MySpace vs. The Labels

by on September 5, 2006 · 82 comments

MySpace is getting into the music market. And to help set them apart from the pack, they’ve opted for a decentralized approach: anyone can offer their music via MySpace, and pricing is controlled by the artist. Moreover, MySpace has opted to offer the music in MP3 format, unencumbered by DRM.

Joe at TechDirt gets the implications of this exactly right:

while many of these music stores are simply iTunes clones, MySpace is trying something different. It’s going to offer a way for bands to sell music directly to fans from their MySpace pages. Furthermore, the songs aren’t DRM’d so they’re not tied to a particular device, and the band controls the price at which they’re sold. Bands are already building up followings on MySpace, but have lacked a way to turn popularity into commercial success. This store will try to solve this problem. Predictably, there’s already talk of whether MySpace can unseat the dominance of Apple in the digital music space, but that misses the point. It’s the record labels themselves that should feel threatened. Not only has MySpace already given young bands an avenue to reach the masses, without a label to pay for their promotional campaigns, but now it’s giving them more control over their distribution as well. The value added by signing with a label is clearly diminishing, and their fortunes are likely to follow.

The labels’ traditional strengths were in distribution and marketing. Their distribution advantage is effectively gone, at least among the under-40 crowd that mostly listens to music on their iPods. And their promotional advantage is fading as more young people find new music on the Internet rather than traditional broadcast media.

As a result, the labels are largely coasting on inertia. Because they’ve got contracts with the vast majority of popular artists, people are in the habit of looking to them for new music. That, in turn, makes their artists more likely to succeed, which in turn makes the best artists more likely to seek contracts from them. It’s a virtuous cycle that’s allowed them to continue to dominate the music charts even as their distribution and promotional network is rapidly rendered obsolete.

But the momentum won’t continue forever. Sites like MySpace will make it ever easier for bands to find fans without the help of the labels. And once a substantial fraction of rock stars aren’t beholden to the labels, the labels’ remaining advantages will evaporate. At that point, their high overhead and history of hostility toward their customers will come back to haunt them. Consumer are likely to find getting music on MySpace to be cheaper, more convenient, and more interactive. And once bands can reach their fans directly, why bother with the middleman?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    This would be a positive development if it drives down costs of music distribution for individual artists and enables them to make more profit without the “Studios.” But I still question the revenue model. If MySpace offers music w/o DRM, then why would users pay for the songs when they can just copy them from their pals.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel, consumers who buy their music on CD can already copy them from their pals. How is this different?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    This would be a positive development if it drives down costs of music distribution for individual artists and enables them to make more profit without the “Studios.” But I still question the revenue model. If MySpace offers music w/o DRM, then why would users pay for the songs when they can just copy them from their pals.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Again, piracy is something that happens on a scale, its not whether it happens or not, but to what extent. Do you think copying will increase when its legal to get files from your pals?

    How will artists get $20-30M in capital to invest in large scale productions unless there’s a revenue model with sufficient profit margin?

    So what is stopping your proposed business model from happening, if artists, consumers and online mediums all have the incentive to pursue the course?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    No one is talking about making it legal to share copyrighted files without the permission of the copyright owner. Buying a song from MySpace and then sharing copies with your friends will still be illegal.

    And how could it possibly take $20 million to produce a new album?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel, consumers who buy their music on CD can already copy them from their pals. How is this different?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    MySpace has opted to offer the music in MP3 format, unencumbered by DRM

    Oh ok, I read this sentence as saying it would be legal to copy songs. You’re saying that it won’t, but still, any artist who releases his songs in MPR without DRM is going to factor that into the cost of downloads.

    I still question the revenue viability with MySpace though. Sure you might get some starter bands, or others looking for easy ways to distribute samples, but nothing to replace the “Studios.”

    $20 million to produce an album was only a guess, lets just say about $1 million for our purposes here(although the number can run beyond $20 million).

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Again, piracy is something that happens on a scale, its not whether it happens or not, but to what extent. Do you think copying will increase when its legal to get files from your pals?

    How will artists get $20-30M in capital to invest in large scale productions unless there’s a revenue model with sufficient profit margin?

    So what is stopping your proposed business model from happening, if artists, consumers and online mediums all have the incentive to pursue the course?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    You didn’t answer either of my questions: how is releasing an MP3 version of your song different from releasing a CD? And why does it cost even $1 million to record an album?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    No one is talking about making it legal to share copyrighted files without the permission of the copyright owner. Buying a song from MySpace and then sharing copies with your friends will still be illegal.

    And how could it possibly take $20 million to produce a new album?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    MySpace has opted to offer the music in MP3 format, unencumbered by DRM

    Oh ok, I read this sentence as saying it would be legal to copy songs. You’re saying that it won’t, but still, any artist who releases his songs in MPR without DRM is going to factor that into the cost of downloads.

    I still question the revenue viability with MySpace though. Sure you might get some starter bands, or others looking for easy ways to distribute samples, but nothing to replace the “Studios.”

    $20 million to produce an album was only a guess, lets just say about $1 million for our purposes here(although the number can run beyond $20 million).

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    I heard some statistic on a Michael Jackson album being ridiculously high to produce, but that may be an exception. I also might have combined both CD and video production, so the number is no where near to $20 million.

    Still, how will artists recoup their investments. Are you going to argue that with today’s technologies, such minimal investment is such that copiable downloads will still pull profit. Even if having MP3s downloaded without DRM from MySpace will be akin to getting CDs with (breakable) copy protection, it will be easier to copy the MP3 file, and thus more piracy will result. Musicians who go to MySpace may do so because the publicity is more valuable than any profit they’re capable of right now; but when they can pull a profit they will (and might resort to things like DRM:).

    So, back to my question. So what is stopping your proposed business model from happening, if artists, consumers and online mediums all have the incentive (as you argue) to pursue the course?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    You didn’t answer either of my questions: how is releasing an MP3 version of your song different from releasing a CD? And why does it cost even $1 million to record an album?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    I heard some statistic on a Michael Jackson album being ridiculously high to produce, but that may be an exception. I also might have combined both CD and video production, so the number is no where near to $20 million.

    Still, how will artists recoup their investments. Are you going to argue that with today’s technologies, such minimal investment is such that copiable downloads will still pull profit. Even if having MP3s downloaded without DRM from MySpace will be akin to getting CDs with (breakable) copy protection, it will be easier to copy the MP3 file, and thus more piracy will result. Musicians who go to MySpace may do so because the publicity is more valuable than any profit they’re capable of right now; but when they can pull a profit they will (and might resort to things like DRM:).

    So, back to my question. So what is stopping your proposed business model from happening, if artists, consumers and online mediums all have the incentive (as you argue) to pursue the course?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Even if having MP3s downloaded without DRM from MySpace will be akin to getting CDs with (breakable) copy protection, it will be easier to copy the MP3 file, and thus more piracy will result.

    I don’t understand this argument. All of my CDs are already sitting on my computer in MP3 format. I ripped them in order to listen to them on my iPod. The same is true of the vast majority of iPod owners. So I don’t see why it’s any harder to rip an MP3 from a CD and then share it then to download an MP3 from MySpace and then share it.

    As for what’s stopping this business model from happening, the answer is that it is happening. eMusic has reached 13 percent of the music market by selling unencumbered MP3s, and their customer base is growing rapidly. MySpace’s entry into the MP3 marketplace will only accelerate the process. DRM-encumbered music had the early lead because the largest incumbents insisted on it, but more nimble competitors are now gaining ground.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim

    Even if having MP3s downloaded without DRM from MySpace will be akin to getting CDs with (breakable) copy protection, it will be easier to copy the MP3 file, and thus more piracy will result.

    I don’t understand this argument. All of my CDs are already sitting on my computer in MP3 format. I ripped them in order to listen to them on my iPod. The same is true of the vast majority of iPod owners. So I don’t see why it’s any harder to rip an MP3 from a CD and then share it then to download an MP3 from MySpace and then share it.

    As for what’s stopping this business model from happening, the answer is that it is happening. eMusic has reached 13 percent of the music market by selling unencumbered MP3s, and their customer base is growing rapidly. MySpace’s entry into the MP3 marketplace will only accelerate the process. DRM-encumbered music had the early lead because the largest incumbents insisted on it, but more nimble competitors are now gaining ground.

  • eric

    Noel, I am astounded at your position. Yes, in the old days, artists would spend eons in expensive recording studios. A few were indulged with that expense. Fleetwood Mac’s Tusk probably cost $1-2 million dollars back in the day. But the majority of the albums I listen to probably cost less than $50,000 to record. The first two albums by the Police cost less than $20,000 — before they got famous and could dawdle in the studio recording 57 takes of the guitar solo. Today someone with a laptop, ProTools software, a good microphone, and some patience, can record an album for virtually nothing. And they are.

    On the other end of the process, the sale to the consumer, many artists are making so little on an iTunes download, they might as well give the music away anyway. The Allman Brothers make 4.5 cents per song on an iTunes download. If people bought the physical CD, they would make more than 30 cents a song. (Needless to say, the Allmans and many artists have initiated a lawsuit against their employers.) Other artists have also said they make substantially more royalties on CD sales than on an equivalent number of downloaded tunes. My point is that it isn’t hard to believe that, even given an increased level of friends giving copies to friends (which I doubt), an artist could make more money selling a non-DRM product himself on MySpace than having to sacrifice most of the sale price to the record label on a protected iTunes song.

  • eric

    Noel, I am astounded at your position. Yes, in the old days, artists would spend eons in expensive recording studios. A few were indulged with that expense. Fleetwood Mac’s Tusk probably cost $1-2 million dollars back in the day. But the majority of the albums I listen to probably cost less than $50,000 to record. The first two albums by the Police cost less than $20,000 — before they got famous and could dawdle in the studio recording 57 takes of the guitar solo. Today someone with a laptop, ProTools software, a good microphone, and some patience, can record an album for virtually nothing. And they are.

    On the other end of the process, the sale to the consumer, many artists are making so little on an iTunes download, they might as well give the music away anyway. The Allman Brothers make 4.5 cents per song on an iTunes download. If people bought the physical CD, they would make more than 30 cents a song. (Needless to say, the Allmans and many artists have initiated a lawsuit against their employers.) Other artists have also said they make substantially more royalties on CD sales than on an equivalent number of downloaded tunes. My point is that it isn’t hard to believe that, even given an increased level of friends giving copies to friends (which I doubt), an artist could make more money selling a non-DRM product himself on MySpace than having to sacrifice most of the sale price to the record label on a protected iTunes song.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Eric, anyone who ever loses on the stock market will tell you that very seldom do things go as planned despite calculations on every conceiveable risk and incentive.

    I’m not very astounded when someone neatly draws up a new business model and allocates “optimal” incentives to all parties involved, yet projected developments never materialize. There’s often a miscalculation of incentives for those with the largest potential risks and profits (here, its the artists).

    I’m not sure I buy Tim’s arguments that “DRM-encumbered music had the early lead because the largest incumbents insisted on it” as a reason why non-DRM music does not currently dominate, it may well be the reason why non-DRM music turns out to never dominate.

    Now, I’m all supportive of businesses with lower margins that can force incumbents to lower prices (that’s “competition”), but I’m skeptical. Here’s why…

    I’d still like to make sure current profit levels for artists can remain where they are with few inherent profit limitations from DRM-free downloads. Some artists may still feel that DRM will benefit them, and if thats not an option w/ eMusic and MySpace, they may still go to the Studios, or at least to Internet mediums that enable DRM as well as DRM-free MP3s.

    If eMusic and MySpace get big in digital download markets, the Studios may yet dominate the music industry, as I don’t see major artists needing to sell directly to users if they’re happy with their current paychecks. Is there any widespread evidence this is not the case. Will artists start doing their own promotional and marketing work because of this. Even if true, at most eMusic and MySpace may serve the lower and middle market artists, and those the Studios don’t see enough profit potential in to offer contracts to. But I highly doubt they will replace the Studios.

    Honestly, some of this sounds like a stealth argument against DRM clothed in language that portends to account for the needs of those with the most to lose (artists). The justification sounds like: “piracy already happens, so why not integrate it into the business plan and get rid of DRM which has costs more than it has done good, we’ll use the reasoning that profits will still accrue to creators as reason to get rid of DRM.” If business models like eMusic and MySpace never turn out, it might be because incentives enabled by DRM are underestimated.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel, you still haven’t answered my question: what’s the difference between the labels selling DRM-free CDs and MySpace selling DRM-free MP3s? The former seems just as likely to promote piracy as the latter.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Well, Tim, with ripping CDs, you’re limited to the number of songs contained on the CDs that you or your pals buy. With MP3s, you’re limited to the number of songs you or your pals download. Is it easier to buy a CD to copy or simply download an MP3? I’d say its easier to download an MP3, you can do it in the comfort of your home; and thus there will be more availability of songs to copy and send around. Whether or not the difference is significant enough so that there will be more piracy w/ MP3s is the next question- its an option I proposed when looking at non-DRM download businesses, but not one I have definite answers on.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Eric, anyone who ever loses on the stock market will tell you that very seldom do things go as planned despite calculations on every conceiveable risk and incentive.

    I’m not very astounded when someone neatly draws up a new business model and allocates “optimal” incentives to all parties involved, yet projected developments never materialize. There’s often a miscalculation of incentives for those with the largest potential risks and profits (here, its the artists).

    I’m not sure I buy Tim’s arguments that “DRM-encumbered music had the early lead because the largest incumbents insisted on it” as a reason why non-DRM music does not currently dominate, it may well be the reason why non-DRM music turns out to never dominate.

    Now, I’m all supportive of businesses with lower margins that can force incumbents to lower prices (that’s “competition”), but I’m skeptical. Here’s why…

    I’d still like to make sure current profit levels for artists can remain where they are with few inherent profit limitations from DRM-free downloads. Some artists may still feel that DRM will benefit them, and if thats not an option w/ eMusic and MySpace, they may still go to the Studios, or at least to Internet mediums that enable DRM as well as DRM-free MP3s.

    If eMusic and MySpace get big in digital download markets, the Studios may yet dominate the music industry, as I don’t see major artists needing to sell directly to users if they’re happy with their current paychecks. Is there any widespread evidence this is not the case. Will artists start doing their own promotional and marketing work because of this. Even if true, at most eMusic and MySpace may serve the lower and middle market artists, and those the Studios don’t see enough profit potential in to offer contracts to. But I highly doubt they will replace the Studios.

    Honestly, some of this sounds like a stealth argument against DRM clothed in language that portends to account for the needs of those with the most to lose (artists). The justification sounds like: “piracy already happens, so why not integrate it into the business plan and get rid of DRM which has costs more than it has done good, we’ll use the reasoning that profits will still accrue to creators as reason to get rid of DRM.” If business models like eMusic and MySpace never turn out, it might be because incentives enabled by DRM are underestimated.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Noel, you still haven’t answered my question: what’s the difference between the labels selling DRM-free CDs and MySpace selling DRM-free MP3s? The former seems just as likely to promote piracy as the latter.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    So the reason MP3s are more dangerous than CDs is that people will buy more of them? Isn’t increased music sales a good thing from the artist’s perspective?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    …fitting increased sales into my hypothesis, piracy would not grow linearly with MP3 sales. It would increase at a greater rate per sale than with CDs.

    I see that you’re trying to justify this business model. You see it as an economic case against DRM. I’m skeptical though (as I am with most things) because you spend more time justifying and downplaying piracy than you do describing the incentives for artists.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, there’s a big hole in your argument there. All it takes is one person to buy the CD, then everyone can have it. With iTunes making ripping so easy for everyone, it’s not even an issue anymore. Just put the original CD in, click the import button and that’s it.

    Trading files via iPod is allegedly one of the most mainstream ways to do it now in college. The music is stored in a folder on the iPod that can be accessed on any computer that will recognize an iPod. I’ve ripped 15GB of music off my iPod this way before and have seen people swap music this way. Beats sharing over a network. Oh and iTunes will rebuild the directories, file names, etc. when you import those folders if the ID3 tags are present in the files.

    The downloading issue you present is only valid if the store doesn’t provide proper security to give access to the MP3 only after it’s been bought. At that point, the MP3 can be shared just as easily as if it had been ripped.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Noel, there’s a big hole in your argument there. All it takes is one person to buy the CD, then everyone can have it. With iTunes making ripping so easy for everyone, it’s not even an issue anymore. Just put the original CD in, click the import button and that’s it.

    Hey, I’m not saying piracy will definitely increase to a significant amount with MP3 downloads, I’m just raising the issue.

    I disagree though that CDs are definitely as easy to copy and distribute though. Maybe its because I’m lazy, but I’ve downloaded rather than buy CDs for the past few years. I’d be more inclined to download more songs and send them to friends, than to have to go out and buy a CD or wait til one of my pals does.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Fitting increased sales into my hypothesis, piracy would not grow linearly with MP3 sales. It would increase at a greater rate per sale than with CDs.

    Noel, you’re begging the question. I’ve asked three times now, and you’ve ducked the question every time. So let’s try it one more time: what is it about CDs make them less piracy-prone than legally-purchased MP3s?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Well, Tim, with ripping CDs, you’re limited to the number of songs contained on the CDs that you or your pals buy. With MP3s, you’re limited to the number of songs you or your pals download. Is it easier to buy a CD to copy or simply download an MP3? I’d say its easier to download an MP3, you can do it in the comfort of your home; and thus there will be more availability of songs to copy and send around. Whether or not the difference is significant enough so that there will be more piracy w/ MP3s is the next question- its an option I proposed when looking at non-DRM download businesses, but not one I have definite answers on.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Uhhh, I’ve said that it may be easier to copy MP3s because its easier to download them than to buy CDs and rip them. Do you need me to copy/paste this sentence again for you. I’ve basically done it 3 times.

    Now for your question. How will your business model be profitable for artists beyond their current revenue streams. Why will they switch. You spend more time downplaying the effects of piracy than you do explaining the viability of your new incentives and profit model.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, my point is that the barrier is simply not there. CDs, by virtue of being unprotected, are a speed bump, not a barrier, to piracy. People will share from a variety of sources, and the only way to “fix” that is to end all non-DRM formats which ultimately means legislation. I believe Fritz Hollings was a fan of that (not saying you are).

    I just don’t see how CDs do anything for piracy. Maybe it’s because I saw my peers in college trade entire hard drives during class that I am a little jaded. Hell, I did some of that with tv shows myself before I had any money to actually buy the DVDs that I now own.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    So the reason MP3s are more dangerous than CDs is that people will buy more of them? Isn’t increased music sales a good thing from the artist’s perspective?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    …fitting increased sales into my hypothesis, piracy would not grow linearly with MP3 sales. It would increase at a greater rate per sale than with CDs.

    I see that you’re trying to justify this business model. You see it as an economic case against DRM. I’m skeptical though (as I am with most things) because you spend more time justifying and downplaying piracy than you do describing the incentives for artists.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, there’s a big hole in your argument there. All it takes is one person to buy the CD, then everyone can have it. With iTunes making ripping so easy for everyone, it’s not even an issue anymore. Just put the original CD in, click the import button and that’s it.


    Trading files via iPod is allegedly one of the most mainstream ways to do it now in college. The music is stored in a folder on the iPod that can be accessed on any computer that will recognize an iPod. I’ve ripped 15GB of music off my iPod this way before and have seen people swap music this way. Beats sharing over a network. Oh and iTunes will rebuild the directories, file names, etc. when you import those folders if the ID3 tags are present in the files.


    The downloading issue you present is only valid if the store doesn’t provide proper security to give access to the MP3 only after it’s been bought. At that point, the MP3 can be shared just as easily as if it had been ripped.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    I’m not saying there is definitely a “significant” differential between CDs and MP3 downloads. Tim seems to want a definite answer. I don’t know the answer, do you?

    I raise the issue b/c I think its important to discuss the interets of the biggest stake holders (artists), not those who will gain the most for less (users.. even though I am one).

    Putting aside the issue, there are many more things about Tim’s post worth discussing.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Noel, there’s a big hole in your argument there. All it takes is one person to buy the CD, then everyone can have it. With iTunes making ripping so easy for everyone, it’s not even an issue anymore. Just put the original CD in, click the import button and that’s it.

    Hey, I’m not saying piracy will definitely increase to a significant amount with MP3 downloads, I’m just raising the issue.

    I disagree though that CDs are definitely as easy to copy and distribute though. Maybe its because I’m lazy, but I’ve downloaded rather than buy CDs for the past few years. I’d be more inclined to download more songs and send them to friends, than to have to go out and buy a CD or wait til one of my pals does.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    Fitting increased sales into my hypothesis, piracy would not grow linearly with MP3 sales. It would increase at a greater rate per sale than with CDs.

    Noel, you’re begging the question. I’ve asked three times now, and you’ve ducked the question every time. So let’s try it one more time: what is it about CDs make them less piracy-prone than legally-purchased MP3s?

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Uhhh, I’ve said that it may be easier to copy MP3s because its easier to download them than to buy CDs and rip them. Do you need me to copy/paste this sentence again for you. I’ve basically done it 3 times.

    Now for your question. How will your business model be profitable for artists beyond their current revenue streams. Why will they switch. You spend more time downplaying the effects of piracy than you do explaining the viability of your new incentives and profit model.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    The piracy issue is a big red herring that the major labels will try to push, push, push, because this is the beginning of the end of the major labels. Someone has constructed a market, which will serve to biggest function of the major labels (connecting buyers and sellers) witout out almost any of the overhead, and furthermore, the service will be enticing to new artists because it represents a low barrier to entry.

    What we now await is the first mega hit using this distribution method, and it will be seen as the road to success by up and coming artists.

    This is another example of Schumpeterian creative destruction.

    creative, if you are consumer

    destructive, if you are a major label

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, my point is that the barrier is simply not there. CDs, by virtue of being unprotected, are a speed bump, not a barrier, to piracy. People will share from a variety of sources, and the only way to “fix” that is to end all non-DRM formats which ultimately means legislation. I believe Fritz Hollings was a fan of that (not saying you are).


    I just don’t see how CDs do anything for piracy. Maybe it’s because I saw my peers in college trade entire hard drives during class that I am a little jaded. Hell, I did some of that with tv shows myself before I had any money to actually buy the DVDs that I now own.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    But I still question the revenue model. If MySpace offers music w/o DRM, then why would users pay for the songs when they can just copy them from their pals.

    The margins will be thin, I will grant you that.

    Regarding the propensity of buyers to pirate the music I will make this comment, (all those at IP Central hold on to your seats!): The moral sense of stealing from a large corporation is very different than stealing from an individual artists. You can wail and gnash your teeth, and wish that it wouldn’t be so, But it is, get over it.

    So, piracy will happen, but in a greater preportion to files issued by the labels than those files issued by an individual through myspace…

    Another critical advantage to: open source distribution network. (And in this case the content is not open source, but the distribution network itself is open source. Critical difference to itunes)

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    I’m not saying there is definitely a “significant” differential between CDs and MP3 downloads. Tim seems to want a definite answer. I don’t know the answer, do you?

    I raise the issue b/c I think its important to discuss the interets of the biggest stake holders (artists), not those who will gain the most for less (users.. even though I am one).

    Putting aside the issue, there are many more things about Tim’s post worth discussing.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    The moral sense of stealing from a large corporation is very different than stealing from an individual artists.

    OK, Robinhood, what happens when individual artists become big time stars. Eh? Is there a cut-off for when its “morally” right or wrong to steal from them. Perhaps MySpace should advertise this on its site so artists can feel protected from being ripped off as long as they’re living in their cars.

    So, Enigma, tell me. Will the MySpace business model work at all with DRM-protected files. I know MySpace is hosting files w/o DRM, but perhaps a competitor will rise up, and offer MySpace’s low margins w/ DRM. Who do you think artists will flock to.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, in answer to one of your questions, artists are frequently shafted by the record labels. I recall a case where Eliot Spitzer forced a few of them to pay out over $50M in royalties they hadn’t paid but owed, to their signed artists. The ability to engage in a competitive, friendlier environment alone is good for many of them, arguably a lot better than what they have now. Not that many bands are actually very successful under the current recording model anyway.

    I think that the only solution to piracy is to treat it as a minor property crime. I’d assess a $1.00 per pirated file fine with no limit. That would give local and state governments ample reason to protect the property rights of the stakeholders while taking back ground from expansionist copyright holders who want new legislative restrictions on technology and private physical property rights.

    That said, I too remain dubious as to whether a MP3-based model with no DRM could work in the absence of consistent policing by local and state agencies. I’ve seen too many people just be dishonest about all of it, even once they got jobs that pay quite well.

    Now, my challenge to you and your peers at the PFF is, why not abandon your support of laws like the DMCA in favor of state-level reforms that treat mass piracy as felony grand theft? Which do you think is more likely to drive that stuff home harder, the DRM and DMCA or a felony conviction for grand theft?

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    The piracy issue is a big red herring that the major labels will try to push, push, push, because this is the beginning of the end of the major labels. Someone has constructed a market, which will serve to biggest function of the major labels (connecting buyers and sellers) witout out almost any of the overhead, and furthermore, the service will be enticing to new artists because it represents a low barrier to entry.


    What we now await is the first mega hit using this distribution method, and it will be seen as the road to success by up and coming artists.


    This is another example of Schumpeterian creative destruction.


    creative, if you are consumer


    destructive, if you are a major label

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    How will your business model be profitable for artists beyond their current revenue streams. Why will they switch. You spend more time downplaying the effects of piracy than you do explaining the viability of your new incentives and profit model.

    The “business model” is that people pay artists for downloads. I don’t understand why you think that won’t be profitable. You suggest that MP3s “may” be more likely to be pirated, but you don’t offer any reason for thinking that. Yes, it’s harder to buy a CD than an MP3, but once you’ve bought it, the piracy risks are identical. So if you think selling MP3s isn’t a viable business model, how do you explain the continued sales of CDs?

    As for why artists would switch: they’d switch because more efficient distribution methods mean that the artist gets a bigger cut of the profits. An artist only gets a few pennies when their song is purchased on iTunes. They’re likely to get a lot more from MySpace. In addition, without the burdens of DRM, more customers are likely to buy music online.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    I think the idea can pull a profit, to what extent though I’m not sure.

    OK, so now the question turns to whether there will be any limitation on piracy. You’re saying there will be no piracy cops…

    What is going to stop a “mirror” P2P site from setting up, automatically downloading each new song that comes onto MySpace, and then making those files available for free to users. That way, a song only needs to be bought once, and then distributed without limitation to other users.

    I can’t imagine a music service that offered absolutely zero DRM protection meeting its maximum profit potential. Thats beside the point for now. But why not offer users the choice to either buy a DRM protected file for a bit less, or non-DRM files for a bit more. This gives artists more options, and more importantly, may give them extra security and incentive to make their content available.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Tim, given the overwhelming domination of the iPod and iTunes, what makes you think that most people even notice or care about DRM? I would be more inclined to say that the reason why online buying is not as popular is that most people are still accustomed to owning a CD and associate a download with a cheap knock off.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    But I still question the revenue model. If MySpace offers music w/o DRM, then why would users pay for the songs when they can just copy them from their pals.

    The margins will be thin, I will grant you that.

    Regarding the propensity of buyers to pirate the music I will make this comment, (all those at IP Central hold on to your seats!): The moral sense of stealing from a large corporation is very different than stealing from an individual artists. You can wail and gnash your teeth, and wish that it wouldn’t be so, But it is, get over it.

    So, piracy will happen, but in a greater preportion to files issued by the labels than those files issued by an individual through myspace…


    Another critical advantage to:
    open source distribution network.

    (And in this case the content is not open source, but the distribution network itself is open source. Critical difference to itunes)

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    MikeT, can you re-write your previous post in French?

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Mi dispiace, ma io non parlo qualche francese. Ti piace si scrivo in Italiano?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    What is going to stop a “mirror” P2P site from setting up, automatically downloading each new song that comes onto MySpace, and then making those files available for free to users. That way, a song only needs to be bought once, and then distributed without limitation to other users.

    Noel, there are already P2P sites that do this. They’re illegal now, and they’ll continue to be illegal after MySpace launches its service. To be blunt, this is an incredibly obvious point that has been made repeatedly by me and others. If you have trouble understanding it, I don’t see any point in continuing this thread.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    The moral sense of stealing from a large corporation is very different than stealing from an individual artists.

    OK, Robinhood, what happens when individual artists become big time stars. Eh? Is there a cut-off for when its “morally” right or wrong to steal from them. Perhaps MySpace should advertise this on its site so artists can feel protected from being ripped off as long as they’re living in their cars.

    So, Enigma, tell me. Will the MySpace business model work at all with DRM-protected files. I know MySpace is hosting files w/o DRM, but perhaps a competitor will rise up, and offer MySpace’s low margins w/ DRM. Who do you think artists will flock to.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    OK, I guess I was too optimistic about your business forecasts.

    You finally got at what I was after all along: that your business concept would facillitate piracy exponentially: all you have to do is lure the little artists to hand over their hard work, promise them you’ll treat them better than the big bad guys in Hollywood, take their songs, and while they’re lamenting over piracy to magnitudes never seen by mankind, you gleefully talk about how you proved that music services can work without DRM and how you brought the labels down.

    Who wins? It doesn’t sound like you’re looking after the artists. This whole thread was essentially a criticism of DRM on your part, clothed in a business prediction that you prettied up in language about low margins and freedom of artists from the Studios.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    You finally got at what I was after all along: that your business concept would facillitate piracy exponentially.

    Noel, that’s completely nonsense, and I said nothing of the sort. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, in answer to one of your questions, artists are frequently shafted by the record labels. I recall a case where Eliot Spitzer forced a few of them to pay out over $50M in royalties they hadn’t paid but owed, to their signed artists. The ability to engage in a competitive, friendlier environment alone is good for many of them, arguably a lot better than what they have now. Not that many bands are actually very successful under the current recording model anyway.


    I think that the only solution to piracy is to treat it as a minor property crime. I’d assess a $1.00 per pirated file fine with no limit. That would give local and state governments ample reason to protect the property rights of the stakeholders while taking back ground from expansionist copyright holders who want new legislative restrictions on technology and private physical property rights.


    That said, I too remain dubious as to whether a MP3-based model with no DRM could work in the absence of consistent policing by local and state agencies. I’ve seen too many people just be dishonest about all of it, even once they got jobs that pay quite well.


    Now, my challenge to you and your peers at the PFF is, why not abandon your support of laws like the DMCA in favor of state-level reforms that treat mass piracy as felony grand theft? Which do you think is more likely to drive that stuff home harder, the DRM and DMCA or a felony conviction for grand theft?

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, so how about those state property laws? If copyright is property, why not apply state property laws to copyrighted goods? That’d bring in an impressive array of protections for copyright holders that wouldn’t conflict with other natural rights.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    How will your business model be profitable for artists beyond their current revenue streams. Why will they switch. You spend more time downplaying the effects of piracy than you do explaining the viability of your new incentives and profit model.

    The “business model” is that people pay artists for downloads. I don’t understand why you think that won’t be profitable. You suggest that MP3s “may” be more likely to be pirated, but you don’t offer any reason for thinking that. Yes, it’s harder to buy a CD than an MP3, but once you’ve bought it, the piracy risks are identical. So if you think selling MP3s isn’t a viable business model, how do you explain the continued sales of CDs?

    As for why artists would switch: they’d switch because more efficient distribution methods mean that the artist gets a bigger cut of the profits. An artist only gets a few pennies when their song is purchased on iTunes. They’re likely to get a lot more from MySpace. In addition, without the burdens of DRM, more customers are likely to buy music online.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    I think the idea can pull a profit, to what extent though I’m not sure.

    OK, so now the question turns to whether there will be any limitation on piracy. You’re saying there will be no piracy cops…

    What is going to stop a “mirror” P2P site from setting up, automatically downloading each new song that comes onto MySpace, and then making those files available for free to users. That way, a song only needs to be bought once, and then distributed without limitation to other users.

    I can’t imagine a music service that offered absolutely zero DRM protection meeting its maximum profit potential. Thats beside the point for now. But why not offer users the choice to either buy a DRM protected file for a bit less, or non-DRM files for a bit more. This gives artists more options, and more importantly, may give them extra security and incentive to make their content available.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Tim, given the overwhelming domination of the iPod and iTunes, what makes you think that most people even notice or care about DRM? I would be more inclined to say that the reason why online buying is not as popular is that most people are still accustomed to owning a CD and associate a download with a cheap knock off.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    MikeT, can you re-write your previous post in French?

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Mi dispiace, ma io non parlo qualche francese. Ti piace si scrivo in Italiano?

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    What is going to stop a “mirror” P2P site from setting up, automatically downloading each new song that comes onto MySpace, and then making those files available for free to users. That way, a song only needs to be bought once, and then distributed without limitation to other users.

    Noel, there are already P2P sites that do this. They’re illegal now, and they’ll continue to be illegal after MySpace launches its service. To be blunt, this is an incredibly obvious point that has been made repeatedly by me and others. If you have trouble understanding it, I don’t see any point in continuing this thread.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Mike, uhhh, please wait for another thread. I will say this though, there is a lot of benefit in uniform federal IP laws.

    I actually don’t see a need for any natural rights analysis for copyright. I hope Jim Harper doesn’t jump on me right now, but I view copyrights in-line with most other regulatory policies: strictly utilitarian (http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/09/digital_copyrig_2.html).

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    OK, I guess I was too optimistic about your business forecasts.

    You finally got at what I was after all along: that your business concept would facillitate piracy exponentially: all you have to do is lure the little artists to hand over their hard work, promise them you’ll treat them better than the big bad guys in Hollywood, take their songs, and while they’re lamenting over piracy to magnitudes never seen by mankind, you gleefully talk about how you proved that music services can work without DRM and how you brought the labels down.

    Who wins? It doesn’t sound like you’re looking after the artists. This whole thread was essentially a criticism of DRM on your part, clothed in a business prediction that you prettied up in language about low margins and freedom of artists from the Studios.

  • http://www.techliberation.com/ Tim Lee

    You finally got at what I was after all along: that your business concept would facillitate piracy exponentially.

    Noel, that’s completely nonsense, and I said nothing of the sort. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Noel, so how about those state property laws? If copyright is property, why not apply state property laws to copyrighted goods? That’d bring in an impressive array of protections for copyright holders that wouldn’t conflict with other natural rights.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Whatever you say. I thought I would bring it up since we are discussing the issue of piracy and it strikes me as the only taboo among strong IP supporters.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Mike, uhhh, please wait for another thread. I will say this though, there is a lot of benefit in uniform federal IP laws.

    I actually don’t see a need for any natural rights analysis for copyright. I hope Jim Harper doesn’t jump on me right now, but I view copyrights in-line with most other regulatory policies: strictly utilitarian (http://weblog.ipcentral.info/archives/2006/09/d…).

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Whatever you say. I thought I would bring it up since we are discussing the issue of piracy and it strikes me as the only taboo among strong IP supporters.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/ enigma_foundry

    OK, Robinhood, what happens when individual artists become big time stars. Eh? Is there a cut-off for when its “morally” right or wrong to steal from them. Perhaps MySpace should advertise this on its site so artists can feel protected from being ripped off as long as they’re living in their cars.

    So Noel, there you go again putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that it was right to steal from a large corporation, I just said that people, in general are much more reluctant to steal from an individual than from a large corporation. I was simply observing a FACT. Then, after I have the facts I analyze them. In this case, I believe that individual artists will be somewhat less prone to being ripped off than corporate owners of IP would be.

    So, Enigma, tell me. Will the MySpace business model work at all with DRM-protected files. I know MySpace is hosting files w/o DRM, but perhaps a competitor will rise up, and offer MySpace’s low margins w/ DRM. Who do you think artists will flock to.

    Probably which ever gives them the better revenues or exposure, because artists need both.

    Regarding the revenue issue I would strongly suggest you look at this post over at Freedom to Tinker. It seems that even when University paid in full for music subscriptions, students still preferred to use good old P2P to get DRM-less files. So there’s a good chance that DRM-less files will be able to support a higher price point. Also, I seem to recall that an artist recently released both a DRM and a DRM-less file of a song, with a higher price for the DRM-less version.

    See, Noel, you keep on framing this in terms of what benefits the producers but the internet empowers consumers more than producers, so I keep pointing out the power of the consumers. Yes, there is always a balance, but you’re still seeing the market the way it was..

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    OK, Robinhood, what happens when individual artists become big time stars. Eh? Is there a cut-off for when its “morally” right or wrong to steal from them. Perhaps MySpace should advertise this on its site so artists can feel protected from being ripped off as long as they’re living in their cars.


    So Noel, there you go again putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that it was right to steal from a large corporation, I just said that people, in general are much more reluctant to steal from an individual than from a large corporation. I was simply observing a FACT. Then, after I have the facts I analyze them. In this case, I believe that individual artists will be somewhat less prone to being ripped off than corporate owners of IP would be.


    So, Enigma, tell me. Will the MySpace business model work at all with DRM-protected files. I know MySpace is hosting files w/o DRM, but perhaps a competitor will rise up, and offer MySpace’s low margins w/ DRM. Who do you think artists will flock to.


    Probably which ever gives them the better revenues or exposure, because artists need both.


    Regarding the revenue issue I would strongly suggest you look at
    this post over at Freedom to Tinker. It seems that even when University paid in full for music subscriptions, students still preferred to use good old P2P to get DRM-less files. So there’s a good chance that DRM-less files will be able to support a higher price point. Also, I seem to recall that an artist recently released both a DRM and a DRM-less file of a song, with a higher price for the DRM-less version.


    See, Noel, you keep on framing this in terms of what benefits the producers but the internet empowers consumers more than producers, so I keep pointing out the power of the consumers. Yes, there is always a balance, but you’re still seeing the market the way it was..

  • Doug Lay

    Such anger and resentment from the PFF corner over this new MySpace initiative!! I wonder why? MySpace is clearly a capitalist organization acting in their own self-interest. I thought this was something to be celebrated?

  • Doug Lay

    Such anger and resentment from the PFF corner over this new MySpace initiative!! I wonder why? MySpace is clearly a capitalist organization acting in their own self-interest. I thought this was something to be celebrated?

  • eric

    As for the “Robin Hood” question — I am generally in agreement with enigma. I think it has something to do with the golden rule. Many perceive that the major labels have been cheating both customers (note the number of class action suits and actions against them by attorneys general) and the artists in their employ (note the iTunes example I gave in an earlier response). As such it is easy to build up an antagonism to the point that a customer won’t feel much guilt receiving a copied CD-R or free MP3 file.

    On the other hand, independent artists who have been very generous in giving their work out, engender in listeners an equal and opposite reaction. We want to support those artists. For example, Jill Sobulehas regularly been giving away a rotating selection of album and live tracks on MP3 at her website for many, many years. I go out of my way to buy a new copy of her albums.

    There is a psychology to all this that goes beyond mere economics.

  • eric

    As for the “Robin Hood” question — I am generally in agreement with enigma. I think it has something to do with the golden rule. Many perceive that the major labels have been cheating both customers (note the number of class action suits and actions against them by attorneys general) and the artists in their employ (note the iTunes example I gave in an earlier response). As such it is easy to build up an antagonism to the point that a customer won’t feel much guilt receiving a copied CD-R or free MP3 file.

    On the other hand, independent artists who have been very generous in giving their work out, engender in listeners an equal and opposite reaction. We want to support those artists. For example, Jill Sobulehas regularly been giving away a rotating selection of album and live tracks on MP3 at her website for many, many years. I go out of my way to buy a new copy of her albums.

    There is a psychology to all this that goes beyond mere economics.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Its not anger over MySpace Doug. I wish them good luck. If they drive down prices, I’ll buy their songs.

    Its the way folks hype MySpace up as the downfall of the studios, and using it as an excuse to argue against DRM, when they obviously don’t care about artists (the producers) and the revenue model is still questionable. Its funny that even if something like MySpace had to offer DRM options to artists to let them pull bigger profit, most on this board would argue against that (because artists and profits are not their main goals, bringing down the studios and ridding DRM are).

    Noel, you keep on framing this in terms of what benefits the producers but the internet empowers consumers more than producers

    Hmmm, well what do consumers have without producers, and visa versa. You have to consider both sides, and here the incentives of artists are not adequately considered.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    I never saw any evidence that people were less likely to not support small bands than they were the large corporate ones. I saw no shortage of small bands’ songs in my peers iPods and computers that they didn’t pay for in college. None of them were so poor that they couldn’t have bought the stuff.

  • http://weblog.ipcentral.info/ Noel Le

    Its not anger over MySpace Doug. I wish them good luck. If they drive down prices, I’ll buy their songs.

    Its the way folks hype MySpace up as the downfall of the studios, and using it as an excuse to argue against DRM, when they obviously don’t care about artists (the producers) and the revenue model is still questionable. Its funny that even if something like MySpace had to offer DRM options to artists to let them pull bigger profit, most on this board would argue against that (because artists and profits are not their main goals, bringing down the studios and ridding DRM are).

    Noel, you keep on framing this in terms of what benefits the producers but the internet empowers consumers more than producers

    Hmmm, well what do consumers have without producers, and visa versa. You have to consider both sides, and here the incentives of artists are not adequately considered.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    I never saw any evidence that people were less likely to not support small bands than they were the large corporate ones. I saw no shortage of small bands’ songs in my peers iPods and computers that they didn’t pay for in college. None of them were so poor that they couldn’t have bought the stuff.

  • eric

    OK Mike. Perhaps I give people too much credit.

  • eric

    OK Mike. Perhaps I give people too much credit.

Previous post:

Next post: