The Future of Digital Music

[hollismusic]

So, after reading a lot of the posts in each of the categories I have come to realize that the FMB clan seems to be a pretty smart, funny group of people, so I'd like your opinions and thoughts about something I've been thinking about for the last couple of days: the future of digital music.

I remember perusing the iTunes music store for the first time back in 2003 and thinking that this was going to profoundly change the way we consume music (by the way, if it wasn't for iTunes, I don't think I would have discovered The Features!)

I was right about the changes in digital music, but the future is still unclear.

The labels seem to have gotten on board with the idea of actually letting us own our own music (most, if not all of the digital music services, sell completely DRM-free music) and now they, as well as a few forward thinking companies are looking at different models for the way they sell music.

I'm speaking most specifically of the subscription model of music consumption where a user would essentially "rent" the music as opposed to purchasing and downloading files.  There are several companies that employ variations on this same theme, though all the companies have seemed to move towards a "hybrid" business model where a consumer would have the option of renting, buying, or even renting with an option to buy at a discount.

And it's not just the higher-ups that are searching for the next big thing to get us to part with our cash.  Bands and individual musicians are searching for new ways to connect with their fans by involving them in the process of music creation and distribution.  I'm sure most of the folks here on the message board are familiar with the Radiohead In Rainbows debacle where Radiohead let their fans decide how much they would spend to download their new album (it turns out, the "fans" only felt that the new album was worth about $6--how would you feel about paying $6 for the new Features record? I'd feel pretty fucking guilty).

Indeed, the bands have done some pretty creative things: Rascal Flatts held a contest for users to submit artwork for their new album; other bands have let their fans vote on the track listing for upcoming releases; and the most bold idea yet, Dogs Die in Hot Cars, a Scottish band, posted tracks for their new record asking fans to RE-RECORD versions of DDHC songs as a contest for the production of the next album.

But, back to digital music.

I sat in on a continuing legal education seminar at SXSW this past March and listened to executives from Warner and Geffen talk about the different subscription models they were considering.  Tell me this, fellow FMBers: would you be opposed to "subscribing" to an artist on a yearly basis where you would get a certain number of recordings he or she released that year?  I thought this was kind of a creative idea, because you could subscribe to your favorite band or singer/songwriter (see, e.g. THE FEATURES!) and you would be guaranteed a certain amount of recorded work.  I don't know, I kind of like it.

So, most recently, my affection has turned toward a company called Lala.com.  A lot of you might know this company as they, along with Amazon.com and Rhapsody were the companies (there may have been more--I don't know) that accidentally released SKoS early in 2008 before the actual release date.  Well,  the site has changed and it has changed for the better.  They now offer a hybrid "rights" service whereby you can purchase songs to put in a virtual library for cheap (10 cents per song!), or purchase traditional DRM-free MP3's.  The site also features some cook social networking features that are decidedly absent from other digital music sites.  Lala.com even offers the option of uploading your library to their server so you can access it from any web browser on any computer.  I think it's pretty cool.  There are definitely some kinks to be worked out (the upload-your-library service has a way to go in the way of song recognition), but all in all I think it's a great step toward making music discovery very easy.

So what do you think, FMBers?  What is the future of digital music?  Do you take part in any of the "non-traditional" music services?  If so, which ones?  Would you lament the death of the compact disc?

Discuss!

Hollis

[FeaturesTroll]

This may seem radical, or even nonsensical, but I don't see much of a future in digital music. I think in 10 years people will be buying albums on a new high fidelity analog format. The main reason for this logic is that record companies are scared to death of digital music, and rightfully so.

The ray of hope for the industry is the massive resurgence in the popularity of vinyl. Why? Because, analog is simply superior to digital, in the same way that a jpeg or a bitmap will always still be just a bunch of little squares next to an actual photograph. The part that record execs love is that it is absolutely pointless to make a digital copy of an analog recording.

Of course, vinyl has it's own problems, namely durability (as well as portability). An analog format that could sidestep the myriad degradation problems that plague vinyl and tape formats would be optimal for both sound quality and for the ailing music industry.

The bottom line is that sound quality is the only card that record companies still hold. Digital music will continue to exist, as iPods have become cultural staples, but the industry must cultivate and grow the audiophile market if it hopes to survive. Analog is the only way to do that.

/rant

[deathscythe257]

the future of digital music is legal and free, portable, medium-fidelity promotion (with no value-added content - if you want that, buy the physical format). a proper revenue focus on touring, synch, merch and supplemental high fidelity physical analog formats (for the avid fan) is necessary. the "industry" will exist as a decentralized and ubiquitous network of regional promoters (the mass consumed recordings no longer being product as much as promotion).

[Keith]

I'm sure most of the folks here on the message board are familiar with the Radiohead In Rainbows debacle where Radiohead let their fans decide how much they would spend to download their new album (it turns out, the "fans" only felt that the new album was worth about $6--how would you feel about paying $6 for the new Features record? I'd feel pretty fucking guilty).

$6 per record without having to share any of the money with a record company or paying anything for distribution (other than bandwidth fees, I guess) is insanely good. I bet it far exceeded their expectations.

[DigsySlattery]

I don't have many opinions on this, or at least many informed ones. I love owning CDs, only because I still like being able to SEE the things that I own and enjoy. I collect comics, DVDs, etc, so this is obviously something about me and not a wider statement about our culture. I know I own SKoS on both vinyl and CD, even though I was sent a CD-R of it over a year ago. I still wanted to own it physically even though I've been loving it digitally forever. I finally bought "Drowaton" by Starlight Mints used online, even though I burned it from a friend back in 2006. I just love that album and had to own it. I still feel weird about not owning any Roxy Music albums since I listen to them all the time.

So I guess I'm saying is that the record industry will at least have me to buy their CDs and records. But now that I've discovered bit torrents, I probably won't be buying anything on iTunes for a while.

[FeaturesTroll]

the future of digital music is legal and free, portable, medium-fidelity promotion (with no value-added content - if you want that, buy the physical format). a proper revenue focus on touring, synch, merch and supplemental high fidelity physical analog formats (for the avid fan) is necessary. the "industry" will exist as a decentralized and ubiquitous network of regional promoters (the mass consumed recordings no longer being product as much as promotion).

I used to think this model was going to replace the current way we buy music. Seems inevitable, right? The thing that must be factored in is the record companies, by that I mean the Big Four. They have too much power to let themselves get cut out of an entire market. They are able to force sovereign nations to change laws, bully ISPs into filtering bittorrent traffic and use marketing campaigns to brainwash 10 year olds into thinking of music downloaders as economic terrorists.

Publicly traded companies exist solely to tend to their profit margin. Each fiscal year must be comparable to the last and drastic decreases in revenue are not tolerated. All I'm saying is with the power that they have recently made very obvious, there's no way they won't end up getting what they want.

[deathscythe257]

the future of digital music is legal and free, portable, medium-fidelity promotion (with no value-added content - if you want that, buy the physical format). a proper revenue focus on touring, synch, merch and supplemental high fidelity physical analog formats (for the avid fan) is necessary. the "industry" will exist as a decentralized and ubiquitous network of regional promoters (the mass consumed recordings no longer being product as much as promotion).

I used to think this model was going to replace the current way we buy music. Seems inevitable, right? The thing that must be factored in is the record companies, by that I mean the Big Four. They have too much power to let themselves get cut out of an entire market. They are able to force sovereign nations to change laws, bully ISPs into filtering bittorrent traffic and use marketing campaigns to brainwash 10 year olds into thinking of music downloaders as economic terrorists.

Publicly traded companies exist solely to tend to their profit margin. Each fiscal year must be comparable to the last and drastic decreases in revenue are not tolerated. All I'm saying is with the power that they have recently made very obvious, there's no way they won't end up getting what they want.

and i don't see a way in which they can get what it is they want and not go bankrupt, devoid of any argument about changing laws and brainwashing ten year olds. the internet has disrupted most any major propaganda machine unless you live in a bubble, and it's unlikely that ten year olds would even be convinced by any such propaganda. the only thing the industry has going for it right now in that arena is putting the fear of litigation in the hearts of parents. it's all already illegal, and still overwhelmingly supported by the public. legal arguments from the EFF and the freedom of knowledge movement, along with the vast majority of copyright legal scholars are becoming more accepted by governments by the day, and we just got a supreme court nominee who is a scholar of cyberlaw.

the thing that's been missing most from the equation are judges with any idea of how the internet works and what it should be used to accomplish. also, we've been missing recording industry executives with any real creativity in the business realm, but that just may not change. doesn't affect the outcome terribly. the interesting thing is that despite having the precedent backing them up to protect their ip arduously, the last couple years have seen a shift in that the content industry has been openly granting free access to material and flirting with free download sites - they're just too risk averse to go full forward as of yet.

this isn't something that's going to happen in five years; the big four will be around for quite a while, but give it ten to fifteen and the big four won't be quite so big (they're already spinning off subsidiaries) and the other thirty-two will have caught up. i see it as the overarching shift in the way we do business, expect society to interact, and control transactions, as our parents' generation begins to lean on ours more and more before retiring.

[FeaturesTroll]

and i don't see a way in which they can get what it is they want and not go bankrupt, devoid of any argument about changing laws and brainwashing ten year olds. the internet has disrupted most any major propaganda machine unless you live in a bubble, and it's unlikely that ten year olds would even be convinced by any such propaganda. the only thing the industry has going for it right now in that arena is putting the fear of litigation in the hearts of parents. it's all already illegal, and still overwhelmingly supported by the public. legal arguments from the EFF and the freedom of knowledge movement, along with the vast majority of copyright legal scholars are becoming more accepted by governments by the day, and we just got a supreme court nominee who is a scholar of cyberlaw.

the thing that's been missing most from the equation are judges with any idea of how the internet works and what it should be used to accomplish. also, we've been missing recording industry executives with any real creativity in the business realm, but that just may not change. doesn't affect the outcome terribly. the interesting thing is that despite having the precedent backing them up to protect their ip arduously, the last couple years have seen a shift in that the content industry has been openly granting free access to material and flirting with free download sites - they're just too risk averse to go full forward as of yet.

this isn't something that's going to happen in five years; the big four will be around for quite a while, but give it ten to fifteen and the big four won't be quite so big (they're already spinning off subsidiaries) and the other thirty-two will have caught up. i see it as the overarching shift in the way we do business, expect society to interact, and control transactions, as our parents' generation begins to lean on ours more and more before retiring.

Your points are all valid and I do not deny that things may very well turn out the way you have described. It's a logical outcome given the way new technologies have changed the landscape.

I do however think it is the optimistic view. Disney single-handedly put an end to the concept of public domain. With that kind of juggernaut power and with intellectual property and trademark rights already trumping personal freedom, and perhaps even human rights, anything can happen.
If it were a horse race I'd bet on the media companies.

[deathscythe257]

while i might sound optimistic, i still think it's realistic. there is no end to the concept of public domain, don't worry about that. if they try to get another extension in the next twenty years i don't think the supreme court would allow it to stand, and in fact a majority of policy makers believe a reduction is necessary. the problem is that copyright is a tool that has so many moving parts that it takes a completely cohesive doctrine to overhaul it the way it needs to be overhauled. legislators are used to piecemeal solutions, so we'll just have to wait until they're completely convinced it's fucked.

the human rights argument is ridiculous though. and protecting property rights is a form of protecting personal freedoms, it just depends on whose personal freedoms you're protecting. if anything i'm worried about the fact that the courts don't listen to first amendment related fair use defense arguments.

[FeaturesTroll]

The human rights argument is ridiculous though.

I don't think it is. Case in point: Patent courts award patents to companies that isolate debilitating genes...for the genes. In practice this means that that company has exclusive rights to develop a treatment for that particular malady. If, say, you had that particular gene and suffer the illness associated with it, you would be in violation of the law if you were to attempt to treat yourself. It'd be violating the patent of the company that patented the gene. What if the company that patented the gene decided, upon looking into the marketability of a treatment, that it wouldn't be profitable? No treatment would be developed. Scoff all you want. That's a human rights violation in my book.

[deathscythe257]

The human rights argument is ridiculous though.

I don't think it is. Case in point: Patent courts award patents to companies that isolate debilitating genes...for the genes. In practice this means that that company has exclusive rights to develop a treatment for that particular malady. If, say, you had that particular gene and suffer the illness associated with it, you would be in violation of the law if you were to attempt to treat yourself. It'd be violating the patent of the company that patented the gene. What if the company that patented the gene decided, upon looking into the marketability of a treatment, that it wouldn't be profitable? No treatment would be developed. Scoff all you want. That's a human rights violation in my book.

sure, but that's patent which is a wholly separate doctrine. the back argument to that is the question of whether or not the treatment would ever even be researched if not for the promise of an economic incentive in the form of an informational monopoly. the good thing is that patents are relatively short (14 years) and once the patent is up, it's definitely been clearly registered and published for anyone to take advantage of. believe it or not, though, i've heard human rights arguments bantered about the availability of entertainment content and payment for such. that, i believe, is patently ridiculous.

[FeaturesTroll]

i've heard human rights arguments bantered about the availability of entertainment content and payment for such. that, i believe, is patently ridiculous.

Oh ok. I agree 100% about that being ridiculous. I was just talking about the overall increase of government protection of corporate rights (real and perceived) at the cost of our rights, regardless of it concerns patents, trademarks, copyrights or any other form of intellectual property.

Here's an example that more concerns the original topic. A 14 year old girl, who lives at home and uses the family computer, downloads a peer-to-peer clients and downloads some songs. The particular p2p client by default installs itself to automatically run in the background whenever the computer is restart and shares the users downloads. Years later she finishes high school, moves out and goes to college. Meanwhile her family continues to use the computer, unknowingly sharing a folder of songs for years. When she's in her early twenties the RIAA, deciding to make a random example, comes after her father. Who's the criminal? The 14 year old or her dad? The fact is, if she hadn't fessed up (which she did) her father would have been liable for the $150,000 fine because his was on the ISPs bill.

Anyway, the human rights' violation isn't in the freedom to download (which doesn't exist) it's in the tossing aside of rights to privacy and in the possible persecution of the innocent.

[deathscythe257]

only certain privacy rights are available in interstate communications. if you're communicating on an unsecure server, it's out there for the public to see. i feel like if people want to be private, they should keep their information in the home or in secured communications. facebook, for instance, is a place where people want to see restrictions on employers using it to make hiring decisions - ridiculous. they would think twice about hiring you if they saw you out at a bar drunk personally, so you should probably keep that to a low profile and not post too many pictures of obviously sloshed instances. as far as downloading and uploading goes, you're communicating in a completely public way and people need to recognize that. it's not like a phone call when you're opening your system up to the entire downloading populace.

and they weren't up against criminal charges, only a civil suit. ultimately, the way i feel about it is that if you're going to have internet access, you ought to be responsible enough to know how it's being used. that includes locking down your wireless network, monitoring your child's activity, even installing filters. this is consistent with how we treat ownership of anything that could cause a wrong. we normally assign blame to the person in control, and if you're the one paying the bills, you're probably the one who should limit the liabilities. we shouldn't excuse ignorance of control because that's like saying you're not responsible for a car wreck because you were unaware you should have your brakes replaced.

that said, these suits are ridiculous mostly because they waste time and money, don't actually counter the harm and fail to act as a deterrent, not to mention that no one likely collects. i saw reports that they were likely to end soon as even the riaa regards them as failure.