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.

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.

End to the Writer's Strike?

Rumour has it that an end to the ongoing Writer's Strike is near as a new deal has been placed on the table. Even so, has this strike changed the face of TV and video consumption as we know it? It's been going on for more than 3 months now, and schedules have gone completely awry, while deals have obviously been inked in an effort to fill airtime with content people actually want to watch.

Already, as I've mentioned in previous blog posts, people have been moving away from the traditional TV medium. Many popular shows have been pretty much stagnant while actors and producers wait for a resolution, leaving customers to watch re-runs, reality TV, and movies. They might also be filling at-home downtime that was typically spent watching TV with activities like video games, Internet surfing, or even quality family time (what a concept!)

During this time, a strong, new competitor has been creeping up every so quietly. It's no secret that there's tons of video, and even "TV-like" content to be consumed online. As we'll discuss in the upcoming February 2008 issue of Marketnews Magazine, plenty of new "online TV" formats are coming to fruition. Will writers decide to go an online-exclusive route and leave TV in the dust?

Even when a resolution has been made (hopefully it's before the highly anticipated Oscars), things may have changed too dramatically to ever return to how they were. The next year will be very telling in terms of what we can expect for the future of TV programming.

The TV is On, But is Anyone Watching? How the Writer's Strike Could Effect the CE Industry

As any avid TV watcher would know, the first Hollywood Writer's Guild strike in 20 years has been plaguing us for months. As writers of primetime TV sitcoms, daytime talk shows, and the like flex their pen-and-paper muscles, TV crew members of every kind are suffering the consequences. But at the same time, an arguably lesser, but potentially very important, effect of the strike is happening behind the scenes: consumers are getting frustrated and turning to other means of getting their video fix.

Sure, there are still those who are watching the "tube". But people who typically aren't channel surfers find themselves clicking away trying to find something that isn't a repeat of an old episode (often ending with the "power" button); while faithful sitcom fans are visiting network Websites, anxious to find out when a new episode will air. At the same time, networks are frantically working on ways to fill empty time slots (I recently heard that CBS acquired the rights to simulcast popular Showtime program Dexter); while the Writer's Guild is keeping tabs, doing things like refusing to let the Golden Globe awards air this past weekend.

Needless to say, the boxing gloves are definitely out, and it looks like neither side is willing to go down without a fight. Many journalists have expressed the opinion that this strike will change the face of TV forever. But how will it change the consumer electronics industry?

When it comes down to it, many of the biggest advances in consumer technology are involved with video of some kind: flat-panel TVs, DVD players (of both the high-def and standard kind), satellite and cable TV set-top boxes, and so on. Without valuable TV content to consume, will such devices become of less importance to the consumer? Or will we look more to alternative ways of enjoying moving images?

Already, we're seeing the popularity of obtaining video content from the Web and watching it on a high-def monitor, or even porting it to a large-screen TV or DVD disc for playback. Apple just announced at its MacWorld Conference in California that it would begin offering movie "rentals" through its iTunes online download service. Many of the latest camcorders can record in high-def (mainly 720p) then let you watch the content in its full resolution on a compatible flat-panel TV. In fact, Samsung announced a camcorder at CES that would allow customers to wirelessly transmit video they just shot to a flat-panel TV! And let's not forget video gaming, which has grown to a billion-dollar industry.

Therefore, the question the industry, and many of my colleagues, pose is: do we even need or desire TV anymore? Of course, even those who aren't couch potatoes have a program or two they enjoy, whether it be a reality show guilty pleasure, crime time drama, or even an educational show for the kids. If we were stripped of all the cable/satellite TV goodness, would we stop watching entirely, and see CE sales go down? Or would we just fill our 60" screens with our own content (home movies, movie studio films, and the like), watch sales of devices like high-def DVD players, DVD discs, Internet streaming devices, and camcorders skyrocket, and call it a day?

Personally, I watch TV every day, and the majority of my favourite programs tend to be on subscription networks like Showtime and HBO, which aren't affected by the strike. As for the programs that are, I've somehow managed to get by without them, as I'm sure many have. Needless to say, movies have become a weekly staple in my household: we've watched more DVDs and on-demand flicks over the past two months than in the past year!

One thing's for sure: whenever this strike ends (and hopefully, for the interest of all parties involved, it will be soon), we'll all feel the aftershock of the storm.