Op-Ed: Charles M. Blow via New York Times; Swan Songs?:
"The problem is that if people can get the music they want for free, why would they ever buy it, or even steal it? They won’t. According to a March study by the NPD Group, a market research group for the entertainment industry, 13- to 17-year-olds “acquired 19 percent less music in 2008 than they did in 2007.” CD sales among these teenagers were down 26 percent and digital purchases were down 13 percent.
And a survey of British music fans, conducted by the Leading Question/Music Ally and released last month, found that the percentage of 14- to 18-year-olds who regularly share files dropped by nearly a third from December 2007 to January 2009. On the other hand, two-thirds of those teens now listen to streaming music “regularly” and nearly a third listen to it every day.
This is part of a much broader shift in media consumption by young people. They’re moving from an acquisition model to an access model.
Even if they choose to buy the music, the industry has handicapped its ability to capitalize on that purchase by allowing all songs to be bought individually, apart from their albums. This once seemed like a blessing. Now it looks more like a curse.
In previous forms, you had to take the bad with the good. You may have only wanted two or three songs, but you had to buy the whole 8-track, cassette or CD to get them. So in a sense, these bad songs help finance the good ones. The resulting revenue provided a cushion for the artists and record companies to take chances and make mistakes. Single song downloads helped to kill that.
A study last year conducted by members of PRS for Music, a nonprofit royalty collection agency, found that of the 13 million songs for sale online last year, 10 million never got a single buyer and 80 percent of all revenue came from about 52,000 songs. That’s less than one percent of the songs.
So it was no surprise that The Financial Times reported on Monday that Apple is working with the four largest labels to seduce people into buying more digital albums. It’s too little too late."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=charles%20blow&st=cse
Showing posts with label streaming music sites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label streaming music sites. Show all posts
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
10 sites to help you navigate the new world of music; CNN.com, 7/23/09
John D. Sutter via CNN.com; 10 sites to help you navigate the new world of music:
"Online music is confusing these days.
Web sites are giving people new ways to find and enjoy music.
It's hard to tell what's legal when once-defunct sites like KaZaA and Napster --former bastions of illegal downloads -- crawl out of the grave with legit subscription plans.
And digital music offerings are expanding.
Instead of buying CDs or downloading songs, younger consumers appear to be shifting toward streaming music online and on mobile devices.
That's partly because music streaming services like Pandora are largely free, and also because younger people aren't as tied to the idea that music must be owned to be enjoyed, said Russ Crupnick, a senior industry analyst at NPD Entertainment, which conducts market research.
In a survey released earlier this year, NPD Group found the number of teens streaming music online jumped from 34 percent in 2007 to 52 percent in 2008. CD sales and music downloads dropped over the same period.
It's unclear which online music models will survive, said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, the nonprofit that collects royalties for recording companies and artists.
But some music industry experts say the shifting landscape of digital music could help save struggling musicians and record companies.
Rich Bengloff, president of the American Association of Independent Music, said power is in the hands of consumers.
"To survive, music labels must get revenue from multiple sources, with the consumers deciding which of these sources they want to use to access music," he said in an e-mail. "These sources need to include streaming services like Pandora, SomaFM, Yahoo, etc. and subscription services like Napster and Rhapsody.
"These services are good for the industry as long as artists who create the music and the music labels that invest in that music creation receive fair compensation."
To help you sort through the many options, CNN.com compiled a list of 10 sites that are rethinking how people access music on the Internet."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/23/online.music.kazaa/index.html
"Online music is confusing these days.
Web sites are giving people new ways to find and enjoy music.
It's hard to tell what's legal when once-defunct sites like KaZaA and Napster --former bastions of illegal downloads -- crawl out of the grave with legit subscription plans.
And digital music offerings are expanding.
Instead of buying CDs or downloading songs, younger consumers appear to be shifting toward streaming music online and on mobile devices.
That's partly because music streaming services like Pandora are largely free, and also because younger people aren't as tied to the idea that music must be owned to be enjoyed, said Russ Crupnick, a senior industry analyst at NPD Entertainment, which conducts market research.
In a survey released earlier this year, NPD Group found the number of teens streaming music online jumped from 34 percent in 2007 to 52 percent in 2008. CD sales and music downloads dropped over the same period.
It's unclear which online music models will survive, said John Simson, executive director of SoundExchange, the nonprofit that collects royalties for recording companies and artists.
But some music industry experts say the shifting landscape of digital music could help save struggling musicians and record companies.
Rich Bengloff, president of the American Association of Independent Music, said power is in the hands of consumers.
"To survive, music labels must get revenue from multiple sources, with the consumers deciding which of these sources they want to use to access music," he said in an e-mail. "These sources need to include streaming services like Pandora, SomaFM, Yahoo, etc. and subscription services like Napster and Rhapsody.
"These services are good for the industry as long as artists who create the music and the music labels that invest in that music creation receive fair compensation."
To help you sort through the many options, CNN.com compiled a list of 10 sites that are rethinking how people access music on the Internet."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/23/online.music.kazaa/index.html
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Music Labels Reach Online Royalty Deal; New York Times, 7/7/09
Claire Cain Miller via New York Times; Music Labels Reach Online Royalty Deal:
"On Tuesday, after a two-year battle, record labels and online radio stations agreed on new royalty rates for streaming music online. Many of the music sites had argued that the old rates were so high they were being forced out of business.
“This is definitely the agreement that we’ve been waiting for,” said Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora, one of the most popular Internet radio sites.
The conflict began in March 2007, when the federal Copyright Royalty Board ruled that all so-called webcasters needed to pay a fee, set to increase to 0.19 cent a song next year, each time they streamed a song. Webcasters said the fees would eat up most of their revenue, which mostly comes from online advertising.
The new agreement treats sites differently depending on their size and business model. It applies to the period from 2006 through 2015 for big sites and through 2014 for small sites. The sites in question often provide customized streams of music, but listeners do not get to directly choose which songs they hear, and they are not permitted to store the music on their computers...
Webcasters also agreed to give more detailed information about the songs they play and how many people listen to them to SoundExchange, the nonprofit organization that collects and distributes digital royalties on behalf of artists and labels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html?_r=1&hpw
"On Tuesday, after a two-year battle, record labels and online radio stations agreed on new royalty rates for streaming music online. Many of the music sites had argued that the old rates were so high they were being forced out of business.
“This is definitely the agreement that we’ve been waiting for,” said Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora, one of the most popular Internet radio sites.
The conflict began in March 2007, when the federal Copyright Royalty Board ruled that all so-called webcasters needed to pay a fee, set to increase to 0.19 cent a song next year, each time they streamed a song. Webcasters said the fees would eat up most of their revenue, which mostly comes from online advertising.
The new agreement treats sites differently depending on their size and business model. It applies to the period from 2006 through 2015 for big sites and through 2014 for small sites. The sites in question often provide customized streams of music, but listeners do not get to directly choose which songs they hear, and they are not permitted to store the music on their computers...
Webcasters also agreed to give more detailed information about the songs they play and how many people listen to them to SoundExchange, the nonprofit organization that collects and distributes digital royalties on behalf of artists and labels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html?_r=1&hpw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)