Will P2P Bear the Blame On This Too?

In the past 5 years of the music industry's assault on file sharing services, they've gone quite a few lengths to blame piracy for their sales woes. I've always felt that piracy was an effect rather than a cause of the problems. The biggest issue is that music just doesn't have the personality and cachet that it once did. The latest example: last week's Grammy show ratings were lower than a popular amateur music show, American Idol.

That should be a good lesson for the music biz. File sharing may be partly at fault for dwindling sales, but the Grammy show is a good indicator for the health of music that should be unaffected by pirated content. They've had ratings issues for a little while now and one quick explanation comes to mind: published music doesn't inspire people anymore.

That people would rather watch a bunch of amateurs vying for pop-star medals over the most established names in music is telling for the depth of the music industry's problems... I wonder how long before the RIAA puts out a press release blaming it on P2P.

Joanna Glasner Needs An Education

I came across this Wired.com column yesterday entitled "Digital Music Biz Ain't Booming" at work and thought "wow, Ms. Glasner is to the music biz as a vegetarian is to the cattle industry." Now I should disclaim that I work in the industry she loves to discount. Do I have problems with the music biz? Yeah, a lot of them. But those are all sitting as Blogger drafts so nothing substantial is really posted yet. But I must protest her commentary about a business she has no real appreciation for.

At any rate, Dear Ms. Glasner:

Here's the deal. Records do cost money. All your friends that think they're finding 1 in a million artists are likely attached to some label (independent or Big Guys). That means there's an entire network of people working behind the music. This costs money, whether you're a staff of 5 or a couple hundred.

Now don't get me wrong. Maybe the economics aren't there to have the staffing that is currently required. But even so it still costs a lot of money to get artists and their latest works into the public. Buzz, even by word of mouth, is oftentimes started by people working in the business (whether they work at a label, concert venue, or publication). How else are you going to hear about the great new artists, even if their contracts aren't equitable? If you want to really get a living from music, you can't just expect MySpace to get you there without blood, sweat, and tears. Plus the agents who also think you're talented and want a million people to buy your CD.

Again, this costs real dollars. I'm not rich by any means but I do really love my job. I won't even consider another place to be. But I also want to get paid because I'm an IT guy, not a starving musician. You might think it's selfish, but my efforts help sell millions of records and everyone that helps make that magic happen deserve their share.

Remember that you may not be a lover of music but I can't imagine life without it. For many people, music is a drug and those artists who inspire us should be patronized. Those artists who comprise your life's soundtrack, conveniently in your iPod-sized palms, should be able to pay their rent, taxes, and get white picket fences too. Again, these dreams cost real dollars.

In short, while it's really easy to beat up on the music business because of bonehead RIAA lawsuits and SonyBMG's DRM-turned-virus debacle, there are many good hard working people who dedicate their lives to selling music. Just because the moral relativists successfully convinced the public (who didn't really need too much help) that music should be free doesn't mean it costs nothing.

Ms. Glasner, I appreciate some of your arguments but you really need to take a larger look at how music gets from the artist's mind to the public's hands. Even if you personally don't value music, there are very real costs of production involved. Perhaps an overview economics class would have been in order before writing such misinformation on a rather respected publication.

Google Music?

I've been mulling the idea of Google acquiring Napster as reported a few days ago. The first thought I had was "why?" because this is a space where there are hundreds of competitors worldwide. Not to mention that the deals are setup such that the labels who own the copyrights retain the lionshare of income. As P2P has aptly shown, music may be much in demand but nobody's paying.

But it dawned on me today that it's a pretty simple concept. Google relies on advertisements for the bulk of their revenue. AdSense and AdWords have been hugely successful as evidenced by offerings like Gmail and Blogger. Bringing AdSense to a music offering seems exactly like something Google would want to do.

Streaming music over the Internet like Pandora or Last.fm seems like an integration waiting to happen. And if you're going to acquire a licensed music firm, why not nab the one with a big name? Napster certainly is ripe for the taking, with heavy competition with Real's subscriber-leading Rhapsody.

And since it's Google, I'd envision a basic streaming service that is free with downloads or portable device transfers to cost. That would make things very interesting for digital music if that happened...

AT&T Jumps In On Extortion Games

To extort is "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power" according to Merriam-Webster. While mainly used as a term for organized crime, communications providers have been ramping up their lobbying power to get the government's approval for charging content providers extra for the privilege of using their infrastructure. AT&T latest efforts are detailed in this Financial Times article: AT&T chief warns on internet costs.

Great, more fake rhetoric about ROI and who bears the costs. Let's be frank: telcos who think they shouldn't pay for their own infrastructure maintenance and upgrades should not be in business. This entire debate is ridiculous when you consider that these ISPs don't just charge end users for DSL or cable. Content providers also pay hefty rates for serving content in terms of T1, T3, and higher bandwidth. Google, Yahoo, and others don't just serve their webpages free over AT&T's pipes. Much of their business expenses include capital investments in server farms and connectivity.

If AT&T can't profitably maintain their network, they have every right to raise their rates for customers (whether they be the DSL or DS3 type) - any new fees are analogous to power companies getting a percentage of Dell's computer sales since you could argue that Dell is getting a free ride using all this electricity to make their hardware functional.

Plain and simple, ISPs are lobbying the US government for no other reason than to line their pockets. What's next, charge me for having this blog?