Intellectual Property law is introduced
in Germany. Such breaches of intellectual property will then
also be legally pursued by the state. The officials of the consumer
rights ministry won't tell you anything different - after all
it was the politicians who urged us to finally introduce copy
protection measures.
"If you plan to continue
protesting about future audio media releases with copy protection,
forget it; copy protection is a reality, and within a matter
of months more or less all audio media worldwide are copy protected.
And this is a good thing for the music industry. In order to
make this happen we will do anything within our power - whether
you like it or not."
November 15 -- Roxio
Inc. which makes CD-burning software, said it will buy substantially
all of the assets of defunct song-swapping service Napster in
a deal valued at $5.3 million.
November 20 -- Universal
Music Group announced it would make more than 43,000 song tracks
available for download at retail outlets and music Web sites.
The downloads will be burnable
to CD and transferable to secure portable devices. The digital
tracks will be available for purchase by consumers in the U.S.
for 99 cents for individual tracks and $9.99 for albums. The
labels all attempted to sell limited digital downloads in the
early days of their online efforts, but at about $2.99 or $3.99
a track or higher and with heavy restrictions.
November 24 -- A
group of Microsoft researchers, including Paul 'Mr Secure PC'
England, has delivered a paper which concludes that all efforts
to stop content swapping/theft - possibly even including Palladium
- are in the long term futile.
November 24 -- Officials
at the Naval Academy have seized nearly 100 midshipmen's computers
that allegedly contained illegally downloaded music and movies.
The raid occurred while students were in class, and a source
familiar with the investigation said the computers were being
held by the administration.
Computers are given to each
midshipman upon entering the academy. During their four years
at the school, mids pay back the value of the computers through
deductions from their monthly paychecks.
Amanda Collins, a spokesman
for the RIAA, said yesterday that the Naval Academy was among
the colleges and universities around the country that were sent
two letters from entertainment industry and educational associations
asking them to address Internet piracy and establish policies
against it.
The recording industry estimates
that more than 2.6 billion music files are downloaded illegally
each month, usually through unlicensed services. The industry
claims this threatens the livelihood of everyone from artists,
songwriters and manufacturers to sound engineers and record-store
owners and clerks.
December 12 -- RIAA Press release -- "Within
the past year, each of the major music companies has announced
a record number of online initiatives, yielding a broad array
of offerings from legitimate services. The true winners are the
music fans who want to listen to music how they want it, where
they want it and when they want it," said Hilary Rosen.
"To fans who have said they wanted to enjoy music online,
the recording industry is listening and delivering."
"From the start, the overriding
goal of our efforts to curb illegal Internet music trafficking
has been to foster an online environment where the legitimate
services can succeed," Rosen continued. "It is also
encouraging that the extraordinary progress of the legitimate
online market in the United States is being mirrored around the
world."
December 12 -- A
Secret Service raid of a Queens warehouse on Monday broke up
what recording industry experts are calling the largest music
CD counterfeiting operation ever, capable of churning out six
million discs a year.
The raid of a 2,000-square-foot
factory in Long Island City was the result of a two-month investigation
by the Secret Service, which enforces copyright law, and former
law enforcement officials working for the RIAA, said Frank Creighton,
head of the RIAA's antipiracy division.
The seizure of 35,000 illegally
copied music discs, 10,000 movies on DVD, 421 interconnected
disc burners and expensive printing equipment made it the largest
raid in the more than 30 years the trade group has been tracking
such seizures, Creighton said.
December 16 -- We
applaud the RIAA and Secret Service for finally going after the
real pirates, which they've pretty much left alone while accusing
their very customers of being pirates for sharing files via P2P
programs, limiting the ability to play cds on our computers and
in general treating their customers like thieves. However there
are some questions that need answering. Such as how many CD-R
burners were there really?
From the RIAA Press release:
"....leading to the capture
of 35,000 finished CD-Rs, 10,000 DVDs, the equivalent of 421
CD-R burners and the arrest of three individuals. This operation
alone had the potential to cost the industry an estimated $90
million annually."
The Register is reporting that,
in actuality, it wasn't 421 CD-R burners, but in fact 156. The
explanation? According to the Register article the RIAA official
line was: "There were only 156 actual burners, but some
run at very high speeds: some as high as 40x. This is well above
the average speed,"
This once again raises the
credibility issue with RIAA statements as to numbers, dollars,
and in general anything they have to say. Remember when Hilary
Rosen testifies in front of Congress, not once has she or any
other hearing been "on the record" so to speak. Not
one person has been sworn in, nor can they be charged with perjury
for lying. These are information gathering venues, in which the
Congress has been lied to, told half truths, and generally deceived.
THE RESPONSE
Dear Mr. Evans:
Thank you for your inquiry. We stated that the raid was the equivalent
of 421 burners, as we need to put these operations in perspective
based on burning capacity and output, not the # of physical slots
for the discs. Since they burn 4x burners - it is roughly 4xs
the numbers of burners.
We work with the Secret Service
but you should contact them as I am not their spokesperson.
Thank, you
Amy Weiss
December 24 -- The
RIAA has been nominated by the Internet Services Providers' Association
(ISPA UK) for the "Internet Villain of the Year Award,"
in recognition of the RIAA's efforts "supporting 'right
to hack' proposals and other unworkable solutions to curb copyright
abuse"
December
29 -- By: David
Nevue (The Music Biz Academy)
I have been really surprised
at the lack of press on the most recent changes over at MP3.com.
Of course, it may be that many in the industry consider MP3.com
irrelevant today, but I myself, as an independent artist, take
some exception to this. Perform a search at Google for 'music'
and MP3.com is the #2 site listed. Search for 'mp3' and it's
the #1 site listed. In terms of pure, cyber-traffic I'm not sure
how much more relevant a web site can be. Maybe MP3.com doesn't
have the traffic of Amazon.com, but for a web site that willingly
plays host to thousands of independent artists, there isn't much
out there that's more visible.
You may recall that a few weeks
ago I wrote a commentary on 'MP3.com's Halloween Treat,' that
is, the new 'look and feel' of the web site. In addition to these
changes, MP3.com dropped hints that there were some big changes
in store for its 'Premium Artist' Program. Last week, MP3.com
announced those changes.
The most notable change, which
I must admit I dreadfully expected, is that as of January 15th,
2003, MP3.com is discontinuing their Pay for Play (P4P) program.
The P4P program paid independent artists 'royalties' every time
their songs were listened to or downloaded. It was a wonderfully
cool idea that, unfortunately, cost MP3.com more than it was
worth to keep going. To quote MP3.com, "It's our goal to
offer Premium Artists the best service for their money and tools
that benefit all members. But this (P4P program) was getting
more difficult given the enormous accounting, engineering, research
and fulfillment costs that went into both the P4P promotion and
regrettably, the monitoring of individuals gaming the system."
I, for one, am really going
to miss the P4P program, and not just because of the drop in
personal revenue. I'll miss it more because, using the earnings
it generated, I was able invest heavily into MP3.com's promotion
programs, all of which I applied with much success. This success
lead not only to a ton of exposure for my music - over 1.2 million
plays since I joined MP3.com - but to a continuing flow of CD
sales from my own 'official' web site.
So, you might ask, "David,
why don't you just drop MP3.com and move on?" Actually,
many independent artists are doing just that (and have been for
some time), but I'm not ready to bail out yet. Why? Because there
is one thing MP3.com offers that most other services can't quite
match: pure, Internet traffic.
Imagine having your CDs on
the shelves of one of the world's largest music stores, sitting
side-by-side with CDs by artists like Madonna, Linkin Park, and
Pink. Imagine the exposure potential, especially if you could,
through careful placement, get your music directly in front of
the people most likely to buy your music. Any of these potential
customers, with a click of a button, can preview your music right
on the spot.
That's what MP3.com *still*
offers independent artists. In this regard, especially considering
the volume of traffic they generate from people looking for new
music while listening to 'popular' artists, no one else I know
comes close to offering this opportunity.
With the P4P program dead,
however, I can only speculate what the future might look like
for independent artists promoting their music on MP3.com. I won't
get any clarity on that issue until long after the new changes
go into effect. MP3.com states with a great deal of conviction
that they are still dedicated to helping and serving the independent
music community. I truly hope this is the case, but I wonder,
with the financial demands of the corporate music realm, will
MP3.com really be able to keep us 'indie's' hanging around?
MP3.com has found itself in
a very awkward position, I think. It's a strange experiment gone
haywire, a once-totally-independent web site that has been genetically
grafted into the corporate music family. In some ways, MP3.com
now resembles a free, but handicapped, version of Listen.com's
Rhapsody service. MP3.com started out like a child with big dreams
and ideas, now it seems more like a confused teenager, trying
to find its place in the changing digital world. Will it survive
its adolescent years?
The future of MP3.com as a
web site even seems uncertain. According to rumblings on the
MP3.com Artists Boards, even 'SOPHIE,' a mysterious MP3.com employee
and 'spokesperson for independent artists,' is being 'downsized.'
Her last day at the company, rumor has it, is today, December
20th.
You may also recall my report
from October, in which I mentioned that Universal Music Group
has been in the process of reviewing which of its assets, including
MP3.com, they can dump to reduce their debt. Would it surprise
anyone to find one day that typing http://www.mp3.com in your
web browser forwards you to Rhapsody, PressPlay, or MusicNet?
For those of you who, like
me, are still MP3.com artists, there are other alternatives around.
MusicDistribution.com (www.musicdistribution.com) lists a number
of services that host independent music, including JavaMusic
(www.javamusic.com), and AmpCast (www.ampcast.com), both of which
offer royalties for artists for downloaded songs.
I'm not ready to give up on
MP3.com, though. I suppose in a way, I feel that after all I've
invested in it, both in writing as well as financially and with
my time, I've become a part of the MP3.com 'family.' As such
I'll stand beside it through its victories, and perhaps even
to its eventual deathbed, if that's where all this leads.
Still, I hope beyond hope,
that we are not seeing the beginning of the end of MP3.com, and
that, for the independent artist, the best is yet to come.
