Myspace to Sell MP3s From Unsigned Bands 253
soldrinero writes "Yahoo! news is hosting a story about a new competitor to Apple's iTunes Music Store. Nearly all the other iTunes competitors have been strongly controlled by the music industry, shackled in DRM, and giving little back to artists. The new MySpace music store will feature vanilla MP3 downloads at prices set by the individual bands (3 million of them!), all or nearly all of whom are unsigned musicians with no industry affiliation. Is this the example we have all been waiting for of how the Internet will obviate the business model of the recording industry?"
No, because ... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is great news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No, because ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical misunderstanding of DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a perfect horrible example of a 'innocent' slip which conflates DRM with copyright; it cooperates with the corporate worldview that DRM is necessary to protect copyright. I don't know how to get in touch with the author but I would really love to set this kind of thing straight.
RMS may be a freak but I think he's right in that we have to be careful about the language we use; it defines and affects the thought patterns of both speaker and listener.
Re:No, because ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Never underestimate the power of teen fanboy(|girl)ism.
Personally I think this idea might work out well for Myspace. Certainly they have little or no risk / cost. And since it's non-DRM'ed mp3's, I really have no objection to it.
Hell, hole (Score:3, Insightful)
But I loathe the RIAA more.
iTunes Alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement sounds really uninformed in its context in the article. There are a lot of alternatives, but most people don't want them. Anybody who has any tech savvy needs to take their head out of their ass when they come up with ideas like this. The reason why people put up with Apple's DRM'ed technology is because its easy to use. Non-tech people can and do use it, and those same people avoid the other options because they are confusing. Now, I understand that selling a DRM-less MP3 will work with the iPod, which is very important to compete, but how will it be delivered to the user? Will it automatically show up in a playlist in a program such as iTunes so that a non-tech person doesn't have to search for the downloaded file and put it where it belongs so he/she can immediately play it after its done? There are a lot of little details that Apple paid attention to that contribute to its success with this industry. Until someone can come up with a total solution that plays as nicely as iTunes and works with the iPod, they will all be dead in the water.
As technical people, this news sounds great, but we are a relatively small population compared to the rest of the world. In order for an idea like this to work on the level of iTunes/iPod, the less-than-savvy need to be addressed.
Yes: new bands-new fans (Score:2, Insightful)
As it turns out, this describes MySpace's audience perfectly, so yes, this could work.
With MySpace's ranking system, they only need to find a few dozen bands with real talent to make it a success. With a population of 300M bands to draw upon, that should be possible.
The record labels will never, ever give up their right to control distribution. It is the only thing they truly own. Any new licensing model will only work with new bands and new fans.
Re:No, because ... (Score:5, Insightful)
i assumed that no one was thick enough to make a "myspace is for emo kids only" joke anymore
Re:Typical misunderstanding of DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, because ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, because ... (Score:4, Insightful)
ROFLMAO! You obviously don't waork in the industry. I work for an indie music distro and do A/R for a couple of labels. I can't even describe how _terrible_ most bands are. MySpace is like a meeting place for all the bands that send their demos to every label on Earth and just can't figure out why no one will sign them (because they are absolutely awful). These bands aren't on iTMS because most labels don't care about bands that would sell maybe one download per year.
Re:Same Model As Netflix... Almost (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? You don't think that an additional level exposure to millions of MySpace users wouldn't help? How is some random site going to make money if there's no one promoting it?
Re:No, because ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, because ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it threatens their business model, and they are scared shitless of change.
It will turn out to be a good deal for them
That's irrelevant. Radio was a good deal for them, and they fought tooth and nail because it threatened their business model. VCRs were a great deal for the movie industry, and look how hard they fought that.
It removes a level of risk from their business - as long as they have a lock on the major distribution channels they control the serious money.
First of all, they don't want control of the "serious" money, they want control of *all* of the money.
Second, your condition ("as long as they have a lock") is not at all assured. What happens when major artists discover they no longer *need* the "major" distribution channels?
Third, record labels make millions of dollars from artists just starting out that are willing to sign contracts for what can only be charitably described as indentured servitude. When these artists see "hey, I'm paying for this myself anyway, why don't I keep all the money", the big record labels lose a major source of revenue. Steve Albini wrote an excellent essay entitled "The Problem with Music" - it's a must read if you want to know how the music industry works - which you need to if you want to understand their motivations and why they're so scared of the internet.
Re:Works until.. (Score:1, Insightful)
You can see the problem. Too many good bands and no band makes good money.
My suggestion for any band using MySpace is to put up one free recording and charge for the rest. Hopefully music fans will have the decency not to put the MySpace recordings on a P2P network - unless you really hate the band
Re:No, because ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And of course the established music industry only signs really, really good bands to contracts.
</sarcasm>
Re:bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
the general public might not really know what drm actually is or what it stands for (they don't know what mp3 is either) but more and more people are learning that it is something they don't want.
the sony drm thing left the IT department and went out into the streets, it was regular ass people fearing that they had installed something horrible.
and for those who DON'T know they don't want drm just yet, when myspace says that their downloads are drm free, they will learn.
Re:No (Ve:Gas) (Score:3, Insightful)
And why do you think they want to see these actors and listen to this music in particular, who gave them the idea? Who controls what they get mostly exposed to? Who?
Re:No, because ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sarcasm noted. However, I think you should watch the American Idol auditions to get an idea of what he's referring to. If MySpace's music gig turns into a big joke because it's bombarded by crap (as it already has a reputation for in other areas...), what does the RIAA really have to worry about?
Re:Works until.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand why you think this is a bad thing. If a band decides to sign with a mayor label after getting famous from myspace I'm sure that is becaus the label makes them a decent offer. You know compared to other bands these will propably have gotten quite some income and fame from being on Myspace (otherwise they wouldn't have been picked up by the label) so I'm sure they won't sattle for a "squeeze every last penny"-contract.
In the same time this is good for Myspace aswell. Just imagine the publicity they get when it turnes out that you can get signed to a label by putting your music on Myspace.
Re:Um...this is how it works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure? I've been involved with a couple of low-volume CD releases (choral and classical). We got the entire thing done very cheaply (around £2/CD total costs for a run of under 200), and no one complained about the quality. Sure, if you've got a 'singer' who is so untalented that you need to apply complex frequency correction to his or her voice to make her sound remotely competent then you might need someone expensive, but if you already have a good sound then putting it on a disc isn't too hard.
Re:No, because ... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. They will say that because MySpace accepts any artist and music without a real screening process, it is promoting sexualy explicit and violent messages in music, and that we have to do something about it. (This will get the support of the religious right and fearful parents).
2. They will say that because MySpace accepts any artist and music without any real screening process, it is promoting hateful and degrading messages in music, and that we have to do something about it. (This will get the support of the politically correct left).
3. They will say that MySpace is exploiting it's artists, by not paying them a minimum wage or benifits for their music, and we have to do something about it. Since it is impossible to pay a living wage to every single artist making music in his spare time, this will mean that MySpace will have to stop supporting millions on artists. (This will get the support of labor unions, and the center-left).
Don't worry, when the RIAA attacks MySpace, they will do it in a way that you most certainly will support because it will fit into your predisposed knee jerk political beliefs. If you are against racism, they will have you believing that MySpace promotes racism. If you are against sexuality, they will have you believing that MySpace is promoting sexual promiscuity. If you are a socialist, they will paint MySpace as a big oppressive monopoly that is exploiting the artists. They will not go to congress and say "They are taking away our profits", they will use whatever issue you are most concerned about, and do it through front groups.
When it comes time to destroy MySpace, you will not only vote for the politician who does it, you will not only support it 100%, you will think that anyone who tries to stop it is evil!
Re:Um...this is how it works... (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical Major Label:
1. The label signs the artist. to a contract that allows the record label to own forever, the music that the artists create, giving the label all rights to income from the artists, forever. This means that someone who writes a song doesn't actually get credit for the song except for very small royalties. This is why Michael Jackson owns most of The Beatles works and profits from anyone buying older Beatles CD's today. They may in some cases give them a small chunk of good money up front. Unfortunately, this is almost always counted against future profits.
2. The label pays for expensive studio time. And then bills the artists against future royalties, ensuring that the label doesn't have to pay for a crappy album.
3. The rep from the label contacts the program directors at radio stations to get airplay. Sending your demo tape to a station will not get you on the air...reps who offer tickets at concerts and coop opportunities for bigger artists get airplay (because payola is technically illegal). This is why mainstream radio sounds exactly the same, and why plenty of good bands get absolutely no airplay. This is ruining music.
4. The label pays for CD duplication, printing, distribution. and again, bills the artist for this against future royalties. Thanks.
5. The label sends your CD to the music outlets. technically the music outlets purchase the CD's from the labels. They're not getting them for free. They're not even getting them at very good prices honestly, but that's all you get. Of course big high volume chains get a better price than small independent stores, but that's business. This is also ruining music, music stores, and the ability to find good music anywhere that isn't being stroked by the record labels to do it.
6. The label arranges concerts, merchandising, etc to make you rich (because we all know artists make nearly nothing on the music itself). And again, the label bills the band against profits for all the expenses they incur on a tour if they're the ones sponsoring it. That's why you get all the tours sponsored by Best Buy, Budweiser and any other promotional agency. The label takes in the $$ from promotion, bills the artists for the costs (and doesn't necessarily use the promotional windfalls to offset the touring expenses!) and takes their profit that way. Sometimes, depending on how much of their rights the band signed over to the label in the first place, the band has to give the labels a cut of concert profit, a cut of merch, and their share becomes an even smaller slice of the pie.
Can you imagine working for 2 years and being in more debt than when you started? This is what happens to most bands that sign a major label deal, but never end up being astoundingly popular and successful. When you've got 5 guys in a band, you'll be VERY lucky to turn an actual profit on a major label deal without selling 3+ million copies of an album and leading a very successful sold-out tour of mid-size venues. Clubs and small venues aren't going to cut it. This is also why moderately successful bands tour incessantly for 2+ years on one album. They're hugely in debt, and the labels usually have the least control over concert revenues (since often times concerts can and do lose lots of money and the record labels haven't figured out a way for a band to take the blame on that one if they try to profit off it at the same time). This is also why a band can have a slightly popular album, or a one-hit-wonder quality song, sell a million copies of an album (yay!) and never be heard from ever again. Their backs are against a wall, the record label owns everything they've created, and they're also in debt $100k to SonyBMG because S
Compulsory licensing here we come (Score:3, Insightful)