MUSIC INDUSTRY BLOG

Tomorrow, MySpace Music will open its gates to TuneCore artists, Wired.com reported.  TuneCore’s artists will be able to distribute their music through MySpace and benefit from streaming royalties, though the company has not commented on how much.  Probably very little.

Related Posts
TuneCore – $30 Million in Music Sales in 2009
TuneCore: A New Digital Distribution Model
CreateSpace

Grooveshark, the Florida-based streaming music startup that grappled with EMI earlier in the year, has reportedly inked a deal with the major label.

A Webware 100 Winner, Grooveshark allows its users to stream music for free from an aggregate selection of 15 million tracks.  No download or registration required.  The service is supported by online advertising or through a $3/month premium plan which eliminates the ads.

Developed by a group of music enthusiasts from the University of Florida, Grooveshark boasts one million registered users to date.

Related Posts
Grooveshark Artists
Music Piracy or Theft?
Radiohead vs. RIAA

Peter Kafka of All Things Digital, part of The Wall Street Journal Digital Network, confirms that one of my favourite music sites and Webware 100 Winner, Grooveshark, is being sued by EMI.  Here is Grooveshark’s statement sourced from Peter’s post:

“For the past year, Grooveshark has been in talks with EMI Records and other copyright holders to negotiate licensing agreements for the use of their content. We are pleased to announce that over the past few months Grooveshark successfully concluded mutually bene?cial agreements with many artists, labels, and publishers that we hope to be a template for other such agreements with additional copyright holders.

Recently, EMI Records chose to abandon the template we’ve built with the help of other major copyright holders and opted for their traditional intimidation tactic of ?ling a lawsuit as a negotiating tool. We ?nd the use of this negotiating strategy counterproductive, as Grooveshark has been willing to conclude an agreement with EMI Records that is economically sustainable for both EMI Records and a start-up company the size of Grooveshark.

Grooveshark is run by a group of young and passionate musicians. We love music, we make music, and we believe that the use of all music should be paid for. We adopted this core philosophy at our inception and to date have concluded agreements with hundreds of record labels, major US performance rights organizations, and thousands of independent artists who support Grooveshark’s business model. (See: Grooveshark Artists)

As musicians, we support the rights of copyright holders and strive to sign sustainable agreements with all content owners, ensuring that all artists get paid– or we agree to remove content from our system in accordance with our DMCA Takedown Policy. We hope that EMI Records eventually follows the lead of the many forward-thinking labels we are already working with, who would rather get their artists exposure and a fair share of our revenue than block content access and force customers to illegal networks.

We understand that the economy of the digital music business is in a state of ?ux, and we hope to help ease this transition by providing the required new tools and services that lead to the next generation of the music industry. We respect the ownership rights of the major labels and publishers, and our core mission has always been to compete with piracy by offering a service that is genuinely better than what illegal networks offer, while also ensuring fair payment to copyright holders. Our next important step on our road to success is to conclude a mutually bene?cial agreement with EMI Records that is sustainable for both EMI and Grooveshark.”

Related Posts
Music Piracy or Theft?
Radiohead against the RIAA
Copyright Laws and Issues on the Colbert Report

In a thought-provoking post on the MidemNet Blog, Peter Jenner, President of the UK’s International Music Managers Forum (IMMF), explores the personification of music piracy, underscoring key distinctions between ‘piracy’ and ‘theft’ that have largely been ignored or rejected by the music industry and, perhaps, even concealed to a pragmatic and moral music sharing public.

“If you steal my money I don’t have that money anymore.  If you copy my music I still have it, and so does everyone else who has it.  No one loses anything, the supply of copies just increases.”

Read the entire entry here.

Related Posts
Radiohead Against the RIAA
Distributed Denial of Dollars
The Pirate Bay

Adding insult to injury, the founders of The Pirate Bay have been promoting a scheme in protest of the recent ruling against their questionable P2P music service and to spite the law firm representing the plaintiff.  Distributed Denial of Dollars (or DDo$) is a method of attacking the victim with many micro-payments which, in turn, causes disproportional transaction fees and an overload in administration for the recipient.  This gets very interesting… and equally absurd from here.

Related Posts
Radiohead against the RIAA
Update: SeeqPod
Music Managers Calling for Change

Brian Hazard of the Music Think Tank published a comprehensive post addressing the pay-for-play model that online streaming playlist service, Jango, adopted as part of its monetization strategy, dispelling the analogy to terrestrial radio payola and drawing references to mainstream advertising mediums.  In March, I promoted Jango Airplay and touched on the controversial issues Brian addresses in his piece but his first-hand experience and engaging write-up of the music dotcom serves the topic more justice: Is Jango payola?

Related Posts
Grooveshark Artists
Spotify
Free Music Archive

Whatever your position on file-sharing may be, it will most certainly be skewed when you learn that a mega-band such as Radiohead, who famously distributed their last record with a pay-what-you-like model, are taking the stand against the RIAA.

In the case of file-sharer Joel Tenenbaum, a Boston University student, versus the RIAA, Radiohead will testify against the RIAA as part of a protest against unnecessary preying on filesharers, according to Tenenbaum’s legal team which consists of Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson and student members of his class.

Radiohead has publically spoken out against the major labels’ agenda to profit from questionable sharing of music in the legal arena, and specifically the lobby groups that represent them such as the RIAA and IFPI.  In fact, Radiohead is one of several A-list artists that have embraced file-sharing culture in one way or another to propel their independent marketing of their music and, to a certain extent, have proven that the very labels that made them what they are today have been rendered obsolete.

All this comes to a head just after the founders of The Pirate Bay, a BitTorrent search platform, were found guilty in a landmark file-sharing case spearheaded by Swedish anti-piracy lobbyists, preceded by the public crackdown of the popular music streaming service, SeeqPod, which was forced to close.

Linking the decline in music sales to illegal filesharing carries very little water in this day and age as there are so many other contributing factors to the manner in which music is consumed and the availability of media to the public in general.  The fact is that, for the major labels, going to court is profitable.  In the cases where it’s not, it sets a precedence for future cases that will turn over handsome settlements.  The attitude toward file-sharing, and the laws around it no less, will not change until the investment in the judicial system will no longer yield rewards for the copyright holders, the majority of which are represented by only four corporate institutions worldwide.

Related Post: Copyright Laws and Issues on the Colbert Report

A Swedish court has sentenced the four founders of The Pirate Bay for one year and ordered them to pay damages to the tune of $4.5m after the most high profile filesharing crackdown since Shawn Fanning’s Napster came to ruling.  In spite of the hefty punishment, The Pirate Bay website, a BitTorrent search platform (BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer program used for uploading and downloading files), contains video footage of the founders’ amusement by the verdict, which they intend to appeal.

Related Post: SeeqPod Shuts Down

Presumably in response to EMI’s recent formal complaint and Warner’s lawsuit last year, SeeqPod filed for Chapter 11  with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California two days ago.  The music search engine which rolled out an attractive pay-for-play advertising programme for artists is liquidating its assets by selling its source code to developers for $5000, perhaps encouraging many services just like SeeqPod to emerge in the future.  Yet another sorry day for the music industry…

Related Posts: Grooveshark Artists, Jango Airplay

I’ve been following Bandcamp for a little while now (see earlier post) and I noticed today that the company made some revisions to its home page.  Most notably, Bandcamp created a “features” page which lists the entire suite of tools and services.  I was also delighted to learn that Bandcamp now provides Creative Commons licensing designations:

Under the Creative Commons licensing designations, artists who make their music public, in this case via Bandcamp, are providing limited rights to other artists and music fans who wish to remix, share, or use the music in a variety of ways without having to formally ask permission.

Not yet familiar with Creative Commons?  Overview: