Here's a new significant and big step on porting Siri on iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. The last few weeks we saw many screenshots and videos showing Siri running on all iDevices but without connecting Apple servers. Now hackers has just did it.
Steven Troughton-Smith is the guy behind this progress. This guy was the first one worked on porting Siri on iPhone 4 with the iPhone developer Chpwn. Few minutes ago Chpwn confirmed on his timeline that siri connected Apple's servers on iPhone 4 after hack session.
When Siri come to iPhone 4, 3GS, iPod Touch 4G, 3G, iPad ?
No official release date announced so far. But diffidently it looks very imminent.
Siri on iPod Touch 4G [Video] :
Update : Folks at 9to5mac filmed an interesting video that compared between iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S running Siri
Here's an interview with Steven the guy behind this great job.
Mark: Where do you go from here with the port?
Steven: At this point it’s all about confirming this works across devices, making it reproducible (we got it working on two devices today), and documenting everything. It does require files from an iPhone 4S which aren’t ours to distribute, and it also requires a validation token from the iPhone 4S that has to be pulled live from a jailbroken iPhone 4S, and it’s about a 20-step process right now.
Mark: In its current state, is the port 100% functional, is there anything you would like to see work better?
Steven: Yes, it seems to be 100% functional. I’m working on the rough edges, but everything that works on the iPhone 4S seems to work here
Mark: Do you ever see Siri showing up in Cydia (or another jailbreak store) for non natively supported devices?
Steven: No, I could not be a part of that. I have no doubts that others will package this up and distribute it quasi-illegally, or try and sell it to people. I am only interested in the technology and making it work; proving that it works and works well on the iPhone 4 and other devices
Mark: So, you also got Siri working on the fourth-generation iPod touch, how is that working out?
Steven: We got chpwn’s iPod touch up and running with Siri after proving it works on my iPhone 4. Unfortunately the microphone on the iPod is nowhere near as good as the iPhone – you will notice that the Siri level meter hardly moves when you talk to it. While it does work, you have to speak loudly and clearly to the iPod
Mark: How long did porting take you, what was the “I got it” moment?
Steven: Basically, I already had everything I needed to make it work. I had spent a lot of time mapping out in my head exactly how Siri works on the iPhone. All I needed was access to a jailbroken iPhone 4S to put my hunch to the test. It literally took no longer than 10 minutes to put all the pieces in place and perform our first test on my iPhone 4, and it was an instant success.
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Friday, 28 October 2011
TECHNOLOGY CHANGING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY
Technology can change things. And in the case of the music industry, it destroyed it.
The two major shifts that have occurred are:
Distribution of your music into stores where people can go to buy it
How people discover music
Distribution of your music into stores where people can go to buy it
A quick description of what the music industry has been for the past 100 years provides a background on how things are changing.
Assume you live in New York and you make a watch you want to sell. You take your watch to the nearest watch store and ask the owner if you can sell it in their shop. They agree and ask how much you want to get paid if it sells. You tell the owner $10 You return to the store a month later, your watch is gone, the owner hands you $10, however you have no idea how much the watch sold for. Maybe it was given away, maybe it was sold for a million dollars.
The next day you get a call from Joe at Joe Smith Watch Distribution. Joe tells you he is a watch distributor from Chicago who can help you sell more watches. If you are interested, you can send him all your watches and he will store them, insure them, inventory them and more.
In addition to warehousing, he also tells you that he has a sales force of 40 people that walk all around the country to watch stores showing the new watches to the owners and he mails out a paper catalog each month to 4,000 watch stores.
Back at his warehouse, he has 20 more people that pick, pack and process the orders. If a watch is damaged, it is sent back and Joe Smith fixes it. Each time a watch leaves his warehouse, you will get paid regardless of if Joe gets paid.
Finally, Joe will provide you opportunities to market your watch in the store. For example, it will be displayed up front when people walk in.
In return for all these services, Joe asks to be paid 25% of the money earned from each watch sale. If a watch sells for $10, Joe will get paid $2.50 and you get the rest.
This is the music industry - only instead of watches, it's CDs, and record labels hire people to make their "watches".
it's about distribution and shelf space.
The music industry is about distribution. Record labels make the "thing" to give to the distributor. The distributor puts the "thing" in the store. The record label then markets the "thing" to create demand.
Stores have a limited amount of shelf space and can only have a limited number of CDs in stock. If a CD is not on a shelf, it cannot sell. Therefore, having a powerful distributor is important as it can force CDs onto the shelves (but the little guys get shoved to the side).
Digital stores like iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, eMusic, etc., have changed all this. To start, they have unlimited shelf space. This means everything can be in stock.
In addition, digital stores are never out of stock - they have virtual unlimited inventory that is replicated on demand. No more need to make CDs and ship them to a warehouse and then re-ship them to a store in hopes the store takes it out of a box and puts it on a shelf. Instead, the music is delivered once to a server and then sits there until someone buys it. It can be found instantly whenever a customer searches for it. When it is bought, the buyer gets a perfect digital copy of the original,nothing comes off the shelf, it's still there for the next customer to find and download.
In the old model, every CD in a store can be returned at any time for a full refund. A sale in the digital world cannot be returned. You know exactly what you sold with no concern of dreaded "returns."
These three changes: unlimited shelf space, unlimited virtual inventory and no returns, make the big warehouses and sales staff obsolete. This means that the four major labels - A.K.A. the four major distributors - have invested tens of millions of dollars into a soon to be obsolete infrastructure as now it's just a matter of getting your music and art digitally delivered once to a store like iTunes.
So who gets access to digital distribution, and under what deal terms? Keeping your rights and getting all the money from the sale of your music aggregators.
Companies called aggregators have sprung up offering artists and bands access to the digital stores. it's a valuable service but the price they demand is out of date, old school and exploitive.
First, they demand exclusive control of your master recordings (digitally) - like a record label - for a period of time (called a Term), usually three to five years. Unlike a record label, they do not: advance you money to record; provide you tour support; help you find a studio, record, mix and master an album; mail out posters to gigs; run print or banner ads; hire independent radio promotion and mail out the CDs to radio; hire a publicist and mail out the CDs to magazines; help you make your art; front the money and make stickers and buttons; pay for band photos; pay for the manufacturing of your CDs; provide you CDs to sell at your gigs and many, many, many other label functions.
Second, just like a physical distributor, they take a percentage of the money you earn from the sale of your music each time your music sells.
But, unlike a physical distributor they do not: pick, pack and ship orders; have a warehouse staff; insure inventory; have a national sales staff; advance you money to pay for advertising programs in stores; fix broken CDs to be re-shipped out; guarantee you will get paid even if the store does not pay them; mail out a catalog, etc.
Technology has changed the music industry, yet aggregator deal terms are still stuck in the old school model of exploiting the songs and artists. In effect, you work for them. You cause the music to sell and they take money from these sales while controlling your rights.
The new model is about serving the artist, not exploiting them. With the launch of TuneCore, for the first time in the history of the music industry, any artist or label can have their music available in the places music buyers go to buy and discover music without having to give up any rights or revenue from the sale of their music in a non exclusive arrangement that can be cancelled at any time. Technology has changed the way the industry works; it is time to change the business model as well.
How people discover music
Music is not food, shelter, or clothing, but everyone wants it and everyone needs it. For the most part, unlike a floor wax or an SUV, people like it when they are being asked to listen to music. The principles to marketing yourself are very basic: you make music, give it to others to listen to and hope they tell others about it.
In the old model, most people primarily discovered music in one of
three ways:
Radio
Print magazines like Rolling Stone
Viacom owned properties like MTV, VH1, BET etc
These three outlets would choose what songs they played, what videos they showed or what bands they wrote about from a limited pool of artists pushed to them by the labels. If you were not on a label, you were not in the pool, and therefore you had virtually no opportunity to get exposure from any of these outlets.
In the new model, everyone has a voice that can be heard - via the net - around the world. In particular, mp3 blogs are extremely effective in getting your music out to the masses. One person from anywhere on the planet can talk about you on his or her blog and provide a link to download your song for free. If people like it, it spreads, and soon you have 10 blogs, 50 blogs, 1,000 blogs all talking about you with links to your music.
Free video distribution sites like YouTube are also changing the game.
Consider the now famous "Treadmill Dance" video by the band OK GO. Using only a store-bought camera on a tripod, four guys danced on treadmills took the online video sites by storm, and propelled the band into the Billboard Top 50.
In the old model, music was discovered from the top down when it was heard on commercial radio, seen on TV and read about in magazines. Today you have the same distribution and broadcast power right from your computer, you to the world, bottom up. Fans discover music and now have an outlet to share their ideas, passions and musical loves with the world,and the world is listening. Look to bands like Arcade Fire, OK GO, Secondhand Serenade, Kelly, Tapes 'n Tapes, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Birdmonster and many more, and you'll see the new model in action.
In other words, you no longer need a label to reach the world. And you no longer need to give up your rights or the money generated by the sale of your music to get global distribution and marketing.
The two major shifts that have occurred are:
Distribution of your music into stores where people can go to buy it
How people discover music
Distribution of your music into stores where people can go to buy it
A quick description of what the music industry has been for the past 100 years provides a background on how things are changing.
Assume you live in New York and you make a watch you want to sell. You take your watch to the nearest watch store and ask the owner if you can sell it in their shop. They agree and ask how much you want to get paid if it sells. You tell the owner $10 You return to the store a month later, your watch is gone, the owner hands you $10, however you have no idea how much the watch sold for. Maybe it was given away, maybe it was sold for a million dollars.
The next day you get a call from Joe at Joe Smith Watch Distribution. Joe tells you he is a watch distributor from Chicago who can help you sell more watches. If you are interested, you can send him all your watches and he will store them, insure them, inventory them and more.
In addition to warehousing, he also tells you that he has a sales force of 40 people that walk all around the country to watch stores showing the new watches to the owners and he mails out a paper catalog each month to 4,000 watch stores.
Back at his warehouse, he has 20 more people that pick, pack and process the orders. If a watch is damaged, it is sent back and Joe Smith fixes it. Each time a watch leaves his warehouse, you will get paid regardless of if Joe gets paid.
Finally, Joe will provide you opportunities to market your watch in the store. For example, it will be displayed up front when people walk in.
In return for all these services, Joe asks to be paid 25% of the money earned from each watch sale. If a watch sells for $10, Joe will get paid $2.50 and you get the rest.
This is the music industry - only instead of watches, it's CDs, and record labels hire people to make their "watches".
it's about distribution and shelf space.
The music industry is about distribution. Record labels make the "thing" to give to the distributor. The distributor puts the "thing" in the store. The record label then markets the "thing" to create demand.
Stores have a limited amount of shelf space and can only have a limited number of CDs in stock. If a CD is not on a shelf, it cannot sell. Therefore, having a powerful distributor is important as it can force CDs onto the shelves (but the little guys get shoved to the side).
Digital stores like iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, eMusic, etc., have changed all this. To start, they have unlimited shelf space. This means everything can be in stock.
In addition, digital stores are never out of stock - they have virtual unlimited inventory that is replicated on demand. No more need to make CDs and ship them to a warehouse and then re-ship them to a store in hopes the store takes it out of a box and puts it on a shelf. Instead, the music is delivered once to a server and then sits there until someone buys it. It can be found instantly whenever a customer searches for it. When it is bought, the buyer gets a perfect digital copy of the original,nothing comes off the shelf, it's still there for the next customer to find and download.
In the old model, every CD in a store can be returned at any time for a full refund. A sale in the digital world cannot be returned. You know exactly what you sold with no concern of dreaded "returns."
These three changes: unlimited shelf space, unlimited virtual inventory and no returns, make the big warehouses and sales staff obsolete. This means that the four major labels - A.K.A. the four major distributors - have invested tens of millions of dollars into a soon to be obsolete infrastructure as now it's just a matter of getting your music and art digitally delivered once to a store like iTunes.
So who gets access to digital distribution, and under what deal terms? Keeping your rights and getting all the money from the sale of your music aggregators.
Companies called aggregators have sprung up offering artists and bands access to the digital stores. it's a valuable service but the price they demand is out of date, old school and exploitive.
First, they demand exclusive control of your master recordings (digitally) - like a record label - for a period of time (called a Term), usually three to five years. Unlike a record label, they do not: advance you money to record; provide you tour support; help you find a studio, record, mix and master an album; mail out posters to gigs; run print or banner ads; hire independent radio promotion and mail out the CDs to radio; hire a publicist and mail out the CDs to magazines; help you make your art; front the money and make stickers and buttons; pay for band photos; pay for the manufacturing of your CDs; provide you CDs to sell at your gigs and many, many, many other label functions.
Second, just like a physical distributor, they take a percentage of the money you earn from the sale of your music each time your music sells.
But, unlike a physical distributor they do not: pick, pack and ship orders; have a warehouse staff; insure inventory; have a national sales staff; advance you money to pay for advertising programs in stores; fix broken CDs to be re-shipped out; guarantee you will get paid even if the store does not pay them; mail out a catalog, etc.
Technology has changed the music industry, yet aggregator deal terms are still stuck in the old school model of exploiting the songs and artists. In effect, you work for them. You cause the music to sell and they take money from these sales while controlling your rights.
The new model is about serving the artist, not exploiting them. With the launch of TuneCore, for the first time in the history of the music industry, any artist or label can have their music available in the places music buyers go to buy and discover music without having to give up any rights or revenue from the sale of their music in a non exclusive arrangement that can be cancelled at any time. Technology has changed the way the industry works; it is time to change the business model as well.
How people discover music
Music is not food, shelter, or clothing, but everyone wants it and everyone needs it. For the most part, unlike a floor wax or an SUV, people like it when they are being asked to listen to music. The principles to marketing yourself are very basic: you make music, give it to others to listen to and hope they tell others about it.
In the old model, most people primarily discovered music in one of
three ways:
Radio
Print magazines like Rolling Stone
Viacom owned properties like MTV, VH1, BET etc
These three outlets would choose what songs they played, what videos they showed or what bands they wrote about from a limited pool of artists pushed to them by the labels. If you were not on a label, you were not in the pool, and therefore you had virtually no opportunity to get exposure from any of these outlets.
In the new model, everyone has a voice that can be heard - via the net - around the world. In particular, mp3 blogs are extremely effective in getting your music out to the masses. One person from anywhere on the planet can talk about you on his or her blog and provide a link to download your song for free. If people like it, it spreads, and soon you have 10 blogs, 50 blogs, 1,000 blogs all talking about you with links to your music.
Free video distribution sites like YouTube are also changing the game.
Consider the now famous "Treadmill Dance" video by the band OK GO. Using only a store-bought camera on a tripod, four guys danced on treadmills took the online video sites by storm, and propelled the band into the Billboard Top 50.
In the old model, music was discovered from the top down when it was heard on commercial radio, seen on TV and read about in magazines. Today you have the same distribution and broadcast power right from your computer, you to the world, bottom up. Fans discover music and now have an outlet to share their ideas, passions and musical loves with the world,and the world is listening. Look to bands like Arcade Fire, OK GO, Secondhand Serenade, Kelly, Tapes 'n Tapes, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Birdmonster and many more, and you'll see the new model in action.
In other words, you no longer need a label to reach the world. And you no longer need to give up your rights or the money generated by the sale of your music to get global distribution and marketing.
Cashing In on Your Hit YouTube Video
Katie Clem posted a video on YouTube this month of her daughter Lily’s poignant and funny reaction to her sixth birthday present, a trip to Disneyland, for her friends and family. Then it went viral.
Enlarge This Image
YouTube
“Talking Twin Babies,” in which two boys carry on an animated conversation in gibberish.
Enlarge This Image
YouTube
“David After Dentist,” showing a 7-year-old boy talking to his father while recovering from anesthesia.
In three weeks it has been watched more than five million times, and Lily has become a minor Internet celebrity. Of far more importance, at least to Lily’s parents, the video is poised to make enough money from advertisements to send Lily to college.
Creating a video that attracts millions of viewers and becomes a pop culture phenomenon involves an unpredictable cocktail of luck and timing. A dash of cute babies or people acting like idiots can only help. But once a video goes viral, making some cold cash depends on quick action.
Here is some advice on how to take advantage of your 15 minutes of Internet fame from people who did just that.
MAKE AN OUTSTANDING VIDEO There is no recipe for creating a viral video, but there are a few common traits.
Take the time to identify the video by writing a detailed title and description so people and search engines can find it easily, said Kevin Allocca, manager of YouTube Trends. “Surprised Kitty” (55 million viewings and counting) is far better than “Video of Tigger.”
Share it widely on social networks, he said, and let people embed the video on other Web sites. It helps if a celebrity links to it. “Double Rainbow,” a sensation last year, had only 200 views between its debut in January and July — when Jimmy Kimmel posted a link on Twitter and it took off. Current count: 31 million viewings.
It’s not as easy as it looks, Mr. Allocca said. “Make really good content,” he said. “That’s the one nobody wants to hear, but it’s the truth.”
It seems to help if the videos include funny people (especially old people and babies), animals (especially babies) and dancing (again, especially when the dancers are babies). Make a video that is universal yet original to you, recommends Randy McEntee, who posted an iPhone video, “Talking Twin Babies,” showing his twin baby boys having an animated conversation in gibberish.
“I think the reason it’s caught on around the world is there’s no language,” Mr. McEntee said.
Another common piece of advice: don’t set out to make a viral video. “We didn’t try,” said Ms. Clem, who shot her video on a Flip camera and had never posted on YouTube. “I don’t have any advice because I literally went to bed that night and woke up and our lives were completely different.”
GET MONEY FROM YOUTUBE ADS If your video is on the road to viral success, YouTube, a part of Google, is eager to make money from you. It will send you an e-mail asking if you want to become a partner. If you give your permission, the site will run ads alongside your video and share more than half the revenue with you, sending you a check each month.
Some of the people behind viral videos, like the father of the boy coming down from dental anesthesia in “David After Dentist,” have made more than $100,000 from YouTube ads. Ms. Clem has made $3,000 in three weeks and stands to make much more because Disney wants to use her video in a TV ad.
Early on, YouTube would sign people up as partners after videos had been watched more than a million times. But it has since developed an algorithm, which it calls reference rank, to predict whether a video will go viral when it has had as few as 10,000 views.
The most important element is whether influential Web sites post the video. When Reddit posted Mr. McEntee’s video, for instance, its views jumped from 1,000 to six million in three days. YouTube also analyzes other data, like the number of viewers, how many times a video is shared on social networking sites and the rate at which people comment on the video.
Protect the video with a YouTube program called Content ID, which gives video owners the right to block others from using their videos or to be paid when they do. That helps to prevent people from creating copies that might be watched instead of yours. Parodies, translations or autotuned song versions, however, tend to add to the original’s traffic.
YouTube does not offer live customer service for viral video creators. YouTube said it would be impossible to talk to millions of video creators but it has help forums for people to ask questions.
APPEAR ON TELEVISION YouTube may turn us all into TV producers, but one of the best ways to get people to watch your online video is to appear on old-fashioned TV.
Ms. Clem’s video spiked after she appeared on Fox News and Mr. McEntee’s after he was on “Good Morning America.” It rarely helps to try to contact TV shows directly — instead, wait for producers to call you, which they will in spades if your video is popular and touches a nerve, viral video veterans say.
Remember that a dip in views does not mean your 15 minutes are over. The talking twins video had almost five million viewers on its best day, dropped to 50,000 and now gets a couple hundred thousand a day. SELL MERCHANDISE When the boy in “David After Dentist” asked the camera, “Is this real life?” more than 101 million viewers could relate. David’s father took swift advantage of that, opening an online store selling T-shirts and stickers with the tagline.
“All the top creators do that,” said Shenaz Zack, product manager for YouTube partnerships.
Tracking who watches your video can suggest markets. At YouTube Insight, video creators can see detailed data about their audience, like where viewers come from and which Web sites have linked to the video.
They can also read YouTube Trends, a blog YouTube started in December to analyze what makes videos popular, whether they are about babies using iPads or scenes from the earthquake in Turkey.
MAKE A GAME PLAN FOR FAME The celebrity and money that come with viral YouTube videos are not always fun, say people who have lived through it.
The phone rings constantly with TV producers who want to show the video. Do not sign any contracts without consulting a lawyer, said Ms. Clem, because some of the contracts ask you to sign away your rights to the video.
“It’s so exciting and you want it out there, but it’s dangerous because people want to take advantage,” she said.
Set up rules early on, said Mr. McEntee. For his family, that meant no travel to be on TV, no other videos of the children and “to behave in a way that our children would be proud of,” including letting them remove the video when they are old enough to understand.
Talk to other people who have become YouTube celebrities about what they went through — the father of David wrote on his blog that at first he had worried that people were watching the video because they were making fun of his son, for instance.
“It’s actually a really lonely place because there’s no one out there that really has all the answers,” Mr. McEntee said. “It’s just such a rare thing.”
Enlarge This Image
YouTube
“Talking Twin Babies,” in which two boys carry on an animated conversation in gibberish.
Enlarge This Image
YouTube
“David After Dentist,” showing a 7-year-old boy talking to his father while recovering from anesthesia.
In three weeks it has been watched more than five million times, and Lily has become a minor Internet celebrity. Of far more importance, at least to Lily’s parents, the video is poised to make enough money from advertisements to send Lily to college.
Creating a video that attracts millions of viewers and becomes a pop culture phenomenon involves an unpredictable cocktail of luck and timing. A dash of cute babies or people acting like idiots can only help. But once a video goes viral, making some cold cash depends on quick action.
Here is some advice on how to take advantage of your 15 minutes of Internet fame from people who did just that.
MAKE AN OUTSTANDING VIDEO There is no recipe for creating a viral video, but there are a few common traits.
Take the time to identify the video by writing a detailed title and description so people and search engines can find it easily, said Kevin Allocca, manager of YouTube Trends. “Surprised Kitty” (55 million viewings and counting) is far better than “Video of Tigger.”
Share it widely on social networks, he said, and let people embed the video on other Web sites. It helps if a celebrity links to it. “Double Rainbow,” a sensation last year, had only 200 views between its debut in January and July — when Jimmy Kimmel posted a link on Twitter and it took off. Current count: 31 million viewings.
It’s not as easy as it looks, Mr. Allocca said. “Make really good content,” he said. “That’s the one nobody wants to hear, but it’s the truth.”
It seems to help if the videos include funny people (especially old people and babies), animals (especially babies) and dancing (again, especially when the dancers are babies). Make a video that is universal yet original to you, recommends Randy McEntee, who posted an iPhone video, “Talking Twin Babies,” showing his twin baby boys having an animated conversation in gibberish.
“I think the reason it’s caught on around the world is there’s no language,” Mr. McEntee said.
Another common piece of advice: don’t set out to make a viral video. “We didn’t try,” said Ms. Clem, who shot her video on a Flip camera and had never posted on YouTube. “I don’t have any advice because I literally went to bed that night and woke up and our lives were completely different.”
GET MONEY FROM YOUTUBE ADS If your video is on the road to viral success, YouTube, a part of Google, is eager to make money from you. It will send you an e-mail asking if you want to become a partner. If you give your permission, the site will run ads alongside your video and share more than half the revenue with you, sending you a check each month.
Some of the people behind viral videos, like the father of the boy coming down from dental anesthesia in “David After Dentist,” have made more than $100,000 from YouTube ads. Ms. Clem has made $3,000 in three weeks and stands to make much more because Disney wants to use her video in a TV ad.
Early on, YouTube would sign people up as partners after videos had been watched more than a million times. But it has since developed an algorithm, which it calls reference rank, to predict whether a video will go viral when it has had as few as 10,000 views.
The most important element is whether influential Web sites post the video. When Reddit posted Mr. McEntee’s video, for instance, its views jumped from 1,000 to six million in three days. YouTube also analyzes other data, like the number of viewers, how many times a video is shared on social networking sites and the rate at which people comment on the video.
Protect the video with a YouTube program called Content ID, which gives video owners the right to block others from using their videos or to be paid when they do. That helps to prevent people from creating copies that might be watched instead of yours. Parodies, translations or autotuned song versions, however, tend to add to the original’s traffic.
YouTube does not offer live customer service for viral video creators. YouTube said it would be impossible to talk to millions of video creators but it has help forums for people to ask questions.
APPEAR ON TELEVISION YouTube may turn us all into TV producers, but one of the best ways to get people to watch your online video is to appear on old-fashioned TV.
Ms. Clem’s video spiked after she appeared on Fox News and Mr. McEntee’s after he was on “Good Morning America.” It rarely helps to try to contact TV shows directly — instead, wait for producers to call you, which they will in spades if your video is popular and touches a nerve, viral video veterans say.
Remember that a dip in views does not mean your 15 minutes are over. The talking twins video had almost five million viewers on its best day, dropped to 50,000 and now gets a couple hundred thousand a day. SELL MERCHANDISE When the boy in “David After Dentist” asked the camera, “Is this real life?” more than 101 million viewers could relate. David’s father took swift advantage of that, opening an online store selling T-shirts and stickers with the tagline.
“All the top creators do that,” said Shenaz Zack, product manager for YouTube partnerships.
Tracking who watches your video can suggest markets. At YouTube Insight, video creators can see detailed data about their audience, like where viewers come from and which Web sites have linked to the video.
They can also read YouTube Trends, a blog YouTube started in December to analyze what makes videos popular, whether they are about babies using iPads or scenes from the earthquake in Turkey.
MAKE A GAME PLAN FOR FAME The celebrity and money that come with viral YouTube videos are not always fun, say people who have lived through it.
The phone rings constantly with TV producers who want to show the video. Do not sign any contracts without consulting a lawyer, said Ms. Clem, because some of the contracts ask you to sign away your rights to the video.
“It’s so exciting and you want it out there, but it’s dangerous because people want to take advantage,” she said.
Set up rules early on, said Mr. McEntee. For his family, that meant no travel to be on TV, no other videos of the children and “to behave in a way that our children would be proud of,” including letting them remove the video when they are old enough to understand.
Talk to other people who have become YouTube celebrities about what they went through — the father of David wrote on his blog that at first he had worried that people were watching the video because they were making fun of his son, for instance.
“It’s actually a really lonely place because there’s no one out there that really has all the answers,” Mr. McEntee said. “It’s just such a rare thing.”
Thursday, 27 October 2011
After 123 Years, Motion Picture Film Cameras Go Out of Production
Film is beautiful. It’s going to be around for years to come. Plenty of feature films and TV shows are still being shot on film, and used film cameras will remain a viable rental market for a long time. But in the last several months, the major manufacturers of motion picture cameras — ARRI, Panavision and Aaton — have all ceased production of film cameras. Celluloid, you’ve had a great 123-year run. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Here, then, one last ad for film from Kodak, for nostalgic purposes:
Cinevate HDSLR Products
You could pick apart so many quotes here, from Brett Ratner talking up film even though his latest, Tower Heist, was partially shot on the ARRI ALEXA, to anyone who says film has greater dynamic range (the ALEXA has the same DR, and RED’s HDRx exceeds it). Not to mention that 4K cameras meet or exceed film’s resolution, which is not to say that digital cameras are objectively better in terms of pure aesthetics — the texture and highlight detail of film are still magical — but cost and workflow-wise, digital has come a long way and will continue to improve to the point where it’s not just a matter of meeting film’s image capture capabilities but exceeding it. Here’s the word from Aaton and Panavision:
[Aaton founder Jean-Pierre] Beauviala believes that that stereoscopic 3D has “accelerated the demise of film.” He says, “It’s a nightmare to synchronize two film cameras.” Three years ago, Aaton introduced a new 35mm film camera, Penelope, but sold only 50 to 60 of them. As a result, Beauviala turned to creating a digital Penelope, which will be on the market by NAB 2012. “It’s a 4K camera and very, very quiet,” he tells us. “We tried to give a digital camera the same ease of handling as the film camera.”
Panavision is also hard at work on a new digital camera, says Phil Radin, Executive VP, Worldwide Marketing, who notes that Panavision built its last 35mm Millennium XL camera in the winter of 2009.
One thing I don’t buy at all is people saying that the best way to archive digital material is on film. Sure, there are plenty of concerns about codecs going in and out of use, but you’re telling me that physical celluloid, which is subject to the ravages of time, temperature, fire, mishandling, and accidents, is a better archival material than 1s and 0s which can be stored as exact lossless copies in many locations? If you’re worried about future-proofing your codec choices, output your archival file in several formats. Not to mention that you can keep the NLE timeline and source files in the digital realm, though good luck opening that FCP7 timeline in Final Cut Pro X! Point for film, I guess.
Anyway, we’re going to see plenty of films shot on celluloid for years to come, but for all intents and purposes the last motion picture film camera has already been manufactured. Check out both articles below for more. Onward and upward!
Here, then, one last ad for film from Kodak, for nostalgic purposes:
Cinevate HDSLR Products
You could pick apart so many quotes here, from Brett Ratner talking up film even though his latest, Tower Heist, was partially shot on the ARRI ALEXA, to anyone who says film has greater dynamic range (the ALEXA has the same DR, and RED’s HDRx exceeds it). Not to mention that 4K cameras meet or exceed film’s resolution, which is not to say that digital cameras are objectively better in terms of pure aesthetics — the texture and highlight detail of film are still magical — but cost and workflow-wise, digital has come a long way and will continue to improve to the point where it’s not just a matter of meeting film’s image capture capabilities but exceeding it. Here’s the word from Aaton and Panavision:
[Aaton founder Jean-Pierre] Beauviala believes that that stereoscopic 3D has “accelerated the demise of film.” He says, “It’s a nightmare to synchronize two film cameras.” Three years ago, Aaton introduced a new 35mm film camera, Penelope, but sold only 50 to 60 of them. As a result, Beauviala turned to creating a digital Penelope, which will be on the market by NAB 2012. “It’s a 4K camera and very, very quiet,” he tells us. “We tried to give a digital camera the same ease of handling as the film camera.”
Panavision is also hard at work on a new digital camera, says Phil Radin, Executive VP, Worldwide Marketing, who notes that Panavision built its last 35mm Millennium XL camera in the winter of 2009.
One thing I don’t buy at all is people saying that the best way to archive digital material is on film. Sure, there are plenty of concerns about codecs going in and out of use, but you’re telling me that physical celluloid, which is subject to the ravages of time, temperature, fire, mishandling, and accidents, is a better archival material than 1s and 0s which can be stored as exact lossless copies in many locations? If you’re worried about future-proofing your codec choices, output your archival file in several formats. Not to mention that you can keep the NLE timeline and source files in the digital realm, though good luck opening that FCP7 timeline in Final Cut Pro X! Point for film, I guess.
Anyway, we’re going to see plenty of films shot on celluloid for years to come, but for all intents and purposes the last motion picture film camera has already been manufactured. Check out both articles below for more. Onward and upward!
How The ’70s Majorly Screwed The Major Labels
Lava lamps, Happy Days, mood rings, MASH, and Jimmy Carter’s Playboy interview weren’t the only things to come out of the ’70s. In addition, copyright law was revised by the U.S. government granting artists and songwriters “termination rights.” This law states that 35 years after 1978 the recordings and songs “owned” by record labels or publishers would revert back to the artist or songwriter regardless of if the artist or songwriter was recouped, un-recouped, etc. In other words, the government said to the labels and publishers,“ 35 years is long enough. Times up, give them back control over their work.”
For those of you counting, 35 years from 1978 is 2013.
This means albums and songs from Cheap Trick, The Kinks, AC/DC, Kraftwerk, Carole King, Peter Gabriel, The Cars, The Buzzcocks, KC & the Sunshine Band, Kenny Rogers, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Tom Waits, Yes, Sex Pistols, Boston, Ramones, Bryan Ferry, Heart, Uriah Heap, Neil Young, Aerosmith, Brian Eno, Hawkwind, Whitesnake, Queen, Kate Bush, and countless others are eligible to revert back to the artists. Which means that the record labels, in addition to losing control over distribution (think TuneCore) may now lose the rights to the only thing left keeping them alive, the recordings that they make money off of.
And each year that goes by, means another set of albums and songs becoming eligible to revert back to the artist.
As you can imagine, the labels are fighting it. According to the August 15th, 2011 New York Times article, “Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights,” Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America stated,
“We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings.” The RIAA’s position is that the artist never owned the recordings or songs in the first place so how could they revert back to them. They were just employees hired by the label to record their own songs. Therefore, the labels own the recordings forever (or until they enter public domain).
The issue here is over the legal definition of the term “Work For Hire”. If the artists were legally “work for hire” employees, the labels would be right. The RIAA and the labels saw this issue coming. In 1999, to assure their position and not lose rights, they were sneaky little scumbags and literally attempted to quietly slip a midnight amendment into a bill going through Congress called “The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act”. The bill was about “retransmissions of broadcast signals” (I kid you not). The RIAA had four words added to this bill that would take away the right for artists to own their recordings if they signed a major label deal. These four words would, by default, legally define the artists as “work for hires” and therefore the rights to the recordings could not revert back to them.
To quote the very comprehensive and well written August of 2000, Austin Chronicle article “Work For Hire,” (which you should read!)…
In 1999, “Turns out the amendment was added by a staffer named Mitch Glazer from the office of Subcommittee Chairperson Howard Coble, R.-N.C., Glazer now works for the RIAA, the organization that sought to have those four words included in the first place, and did so with alarming quiet.”
Fortunately, they were caught. The words were noticed and artists, and their lawyers, went to war. The result was that these four little words are no longer part of the bill. Which means that the courts have yet to rule if the labels are right or if the artists are right in regards to the reversion of rights.
So, we approach 2013, and both labels, artists, and entrepreneurs are frantically attempting to either hold on to, get back, or acquire rights. Clearly, the labels are not going to go quiet into that dark night, however, this is yet another crack in the firmament of the traditional label system, and ultimately a win for the artists. Of course, the artists, now more than ever, will need to be able to market and distribute their newly-acquired/re-acquired rights, so that they can enjoy sustainable artistic careers on their own terms. The labels will argue that the artists can’t do this; only the labels could possibly market and distribute their records. That argument gets a little more tenuous with each passing day.
Stay tuned for the mother of legal battles. It’s going to get very interesting as manager and former label head and owner Irving Azoff sides with the interest of his client, The Eagles, and takes on the very industry he helped create.
For those of you counting, 35 years from 1978 is 2013.
This means albums and songs from Cheap Trick, The Kinks, AC/DC, Kraftwerk, Carole King, Peter Gabriel, The Cars, The Buzzcocks, KC & the Sunshine Band, Kenny Rogers, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Tom Waits, Yes, Sex Pistols, Boston, Ramones, Bryan Ferry, Heart, Uriah Heap, Neil Young, Aerosmith, Brian Eno, Hawkwind, Whitesnake, Queen, Kate Bush, and countless others are eligible to revert back to the artists. Which means that the record labels, in addition to losing control over distribution (think TuneCore) may now lose the rights to the only thing left keeping them alive, the recordings that they make money off of.
And each year that goes by, means another set of albums and songs becoming eligible to revert back to the artist.
As you can imagine, the labels are fighting it. According to the August 15th, 2011 New York Times article, “Record Industry Braces for Artists’ Battles Over Song Rights,” Steven Marks, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America stated,
“We believe the termination right doesn’t apply to most sound recordings.” The RIAA’s position is that the artist never owned the recordings or songs in the first place so how could they revert back to them. They were just employees hired by the label to record their own songs. Therefore, the labels own the recordings forever (or until they enter public domain).
The issue here is over the legal definition of the term “Work For Hire”. If the artists were legally “work for hire” employees, the labels would be right. The RIAA and the labels saw this issue coming. In 1999, to assure their position and not lose rights, they were sneaky little scumbags and literally attempted to quietly slip a midnight amendment into a bill going through Congress called “The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act”. The bill was about “retransmissions of broadcast signals” (I kid you not). The RIAA had four words added to this bill that would take away the right for artists to own their recordings if they signed a major label deal. These four words would, by default, legally define the artists as “work for hires” and therefore the rights to the recordings could not revert back to them.
To quote the very comprehensive and well written August of 2000, Austin Chronicle article “Work For Hire,” (which you should read!)…
In 1999, “Turns out the amendment was added by a staffer named Mitch Glazer from the office of Subcommittee Chairperson Howard Coble, R.-N.C., Glazer now works for the RIAA, the organization that sought to have those four words included in the first place, and did so with alarming quiet.”
Fortunately, they were caught. The words were noticed and artists, and their lawyers, went to war. The result was that these four little words are no longer part of the bill. Which means that the courts have yet to rule if the labels are right or if the artists are right in regards to the reversion of rights.
So, we approach 2013, and both labels, artists, and entrepreneurs are frantically attempting to either hold on to, get back, or acquire rights. Clearly, the labels are not going to go quiet into that dark night, however, this is yet another crack in the firmament of the traditional label system, and ultimately a win for the artists. Of course, the artists, now more than ever, will need to be able to market and distribute their newly-acquired/re-acquired rights, so that they can enjoy sustainable artistic careers on their own terms. The labels will argue that the artists can’t do this; only the labels could possibly market and distribute their records. That argument gets a little more tenuous with each passing day.
Stay tuned for the mother of legal battles. It’s going to get very interesting as manager and former label head and owner Irving Azoff sides with the interest of his client, The Eagles, and takes on the very industry he helped create.
A Goal: Performance Royalty Accountability In 2012
Imagine a scenario in which the moment you create a piece of music it is: digitally fingerprinted and registered (with the Library of Congress, and your PRO). Imagine then that when that music is used in a TV show, this usage is immediately detected, and the public performance fee you are owed is immediately transferred to your bank account.
Sound too good to be true? Well, the reality is that the technology for just such a scenario described above exists. Additionally, we clearly have motivated buyers and sellers to make this happen.
However, instead of moving toward a system like the one described above — a system of transparency and accuracy — we continue to bumble through a system that really hasn’t changed in the last 100 years or so.
If we’re to have any optimism towards the business of music continuing to grow — in an era when music creators have seen their revenue from sales go from roughly $7 per sale for a full album, to fractions of pennies for a stream of the same album — we MUST push for innovation in the measuring, collecting, and paying of music usage.
I recently met, Scott Schreer, the founder of a company called TuneSat. In talking with him, my optimism that we may indeed be tilting toward not only a healthy music business, but one where songwriters can flourish, has been greatly enhanced.
This is not an ad for TuneSat. I’ve not used the service, and while, based on my limited exposure to him, Mr. Schreer certainly is a very smart and passionate individual, I simply don’t know enough about him or his company to recommend or not recommend it. I do, however, feel strongly that it’s worth your time to check out and make your decision.
Rather, TuneSat represents a tangible example of how technology might alter the economic fortunes for composers, artists, and publishers alike (anyone that has an interest in a royalty stream).
Music used in TV, at last count, accounts for $800 million of the $2 billion distributed to composers annually by the PROs in the US. Additionally, music used in TV represents something akin to what radio used to represent for artists: exposure that can lead to sales/streams of their work, ticket/merch sales, etc…
No one can deny that the goal of many musicians is to have their music used on TV. However, the vast majority of musicians are woefully under-informed about how the process works.
It’s not their fault. As stated above, it’s an old and outmoded system; one that pretty much defines byzantine.
For instance, question one: how much do you get paid when your song is played on TV? Impossible to answer. The variables are many: is it a theme song, what time of day was it aired, are there vocals on the track, is there anything else surrounding it (people talking, etc…), is it background instrumental music. Beyond these, one massive distinction is whether or not the song is what’s called a “featured registration” or a “non-featured registration.” A featured registration is essentially a song that has a band or artist associated with the track (i.e. a song that was released on a CD, available from iTunes). A non-featured registration is a work that was written specifically for the TV show or ad. This distinction becomes very important when you realize that a featured registration earns the writer six to ten times what a non-featured registration earns when it’s broadcast.
These and other weighing factors make a huge difference to the bottom line of the rights’ holders whose music is used on TV.
However, there’s yet another problem. Mr. Schreer informs me that as much as 80% of all music that’s on TV is misreported. This means that music is being broadcast on TV, and the author (or copyright holder) is not getting paid the correct amount (if anything). Typically, this misreporting occurs as a result of human error in conjunction with the byzantine classifications used by the PROs in order to calculate weightings (and thus payments).
TuneSat’s goal is to use fingerprinting in order to reduce this number. Even a fractional reduction when you’re dealing with $800 million represents tremendous value for artists.
I hope that they pull it off.
As we can see all around us (from the financial world to the Arab Spring) institutions that eschew transparency are crumbling. Technology is making it increasingly difficult to obfuscate the flow of information. As we increase transparency, we reduce transaction costs, and thus increase profitability for artists.
This is truly our best hope. As the barriers of entry for broadcasters come down, and an increasing amount of music is streamed, rights holders have an opportunity to make up in volume what they are losing in margin, but only if we increase accuracy in collection, reporting, and payment.
Sound too good to be true? Well, the reality is that the technology for just such a scenario described above exists. Additionally, we clearly have motivated buyers and sellers to make this happen.
However, instead of moving toward a system like the one described above — a system of transparency and accuracy — we continue to bumble through a system that really hasn’t changed in the last 100 years or so.
If we’re to have any optimism towards the business of music continuing to grow — in an era when music creators have seen their revenue from sales go from roughly $7 per sale for a full album, to fractions of pennies for a stream of the same album — we MUST push for innovation in the measuring, collecting, and paying of music usage.
I recently met, Scott Schreer, the founder of a company called TuneSat. In talking with him, my optimism that we may indeed be tilting toward not only a healthy music business, but one where songwriters can flourish, has been greatly enhanced.
This is not an ad for TuneSat. I’ve not used the service, and while, based on my limited exposure to him, Mr. Schreer certainly is a very smart and passionate individual, I simply don’t know enough about him or his company to recommend or not recommend it. I do, however, feel strongly that it’s worth your time to check out and make your decision.
Rather, TuneSat represents a tangible example of how technology might alter the economic fortunes for composers, artists, and publishers alike (anyone that has an interest in a royalty stream).
Music used in TV, at last count, accounts for $800 million of the $2 billion distributed to composers annually by the PROs in the US. Additionally, music used in TV represents something akin to what radio used to represent for artists: exposure that can lead to sales/streams of their work, ticket/merch sales, etc…
No one can deny that the goal of many musicians is to have their music used on TV. However, the vast majority of musicians are woefully under-informed about how the process works.
It’s not their fault. As stated above, it’s an old and outmoded system; one that pretty much defines byzantine.
For instance, question one: how much do you get paid when your song is played on TV? Impossible to answer. The variables are many: is it a theme song, what time of day was it aired, are there vocals on the track, is there anything else surrounding it (people talking, etc…), is it background instrumental music. Beyond these, one massive distinction is whether or not the song is what’s called a “featured registration” or a “non-featured registration.” A featured registration is essentially a song that has a band or artist associated with the track (i.e. a song that was released on a CD, available from iTunes). A non-featured registration is a work that was written specifically for the TV show or ad. This distinction becomes very important when you realize that a featured registration earns the writer six to ten times what a non-featured registration earns when it’s broadcast.
These and other weighing factors make a huge difference to the bottom line of the rights’ holders whose music is used on TV.
However, there’s yet another problem. Mr. Schreer informs me that as much as 80% of all music that’s on TV is misreported. This means that music is being broadcast on TV, and the author (or copyright holder) is not getting paid the correct amount (if anything). Typically, this misreporting occurs as a result of human error in conjunction with the byzantine classifications used by the PROs in order to calculate weightings (and thus payments).
TuneSat’s goal is to use fingerprinting in order to reduce this number. Even a fractional reduction when you’re dealing with $800 million represents tremendous value for artists.
I hope that they pull it off.
As we can see all around us (from the financial world to the Arab Spring) institutions that eschew transparency are crumbling. Technology is making it increasingly difficult to obfuscate the flow of information. As we increase transparency, we reduce transaction costs, and thus increase profitability for artists.
This is truly our best hope. As the barriers of entry for broadcasters come down, and an increasing amount of music is streamed, rights holders have an opportunity to make up in volume what they are losing in margin, but only if we increase accuracy in collection, reporting, and payment.
Here Comes The Songwriter Revolution
An artist’s copyrights should be respected. The choice to charge or give away his or her creations should be up to the artist, and the artist alone.
When you cut through all the press releases and rhetoric of the RIAA, it boils down to getting the legally required licenses and paying the people (or entities) that control the copyrights to the songs and recordings. I could not agree more.
One of the many problems I have with the RIAA is not their supporting this fundamental principle, but their tactics and blatant disregard for anyone who is not one of their members. Suing grandma and college students is probably not the best idea. Pretending the world has not changed and everything should stay the same makes no sense. In addition, in many cases their positions and actions stifle revenue while slowing the growth and consumption of music. But what gets me most upset is this:
The RIAA wraps itself in a flag of respecting and paying copyright holders, both principles I adamantly agree with. However, as they sue, lobby, and legislate to assure the rightful copyright holders get paid, the members that make up the RIAA knowingly take hundreds of millions of dollars of other people’s copyright money.
Here’s how they do it:
Each time a song is downloaded, streamed, or publicly performed, the songwriter is owed a separate royalty. In 2009, of the more than €7.152 billion earned globally by songwriters (about $10 billion U.S.), 95% of the songwriters did not get their cut because: (a) the places that had their money didn’t know whose it was, or (b) the places that had the money DID know whose it was, but made it impossible for the rightful owner (earner?) to collect it. When the rightful owner does not pick up this money, it’s given to Sony, Warner Bros, Universal, EMI and others based on their market share. These leading music companies, and the entities that give the money to them, know full well this is not their money, but they take it anyway.
Is it deliberate? No. When the old industry created a byzantine labyrinth loaded with archaic, and now out-of-date rules, they had no idea of what the future would bring. They certainly didn’t predict it would legally funnel them hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples’ copyright money. But this is the end result, and they are abundantly aware of it. Sadly, there is absolutely no legal reason for them to change the system (and since when did morals count?).
Why are the world’s songwriters not in an uproar? Two reasons: (1) Knowledge. Copyright rules and laws are complex and boring. Many do not know they earned money, let alone know that it’s just sitting out there in the world waiting for them to collect. (2) Lack of transparency. No one tells songwriters the complete story; where their money is, how it flows, and, most importantly, how much they should expect to be paid each and every time their song is downloaded or streamed anywhere in the world.
There are no more excuses for this.
In the old music industry, lack of transparency came from literally not knowing. For example, you could know how many CDs you shipped, but you could not know how many of them sold. In today’s digital music industry, the only reason you don’t know something is because someone is choosing not to tell you—I can assure you they have the information.
So, songwriters are kept in the dark, rates are not disclosed, roadblocks are created to stop people from being able to get to their money, condescending “experts” pat the artist on the head and tell him or her to just focus on writing music and don’t worry yourself with this confusing “business” part of the industry. The end result: songwriters’ pockets are picked without their even knowing.
As just one example, in addition to the $200 million dollars TuneCore customers earned from the sale of the recording of their songs, there is another separate $50 million or so dollars they earned but did not get.
At some point something’s got to give—you can’t expect to take 95% of the world’s songwriters’ money and not have someone finally do something about it.
On Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, the change will come…
When you cut through all the press releases and rhetoric of the RIAA, it boils down to getting the legally required licenses and paying the people (or entities) that control the copyrights to the songs and recordings. I could not agree more.
One of the many problems I have with the RIAA is not their supporting this fundamental principle, but their tactics and blatant disregard for anyone who is not one of their members. Suing grandma and college students is probably not the best idea. Pretending the world has not changed and everything should stay the same makes no sense. In addition, in many cases their positions and actions stifle revenue while slowing the growth and consumption of music. But what gets me most upset is this:
The RIAA wraps itself in a flag of respecting and paying copyright holders, both principles I adamantly agree with. However, as they sue, lobby, and legislate to assure the rightful copyright holders get paid, the members that make up the RIAA knowingly take hundreds of millions of dollars of other people’s copyright money.
Here’s how they do it:
Each time a song is downloaded, streamed, or publicly performed, the songwriter is owed a separate royalty. In 2009, of the more than €7.152 billion earned globally by songwriters (about $10 billion U.S.), 95% of the songwriters did not get their cut because: (a) the places that had their money didn’t know whose it was, or (b) the places that had the money DID know whose it was, but made it impossible for the rightful owner (earner?) to collect it. When the rightful owner does not pick up this money, it’s given to Sony, Warner Bros, Universal, EMI and others based on their market share. These leading music companies, and the entities that give the money to them, know full well this is not their money, but they take it anyway.
Is it deliberate? No. When the old industry created a byzantine labyrinth loaded with archaic, and now out-of-date rules, they had no idea of what the future would bring. They certainly didn’t predict it would legally funnel them hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples’ copyright money. But this is the end result, and they are abundantly aware of it. Sadly, there is absolutely no legal reason for them to change the system (and since when did morals count?).
Why are the world’s songwriters not in an uproar? Two reasons: (1) Knowledge. Copyright rules and laws are complex and boring. Many do not know they earned money, let alone know that it’s just sitting out there in the world waiting for them to collect. (2) Lack of transparency. No one tells songwriters the complete story; where their money is, how it flows, and, most importantly, how much they should expect to be paid each and every time their song is downloaded or streamed anywhere in the world.
There are no more excuses for this.
In the old music industry, lack of transparency came from literally not knowing. For example, you could know how many CDs you shipped, but you could not know how many of them sold. In today’s digital music industry, the only reason you don’t know something is because someone is choosing not to tell you—I can assure you they have the information.
So, songwriters are kept in the dark, rates are not disclosed, roadblocks are created to stop people from being able to get to their money, condescending “experts” pat the artist on the head and tell him or her to just focus on writing music and don’t worry yourself with this confusing “business” part of the industry. The end result: songwriters’ pockets are picked without their even knowing.
As just one example, in addition to the $200 million dollars TuneCore customers earned from the sale of the recording of their songs, there is another separate $50 million or so dollars they earned but did not get.
At some point something’s got to give—you can’t expect to take 95% of the world’s songwriters’ money and not have someone finally do something about it.
On Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, the change will come…
ICloud A Music Industry Game-Changing Product
Apple’s new iCloud product marries the two disparate ideas of consumer convenience and the monetization of pirated music, providing what could be the “missing links” between consumers, artists, labels, music publishers and the emerging digital music industry. With its launch, the odometer on the music industry is about to reset itself (again).
For a simple flat monthly fee, just about any song in any user’s multiple iTunes libraries (iPhone, iPad, computer, iTouch) will automatically appear in a “virtual hard drive in the sky .“ No upload of the song is needed. Each song will be available to be grouped into playlists, streamed and re-downloaded. In the event the song is not already in the iTunes system, the user can upload it.
It’s important to note that in 2000, Michael Robertson first introduced the iCloud concept via his company MP3.com. Soon thereafter, the RIAA sued for copyright infringement, and in April 2008, the courts ordered the service to shut down.
To get this seemingly very simple and consumer-centric concept launched, Apple had to negotiate byzantine labyrinth-esque deals with labels and publishers (we are still waiting to learn if a stream or download via the iCloud service is legally considered a “public performance,” thereby requiring the songwriter to be paid as well). Over the past decade many have tried to reach this goal, most recently Google, yet only Apple was able to reach the end.
And the results, I believe, will be stunning.
iCloud is first and foremost a product for the consumer, and Apple never forgot that. iCloud provides a convenient, quick and easy way to manage and access all of your digital music as you choose.
The iCloud service differs markedly from the recent Amazon and Google music storage lockers–with these services you must actually upload your songs to be stored (except for Amazon, where, if you buy it at AmazonMP3, it auto-populates into the customer’s music locker). In addition, users are not able to re-download the tracks they uploaded. The re-download feature in iCloud provides the feeling of owning what you are streaming.
But the truly innovative and radical part of the iCloud service is its ability to allow copyright holders–the labels, artists, publishers and, possibly the songwriter–to make money off of music not bought the first time around. The iCloud service places all music from a subscriber, not just the music bought from iTunes, into the subscriber’s iCloud account, making it available for stream or re-download. This includes music:
- Ripped from a CD
- Downloaded from a peer to peer service
- Received in an email
- Downloaded via IM
- Ripped from your friends’ CDs
- Received free from the band
- Downloaded via a drop card
- Taken from a public “share” folder
- Captured as a stream and converted to an MP3
- Bought at AmazonMP3
- Etc
Each time a subscriber streams or re-downloads a song via the iCloud service, the label and publisher (and possibly the songwriter for the public performance) get paid. The iCloud business model has created a way for copyright holders to make money off of pirated music without making consumers feel like they are paying for the music.
The key to all of this is meeting the needs of consumers first (not the labels) as consumers drive the market (and not the other way around). And unlike many other digital music services, due to Apple’s market share, vast music library and 225 million + customer accounts (each with a credit card on file), Apple is uniquely positioned to provide the scale, and therefore possible revenue, for copyright holders to reach the proverbial “pot of gold” at the end of the digital music rainbow.
The end result is a product about convenience, elegance and simplicity, not a “subscription based streaming music service.” Yet it’s the money that people are paying for this convenience and simplicity that will be used to pay artists, record labels and publishers. And if the consumer did buy the song, Apple has provided a new model allowing the artist, label and publisher to get paid a second time for the same recording and song.
In effect, for labels and artists, iCloud is a new stand alone “store.” A decision could be made to give away a song that is in the iTunes music store for free (or at a dramatically lowered price), and each time it gets played via an iCloud account, the rights holder gets paid.
In the meantime, all of the songs in the iCloud service will be downloadable in the AAC format, meaning that they will only play on an Apple device, driving more dependence of Apple’s products. As an example, if you bought a song on AmazonMP3, and play it in your iTunes software, when it gets digitally fingerprinted by Apple, it will be available for you to re-download as an AAC file, only compatible with an Apple hardware device.
And finally, and perhaps more importantly, just as the original Napster trained people to download music and listen to it on their computers, Apple, due to its vast hardware proliferation (iPhones in particular) is in a position to shift consumer behavior yet again–this time from downloading music to listening to it via streams.
And with this consumer shift, the music industry will reset itself once again until the next revolution…
For a simple flat monthly fee, just about any song in any user’s multiple iTunes libraries (iPhone, iPad, computer, iTouch) will automatically appear in a “virtual hard drive in the sky .“ No upload of the song is needed. Each song will be available to be grouped into playlists, streamed and re-downloaded. In the event the song is not already in the iTunes system, the user can upload it.
It’s important to note that in 2000, Michael Robertson first introduced the iCloud concept via his company MP3.com. Soon thereafter, the RIAA sued for copyright infringement, and in April 2008, the courts ordered the service to shut down.
To get this seemingly very simple and consumer-centric concept launched, Apple had to negotiate byzantine labyrinth-esque deals with labels and publishers (we are still waiting to learn if a stream or download via the iCloud service is legally considered a “public performance,” thereby requiring the songwriter to be paid as well). Over the past decade many have tried to reach this goal, most recently Google, yet only Apple was able to reach the end.
And the results, I believe, will be stunning.
iCloud is first and foremost a product for the consumer, and Apple never forgot that. iCloud provides a convenient, quick and easy way to manage and access all of your digital music as you choose.
The iCloud service differs markedly from the recent Amazon and Google music storage lockers–with these services you must actually upload your songs to be stored (except for Amazon, where, if you buy it at AmazonMP3, it auto-populates into the customer’s music locker). In addition, users are not able to re-download the tracks they uploaded. The re-download feature in iCloud provides the feeling of owning what you are streaming.
But the truly innovative and radical part of the iCloud service is its ability to allow copyright holders–the labels, artists, publishers and, possibly the songwriter–to make money off of music not bought the first time around. The iCloud service places all music from a subscriber, not just the music bought from iTunes, into the subscriber’s iCloud account, making it available for stream or re-download. This includes music:
- Ripped from a CD
- Downloaded from a peer to peer service
- Received in an email
- Downloaded via IM
- Ripped from your friends’ CDs
- Received free from the band
- Downloaded via a drop card
- Taken from a public “share” folder
- Captured as a stream and converted to an MP3
- Bought at AmazonMP3
- Etc
Each time a subscriber streams or re-downloads a song via the iCloud service, the label and publisher (and possibly the songwriter for the public performance) get paid. The iCloud business model has created a way for copyright holders to make money off of pirated music without making consumers feel like they are paying for the music.
The key to all of this is meeting the needs of consumers first (not the labels) as consumers drive the market (and not the other way around). And unlike many other digital music services, due to Apple’s market share, vast music library and 225 million + customer accounts (each with a credit card on file), Apple is uniquely positioned to provide the scale, and therefore possible revenue, for copyright holders to reach the proverbial “pot of gold” at the end of the digital music rainbow.
The end result is a product about convenience, elegance and simplicity, not a “subscription based streaming music service.” Yet it’s the money that people are paying for this convenience and simplicity that will be used to pay artists, record labels and publishers. And if the consumer did buy the song, Apple has provided a new model allowing the artist, label and publisher to get paid a second time for the same recording and song.
In effect, for labels and artists, iCloud is a new stand alone “store.” A decision could be made to give away a song that is in the iTunes music store for free (or at a dramatically lowered price), and each time it gets played via an iCloud account, the rights holder gets paid.
In the meantime, all of the songs in the iCloud service will be downloadable in the AAC format, meaning that they will only play on an Apple device, driving more dependence of Apple’s products. As an example, if you bought a song on AmazonMP3, and play it in your iTunes software, when it gets digitally fingerprinted by Apple, it will be available for you to re-download as an AAC file, only compatible with an Apple hardware device.
And finally, and perhaps more importantly, just as the original Napster trained people to download music and listen to it on their computers, Apple, due to its vast hardware proliferation (iPhones in particular) is in a position to shift consumer behavior yet again–this time from downloading music to listening to it via streams.
And with this consumer shift, the music industry will reset itself once again until the next revolution…
New Rules For The Music Industry
FOR THE MUSIC INDUSTRY:
1) BE TRANSPARENT – No more hiding behind complex royalty calculations. Man up. Be honest. Provide clear and accurate accounting. The digital world makes it easier than ever to do this.
This applies to labels, distributors, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and anyone else you can think of. They can all be transparent if they choose to be. Right now they choose not to be.
2) PAY ON TIME! – No more artificial royalty accounting periods. Returns and co-ops are a thing of the past. Pay out and account on one way no return sales that you have been paid in the same month you get them.
The only reason to hold on to the money is to make bank interest on it. If this is what you are going to do, see #1, BE TRANSPARENT and tell artists you are doing this.
3) NO MORE SUGARCOATING AND HIDING REALITY – Seriously. Stop promising things you know you can’t deliver. Not everyone is going to be a star. Be honest, tell the truth,. Let the musician and artist know the realities of the market so they can have a better understand of what needs to be done to succeed or why things are not going the way they want them to.
4) ACKNOWLEDGE YOU WORK FOR THE ARTIST, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND – Without the artist none of us will have jobs. They are the ones with the talent. They create culture and write songs that have an impact on the world. They are allowing us to serve them, not the other way around. This philosophy and culture must permeate everything you do. Turn this industry from one that “exploits” the artist to one that serves the artist.
5) ONLY OFFER SERVICES YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO – No more asking for rights or income from things you can’t contribute towards. If you are a label and want more money from other areas (i.e. merchandise, songwriter income, gig income etc) you actually have to provide a service that does something to earn that right. There are others out there that are specialists in these areas, can you do what they can?
6) UNDERSTAND THE ARTIST NOW HAS CHOICE – Unlike the old days, artists can now succeed without you. Labels have gone from a “must have” to a “might need”. Be clear in what you have to offer and create a fair and equitable deal in exchange for the services you are offering.
7) COMMERCIAL RADIO AND MTV NO LONGER SINGULARLY BREAK BANDS – It used to be that print, commercial radio and MTV were the three ways to break a band, no longer. Fans themselves have this power via social networking. Find ways to speak to fans directly and don’t use a middleman. Empower and excite them and they will follow.
FOR THE ARTIST
1) STOP ASKING FOR BIG ADVANCES – Understand that the economics of the business have changed for both the artists and the labels. The goal for artists and labels must be the same: create sustainable working relationships for both parties. Disproportionate advances only add tension (economic and otherwise) to an already tense dynamic. Create financial working relationships based on realistic expectations of ROI.
2) EDUCATE YOURSELF – It’s no longer acceptable (or charming) to be the un-informed artist who doesn’t know the difference between a mechanical royalty and a mechanic. You can’t claim that you’ve been taken advantage of by anyone at this point; the information you need is out there, and it’s not that hard to find. Learn it, once you have this knowledge you can then make informed decisions and decide if the other entity is doing its job. Not to mention, the labels etc already know this info and so should you.
3) TAKE RESPONSIBILITY – Stating that there is any person or thing standing in the way of you and success is a cop out. No longer can you say, “If only my records were in stores, people would buy them,” or, “If only people could hear my music they would love it.” The gatekeepers have vanished; the gates are open…go through them.
4) TAKE ACTION – Waiting for a booking agent before you tour? Waiting for a producer before you make a recording? Waiting for a label before you distribute or promote your music? Guess what, someone else isn’t waiting for anyone, and he or she is leaving you in the dust. The worst thing you can do is nothing.
5) SELL – Get over the fact that you’re the artist, and asking people for money in exchange for your art is awkward. The reality is that if your work is good, people will want to compensate you for it. You must not only give them the opportunity to do so, but make it easy for them. Be clear and transparent, and tell your customers that your music is valuable, and that if they want to ensure that you are able to keep creating the music that they enjoy, that they must pay for it. Then give them a wide variety of things to buy at different prices.
6) GIVE WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANYTHING IN RETURN – It’s not all selling, of course, and we are all in this together. Look for ways to help other artists. Share information, share resources. This is not a zero-sum game; the overall pie can expand, and we will all benefit proportionately when it does.
7) DEMAND ANSWERS – if you don’t understand something, ask. If the person you ask can’t give you a clear, understandable answer then he or she is either clueless or trying to hide something. Demand a clear, understandable answer or walk away from the deal.
8) MARKETING DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL SUCCESS – The major labels spent hundreds of millions of dollars marketing and promoting bands. Only 2% of them succeeded, the other 98% were deemed failures. If marketing = success, they would have had a 100% hit ratio. The reason an artist succeeds is because the music caused reaction.
9) LEAD TIME FOR STREET DATES MATTER LESS – It’s not like the old days where you only had a limited time for prime real estate in a retail store and if the CDs did not sell they would be returned. In the new model you can release music today, and market later, with little detrimental impact.
10) IT’S ABOUT A CONSTANT STREAM OF MUSIC AND MEDIA, NOT A ONCE A YEAR ALBUM RELEASE – The new world moves fast. The best strategy is to roll out songs, videos, pictures, blog postings, tweets and anything else you can think of on a constant basis. This keeps your fans engaged and stops you from losing momentum and going stale.
11) IT’S GLOBAL – The new music industry is a global one. At the click of a button your music is available to buy, share, stream and download around the world. Keep this in mind when you think about where your money is being held, generated and how to get it.
12) YOU ARE NOT POWERLESS – Music is not food, shelter or clothing, but everyone likes it and needs it. The music industry currently generates around $30 billion dollars a year. The entities and people getting this money is shifting from the legacy companies to you. Within another five years the collective power of you will be bigger than any of them. You have the power to change things, and you already are.
As just one example, in the past two years, TuneCore Artists have earned over $170 million in gross music sales and have sold over 400 million songs by paid download or stream. TuneCore Songwriters have earned over another $120 million dollars.
As you sell more, they sell less.
13) DEFINE YOUR GOALS – Know what it is you are tying to accomplish. Are you looking to be the next Vanilla Ice or just sell some music without touring? Is your goal corporate sponsorships or having others cover your songs? Whatever it may be, have a goal in mind and then work towards accomplishing that objective. With that one conquered, you can move on to the next.
DON’T EXPECT SOMETHING FOR NOTHING
It’s going to take work to make things happen. Either you need to do the work or you must hire someone else to do part, or all of it, for you. If you understand your rights, how money is made, and how much you should make, you can make educated decisions.
1) BE TRANSPARENT – No more hiding behind complex royalty calculations. Man up. Be honest. Provide clear and accurate accounting. The digital world makes it easier than ever to do this.
This applies to labels, distributors, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and anyone else you can think of. They can all be transparent if they choose to be. Right now they choose not to be.
2) PAY ON TIME! – No more artificial royalty accounting periods. Returns and co-ops are a thing of the past. Pay out and account on one way no return sales that you have been paid in the same month you get them.
The only reason to hold on to the money is to make bank interest on it. If this is what you are going to do, see #1, BE TRANSPARENT and tell artists you are doing this.
3) NO MORE SUGARCOATING AND HIDING REALITY – Seriously. Stop promising things you know you can’t deliver. Not everyone is going to be a star. Be honest, tell the truth,. Let the musician and artist know the realities of the market so they can have a better understand of what needs to be done to succeed or why things are not going the way they want them to.
4) ACKNOWLEDGE YOU WORK FOR THE ARTIST, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND – Without the artist none of us will have jobs. They are the ones with the talent. They create culture and write songs that have an impact on the world. They are allowing us to serve them, not the other way around. This philosophy and culture must permeate everything you do. Turn this industry from one that “exploits” the artist to one that serves the artist.
5) ONLY OFFER SERVICES YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO – No more asking for rights or income from things you can’t contribute towards. If you are a label and want more money from other areas (i.e. merchandise, songwriter income, gig income etc) you actually have to provide a service that does something to earn that right. There are others out there that are specialists in these areas, can you do what they can?
6) UNDERSTAND THE ARTIST NOW HAS CHOICE – Unlike the old days, artists can now succeed without you. Labels have gone from a “must have” to a “might need”. Be clear in what you have to offer and create a fair and equitable deal in exchange for the services you are offering.
7) COMMERCIAL RADIO AND MTV NO LONGER SINGULARLY BREAK BANDS – It used to be that print, commercial radio and MTV were the three ways to break a band, no longer. Fans themselves have this power via social networking. Find ways to speak to fans directly and don’t use a middleman. Empower and excite them and they will follow.
FOR THE ARTIST
1) STOP ASKING FOR BIG ADVANCES – Understand that the economics of the business have changed for both the artists and the labels. The goal for artists and labels must be the same: create sustainable working relationships for both parties. Disproportionate advances only add tension (economic and otherwise) to an already tense dynamic. Create financial working relationships based on realistic expectations of ROI.
2) EDUCATE YOURSELF – It’s no longer acceptable (or charming) to be the un-informed artist who doesn’t know the difference between a mechanical royalty and a mechanic. You can’t claim that you’ve been taken advantage of by anyone at this point; the information you need is out there, and it’s not that hard to find. Learn it, once you have this knowledge you can then make informed decisions and decide if the other entity is doing its job. Not to mention, the labels etc already know this info and so should you.
3) TAKE RESPONSIBILITY – Stating that there is any person or thing standing in the way of you and success is a cop out. No longer can you say, “If only my records were in stores, people would buy them,” or, “If only people could hear my music they would love it.” The gatekeepers have vanished; the gates are open…go through them.
4) TAKE ACTION – Waiting for a booking agent before you tour? Waiting for a producer before you make a recording? Waiting for a label before you distribute or promote your music? Guess what, someone else isn’t waiting for anyone, and he or she is leaving you in the dust. The worst thing you can do is nothing.
5) SELL – Get over the fact that you’re the artist, and asking people for money in exchange for your art is awkward. The reality is that if your work is good, people will want to compensate you for it. You must not only give them the opportunity to do so, but make it easy for them. Be clear and transparent, and tell your customers that your music is valuable, and that if they want to ensure that you are able to keep creating the music that they enjoy, that they must pay for it. Then give them a wide variety of things to buy at different prices.
6) GIVE WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANYTHING IN RETURN – It’s not all selling, of course, and we are all in this together. Look for ways to help other artists. Share information, share resources. This is not a zero-sum game; the overall pie can expand, and we will all benefit proportionately when it does.
7) DEMAND ANSWERS – if you don’t understand something, ask. If the person you ask can’t give you a clear, understandable answer then he or she is either clueless or trying to hide something. Demand a clear, understandable answer or walk away from the deal.
8) MARKETING DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL SUCCESS – The major labels spent hundreds of millions of dollars marketing and promoting bands. Only 2% of them succeeded, the other 98% were deemed failures. If marketing = success, they would have had a 100% hit ratio. The reason an artist succeeds is because the music caused reaction.
9) LEAD TIME FOR STREET DATES MATTER LESS – It’s not like the old days where you only had a limited time for prime real estate in a retail store and if the CDs did not sell they would be returned. In the new model you can release music today, and market later, with little detrimental impact.
10) IT’S ABOUT A CONSTANT STREAM OF MUSIC AND MEDIA, NOT A ONCE A YEAR ALBUM RELEASE – The new world moves fast. The best strategy is to roll out songs, videos, pictures, blog postings, tweets and anything else you can think of on a constant basis. This keeps your fans engaged and stops you from losing momentum and going stale.
11) IT’S GLOBAL – The new music industry is a global one. At the click of a button your music is available to buy, share, stream and download around the world. Keep this in mind when you think about where your money is being held, generated and how to get it.
12) YOU ARE NOT POWERLESS – Music is not food, shelter or clothing, but everyone likes it and needs it. The music industry currently generates around $30 billion dollars a year. The entities and people getting this money is shifting from the legacy companies to you. Within another five years the collective power of you will be bigger than any of them. You have the power to change things, and you already are.
As just one example, in the past two years, TuneCore Artists have earned over $170 million in gross music sales and have sold over 400 million songs by paid download or stream. TuneCore Songwriters have earned over another $120 million dollars.
As you sell more, they sell less.
13) DEFINE YOUR GOALS – Know what it is you are tying to accomplish. Are you looking to be the next Vanilla Ice or just sell some music without touring? Is your goal corporate sponsorships or having others cover your songs? Whatever it may be, have a goal in mind and then work towards accomplishing that objective. With that one conquered, you can move on to the next.
DON’T EXPECT SOMETHING FOR NOTHING
It’s going to take work to make things happen. Either you need to do the work or you must hire someone else to do part, or all of it, for you. If you understand your rights, how money is made, and how much you should make, you can make educated decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)