Four major record companies have brought a High Court action aimed at compelling Eircom to take measures to prevent its networks being used for the illegal downloading of music.Link
The case is the first in Ireland aimed at internet service providers, rather than individual illegal downloaders.
Eircom is the largest broadband internet service provider in the State.
Latest figures available, for 2006, indicate that 20 billion music files were illegally downloaded worldwide that year. The music industry estimates that for every single legal downloaded, there are 20 illegal ones.
The record companies are also challenging Eircom's refusal to use filtering technology or other measures to voluntary block, or filter, material from its network that is being used to download music in violation of the companies' copyright and/or licensing rights.
Showing posts with label major labels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label major labels. Show all posts
Monday, March 10, 2008
Irish ISP Taken to Court Over Illegal Music Downloads
From Mary Carolan, The Irish Times:
Friday, December 07, 2007
Sony BMG: Columbia Staff Cut Today
From Velvet Rope:The axe is falling...
Columbia: Lianna Franam, Nichol Carlson, Gary Fisher, Stephanie Gayle, CeCe McClendon, Maggie Wang, Tom Muzquiz, Julie Stillman. Fran DeFeo no longer head of publicity.
I'm sure that's not all.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Nielson SoundScan Data: DRM-Free Tracks Do Not Increase Overall Sales
From Troy Wolverton, Mercury News:
In the end, the long battle by the record labels against unrestricted digital music may have been little more than sound and fury signifying nothing.
At least, that's how it's starting to appear now that two of the major labels in recent months have embraced in some fashion the MP3 format, which has no copy protection. The early returns from those moves indicate they've had little impact on the industry's fortunes - for better or for worse.
The labels' moves have opened up competition in the digital music space. In September, Amazon.com launched a digital music store, featuring only MP3 tracks. Meanwhile other, older digital music vendors, including iTunes and Wal-Mart's Web store, added DRM-free tracks.
Because those songs lack DRM, they can be played on just about any digital music device.
Although it's still early, DRM-free music seems to have had, at best, a slight positive benefit to the music industry.
Sales of DRM-free music to date have "outperformed" EMI's expectations, and Wal-Mart has seen its MP3 sales grow "considerably" since August, when its Web store made them available, representatives for the two companies said. However, neither they nor other labels or Web stores disclosed specific sales results.
Overall, the number of digital songs sold each week seems to have been unaffected by the launch of the major DRM-free stores since May, according to data from Nielsen SoundScan. Digital song sales - both of tracks with and without DRM - are in the same range after May as they were in the weeks before DRM-free sales started.
But that's small consolation for an industry whose wholesale revenue in the United States was down 11 percent in the first half of this year, according to IFPI, the industry's global trade group. That's on top of declines in retail sales in six out of the past seven years, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.
Link
In the end, the long battle by the record labels against unrestricted digital music may have been little more than sound and fury signifying nothing.
At least, that's how it's starting to appear now that two of the major labels in recent months have embraced in some fashion the MP3 format, which has no copy protection. The early returns from those moves indicate they've had little impact on the industry's fortunes - for better or for worse.
The labels' moves have opened up competition in the digital music space. In September, Amazon.com launched a digital music store, featuring only MP3 tracks. Meanwhile other, older digital music vendors, including iTunes and Wal-Mart's Web store, added DRM-free tracks.
Because those songs lack DRM, they can be played on just about any digital music device.
Although it's still early, DRM-free music seems to have had, at best, a slight positive benefit to the music industry.
Sales of DRM-free music to date have "outperformed" EMI's expectations, and Wal-Mart has seen its MP3 sales grow "considerably" since August, when its Web store made them available, representatives for the two companies said. However, neither they nor other labels or Web stores disclosed specific sales results.
Overall, the number of digital songs sold each week seems to have been unaffected by the launch of the major DRM-free stores since May, according to data from Nielsen SoundScan. Digital song sales - both of tracks with and without DRM - are in the same range after May as they were in the weeks before DRM-free sales started.
But that's small consolation for an industry whose wholesale revenue in the United States was down 11 percent in the first half of this year, according to IFPI, the industry's global trade group. That's on top of declines in retail sales in six out of the past seven years, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.
Link
Friday, November 02, 2007
Major Labels: Specialized Venture Capitalists
Cayocosta
What everyone seems to be overlooking of late, is the important fact that major labels provide the access to capital required to support artists beyond their initial phases - many times for much longer. In other words, major record companies can be considered venture capitalist entities that specialize in the music industry.
Therefore, if majors go away; how would artists source the capital they require to make records, tour, and promote their work? If music is free, how would any investor recoup?
This is the point where things get very fuzzy - for there's plenty of rhetoric available but no viable business plans; no feasibility studies being put forth.
The consensus is, that music should be free and monetized via advertising; but there remain issues with this concept, including:
What everyone seems to be overlooking of late, is the important fact that major labels provide the access to capital required to support artists beyond their initial phases - many times for much longer. In other words, major record companies can be considered venture capitalist entities that specialize in the music industry.
Therefore, if majors go away; how would artists source the capital they require to make records, tour, and promote their work? If music is free, how would any investor recoup?
This is the point where things get very fuzzy - for there's plenty of rhetoric available but no viable business plans; no feasibility studies being put forth.
The consensus is, that music should be free and monetized via advertising; but there remain issues with this concept, including:
- What's to stop the further use of P2P file sharing to avoid the advertising?
- What are the repercussions as to performance and mechanical royalties once a free-music precedent has been set?
- Majors partnering with portals like MySpace or Facebook means that revenue must be shared with new third parties. How would this change the ROI?
- How is the advertising delivered with music downloads?
- What are the consequences should artists "sell-out" and write songs intended for specific sponsors and/or products in an effort to increase the likelihood of being signed?
Further consider:
- An "Acme Corporation" executive's son or daughter is an artist, and their sponsorship offer stipulates that he or she be signed.
- A&R Reps routinely compel artists to change lyrics to include for example: Viagra.
- A very popular Facebook user is not an artist, yet is signed to a recording contract in an effort to capitalize on his or her recognition.
Moreover, according to the punditry; not only do the majors need to downsize, but also acquire and consolidate management, touring, merchandising, as well as continue to provide traditional captive services such as artist development, production, distribution, legal, promotion, art, etc.; while partnering with corporate sponsors as well as web portals - all the while underwriting the entire speculative endeavor internally.
An extremely risky proposition - and if it doesn't fly, recovery may be totally beyond reach.
Under this paradigm, majors must become much more complex organizations - with a potential situation whereby multiple signatories could be required to release capital; for all divisions (and possibly some partners) would likely be required to assent to artist contracts - thereby increasing corporate bureaucracy as well as the potential for partisanship among key players, departments, and/or entities.
(Naturally, the majors would then gain revenue streams generated across all new captive sectors, while their share of any remaining traditional sources would likely increase to accommodate the loss of hard-copy and digital sales income; thereby provoking further criticism for being greedy - not too mention nascent accusations of monopolistic practices.)
Lastly, what is the potential advertising revenue per track? If it's $.50 every time someone downloads (or shares) a tune, that might appear to be reasonable; however, what would sponsors actually be willing to pay - and would that be enough to support the industry under such a model?
An extremely risky proposition - and if it doesn't fly, recovery may be totally beyond reach.
Under this paradigm, majors must become much more complex organizations - with a potential situation whereby multiple signatories could be required to release capital; for all divisions (and possibly some partners) would likely be required to assent to artist contracts - thereby increasing corporate bureaucracy as well as the potential for partisanship among key players, departments, and/or entities.
(Naturally, the majors would then gain revenue streams generated across all new captive sectors, while their share of any remaining traditional sources would likely increase to accommodate the loss of hard-copy and digital sales income; thereby provoking further criticism for being greedy - not too mention nascent accusations of monopolistic practices.)
Lastly, what is the potential advertising revenue per track? If it's $.50 every time someone downloads (or shares) a tune, that might appear to be reasonable; however, what would sponsors actually be willing to pay - and would that be enough to support the industry under such a model?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
