Wired Magazine recently wrote about a research project by NDP Group that suggested interactive music streaming sites such as Spotify decrease music purchases by consumers. According to NDP Group, users of interactive sites purchase 13% less music, while users of non-interactive tailored sites such as Pandora, actually increase music purchases by 40%. These numbers don't sound realistic, but the principle remains. As stated by Wired, Pandora provides internet radio, Spotify provides a record collection. The respective effect on sales of music is expected by the business model being deployed.
Both formats greatly increase music consumption, a benefit that increases consumer identity with the artists they listen to. Record companies, as the frequent owners of sound recording copyrights, receive a royalty each time a song they own is played on the internet. The rate is higher for interactive services than it is for non-interactive services. The Copyright office has provided this benefit with the understanding that interactive services have the potential of offsetting music sales. Point being, record companies are getting paid for the use of the music which is far more beneficial than pushing consumers back to acquisition by piracy. Piracy is a unilateral street, interactive services extend benefits to all interested parties.
Eliot Van Buzkirk of Wired writes: "But it’s not a bad thing for the industry that on-demand services like Spotify and Rhapsody replace sales — that’s what they’re designed to do. It’s no accident, and neither is the much-higher premium — a penny per stream — that labels and publishers extract from them, which is ten times more what streaming radio sites pay."
Internet streaming services are left to figure how to make the burden of paying a high royalty for sound recording broadcasts. Some like Grooveshark have chosen the advertising revenue model, others like Rhapsody use a subscription model, while services like Spotify use a hybrid. Rhapsody has only 700,000 subscribers compared to the 2.7 million users that signed up for Spotify in its first 6 months.
Ultimately, the threat of dwindling sales continues to rear its head and pose trouble for recording companies. The digital royalty serves to offset this problem. I predict a push by record companies to legislate non subscription interactive services out of business through license fee hikes and other restrictions. The true danger of interactive services replacing purchases will not occur until many more people have access to mobile plans that can access streaming services on the go. At that point the celestial jukebox will be a full reality and anyone with a connection won't need to purchase their tunes.
About Me
- Adam Deutsch
- Musician, J.D., Blogger, Lover of Technology, and Obsessed with the evolution of the music business in the digital age. There's always a better way.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wearing a Different Hat, Guantanamo Bay
We are all in the habit of living 24 hour days. For nearly three years my hours have been spent vigorously pursuing a legal education. This education has not been limited to class room experience, nor has it been limited to the traditional law school curriculum. In addition to the standard fair, two interests have consumed my focus. The first is exploring issues in law related to music and the internet. This interest is the broad subject matter expressed through this blog. The second interest is investigating the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.
As a research fellow with Seton Hall Law's Center for Policy & Research (CP&R)I have spent thousands of hours researching government documents and records relating to the military base. This work has been poured into several of CP&R's 17 published reports, many of which have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, European Parliament, New York Times, Washington Post, and many more sources. Most recently, CP&R published a report titled "Death in Camp Delta," exploring the events surrounding three alleged suicide deaths that occurred on base during the summer of 2006. The following article is a brief explanation of our lengthy report. On February 16, 2010, a 40 minute interview discussing CP&R's investigation into these events aired on NPR's "The Story." The interview which featured myself, student Kelli Stout, and Professor Mark Denbeaux can be heard here. Furthermore, I encourage you to read the March issue of Harper's Magazine, in which author Scott Horton significantly expands upon CP&R's research.
In Search of Truth at Guantanamo Bay
By Adam Deutsch (written for "The Cross Examiner," Seton Hall Law's internal student news paper)
Shortly after midnight on June 10, 2006, prison guards found three detainees hanging in their cells at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The detainees had been dead for at least two hours. Guards said they were stiff with rigor mortis, cold to the touch, with blue extremities and no pulse.
Later that morning, the Department of Defense (DOD) forced all of the detainees’ attorneys and press members to leave the military base while an investigation began. Contemporaneous to the forced evacuation of non-military personnel, the DOD announced that the detainees had engaged in “acts of asymmetric warfare” against the United States by committing suicide. The government issued this conclusive statement on the cause of death before autopsies were performed, and before persons on duty were interviewed. By holding the early press conference before performing its due diligence, the DOD skewed the objectivity of the subsequent investigation and forever altered the public’s perception of these deaths. It is now clear that the DOD’s final investigation was either grossly incompetent or a concocted cover-up of the truth.
How could three people commit suicide by hanging in one of the most secured prison facilities in the world? In 2008, more than two years after the purported suicides, the DOD released a three-page summary of the Naval Criminal Investigative Task Force (NCIS) investigative findings and a massive, heavily redacted file of investigative interviews and documents. Research fellows at the Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research (CP&R), headed by Professor Mark Denbeaux, began analyzing more than 1,000 pages in redacted documents to better understand how the three detainees died.
What the research fellows at CP&R found is remarkable. According to the DOD’s interviews of Guantanamo personnel, each deceased detainee braided a noose by tearing bed sheets and clothing, made a mannequin of himself so it would appear that he was asleep, hung sheets to block guard views of the cell, tied his feet together, tied his hands together, placed cloth in his mouth or throat, hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall, climbed upon the sink basin, put the noose around his neck and released his weight to result in death by strangulation.
According to the base’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the detainees should not have had possession of enough fabric materials to complete the suicidal act described above. Furthermore, it was an SOP violation to hang a sheet that would obstruct a guard’s view of the detainee cell for more than a few minutes while one used the in-cell toilet. These sheets, like the detainees, hung for more than two hours. The SOPs dictate that guards are to walk the cell block every 10 minutes and take visual count of each detainee. The guards on duty failed to complete this task a minimum of 12 times while the detainees hung dead in their cells.
These details are only the tip of the iceberg. While making sworn statements, several guards were accused of making false statements or failing to obey direct orders. However, not one Guantanamo employee was disciplined for failure to obey the SOPs. Even though the detainees were reportedly found dead beyond the point of resuscitation, they were given invasive medical treatment, which in some cases included use of defibrillating machines, tracheal tubes, catheters and intravenous injections. None of these procedures could have saved the detainees, and yet there has been no explanation as to why post-mortem mutilation of the bodies occurred.
In early December 2009, Seton Hall Law’s CP&R released “Death In Camp Delta,” a report uncovering discrepancies and issues with the DOD’s investigation. Since then, members of Congress have called on Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct a new investigation into the DOD investigation, and Harper’s Magazine published an article taking CP&R’s research further. Harper’s author Scott Horton spoke with several people on duty the night of June 9, 2006, who confirmed that the three detainees did not die in the way that has been alleged. Horton found that those guards who were stationed in observation towers, which provided a clear view of the entire camp, did not see any bodies carried out of their cells to the medical facility. Harper’s identified what it believes to be a non-DOD facility at Guantanamo that might be a CIA “dark cite.” It suggests that the detainees died elsewhere on the base, confirming the investigation as a probable cover-up. Horton has thus extended the investigation that Seton Hall’s CP&R began.
“Death In Camp Delta” is the sixteenth report published by CP&R that examines the Guantanamo Bay detention facility operations. These reports are researched and authored by Seton Hall Law students under the guidance of Professor Denbeaux. The reports have been cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions, Congressional records, the European Parliament, the New York Times, Washington Post and numerous other academic and periodical sources. While the full truth of what occurred on June 10, 2006 has yet to be uncovered, public dialogue toward ascertaining the truth, with the help of Seton Hall Law’s CP&R, is as vigorous as ever.
As a research fellow with Seton Hall Law's Center for Policy & Research (CP&R)I have spent thousands of hours researching government documents and records relating to the military base. This work has been poured into several of CP&R's 17 published reports, many of which have been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, European Parliament, New York Times, Washington Post, and many more sources. Most recently, CP&R published a report titled "Death in Camp Delta," exploring the events surrounding three alleged suicide deaths that occurred on base during the summer of 2006. The following article is a brief explanation of our lengthy report. On February 16, 2010, a 40 minute interview discussing CP&R's investigation into these events aired on NPR's "The Story." The interview which featured myself, student Kelli Stout, and Professor Mark Denbeaux can be heard here. Furthermore, I encourage you to read the March issue of Harper's Magazine, in which author Scott Horton significantly expands upon CP&R's research.
In Search of Truth at Guantanamo Bay
By Adam Deutsch (written for "The Cross Examiner," Seton Hall Law's internal student news paper)
Shortly after midnight on June 10, 2006, prison guards found three detainees hanging in their cells at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The detainees had been dead for at least two hours. Guards said they were stiff with rigor mortis, cold to the touch, with blue extremities and no pulse.
Later that morning, the Department of Defense (DOD) forced all of the detainees’ attorneys and press members to leave the military base while an investigation began. Contemporaneous to the forced evacuation of non-military personnel, the DOD announced that the detainees had engaged in “acts of asymmetric warfare” against the United States by committing suicide. The government issued this conclusive statement on the cause of death before autopsies were performed, and before persons on duty were interviewed. By holding the early press conference before performing its due diligence, the DOD skewed the objectivity of the subsequent investigation and forever altered the public’s perception of these deaths. It is now clear that the DOD’s final investigation was either grossly incompetent or a concocted cover-up of the truth.
How could three people commit suicide by hanging in one of the most secured prison facilities in the world? In 2008, more than two years after the purported suicides, the DOD released a three-page summary of the Naval Criminal Investigative Task Force (NCIS) investigative findings and a massive, heavily redacted file of investigative interviews and documents. Research fellows at the Seton Hall Law Center for Policy and Research (CP&R), headed by Professor Mark Denbeaux, began analyzing more than 1,000 pages in redacted documents to better understand how the three detainees died.
What the research fellows at CP&R found is remarkable. According to the DOD’s interviews of Guantanamo personnel, each deceased detainee braided a noose by tearing bed sheets and clothing, made a mannequin of himself so it would appear that he was asleep, hung sheets to block guard views of the cell, tied his feet together, tied his hands together, placed cloth in his mouth or throat, hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall, climbed upon the sink basin, put the noose around his neck and released his weight to result in death by strangulation.
According to the base’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), the detainees should not have had possession of enough fabric materials to complete the suicidal act described above. Furthermore, it was an SOP violation to hang a sheet that would obstruct a guard’s view of the detainee cell for more than a few minutes while one used the in-cell toilet. These sheets, like the detainees, hung for more than two hours. The SOPs dictate that guards are to walk the cell block every 10 minutes and take visual count of each detainee. The guards on duty failed to complete this task a minimum of 12 times while the detainees hung dead in their cells.
These details are only the tip of the iceberg. While making sworn statements, several guards were accused of making false statements or failing to obey direct orders. However, not one Guantanamo employee was disciplined for failure to obey the SOPs. Even though the detainees were reportedly found dead beyond the point of resuscitation, they were given invasive medical treatment, which in some cases included use of defibrillating machines, tracheal tubes, catheters and intravenous injections. None of these procedures could have saved the detainees, and yet there has been no explanation as to why post-mortem mutilation of the bodies occurred.
In early December 2009, Seton Hall Law’s CP&R released “Death In Camp Delta,” a report uncovering discrepancies and issues with the DOD’s investigation. Since then, members of Congress have called on Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct a new investigation into the DOD investigation, and Harper’s Magazine published an article taking CP&R’s research further. Harper’s author Scott Horton spoke with several people on duty the night of June 9, 2006, who confirmed that the three detainees did not die in the way that has been alleged. Horton found that those guards who were stationed in observation towers, which provided a clear view of the entire camp, did not see any bodies carried out of their cells to the medical facility. Harper’s identified what it believes to be a non-DOD facility at Guantanamo that might be a CIA “dark cite.” It suggests that the detainees died elsewhere on the base, confirming the investigation as a probable cover-up. Horton has thus extended the investigation that Seton Hall’s CP&R began.
“Death In Camp Delta” is the sixteenth report published by CP&R that examines the Guantanamo Bay detention facility operations. These reports are researched and authored by Seton Hall Law students under the guidance of Professor Denbeaux. The reports have been cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions, Congressional records, the European Parliament, the New York Times, Washington Post and numerous other academic and periodical sources. While the full truth of what occurred on June 10, 2006 has yet to be uncovered, public dialogue toward ascertaining the truth, with the help of Seton Hall Law’s CP&R, is as vigorous as ever.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Warner's Dillema
In early February, Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. announced that his company would not be issuing licenses to free (non subscription based) interactive music streaming services. Bronfman has arguably been the most outspoken of the major label CEO’s when discussing the life of music as it collides with new technologies and the internet. While Bronfman’s sound-bites are entertaining, one must ask whether they make good business judgment.
BBC News quoted Bronfman as saying ”free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed. The get all your music you want for free, and then maybe with a few bells and whistles we can move you to the premium price strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.” Warner is singling out those services such as Lala, Grooveshark or Europe’s Spotify, which allow users to select specific songs and entire albums to stream on demand without paying a fee. It is the position of Bronfman, and many other recording industry executives that such legal services have the potential to permanently displace the sale of music.
Fear that record sales will continue to decline as the use of free on demand streaming services rise is rational. This fear was directly addressed by Congress more than ten years ago when they provide sound recording copyright owners with an exclusive right to digital public performance of music. Through this right, Warner collects a royalty each time music they own is played by a licensed webcaster or streaming service over the internet. In contrast, Warner does not collect money when their music is played over traditional radio airwaves. The royalty compensation provides a steady stream of income to copyright owners, while providing consumers a way to remain connected to music and to try music in advance of purchasing it. Furthermore, it is unlikely that streaming will completely replace music purchases because consumers do not have constant access to internet streaming.
According to NDP Group, a researcher of trends in the music industry conducted a study analyzing the use of internet music among the key teenage demographic of 13-17 year olds. Teenagers purchased 19% less music in 2008 when compared to 2007. At the same time, the demographic also acquired less music through illegal means during this period. Use of Peer to Peer networks declined by 6% and the “ripping” of music from friends dropped by 28%. One area of music consumption that dramatically increased was the use of internet radio and streaming services. 52% of teenagers listened to online radio in 2008, compared to only 34% a year earlier.
Trends clearly show that the legal consumption of music over the internet is increasing, while illegal means of music acquisition is declining. The rational consumer will always seek to acquire product at the lowest economic cost. Although the theft of music via peer to peer networks has been stigmatized enough to decrease the practice among consumers, the practice of acquiring music for free remains in high demand. The copyright code has been adjusted to provide royalty payments and therefore incentivize record companies to participate with and encourage new technologies such as streaming. If it chooses not to allow consumers to acquire music through the most economically efficient legal means, Warner runs a significant risk of alienating consumers. Alienation may result in a return to illegal acquisition of music, or simply moving consumers away from the consumption of musical recordings owned by Warner. The remaining big three record labels are unlikely to follow Warner’s example, and this increases the potential self-inflicted wound Warner is chasing.
BBC News quoted Bronfman as saying ”free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed. The get all your music you want for free, and then maybe with a few bells and whistles we can move you to the premium price strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.” Warner is singling out those services such as Lala, Grooveshark or Europe’s Spotify, which allow users to select specific songs and entire albums to stream on demand without paying a fee. It is the position of Bronfman, and many other recording industry executives that such legal services have the potential to permanently displace the sale of music.
Fear that record sales will continue to decline as the use of free on demand streaming services rise is rational. This fear was directly addressed by Congress more than ten years ago when they provide sound recording copyright owners with an exclusive right to digital public performance of music. Through this right, Warner collects a royalty each time music they own is played by a licensed webcaster or streaming service over the internet. In contrast, Warner does not collect money when their music is played over traditional radio airwaves. The royalty compensation provides a steady stream of income to copyright owners, while providing consumers a way to remain connected to music and to try music in advance of purchasing it. Furthermore, it is unlikely that streaming will completely replace music purchases because consumers do not have constant access to internet streaming.
According to NDP Group, a researcher of trends in the music industry conducted a study analyzing the use of internet music among the key teenage demographic of 13-17 year olds. Teenagers purchased 19% less music in 2008 when compared to 2007. At the same time, the demographic also acquired less music through illegal means during this period. Use of Peer to Peer networks declined by 6% and the “ripping” of music from friends dropped by 28%. One area of music consumption that dramatically increased was the use of internet radio and streaming services. 52% of teenagers listened to online radio in 2008, compared to only 34% a year earlier.
Trends clearly show that the legal consumption of music over the internet is increasing, while illegal means of music acquisition is declining. The rational consumer will always seek to acquire product at the lowest economic cost. Although the theft of music via peer to peer networks has been stigmatized enough to decrease the practice among consumers, the practice of acquiring music for free remains in high demand. The copyright code has been adjusted to provide royalty payments and therefore incentivize record companies to participate with and encourage new technologies such as streaming. If it chooses not to allow consumers to acquire music through the most economically efficient legal means, Warner runs a significant risk of alienating consumers. Alienation may result in a return to illegal acquisition of music, or simply moving consumers away from the consumption of musical recordings owned by Warner. The remaining big three record labels are unlikely to follow Warner’s example, and this increases the potential self-inflicted wound Warner is chasing.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Listening Habits
Among the strongest arguments in support of internet radio and internet music subscription services is that music fans can have access to more music of a greater variety. The most well known sites, Pandora and Last.FM seek to expose listeners to music they are not aware of but that fits their self described musical taste. Emerging artists often pay stations like Last.FM to play their songs next to similar artists. The hope is that this breed of direct marketing will turn into music purchases or at a minimum, new fans. Nearly every internet based music service provides a direct link to an artist's website as well as a music store where their music can be purchased. Exposure to new tastes is inevitable, right?
What happens when listeners use subscription services that allow the user to pick the music instead of being fed a steady stream of radio? Interestingly, listeners can't seem to break away from their top 40 taste. Spotify is an on demand music service in Europe that allows listeners to choose specific songs to listen to. Users can be subject to advertisements between songs, or pay a fee of 10p per month in the UK to have advertisement free music on their mobile phones and computers. Spotify boasts 4.5 million songs to choose from, and they have licensing deals providing access to a very wide range of recording label rosters. The habits of Spotify users in the UK were remarkable during the first 6 months the service was available there.
From February to July, 2009, 2.7 million people signed up to use Spotify in the UK. During this time there were a total of 1 billion streams, averaging at 370 songs listened to by each user. Although listeners had access to 4.5 million songs, only 3 million were ever listened to. But here is the kicker: According to Spotify the top 100,000 played songs accounted for 80% of all plays.
It appears that when music consumers are given unlimited access to music through an on demand source, there is an aversion from trying new music. Perhaps people do not know where to start seeking out new music when confronted with so many options. This phenomena occurs elsewhere in our lives as well. We are all creatures of habit. This means that when looking for music produced in previous years, we are more likely to seek out what we already know. Looking forward however, it seems that services like Spotify provide a great opportunity to discover new music as it is being released. As internet based services offering a greater selection of music continue to replace terrestrial radio in the lives of music consumers, listeners may become more open to expanding their musical tastes.
To the extent that our music habits are a function of building social connections and having songs or artists in common with our own friends, the expansion of social networking components to internet music services will strengthen these connections. Already, services are allowing listeners to share songs or recommend songs to other listeners. This can serve as a catalyst to exposing listeners to new music and fostering social connections to that music.
For now it appears that old habits die hard. Personally, I love the idea that the next great artist could be a click away. Take the gamble and listen to something you have never heard. It's worth the reward and the music is free.
What happens when listeners use subscription services that allow the user to pick the music instead of being fed a steady stream of radio? Interestingly, listeners can't seem to break away from their top 40 taste. Spotify is an on demand music service in Europe that allows listeners to choose specific songs to listen to. Users can be subject to advertisements between songs, or pay a fee of 10p per month in the UK to have advertisement free music on their mobile phones and computers. Spotify boasts 4.5 million songs to choose from, and they have licensing deals providing access to a very wide range of recording label rosters. The habits of Spotify users in the UK were remarkable during the first 6 months the service was available there.
From February to July, 2009, 2.7 million people signed up to use Spotify in the UK. During this time there were a total of 1 billion streams, averaging at 370 songs listened to by each user. Although listeners had access to 4.5 million songs, only 3 million were ever listened to. But here is the kicker: According to Spotify the top 100,000 played songs accounted for 80% of all plays.
It appears that when music consumers are given unlimited access to music through an on demand source, there is an aversion from trying new music. Perhaps people do not know where to start seeking out new music when confronted with so many options. This phenomena occurs elsewhere in our lives as well. We are all creatures of habit. This means that when looking for music produced in previous years, we are more likely to seek out what we already know. Looking forward however, it seems that services like Spotify provide a great opportunity to discover new music as it is being released. As internet based services offering a greater selection of music continue to replace terrestrial radio in the lives of music consumers, listeners may become more open to expanding their musical tastes.
To the extent that our music habits are a function of building social connections and having songs or artists in common with our own friends, the expansion of social networking components to internet music services will strengthen these connections. Already, services are allowing listeners to share songs or recommend songs to other listeners. This can serve as a catalyst to exposing listeners to new music and fostering social connections to that music.
For now it appears that old habits die hard. Personally, I love the idea that the next great artist could be a click away. Take the gamble and listen to something you have never heard. It's worth the reward and the music is free.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Blip Review
The goal of Blip appears to be streamlining one’s musical impulses to be representative of what ideal radio could be. Blip seeks to combine concepts of Twitter and Facebook with radio. Upon creating a free D.J. account, one types in the name of a song they would like to hear. Blip’s search engine seeks the internet for a link that hosts the song you are looking for. Blip provides audio and video clips, the majority of the latter come through youtube. The D.J. can preview the track to make sure it is what you were looking for. Upon approval, the user “blips” or broadcasts the song along with an option message of up to 150 characters.
Selected songs are then broadcast within the Blip website and to other social networking sites including Twitter and Facebook. The user must synch their accounts at other sites for Blip to broadcast there. As a user of Facebook, it is fun and incredibly easy to post songs and videos through Blip for friends to hear. Blip tracks a D.J.’s song picks and links them to other D.J.’s with similar musical tastes. When you are not broadcasting your own selections, Blip produces streaming radio based upon the selections of similar users.
Perhaps the biggest downside to Blip is the inability to produce a long play-list, and to control the order of that play list. Each time you select a new song it is automatically broadcast, and the new song begins to play. There are many music fans who get their kicks listening to the first verse and chorus of a song before forwarding to the next track. For me however, I need to hear the whole song. Blip would be a more useful site if one could drag songs into a play-list that would broadcast each song to other users when the track begins to play.
The second biggest problem with Blip is that you may have trouble finding the exact version of the song you are looking for. More often than not Blip sought to fulfill my request by producing a youtube link featuring a live version or cover version of the song. When you are seeking out a particular tune, the last thing you may want to hear is somebody's bedroom cover filmed in Kansas (no disrespect to Kansas or bedroom rockstars). There are clearly licensing issues, because many authorized recordings and album versions of songs are blocked by Blip. Blip remains far superior to conducting a search through Youtube, even if many of the hits lead you there. I love the idea of having both video and audio options through one radio site.
Blip’s ability to find similar music is not as impressive as systems found on other radio sites such as Pandora. Perhaps Blip needs more users before they can get a wide enough sample to judge what a user’s musical tastes are. In fairness, I have been using the site for one week and have not yet blipped hundreds of songs. The accuracy may improve as my own tastes are broadcast more regularly. Some users might use Blip to its full potential by seeking out D.J.’s and following them, much like on Twitter. For most people however, it seems that the purpose of social networking is merely to maintain contact with one’s establishes connections. Even so, Blip has charm. Most music that one discovers is through friends, not by chance. Finding a new song posted by a friend on Facebook or Twitter is a great surprise, and I am always willing to listen.
Check out Blip for its simplicity, ease of use, and broadcasting capabilities. Go elsewhere if you want to build a long playlist to listen to over a long period.
Listen to my D.J. Station by following Liondeutsch on Blip.FM
E.T. Radio
I’m in the process of writing a research paper on the future relationship of radio and the recording industry. Having just delved into the research phase, a prediction can already be made. Internet radio is the future, and within 5 years terrestrial radio will be facing the same issues that print news faces today. Information wants to be free. Information acts like water and will always take the path of least resistance.
As consumers devouring information, or in this case music, we crave control and economic efficiency. Control is the ability to listen to what you want when and where you want. Control is also the ability to expand your musical horizon or to keep it static. Economic efficiency is simply finding the least burdensome mode to have control over as much music as possible.
The maxims of control and economic efficiency for the consumer came to fruition in 1999, when Napster first came to public. Napster provided the consumer with the ability to download, possess, and maintain control over any desired music for no cost. Of course, there is the illegal issue of stealing copyrighted information without having compensated the copyright owner. Internet radio looks to be approaching Napster2.0 where it is legal and often free for the consumer to demand any music anywhere.
In the coming weeks I will explore many of the new services offering on demand music access. If you have a mobile computing device such as an iPhone, you can use many of these services on the go. In early January, Ford Motor Company revealed the first factory installed internet console for cars. This console will provide drivers the ability to create on the go playlists from music they do not own, but can legally access.
Information wants to be free, music is no exception. We are the DJ’s of the future, so get your headphones ready.
As consumers devouring information, or in this case music, we crave control and economic efficiency. Control is the ability to listen to what you want when and where you want. Control is also the ability to expand your musical horizon or to keep it static. Economic efficiency is simply finding the least burdensome mode to have control over as much music as possible.
The maxims of control and economic efficiency for the consumer came to fruition in 1999, when Napster first came to public. Napster provided the consumer with the ability to download, possess, and maintain control over any desired music for no cost. Of course, there is the illegal issue of stealing copyrighted information without having compensated the copyright owner. Internet radio looks to be approaching Napster2.0 where it is legal and often free for the consumer to demand any music anywhere.
In the coming weeks I will explore many of the new services offering on demand music access. If you have a mobile computing device such as an iPhone, you can use many of these services on the go. In early January, Ford Motor Company revealed the first factory installed internet console for cars. This console will provide drivers the ability to create on the go playlists from music they do not own, but can legally access.
Information wants to be free, music is no exception. We are the DJ’s of the future, so get your headphones ready.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Birth of the MP3
The MP3 has been blamed for bringing about the downfall of major record labels. Opinions will differ, however the MP3 is clearly at the heart of the currently aching business model followed by traditional recording companies. The origins of the MP3 and its rise to power are remarkable in part because the history exists independent of influence from the music industry. A technology created for innovation now stands for the proposition that information wants to be free (it is finding a delivery medium that presents delivery hurdles).
Beginning as a concept to improve the transmission speed of audio-visual content, Leonardo Chiariglione approached the International Organization for Standardization during the mid 1980’s with the goal of establishing a standard format for compression of digital data. At the time, Chiraiglione was serving as the director of research at Telecom Italia’s Centro Studie Labratori Telecommunicazioni (described as the old “Bell Labs” Europe). In 1988 Chiariglione formed the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) to develop a team of researchers for the project.
Chiarglione’s team developed a codec program that could shrink large audio files by removing sound frequencies not naturally picked up by the human ear. To the casual listener, the audio quality does not sound meaningfully different and yet the file can be reduced to 1/12 the original size. The initial codec was improved by researchers at the University of Erlangen, Germany. In 1992, the codec was completed.
It was never intended for the codec to be accessible to the public at large. The technology was to be used internally for sending information within a closed network. These plans were forever changed when a hacker and Star Wars fanatic, “SoloH” stole a copy of the MPEG codec from the University of Erlangen. SoloH made additional tweaks to the program so it could quicly “rip” files from a compact-disk into an MP3. SoloH distributed the codec for free over the internet, and the program became viral. By 1994 America Online was bringing the internet to homes across America, and most computers contained CD drives. There was a lethal cocktail in place for fast free distribution of information, and great consumer control. With the MP3, nobody would ever need to buy an album in multiple formats (updating a vinyl collection to cassette and subsequently CD would be no more). Buy it once on CD, back it up on MP3.
Several years would pass before the MP3 officially took over the market. In another installment, I will look at 1999. That year saw the birth of Napster, and the first time a record company sold MP3’s online.
Beginning as a concept to improve the transmission speed of audio-visual content, Leonardo Chiariglione approached the International Organization for Standardization during the mid 1980’s with the goal of establishing a standard format for compression of digital data. At the time, Chiraiglione was serving as the director of research at Telecom Italia’s Centro Studie Labratori Telecommunicazioni (described as the old “Bell Labs” Europe). In 1988 Chiariglione formed the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) to develop a team of researchers for the project.
Chiarglione’s team developed a codec program that could shrink large audio files by removing sound frequencies not naturally picked up by the human ear. To the casual listener, the audio quality does not sound meaningfully different and yet the file can be reduced to 1/12 the original size. The initial codec was improved by researchers at the University of Erlangen, Germany. In 1992, the codec was completed.
It was never intended for the codec to be accessible to the public at large. The technology was to be used internally for sending information within a closed network. These plans were forever changed when a hacker and Star Wars fanatic, “SoloH” stole a copy of the MPEG codec from the University of Erlangen. SoloH made additional tweaks to the program so it could quicly “rip” files from a compact-disk into an MP3. SoloH distributed the codec for free over the internet, and the program became viral. By 1994 America Online was bringing the internet to homes across America, and most computers contained CD drives. There was a lethal cocktail in place for fast free distribution of information, and great consumer control. With the MP3, nobody would ever need to buy an album in multiple formats (updating a vinyl collection to cassette and subsequently CD would be no more). Buy it once on CD, back it up on MP3.
Several years would pass before the MP3 officially took over the market. In another installment, I will look at 1999. That year saw the birth of Napster, and the first time a record company sold MP3’s online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)