|
|
#209378 - 03/14/04 11:52 PM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
ed323
Serious Contributor
Registered: 02/02/03
Posts: 297
Loc: Yuma AZ USA
|
Mike, it's not about the filters. It never has been.
JPF has had its annual awards for how many years now? Has Brian put together a list of links to the winning songs and artists' pages? Well, there's your filter right there.
Has Brian ever published a list of his favorites? He listens to all the stuff JPFers send in for the awards. He's in the best position to be exposed to all the stuff and folks that you and I aren't. That would be a truly JPF filter!
If he doesn't want to because of the administrative position he holds, well that's too bad for the listening public in- AND outside JPF.
If he leaves it to the awards process, well then he's simply abdicating the role he'd be perfectly happy to see Michael Laskow get paid to fill, in order to avoid hurting some folks' feelings.
I mean, does anybody here REALLY believe that NARAS voters actually get the Grammies into the hands of those who made the BEST MUSIC for the previous voting period?
'Filters' will simply be paid tastemakers, getting their checks from the subscription service to listen and pick. Won't be long until they'll expect payment from artists for inclusion on the hotlist.
Anybody, right now, can put together a list of links to songs, and send it out to LOTS of folks. You, Mike Dunbar, can become a JPF filter tonight. And people liking your taste can listen to your recommendations, and perhaps even buy the songs you select.
And if they DID buy a track, you'd be doing a just plain favor to your favorite artist! Right now!
A bigger favor than if you told them to be happy to MAYBE get a penny after they'd spent who knows how long writing and composing, collaborating and cajoling, recording and re-tracking, mixing and mastering, THEN bought a membership at hundreds of dollars a year, paid a submission fee, paid a forwarding/referring fee to get the song from the A&R to the 'filter', and paid a listing/inclusion fee to said filter, to get the song listed ONCE, and MAYBE listened to ONCE by how many hundreds of people who happened to listen long enough the day you were 'hot-picked'!
While EVERYBODY ELSE in the food-chain cashes good checks, made of the money you and every other hopeful and subscriber dutifully send in, every week!
------------------
EdX.iuma.com http://www.soundclick.com/40LOVE http://www.soundclick.com/EdX
[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 03-15-2004).]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#209379 - 03/15/04 12:06 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Mike Dunbar
JPF Mentor
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 8201
Loc: Nashville Tennessee
|
Ed,
I'm looking for positive strategies. I can think of all kinds of problems that haven't happened and ascribe all kinds of motives and intentions to people who I barely know, but that won't sell any songs. If Brian or you or anyone can help, the best way for me find out is from the horses mouth, not second hand.
When I released my band's first album in 1974, I told some friends that I was going to bring a copy to WLS, one of the world's largest pop stations. Everyone told me it was a waste of time, they'd never play it, and they weren't interested in local acts. I went ahead and brought it in. The program director met with me. He told me that the amazing thing to him was, none of the local bands had brought their records in to him, I was the first one in years. He picked a song I wrote, and put it on rotation for a few weeks. Our band got an amazing boost, and got on several other local radio stations because of that.
Personally, I'm not going to be a filter. It would be an obvious conflict of interest. If JPF is going to offer itself, somehow, as a filter, that would be for Brian, no one else, and in his own way, to determine.
Thanks, however, for your insight.
All the Best,
Mike
------------------
Mike Dunbar Music
[This message has been edited by Mike Dunbar (edited 03-15-2004).]
_________________________
Anybody who’s made it will tell you, you can make it. Anyone who hasn’t made it will tell you, you can’t -John Mayer Success is simply a matter of luck. Ask any failure. -Earl Wilson It's only music. -niteshift Mike Dunbar Music
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209380 - 03/15/04 12:32 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Doug/Liszt Laughing
Serious Contributor
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 981
Loc: Indiana
|
Ya, I'm shaking my head too at Ed's last statement...Like - what was that. All I know is that I listen to RFV and I love it, and so anymore of the same is fine with me. And, I know that Brian does all of this free, and I think he does a great job, and I think that VIRGIN internet and JPFOLKS is a very cool thing.
Mike - I do understand internet law can be tedious and maybe take the fun out of something that is really exciting for JPFOLKS members. I'm not trying to rain on the party. I just really would like to understand the mechanics behind streaming on demand, because I think anyone who might be involved with it as a music creator should understand it.
With that, the RIAA web site has a good section on webcasting. An interactive subscription service is definately not subject to statutory licensing or webcasting rates. An interactive subscription service is not the same as a non-interactive webcast. The rates for an interactive service have to be negotated seperately with each SR holder.
But, this is what it says in that copyright office link a gave a few posts back:
In 2001, the RIAA, the National Music Publishers' Association, Inc. ("NMPA"), and the Harry Fox Agency, Inc. ("HFA") entered into an agreement concerning the mechanical licensing of musical works for new subscription services on the Internet. Licenses issued under the RIAA/NMPA/HFA agreement are nonexclusive and cover all reproduction and distribution rights for delivery of on-demand streams and limited downloads and include the right to make server copies, buffer copies and other related copies used in the operation of a covered service. The license also provides at no additional cost for "On-Demand Streams of Promotional Excerpts," which are defined as a stream consisting of no more that thirty (30) seconds of playing time of the sound recording of a musical work or no more than the lesser of ten percent (10%) or sixty (60) seconds of playing time of a sound recording of a musical work longer than five minutes.
So, there may be an agreement already in place that sets the rates if you get a license from a SR AND a PA holder that wants to abide by this agreement.
Now, I do want to correct one thing I said in a previous post. 30 second promotional clips are legal if you have a license under this agreement. But, absent that, in general you have to have permission to use a clip, 30 seconds or otherwise, and that jives with the law. Here is what the RIAA site said about that:
. . . Using a :30 clip. Rumors abound that using 30 seconds or less of a song doesn’t require a license. Not true. Although some uses of small amounts of music are considered fair use and don’t require a license (see copyright section for a definition of fair use), generally speaking, the use of any part of a song requires a license. So, if you perform, reproduce or distribute clips, you should contact the sound recording copyright owner for a license. Note that offering clips on-demand does not qualify for a statutory license.
I'll go away for now. I think it is really exciting the VIRGIN thing, I'm all for it.
[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 03-15-2004).]
_________________________
Boo...my name is Doug
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209381 - 03/15/04 12:36 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Mike Dunbar
JPF Mentor
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 8201
Loc: Nashville Tennessee
|
Liszt,
Sorry man, my eyes glaze over when people start parsing law. I'll bet Virgin has some good lawyers, I'll bet on them since they are on our side.
Any positive ideas?
Mike
------------------
Mike Dunbar Music
_________________________
Anybody who’s made it will tell you, you can make it. Anyone who hasn’t made it will tell you, you can’t -John Mayer Success is simply a matter of luck. Ask any failure. -Earl Wilson It's only music. -niteshift Mike Dunbar Music
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209382 - 03/15/04 12:43 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Doug/Liszt Laughing
Serious Contributor
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 981
Loc: Indiana
|
Ya - I think it's cool! IM ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL FOR IT - GO BRIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ya - CDBABY would be my choice to handle the digital distribution to VIRGIN (or any other place). They are set up for that now, not sure if the agreement has to be modified to handle on-demand streaming or not.
_________________________
Boo...my name is Doug
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209383 - 03/15/04 07:45 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Mike,
I can only speak for what we plan to do. We already ARE a very big and well known filter of indie music (perhaps the largest as I think we may now screen more music than even TAXI does in a given year).
We already have a partnership with RFV and Virgin Digital. We already filter for them. Currently we don't get paid for any of this work. Our members, however, can sell CD's (which we also don't take a piece of) via the player and they are eligibile for PRO payments (and some members have claimed to have gotten PRO payments from RFV play, though I don't get any statements directly, nor does RFV, rather the individual gets a statement from the PRO which lists the sources of income and generally says "misc internet" which when queried, some members claim to have been told it was from RFV net play.
If a model is enacted that pays the artists/writers for play generated via our filtering, then I think it will be fair for them to share some portion of that income with us if they want to be included in our particular filter. I have no idea what the fair percentage would be, but if we're providing earnings at no expense to the writer/artist, it seems fair we share in the earnings we help generate. Once word gets out that we're the conduit to get on Digital Virgin for Indie artists, we're likely to see even more stuff than we're getting now, which is nearly impossible to handle already. (I've personally listened to at least parts of all 10,000 CD's myself already this year, plus all the other folks involved in helping). I am guessing I will have personally listened to app. 50,000-70,000 of the 140,000 songs we got this year over the course of the 18-20 months we will have spent on this year's awards process. (That's about 8 hours a day of solid listening, though right now I am spending 16+ hours a day and have been nearly 7 days a week since last November). I just finished the Metal Category a few minutes ago. (Punk is next). To keep doing this stuff, (which is required to filter and find the best stuff) I'll have to hire people to do the other work I can't do anymore. That will come from a shared income. Or I simply wouldn't be able to do it any longer.
I am guessing that there are 2 types of "filters" that will be in play. One will be a representative filter, where all the music is contractually connected to the person/entity doing the filtering. Today we call these people Record Labels and Publishers. I expect we'll see a lot of offerings from those folks throughout the changeover in technology. The second group will be more akin to traditional Radio DJ's, who, instead of being paid by a radio station to put together a great playlist for listeners each day, they will put together a list of filtered tracks for people to sample and choose from. I am not sure which group JPF actually will fall into. One concern I have is that there may need to be an entity to act as the go-between for Indie artists not affiliated with a label/publisher who is authorized to collect and distribute payments. CDBaby MIGHT be set up to handle this on all potential models, but frankly I don't know. Some folks have already come to us asking if we want to be the conduit. I need to learn if CDBaby already has this completely covered or not, and if not, I'll need to learn how it would work. I am not sure I want to become an accounting firm, but from what I am learning, none of the digital download/sales/on demand/net radio companies want to deal with 1 artist at a time on any level, so a coalition will have to exist to represent the 99+% of those who aren't on a major label. I am guessing if CDBaby isn't going to serve in this role, someone like JPF or similar will have to step up to provide not only access, but a workable collections/distribution system. Then a lump sum for all accumulated "plays" would be paid out of the subscription funding and the the "entity" would pay it out and also act as auditor to help make sure the amounts were fair. (i.e. 1 individual couldn't possible audit (nor would they be allowed to) the entire pay system for all artists. But an "entity" of some type would have the legal right to represent a collection of artists and thus have access to the overal data.
I make no claims to be an expert on how all this is going to work.. but I do know that Musicnet and others are fleshing out these issues even as we speak.
I don't expect anyone to be limited to being on any one "Entities" playlist, but I am concerned that people will likely be limited to one "collection entity" (similar to BMI/ASCAP) and that filters may align with certain collection entities similar to terrestrial radio now. I think Laskow might have suggested they work directly with the artists/writers and not with a "label/publisher/coaltion" type of group to make payments.. I think that would be better, but perhaps simply too much burden to deal with perhaps millions of individuals rather than a few dozen collectives.
It's definitely a brave new world we're entering into. There will be plenty of hand wringing and "sky is falling" types of attitudes, but progress and technology will advance.. and it will be better than what came before, unless you're someone who still enjoys 8 track tapes and covered wagons.. those folks probably won't be very happy with what's coming.
Brian
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209384 - 03/15/04 07:56 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Ed,
I don't think I've ever seen someone make so many ridiculous statements in any discussion we've ever had in 6 years as you have on this one. One after another after another.
I am not referring to your blatant negativity.. we're all used to that. I am talking about your absurd lapses in comprehending the plain and obvious.
Let's take the easiest. You want to see the list of the awards stuff? Visit the AWARDS section of this website where they are ALL listed.. that's right Ed.. all the nominees are are listed in every genre from the last 3 music awards we've done. Did you ever bother to check before you wrote?
We all "get" that you don't like these models. We also understand that you think getting a penny a play per listener is less money than you'd get in other models, such as Radio airplay that pays you fractions of fractions of fractions of fractions of pennies per play per listener. Somehow, in your mind it seems from your statements, that micro fraction of a penny is more than an actual full penny. Everyone here understands that's the way you think (or at least that's what you keep putting in writing).
So.. you've been heard. We won't worry about involving you in all of this fairy tale stuff and of course if none of it happens and technology truly doesn't ever advance again, you'll have the last laugh on everyone else.
Brian
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#209385 - 03/16/04 12:25 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
ed323
Serious Contributor
Registered: 02/02/03
Posts: 297
Loc: Yuma AZ USA
|
y'all JPFers,
Brian would like all of you to believe that because he misread my post above, that I made a "ridiculous statement" about JPF awards not already being a 'filter', and thus anyone reading the thread in its entirety should...
...disregard the facts I've presented in support of my arguments that Laskow's 'vision' is just a way to sign up more JPFs hoping that they'll get favorable consideration in getting 'approved' by TAXI for play on 'JPF channel' on 'future-music-service' (doesn't JPF on Radio Free Virgin do that nicely already?).
Brian said on page 1:
PE,
I think you miss the big picture. Sure, TAXI could/would be 1 of those filters. But so would Just Plain Folks.
NOW, in my post above, I asked if Brian has created a page of links to the winning songs and artists from JPF awards, and BECAUSE I KNOW HE HAS, I stated, "Well there's your filter right there." Brian's misread.
ALREADY. Like Brian said to Rod on page 2:
"But the filter portion of it is already here. JPF is already there."
A JPF 'filter' that folks can use to go find the artists and listen and hopefully BUY THE CD, or some tracks if they're available that way!
I suggested that a truly far-reaching and eclectic JPF 'filter' would be a list of Brian's favorites in all genres, because he's heard it ALL, not just the top few nominees in each category!
BUT in deflecting attention away from JPF's past-and-current ability to steer folks to places where they can BUY CDs by JPF award-winning artists,
and embracing and promoting this penny-per-play service model on his JPF site, what Brian IS telling you JPF award-winners who have CDs and/or tracks for sale, perhaps through CDBaby, IS THAT HE THINKS YOUR EFFORTS TO SELL YOUR MUSIC FOR CURRENT MARKET VALUE ARE LUDDITE (backward-thinking anti-progress) AND USELESS, BECAUSE THE PENNY-PER-LISTEN FUTURE IS NOW, SO GIVE UP AND GET ONBOARD.
For those who have read my posts with care, I have offered that CDs and music SALES (vs. 'renting-by-the-month') are STILL viable and the public will respond by BUYING, IF you've got a product they want.
If you don't, NO amount of price-slashing is gonna get anybody to LISTEN, much less buy.
I have debunked the fantastic claim that 10 million subscribers are chomping at the bit and raring to sign-on to pitch their pennies at the new 'JPF channel' (one of how many dozen that the new service would offer? Again, doesn't RFV fill that role nicely already?) a thousand or so at a time,
by showing the history of XM satellite radio's subscriber numbers and growth, and their current P&L (ALL 'L'; point being that any new service is going to try to squeeze blood out of turnip artists and songwriters to try to get profitable and keep their checks and jobs after the startup money is all gone).
But Brian, hoping that those of you who aren't following this closely will just fall into line, is trying to dismiss my arguments and their supporting facts by
misreading ONE of my MANY salient points and declaring it as "ridiculous".
SALIENT POINT:
Streaming does NOT leave a copy resident on the playback device. If you're DLing a bunch of songs overnight (see Brian's iTunes example, pg. 1), and playing them back later 'on-demand', you are playing back a DOWNLOAD.
Point being: DOWNLOADS are currently going for 99 cents (not a penny! and 8.5 cents goes to songwriters/publishers) at iTunes, who've just announced their sale of the 50 MILLIONTH DOWNLOAD.
Calling a DOWNLOAD a STREAM is just a way to pay songwriters/publishers LESS than the law provides for.
Brian, page 1:
"Digital download sites based on a per song sales model are going absolutely nowhere."
(ed. note: yeah, 50 million DL sales since March is it? is going "absolutely nowhere". And CDBaby clients who are accepted by iTunes are getting about 50 cents a DL.
Apple may be taking a loss on selling the songs, but THE SONGWRITERS AND ARTISTS AND SR-holders AREN'T! Apple pays 65 cents per song to the SR-holders:
http://www.em411.com/show.php?area=alert&area_id=523 .
NOW, if you're not getting passed on to iTunes by CDBaby, do you think 10 million folks are gonna want to hear your song? But, THAT'S the number Laskow floated AND fired up everybody's imagination with in the Newsweek interview! Talk about 'visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads'!).
Brian made a factual mis-statement that "...[t]hen there is [sic] the subscription models. This model is coming with Virgin Digital (as an on demand feature AND streaming, not just streaming like XM radio)"
XM radio IS NOT STREAMING. It is satellite radio broadcast, a 'push' model. Everybody hears the same thing at the same time. You don't pick the song you want to hear next, you can't skip to the next song coming up on the channel, or even skip forward or back in the song. You choose channel and on/off, that's it.
Streaming is a 'pull' model, a computer-only model. It requests song from a remote server, plays as it is being received, and the file is NOT transferred to, nor is resident at the requesting client after the playback.
Brian doesn't have a firm grasp of the concepts OR terminology.
Again, calling a DOWNLOAD a STREAM is just a way to pay songwriters/publishers LESS than the law provides for.
SALIENT POINT:
Record labels with popular artists and catalog are not legally required to grant access to those tracks to licensees at a rate they find objectionable. They can keep them in the vault, throw darts at them, bake them into a soufflé, IF THEY LIKE.
You, music listener, have NO inborn right to OWN OR EVEN HEAR those songs, no matter HOW BAD it may hurt, except on terms the owner finds acceptable!
And THOSE songs are the honey that the Ten-spot-collecting penny-payers hope will attract subs by the millions, in JPFs hope that SOME of those subs will instantly get addicted to 'JPF channel'.
Paying you a penny a listen.
JPF songwriters and artists, SELL YOUR TRACKS and CDs at current market value, NOT next-to-nothing hitched to some promised imaginary multiplier.
http://www.wraptor.com will let you sell your work a track at a time, if you don't have a full album, at a price you set and can change easily. So will http://www.digizaar.com and http://www.lulu.com and http://www.usasounds.com and http://www.buymusic.com WITHOUT anyone passing judgment on the 'market-worthiness' or 'listenability' of your songs!
Because after your prospective customers have listened to all the tracks of yours that they like as many times as they want on 'hog-trough-central', you'll never sell them ANYthing EVER AGAIN, and be left with pennies-on-the-dollar in ROI (return on investment).
That is all.
------------------
EdX.iuma.com http://www.soundclick.com/40LOVE http://www.soundclick.com/EdX
[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 03-16-2004).]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209386 - 03/16/04 01:22 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Kris Karr
Serious Contributor
Registered: 09/12/03
Posts: 273
Loc: Iowa
|
I'll say first, I haven't read everyones post. Mainly just the interview and last page. That said, I'm not convinced. The bottom line will always be the foremost factor in business.
He said: The artists will come to companies like TAXI to get a 'J.D. Power' stamp of approval -- of sorts.
To me, that's a nice way of saying that they'll be running the show. As it is now with the record industry. Frankly, with services like soundclick.com and the like, who needs the record companies approval?
Yes, it's true that they have wide distribution capabilities, big P.R., and a stack of lawyers. They can help make an artist larger than life. They can break that artist as well. It will come back to their bottom line. Control over artists, their property, and money.
No offense intended. But it sounds like business as usual to me. A move to get the consumer to pay a monthly fee for the rental of non-physical media to increase the G.P. and then take a portion of the artists pie. But, artists that can't afford self promotion costs, or don't get the financial backing and support of the company will be left far down the play list, hoping that someone will come across their songs by accident. I'm sorry, but other than how the recordings are distributed, I don't see much that's new here.
I do hope that a solution is found to help the artist more. Like in the wallet. There is no doubt. Changes are coming.
Kris Karr
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/kriskarrmusic.htm
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/everywednesdaymusic.htm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209387 - 03/16/04 03:41 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Okay Ed, I'll go through your statement point by point since it isn't sinking it still.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: Mike, it's not about the filters. It never has been.
Brian: Really? So now you're the expert on what it's REALLY about?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: JPF has had its annual awards for how many years now? Has Brian put together a list of links to the winning songs and artists' pages? Well, there's your filter right there.
Has Brian ever published a list of his favorites? He listens to all the stuff JPFers send in for the awards. He's in the best position to be exposed to all the stuff and folks that you and I aren't. That would be a truly JPF filter!
If he doesn't want to because of the administrative position he holds, well that's too bad for the listening public in- AND outside JPF.
If he leaves it to the awards process, well then he's simply abdicating the role he'd be perfectly happy to see Michael Laskow get paid to fill, in order to avoid hurting some folks' feelings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian: As I said.. this already exists. Apparently you are unaware of it. It's posted on our site AND it runs 24/7/365 on our Radio Free Virgin Channel. We're already doing the work of a filter, but we haven't had the appropriate technology or infrastructure to take full advantage of it. On Demand and a Sample List for people looking for cool new music will make a huge difference. We''ve done the work on our end. And again, you always drag TAXI into the discussion. It has nothing to do with our Awards screening, Radio Free Virgin playlist or anything else. You can't mix unrelated discussions. They are not related. As for being happy to see Laskow put out a model, of course we would. Because they service non major label artists and writers, just like our members. And in case you haven't noticed, I have dedicated my entire life for the last 6 years to nothing but promoting and supporting artists and writers in our group. Anything that will give them another great opportunity is a good thing in my book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: I mean, does anybody here REALLY believe that NARAS voters actually get the Grammies into the hands of those who made the BEST MUSIC for the previous voting period?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian: Who ever said otherwise? We've told people upfront that any awards process is simply a collection of opinions. If done honestly and with diversity among the voting members who have actually HEARD the music that was nominated before voting, that's about as fair a system as you can have to promote great music. That's what we do. The Grammy's simply have people vote on the honor system as to whether they have heard the music or not. But they are open about the process. It's no big secret. It's a popularity contest. Ours is too.. only the popularity is of the music and not the personality/star since few of our nominees are familiar to any of the judges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: 'Filters' will simply be paid tastemakers, getting their checks from the subscription service to listen and pick. Won't be long until they'll expect payment from artists for inclusion on the hotlist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian: There's no doubt that people will try to manipulate ANY system that exist to their favor. But currently labels get away with manipulation because they control store shelf space, they control everything fans get exposed to on radio, they control who can tour and play for mass exposure on heavily promoted tours etc. And guess what? They are losing their collective asses spending all the money on legal (and questionable) payola to do it. Once they no longer control what is played on the "radio" and once they no longer can limit what music "stores" can offer for sale, people will slowly discover there is other music out there. Will some labels still thrive? Sure.. because SOME ACTUALLY DO A GREAT JOB PICKING GREAT ARTISTS. Others, however, will fail miserably, because payola, which is barely working now, will fail totally when people figure out that Mike Dunbar's "Honestly Chosen Hit's of the Week" consistently kicks the ass of the Major Label "Subsidized Lame Ass Offerings Of The Week." Now, the other area they can artificially control this process is through the subscription service itself. I am sure there will be subsidized "promotional" offering, just as there are now. The question would be whether any of the services offer access to filters based on quality. The only way things don't improve is if none of the services allow any filters other than the same old major label marketing people. But from what I have seen first hand with the folks at Virgin, and from what I know about some of the folks at the other services, I don't see that happening. I feel optimistic that if the money is the same for subscription services whether it's Britney or Bob Young being played, and Bob Young music is making their listeners happier and more likely to continue the service, they'll go with Bob Young.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed: Anybody, right now, can put together a list of links to songs, and send it out to LOTS of folks. You, Mike Dunbar, can become a JPF filter tonight. And people liking your taste can listen to your recommendations, and perhaps even buy the songs you select.
And if they DID buy a track, you'd be doing a just plain favor to your favorite artist! Right now!
Ed: A bigger favor than if you told them to be happy to MAYBE get a penny after they'd spent who knows how long writing and composing, collaborating and cajoling, recording and re-tracking, mixing and mastering, THEN bought a membership at hundreds of dollars a year, paid a submission fee, paid a forwarding/referring fee to get the song from the A&R to the 'filter', and paid a listing/inclusion fee to said filter, to get the song listed ONCE, and MAYBE listened to ONCE by how many hundreds of people who happened to listen long enough the day you were 'hot-picked'! While EVERYBODY ELSE in the food-chain cashes good checks, made of the money you and every other hopeful and subscriber dutifully send in, every week!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian: This is where you go way off the mark Ed. Let's put together some examples to address your statements.
1. Yes, Mike could become a filter. You're correct. He could also suggest to people he personally knows (how big is your mailing list Mike? lets say 700 people just for an example) to check out and buy the track. Out of the 700 people he knows who get his 50 songs he suggested, let's say 1% of them buy one of the tracks he suggested. That's 7 dollars worth of downloads with a 1% return. And only 7 of those writers/artists get to split up the profit (which is less than 99 cents after the service takes their chunk). The others get zero.
Now, lets say Mike has become a filter for an on demand service. (Radio Free Virgin, by the way, has over 7 million registered players out there for their streaming ONLY radio player.) So lets say this on demand service has only 10% of that number active... 700,000 people. Mike offers up his suggested list of 50 songs to them. 1% of them like the tracks he chose enough to put it in their rotation. The other 99% check it out.. but don't really care for any of his selected songs. Now, the first payment for a penny per play, would equal $7K dollars to each of the artists involved, including those who DIDN'T have their song chosen for a personal playlist. Then, for those who DID get chosen by 1% to listen to again, they'd get an additional penny each time any one of those folks played their song again. How often would someone chose to listen to their favorite songs? Who knows. If they all only listened 1 more time, that would 70 bucks additional earnings. 10 times in a month would be 700 bucks. And so on. Those pennies sure do add up to a hell of a lot more than a 99 cent download ever will.
2. You state "then buy a membership for hundreds of dollars." The likely amount of a year's subscription to one of these on demand services will be around $96 to $120 dollars per year. Total. Who's charging hundreds of dollars? We don't even charge people to enter the music awards/filtering process. What we would likely do it take a percentage of the money paid. If our 50 artists each made $7,000 dollars a piece because we chose them, I am thinking we'd be entitled to something from that. Even if we DID charge a couple hundred dollars from the profits, I am guessing folks would like our model of making $6000 bucks or more using Mike's FILTER much better than your model of making (at best) a couple dollars using Mike's FILTER. Also, where did anyone suggest a submission fee, or a forwarding fee or a listing/inclusion fee? Please show me where this was suggested by us or anyone else other than you? It's all in your imagination Ed. That's why I said the things you have been saying have been ridiculous. They ARE. You're choosing to see the absolute worst case scenario you can imagine (or make up) in the ideas of new models, while clinging to the old models (which have far more REAL flaws) which you seem to ignore. I haven't seen anywhere where I suggested I'd be taking money up front from anyone. I think a percentage deal is much better because if you're doing your job as a filter, the money is automatic (i.e., what you pick WILL earn REAL money.. so you don't need to collect on the front end.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I want to make clear that the "Penny" model is NOT connected to Digital Virgin. It's 2 separate things. I simply illustrated 1 example of how it would work. Also, JPF as a filter has nothing to do with TAXI as a filter or anyone else for that matter. We're discussing multiple topics and issues throughout this post. Laskow offered up 1 idea of a workable model. Virgin Digital announced an unrelated REAL program they are going to offer and fortunately, it brings many of the things that Laskow discussed from mere theory to reality. The Penny model is good because, though it does start off small (a penny) it actually is significantly LARGER than what someone makes on Radio Airplay and dramatically larger than what indie artists will EVER make in record sales. And the beautiful thing is that Virgin Digital is going to offer BOTH! But most folks agree that once the technology, format, pay system and portability issues of On Demand are worked through and agreed on as a standard, the "ownership" model will take a back seat and become far less desirable to most listeners who like the convenience and cost effectiveness of On Demand.
Brian
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209388 - 03/16/04 04:04 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Another point I wanted to make:
In the example I gave, we assumed (for illustrations sake) that Mike's FILTER was great. If it was, it's still not much good unless the right system/model can utilize it to get it to the masses in a convenient way. I used a theoretical 700 person mailing list to illustrate how the masses paying a penny would dramatically pay more than the methods indie artists currently have to promote and try and sell their music today.
I am guessing that the average on demand service will likely offer up Filters by major genres. (Pop, Rock, Country, Blues, Rap, Urban/R&B, Metal/Hard Rock, Contemporary, Christian, Americana, Comedy etc.. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that many of those filters will initially exclude indie music because most musicologists are familiar with major artist catalogs rather than indie artists. But the way I would present our JPF Filter would be to give listeners a top 10 or top 40 or top 100 tracks in EVERY genre we have depth in under the umbrella of the "Best 100 Pop Songs You've Probably Never Heard" type of thing. JPF as a filter, with the technological infrastructure of something like Virgin Digital will be when it fully launches could very realistically make the example I give come true. But without a tool like On Demand Services, nothing really happens. We filter it now, but don't have the needed tool to get the quality music in front of the masses that a subscription service with a large listener base supplies.
Also keep in mind, even if our filter is PERFECT in all ways, we'll still only be 1 filter.. AND we still will only be able to flag a small percentage fo the music we get. We've received over 250,000 songs in the last 5 years but I am guessing if I launched a "filter" right now, I would only be able to promote 2500-7500 of those songs. That's the painful reality of the music industry. But the good news is that most of those artists would never have been able to get the exposure and income in today's models that they may get in the future.
[This message has been edited by Brian Austin Whitney (edited 03-16-2004).]
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209389 - 03/16/04 04:15 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Ed,
A comment about your XM radio example. It's not comparable. They require a separate purchase of an XM radio just to try out the service. It has to be installed in your car or you can get a house unit. That barrier alone, plus the fact that they only offer streaming (and only the 68 music channels are commercial free and the most popular channels are the talk ones from what we've heard) and nothing on demand. They've also just announced extra fees for "premium" channels. That has little similarity to what Virgin Digital (and many others like Rhapsody, MusicNet, Napster etc..) are doing with on demand services which will combine the benefits of XM, iTunes and add an On Demand feature (which is the best feature of all) eventually to the mix. All for probably LESS money per year, using equipment most people already own (computers) at a much lower operating expense (small staffs, no satellite to fund etc..). XM was a pioneer. But if these new services are even 1/10 as good as they claim they will be, I can't see why you'd want to pay for XM unless you rarely have access to a computer. XM is great for car roadtrips and truck drivers. It's not much value as a comparison for subscribers to a far superior and cheaper service.
Brian
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209390 - 03/16/04 11:54 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Doug/Liszt Laughing
Serious Contributor
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 981
Loc: Indiana
|
Look at filters this way, from an economics point of view (and the filter system already exists, it's called radio and MTV). What exists right now in music is monopoly (oligopoly actually) on the consumer market and a monopsoney (sp?) on the labor market. What this usually means is that prices are artifically higher, more than normal profits are made, supply is limited, and wages for labor in the TOTAL MARKET are artifically low (high performance fees that acts like the Rolling Stones, etc. get are because they are independently a monopoly in performance, they don't "work" for the record company in that regard). But, the one thing is, control of the filters (radio, MTV, distribution) is what maintains the monopoly. In fact, as I will prove in a moment, the filters ARE what gives music it's economic value.
Now, with the internet, satellite radio, etc. etc., competition is being introduced upon the monopoly. And Mike said this, what's happening in music it reminds him of when cable channels were introduced upon the major TV networks. Except, in the case of music, since technology has also reduced the barriers to good recorded music, there are potentially MILLIONS of competitors entering the market. Everyone can have their own web site. Anyone can get on an MP3.COM type web site. There are just exponetially more and more possible choices.
The effect of several thousands or millions of competitors in the marketplace, with low barriers to entry, according to economic theory, means that music will become a commodity, or even worse, almost worthless in economic terms. And as far as labor, the effect would be to even out wages. The high paid acts would be knocked down closer to the level of the guy on the street. The guy on the street might earn more money. But, there is the very real possiblity that with so much competition, nobody, from Bruce Springsten and David Geffin on down, will be able to make a decent living with music. Profits and wages will normalize to a point that a full time living is not sustainable - FOR ANYBODY. That is a VERY real scenero.
The only thing that saves us from that scenero, the only thing that truly gives economic value to music, is the same thing that keeps the monopoly in place. Filters. Filters are what gives money value to the music, not the music itself. If we throw everything out there that possibly could be created, unorganized, then people would have to spend hours upon hours sifting though it to find anything good. The filters save people time, and time is money, therefore again, the filter is what gives monetary value to music, nothing else. And because the filter does create value, the successful filter builder does deserve a piece of the action.
This whole filter idea (and the TAXI head alluded to this) is nothing more than what you saw on MP3.com. MP3.com had everything imaginable anyone could create musically on it. Yet very few people made any money on it. The ones who did are the ones who made it on the popular filters, either lists created by mp3.com staff reviews, or lists (charts, etc.) that made up the popular "radio" stations. Some of the lists ("radio" stations) that people made it on that made money were just lists that got passed around by word of mouth. So, in the new world of music, I do believe that Bob Young (or Joe Blow for that matter) could create a cool filter, and pass it around and it get to be big. Kinda like the Drudge Report and the internet.
And, nobody is going to be forced into this system. Any digital system except for non-interactive webcasting and a few others that involve statutory licensing is going to require the permission of the SR holder before it can be used. As far as PA rights, for now, those have to be given voluntarily also. If the Copyright Office or Congress decides that PA mech rights fall under compulsay licensing for On Demand Streaming, I'm sure they will set a rate that is just as fair in relation to streaming as 8.5 cents is to a permanant SR copy (after thinking it through, I do believe the Copyright Office has the right to set all these rates in different catagories, even possibly through arbitration, so the mech fee for a compulsary on-demand streaming copy is not gonna be 8.5 cents).
Also, on-demand streaming does not necessarily mean there is no copy resident on the receiving system. There is no permanent copy retained, but there are ephemerial copies to consider, such as buffer copies, etc. The RIAA and HFA have an agreement regarding the mech rights on all these types of copies. They, in concert with the Copyright Office, are supposed to agree to permanent rates, but I can't find that they have done so yet, so there is some type of temporary payment scheme in place. It's a voluntary agreement, meaning individual members (at least as far as HFA/NMPA) don't have to abide by it...
Anyway, enough from me for today...
Later.
[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 03-16-2004).]
_________________________
Boo...my name is Doug
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209391 - 03/16/04 01:57 PM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Briaid
Casual Observer
Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 24
Loc: pawtucket, RI
|
Hi,
I thought I might as well get in the ring too!
It is my opinion that the change would put more power into the musicians hand as to getting the music out there which I am all for.
As for the technical problems this presents, have you ever tried to solve all of a situations problems ahead of time? Usually initial problems are addressed and others are tackled as the experiment advances, as Brian acknowledged. Radio and the usual business of record companies will not be gone overnite and the buying public seems to have little trouble embracing technology.
As far as having stars for the kids and so on, I don't think that would change. It may shift into the hands of an artist's manager. If an artist was making lots of pennies then some of those pennies could be funneled back into promotion, just like any independant business would do. There could still be tv specials and movies and clothing lines for a really profitable act to get in on.
I'm 27 and 45's were just going out when I was 13 and I do miss going down to the department store and paying pocket change (a couple bucks) for a cool tune that I could play over and over, but I'm pretty much over it. I believe when my three year old is an old lady she'll sit back and tell her grandkids how in the old days she used to a thing called the "net" to listen to the hot music of the day.
Thanks for letting me weigh in!
Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209392 - 03/16/04 08:41 PM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Liszt.
Great post by the way.
Brian
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#209393 - 03/17/04 09:40 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
|
Doug/Liszt Laughing
Serious Contributor
Registered: 02/02/02
Posts: 981
Loc: Indiana
|
Thanks.
_________________________
Boo...my name is Doug
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#880233 - 02/20/11 06:58 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
[Re: Harry J]
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Someone asked about this post, so here it is from 2004.
Brian
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#880237 - 02/20/11 07:22 AM
Re: Newsweek Interview with Michael Laskow
[Re: Harry J]
|
Brian Austin Whitney
Bard of the Boards
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 16289
Loc: Indianapolis, IN USA
|
Ha.. I scanned through some of the posts and have to laugh at those who said streaming music to cell phones was 100% impossible... funny.. I not only get music streaming, but full HD Movies and TV shows any time I want.. I watch the news stations, also in HD, streaming live all the time. All things considered, I think everything I said held up very well. And right now, ironically, we are in a time where we really need filters more than ever. Facebook likes and YouTube views are good to a certain extent, but I would love to be able to hear a wide selection of filters and choose those I like and hear their selections each day. The sole survivor of the online music folks is Pandora and they certainly are a filter. (The reject stuff they don't like and place the rest in the tub and filter based on what you say you like). I think there's more that could be done to find some tastemakers or sources that play cool music that I wouldn't find otherwise. Netflix is doing a great job of finding obscure movies I might like based on what I have watched and liked. I can see why they have been the #1 company in the world for customer satisfaction... beating out Amazon who also are all about recommendation systems.
A big laugh to those who had it all wrong (and were NASTY about it while being wrong). Anyone can guess wrong, but those who are jerks and then later shown to be full of BS make me laugh.
Brian
_________________________
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@aol.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney "Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Brian Austin Whitney, Mike Dunbar, Stu, Kevin Emmrich
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
19784 Members
120 Forums
101401 Topics
942707 Posts
Max Online: 1456 @ 04/10/08 05:00 PM
|
|
|
