Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[glynor]

Okay.  I'm now beginning a giant "Why JRiver Shouldn't Go Into This Market" rant.  Feel free to ignore it if you want...

<rant>
I think that with rare exception the "pile-on" to get into the entertainment distribution business is a bad move.  I may not be able to articulate this well, but I'll do my best...

To use the way music distribution "used to work" as an example... The RIAA companies sell their product (tapes and CDs) in huge batches to distributors for a certain price.  The distributors then marked them up a bit and sold them in slightly-less-huge batches to the individual shops.  The shops then marked them up a bit more and sold them to us.  This worked relatively well for everyone involved.

The RIAA company didn't have to worry about the logistics of keeping track of each and every little buyer (as they would if they sold direct to consumers), maintaining inventory, mark-downs, etc.  More importantly they didn't have to create the logistical network that would distribute that product all over the globe.  The distributors would handle that for them, and lucky for the RIAA company, there were bunches of distributors all vieing for business so they could maintain high profit margins.

The distributors could make a pretty good living because they typically had a bit of pricing power over the stores.  They had to maintain the logistic network, but generally they didn't have to maintain inventory over long periods.  Also, because of the contracts negotiated with the RIAA companies, they typically had exclusivity rights on the specific products they were distributing (eg. only one distributor had the new Snoop Dogg release on the first "run") so they could dictate their profit margins within reason of what the consumers were willing to pay.

The worst place to be really profit wise (other than the consumer) was the store.  They had relatively limited distribution power (unless you were in downtown Manhattan), and could only sell to those people who walked into your store.  You also had to pay to maintain the building and employees to man the checkout desk.  On top of it, you had basically no ability to determine the pricing on your product, which was set by the RIAA and distributors.  Your profit margins were really at the whim of people who didn't even know your name.  The one Ace you had was location.  The RIAA certainly wasn't going to be able to go out and build their own network of stores all across the globe, so their superior pricing power wasn't a serious threat.  Stores maximized this "on the ground advantage" by building huge chains of retail outlets (enter Sam Goody and Tower Records) and let the best, most efficient, and most "cool" chain win.

Now, fast forward to the "Internet Distribution Age".  The problem is that those huge chains are now a liability.  Amazon can compete directly with you, and do it cheaper and with less overhead.  People were happy that they could have a truely gigantic collection of "available" titles to choose from, and Amazon could easily and cheaply track their orders.  They also didn't need the distributors because of their sales volume, which made the RIAA willing to sell to them directly, so they had a cost advantage over the traditional stores.  Their only major cost was inventory and distribution, which were far less than paying for lights, leases, and employees who steal and call in sick.  Guess what?  Tower and Sam Goody haven't been doing so hot lately.

Fast forward to the future...  Why does the RIAA need the Apple Store?  Well, right now it's mostly because Apple was there first and they still have the "cool" effect going for them.  Their iPod player is "where it's at" and so if you want to sell digital music, you have to deal with them.  It's only a matter of time before they mess that up though.  The RIAA wants BADLY to control the DRM.  They know that once they can come up with a somewhat universal DRM system, that the consumers will accept, then they will no longer need the Apple's/Napster's/Yahoo's of the world.  They can sell it all themselves and take ALL the profit.  No one will be able to compete because they'll (1) control the pricing and (2) control the DRM.  That's the real reason they want Apple to open up the iPod, so that they can open their own Music Stores!  Apple knows this.  In fact, that's why Apple isn't really trying to make money on the iTunes store at all.  They're simply using it as a particularly effective vehicle to sell their high-profit-margin iPods (and hopefully their Macintosh computers by association).  Like the ease of use on the iTunes store and want to use the music on a portable player?  Buy an iPod.  Bought an iPod and want to buy music?  Go to iTunes.  Want a newer, cooler player to play all that music you bought over the last two years?  Your only choice is another iPod.

The problem is that this won't last.  Eventually Apple will either completely dominate the market (unlikely) or they will be forced by customer demand to open up the iPod (people will eventually get sick of being locked in).  Enter the RIAA Music Store, and guess what?  Apple's price just went up to $4.99 a song and we at the RIAA Music Store have it for only $1.99 (or maybe it will be $12.99 a month).  Oh, and since we're using a closed P2P network to distribute it our bandwidth costs are nill...  And guess what?  If you want to be able to listen to that music on your iPod (or your work computer or your car stereo or the "internet radio" upstairs) that's okay, it'll only be an extra $1.99 per month for each additional device (of which Apple will continue to get a cut to let all that media play on the massive installed base of their iPods).  Just don't cancel that subscription ever or you'll have no music and no TV to watch.  Even better, we'll be able to control all the promotion on the entire network, so you won't even think about buying independant media or watching "public" podcasts.

Not only is all of this quite evil, it wouldn't leave much of a place for JRiver.  You (as far as I know) don't have your own iPod device to use as a trump card.  The only other goal, as I see it, of jumping into the market would be that you think you can take Apple on head-on all on your own....

You're a great little company.  Really.  But I don't think that will work.

I think a better tack is to completely embrace "public" media (which is where Apple is headed next I think).  What the RIAA hopes never happens is that the artists of the world really do realize that they don't need the labels anymore and start "podcasting" directly to the consumers.  Imagine a future where EVERYONE is a Radio Station, and EVERYONE is a TV Network, via Bittorrent and podcasting.  Some people say the quality of content will go down if that happens, but I disagree.  Just look at the quality of big-budget Hollywood movies verses Indie Studios.  Indie label produced music verses Britney Spears.  It's non-evil, democratic, and good for humanity.
</rant>

[JimH]

Close, glynor.  Very close. 

Differences (in my view):

The RIAA isn't as tight an organization as you believe.  The labels act for themselves when it suits them.  The RIAA and labels are both loosening up on digital media.  They see some hope.

Apple is darn good, but Microsoft is relentless.  The new music services are all adopting MS technology and DRM.  The labels trust it.  Manufacturers of devices are rallying around MS.  Windows Media and Windows DRM have won.  It isn't obvious yet at the consumer level, but it will be.

The battle is being fought on a marketing level.  He who drags the customer through the digital door wins (and usually pays a price for doing so).  Like politics, it's all about money.  Napster loses almost dollar for every dollar of sales.  The stock market values them at less than 10% above their cash (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=NAPS), but they are signing up a lot of subscribers.

Hoping that artists will create a new industry is a little like expecting farmers to get organized and charge what they need to in order to make a profit.  It's a "herding cats" problem.  Too many beautiful, independent, creative minds going in too many directions.

We're not committing to provide a service (yet).  But it would make the work we're doing for service providers a lot easier if we had a service we could test against.

Thanks for this:

You're a great little company.  Really.

[Myron]

Glynor, I agree with a lot of what you said.  You articulated your ideas quite well.

I personally refuse to buy anything that I won't really own after I part with my money.  I understand the need to control piracy, but DRM as we know it today is not the answer.  Just another example of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

As for Apple's iTunes, I don't really understand what all the hype is about.  If you look at all the songs  they've sold as compared to all the Ipods, it only amounts to about 20 cuts per iPod.  Seems to me that Ipod owners aren't really voting in favor if iTunes with their wallets. 

If the RIAA really wants to solve the piracy problem they need  to work towards a music distribution system that really works.  One that will let people really "buy" music, for keeps.  Instead, all I've really seen them do is sue a bunch of teenagers as a scare tactic.

There's also room for the subscription model to exist simultaneously.  Many people don't want to bother with collecting music.  Most hits don't really last, so just having them around while they're hot is probably OK.

[glynor]

The RIAA isn't as tight an organization as you believe.  The labels act for themselves when it suits them.  The RIAA and labels are both loosening up on digital media.  They see some hope.

I agree and yet I disagree.  They are separate as far as it is useful to them individually (I agree).  However, there is certainly a line that shant be crossed, and that line right now is legislation and DRM.  Not to say that they couldn't be independant (if they need to be), but the "collusion" mentality is so ingrained into the fabric of the industry...

Apple is darn good, but Microsoft is relentless.  The new music services are all adopting MS technology and DRM.  The labels trust it.  Manufacturers of devices are rallying around MS.  Windows Media and Windows DRM have won.  It isn't obvious yet at the consumer level, but it will be.

You're certainly exactly, completely 100% right here.  The "one DRM to rule them all" that I referred to in my ranting is Windows Media based (just look at the AVC MPEG-4 Profile and both BluRay and HDDVD to verify that).

The battle is being fought on a marketing level.  He who drags the customer through the digital door wins (and usually pays a price for doing so).  Like politics, it's all about money.  Napster loses almost dollar for every dollar of sales.  The stock market values them at less than 10% above their cash (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=NAPS), but they are signing up a lot of subscribers.

I agree completely!  I just think that after someone (doesn't much matter who) builds the system, someone else (the RIAA companies in a pact with the MPAA I would guess), will steal the store.

You see, it's easier to compete one-on-one.  Wait till there's a market leader, let the little guys slug it out, then come in and compete with whomever survives (right now it looks like Apple, but who knows).  The beauty part is that on top of it all, the startup costs are smaller to come in late because you just have to copy an existing model.  In essence, it's the Microsoft strategy.  The major difference is that the RIAA/MPAA have one extra bonus point in their favor, that the competition is selling their product.

Even if I'm wrong, and and online marketplace of thousands of little independant online record stores develops, why would you want to be a Tower Records?  The profit margins are bound to be low, or else the heavyweights will come in to the fight.  Unless of course you believe you can become the next Amazon.com (and who knows)...

Hoping that artists will create a new industry is a little like expecting farmers to get organized and charge what they need to in order to make a profit.  It's a "herding cats" problem.  Too many beautiful, independent, creative minds going in too many directions.

This is actually where I disagree, but not in the way that you mean.  I think that "new industry" which is actually more like a "new media community" is already forming.  Blogging, audio/video podcasting, and personal, individual entertainment production is that new ... whatever!  I think that is really one of the most exciting developments of the "Internet Era".  It gives everyone with a computer and a reasonably fast broadband connection the same power to reach people (more really when you consider the international implications) that the old ABC, NBC, and CBS had in decades gone by.

That's powerful stuff.  That's freedom of speech amplified on a global scale.  That's world changing, really.

You can already begin to see the effects.  Politicians and major news organizations chasing after "blogger stories".  Online reactions driving networks to change programming.  Hollywood blockbusters getting lackluster attendance, and young people turning more and more to the internet for their primary entertainment and news needs (I looked quickly for a link but didn't have time).

I think this has only just begun.

We're not committing to provide a service (yet).  But it would make the work we're doing for service providers a lot easier if we had a service we could test against.

I hadn't thought of that side of the equation at all.  That's something internal that you have a better handle on than do we.   

[Galley]

Jim, you claim that Microsoft has won, but the two most popular online music stores, (the iTunes Music Store and Rhapsody) both use AAC.  WMA is a poor codec and  will never buy anything in that format.

[glynor]

As far as you being a great little company.  I mean that.  I don't know what it's like to actually work there, but from a customer point of view there are few (if any) no companies in any business I've dealt with that have been as responsive to their customers or as genuinely interested in user opinions.

I mean, look at this.  I'm discussing this with you because you, as the leader of the organization (at least I think you're the leader, can't say what the other people who work there think), came to the users and said "Hey, this is something we're thinking about.  What do you think?"  And then, you're willing to address both sides of the idea (not just mindlessly driving towards the ultimate corporate goal).

And on top of that, you have an outstanding product.  The few companies out there that do try to act in a similar way are always completely and utterly incompetent in almost every other way.  Its an amazing balancing act that you all walk between the customer, the corporate clients, and the internal wants, needs, and goals.  You're not perfect (who is) but it's a darn good showing.

[glynor]

Jim, you claim that Microsoft has won, but the two most popular online music stores, (the iTunes Music Store and Rhapsody) both use AAC.  WMA is a poor codec and  will never buy anything in that format.

If you buy a HDDVD or BluRay disc, or use many of the new TiVO-like-devices, or encode a video in AVC MPEG-4 (better known as H.264) you will be using Windows Media technology.

[GHammer]

I will disagree with the ability of a community to develop and displace established players.
Right now, the US ISPs are starting down the road to 'preferential' treatment of this or that portal.
Let's say the GHammer Music Store, Inc. cuts a deal with SBC and Verizon.
You will get really lousy speed to other music stores if you can get there reliably at all. The GHammer store will be extremely fast. A bit more expensive, because I have to pay for the preferential treatment. But then, all who use those ISPs won't have much choice will they?

My thought is the online music trade is starting to look like the 90s Internet business. Nobody makes much money, but you gotta try. There will be lots of consumers left in the cold as various services go bust. All of them are not going to be bought out.

Where does that leave your DRM'd music?

[glynor]

Right now, the US ISPs are starting down the road to 'preferential' treatment of this or that portal.

And we need to fight that self-interested drive with everything that is good and holy.  Not only would it be disasterous to the way the Internet works, it would simply be worked-around by a new "parallel" system (or more likely the ISP's methods of classifying traffic would be constantly hacked).

[hit_ny]

I understand the need to control piracy, but DRM as we know it today is not the answer.  Just another example of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

Piracy can't be beaten, whatever gets taken down, gets replaced quickly. The better approach is to make it insignificant. Credit card companies lose millions due to fraud each year, what makes it workable is they make billions back in legal transactions.

So how to increase sales. For so long we have to hear what the RIAA wants us to hear whether its tv, radio etc. Where is the fresh stuff ?

A lot of independant lables just get ignored as they have no exposure. I think streaming can be quite helpful here, but only if you get to choose what you want to hear.  In the internet age there is a certain amount of pro-active participation rather than just passive consumption. If it takes off, they will be sure winners. The worrying thing is that the RIAA sponsored artists might see thier fortunes nosedive as a result. So maybe this not something they really want. This is the niche that other players can fill. But here there is chance for the RIAA is play like microsoft did, don't offer more than what we give you or else !!!

Why does everyone talk about DRM as if it means that you will no longer be able to buy the actual CD if you want it ?

I have no problems with DRM so long as its transparent during streaming. I want to listen to new music not worry about whether its DRM'd or not. If other ppl ant to buy DRM'd products thats fine by me. But i dont think the option to ultimately buy the physcial product will dissapear. It's too ingrained.

Hoping that artists will create a new industry is a little like expecting farmers to get organized and charge what they need to in order to make a profit.  It's a "herding cats" problem.  Too many beautiful, independent, creative minds going in too many directions.

I'd agree with this as well. Artists are already in the demanding business of creating new music, rather than be concerned with the mundane. Many create thier labels just so they are not beholden to some big megacorp, but that's as far as it goes.

[GHammer]

And we need to fight that self-interested drive with everything that is good and holy. Not only would it be disasterous to the way the Internet works, it would simply be worked-around by a new "parallel" system (or more likely the ISP's methods of classifying traffic would be constantly hacked).

Actually it won't be 'worked around'
The subscriber has no access to the routers the ISP uses and that is where the rules are appliled.

Not to mention my sister opens into the SBC Yahoo home page and continues from there.  For the masses if they can't click, it doesn't exist.

From here, I know how to access difficult content. The govt makes little effort in controlling that. Why? Because a handful of people out of millions of users makes no difference.

[glynor]

Why does everyone talk about DRM as if it means that you will no longer be able to buy the actual CD if you want it ?

This is the only logical conclusion of the push towards DRM.  Look at the "copy-protected CDs" we have now.  It's only a matter of time.  (Maybe a lot of time, but still.)

[hit_ny]

Yes there have been a few and none proved impossible to get around, even Itunes. I trust this will continue to be the case. I'm clearly in the camp where if i get a CD, i can get everything off it else no sale.

I was referring to DRM being okay in the streaming case only.

[Myron]

Why does everyone talk about DRM as if it means that you will no longer be able to buy the actual CD if you want it ?

Well just look at what Sony/BMG tried to do with copy protecting their CDs.  Users could copy the content to their PCs, but only in a compressed format.    So you could buy the CD, but your ability to use it was restricted.  I have all my CDs on hard drives in WAV format and can stream the music I paid for in it's original form to my stereo.  In Sony's world I could no longer do this.

I think it's easy to extrapolate where things are going.  If the music industry found a way to eliminate the cost of distributing physical media in order to improve their profits they'd cetainly do it.  DRM or not, buying CD's could very well become a thing of the past.

[glynor]

Yes there have been a few and none proved impossible to get around, even Itunes. I trust this will continue to be the case. I'm clearly in the camp where if i get a CD, i can get everything off it else no sale.

That is absolutely correct.  On principle I have no problem with DRM at all, only the provisions of the DMCA that makes illegal possessing, manufacturing, or distributing a device or application that facilitates the circumvention of access controls or copy locks.

Oh, and by the way, if you snort at the law and say "so I'll pay a fine if they catch me", the criminal penalties for violation of DMCA 1201 are (this is in addition to the civil penalties which can be extremely severe):

If the circumvention violations are determined to be willful and for commercial or private financial gain, first time offenders may be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.

(emphasis added)

[hit_ny]

I think it's easy to extrapolate where things are going.  If the music industry found a way to eliminate the cost of distributing physical media in order to improve their profits they'd cetainly do it.  DRM or not, buying CD's could very well become a thing of the past.

Right, but they have to succeed in creating a so called unbreakable DRM. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

DRM & Fair use cannot co-exist as they are defined, they contradict one another, one of them has to go.

Fair use is law and has been tested, Sony betamax etc.

DRM exists as a law yes, but has DRM been tested in courts yet, any precedents set ?

[GHammer]

I don't know how people think they will get around BIOS being replaced by a new system that has keys and will check before it allows the hardware/motherboard to operate.

Write all the software you want, it will not run.

Coming soon to a PC near you. Look over the Intel and Apple sites. One of the things Apple wanted was a way to ID hardware and have the hardware ID the software. It will be here this year.

In a year or two, it will be the only chipsets sold.
End of game.

[runemail]

I think we will see some change in DRM over the next years. Just look at the up and comming indiependent artists. They all thank their fans for spreading their music online. Its how new bands outside the mainstream becomes famous today. Its how dedicated musicfans all over the world discovers new artists.

And on the oher side is the RIAA and the established artists securing their future profits with DRM. And the average consumer doesn't care (until they are trapped in DRM).


This should be settled between the creators and the consumers, they have similar interests in the long run, but they are all becoming victims in this war.

No format is really better than the other, windows media is ahead now because MS have used their corporate muscle to put windows media all over the place, and because they bend over to take it up the *** to satisfy the MPAA and RIAA. Apple wants to do things their own way.

Maybe this is the future:
In the future everything will be a service. Software(even your os), Movies and Music. It will be controlled remotely by the copyright-holders. And the copyright-holders will enforce their copyrights in the way that best serves the shareholders, like any respectable corporation would. All we can do is pay, or be disconnected.

[Galley]

If you buy a HDDVD or BluRay disc, or use many of the new TiVO-like-devices, or encode a video in AVC MPEG-4 (better known as H.264) you will be using Windows Media technology.

You are correct.  Microsoft has always excelled in video codecs, but their audio codecs have always been lacking.

[GHammer]

Satellite radio.

[hit_ny]

I don't know how people think they will get around BIOS being replaced by a new system that has keys and will check before it allows the hardware/motherboard to operate.

Write all the software you want, it will not run.

Here we go again

It all started out as in idea in some System integrator's mind. M$ gets clued in and thinks, hey why not. They tell motherboard manufacturer's , we think this might work out. Mobo's start being designed etc. The BIOS manufacturer's get into the game as well.

Now the spin doctors start with how important it is that your PC be secure etc. The trade rags pick it up and all of a sudden it's "Trusted PC is coming"

Yeah, you might get a few enterprises buying into it, but that does not a paradigm shift make. I'm still waiting to see in the trade rags that Fortune 500 company X has just signed a multi-million deal with system integrator Y to go with trusted PCs.

Has any Mobo manufacturer stated  they do not make non-trusted platforms anymore ?
That's one heck of a gamble to take isn't it.

The buzz has been trusted PC blah, so quite a few manufacturer's have built platforms that will support this..should the need arise.

If they say so, if they build it , will we come ? This question is still not answered yet.

It sounds like yet another canned solution to a non-existant problem from a user's perspective. This has been a hot button topic for a few yrs now. I see trusted PCs having their place in certain settings, but i'm betting it will be in the minorty.

One of the things Apple wanted was a way to ID hardware and have the hardware ID the software. It will be here this year.

In a year or two, it will be the only chipsets sold.
End of game.

This was on slashdot some time back. The impression i got is that it does not do much at all atm.

So why did they do it at all ?

Market test, more like beta test.

Am feeling the very vocal Apple community will tell them exactly where to go with it

[GHammer]

Am feeling the very vocal Apple community will tell them exactly where to go with it

Ahhh, like when they dumped the PPC for Intel.
Sure, when Intel releases new chipsets most motherboard makers ignore them...

Most surprisingly, however, Intel apparently rethought the way how BIOS is implemented into the motherboard and how the system accesses it. While the BIOS today is stored in ROM or NOR Flash chips, the ICH8 will be able to connect to a BIOS stored in NAND Flash: In addition to simply holding the BIOS, the memory will be programmable and even be capable of holding applications and control more features of the motherboard. Think of it as much more functional core software that not only initializes hardware components, but takes over more system features. In this light, Intel's decision to create a NAND Flash joint venture with Micron begins to make sense - as Intel said that it intends to use the NAND Flash not only to supply Apple, but also for its own devices.

But High Definition does not only bring new features, but restrictions as well. ICH8 will be the first Intel Southbridge to support the firm's La Grande technology (LT), a hardware-based security and digital rights management approach that is based on the specifications developed by the Trusted Computing Group (TCG). A key part of the technology will be integrated into a "Trusted Platform Module" (TPM) that will be located on the motherboard.

This TPM is believed to be essential for Apple, as it is expected to restrict the installation of Windows software on Apple devices. For Windows users, the TPM is tied to Microsoft's Windows Vista on an operating system level: Vista will include Microsoft's "NGSCB" (Next Generation Secure Computing Base), which promises to provide an added level of protection, for example from phishing attacks, but also has all the capabilities to provide an extensive digital rights (DRM) system. It is powerful enough to let content providers determine how we will be able to use digital content such as audio, video and software.

[glynor]

it is expected to restrict the installation of Windows software on Apple devices?

You might want to check your facts on that.  Apple has said repeatedly that they will do no such thing.

Oh, and as I mentioned before.  And Microsoft thought that the original XBOX was trusted and no one would be able to run their own software on it.  If it uses NAND it can be reprogrammed.  If there is a version of Windows available that doesn't check for the TCM, then it will be broken (and even probably if there isn't).  But there will be, because MY company won't ever run Vista if we are forced to use their TCM, and there are plenty of others out there too.  Plus, Linux isn't going anywhere!  That is far too ingrained into corporate IT infrastructure to just disappear because Intel wants it to  (not to mention Novel and IBM won't let it).  Trusted computing will be here, but it will be optional for at least a long time to come.

[IlPadrino]

Back to the beginning of this thread...

Has anyone looked at http://music.podshow.com/?  It's The Podsafe Music Network and was created by a startup (Podshow) run in part by Adam Curry (who likes to think of himself as the Podfather of podcasting).  When Curry's "The Daily Source Code" began, he played a lot of copyrighted music (illegally, of course) and some great mashups (still illegal by all accounts).  A while back (two or three months it seems), he quit copyrighted music cold turkey.  Maybe his lawyers (at Podshow) finally convinced him the RIAA would start banging down his door soon enough.  Anyway, the Podsafe Music Network (PMN) was born (which the cynic in me thinks is the real reason he quit copyrighted music).

The PMN is getting ready to start selling the music offered on their site (if it hasn't already done so in the last few days).  The idea is simple:  The artist already allows any member of the PMN to play their music in a podcast.  Why not let the same artist sell their music directly?  The music will be MP3ed totally open files with absolutely no DRM.

I'd hope the RIAA will some day soon become a sideline business because artists can avoid them.  These days almost anyone can record their own music (who needs a music studio?), copyright it with Creative Commons, and sell it on the PMN.

[hit_ny]

I'd hope the RIAA will some day soon become a sideline business because artists can avoid them.  These days almost anyone can record their own music (who needs a music studio?), copyright it with Creative Commons, and sell it on the PMN.

If i take a rough guess at how much RIAA music i have, i think it might be no more than 5% (?) (What might muddy this figure is that the distributor may be RIAA(?) not sure how to factor that in)

The rest is mostly specialist small labels. So artists can very well avoid the RIAA and have done so since they want to create a niche sound. They won't get the exposure a RIAA artist will, but they get by. Thing is they are on the cutting edge, so what was cool cpl of yrs back changes into something else now. Some adapt, others reinvent themsleves and the rest just fade away.

[datdude]

If i take a rough guess at how much RIAA music i have, i think it might be no more than 5% (?) (What might muddy this figure is that the distributor may be RIAA(?) not sure how to factor that in)

The rest is mostly specialist small labels. So artists can very well avoid the RIAA and have done so since they want to create a niche sound. They won't get the exposure a RIAA artist will, but they get by. Thing is they are on the cutting edge, so what was cool cpl of yrs back changes into something else now. Some adapt, others reinvent themsleves and the rest just fade away.

All the while none of it ever really gets heard by most of the population.

This used to happen when small labels were willing to take risks to become one of the big boys.  Now the market is beyond mature and now in decay.  Hopefully the cycle will start over again.

I love MC and all but I hope the music becomes more important than the technology again.

One can only hope.

[hit_ny]

This used to happen when small labels were willing to take risks to become one of the big boys.  Now the market is beyond mature and now in decay.  Hopefully the cycle will start over again.

Maybe in the US, can't say this is the case in Europe.

[datdude]

Maybe in the US, can't say this is the case in Europe.

Who are the most popular music producing companies in Europe?

thanks

[hit_ny]

Popular is hard to say, also at times undesirable, i go by what i like, so genres like, trip-hop, lo-fi, house, lounge, ambient, world, downtempo, drum n Bass etc. Many of those genres are considered electronic by amg and use style for what i call genre.

Many times albums dont fit so neatly into any of those genres and are instead of combination of one or more. The other thing to mention is that a lot of artists that don't speak english natively, sing in english. No, i'm not talking about ABBA Maybe its the internet that brought them to my attention, a very welcome addtion.

Some labels of note, not in any particular order, off the top of my head. There are many more that you can look up on discogs.com

Lo-Fi/Downtempo/Trip-Hop : Compost Records, Couch, Ecco-Chamber, G-Stone Recordings, Mole listening pearls, Sonar Kollectiv. Many of those are german or austrian. Ninja Tune, Warp, Eighteenth Street Lounge, Kudos, Pschent, Talkin Loud, Schema etc.

Drum n Bass: Good Looking organisation, Hospital Records.

House/Lounge : Naked Records, Global Underground, Large Records, NRK, Plastic City, Bedrock, Yoshitoshi, King Street Sounds, Little Angel Records, Harley & Muscle, NRK, OM Records, F-Communications, Distance, Guidance, Nordic Trax.

Not the usual stuff you hear on radio by any means, but common on European  specialist radio shows. US Radio is not compatible with these genres as ads usually ruin the mood set by the DJ. No ads, no revenue, hence no airplay (again in the US only). So a lot of these artists do club shows and tour around the globe.

[IlPadrino]

The rest is mostly specialist small labels. So artists can very well avoid the RIAA and have done so since they want to create a niche sound. They won't get the exposure a RIAA artist will, but they get by. Thing is they are on the cutting edge, so what was cool cpl of yrs back changes into something else now. Some adapt, others reinvent themsleves and the rest just fade away.

The point behind the PMN is to leverage the exposure of podcasts to get your music heard.  Does the radio play anything other than RIAA controlled music?  Get a popular podcaster to play your song and you've got the equivalent of "spins" right?

[hit_ny]

Sure, but the bigger prize for small labels is to get into a major streaming service. I cant see streaming services really exploding until they get over this "track on demand" thing.

It's like some places that have a liquor license but no dance license, you can nod your head but you can't dance.  If you want to dance you have to pay more and go to a club. When i was in Spain some time back, they had no such thing and you could walk into a bar/lounge, have a drink, shake a foot and have a great time.