"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!

Battle Heats Up Among Artists, Labels, & Digital Downloading

Musical artists have banded together to create the Featured Artists’ Coalition in order to demand greater control and ownership over music that’s distributed online and, more importantly, for a larger cut of the revenue pie. While it's easier to determine who gets what when a physical CD is sold through a retailer, things become stickier when you’re looking at individual tune downloads sold through various Websites. It’s like déjà vu with the Hollywood Writer’s Strike, which just took place late last year, and which centred around, among other issues, video content distribution online.

The organization is asking, among other things, that artists always retain ownership of their work, that all agreements are conducted in a “fair manner” (you mean this isn’t the case now?), and that artists must always be informed on how their work will be exploited. Recently, for example, artist Jack White wrote a song for the new James Bond flick, which was then reportedly unbeknownst to him released first in a Coca Cola commercial.

Artists are also asking that copyright be by license, not by assignment, and be limited to 35 years. When it comes to performers that don’t write their own work, these guys are asking that they receive the same rights as the authors themselves.

The artists involved in the Coalition already numbers more than 60, and include some really big name musical artists like Radiohead, The Verve, Craig David, Robbie Williams, and the Kaiser Chiefs.

It was only a matter of time. While we have seen a battle ensue within the music industry ever since digital music downloading has taken over, artists have never really taken a major, unified stand. Music labels have fought it out to create favourable deals with digital downloading companies, and have even taken legal action against illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing sites. But have any of these deals really worked in favour of the artists?

It seems that while everyone involved has slowly begun to warm to the reality that is digital music downloading rather than trying to stop it, another issue has been brewing: payment. A song sells for $0.99 on iTunes versus a full, $20 CD in the store. Who gets what out of this deal? Can we really divide profits from a buck 50 ways in a manner that looks out for the interests of all involved versus a full CD?

It sounds like whatever the current situation is, artists aren’t happy. And while the record labels or digital download sites could easily turn up their noses to the artists and say “too bad”, the reality is that these are the guys actually making the music. Back in the day, artists may have been at the mercy of the guys who could get their music sold, and get their name exposed to the public. It wasn’t so easy to record, create, and sell your own CD: what struggling artist had the means to do that? But today, it’s pretty easy to set up your own digital download Website, or to get your music out to millions with just one click (MySpace, anyone?) So it’ll be interesting to see how this drama unfolds.

Best Buy Buys Napster...Why?

The big news today is that Best Buy in the U.S. has purchased online music download company Napster for a reported US$121 million. Which begs the question: why?

Online music downloading has been an arguably struggling business for years, plagued by illegal, peer-to-peer (P2P) music Websites and customer's (warranted) hatred of silly things like DRM that prevent you from listening to purchased tracks on various devices, or burning them to CD. According to the Financial Times, Napster actually reported a loss of US$16.5 million in the year ending March 31.

Along with the still existent P2P activity and DRM (which is slowly melting away, but could see a resurgence thanks to the Government's Bill C-61), online digital download sites like Napster still have to fight the leader in that realm: iTunes. And with the iPhone added to the iPod family, iTunes will likely continue to be the leader of the pack, likely by an even bigger gap.

I'm trying to fathom why Best Buy would take on the task of competing with iTunes. The only thing I can come up with is that the strategy works in tandem with the retailer's recent move to ramp up its involvement in the mobile phone arena. Best Buy is opening standalone Best Buy Mobile stores that sell mobile phones. As is evidenced by devices like the iPhone, Nokia N95, and Sony Ericsson Walkman phones, music is becoming a huge part of the mobile phone experience. Could Best Buy be working out deals with carriers to link Napster downloading with their services? Or is Best Buy just looking to get back into this side of the business now that companies are offering DRM-free tunes that are more appealing to customers?

On the portable media player side, perhaps this is a way for Best Buy to make money on the sale of devices other than the iPod. Maybe a Napster subscription will be offered as an incentive to the purchase of an MP3 player. Or on the flip side, maybe "deals" on music downloading will be awarded in store on purchases. Who knows.

While there's no official comment on how the takeover might affect the Canadian market, my guess is that Best Buy is just testing the waters for now, and making sure that the company is well equipped to compete should digital music downloading take a significant upsurge in the next few years. While I'm rooting for this to take off, I'm not holding my breath either.