Techdirt's brilliant Mike Masnick wrote about this a few weeks ago: Corey Smith achieved massive success as an indie artist apparently based on some ideas outlined in my 2005 book "The Future of Music" (co-written with my buddy and BerkleeMusic chief Dave Kusek). Very cool! It feels really good to hear this; and to find that some of our work actually falls on fertile ground. May there be a lot more of this in 2010!
If you have similar stories please feel free to share them. If you want to read my follow-up book, Music 2.0, please go here to order it (dead-tree or PDF), or here to read it on your iPhone or blackberry (for free;).
"One of the things that he discusses in the podcast is that what really got him started down this road was realizing that it could be done. He read Dave Kusek and Gerd Leonhard's excellent The Future of Music, and it made him realize "hey, this is possible." And that, alone, made a huge difference. It's amazing what you can do once you realize that something is possible -- and one of the great things we've seen in writing about Corey and numerous other musicians and their success stories is that they, in turn, inspire many other musicians who realize that it really is possible to do quite well despite the naysayers and the doom and gloom. There are a bunch of people who seem to have a vested interest in tearing down the success stories (in many cases because they profit from having naive musicians sign over their lives), but the obvious success stories shine through and inspire many more who follow. It doesn't mean that every musician is guaranteed success. In fact, Corey's story highlights the amount of hard work and dedication that was needed, combined with some great music and a bit of luck as well, to make all of this work...."
I had the great pleasure to speak at the Future As Music (FAM) conference in Madrid / Spain, today. This event was organized by AIE (the Artists and Performers Society of Spain) and I was delighted to present alongside one of my favorite colleagues, famed mobilist and mobile content guru Tomi Ahonen.
My talk and presentation was on the juicy topic of "The Future of Music & Digital Content: Mobile, Connected, Social, Open... and Paid?" and included comments on: 1) why it makes no sense to disconnect fans from the Internet and expect them to then buy more 'legal' music 2) why the music industry must adapt to the new behaviors of 'the people formerly known as consumers' asap 3) why we have a 'digital toll-booth challenge' (see my column on Spotify) and how we need to structure 'music sales' going forward 4) why music is first an experience and a service, and only then a product (and how the industry can monetize this shift) 5) where the New Generatives will come from 6) why a collective digital music license makes sense - and much more. Here is the slideshow, below (you can download the PDF via slideshare, as well). Enjoy and spread the word!
Download LOW RES 5MB PDF Future Music Media Open and Paid Public
This was one of my best presentations on the topic of the music flat rate - the PDF and more details are here.
From the intro on the A2N Berlin
site:
"Digital music is in a serious gridlock: everyone is using it, very few
are paying for it, and nobody except for Apple has yet succeeded in
making a business of it. At the same time, broadband penetration in Europe is exploding, mobile
devices are getting ever more powerful, and almost a Billion people
will be always-online at high speeds, within 2 years, sharing music on
social networks and via all kinds of digital networks. Attempts at making ISPs and telecoms reponsible for solving the
business model problems of the industry have failed, 95% of the Digital
Natives in Europe are guilty of copyright infringement, and this logjam
is becoming a major cultural, political and economic issue. Meanwhile, flat-rated, collective music licenses for the digital music
are being trialled in Denmark, the Isle of Man, Turkey and China. For
the past 6 years, Gerd Leonhard has been suggesting that Music on the
Internet needs to be licensed like Radio: collectively, publicly and
compulsory, and a revenue-sharing basis, so that a new, web-native
music ecosystem can unfold..."
Many of you may have already downloaded my free Music 2.0 book as a PDF, or read it on the iPhone using Instapaper via my very basic mobile page, or even purchased the dead-tree version (note that Amazon is sold out now, all future orders should be done only via Lulu.com)
Today, I am delighted to announce that a much better mobile-optimized version of the book is finally available here - and yes, it's still free. However, I really don't mind if you make a payment for the free PDF via Lulu.com;)
As you can see, below, this includes all of the chapters in an easy-to-read, mobile-native format, and all kinds of ways to share it via eMail, Twitter and Facebook. The best thing is, however, that you can now add all of the chapters of the book to your Instapaper app (iPhone only, I think) with just one click, and then read the whole thing offline, as well. Way cool! We are also working on a 'real' iPhone app.
Note: Instapaper was covered on the new Indicatr site, yesterday, as well). Please spread the word - and don't forget: if you are entirely and utterly mobile-only you can track most of my tweets and shared items here.
I just finished with my first-ever Music 2.0 - Webinar using Drop.io's new presentation service (see the previous post). I really enjoyed doing this, even though it did feel kind of strange to have some people on the conference call phone line while others are watching the stream on uStream while yet others did not have either. We also had several images missing on quite a few slides - still lots of room for improvement by the Drop.io team I would venture to say. In comparison, my Webex experience for the Content / Marketing webinar in Australia, yesterday, went a lot smoother (guess that's why Webex charges a few more $$;) .
Anyhow, we had about 50 very attentive people which is great - hope they liked it.
Now, as promised, here is the media from the event:
The PDF comes via slideshare, below - you can download it from there
Update: a good comment by TelecomTV (Ian Scales) - I especially love their addendum to Spotify's logo: "Not Licensed to Kill" - great summary.
Before I get into the meat of this post, let me say this, for the record: I really like Spotify, the official new darlingamong the many on-demand streaming and interactive music services that try to go to the legitimate route and make deals with the rights-holders, ie. the record labels and the music publishers.
I like the Founders, I like some of their investors, I like what they are saying and how they do things. I even like their logo. We have met several times in the past - and something tells me Daniel et al may been reading my books and this blog, as well... all good this far.
So please note: this is not at all an attempt to rain on Spotify's well-deserved parade or discourage their investors. I am writing this post because I want Spotify to live, grow and prosper, not because I want it to crash. My comments, below, are simply meant to serve as a not-so-gentle reminder for a simple fact that we should keep in mind: while Spotify may look (or rather, sound) pretty, right now, no matter how hard they try and how much money they will raise, they cannot possibly succeed within the current music industry ecosystem, and they - by themselves - cannot possibly change that ecosystem single-handedly.
The primary reason for this is that there is no public (i.e. compulsory) license that is available for these kinds of services; therefore Spotify (and anyone else that streams music on-demand) has zero leverage whatsoever in the rights negotiations - and therefore, the entire pricing and overall economic model - with the record companies and publishers. In other words, they simply have to pay whatever it takes. And they are, indeed. Without a public license in place, this kind of situation is pretty much a suicide mission.
In my humble opinion, the chances of Spotify surviving beyond next 24 months, in the current music industry framework (call it '1.4' maybe - since we are still a long way from the Music 2.0 models that I and many of my readers and 'followers' have been discussing for the last, ouch... decade) are similar to... well, the likelihood of having a cold day in hell.
If Spotify - as a possible embodiment of those Music 2.0 concepts - is to live than the entire SYSTEM must be changed - no less, no more. If you like Spotify than this, below, is what you must ask for.
Spotify (and most other legal music ventures like it) won't survive unless:
A public, open, fully standardized, compulsory,multi-territorial and collective digital music licenseis agreed upon and instituted by law or by collective, voluntary action, SOON. Voluntary action seems highly unlikely at this point given the seriously monopolistic structure of the music industry, and the stellar 'my way or the highway'- track record of most industry bodies.
Just like the existing Radio and TV / Broadcasting licenses, such a Digital Music License will need to be a license that conclusively and pan-territorially (i.e. pan-EU, pan-Asia, US, and then, worldwide) regulates the basic commercial terms for the use of the master recordings and the underlying compositions for anyone that may want to offer or provide music online, regardless of whether it's streaming or downloading - because this decidedly 'Web 1.0' distinction is simply wishful thinking, going forward - access means copy, today. ISPs, search engines, social networks, telecoms, operators and Internet portals need to be able to avail themselves of a standard, ready-to-go license, just like anyone that starts a terrestrial radio station can use an existing license to calculate their music costs, today.
Anyone that has had the misfortune of wanting to 'do the right thing' and license music for any 'new media' i.e. online venture will agree with me on this: the current music rights licensing situation is nothing short of ridiculous, and to many outsiders the process feels like a cut & paste rendition of various "Twilight Zone" episodes. The ineffective and convoluted way that digital music rights are still being dealt with today is a disgrace that keeps causing continuous train-wrecks for anyone that wants to enter the business (and cares to do it legally), and the continuing inability of the industry's 'leaders' to solve these issues flies in the face of the massively increased consumer demand for digital music in all shapes and forms, across the globe.
I know... you may be ask: ok, yes that's not good, but if we were to license more efficiently...where's the new money? Here is my response, and I've said it many times: the problem is not that the 'people formerly known as consumers' don't want to pay for music - they just don't want to pay in those ways that the industry is currently asking them to. This is not a problem of total copyright disregard by the consumers - it's just a tollbooth-strategy question: provide real value and get real value - that is the only future there is! Maybe.. do what Google does?
But so far, all the music industry lobbying groups (e.g. the RIAA, the BPI, and the IFPI) and their brilliant lawyers have done is to ask Billions of people to change rather than consider changing, themselves, so that maybe they can actually start serving those people. Why is anyone still paying attention to these people?
Begging for mercy: Spotify's unenviable routine.
As a consequence of these stone-age business practices that prevail in the music industry, Spotify has to essentially jump off the cliff every time they license a new song, and beg to do things legally 24/7/365, i.e. beg for licenses, from each label and each publisher or rights society, in each country, every couple of months, and for every tiny change they make in their business model. For unlike Youtube/Google, Spotify has ZERO real leverage - while the international music conglomerates and legal rights-holders (reminder: not the artists!) have TOTAL CONTROL - if the deal is not to their liking they can just refuse a license thereby rendering Spotify either instantly illegal (i.e. unlicensed) or have their users evaporate quicker than you can spell 'dead'. There is simply no way that anyone can negotiate a win-win deal in a situation like this - especially when your potential deal partners have such a long history of using pre-Internet laws a weapon to kill competition and innovation.
This legal vacuum has led to a bizarre situation where the major record labels (as well as many large independents and / or their industry associations) can basically ask for anything - they simply have the exclusive rights for these recordings, so it's their way or the highway. The same goes for the publishers, and as long as refusal to license is a sustainable option this won't change (remember when the phone companies did not have to share access to their networks with other providers...?)
And you can bet we are not just talking money here - we are talking about having to give equity to the (large?) labels, for the mere pleasure of being legal, and for being mercifully allowed to reinvent how music is being monetized. This has not changed since the days of my own streaming music widget company, Sonific - you can read all about what happened to us, here. I have been there, done that, and this industry is STILL at the same place: the music licensing system is simply dysfunctional and the markets will NOT self-regulate. Vivan Reding and the EU Commission: are you listening?
There will be no real solution for this problem until the monopolies that currently serve as the foundation of the music rights society system in most countries (not in the U.S. btw!) are done away with; until pan-European or global licensing can be achieved via a one-stop, digital, fluid and transparent service platform. And just to preempt the obvious responses on this: when I say that the monopolies need to go I am not at all saying that these societies need to go. Absolutely not. However, if you base your very existence on the practice of merely extracting value rather than adding value I don't see how you could possible expect to have a role to play in a digitally networked future, either. So, while the concept of licensing collectives are and will remain crucial, they cannot be very useful in the digital economy unless they are constantly adding value and become 100% open and transparent. Monopolies just don't fit in this concept - or do they?
Back to Spotify: because they are enormously successful and popular right now, and because of all the other players in this turf that have paved the way and are still in the running (Last.fm, iMeem etc), and because of all the other players that tried and gave up (Yahoo Music, Musicload, MSN Music) or are about to give up (Napster, Rhapsody, MSFT), we need to make this issue a public, political, cultural and wider business issue.
We need music to be licensed for the Internet just like we license it for radio, today: with a public, open, collective and standardized license that does away with the monopolies of permission that have held us back for a decade, already.
I guess really this is POLITICS now - even the European Commission has already stated that "The failed music industry business model is causing online piracy" - so if you like Spotify it's time for action (hey - there's another post - but here is a preview of my 2 cents)
Finally, let me borrow some authority here: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek" (President Barack Obama)
I made a very short video on the same topic last week (90 secs) and a lot of people have pinged me to make a longer version - so here it is, in 2 parts (thanks to Youtube's really annoying 10 minute limit).
Alright then... you don't think "Music 2.0 in 90 seconds" is enough. You don't think 3 minutes really do it, either. You liked the PDF but you want the talk. I heard you. So here is the full 18 minutes of Music 2.0, in 2 parts, thanks to the ingenious Youtube limitations (but hey... it's HD now so why am I complaining?).
Here is a link to the MP4 file (410MB) if you want to watch on while biking in the woods;) Plus: remember that you can get it all for your iPods and iPhones by subscribing to my GerdTube.net / Blip TV iTunes feed (except for this one, though - for some reason the encoding just won't work for this file).
The amazing power of online networking and collaboration, open platforms, creative commons licensing and crowd-sourcing (whew... that's a mouthful!) has manifested itself once again: for the past 9 months, the tenacious and dedicated Zvonimir Dusper (Dus) from Croatia (LinkedIn profile) has been hard at work translating my entire Music 2.0 book into Croatian language (see the English book site here, download the English version as a PDF here, buy the dead-tree version or U.S. letter size book PDF at Lulu, here, visit the Amazon.com book page [incl. reviews] here).
The book is now available as a free PDF download and in a print version via Zvonimir's Glazba2.0 site - check it out and please forward this post to anyone that may be interested in reading Music2.0 in Croatian (you can use the tools provided, below)
To receive the free PDF please use the email box on the left site of the Glazba2.0 site (see here >). Enjoy!
PREDGOVOR HRVATSKOM IZDANJU Tematika “2.0” u posljednje vrijeme sve više okupira medije (nove i stare :-), pa smo, osim već razvikanim Webom 2.0, sad bombardirani i Novinarstvom 2.0, Marketingom (komercijalnim ali i političkim!) 2.0, Ekonomijom 2.0, Sociologijom 2.0 i drugim raznim inačicama tog fenomena, među kojima nas, ljubitelje glazbe i/ili glazbene profesionalce, najviše zanima upravo tema ove knjige – Glazba
2.0. Riječ je o promjeni iz sustava kojim je dominirao princip “od-vrha-prema-dole”, u sistem “od-dole-prema-vrhu”, u kojem korisnici/potrošači svojim sudjelovanjem u interaktivnim online mrežama grade tkivo budućih socijalnih ekosistema. Pažnja je postala nova valuta, a poslovni princip vrlo jednostavan – ako je privučeš dovoljno da se posuda prelije, višak možeš lako pretvoriti u novac. Kako god to zvučalo jednostavno, živjeti u 2.0 svijetu znači imati hrabrosti za radikalnu promjenu svojih navika, i odustajanje od tradicionalnih očekivanja i (nerealnih) projekcija budućnosti. Budućnost ne dolazi, ona je već tu, samo je neravnomjerno raspoređena – da citiram Johna Cage-a (taj sam citat, naravno, “pokupio” iz ove knjige :-) ....
I did this in early 2008 but it's still very accurate. The video was shot by my friend and fellow blogger Jonathan Marks, in Amsterdam, and talks about how artists and musicians can use the Internet to their advantage. Hope you like it! You can find the same video on my Youtube channel, btw, here.
If you saw my presentations at MIDEM and MIDEMNet 2009 here in Cannes, and would like a free PDF of my Music 2.0 book, here it is: Download Music20book_hires My slideshows on this topic are all available on Slideshare.
Keynote Speaker, Think-Tank Leader, Futurist, Author & Strategist, Idea Curator, some say Iconoclast | Heretic, CEO TheFuturesAgency, Visiting Prof FDC Brazil, Green Futurist
Recent Comments