"Ripping" Vs. "Sharing"

The debate about strict copyright laws, digital downloading, and the illegal "sharing" of music has gone on for some time. You shouldn't be able to make a back-up copy of a CD, say some, because that's copyright infringement. You shouldn't be able to download music from a legal Website and then burn it to more than one disc because, again, that's copyright infringement. Apparently digital downloading has caused this horror in the music industry. Yet today, I witnessed something that had me scratching my head. After lunch with a couple of colleagues, they wanted to pop into HMV to grab some "new" music for their iPods. Sick of the same old, same old, they decided to swap: you buy a few CDs you like, I'll buy some I like, and then we'll trade. Hmm...makes sense, right?

To the pro-copyright camp, they just violated the very sanctity of music. How dare you buy CDs and trade music like that? Essentially, that means you got every CD half-price, right? But from the pro-digital, evolution of music standpoint, what they've done is just opened each other's eyes to new music they may never have bothered to buy, in physical format or otherwise. Now not only is there a greater appreciation for different types of music, but there's also the increased chance that they'll like what they hear, and add a new artist to their radar for future purchases. What a concept!

On that note, I was pleasantly surprised to see that there were new CDs available for as little as $12.99, and even $10! The last time I recall, new releases were, at best, $13.99 or $15.99. There were even some pretty good CDs selling "two for $12" or $25. Not bad. Still, I hesitated to buy anything, thinking that I'd just download the specific tunes I want and make a "mixed" CD (only one, of course. God forbid I make one for a friend as well). But at the prices they're at, it's almost worth it to buy the media (especially for the potentially better quality) and save myself the time.

I can't believe I'm saying it, but maybe CDs will return to profitability as people decide that they can't be bothered, or don't have the time, to compile a list of tunes, download them, and burn them to a CD as normal practice. If it isn't a hobby, it can certainly get time-consuming. And iPod owners know how expensive it can also get buying tune after tune, not realizing how much they add up until you get the dreaded credit card bill!

I could be way off base here, but it's food for thought, nonetheless.

On another note, Happy Thanksgiving to all of our readers in the U.S. We wish you all the best on this wonderful holiday. Eat, play, and be merry!

Dell to Launch iPod Competitor?

Dell is reportedly working on a portable music player and complementary music download software that will rival the Apple iPod and iTunes. We've heard the "rival the iPod" strategy over and over, but no one has really succeeded in coming even close to the iconic device. Could Dell's product be the one to do it?

According to reports, the device Dell is currently testing sounds pretty basic, and is rumoured to sell for around $100 should it become available (some say as early as September). It would use WiFi, and have the ability to connect to a number of different music download services, which are somehow accessed and organized through a Dell software program.

I'm tempted to "yawn" at this announcement. Why? 1) nothing has really been confirmed yet, and 2) many have tried, and none have succeeded in surpassing the iPod in user interface, design, and, most important, consumer demand.

Keep in mind that I'm not an iPod fan nor owner, despite what it might sound like. But you'd have to have been living under a rock for the past few years not to realize that it'll take a heck of a player and software suite to turn people's attention away from their precious i-devices. A few suggestions that might help sway the decision: make music transfer and acquisition easy, find a way to rid the device and the tunes that are loaded onto it completely of DRM, make it accept all music file types, and add an SD or microSD card slot for expandable storage.

Aside from that, it's too bad that Dell just announced it would be getting rid of its standalone kiosk locations in Canada (it has already done so in the U.S.) They could have served as great music downloading stations!

Rock Band Motley Crue Releases Single Through Rock Band, The Game

Video game makers everywhere just carved another notch in their belts. Popular rock band Motley Crue announced that it would use the video game Rock Band as the launchpad for its new single, marking the first time that a song has been released through a video game.

Rock Band consists of a "mock" guitar and drum set, along with a microphone. Players can simulate actually playing in a rock band by hitting buttons or the coloured drums in time with musical bars that slide down the screen. As you strike the notes correctly, the tune continues to play. If too many notes are missed, you'll get boo'ed off stage! (If you've never seen Rock Band in action, just search for it on YouTube.com and you're bound to find hundreds upon hundreds of user-generated videos of kids and adults playing the game). Rock Band comes with a number of tunes pre-loaded, but game players can log into online accounts using the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 and download additional songs. Motley Crue's new single Saints of Los Angeles will be one of those options, which means that customers can learn to "play" the song while they're hearing it for the first time.

This is yet another way that the music industry is fighting to remain profitable in the ever-changing distribution landscape. If the kids won't buy CDs and are trying to download music for free, how else can you get their attention? In this case, the answer is through a means that we already know they actively engage in: video games!

When you think about it, it's sort of sad that someone will frown upon paying $0.99 to download a song through a legitimate Website, yet they'll purchase that same song to play on Rock Band without breaking a sweat. Is there something wrong with this? Probably not. It's just the way the industry is going. People want to do more with their music simply because they can, whether it be to transfer it to other devices, stream it through the PC, or yes, simulate actually playing it through a fun video game. Ahh, technology.

Is Apple Biting the Hand That Feeds it?

Is Apple biting the hands that feeds it, i.e., itself? This very question was posed to me the other day by a colleague who was trying to figure out Apple's strategy of offering iPods with massive capacities, yet iTunes songs as paltry 128 Kbps (or, in some cases, 256 Kbps), digital files. It's highly unlikely that the average consumer could fill an 80 GB iPod with tunes of such a small size (it would take approx. 20,000 128 Kbps 4-minute tracks to do so!), so what does Apple expect us to fill these nifty devices with?

The obvious answer is "other stuff". Higher-quality songs ripped from physical CDs, downloadable videos, including podcasts, TV shows, and full-length movies (much of which can be obtained from iTunes), and even photos. Let's face it: iPods aren't just for music anymore, which is why capacities are getting so huge. Not to mention that content loaded onto these portable players won't always be exclusively from iTunes, despite how this might be the ideal scenario in Apple's eyes.

Nevertheless, my colleague, who's a heavy iPod (and iTunes!) user, pointed out the obvious paradox between what's offered in the hardware and what's offered in the software, and how this can be perceived by dedicated music lovers. We'll give you massive storage capacities, like 80 and 160 GB, but the best quality tunes we can offer for you to load within these hard drives is 256 Kpbs ? "The last song I downloaded from iTunes sounded horrible," he told me. "I'm thinking of just going back to buying CDs and ripping the music onto my iPod."

Realistically, if most people thought this way, it would be the answer to the music industry's prayers! Is it all a conspiracy? A strategically concocted plan to offer semi-mediocre content online so that, once consumers get over the initial honeymoon phase of digital downloading, they go back to appreciating pristine audio quality again and buy CDs? I doubt it. But it does leave something to think about.

Going forward, my colleague predicts a significant drop in iTunes downloads as more and more consumers become fed up with the audio quality of digital tunes and move back to buying CDs that they can rip and load onto their iPods. After all, they have to fill those massive hard drives somehow! I tend to think the other way: that, rather than consumers moving away from downloadable sites like iTunes, the tracks offered by such sites will become better in quality as time goes on, and DRM (hopefully) becomes a thing of the past.

As for today, iTunes just surpassed Wal-Mart for the title of number-one music retailer in the U.S. The download site has more than 50 million members, and has sold more than four billion tunes since it launched back in 2003.

Which way will things go? Only time will tell. What's your prediction?

Is it Illegal Downloading, or a Lack of Creativity?

I have been, for years, reading about the music, movie, and entertainment industry crying the blues about illegal downloading, and how it's killing the business, leading to retail shop shut downs, lay-offs, and lost profits. There's no doubt that illegal downloading, pirated movies and such is a contributing factor to the decline. But in observing the direction of music, movies, and TV as of late, I'm wondering if it's simply a lack of creativity and not Internet geeks that's the underlying problem.

Let's start with music. I already discussed this year's Grammy Awards in a previous post, where one big winner was able to accept her award while on hiatus from rehab. Nuff said. But also, remember the previous Grammys when troubled starlet Britney Spears was given the stage to lip-sync and prance around with absolutely no co-ordination, nor entertainment value, and an obvious lack of rehearsing. Is this the sort of content for which consumers are supposed to be willing to pay $17/CD? Of course we have tons of great artists on the scene, like John Mayer, Alicia Keys, Jack Johnson, and Josh Groban (judging from the comments on the aforementioned Grammys post, he has a diverse group of fans!) But when it really comes down to it, who gets the spotlight? The ones gallivanting on Hollywood Blvd., and/or with drinking and/or drug problems, and/or with great or odd fashion sense. There's no focus on the music anymore! In my opinion, absolutely NO artist should be permitted to lip-sync during a live performance. If you can't sing live, find another career.

Now let's move on to the movies. I can't help but notice that many of the biggest box-office sellers over the years have been based on popular novels of the same name. The Da Vinci Code, Memoirs of a Geisha, Atonement, The Last King of Scotland, and even this year's big Oscar winner, No Country for old Men. I'm pretty sure that if you dig deep enough into the credits of most big movies, you'll find that they are in some way, shape or form, based on a book. I do understand that a lot of work is involved in order to turn a novel into a screenplay. But I've seen many movies after having read the book, and the dialogue in some cases is virtually identical. Where's the originality? Are novelists the only people left with talent? Or is there a shortage of original screenplay writers?

Finally, there's TV, which has suffered an unfortunate blow because of the recent Hollywood Writer's Strike (perhaps these guys should have become novelists!) But even before the Strike was a glimmer in anyone's eye, reality TV begun to take over. In a typical prime-time TV line-up, there's probably 10 reality TV shows for every one scripted drama (this is just my guestimate, so don't hold me to this!) Everything from singing to talent competitions a la American Idol, to sticking people in a house or on an island and watching the drama ensue. If anyone believes that half of these shows are actually fully unscripted, they'll be sadly disappointed. But again, where's the originality? The creative juices that are working to entertain, not just provide shock value?

Sure, the Internet is making it much easier for consumers to get pretty much anything when they want it. But perhaps there's a reason beyond this changing face of technology that leads consumers to want to gather as much content as they can as quickly as they can. Do they feel they're not getting the quality they deserve? All I'm saying is that entertainment companies should take a long, hard look at issues like those mentioned above before forcing all the blame onto illegal downloading.

Falling CD Sales, P2P Sites Still Plague Music Industry

A new study conducted by The NPD Group confirms that CD sales continue to fall, and peer-to-peer download Websites remain a problem for the music industry's profitability and sustainability. According to the research group, U.S. consumers acquired 6% more music in 2007, but music spending overall was down by 10%, from US$44 per capita to US$40.

Why? Even though the number of Internet users that engage in P2P downloading remained flat at 19%, the number of files each person downloaded went up. What's more, the habit is becoming increasingly popular among the teen and "tween" crowd.

Making the situation even worse, NPD says that approx. one million customers completely stayed away from buying physical CDs in 2007. Almost half (48%) of teenagers said they did not buy one CD throughout the entire year!

Despite the grim outlook, there is a small silver lining. NPD reports that legal music downloads were up 5% when compared to 2006, representing 10% of music sold in 2007, with 29 million U.S. customers having obtained their digital tunes legally. Not surprisingly, Apple's iTunes service led the pack. But what is somewhat surprising is that iTunes was the second most popular spot to obtain music overall, overcome by only Wal-Mart!

If that isn't a clear indication of the direction the market is going, I don't know what is. The world's largest retailer sold the most music, which makes perfect sense. But to say that a digital download service rather than a traditional retailer came in second is an incredible achievement.

Now that the mistake-that-is DRM restrictions is slowly fading to oblivion, we might see interest in legal download sites rise this year. If the industry stops trying to find bundles and wonky subscription rates/plans and just focuses on giving customers tunes they want for a set price (either individually or by album), this would be a good start. Buying music digitally should be just as easy as it is to buy a physical CD. I just want to buy good quality tunes that I can play anywhere I want. No bells, no whistles, and no restrictions.

CORRECTION: SAC Wants to Charge You $5/mo. for Using the 'Net

On Friday, I incorrectly identified the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers (SOCAN) as the Association that wished to impose a $5/mo. fee on Internet usage to compensate music artists. It is actually the Songwriter's Association of Canada (S.A.C.) that is proposing this charge.

We apologize for the error, and any inconvenience this has caused.

Please Click Here to view the revised story.

SAC Wants to Charge You $5/Mo. For Using the 'Net

That headline might sound misleading, but it's actually not. The Songwriters Association of Canada (better known as "SAC") wants to charge Internet users $5/mo. in order to compensate artists for music that's illegally downloaded. The reason I say the headline is not misleading is because really, what SAC would be doing is charging all Internet users $5/mo., whether they download music online or not.

I can't begin to explain how unfair a proposal this is. The only exception made was to excuse dial-up users because they likely aren't music downloaders. This, in my eyes, is yet another unfair assumption. When I used to have dial up "back in the day", I certainly downloaded tons of songs (from the original Napster service!) Sure, each tune took about a half-hour to complete, but I still managed to acquire them.

The point is that proposing a blanket charge that would see little Billy who downloads 100 songs a month and Grandma Sissy who barely uses her PC much less downloads music pay the same fee just doesn't make sense. It would also completely negate the point behind legal music downloading Websites, like iTunes and Puretracks (although SAC insists that they would remain in tact, and their appeal would lie with the "value-added services and security features that keep them distinct from file-sharing activities").

"The plan we propose would not change or interfere with the way Canadians receive their music," says SAC's Website. "No one would be sued for the online sharing of songs. On the contrary, the sharing of music on peer-to-peer networkd and similar technologies would become perfectly legal."

Huh? First, the industry pushes toward developing legal, pay-per-download or subscription-based Websites that include annoying DRM restrictions; and now SAC says screw it, let's just charge everyone, whether they engage in illegal downloading or not?

What's more, SAC might say $5/mo. is peanuts to pay, but if that fee is approved, then what's to say that the movie and TV studios won't follow suit with their own monthly charge for downloads? Why not add video game makers as well? Pretty soon, we'll all be tacking on an additional $20 to our already hefty Internet bills!

I have to give SAC some credit for trying to come up with a method that would keep everyone's interests in mind. But if you compare the situation to TV, it would be like forcing all customers to pay for the extra sports channels, even if they don't watch them. Music downloading is like an extra package: perhaps access to all P2P Websites should be blocked by ISPs, and when an Internet user wants to "subscribe" to use them, then he can pay an additional $5/mo. To me, this makes more sense than just charging people for something they potentially don't use.

Nokia Could Shake up Music Industry

The music industry must feel like a maraca as of late, because every company under the sun is doing what it can to shake things up. From online digital music distribution sites (authorized or otherwise), to artists offering their tracks for free download, to retailers dropping CD prices. Now, popular cell phone manufacturer Nokia could shake things up yet again by offering a mobile phone that not only comes with the ability to access an unlimited number of music downloads for a year, but also lets the customer keep the tracks once the year is over!

To date, any company (to my knowledge) that offers digital music downloads will either permit access to tunes on only the device from which it was downloaded; or, in the case of unlimited downloading, will prevent access to the tunes once a subscription or contract has expired. In many cases, even if a customer can transfer or rip downloaded tunes to an MP3 player or recordable CD, they might be limited to a specific number of them (like up to 3 devices). Sure, we've just started to see DRM-free tunes hit the wire, which are 100% free from these such restrictions; but they're only available on a pay-per-use or pay-per-album basis.

With this new service from Nokia, aptly named Comes With Music, once a tune is downloaded, it's yours to keep and do with it as you like: burn to a CD, transfer to an MP3 player, or just store it on the PC. If you decide you don't want to continue downloading tunes once the year has completed, those tracks are still yours to keep, whether you downloaded 10 of them, or 10,000. The program currently includes Universal Music tracks, but Nokia says it's "in talks" with other major international labels to add their titles to the roster.

"We set out to create the music experience that people are telling us they are looking for: all the music they want in the form of unlimited downloads to their mobile device and PC," said the company's Executive V.P. and G.M., Multimedia, Anssi Vanjoki. "Comes With Music fulfills our dream to give consumers all the music they want, wherever they want it, while rewarding the artists who create it."

No specific information was provided as to how (or how much) the music labels will be compensated for the service, nor how much a subscription would cost after the one-year period (if you wanted to continue downloading tunes, for instance). However, the very existence of this program provides a good idea as to what we can expect with regards to the future of digital music.

What I find most interesting about this program is that, of all the companies offering digital music and portable music devices, it was a cell phone manufacturer that stepped up to the plate with the most appealing offer. Mobile phones could really give dedicated portable music players an unexpected run for their money: take one look at the iPhone, and you'll know what I mean.

Unfortunately, a spokesperson tells me that the Comes With Music service is not available in Canada (what else is new); but perhaps if we get more competition in the wireless arena, there will be more opportunity for such services to sneak into Canadia-land as well.

Music World to Succumb to Digital Downloading

Sadly, Music World is the latest music retailer to succumb to the growing popularity in digital music downloading. According to a report from the Globe & Mail, the company has filed for bankruptcy. Earlier this year, Sam The Record Man closed the doors to its iconic downtown Toronto Yonge St. location, leaving many a nostalgic baby boomer teary-eyed.

Although it's sad to see the effects that digital downloading is having on traditional music retailers, there's also a positive side to this story. Remember, it isn't that consumers are no longer purchasing music; it's that they're purchasing it in a whole new way. Through digital download Websites like iTunes and Puretracks. Through mobile carrier services that let you download a song straight to your mobile phone. Through custom-made CDs that are played back on a home theatre system and streamed throughout the home. Through satellite radio. Through streaming Internet radio. Through portable devices like the Sonos music system. The list goes on and on, and the opportunities at both retail and the manufacturing level are endless. We're not losing interest in music: it's just the platform for which we access and purchase it that's changing.

It is unfortunate that retailers like Music World and Sam The Record Man are feeling the brunt of this change. But there are others who manage to persevere through the storm, mainly by not focusing solely on music. Like HMV, which has managed to remain strong by expanding its offerings to include things like video games and consoles, and a massive selection of movies at varying (and often attractive) price packages. In August of this year, the retailer dropped the price of some CDs by as much as 33%!

Others have made bold moves to keep music sales up: Wal-Mart, for example, offers CDs like the new number-one Eagles album Long Road Out of Eden, at price parity with the U.S. Even non-traditional music outlets, like Starbucks, are managing to remain in the music game. Coffee house Starbucks has built digital music download stations in some U.S. stores where customers can listen to tracks, and create and purchase a custom CD while they're sipping a latte.

There is a way to stay alive in traditional music retailing: it just takes some really creative thinking outside of the box, and an entirely new business plan.

Music World stores are said to close by early next year. As of today, the company's Website simply brings up a Music World logo, but no content. It's a shame, because I did find the store a great destination for tough-to-find DVDs.

In the words of popular rock band Queen, another one bites the dust...