14:03 -!- mode/#xkcd [+mN] by creature
14:03 <@creature> Right. So, this sentence is our starting point:
                  "<AbsolutGaloot> I can't wait until the major labels finally
                  give up on trying to fight piracy and embrace the digital era
                  and make a content distribution platform that is more
                  appealing than torrenting the music."
14:04 <@creature> So I will talk about that for a bit, and then unmute, and if
                  something else sparks me off we can go from there.
14:04 <@creature> The first thing we'll look at is the "piracy" bit. Piracy
                  is... tricky. The sad fact is, music costs money.
14:05 <@creature> You need to record it, and put people in studios (which cost
                  money) and hook them up with producers and promoters and so
                  on, and then get the music in stores, and you need people to
                  hold band's hands and do the whole publicity thing, and so
                  on.
14:06 <@creature> And labels aren't evil! These things above aren't evil.
                  People have to hear music to want it, and there's a lot of it
                  out there. It's hard to find.
14:07 <@creature> You can't just subscribe to Pitchfork and be done with it,
                  because there is a *lot*. And it's not enough to have Tiny
                  Mix Tapes too. The label is almost a kind of seal of
                  approval; "This is good enough for someone to throw money at
                  the musician."
14:07 <@creature> Now, with online music, there's a few complicated things.
                  First up, if you want to do things legally online, everything
                  becomes Hell.
14:08 <@creature> There's a lot of reporting you have to do � tell the labels
                  what you play, when you play it, and so on. Everything you
                  play costs you money. There's a licensing cost.
14:08 <@creature> Even if you say "Oh, well, I'll just work with unsigned
                  artists," you're out of luck  you still have to report to
                  overall organisations that collect royalties. The PPL, IODA,
                  those kind of things.
14:09 <@creature> There's no way you can legally say "I'm not playing any of
                  your artists" as several of these broad collection societies
                  are mandated by law to collect money for artists, and then
                  try to get it to them.
14:09 <@creature> PLUS there's all kinds of different rights � mechanical
                  rights, publishing rights, creative rights. Often these
                  differ between the music and the lyrics.
14:09 <@IceKarma> creature, and of course, as soon as you try to do it
                  internationally, the number of organizations you must
                  negotiate a licence with goes *insane*
14:09 <@creature> Exactly. Territorial rights.
14:10 <@IceKarma> which is why Pandora is US-only
14:10 <@creature> Well. They're probably US-only for another reason.
14:10 <@IceKarma> according to my friend, that's pretty much the only reason
14:10 <@IceKarma> they'd serve globally, if it wasn't for the legal disaster
14:10 <@creature> Thing is, while the internet is global, advertising clients
                  are not. Everyone breaks down their companies by country
                  boundaries.
14:11 <@creature> If they could turn a profit operating internationally, they
                  would do it. But if you want to make money from advertising,
                  you need people on the ground, and often the cost/revenue
                  balance is the wrong way.
14:11 <@creature> Anyway. So you're a consumer, and you want free music.
                  That's the promise of the internet, right? You can listen to
                  whatever you want, whenever you want, for free.
14:12 <@creature> Well, forget the "for free" bit, because somebody,
                  somewhere, must pay. You need to get the band in the studio,
                  the recording mastered, have it sent to people, and so on.
                  Maybe you're not paying monetarily, but there'll be some
                  advertising slapped around it which pays for things.
14:13 <@creature> And we'll pretend for the time being that it's enough to
                  offset the costs of licensing and everything else. Your
                  business model can be "Burn venture capital on licensing
                  costs," but that'll only last so long.
14:13 <@zigdon> creature: I never had a "for free" itch.  I have no problems
                paying for music I like AND CAN USE.
14:13 <@creature> The "Whatever you want" bit is difficult too. There are a
                  lot of labels out there, and some of them don't want their
                  music online. And that's kind of OK! They're allowed to do
                  that.
14:14 <@creature> The traditional examples here are The Big Three. The
                  Beatles, Led Zep, and Pink Floyd.
14:14 <@creature> You won't find these people on online streaming services, as
                  they're all richer than God and own their own publishing
                  rights.
14:14 <@IceKarma> didn't Michael Jackson own the Beatles catalogue? ;)
14:15 <@creature> He probably owned one of the other bits. Licensing can break
                  down by media.
14:15 <@creature> Just because you have the right to stream something over the
                  web doesn't mean you can stream it to cellular devices.
14:16 <@creature> You don't tend to get off-the-peg agreements with labels.
                  They vary a lot, have to be renegotiated, generally cost a
                  lot, can have up-front costs ("Give us �XX,000 and 4p for
                  every stream.") etc.
14:16 -!- zigdon changed the topic of #xkcd to: Talking about online music
          distribution.  Listen first :) | Today is Penguin Awareness Day.
          Make sure you are aware of penguins at all times. | It's op abuse
          hour (ops giving, not receiving) | Happy Birthday cls! | BUTTS,
          EVERYWHERE | Ill innuendo your innuendo | Turn everything everyone
          says into an innue
14:16 <@zigdon> creature: is there a good reason for them to demand such high
                up-front costs?  Is it more than just wanting to keep smaller
                shops out?
14:16 <@creature> Anyway. So as well as not all artists being licensible, not
                  all labels are licensing their content. Warner, for
                  instance, is quite keen on keeping its music to itself.
14:17 <@creature> zigdon: Well, their responsibility is to make their
                  shareholders more money. They're doing what they can in that
                  area.
14:17 <@creature> This isn't really an evil thing, remember, because the
                  labels are paying for your music to be made. Many artists
                  don't ever make back their costs.
14:18 <@creature> Which sucks for the artist, but it's good for you, as a
                  music consumer, because you get to hear it that way.
14:18 <@zigdon> but it doesn't really cost them anything up-front, so other
                than wanting to make money, why wouldn't it make sense to
                allow as many people as possible to stream their stuff (at the
                same price)
14:18 <@zigdon> makes me think that there's a lot of waste in the system
                though.
14:18 <@creature> A label isn't in the business of making you hear music.
                  They're in the business of making money.
14:19 <@creature> And, well, they know the internet is the future. They don't
                  want to give away the farm.
14:19 <@zigdon> so basically, they're serving their own purposes - not the
                consumer's, not the artist's (who do want you to both hear
                their music and would like ot make a living)
14:19 <@creature> Everyone's serving their own purposes. Sometimes their own
                  purposes overlap with other people's purposes.
14:20 <@creature> But yeah, in summary: labels aren't stupid. If they could
                  make money working online, they'd be all for it.
14:20 <@zigdon> one would hope that's the common case, otherwise, one might
                hope an artist would find a label that would work better for
                them.
14:20 <@creature> Most artists don't care that deeply.
14:20 <@zigdon> they care about making a living, I think?
14:21 <@creature> They do! Which is why they're not nuts about being streamed
                  for free, or for pennies from advertising.
14:21 <@creature> They like free plays because it's free exposure, and people
                  come to their shows, and buy T shirts. And that's where they
                  make money.
14:21 <@zigdon> right
14:22 <@creature> And some people � Amanda Palmer is a good example � do a lot
                  of the "new music" life. Holds auctions, superfan packages
                  where you can spend $200 and get her empty wine bottle, that
                  kind of stuff. Engagement.
14:22 <@creature> But not everybody wants to do that, and I'm not totally
                  convinced it'll scale. I think there's a lot of
                  casual-music-consumption that should be encouraged.
14:22 <@creature> Anyway, I haven't been quite as profane or as revelatory as
                  I'd hoped for, but hopefully this has raised some talking
                  points. Let's talk.
14:23 <@creature> In summary: labels aren't evil, online music is hard. If you
                  want to help, write to your politicians and send your
                  favourite artist $10.
14:23 -!- mode/#xkcd [-mN] by creature
14:23 < ellipsis> creature: I think the point of AbsolutGaloot was not that we
                  want everything and free. It's more that we don't want to be
                  treated like criminals and limited in even basic use of the
                  music we buy. Got to respect the customer... (and that
                  licensing is one serious mess that might have been fun with
                  hardware distribution but makes no sense on a network)
14:23 < Walther> Those thing that you said, are reasons why i like Spotify.
                 Spotify is quite special in that way. Spotify actually pays
                 more to musicians&the label than regular radio stations (i've
                 seen some studies) And you can listen to music in spotify for
                 free, if you don't mind the ads. And the 10 per month ain't
                 really nothing
14:23 < AbsolutGaloot> Creature:re:'So you're a consumer, and you want free
                       music': in college, I couldn't afford it anyway, even
                       if I wanted to. If I couldn't get it for free, I
                       wouldn't have it. Now that I have a job, I would gladly
                       pay for the music that I listen to. However, there are
                       two stipulations. I want to pay once, and don't want to
                       be treated like a pirate if I'm paying
14:23 < rpenguin> it's just the old publishing model, where back in the day a
                  publisher actually performed a valuable and time consuming
                  task outside of simple distribution.
14:23 < ellipsis> labels should not be in charge of music. Approval is one
                  thing, filtering and artistic control is another. Taking
                  away power from the labels (licensing, etc) and reducing
                  them to an actual service provider (rent the studio and
                  leave with digital master) seems desirable to me.