SoundTempest

In a strange turn of events, popular hip-hop/R&B artist T-Pain is apparently claiming that he deserves royalties anytime another artist uses Auto-Tune in their music. Auto-Tune, a software audio processing effect that “snaps” melodic content such as vocals into perfect pitch, was released in 1997 by Antares Audio Technologies without any involvement from T-Pain. The effect was initially brought into the public consciousness via the 1998 pop hit “Believe” by Cher, which used it extensively in the main vocal melody.

So, considering he was not the first artist to use the effect (by a long shot) and had nothing to do with the design, development or testing of the product in any capacity, where does T-Pain come into all this? In a Chicago Sun Times article about copycat artists, Rap Star P. Diddy noted that, “You have to go to him to get permission, I actually gave him a half a point on my album for showing me certain tricks.”

In an article posted on MTV.com referencing the same arrangement, T-Pain said, “Diddy actually gave me royalties on this album just for using Auto-Tune. He signed the contract and everything. If I can do that with Diddy, somebody else better be signing something.”

Whether or not we’ll actually see T-Pain actively try to collect royalties from other popular artists using the Auto-Tune effect remains to be seen. In all likelihood, both he and P. Diddy were not being entirely serious when discussing the topic, and were merely reacting to the myriad of R&B artists extensively using Auto-Tune. On the other hand, maybe Kanye West should look out.

Audio copycats source of distress for T-Pain [Chicago Sun Times]
T-Pain Says It’s Time ‘For Everybody Else’ To Stop Using Auto-Tune [MTV.com]

As an appropriate followup to last week’s YouTube-related post, the major record labels are now considering the creation of a competing website that would aim to dethrone YouTube as king of music videos. The new venue could be implemented in one of three proposed ways; one would be a new “premium” section within YouTube, strictly for music. The second would be a joint venture hosted within the streaming TV website Hulu (in and of itself a joint venture between the major TV networks.) The third, and perhaps riskiest, would involve the labels actually creating their own website independently from scratch.

While Google has created special arrangements for the major labels, paying them per-stream and shared ad revenue through YouTube, the labels claim that Google is not monetizing the service as well as it could be.

The track record of the majors during the internet revolution does not seem to forecast success for their new venture, should it go through. Their public image has suffered over the post-Napster years and their attempts to capitalize on the internet have been moderately successful at best, complete failures at worst. Google has not always hit home runs with all of their offerings, but the acquired YouTube is the de facto video site of choice - any music video service would have a massive uphill battle for conversions.

Labels Think They Can Build a Better Mousetrap [Wired]

After prolonged, unsuccessful licensing negotiations with YouTube, Warner Music Group has demanded the removal of all its music videos currently uploaded to YouTube. Warner’s previous licensing agreement, which had expired several months prior, was similar to that of the other major record labels; YouTube paid a fee per play of any given label video as well as a share of advertising revenue. This decision affects not only official WMG videos, but any user-uploaded videos that include music owned by the label.

If Universal Music Group’s $100 million in revenue from online music videos since 2005 is any indication of the profit Warner was (or could be) making, they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot here. This is perhaps all the more obvious when considering their net loss of tens of millions of dollars last year.

What do you think?

Warner Music Removes Its Videos From YouTube as Licensing Talks Stall [NYTimes]

The Recording Industry Association of America has decided to finally cease its (largely ineffective) strategy of deterring piracy by suing individuals accused of sharing music files on P2P networks, though existing cases will proceed to trial or settlement. Their lawsuits, besides being a P.R. disaster and singlehandedly teaching an entire generation to hate the music industry, often ended up being settled for far less than the exorbitant damages claimed. According to the RIAA, the legal fees alone often exceeded the settlements (a pyrrhic victory, if I’ve ever seen one.)

The industry group is instead opting to work with internet service providers more directly, serving copyright infringement notices via the ISP to subscribers accused of file sharing. Repeated notices, effectively functioning as warnings, would eventually result in the ISP cutting service to the subscriber. In exchange for their cooperation, ISPs would no longer be forced to turn over personal subscriber information to the RIAA.

Too little, too late, or a step in the right direction? Post your thoughts.

RIAA Taps ISPs To Fight Illegal Downloads [informationweek]

A new challenger has showed up to the crowded field of digital music retail, with a twist: you can not only buy DRM-free songs there, but sell your “used” ones as well. Bopaboo.com, which hasn’t publicly launched its services yet and will be entering a private beta soon, was founded by 28-year old Alex Meshkin. This should perhaps raise some red flags already due to the controversy surrounding his involvement with Bang! Racing, a former NASCAR team which folded after only one season of operation, leaving a host of angry employees and investors.

There is very little information available on how Bopaboo intends to actually make money. The website tour seems to suggest that it is a user-driven marketplace, with prices as low as 25 cents for a single download, and personal storefronts for individual users to upload their “used MP3s”. It is unclear how Bopaboo will differentiate between legitimately “used MP3s” that are no longer on the user’s hard drive, and songs that the user simply uploaded to make a quick buck from.

The icing on the cake? Mishkin has not even met with major label execs yet to discuss his new business model.

Questionable leadership, technologically nonsensical business model, intense competition, and unresolved legal issues. A recipe for success!

Reselling MP3s: The music industry’s new battleground? [CNET]

Greetings! After a somewhat elongated hiatus, I’ve posted a new page on the topic of collaboration with other musicians. It’s based on my own, extensive experience working on songs with other musicians both on and offline, as well as experiences from many of my fellow writers, producers and composers. Whether you’re a hobbyist or a professional, I’m sure you’ll find something interesting.

I apologize for the lack of new articles; my workload since May has increased significantly, leaving me little free time to pursue non-musical hobbies and interests. However, I do have several new guides and pages for musicians in the works, and while I may not be able to write any articles with full commentary, I will be posting relevant links with brief summaries/analyses to the best of my ability.

I’d also like to thank everybody who has been participating in the discussion taking place at the “Music Scams” article. It has been productive and insightful on several levels, and many people are sharing their personal experiences with companies that may very well be scams. If you haven’t read it yet, check out the page, read up on the comments, and add your own thoughts.

At a recent industry panel during the Digital Hollywood Conference in Los Angeles, the head of the RIAA’s technology unit, David Hughes, definitively stated that DRM is still going strong and is poised for a comeback.

Hughes stated that of the “22 ways to sell music… 20 of them still require DRM. Any form of subscription service or limited play-per-view or advertising offer still requires DRM. So DRM is not dead.” He added that “I think there is going to be a shift… I think there will be a movement towards subscription services and they will eventually mean the return of DRM.”

Also at the panel was Fritz Attaway, executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, who agreed with Hughes’ opinion: “We need DRM to show our customers the limits of the license they have entered into with us.”

—

This is a stark reality check concerning the views of the people who are generally representing two of the major entertainment industries in America. It is fairly clear at this point, as we have seen with the recent Microsoft DRM server issue, that while things are changing fast in the music industry, some major players are simply refusing to drop the idea of DRM, even if they’ve taken some small steps away from it.

But what was up with that statement by Fritz Attaway? That was one of the least subtle ways I’ve ever heard an entertainment industry executive say “we don’t trust the consumer.” Not exactly how you rally support to your side. A better argument, just throwing this out there, might be that piracy can hurt profits which leads to decreased investment into new releases, and thus piracy eventually hurts the consumer as well.

ps. Sorry for the decreased rate of posting. I’m working on a lot of projects, setting up a music software/sample business, duties at ocremix.org, and moving into a new apartment. If you’re interested in helping write for SoundTempest please shoot me an email!

Microsoft has recently announced that it will no longer support digital rights management (DRM) authentication for songs purchased through its now-defunct MSN Music service. The company, which is now focusing on its Zune music player and accompanying Marketplace, has previously allowed MSN Music customers to re-authenticate their purchases for use on different devices since the service stopped selling music in November 2006.

Without the ability to authorize their purchased music collection, MSN Music customers will be unable to move their songs on to new devices, or new operating system installations. According to Rob Bennett, the Microsoft MSN executive who issued the announcement to MSN Music customers, the primary reason behind the decision to cease operation of the DRM servers was the difficulty in maintaining the authentication across new platforms.

“…every time there is an OS upgrade, the DRM equation gets complex very quickly. Every time, you saw support issues. People would call in because they couldn’t download licenses. We had to write new code, new configurations each time… we really believe that, going forward, the best thing to do is focus exclusively on Zune.”

Bennett also stated that it was not Microsoft’s decision to use DRM to protect the songs available on MSN Music; the record labels who provided the catalog insisted on it.

—

I think the most obvious lesson that can be learned from this situation has already been stated on numerous blogs and news sites already; when companies use server-based DRM, consumers are left out in the dust if those companies either go out of business, or stop supporting the authentication mechanisms. This much is pretty clear, and I’m sure anyone who purchased anything from MSN Music is very upset that their money is essentially wasted (after all, 160kbps audio, while not incredibly lossy, is not an ideal format to convert from.)

However, there are a few finer points to consider. First of all, how much of this is really Microsoft’s fault? Can they really be blamed for ceasing support for a service that has been defunct for a year a half? It costs them both time and money to provide the support needed to ensure the DRM-protected files will continue to work on new systems. At the same time, they’re also managing Zune, which uses a separate set of technologies that must also be continually upgraded and maintained.

Microsoft might be rich, but they aren’t exceptions to the fundamental principles of economics, the most relevant of which is that businesses do not have unlimited resources. If Microsoft continued to invest more resources into maintenance of the “PlaysForSure” DRM technology used by MSN Music, those resources would be unavailable for use in other areas, such as Zune - and this type of resource expenditure does not yield any revenue, either, as it is merely ‘legacy support’.

In some way, had MS elected to continue supporting PlaysForSure, the consumer base as a whole would still be affected negatively - the loss of some development or maintenance for other, non-legacy software and hardware for example. Or perhaps they would simply compensate with a price increase to some other product or service. In any case, while unfortunate that major label spending forced MS into this situation to begin with, it is not really Microsoft’s “fault”.

The issue of DRM is just as hot in the field of audio software as in audio itself, though it is referred to as “copyright protection” (CP) in that industry. Professional and hobbyist musicians alike have endured CP methods ranging from simple serial numbers printed in instruction manuals, to complex systems that use hardware and software keys and internet verification to ensure the product is being legitimately used.

The difference, at least in the audio software industry, is that some companies (including the larger, more successful ones like Native Instruments) have promised to consumers that if they ever close down, they will release some sort of patch or tool enabling all users to remove the copyright protection on their software, allowing them to use it indefinitely - or at least, as long as operating systems are capable of running it.

It’s a shame a similar agreement couldn’t have been reached with the major labels in the case of MSN Music, with the labels allowing Microsoft to “unlock” all their distributed music which would otherwise no longer be accessible. The labels should not have had any problem with this, given that they sell their music elsewhere without any form of DRM, and after all, MSN Music customers did pay for it.

Major record label Warner Music Group (WMG) has recently proposed a mandatory fee to be built into the monthly service charges for a home internet connection. This “music tax” would be collected by a new, independent organization which Warner hopes to form.

Warner has recently employed the services of Jim Griffin, a music business consultant whose company (OneHouse, LLC) is “dedicated to the future of music and entertainment delivery”. The vision for the mandatory fee system, according to Warner, is a market where consumers do not buy music in physical or digital form at all; the fee would replace any existing payment systems. Consumers would instead be allowed to freely (and legally) download any music they want.

WMG, which is currently the third largest record company in the world, reported a revenue of $3.385 billion in 2007, and a net loss of $21 million. In comparison, the company believes the mandatory fee would result in collections of up to $20 billion that would be dispersed throughout the industry.

—

Hmm… sound familiar? ;) As expected, more companies in the business are thinking about music taxes and/or point-of-connection fees as a serious alternative to existing models, including large and powerful conglomerates like WMG. Unfortunately, the concept isn’t any more appealing, even on paper, since I last wrote about it in January.

To reiterate the underlying problem: the basic premise of a point-of-connection charge, mandatory or not, in and of itself is not a bad idea. It ensures a very large revenue stream, one larger than any in the current recording industry, it eliminates the entire problem of piracy and file-sharing, and vastly improves consumer value-for-money, as $1-5 a month gets them unlimited music downloads.

So, once all the money from the point-of-connection charges are collected, how is it going to be distributed? Clearly, if WMG wants to be the one founding the new collection and distribution agency, there is a special interest at work already. In fact, given their track record, I’m pretty sure that ANY major label involved in the creation or operation of such an agency would do their very best to create a system that siphons the most money to their pockets - maybe giving a slight cut to their artists, and a pittance to anybody else. The ideal collection agency would need to be truly independent of special interests, or at least evaluate them all equally, via board members and employees collected from majors and true independents alike, as well as distributors like CD Baby.

The other issue is monitoring. How can you even track what people are downloading? People send me music on internet relay chat (IRC) all the time. It’s a different protocol than simple HTTP downloads, so that would have to be tracked. But do I really want people to be tracking every file someone is sending (or trying to send) to me? What if they name the file or tag the MP3 wrong? What if it isn’t an MP3 to begin with? If someone sends me “track01.mp3″ and it’s actually a Jonathan Coulton song, how will any sort of monitoring system know? There are probably hundreds if not thousands of other situations I can think of where even a well-designed system of tracking downloads would fail.

Without monitoring, it’s not possible to figure out fair payments to begin with. Some significant technological advances will have to be made before WMG’s idea will be of interest to unsigned, independent artists like me, who comprise the bulk of the recordingd industry.

The United States Justice Department has recently approved the pending multi-billion dollar merger of satellite radio competitors XM and Sirius. Though no other satellite radio providers exist, officials from the DOJ stated that the merger would not constitute a monopoly, since there are other alternatives to satellite radio itself; consumers can select options such as digital recordings, internet radio, and high-definition radio.

This is not the final roadblock to the merger, which was proposed in February 2007. The FCC, which typically follows the opinion of the Department of Justice, must give its seal of approval for the deal to be finalized.

There has been some opposition to the DOJ’s decision, such as from Senator Herb Kohl, chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on antitrust and consumer rights. Khol has accused the Justice Department of “failing to oppose numerous mergers, which reduced competition in key industries [in recent years]” and has encouraged the FCC to block the merger.

—

I was actually quite pleased when I heard this decision. I have yet to hear any decent arguments for why XM and Sirius should not be allowed to merge; sure, they might be the only satellite radio providers in existence, but most detractors of the deal seem to forget how small satellite radio is.

Wikipedia (for what it’s worth) claims that the merger will result in a service with 17.3 million subscribers. OK, not bad… but the vast majority of people in the United States listen to terrestrial radio. We’re talking well over 150 million people, and terrestrial radio still has a significant impact on record buying, to boot.

This isn’t even considering internet radio, which, thanks to sites like Pandora and Last.fm, is even more convenient than satellite for honing in on the kind of content you want. Plus, as the Justice Dept pointed out, there’s always the acquisition of the actual recorded media for yourself. No matter how appealing various kinds of radio are, people still like to possess music, be it physically or digitally.

As far as I’m aware, XM and Sirius have been hemorrhaging money recently, and I for one hate to see companies suffer because of frivolous competition that could hurt the consumer, too. Competition is great for some things, but since satellite isn’t anywhere close to dominant in terms of radio market share as a whole, it makes since for the only two companies that are doing it to consolidate and focus their efforts on making it better.

It might result in some layoffs and condensed programming at first, but I predict that when and if the merger goes through, within a few years we’ll see the state of satellite radio much improved.