XM Radio

[Smoker29]

Does anybody on the boards have this yet? I've been sampling XM all day long and I've got to say that I want it. They have a receiver that easily transports back and forth from your home to your car for about 300.00.

What are the chances of a station like WOXY getting on XM?

http://www.xm.com

[The Sheck]

Honestly, I believe this is the future of radio, evantually getting to the point where each listener can decide what music they want to listen to at any given time...kind of like burning CD's!

errr...

wait.

;)

[mburke6]

Originally posted by Smoker29
What are the chances of a station like WOXY getting on XM?

With the exception of some news channels like CNN and C-SPAN, I believe XM and Sirius are only interested in broadcasting their own channels, not in re-broadcasting any existing FM stations.

I have not actually heard XM or Sirius yet, but I did replace my car stereo recently with a Sirius compatable unit. Now that I've done that, when Sirius is available on the east coast, I will have to shell out another 250 bucks for the satellite receiver and antenna.

- Mike

[daved]

Originally posted by The Sheck
Honestly, I believe this is the future of radio, evantually getting to the point where each listener can decide what music they want to listen to at any given time...

I think you're right in a general sense. You're really talking about 2 seperate models though:

1) programmed music targeted narrowly (existing xm and cable/satellite music choice)
2) streamed on demand content.

A third option will be there too: random/shuffle and playlists from devices like iPod that literally place your entire record collection in your palm at relatively high quality.

Both options 1 & 2 differ a lot from Napster or anything else out there in the filetrading universe, and even from Live365-type program streamers: they both pay established rroyalty rates to musicians and have sustainable business models.

Option 2 would be like a jukebox: your monthly fee would cover all the music you could stream, but unlike MP3s, you can't really store them and probably wouldn't really want to anyway: most people won't waste the space when their desire for new music and adoption of the XM model already commits them to a subscription fee. Just get it when you want it, everyone's happy. You're already paying so why hassle with storing and worrying about where you put the file in your pile of CD-Rs?

What is problematic with the current models is their continuation of current problems. Having just 2 providers defining the tastes for the entire continent in EVERY genre is not just scary. It's flat out nuts. If you think Cheap Channel sucks, wait until XM replaces them with no real competition. Can you say "Big Brother"? Imagine the payola bill for THAT station!

-d-

[BeatnGeneration]

First off, XM and Sirius aren't like CC. They have 100 channels and invest in niche programming..as opposed to CC which does mostly lowest-common denominator radio.

Although CC has a share in XM which makes me hesitant to buy it. Several CC stations, namely KIIS Los Angeles, WSIX Nashville, WLTW New York and KHMX Houston ARE simulcast on XM..

WOXY would be a GREAT addition to XM or Sirius..and would solve the problem of not being able to get it in the car or when away from the computer..I can dream, can't I. I almost hate to get one of these things because even with a dialup connection, I adore WOXY. I just hope it keeps streaming.

What a week this has been for internet rights! Crappy controling RIAA. In reality the government is steamrolling the First Amendment to allow this to happen. Are we supposed to regress to cassettes?

As if I'm going to spend thousands of dollars on albums I know nothing about, simply to hear a list of 500 or so singles I've run across on various playlists over the past few years..but the irony is if I heard something I like I might buy the album. To say nothing of the "Goon Show" and "Hancock's Half Hour" from the BBC..

Oh and those live Radio One and Triple J electronica mixes, or in-studio Morrissey interviews at KROQ, or KCRW acoustic sessions..

File sharing serves some purposes that record stores and radio NEVER will and never HAVE been able to do, and now they shoot it in the growing stages.

If it bothers them so much, buy out AudioGalaxy and charge me $10 a month for it..but STOP screwing with people's rights.

What a week!

[yoyo]

I have requested XM for my birthday. We shall se if Mr. Yoyo delivers!

[daved]

Originally posted by BeatnGeneration
First off, XM and Sirius aren't like CC. They have 100 channels and invest in niche programming..as opposed to CC which does mostly lowest-common denominator radio.

Wake up: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of ANYTHING is not enough.

I don't care if Jesus owned XM. If there is just one outlet, it will eventually devolve to lowest common denominator in a few dozen genres, each with a few sub-genres.

If nothing else this will be happen because it's so easy for other big corps to pay off XM to keep other product off the air. This is how payola works today. Consolidation makes it possible. Consolidating to a single provider will guarantee precisely what you fear.

WOXY would be a GREAT addition to XM or Sirius..and would solve the problem of not being able to get it in the car or when away from the computer..I can dream, can't I. I almost hate to get one of these things because even with a dialup connection, I adore WOXY. I just hope it keeps streaming.

I share your hopes, but unfortunately WOXY would make a terrible addition without major reworking of their stream and XM's infrastructure. Just because other stations are on there doesn't make it a good idea. Its simply driven by convenience (easier to fill the slot with an existing format than reinvent the wheel). Do you think anyone would tune into 97XM and endure commercials for Jungle Jims or QCA when there are 100s of other stations with no commercials? Not nearly enough people would accept this to make it viable to consume that valuable bandwidth. Square peg. Round hole.

What a week this has been for internet rights! Crappy controling RIAA. In reality the government is steamrolling the First Amendment to allow this to happen. Are we supposed to regress to cassettes?

I'm not sure I follow you. The first amendment says I can say whatever I want. It doesn't say you can cut/paste my words, put them in a pamphlet and give them away on a street corner. You have a right to your words and works, but not mine. There is nothing whatsoever in the 1st amendment that supports file trading.

I also don't get how are they forcing you to regress to cassettes? Most CDs are entirely unprotected. You can still rip most albums so nothing has changed this week on that front. Even if they made a copy protection scheme that actually DID prevent ripping (so far they only cripple the CD completely or are easily defeatable), anything you can play and hear you can capture back via analog. Sound cards have progressed to the point where even the worst ones can capture a CD played back in a player and deliver better quality than cassette by a mile; indeed they'd be damn close to the CD and no worse than what you get from a 12 year olds sh*tty MP3 collection on Audio Galaxy. Better still, once in your computer you can chop 'em up and do whatever you feel like in the privacy of your own home.

Fair use, in the real sense, survives every decision so far. You can still copy music you license for your personal use. That's the fair use. That does not include making CDs for your friends, or giving away the contents of the CD you licensed. The key word is LICENSE. You own the plastic media and box, but you only purchase license to the music itself. Thats been the case since Edison devised a way to store sound recordings.

As for the use of CP itself, that's perfectly legal. Stupid and shortsighted, for sure, but legal. If I want to release a mac-only CD-ROM, it is effectively CP'd to linux and wintel users. To use it you MUST buy a mac, and it will only play back in a mac. I have a right to cripple my product, but in the process, I've screwed myself out of 95% of the market. The same goes for music. If I want to release albums in a way that pisses off all my fans, I've got that right.

All of this said, trading music is a time-honored way of building buzz and attracting new fans. Most of my tastes were formed by mix tapes I got from friends with bigger album collections. I bought what I liked, ignored the rest. Most people's tastes are formed by "influencers". That can be a radio station, a sibling, a friend or even a website. On a small scale, one to one among friends file trading is a very positive thing. And on a large scale, programmed music like 97X, Live365 or XM is equally positive.

So, I agree entirely with this:

File sharing serves some purposes that record stores and radio NEVER will and never HAVE been able to do, and now they shoot it in the growing stages.

From a market perspective, you've nailed it. In reality I don't think they intend to stifle growth, but from the fans perspective, that's how it looks for sure. Reality is the labels were actually just getting their legal issues worked out before doing it themselves. The sturm and drang of the past 4 years was just a holding action to minimize the damage and satisfy their due diligence clauses in EVERY BAND'S major label deal. ***How many people here realize that N'Sync could sue their way out of their contract with RCA if they could prove in court that RCA doesn't actively protect their license? Thats the facts. The labels had no choice but to go out of their way to shut this stuff down if they could or face a mass exodus of bands, along with a lot of dollars in damages. It would be an open/shut case. Its boilerplate language and inescapable.***

I'm not being an apologist for the labels, because I agree with you: in the interim these services really DID meet a customer need and even exposed some people to new music. Further, they provided a great test bed and "market research" opportunity both for models of distribution and consumer tastes. The number of Brittany files relative to Radiohead on a given service says something about that service's users, as well as the effectiveness of the band's marketing. It's short sighted (but sadly legally necessary for most labels) to just say its all bad and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If it bothers them so much, buy out AudioGalaxy and charge me $10 a month for it..but STOP screwing with people's rights.

You've lost me again. Which rights were screwed with? You do not have a right to give away other people's creations. Period. If I CHOOSE to give away my music, you have a right to take it, but the choice itself belongs to the creator, not the consumer.

Its important to note that labels give away music by choice all the time. Ironically the stuff that is most frequently stolen (the Billboard hits) is the stuff they pay a fortune to give away via the radio. We PAY Cheap Channel to take it off our hand. I'll be the first to finger the idiocy of that notion. If the single is truly a hook to sell the album, every single should be free while it's current, and while we're paying of CC to broadcast it, if only from a business perspective. Logic would dictate that we'd ENCOURAGE sharing of songs we want to be hits, if there is any promotional value to playing the songs on CC.

You can dance around the language by calling current p2p schemes "sharing", but if you don't know the person on the other end, it ain't sharing. But your ability to "share" with friends, has not been abridged in any manner by recent actions: you can email songs to friends, or put files on an unlinked personal website that crawlers will never see. In a strict sense it is definitely illegal (your license doesn't include a right to share outside your household), but no one is going to kick in your door, or even look to see if you're doing it. Forget about the concept of "trading". You cannot trade what you don't own, and again, you own the physical package and a license to fairly use the music contained. No change there.

This concept is beginning to evolve. UMG and Sony are selling single songs, with more open usage rights as of June 12, 2002. There is no physical package to own. The license is for the song, not the "album". An important distinction there. Artists can repackage songs as singles, ep's etc, and each individual product is seperately licensed. If you buy the LP you can't go to Best Buy and just take the EP, even if it has the same songs because the entire collection is what is being licensed, not the individual songs. The new initiatives are licensing songs, so it will be interesting to see how this works out. I can sell my used CDs back to Shake It or Everybody's, but I can't imagine them letting me sell "used" MP3s!

I suspect this will resolve itself. While the current initiatives are relatively expensive, they're still less than a CD on a per song basis. As the market evolves its inevitable digitally distributed product will come down in price. A lot. Its worth less, if only for the reason above (you can't resell it) not to mention sound quality. Eventually you'll be able to subscribe to streaming services that do give you the works for $10/month. If you want to keep a library for your iPod or home computer, you'll be able to download files for a dime or a quarter with a single click (ie no interminable forms, challenges and hassles with the bill showing up on your ISP charge or your credit card). At that price, piracy becomes irrelevant and a waste of time.

The real answer to this is what you allude to: services that deliver what fans want easily and affordably, no fuss, no muss. Some people like subscriptions... pay one price, get all you can eat. Others like to horde files. As a music maker I don't really care: I want to expose you to my music, and make it as easy and painless as possible to pay me for making it. I want my label to deliver it in the form you want, and I don't want them pissing you off. Business 101.

-d-

[gnahc79]

hey, so is there indie on XM or Sirius? Radio in the Bay Area just plain sucks.

[yoyo]

WOW, I hope you all feel spanked after daved bit into you??? Harsh, way harsh.

[daved]

Originally posted by yoyo
WOW, I hope you all feel spanked after daved bit into you??? Harsh, way harsh.

Geez... one thing I hate about email is lack of context...

My intention was definitely NOT to spank, but to inform, and I don't mean to be harsh. My apologies for coming off that way, and thanks for the heads up yoyo. I'll be more careful.

I think there are a lot of misunderstandings about the nature and intent of copyright laws. Even more about how major labels really work (and the guts of their contracts). I doubt most people realize that a major could be sued for NOT actively attacking AG, Kazaa and Napster based on boilerplate contract language. When you get under the surface some of the current events in this area make more sense, so I was trying to supply some context.

As for the XM thang itself, I simply have a big fear of single-provider systems.

Sorry for going over the top... I'll shut up and get back to work ;)

[smilie to show I'm NOT offended, and my sincere thanks to yoyo for the nudge... i don't wanna be a board tyrant!]

-d-

[BeatnGeneration]

>I'm not sure I follow you. The first amendment says I can say >whatever I want. It doesn't say you can cut/paste my words, put >them in a pamphlet and give them away on a street corner. You >have a right to your words and works, but not mine. There is >nothing whatsoever in the 1st amendment that supports file trading.

The First Amendment would seem to support the idea that commerce, trade and exchange of information on the net shouldn’t be censored. If you say to people you’re going to block all trading of MP3s, such as the RIAA effectively did to AudioGalaxy (for the moment at least) I know that wasn’t the WORDS of the decision but it’s what happened, all files being blocked. That is impeding my ability to trade NON copyrighted material through the service in the meantime. That’s interfering in my ability to freely and peaceably exchange audio information through the internet.

>indeed they'd be damn close to the CD and no worse than what you >get from a 12 year olds sh*tty MP3 collection on Audio Galaxy.

Ah. But I’m not downloading from 12 year olds who want Korn, Ja Rule and Brittany Spears. I’m downloading from college students, music gurus, independent bands, archivers of BBC Radio One techno mixes, and collectors of classic radio comedy. I can’t easily replace that by ripping from CDs especially if it wasn’t ever ON a CD or tape to begin with. And most of it sounds fine to my ears for the purposes I want it for.

>All of this said, trading music is a time-honored way of building buzz >and attracting new fans. Most of my tastes were formed by mix >tapes I got from friends with bigger album collections. I bought what >I liked, ignored the rest. Most people's tastes are formed by "influencers". That can be a radio station, a sibling, a friend or even a >website.

But now, file trading eliminates any of the boundaries that make this difficult. You don’t have to have friends with any musical taste (God knows most of mine don’t have any taste!) or subscribe to XM. Part of this mostly relates to the way I consume music. Finding one “good” artist every now and then isn’t enough for me. I see songs on playlists I don’t know and I want to hear ALL of those songs. I want to hear EVERYTHING and find out if I like it. I have gigabytes of playlists from college stations back into the 80s, 97X, other alternative radio stations pre-”nu metal”, and people’s collection lists. I’m obsessive. :) I want to sample EVERY song I might be interested in, not hope I hear some lost hit from 83 on the radio, tho 97X is better about this than any other station, they still cannot play every obscure Australian new wave band that was played on 4ZZ Community Radio circa 1985. That is the power of the Audiogalaxy interface that even Napster never had. A web based search engine with adjacent software. So simple, and so ideal for my purposes.

>I'm not being an apologist for the labels, because I agree with you: >in the interim these services really DID meet a customer need and >even exposed some people to new music. Further, they provided a >great test bed and "market research" opportunity both for models of >distribution and consumer tastes. The number of Brittany files relative >to Radiohead on a given service says something about that service's >users, as well as the effectiveness of the band's marketing. It's short >sighted (but sadly legally necessary for most labels) to just say its all >bad and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agreed. I always wonder why it was that way (and you explained it well.) To my way of thinking the genie is out of the bottle. You aren’t going to get people to go back to the old ways of consuming music.

Personally, I would have gone to Audiogalaxy and made em’ an offer. Then I’d say to the users: “Look, what is this worth. You can find all this stuff you want, from fellow users who share your tastes, we provide the interface and the servers, is this worth $10-15 a month for you?” Similiar to how the net went from pay per hour to pay by the month unlimited. And the usage trends/downloads per artist would help to determine what was worth marketing, etc. Especially in this day when the “single” has virtually died, compared to when you could buy the latest Beatles hit with another song on the flip side for a reasonable price. Although that would still work more for pop than “alternative” it seems worth a try. How many 16 year olds really want a whole CD by the latest R&B diva? They generally want to spin that song till they find something else they like.


Most of my friends who are into pop don’t download albums. They download often what’s the top 5 of their local “Kiss FM” that week..and play it ad nauseum. And then, there are the “fans” like myself who DON’T download albums, in fact I rarely download more than one song from most artists. I’m downloading new tracks, testing them, and either voting “yes” I like this song and want the album or “no I’m trashing this.” I think the concept the industry has of people “leeching” CDs and CDs full of music is a bit off the mark. With the exception of bored college students with high speed connections, who honestly downloads full CDs from artists they really support?

>You've lost me again. Which rights were screwed with? You do not >have a >right to give away other people's creations. Period. If I >CHOOSE to give >away my music, you have a right to take it, but the >choice itself belongs to >the creator, not the consumer.

The right of information exchange. To prevent “piracy” or whatever they would have to turn the internet into a virtual Nazi zone where everyone was traced and virii scanned hard disks to see if any “illegal” songs existed on their disks. I’m even worried about saying “the bomb” in a chat room or an email for fear it will flag some government computer somewhere. I know I sound paranoid but you cannot continue to allow law to interfere with websites or activity on the net. It ALWAYS without fail goes downhill.

So someone sees I have: “Morrissey-Sing Your Life.mp3” on my hard drive. How do they know if I ripped that from a CD, if I downloaded it, or if it’s the live version from KROQ? That idea they had of implanting a virus to “protect” their copyright fortunately failed, but I wouldn’t put it past them to try it again. Possibly through spyware on software that innocently looks like another Napster or AG.

This sounds 1984 but I’m saying we cant LET them get that close to begin with.

>The real answer to this is what you allude to: services that deliver >what >fans want easily and affordably, no fuss, no muss. Some people like >subscriptions... pay one price, get all you can eat. Others >like to horde files.

Exactly. My problem with the whole pay for song thing is simply how I consume digital music. I download and take alot of risks. I have a list of at least 500 random tracks off of college radio playlists and defunct alternative stations, much of it probably on vinyl in the new wave era and never re-issued. If I find something that looks interesting to me, I just click it..even sometimes if I don’t have a clue what I’m getting. That’s turned me on to some pretty interesting material, same for the live tracks. But I’ve also found some real crap and like any person, I don’t like the idea of paying only to find out something is crap. Combine that with the arrival of broadband and it becomes very inconvenient to pay for large amounts of unknown music. I’ll GLADLY pay for something I love (such as a CD from a band or a concert ticket) but paying for songs I haven’t heard before is a gamble.

Perhaps it’s too much to expect, almost like an unlimited license to the candy store, but people like flat uncomplicated rates. That’s how cable is, internet is, and I think they’re going to want that for downloadable music.

My main point about freedom of speech is something illustrated to me today as I listen to my collection. About three days before AG shut down, I did a search for L.A. radio station “KROQ.” I downloaded an awesome live track from Morrissey, “Sing Your Life.” Now I am a Morrissey fan. I buy Smiths and Morrissey CDs and merchandise. I would go to his concert no matter how much it cost. I’m a fan and he’s made money by my support. So if I download that track from AG, not availible by any other means, I am not taking money from Morrissey. I’m merely extending my fandom and enjoying something he produced for the enjoyment of fans. I wasn’t in the KROQ audience at a time but thanks to the internet, I was able to enjoy something which meant a good deal to me as a fan.

Same deal, The Avalanches. I have their CD on my purchase list. I have precisely one of their MP3s, the lead single that 97X played, Frontier Psychiatrist. I found mixes that the Avalanches did for Triple J and Radio One. Now, I may not have been listening to those stations at that time, and this mix will probably never be released on CD. Through AG, I was able to enjoy that mix and that experience that in no way took money from the band, or the radio station. Now, I’m sure most people have no problem with this.

[msbirt]

I've had XM Radio since December, and I like it quite a bit. I have some complaints about song repetition and artist selections on their modern rock and classic modern rock formats, but it's heads and shoulders above anything else that's being spun on local radio.

I must admit that I'm a pretty narrow listener (ie. I likes me my rock and roll), and I don't listen to most of the stations they provide. But what I do listen to often rocks.

I hear lots of stuff playlisted on 97X, but I also hear way too much hip hop, Joe Jackson (XM's classic modern rock station, Fred, loves Joe Jackson....he makes me vomit), and what I've coined "douche music" (i.e. Pet Shop Boys, Depeche Mode, Erasure, Bronsky Beat, etc...). They have a funny little commercial they play that reminds their listeners that, at times, they will play music that individual listeners think totally sucks. "Hold tight," they say. "Sometimes that happens.") That always makes me laugh at myself.

I've often felt like emailing them 97X's playlist, but that would be insulting and also not a proper use of the materials that WOXY provides its listeners. Still....I can dream.

But XM Radio is pretty cool. I have the Sony Plug and Play model which allows me to listen to it in my car and my house. But I only use it in my car. I haven't plugged it into my home stereo in at least three months. The sound is crystal clear, and I can't remember the last time I heard a commercial.

Here are the stations I usually listen to with the stations' names in paretheses:

Modern Rock (XMU)
Classic Modern Rock (Fred)
Alternative Mega-Hits (Ethel)
Acoustic Rock (The Loft)
Adult Alternative (XM Cafe)
Alt.Country (XCountry....pronounced "Cross Country")

They have this really cool station called "Unsigned" which plays only music by unsigned bands, but I've often found it lacking, and the bands they play to show themselves to be unsigned for a good reason. But it has a lot of potential, and can be very cool at times.

There's another station called "Special X" which is constantly changing formats. Usually, it's very weird, but occasionally, they do something pretty wild. Memorial Day weekend, they played nothing but surf rock. This weekend, I believe they're playing nothing but Summer songs.

All in all, it's a pretty cool system, but I worry about the same things that Daved worries about: too much power in the hands of one corporation. But when I've got to choose amongst the Clear Channel sludge or something that is often on the cutting edge of music, I'll choose the cutting edge.

Then again, if I get the teaching job that I'm interviewing for right now in good old Oxford, I'll find my XM Radio to be obsolete. I'd rather listen to WOXY.

Matt

[BeatnGeneration]

My ultimate point though, is that the RIAA interfered with our ability to peaceably trade non-copyrighted or non-purchaseable files. And that is the ultimate annoyance. Lars of Metallica doesnt give a flip of the finger if I’m downloading 50s BBC comedy! Yet their lobby has made file transfers more difficult for ALL of us even those who are not “mass pirating” mainstream music. So instead of working with AG to root out the “mass offending” files..they blocked ALL transfers. And that is where I say they interfered with the freedom of trade and the operation of Audiogalaxy. Plus they made many people very very angry. And all in all, I’d say that’s a pretty bad way to handle the issue. Go after the big issues or come up with a service of your own, otherwise the RIAA just increases ill will among the hardcore of music FANS who are the people they should stay on the good side of.

this'll teach me not to write replies offline.

[yossarian]

Originally posted by yoyo
WOW, I hope you all feel spanked after daved bit into you??? Harsh, way harsh.

Whaa...? I thought he was extremely informative and respectful.

K

[daved]

First, Beat, you bring up some GREAT points. I think we probably share a lot of the same core concepts and would agree on many things ideologically. This reply is more about making some clear distinctions and clarifications than a major disagreement on the facts. And, whatever tone may come across, I'm having fun... I'm definitely not trying to condescend or dismiss your very good ideas!

Originally posted by BeatnGeneration
The First Amendment would seem to support the idea that commerce, trade and exchange of information on the net shouldn’t be censored. If you say to people you’re going to block all trading of MP3s, such as the RIAA effectively did to AudioGalaxy (for the moment at least) I know that wasn’t the WORDS of the decision but it’s what happened, all files being blocked. That is impeding my ability to trade NON copyrighted material through the service in the meantime. That’s interfering in my ability to freely and peaceably exchange audio information through the internet.

That's really not the idea of the 1st. It specifically protects INDIVDUAL speech and expression from GOVERNMENT predation. That's very distinct from corporate/corporate protections, and such disputes are effectively are in the domain of the courts. Copyright, interestingly, was a seperate and equally important concept to the founding fathers and it was addressed immediately. Like the bill of rights did for human rights, the US pioneered intellectual property rights. The right of an author or songwriter or inventor to be compensated is pretty much set in stone. In other words, the 1st has NOTHING to do with commerce and trade or application of copyrights.

You do make a good point however (just not the 1st amendment): you cannot assume ALL files of a particular format to be illegal. We are presumed innocent, not guilty. That's not the first, but it's a constitutional principle thats pretty important. ;)

The distinction here: AG, like Napster, is a corporation. They have a business model. It encourages the property of others to be transferred illegally, and thus is in trouble. There was a presumption of innocence until the first couple million verified copyright violations. After that, the rest is academic. Were they pure p2p like gnutella you'd have to prosecute each individual file provider. AG and Napster were easy targets.

I’m downloading from college students, music gurus, independent bands, archivers of BBC Radio One techno mixes, and collectors of classic radio comedy. I can’t easily replace that by ripping from CDs especially if it wasn’t ever ON a CD or tape to begin with. And most of it sounds fine to my ears for the purposes I want it for.

You can legally record those broadcasts and after that privately exchange files directly with people in that community on closed networks without fear. That's not to say the works are free of copyright or fair game. Rather, no one, including the labels, want to cross that line.

Their real agenda:

1) Prevent LARGE SCALE copyright violations. This includes not only online but pressed disc violations. They've been very aggressive on BOTH fronts. They WANT a lot of press clippings with lawsuit victories and confiscated illegal CDs.

2) Preserve the rights of artists and labels to be paid for their work directly, negotiating rates in good faith, not at the end of the barrel of a gun.

I want to sample EVERY song I might be interested in, not hope I hear some lost hit from 83 on the radio, tho 97X is better about this than any other station, they still cannot play every obscure Australian new wave band that was played on 4ZZ Community Radio circa 1985. That is the power of the Audiogalaxy interface that even Napster never had. A web based search engine with adjacent software. So simple, and so ideal for my purposes.

I agree entirely with your conclusion. Both services met real consumer needs in an effective, innovative way. They simply built empires from other people's property, with these goodies and legit purposes as an after thought. There was a study done of Napster in its prime: 90% of available files were major label hits. The same ones you'll hear on terrestrial radio! That's why it folded like a pup tent in a tornado in court. They were undeniably, indefensibly guilty of being knowing accessories to copyright violations. The fact that there were good things that were legal is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

As an aside, there is no legal right to sample EVERY song you might be interested in. None whatsoever. You can't walk into Media Play and break the seal of any record you might like and pop it in a player to sample. Why would you expect to be able to do so online? This is the legal reality.

But, in contrast to the legal reality there is a marketing imperative at work as well. That imperative would suggest that such samples be made available to you in hopes that you WOULD buy. Beyond the legal system, the facts on the ground are plain: All pop artists on majors pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to give away their songs as far and wide as possible on radio. Most, if not all artists would like similar exposure, targeted at their most likely buyers. So, in spite of the fact that you lack a legal right to every song you may be interested in, there is a strong incentive for artists to supply you with precisely that!

These are diametrically opposing needs, each having an enormous impact on artists ability to survive on recorded music. With such a wide gap there is plenty of room for compromise and innovation. As you point out, the AG system has a lot of benefits from a user perspective. A forward thinking label will exploit them sooner than later.

Personally, I would have gone to Audiogalaxy and made em’ an offer. Then I’d say to the users: “Look, what is this worth. You can find all this stuff you want, from fellow users who share your tastes, we provide the interface and the servers, is this worth $10-15 a month for you?” Similiar to how the net went from pay per hour to pay by the month unlimited. And the usage trends/downloads per artist would help to determine what was worth marketing, etc. Especially in this day when the “single” has virtually died, compared to when you could buy the latest Beatles hit with another song on the flip side for a reasonable price. Although that would still work more for pop than “alternative” it seems worth a try. How many 16 year olds really want a whole CD by the latest R&B diva? They generally want to spin that song till they find something else they like.

There's a lot of meat in this statement, Beat. (sorry, couldn't resist! ;) )I agree with your conclusions. But not your remedy: sadly, BMG did EXACTLY that with Napster. Napster's CEO (NOT Shawn Fanning) totally miscalculated. Napster is now dead because they flat-refused to play ball, in spite of a HUGE gift of cash from BMG, and a relatively generous settlement deal brokered by them. They sh*t in their own bed, for no good reason. Glad I didn't own BMG or Napster stock. If I were a label, I wouldn't buy AG, but I might license some of their technology, or take it as settlement for my infringement. I'd look for ways to use it as you say. Fortunately AG seems to have a better model overall, more common sense, and have witnessed the Napster implosion so maybe they'll come out of this just fine on their own.

Your point about singles is well taken, and one I've hammered on for years.

We need a mixture of responses, and that's precisely what my workshop at AES in LA is about. Subscriptions in and of themselves really won't work for a total solution, but they can be one of the answers in a range. If you look closely, all of these issues are PRODUCT problems. Its not about the internet. Its not about civil rights or corporate power either. It's about meeting customer needs with realistic products that hold value. If that were happening I wouldn't be typing all this!

I think the concept the industry has of people “leeching” CDs and CDs full of music is a bit off the mark. With the exception of bored college students with high speed connections, who honestly downloads full CDs from artists they really support?

First, no one believed that most people took whole records except a few talking heads staking out extreme positions to guard the legal flanks. This becomes clearer every day as labels exploit more online initiatives. Napster lost by proving beyond reasonable doubt that most content WAS major label product. A distinction you and I would share: most of that product consisted of hits being given away (after being mangled in air chain processors) over radio. I will be the first to say its hard to prove damages when someones just spreading around something you pay big bucks to spread around. It may be legally sound, but it sure smells bad.

The purpose of the d/l doesn't really matter in the eyes of the law, and thats where you're getting hung up. The fact that its exposing new fans is beside the point to lawyers. Its mine, I license it, you don't have a license to do that, case closed.

What's missing is the marketing perspective. Exposing new fans IS the point there. And in this sense I'm completely with you.

I'm an iTunes junkie, and when I need a fix, even with high speed connections at home and work, its impractical and unproductive to steal music. Easier to buy the CDs I like and rip them than it is to steal. My time is billed at a fairly high rate: I can buy a lot of records with the time it takes to steal a handful of songs. Most people who like music buy what they like for a lot of reasons including these.

OK... time out... I'm gonna split this in 2 because the next statement is more important to respond to.

-d-

[daved]

To continue...

The right of information exchange. To prevent “piracy” or whatever they would have to turn the internet into a virtual Nazi zone where everyone was traced and virii scanned hard disks to see if any “illegal” songs existed on their disks. I’m even worried about saying “the bomb” in a chat room or an email for fear it will flag some government computer somewhere. I know I sound paranoid but you cannot continue to allow law to interfere with websites or activity on the net. It ALWAYS without fail goes downhill.

I agree with your principles. But the cases of note, Napster and AG, don't fit that profile, nor is there interference with private citizens on any level as you describe. They aren't scanning individuals for anything, but doing rather scanning PUBLICLY AVAILABLE open databases, that are coincidentally being used as accessories to copyright violations (I don't say "crimes" as many in the industry do - this is a matter of civil offense, not criminal activity). The kind of intrusion you're suggesting has never been a part of these prosecutions or even suggested remedies. You're painting with too broad a brush.

But your right: this stuff does happen, and it is definitely already going down hill. Microsoft has employed disk scanning technology -- save that ammo for the REAL villian in Corporate America. If this really bothers you, I sure hope you have a macintosh or a linux machine, because MS is making a lot of money off of data harvested from customers, and spending lots more to aggressively dig out violations from individuals (they've actually gotten support and used this data to pre-emptively search computers used for home business without warrants, and destroyed small businesses, while inflicting huge damages on other corporations). You can worry about potential violations and possible abuses among competing entertainment conglomerates that require fan support to survive if you like. I worry more about a company that effectively runs an entire industry actually doing this stuff on a daily basis. But I digress...

So far what we've seen is simply enforcement of existing laws.
There is no more public forum I'm aware of than the internet. It is clearly public space, by choice. Anyone has the power to open or close access to the world. If I choose to decorate my yard with stolen lawn jockeys, I can't really complain if the cops arrest me. If I put those jockeys in my basement and never let anyone down there, they can't do a thing until they have some probable cause to get a warrant to search it.

Once exposed in a public forum a different standard applies. File sharing on AG and Napster exposes copyright violations publicly. The verification of the violation itself is easy: the violated victim can download the song and verify its identity. If you can identify the source of the file served on a network open to the public, that individual is truly fair game for prosecution. Fortunately we don't see this kind of prosecutions for 2 reasons:

1) On networks where the originator is identifiable (Napster), prosecuting individuals in the US looks very much like you describe above. The public relations fall out from that sort of tactic would make the rancor generated by shutting down Napster look like a love fest! Add the cross purposes we've mentioned: both label and artist understand samples of the product attract fans. THis pretty much rules out doing the things you fear, even for the most radically charged victims (Lars) or the most notorious violators (kids bragging about gazillion song stolen libraries).
2) They can't identify individuals in a constitutional manner on Gnutella or full p2ps. Worse, lacking watermarks, song identification in court is actually a surprisingly expensive and non-trivial thing. A common defense is to play a jury a very very good cover next to the original; not surprisingly they cannot distinguish it any better than most people can tell an MP3 from a CD.

So if a label didn't worry about publicity, and made the bonehead call to prosecute every individuals it would fail. Even if they beat the network, got past the constitutional issues (a hack can't generate admissable evidence), they'd spend a fortune on each case to identify the "stolen" files, and pay the lawyers to collect damages! It doesn't pay to shake down college students.

Worry about MS: They already do this. Not only do you signify your acceptance of their right to rifle your hard disk when you break the seal on the disk and click "accept", you're sold the intrusions as a "feature"! Big Brother is already here, Beat. Only he's not working for Warners, he's sitting in an office in Redmond, Wa.

So someone sees I have: “Morrissey-Sing Your Life.mp3” on my hard drive. How do they know if I ripped that from a CD, if I downloaded it, or if it’s the live version from KROQ? That idea they had of implanting a virus to “protect” their copyright fortunately failed, but I wouldn’t put it past them to try it again. Possibly through spyware on software that innocently looks like another Napster or AG. This sounds 1984 but I’m saying we cant LET them get that close to begin with.

I hear what your saying, but I think your example's bad: if the song's copyrighted, you don't really have the right to share it, regardless of the source. Thats just the law as it's been for a 100 years (the case law began with music publishing in the 1800s). You have a right to record it off the air but not to share it.

Lets forget the "virus" idea: the same lawyers who direct the labels to attack AG & Napster would NEVER allow it. Consider the legal fall out of ANY virus in the post-9/11 world. No way, no how.

Abandon the concept that somehow a live performance or rarity not officially released should be available. There is no imperative that an artist, must make every performance, broadcast or even release available to anyone who wants it. Photographic prints, signed limited edition singles or vinyl releases are valuable by virtue of their scarcity. Making an MP3 of your copy is fine, but when you put it on AG to share with the world, the value of those limited editions does, in fact, decrease. Do you have the right to diminish the value of an artists work, or a patron's license?

If there were such an imperative, where would it end? If you give a rough mix to a studio musician to write a part for and that tape somehow winds up on AG does the whole world have a right to collect and keep this? No way! Sorry, they just don't have a right to hear work in development or in a state the artist disagrees with. If we can't agree on that, many artists simply wouldn't create.

Prince is notoriously possessive about his development process. You have a right to hear Purple Rain as he intended, but not as a work in progress. The Grateful Dead choose to be open, and embrace trading. Each has their own reasoning, equally valid: Prince is primarily a songwriter and recording artist. His income is largely through publishing royalties, and he must protect that income stream. The Dead were most notably a live band, making a living through touring. Bootlegs built community which added to the gate (and arguably show the band's nature better than the commercial releases). The gate is a "hard" barrier: No tickee, no washee, no arguments. Recorded music is a "soft" barrier that relies on the honesty and devotion of fans. That barrier has been torn apart. Not by Napster, but by fan's assumption of a non-existent "right" to take whatever they want, met by label refusals to provide a legal alternative. Both approaches have placed recording artists and songwriters in jeopardy for their livlihood.

Likewise there's no right to record and distribute live performances. If I have an off night, that should never represent my work publicly, or tarnish my reputation. Consider Liz Phair's first tour: it was a disaster start to finish. Put those performances had been on AG, and she would have been dropped and never heard from again. By mistaking stage fright for incompetence, Whip Smart and Whitechocolatespacegg would never have been. That’s a big price to pay, not just for Liz, but for us as a music fans.

This is true for broadcast concerts for different reasons, in spite of the fact that it was broadcast to millions. The rationale is that the licensee is the radio station, who paid by their audience size for the license. They paid a syndicator (who pays the artist) to broadcast the song to 1,000,000 people. Share it 1:1 with your local friends or listserv buddies, at best you're going to give away a hundred CDs or emailed tracks. By contrast, that program on a file sharing service can yield 1000s or millions of violations and poison syndication markets worldwide. These are real, not imagined damages. The former is less than the margin of error for the rating metric used to establish the original royalty, while the latter is a violation by an order of magnitude.

And yet, once again we have to step back: what's the real goal of the music on KROQ? The lawyers necessarily think about those 1,000,000 unpaid ears. An artist MAY, of his own choice, wish to spread it farther. A smart marketer surely would. The problem is in the contracts: if the labels let this slide, they lose the artist. Worse, if an artist or label let syndicated shows go out for free, syndicators would stop paying artists as the value of the programming drops.

My point is this: once again the purposes of marketeers and lawyers are at odds, and this is the source of EVERYONE'S trouble. Fortunately there are solutions.

... almost there...

[daved]

It comes back to enlightened use of products and, for that matter, refocusing on what music products really are.

Once the program's been paid for and achieved realistic goals, making it available to build interest in future programs can be common sense. Smart marketing. NPR charges a fortune to affiliates to carry their news shows live, but EVERYTHING is on their website for free AFTER the fact. There are plenty of good answers out there already that meet fans needs and artists and label goals. They can give away the stuff you are collecting, Beat, and make money on the new stuff, or simply get value from your act of "collecting" (trading your demographic data for music). Value can be exchanged without dollars being directly involved in a digital world.

The deepest irony of all: Networks like AG and Napster are actually required to make this exchange of like-value fair. Database driven systems are the only way to both track value exchanged, and manage rights automatically (I read a great article on this, and in a very real way, rights management is the real culprit of the growing pains of digital commerce in i.p.). Napster couldn't make that leap, but AG may be able to.

Some people get this. Most don't. We need a balance. If fans want good music, musicians and producers of music must get paid. If artists want fans, and labels want customers they must deliver products people want in the manner they want them. There are working models out there, but no one seems to be paying attention to them. My goal at the AES workshop this fall is to at least make the production community aware, and hopefully they'll take the message back to their patrons and employers. Its time to get on with business.

Things are truly getting better every day. The UMG/Sony online models (label servers, retail delivery and sale of single songs) is a far more positive step than the AG decision is a negative. The good aspects of AG's intellectual property survives and will be used in some manner. The UMG/Sony libraries are truly a giant step forward: they are the first large scale attempt to license songs, not containers. More significant, the artists participating have contracts based on percentages, not actual fixed rates. These two facts open the doors to systems that look and work like Napster or AG, but pay artists. Private file transfers will be unaffected since they won't be on those servers... indeed companies like AG could serve both legitimate music from label servers and the stuff you like p2p, supporting the free network with revenue legally generated by the label's songs! This couldn't happen before the UMG/Sony initiatives of June 12. The two events (Sony/UMG online/AG's loss in court) go hand in hand to getting us to the next phase of this revolution. We needed BOTH to get to a better, fairer system.

So I see more light than dark. Killing AG's broad violations was a legal imperative, created by AG's inherently flawed business model. Now that the lawyers are done, things will slowly get more rational. Indeed, the fact that the AES is sponsoring my panel in LA, and NARAS (the Grammy folks) wants me to do a similar workshop in Indianapolis this summer speaks volumes. The long dark night is nearly over.

-d-

[daved]

First, Beat, you bring up some GREAT points. I think we probably share a lot of the same core concepts and would agree on many things ideologically. This reply is more about making some clear distinctions and clarifications than a major disagreement on the facts. And, whatever tone may come across, I'm having fun... I'm definitely not trying to condescend or dismiss your very good ideas!

Originally posted by BeatnGeneration
The First Amendment would seem to support the idea that commerce, trade and exchange of information on the net shouldn’t be censored. If you say to people you’re going to block all trading of MP3s, such as the RIAA effectively did to AudioGalaxy (for the moment at least) I know that wasn’t the WORDS of the decision but it’s what happened, all files being blocked. That is impeding my ability to trade NON copyrighted material through the service in the meantime. That’s interfering in my ability to freely and peaceably exchange audio information through the internet.

That's really not the idea of the 1st. It specifically protects INDIVDUAL speech and expression from GOVERNMENT predation. That's very distinct from corporate/corporate protections, and such disputes are effectively are in the domain of the courts. Copyright, interestingly, was a seperate and equally important concept to the founding fathers and it was addressed immediately. Like the bill of rights did for human rights, the US pioneered intellectual property rights. The right of an author or songwriter or inventor to be compensated is pretty much set in stone. In other words, the 1st has NOTHING to do with commerce and trade or application of copyrights.

You do make a good point however (just not the 1st amendment): you cannot assume ALL files of a particular format to be illegal. We are presumed innocent, not guilty. That's not the first, but it's a constitutional principle thats pretty important. ;)

The distinction here: AG, like Napster, is a corporation. They have a business model. It encourages the property of others to be transferred illegally, and thus is in trouble. There was a presumption of innocence until the first couple million verified copyright violations. After that, the rest is academic. Were they pure p2p like gnutella you'd have to prosecute each individual file provider. AG and Napster were easy targets.

I’m downloading from college students, music gurus, independent bands, archivers of BBC Radio One techno mixes, and collectors of classic radio comedy. I can’t easily replace that by ripping from CDs especially if it wasn’t ever ON a CD or tape to begin with. And most of it sounds fine to my ears for the purposes I want it for.

You can legally record those broadcasts and after that privately exchange files directly with people in that community on closed networks without fear. That's not to say the works are free of copyright or fair game. Rather, no one, including the labels, want to cross that line.

Their real agenda:

1) Prevent LARGE SCALE copyright violations. This includes not only online but pressed disc violations. They've been very aggressive on BOTH fronts. They WANT a lot of press clippings with lawsuit victories and confiscated illegal CDs.

2) Preserve the rights of artists and labels to be paid for their work directly, negotiating rates in good faith, not at the end of the barrel of a gun.

I want to sample EVERY song I might be interested in, not hope I hear some lost hit from 83 on the radio, tho 97X is better about this than any other station, they still cannot play every obscure Australian new wave band that was played on 4ZZ Community Radio circa 1985. That is the power of the Audiogalaxy interface that even Napster never had. A web based search engine with adjacent software. So simple, and so ideal for my purposes.

I agree entirely with your conclusion. Both services met real consumer needs in an effective, innovative way. They simply built empires from other people's property, with these goodies and legit purposes as an after thought. There was a study done of Napster in its prime: 90% of available files were major label hits. The same ones you'll hear on terrestrial radio! That's why it folded like a pup tent in a tornado in court. They were undeniably, indefensibly guilty of being knowing accessories to copyright violations. The fact that there were good things that were legal is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

As an aside, there is no legal right to sample EVERY song you might be interested in. None whatsoever. You can't walk into Media Play and break the seal of any record you might like and pop it in a player to sample. Why would you expect to be able to do so online? This is the legal reality.

But, in contrast to the legal reality there is a marketing imperative at work as well. That imperative would suggest that such samples be made available to you in hopes that you WOULD buy. Beyond the legal system, the facts on the ground are plain: All pop artists on majors pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to give away their songs as far and wide as possible on radio. Most, if not all artists would like similar exposure, targeted at their most likely buyers. So, in spite of the fact that you lack a legal right to every song you may be interested in, there is a strong incentive for artists to supply you with precisely that!

These are diametrically opposing needs, each having an enormous impact on artists ability to survive on recorded music. With such a wide gap there is plenty of room for compromise and innovation. As you point out, the AG system has a lot of benefits from a user perspective. A forward thinking label will exploit them sooner than later.

Personally, I would have gone to Audiogalaxy and made em’ an offer. Then I’d say to the users: “Look, what is this worth. You can find all this stuff you want, from fellow users who share your tastes, we provide the interface and the servers, is this worth $10-15 a month for you?” Similiar to how the net went from pay per hour to pay by the month unlimited. And the usage trends/downloads per artist would help to determine what was worth marketing, etc. Especially in this day when the “single” has virtually died, compared to when you could buy the latest Beatles hit with another song on the flip side for a reasonable price. Although that would still work more for pop than “alternative” it seems worth a try. How many 16 year olds really want a whole CD by the latest R&B diva? They generally want to spin that song till they find something else they like.

There's a lot of meat in this statement, Beat. (sorry, couldn't resist! ;) )I agree with your conclusions. But not your remedy: sadly, BMG did EXACTLY that with Napster. Napster's CEO (NOT Shawn Fanning) totally miscalculated. Napster is now dead because they flat-refused to play ball, in spite of a HUGE gift of cash from BMG, and a relatively generous settlement deal brokered by them. They sh*t in their own bed, for no good reason. Glad I didn't own BMG or Napster stock. If I were a label, I wouldn't buy AG, but I might license some of their technology, or take it as settlement for my infringement. I'd look for ways to use it as you say. Fortunately AG seems to have a better model overall, more common sense, and have witnessed the Napster implosion so maybe they'll come out of this just fine on their own.

Your point about singles is well taken, and one I've hammered on for years.

We need a mixture of responses, and that's precisely what my workshop at AES in LA is about. Subscriptions in and of themselves really won't work for a total solution, but they can be one of the answers in a range. If you look closely, all of these issues are PRODUCT problems. Its not about the internet. Its not about civil rights or corporate power either. It's about meeting customer needs with realistic products that hold value. If that were happening I wouldn't be typing all this!

I think the concept the industry has of people “leeching” CDs and CDs full of music is a bit off the mark. With the exception of bored college students with high speed connections, who honestly downloads full CDs from artists they really support?

First, no one believed that most people took whole records except a few talking heads staking out extreme positions to guard the legal flanks. This becomes clearer every day as labels exploit more online initiatives. Napster lost by proving beyond reasonable doubt that most content WAS major label product. A distinction you and I would share: most of that product consisted of hits being given away (after being mangled in air chain processors) over radio. I will be the first to say its hard to prove damages when someones just spreading around something you pay big bucks to spread around. It may be legally sound, but it sure smells bad.

The purpose of the d/l doesn't really matter in the eyes of the law, and thats where you're getting hung up. The fact that its exposing new fans is beside the point to lawyers. Its mine, I license it, you don't have a license to do that, case closed.

What's missing is the marketing perspective. Exposing new fans IS the point there. And in this sense I'm completely with you.

I'm an iTunes junkie, and when I need a fix, even with high speed connections at home and work, its impractical and unproductive to steal music. Easier to buy the CDs I like and rip them than it is to steal. My time is billed at a fairly high rate: I can buy a lot of records with the time it takes to steal a handful of songs. Most people who like music buy what they like for a lot of reasons including these.

OK... time out... I'm gonna split this in 2 because the next statement is more important to respond to.

-d-

[Smoker29]

Did you guys know that Pat Dinizio (spelling) is the programmer for the Unsigned Music Station on XM. He also just so happens to be the Key Note Speaker at this year's First Annual Midpoint Music Festival. Cool.

[onest2.0]

I think the Midpoint Music Fesitval is just a cover-up. Its really a meeting of the Sledge clones to disuss their "Mustache America" master plan.

[Smoker29]

That's the funniest thing I've read on these boards in a long, long time.

It kind of reminds me of the Flinstone's episode with all the alien Fred's.

Yaba-Daba-Doo

[kcneon]

Anyone checked out this puppy (http://www.xmradio.com/xmpcr/)? Sounds like a pretty sweeeet deal.

[SteelTown Boy]

faaaack,me likes me likes...

[coreyhemp]

XM and Sirius boasts that they have "100 channels of programming" like it's the best thing to come out of radio in so long. Is anyone else not turned on by this idea? 100 radio stations still doesn't get me excited. You can have 100 channels and all of them be shite.

Sure one of those stations is bound to have good music on it (hell, it seems with this thread, everyone who has it, likes it) but it still won't be as good as WOXY.

But I guess it's still better than the 20 or so we get (in and out) of our car.

[marchdoe]

I am just pissed because I was going to buy some XM stock with my tax return money. My money didn't come back in time so basically to make a long story short I lost $20,000, yeah I know.............. errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[mattsledge]

DAMNIT! Busted!

...And now that I am back from out of town, who the heck stole my hookers and blow, HUH? eyeball and CT, I'm looking at YOU!

;)
Originally posted by onest2.0
I think the Midpoint Music Fesitval is just a cover-up. Its really a meeting of the Sledge clones to disuss their "Mustache America" master plan.

[CtJester]

Originally posted by mattsledge
DAMNIT! Busted!

...And now that I am back from out of town, who the heck stole my hookers and blow, HUH? eyeball and CT, I'm looking at YOU!

;)


Hey, talk to eyeball...

The hookers I got were leftovers from Price Hill, and the blow was baby powder. She duped me too!

-ct

[tobedawg]

I had XM for awhile, but recently switched over to SIRIUS..

The music channels on XM are superior to those on SIRIUS.. They have XMU which is a college rock style and FRED which is a Classic Alternative Station..

But, SIRIUS has the liberal talk station, SIRIUS left.. It's refreshing to hear some of the talk shows.. SIRIUS also has NPR Talk programming..

They also have a channel called LEFT OF CENTER which is a college rock oriented station and ALT NATION which is a mainstream Alternative station..