According to the IFPI's "Digital Music Report 2007", your residential ISP is the their next front in the war on piracy.
The report spells out in pretty stark language exactly what the IFPI expects from the ISP who's services you pay for, "We should not be doing this job alone. With cooperation from ISPs we could make huge strides in tackling internet piracy globally. It is very unfortunate that it seems to need pressure from governments or even action in the courts to achieve this, but as an industry we are determined to see this campaign through to the end." (emphasis added)
It's unclear exactly what the IFPI wants ISPs to do but, it is pretty clear that they want it done now. With Bittorrent carrying more and more legal content every day, blocking a specific protocol or port is a non-starter. The next logical request would be that ISPs take up the business of data monitoring, inspecting what traverses their network and playing Big Brother by informing the IFPI, RIAA or law enforcement of what you're downloading at any given time.
Michael Hirchshorn of The Atlantic Monthly takes a look at Web 2.0 music services and while drawing lines though a connect the dots progression comes up with several gems of inference. The highlight of which is a comparison of Mp3 to DRM "protected" media that contrasts VHS and Betamax, "One next step could be a move by the labels to make more pay-per-download music available without restriction, meaning that once you've purchased a song, you can do anything you want with it, currently a no-go on Zune or iTunes. Unrestricted MP3 sites could play VHS to iTunes's Betamax. However it occurs, though, the execution of a widely used free and free-flowing music download and sharing system is surely imminent."
Coolfer was struck by the same quote, and asks not "if" but "when" this whole magical convergence of factors will result in the reiterated statement, "everything will eventually become available everywhere for a price that will approach zero" will become fact rather than lore. We're already on record as saying DRM will die, so where and when can we expect the fiery crash and burn which we all agree is inevitable? I wanna bring marshmallows and watch the flames.
I'm always enlightened when Glenn Coolfer grabs his calculator and starts making sense of the sales figures Billboard and Nielsen throw around. Often you find that when Coolfer works over the numbers he gleans insight that no one else is spouting.
This week is no different. While the nay-sayers are forecasting the demise of the music business (once again), Coolfer shows us that optimisim may be the better track, "Last week, digital track sales totaled over 21 million, a 29% drop from the previous week but still 61% higher than the same week in 2006. That 29% drop was an improvement over last year's 33% decline. In other words, sales are higher and are not dropping off the holiday peak as quickly as last year."
He's talking about the same week in which the Dreamgirls Soundtrack was the best thing going, which slipped into the top spot while only moving 66k copies. Its the same week Paul Resnikoff used to declare, "Album sales continue to drop year after year, and chart-topping releases are losing their sales potency. [...] the continued declines are generating anxiety among investors."
Patience and prudence Grasshopper. I say 2007 will end up a banner year, and the year we'll all look back on as the point when a solid transition was made from physical to digital. No doubt, it'll be a bit painful for some. Transition is never comfortable, nor should it be expected to be.
A new survey by The Digital Media Association says online consumers are driving music in new ways, and causing a renaissance among music fans.
According to the survey, "The vast majority of online music service users report that enjoying music over the Internet has expanded their musical tastes, allowing them to discover new artists and explore new music genres. About 25 percent reported having discovered a lot of new artists, while more than 60 percent of consumers surveyed say they have discovered some new artists. Nearly 7 in 10 online music consumers are enjoying new genres of music since listening to online music services."
A wider range of artists sharing a slightly growing pie is a great thing for music itself, although it puts the music industry in a precarious position. The major's need to learn to work with a model in which blockbuster albums are fewer and further between, and deeper catalog cuts move with a little more ease.
Jupiter Research has done some prognosticatin' and come to the conclusion that digital sales are going to keep on growing. In fact, if predictions hold true, digital sales will grow at a compounded rate of 16% per year, to a total of 2.5 billion dollars, or just over 22% of total US consumer spending on music.
Glenn Coolfer astutely observes, "Before you do any math, read a blog post about the survey by Jupiter analyst David Card. He explains something the press release does not: Jupiter did not count ringtone sales as digital revenues. He wrote, "Digital music sales will total 22 percent of US consumer music spending in 2011, and ring tones another 12 percent." Combined with download spending, the adjusted digital figure is actually 34%. That leaves the CD with about 66% of the market."
Subscription services are forecast to keep growing as well, with a staggering 32% compounded growth rate in just that category alone. Napster must be salivating but, frankly I don't see it. Unless some major shift comes along and changes the subscription landscape, or the Major labels relent to an eMusic style model, I just don't see how 32% growth in subscriptions is remotely possible.
More proof that, if given their rathers, the IFPI would love to see blank optical media made illegal. In a recent press release the IFPI's piracy prevention team is touting the seizure of a large quantity of blank media as a major victory against pirates. "The goods in question had been declared as 'general electronics and optical media'; and showed some "risk factors" such as origination from Taiwan that prompted Customs to conduct a more thorough review."
Here's a tip for the IFPI .. smugglers don't actually declare what they're smuggling.
Anyone who reads a lot of press releases can tell that even the IFPI isn't sure how valid this seizure really is, "The investigation continues but preliminary intelligence indicates that the declared importers were fronting for a third party suspected of providing the blank optical media to the pirate market. The estimated retail value of the media seized was almost 25 million pesos or $US8 million."
"The CD as it stands is dead", that's what Alain Levy of EMI told a packed room at London School of Business in October (Lomax's article says different but, we checked). John Nova Lomax of Houston Press is taking the time to eulogize it, examine why it's dying and take a cursory look at where the format is heading.
Lomax writes, "Looking back over the past 45 years, it is now plain that the move from vinyl to CD was not the bold step forward we were told it would be. CDs were not scratch-proof (as the labels had us believe early on), nor was the sound an improvement on vinyl -- indeed, most audiophiles argue that their sound is inferior. Jewel cases were ridiculously brittle -- they were rendered useless by a drop of four feet or so -- and they were hard to open, as were the huge and idiotic long-boxes CDs were packaged in well into the 1990s. Their visual appeal was almost always minimal and yet they took up what now seems like a lot of shelf space."
The truth is the CD, due to its fragility, has become a disposable item. One hipster quips in Lomax's article that she treats her music burned to CD with the same dismissive regard as she would treat any disposable lighter. As a culture, we're plenty fed up with disposable items which are sold to us as a "semi-durable" good. We know we'll be back to replace it far to early, and we feel ripped off when we find ourselves back in line again, holding a package full of the same empty promises we bought last time.
Two powerful members of the EU Parliament are working to change EU copyright laws in such a way that practically any infringement of a copyright, no matter how small, could be punishable by exceedingly steep fines.
From P2P-Blog, "Fontaine and Fourtou introduced several amendments to the second Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive that is currently being debated by a committee of the European parliament. Some of them just consist of striking the words "on a commercial scale" out of the original proposal, thus making every act of copyright infringement a criminal offense."
Not only would Fontaine and Fourtou like to see the law expanded from commercial copyright infringement to reach any copyright infringement, they're also asking to increase minimum penalties. "Serious" cases could bring fines with a minimum price tag of €600,000, if the two get their way.
Think this is all the work of benevolent politicians with altruistic (albeit misguided) desires to halt piracy? Think again. Janelly Fourtou is married to the former Vivendi CEO Jean-René Fourtou; mon petite conflict of interest, no?
The German arm of the IFPI, which has reportedly sued over 20,000 people since 2004, is planning to pick up the pace just a bit in the new year. IFPI Germany CEO Peter Zombik told reporters recently that his paramilitary group division of the IFPI plans to sue more than 1000 people a month in 2007.
Filesharing lawsuits within Germany work a bit differently than in other places around the globe. The German IFPI actually presses legal charges against anonymous users, and once the German authorities uncover their identities, they use the personal details gained to file a civil suit as well. It's a bizarre system that puts German tax payers on the hook for the identity discovery costs, which can be quite high. Even if the criminal prosecution fails, the user's identify has been revealed, and the IFPI can continue with their civil assault.
P2P blog also reports that the IFPI's efforts in Germany haven't exactly been an overwhelming success so far. P2P traffic accounts for up to 70% of the bandwidth usage within Germany's borders some evenings, according to a recent study. I guess Zombik figures, why let a little thing like results stand in your way?
It's the democratization of the music business, and it's becoming a trend to large to ignore. The LA Times reports on artists who've given up (or never wanted) a major label deal, and are instead finding success online.
"It's nice to have the deep pockets and clout of a major record company. [...] Nonetheless, the Web is turning into a viable alternative with which bands can develop a following and earn some money while still pursuing fame and fortune. Such popular groups as Britain's Arctic Monkeys used the Web extensively before getting a break. Indeed, music companies are embracing the Internet as a convenient way to scout new talent."
What's more, artists with online followings have a whole lot more negotiation clout when they do sit-down to discuss a deal. Making it in music is hard, and the internet hasn't changed that. What it has done, is serve to create a much more even (although still rather slanted) playing field in which the indie artist has a real fighting chance, something they definitely didn't have just 15 years ago. With music blogs playing the part that radio stations once did (and no sign of radio recovering from its glut of self serving poppycock), could we really be that far from taking the major label system and turning it on its ear?
Ars Technica spoke with Kheit and has this gem of a quote, "AllofMP3 is legal, and it's not going anywhere," adding, "Legality is not decided by a legislative branch or an executive branch. It's decided by a court"
The question is, which court and under what jurisdiction? AllofMp3's legal grounds are fragile at best, and as useless as nipples on a boar at worst in my humble -- non-lawyer who took some pre-law undergrad courses and decided law wasn't for me -- opinion. However, Kheit is a smart guy, who holds a degree in Computer Science as well as an M.B.A and (obviously, as a practicing attorney) a J.D., he must understand something that I fail to see. I'm not sure in which court, or on what legal standing Kheit is planning to defend his client --AllofMp3 parent company Media Services -- but, I for one can't wait to hear his argument.
It's back again. The seemingly never-ending speculation about AllofMp3 and its entanglement with Russia's desire to join the World Trade Organization. This time there's some evidence of the validity of those claims, and a little bit of light shed on when AllofMp3 might be gone for good.
A document released by the US trade representative to Russia clearly spells out that AllofMp3 has been and still remains a concern for US trade officials, and lays out a time-line within which Russia is expected to act against the rouge music download site.
According to PC Magazine, "Russia said it would [...] act by June 1, 2007 to take action and prevent rights societies from taking action without consent of the rights holders themselves; AllofMP3.com claims it holds licenses from the Russian Licensing Societies, including the Federation of Rights Holders for Collective Management of Copyright with Respect to the Use of Musical Works in Interactive Regime (FAIR) and the Russian Organization on Collective Management of Rights of Authors and Other Right Holders in Multimedia, Digital Networks & Visual Arts (ROMS)."
The fight to keep the UK copyright system as is -- rather than being extended to a period of 95 years from date of creation -- is getting a little boost from an independant review according to the BBC.
The BBC reports, "an independent review is to recommend the terms are not extended, a well-placed government source has said." Which, if heeded, would mean that the earliest Beatles recordings could fall into the public domain as early as 2013 and, that Sir Cliff Richard's earliest recordings -- who in his day was the British answer to Elvis -- could hit the public domain in 2008.
Needless to say, the IFPI and the BPI aren't the happiest of campers. John Kennedy, who in my estimation is an enemy of creativity worldwide threatens, "If the UK government decides not to support copyright equalisation, then the music industry will have to continue its campaign in Europe."
Chinese search giant Baidu has won a battle in court against record labels who claimed that links to mp3s provided on other websites constitued piracy. The record companies, including EMI, Sony BMG, Warner Music and Universal Music demanded the suspension of its "download service" and 1.73 million yuan (216,250 dollars) in compensation but, were rebufed by the court which ruled that the search engine "did not constitute an infringement as all the music was downloaded from webservers of third parties"
A victory, maybe; but not for media perception. To quote the post-hoc ergo propter hoc logical landmine that is the Associate Foreign Press article, "As Internet usage has soared in Asia in recent years, the music industry's revenue has fallen dramatically, largely due to MP3 downloads from unauthorized sources." Granted, piracy in Asia is rampant but, it's hardly possible to lay the blame squarely on "mp3 downloads."
According to the IFPI's "Digital Music Report 2007", your residential ISP is the their next front in the war on piracy. 
Michael Hirchshorn of 
I'm always enlightened when 
Two powerful members of the EU Parliament are working to change EU copyright laws in such a way that practically any infringement of a copyright, no matter how small, could be punishable by exceedingly steep fines.
It's the democratization of the music business, and it's becoming a trend to large to ignore. The LA Times 
The fight to keep the UK copyright system as is -- rather than being extended to a period of 95 years from date of creation -- is getting a little boost from an independant review according to the BBC. 
Chinese search giant Baidu has won a battle in court against record labels who claimed that links to mp3s provided on other websites constitued piracy. The record companies, including EMI, Sony BMG, Warner Music and Universal Music demanded the suspension of its "download service" and 1.73 million yuan (216,250 dollars) in compensation but, were rebufed by the court which ruled that the search engine "did not constitute an infringement as all the music was downloaded from webservers of third parties"
