|
BC303 The implications of Mp3
technology and Digital Distribution on the International Music Industry
and its stakeholders I would like to thank Lloyd Salmons, Dan Ayres and Nigel Powell for the time and trouble they took during our interviews. I would also like to particularly thank Toby Slater and Paul Brindley, not only for their help with the interviews but also for all their kind support and encouragement over the last few months. Finally may I thank my academic advisor John Laurence, his extremely helpful guidance and advice had proven invaluable.
New Media * Literature Survey * Theoretical & Analytic Framework * Taxonomy of Music Industry Paradigms * The Nature of the Music Industry – The established paradigm * Research Methodology * Describing fieldwork * Interview Questions *
Analysis and findings * New and emerging paradigms *
Conclusion * Appendix 1 – MP3 Overview * Appendix 2 - Napster * Appendix 3 – Growth In Napster Usage * Appendix 4 – MP3.com * Appendix 5 - The Rosenbergs Find a Partner in Robert Fripp * Bibliography, Linkography and References 49 Bibliography 49 Linkography 50 Conference References 51
The aim of this project is to explain mp3 technology and to examine the ways in which the use of mp3 technology and digital distribution on the Internet impacts on music industry stakeholders. Stakeholders include record companies, music publishers, music artists, mp3 based Internet companies and music consumers. Issues that will be addressed shall include, the digital distribution of recorded work, copyright, music industry realignment and the role of the new Internet mp3 based media organisations. New paradigms would appear to be emerging. In order to establish how and whether a new paradigm or new paradigms are emergent the author believes that an evaluation of the established and predominant music industry paradigm should be undertaken against which issues of recent technological innovations and its consequences can be examined. "A change to a new type of music is something to beware of as a hazard of all our fortunes. For the modes of music are never distributed without unsettling of the most fundamental political and social conventions" Plato Republic, 4, 424c (Shorey translation): http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu:8080/hyper-lists/classics-l/listserve_archives/log96/9611d/9611d.144.htmlThe main process of digital distribution has evolved through the use of files in MP3 format, (Appendix 1). The abbreviation Mp3 refers to the term MPEG audio Layer-3. MP3 is an open compression standard developed by the Frauhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits. MP3 is the file extension for MPEG audio layer 3. Layer 3 is one of three coding schemes (layer 1, layer 2 and layer 3) for the compression of audio signals. MP3 uses perceptual audio coding and 'psychoacoustic' compression to remove all superfluous information (more specifically, the redundant and irrelevant parts of a sound signal beyond the range of the human ear). The result in real terms is that layer 3 shrinks the original sound data from a "compact disc " (with a *bitrate of 1411.2 kilobits per one second of stereo music) by a factor of about 12 (down to 112-128kbps) without sacrificing sound quality. In effect, 'near Cd quality'. Computer Music (Issue 8) explains MP3 in the following terms, "The size of a four minute song is about 40mb in uncompressed cd format (about 10Mb per stereo minute). The MP3 format means that you can compress this down to around 4Mb - a tenth to a twelfth of the original size - and still retain the quality you'd expect from a cd." The smaller the file, the faster it can be moved across the Internet. MP3 has made music on the net viable and has been adopted on a massive scale by Internet users. In September 2000 the file sharing service Napster (Appendix 2) saw a total of nearly 1.4 billion mp3 files transferred across the Internet, (Cnet.com http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2938703.html). Napster has only existed since May 1999 and as Sean Fanning Napster founder stated in the recent BMG/Napster partnership press conference, (Cnet.com http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3345604.html#) already has a userbase of ‘38 million and growing’ at a rate of 200,000 a day despite (some might argue because of) it's dubious reputation when addressing intellectual property right ownership. This ethically dubious use of Napster in ‘sharing’ copyright material between users has led to a rash of high profile litigation by the music industry establishment (most notably from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) on behalf of the major labels and a number of high profile artists such as Metallica and Dr Dre. Whilst potentially terminal to Napster’s long-term survival, in the short term this attention would appear to have done Napster no harm whatsoever. ‘Over the last year, Napster has become the world's leading person-to-person file-sharing community, and the fastest growing community in the history of the Internet, with over 38 million passionate music fans.’ MusicDish (http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=14784 ), (Appendix 3).Another extremely popular MP3 site is Mp3.com (Appendix 4), which terms itself as a ‘Music Service Provider’. Largely dealing in the work of unsigned artists, MP3.com has recently signed up its 100,000th artist and served up over 103 million listens (songs delivered online; play or save) during the third quarter of 2000, equating to 1 million listens every day. Without wishing to advocate a form of technological determinism regarding the phenomenon that is digital distribution, the author believes that it is reasonable to assert that in the UK and elsewhere in the world with relatively slow data transfer rates and generally immature Internet penetration we are yet to see the full effects of digital distribution. The current volume of MP3 oriented Internet traffic is being generated by only a relatively small proportion of Internet users and most of them in countries where the Internet is well established. Of the approximately 110 million Internet users in the USA (the USA being the overwhelming leader with 47% of worldwide Internet usage) less than 25% used download sites in June 2000 (MediaMetrix). According to a survey by ‘In the Name of Cool’ (October 2000, http://www.inthenameofcool.com/2000/highlights.html#streaming), approximately 1.8 million Canadians (only 15 percent of Canadian Internet users) age 12 or older have used Napster at least once to download MP3 files. These figures are rising fast however, MediaMetrix reporting 88% growth in the numbers of visitors to Music Download Sites between June 1999 and June 2000,( http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,1323,5931_472181,00.html ). With the imminent international deployment and adoption of broadband technologies using ADSL, cable modems and other high speed Internet connectivity, digital distribution usage can reasonably be expected to continue increasing strongly. Other factors that may impact on usage as well are increased data compression, making songs downloadable in seconds as opposed to tens of minutes and increased cultural and technological awareness of MP3.The application of broadband and wireless technologies may offer a future of alternative methods of addressing media distribution via the Internet that supercedes the current explosion in downloading as a preferred method by which Internet users 'consume' new media. The Analysis and Findings section contains a more detailed examination of consumption versus ownership issues. The alternative may be 'streaming'. Sosinsky (1999, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~sjournal/articles_00/streaming_technologies.htm ) comments, 'In simple terms, streaming technology allows a user to view or hear digitized content as it is being downloaded from an Intranet, an Extranet or the Internet. That is, it allows information to be accessed in virtual real time as the file is being transmitted from another location. As the file is used, its remnants are discarded.' To differentiate between downloading and streaming he continues, 'This is in direct contrast with the more typical procedure whereby a user must download the entire file before accessing it.' Of interviewees who had used the Internet with the last seven days, ‘In the Name of Cool’ (October 2000, http://www.inthenameofcool.com/2000/highlights.html#streaming ) report that 20% had listened to streaming audio content. Another advantage of streaming is that it resembles the accepted practice of radio play. Radio is a music delivery system that the record companies have become comfortable with. Slater (2000) states, ‘it fits with their existing models and they feel that their relationships with online broadcasters and websites that broadcast music in streaming formats are similar to those that they already understand.’Either way or both ways, the evidence to date would appear to indicate that the sheer scale and consumer appetite for new media through downloading and/or streaming is and will likely continue to have enormous implications on the stakeholders in the music industry. At face value new paradigms would appear to be emerging, and infact the word paradigm is banded about so freely in commentary that one would be led to believe that their emergence is simply a matter of fact. In order to establish how and whether a new paradigm or new paradigms are emergent the author believes that an evaluation of the established and predominant music industry paradigm should be undertaken against which issues of recent technological innovations and its consequences can be addressed and mapped. Across all forms of media there is wide-ranging, voluminous analysis and commentary on the recent phenomenon of digital music distribution and in particular digital distribution in the form of MP3. Whilst these journalistic observations on the unfolding nature of the ‘music industry’ are both interesting and informative in their own rights, there is very little contemporary, published, academic reference in this subject area. Though music industry reference by established academics Keith Negus and Simon Frith proved of great interest when evaluating the nature of the pre ‘new media’ music industry there is little reference taking into account recent technological developments. This is not particularly surprising in the authors’ opinion as digital distribution is a relatively recent phenomenon and things have moved extremely quickly. The work of Kuhn, Masterman, Markova, Burrell and Morgan, Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen has proven the source of this project’s paradigmatic reference and has been applied as an academic framework to this project. Extensive research has been conducted on the Internet at numerous sites including Webnoize.com, MP3.com, Napster.com, MusicDish.com, Inside.com, Tobyslater.com, Salon.com, dMusic.com, RedHerring.com, Cnet.com, Wired.com, ZDnet.com, theAtlantic.com, HoboMusic.com, theStandard.com, CyberAtlas.com and InTheNameofCool.com. A handful of relevant scholarly works was uncovered including work by Thomas Swiss, Wilfred Dolfsmar, P.A. Cook and Adam J. Sosinsky. They are referenced accordingly. Also of great assistance were the Music Industry Trade Press including Music Week, New Musical Express and MP3 Magazine, industry reference such as Fredrick Dannen’s ‘The Hit Men’ and Ann Harrison’s ‘Music – The Business’, as well as access to information from Industry Data Analysis organisations The Gartner Group, Jupiter Communications, MediaMetrix and Net Value. Paul Brindley’s Institute for Public Policy Research Report, New Musical Entrepreneurs also proved particularly interesting and useful reading and reference.
Theoretical & Analytic Framework The author proposes in this dissertation to examine the implications and impacts of Digital Distribution using an academic framework based on that of paradigms with specific reference to Thomas Kuhn’s seminal 1962 work, ‘The Structure of Scientific Paradigms’.Taxonomy of Music Industry Paradigms In her analysis of Kuhn (1962), Masterman (1970) identifies twenty-one definitions of paradigm and breaks them into three main categories. The author believes that a brief analysis of these definitions as they apply to the existing ‘MetaParadigm’ that constitutes the nature of the pre new media music industry will provide a useful as a background to any discussion as to whether or how it has evolved. Negus (1996) breaks down the music industry into macro relations and activities at an abstract corporate level and micro day to day activities within the industry. He states, ‘The industry needs to be understood as both a commercial business driven by the pursuit of profit and a site of creative human activity from which some very great popular music has come and continues to emerge’. Recent developments in technology make it necessary, in the author’s opinion to extend this somewhat enclosed commercial ‘industry’ boundary that Negus uses to include a more all-encompassing analysis including parties such as consumers, musicians and new media intermediaries. Using Masterman’s analysis, there are a number of components, metaphors and analogies that can be seen to apply to the established music industry paradigm. As a metaphysical notion or entity Masterman states, ‘For when he equates ‘paradigm’ with a set of beliefs (p.4), with a myth (p.2), with a metaphysical speculation (p.17), with a standard (p.102), with a new way of seeing (pp. 117-21), with an organising principle governing perception itself (p.120), with a map (p. 108), and with something which determines a large area of reality (p.128), it is clearly a metaphysical notion or entity rather than a scientific one. Examples of the metaphysical notion of paradigm as applied to the established music industry might be, the Holy Grail of the record deal. The mythical and mysterious power of A&R. Tales of success and excess, "I’ve sold 50 million records, how many have you sold you piece of English shit," Kim Fowley (1996). The music industry is obsessed with myth and the perpetuation of a perception of fantasy over reality. Masterman’s second main sense of paradigm is the sociological paradigm. ‘A universally recognised achievement (p.x), as a concrete scientific achievement (pp.10-11), as like a set of political institutions (p.91) and as like also to an accepted judicial decision (p.23).’ The Music Industry has a framework and a form of hierarchy. Though dynamic it has a structure. The perception of the Majors as transnational corporate bad guys, the Indies as maverick good guys, both represented by their respective industry bodies. Top Of The Pops as a weekly window on the charts, the artificial format of the pop song. Charts. Gold Discs. The third category Masterman identified as ‘artifact or construct’ paradigms. ‘These referred to actual textbooks or classic works (p.10), as supplying tools (pp.37 and 76), as actual instrumentation (p.59 and 60): more linguistically as a grammatical paradigm (p.23), illustratively, as an analogy (e.g. on page 14); and more psychologically, as a gestalt-figure and as an anomalous pack of cards (pp. 63 and 85).’ Gestalt is defined as a, ‘pattern of physical, biological or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts,’ ( www.m-w.com). The author suggests that the ‘Music Industry’ is gestalt.Metaphors, analogies and examples of this classification might include, The Beatles album Sgt. Pepper, Punk, Rolls Royce's in swimming pools, Woodstock, An NME review. Ritchie Manic carving of ‘4 Real’ in his arm with a razor blade. Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen (1995) contribute, ‘Typically, a paradigm consists of assumptions about knowledge and how to acquire it and about the physical and social world.’ For the sake of comprehension and so as not to diffuse analysis this project will take an overview of Kuhn’s interpretation of paradigms. Kuhn’s (1962) definition of a paradigm as cited by Markova (1982) is of ‘a universally accepted set of presuppositions.’ Though Kuhn was referring to complex creations such as scientific theories this definition serves as a useful tool in defining the traditional paradigm that constitutes the modus operandi and common internal and external operation and perception of the music industry. The Nature of the Music Industry – The established paradigm The popular ‘music industry’ has evolved into it’s commonly understood sense from the late 19th Century sheet music publishers of Tin Pan Alley. The first ‘hit’ song was written published in 1892 by Charles K Harris and entitled ‘After the Ball’. A sentimental parlor ballad it went on to sell 10 million copies and at the peak of it’s popularity was earning it’s author $26,000 a week, Daley (1998, http://www.finearts.yorku.ca/mdaley.html ). The music revolution really took hold in the 1920’s with the introduction of the first electrical recordings using microphones. From sheet music to wax cylinders to shellac discs and vinyl through to the more contemporary digital mediums of cd, mini disc and now digital files such as mp3, technology has driven the medium of music. ‘ The popular music industry is driven by technology, the music industry has been driven and occurred as a result of a new technology’, Slater (2000).Perpetuating the format of the music industry has been artists’ clear understanding that if they wanted to have a career in the music industry they followed the conventional path of writing songs, producing demos and performing live. If their work is considered of suitable quality by a record company Artist & Repertoire they might be offered a record deal. As experts in the fields of A&R, manufacturing, distribution and marketing, the record company would offer the artist the best possible chance of fulfilling their dreams. Fundamental to the traditional paradigm is the understanding that record companies are infact the only option to artists fulfilling these dreams. Artists motivations are complex but to have the freedom to create and have one’s work enjoyed by the public is key to their raison d’être. Some, possibly most are driven by the desire to be famous and/or rich, others have differing motivations, however it shouldn’t be forgotten that ‘the need to have an outlet to one’s creative instincts is critical to any artists self esteem,’ Williams (2000). Historically only the labels provided the source of that outlet. ‘Musicians grow up with the paradigm that to earn a living from music you have to sign a record deal’, Slater (2000). From an artists perspective the traditional record industry might be seen as a form of self-fulfilling prophecy. The expensive business components of the ‘music industry’ model include recording, physical production, distribution and marketing of the music, development of fan support and consumer demand. Large amounts of capital investment by music companies, agents, promoters and others are normally required if new artists are to achieve national and international success. Ann Harrison in her book Music the Business estimates the initial first year Advances a four piece band needs at £160,000, this doesn’t address any promotion and marketing costs that may run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Such investment lends itself to the economies of scale and competitive advantages enjoyed by a handful of major record companies. Mergers, acquisitions and industry consolidation of both music and technology companies during the twentieth century has resulted in what are referred to as the ‘Big Five’. The biggest music companies are getting bigger and more dominant. Paul Brindley states, ‘the main issue now is the consolidation of the music industry into a handful of global players.’ Already this year, the number of top music distributors is in the process of shrinking from five to four. The Time Warner and EMI Group merger to form the world's largest music company has recently been blocked by EC Legislation, however there is expected to be an imminent announcement concerning BMG Entertainment’s proposed acquisition of EMI. The Universal Music Group and Sony Music Group make up the remainder of the quintet.‘Contemporary popular music is a mass cultural phenomenon involving the large-scale national and international distribution of millions of recordings,’ Swiss (1999). He continues,’ the music industry is extremely powerful in its ability to control the vast proportion of music that is produced and distributed.’ According to the latest figures in Interim Sales 2000, released by The Federation of the Phonographic Industry ( IFPI.org), ‘the global music market was worth US$38.5 billion – up by 1% in constant dollar terms with total unit sales of US$3.8 billion in 1999.’ Together the majors account for approximately 80% of this value global sales, Brindley (1999).
1998 Sales Figures provided by MBI The United States still dominates the global market with a 37% share of world sales. The nine next largest markets are Japan, which with 16.7%, followed by the United Kingdom (7.6%), Germany (7.4%), France (5.2%), Canada (2.3%), Brazil, Australia and Spain (1.7% each), and Mexico (1.6%), RIAA http://www.riaa.com/MD-World.cfmSosinsky (1999, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~sjournal/articles_00/streaming_technologies.htm ) states, 'The Big Five’s hammerlock on the supply chain including talent, retailers, distributors, mass marketers and radio is undeniable,’An integral part of the industry has been the acquisition of copyright and sound recording rights through their assignment to publishers and record companies by artists. In exchange for the assignment and rights to commercially exploit their works artists might normally expect to receive a recouperable advance (in effect a loan repayable against profits generated through the artists retained proportion of the value of earnings). Rights ownership is the capital of the industry, the ways and means by which the industry profits. ’The most significant commercial exploiters are therefore the record companies and music publishers who agree commercial contracts with the content creators – the recording artists and the composers/lyricists respectively,’ Brindley (2000). There’s a wide spread belief in the industry that the current $38.5 billion figure only represents a small proportion of the industry’s potential worth. A potential worth that may be unlocked through digital distribution. Jupiter Communications (2000, http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,1323,6061_165081,00.html) report that less than 2.7% of this value of music sales was made up of online sales in 1999. Jupiter predict a growth to 24.6% by the year 2005. Foust (2000, http://www.dmusic.com/news/news.php?id=2886) states, ‘record execs, labels, RIAA members, artists and experts would agree that the current industry is a 100 billion-dollar industry trapped in a 40 billion-dollar body’. This view is also shared by respected industry movers including Michael Robertson CEO of MP3.com who used this exact term at Manchester In The City 2000 citing UCLA professor George Geis, "Music is a $100 billion industry trapped inside a $40 billion body." The Internet offers both a threat and opportunity to the value of these acquired rights, Napster and Mp3.com’s ‘my.mp3.com’ both receiving particular attention from the majors’ legal departments.Clearly, 75% - 80% of a potential $100 billion dollar industry represents a huge amount of profit and power. The majors appear in no mind to start relinquishing the control they currently exert and this is exhibited in the fierce litigation that has scarred the digital distribution landscape over the last few months. It would appear that the majors take the potential of digital distribution and in particular the threat to their position of dominance extremely seriously. Nigel Powell comments, ‘their fighting and litigation is nothing more than an admission that things are going to change. When you start a war like that you have got the message.’ ‘What it’s all about is jockeying for position, the record companies are banking a lot on in five years time being in a strategic position to make money from the Internet,’ Ayres (2000). In other, technologically oriented ways the record companies have been exploring ways of protecting the existing values of their catalogues against the illegal file sharing and developing viable business models through Digital Rights Management (DRM) that will monetise their product. De Fontenay (Nov 2000, http://musicdish.com/mag/index.php3?id=2258) states, ‘The business model behind it is to restore content owners control over intellectual assets by setting rules on how the good would be used by the consumer. As such, DRM to some extent is meant to restore the ‘soft’ rules in the Old Economy such as fair usage and first sale doctrine, and incorporate them in a ‘hard’ manner within the good. In this manner, content owners would be able to recapture some control over supply, and consequently value.’SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) an initiative led by the RIAA comprising of over 200 representatives of the music and technology industries is the most concerted of such attempts. A coalition that is seeking to develop a standardised technological environment to, ‘protect copyrighted music in all existing and emerging digital formats and through all delivery channels,’ RIAA cited by Brown (1999, http://www.salon.com/21st/log/1999/03/01log.html )Issues such as consumer resistance, industry acceptance, sound quality and the security of SDMI watermarking are between them conspiring to challenge SDMI as a practical, popular way forward. The application of ‘Old Economy soft rules’ appears to many an outmoded and clumsy way of dealing with the concept of file sharing. Griffin (2000, http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,37151,00.html ) observes, ‘The business model that the music industry adopts must destroy the motive for piracy,’ he continues, ‘ The lawyers won't solve this and the technologist won't solve this piracy problem. Anyway, anything that a 41-year-old thinks up, a 14-year-old can undo.’
The methodology employed was based on a social relativist immersion in the subject matter, the author’s own experiences as a successfully active internet artist, interviews with several involved parties and a careful research and observation on developments in the music industry provide the context. Research has been conducted on a qualitative not quantitative basis. Myers states, ‘Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena. Examples of qualitative methods are action research, case study research and ethnography. Qualitative data sources include observation and participant observation (fieldwork), interviews and questionnaires, documents and texts, and the researcher’s impressions and reactions.’ Why the research has been conducted in the order and way it has is simply been a case of iterative (in the respect that the subject is so dynamic and evolutionary that the ‘goal posts have kept moving’) research pragmatics. Access to appropriate information has been sourced as and when it became relevant. The models contained are self-evident interpretations of the reality of the music industry and technological impacts. By way of product the author hopes to offer a concise and informed overview of the current music industry and project a way forward The use of such words as failure, popular, freedom, and technology in this project is not intended to be prescriptive or definitive, just descriptive. Underpinning the methodology is an essentially social relativist contextual approach, (the author takes the view that truth is constructed and not discovered, that we build up our understanding of the nature of things from what we already take for granted, Wilson (1999)). The qualitative nature of this project research represents the philosophical basis upon which it has been undertaken in that paradigms that apply to the music industry are largely socially constructed artifacts. A functionalist stance is introduced when considering the existing nature of the music industry, Hirschheim, Klein and Lyytinen (1995) referring to Burrell and Morgan’s paradigm classifications state, ‘the functionalist paradigm is concerned with providing explanations of the status quo, social order, social integration, consensus, need satisfaction and rational choice.’ In applying philosophically contradictory paradigms within the methodology the author acknowledges that there isn’t necessarily a single interpretation of truth that applies to all stakeholders involved in the music industry. Taking an ontological approach to boundary definition further to a social relativist systemic epistemological enquiry is considered essential if useful real world analysis is to be made and informed conclusions drawn.
The main basis of the project fieldwork was ongoing research and discussion with participants in the music industry and digital distribution. This was supplemented by a set of interviews held in London on the 28th and 29th September 2000. In order to achieve as in-depth analysis as possible the interviewees were selected in order to represent an informed cross section of the music industry. The interviewees who contributed to the research were:
The questions posed and each questions’ rationale are listed below. The questions are in bold. The motivation, explanation and justification in asking each of the questions is contained under each question heading. NB. In light of the recent announcement of the Napster/BMG Strategic Alliance questions 6 and 7 question were particularly relevant Interview IntroductionPreamble: The academic framework for the dissertation is based on the study of paradigms. One of the seminal works on the subject is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. He says, "In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution." (The word crisis in this context may or may not be considered a little strong in this context. The author however believes it to serve a useful purpose.)
The responses have been synthesized into the whole of the project and with no specific relation to the sequence of the questions posed. Besides the ongoing Internet research, interviews and exchange of ideas and information with observers and participants in the world of online music distribution the author also attended a number of related conferences including:
Courtney Love in her widely read and admired Salon piece entitled Courtney Love does the math, (Love 2000, http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html ) writes. ‘Record companies figured out that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists. And since the companies didn't have any real competition, artists had no other place to go’.Emergent paradigms through scientific discovery, the artist/consumer perspective The traditional route to market has been challenged by the advent of the Internet and digital distribution and now doesn’t necessarily apply anymore. The advent of DD and it’s huge popularity might be seen as both a product of two of Kuhn’s prerequisites for paradigm shift, technological/scientific discovery and revolution caused by a malfunction leading to crisis, to a revolution in the existing paradigm. In the first instance new Internet and compression technologies offer a brand new mechanism through which to access music. That this technology applies pan globally and is widely adopted by disenfranchised artists to promote and exploit their work and by consumers to access it there is no doubt. The figures speak for themselves. It is suggested that this is just a part of the overall technological revolution that the whole of society finds itself undergoing and that music just lends itself well to be particularly affected. Salmons (2000) certainly argues this to be the case, ‘what we are seeing is a reflection of society, we are starting to witness a revolution, a complete change in the way society works. I think record companies are at the forefront of that. I think music and technology mold very well together.’ The ability to record without the need for expensive studios and mastering facilities is also contributing to the self determining and empowering effects of Digital Distribution. A pluralistic Do It Yourself manufacture and distribution that renders the artist/consumer divide mostly redundant. This inclusive nature of technology and through it a means of self-expression are enjoyed by the majority. Cook (2000, http://www.88interactive.com/Pauls_Web/dissertation/New%20Media%20in%20Cyberspace.htm ) states, ‘Traditionally we had a distinction between fans of music and musicians, in the past if you were in a band you appeared radically different, you had an image and you had a gimmick. As this had receded over the last twenty years we have experiences a cultural turnaround that does not allow such clear defined cultures within our present media society’. He continues, ‘…people generally have been empowered one way or another via the explosion in digital media and the advent of its distribution over the ubiquitous Internet. So now instead of the musician or the creative individual being in the minority, they have become a majority within our culture.’ With the internet music company mp3.com recently announcing their 100,000th artist signing on it would appear that as a movement the uptake of the tools and facilities offered by such organisations has captured the imagination of the creative. This phenomenon might be regarded as a shifting sub paradigm within the main issues being addressed, a component of the new music industry. A new realisation that everyone can be an artist. Vanity publishing gone mad perhaps? Huge amounts of unfiltered and unmediated musical works now available on the Internet, competing for potential listener’s attention, beyond the scope of the traditional music industry but constituting and defining a large part of the new music industry. Empowering, liberating self-determination. Why should unsigned artists be locked out of the opportunity to reach people who might enjoy their music? There's no reason now, through technology, the distributors (record labels) aren't necessarily the arbiters of good or bad anymore. By some accounts (e.g. Gavin Robertson (General Manager Musicindie.com)) the classification of artists as being signed or unsigned is starting to represent a rather antiquated evaluation of their quality and popularity. Already there are many online organisations that aggregate music, most often by genre. Artists standing by the quality of their music shoulder to shoulder, unmediated and freely accessible to all.The possibilities of broadband streaming offer a completely new perspective on the nature of music ownership. The established notion of acquiring music through ownership of physical product through downloading or purchase of physical product is foreseen as being superceded by the ‘consumption’ of music in real time, Leckstein (2000), Cohen (2000). The argument being that there will be no need to own product when you can have access to any music you want to hear at anytime, that consumers can access whatever music they want when they want. Fetching the music as opposed to having to wait for it to be served as part of a schedule. Likenesses are drawn between mobile phones, cable TV and the future consumption of media via digital technology. Based on a streaming subscription system consumers will pay for access to media on a timed basis. ‘Music licensing is going to eventually become as big as consumer sales,’ says Ric Dube, an analyst at Webnoize, cited by Ryan (Upside Down – Aug 2000, http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/print-it?id=399c76f50&t=/texis/mvm/ebiz/story ), he continues,‘In the long term, the music industry is going more toward music as much as a service as a set of products.’ The distribution of cd quality music through wireless streaming technologies will be technically feasible by 2001 according to Jukka Helin, Head of Media Lab for Sonera. By 2005, Analysts forecast that more than half of the predicted 1.1 billion mobile subscribers will be accessing Internet services from their handsets, CyberAtlas (Oct 2000, http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/wireless/article/0,,10094_488681,00.html).Again, as a component of the whole music industry the paradigm associated with the accessing of music and all other forms of digitally based media is certainly shifting. Slater (2000) concedes that it may take a long time to ‘challenge accepted ways of accessing music such as simply turning on the radio or putting a cd on,’ though as Salmons (2000) comments, ‘the move away from traditional distribution and manufacturing is a certainty.’ He goes on to qualify this by stating that, ‘for quite sometime yet we’ll be running conventional methods of distributing music.’ A complete shift would certainty appear some way off. In spite of the new ways of accessing music (and even possibly because of) world wide cd sales increased 2% in value in the first half of 2000, ( http://www.hobomusic.com/contentprint.asp?id=4909). This recent increase in cd sales raises issues that relate to the second of Kuhn’s explanations behind paradigm shifts.Emergent paradigms through crisis, the music industry perspective An analysis of whether the established music industry paradigm has malfunctioned, caused crisis and then contributed to the revolution is less definitive The commodification of culture, which the major labels have sought to apply, actually appears more miss than hit. ‘With a mortality rate of 1 out of 10 failures, it's clearly a crapshoot whether a new major label artist will "make it" or not. The list of "where are they nows" over the last ten years runs into the thousands’ Pete Spellman (2000, http://musicdish.com/mag/index.php3?id=1413#top) Referring to the American Music industry Love (2000) states, ‘of the 32,000 new releases each year, only 250 sell more than 10,000 copies. And less than 30 go platinum,’ she continues, ‘In a society of over 300 million people, only 30 new artists a year sell a million records. By any measure, that's a huge failure.’ Spellman believes that the corporations have created a set of corporate rules that they are obliged to play within. Profit driven with a growth imperative, competitive, aggressive and hierarchical, they amorally quantify and homogenize their ‘product’, he states, ‘ Corporations are structured and optimized for the "mass market" and so what they sell must appeal to the broadest audience possible.’The music industry has a history of being regarded as notoriously arrogant, corrupt, inefficient, restrictive and morally dubious (Dannen (1990) highlights the US payola scandal as one such example). Maybe this is as good a situation as we could ever have expected. Perhaps that is the music industry’s inherent nature. A status quo of imperfection that we have all got used to and had no alternative but to accept. Gottehrer (2000) regards this unsatisfactory state of affairs as hardly a unique scenario especially when compared with other major international industries. What the Internet and digital distribution had done is to put the established paradigm into sharp perspective, place it under the microscope and highlight its failings. As increasing numbers of artists such as Steve Albini, Courtney Love, Prince, Matt Johnson, Chuck D of Public Enemy and Limp Bizkit publicly bring the attention to industry failure and espouse the possibilities of independence and self determination offered by the Internet so the existing overall industry paradigm becomes more threatened and the control of the majors potentially undermined. Though not precipitating a paradigm shift through malfunction leading to a crisis, technology is implicating the industries and it’s shortcoming resulting in the adoption of new technologies and industry practices causing crisis and a potential subsequent paradigm shift. Predictably there are more positive opinions towards the music industry, Ayres (2000) of BMG asserting that he didn’t believe that there is anything particularly wrong with the industry as it stands, he stated, ‘I don’t see how the traditional structure has really failed anybody, plenty of records are being put out, lots of it rubbish same as it always has been.’ What Ayres seems to be saying is that failure is an integral facet of the industry. Perhaps the industry that the Spellmans, Albini’s and Loves are so critical of is simply fundamentally flawed, an irresolvably imperfect reality of the situation as it can only be. Lloyd Salmons (2000) comments, ‘Music is on the most part about art and art will always struggle with commerciality, it’s a dilemma that will never go away.’ In recognition of the paradoxical nature of the majors achievements, Negus (1996) states, ‘If the corporations are so powerful then how does so much great music get produced? If the staff in the industry are so autonomous and creative why is so much standardized and routine music produced?’ As previously mentioned the value of world Cd sales is increasing in the face of MP3 and Internet technologies. This also presents an interesting paradox, in that whatever the perceived or actual faults of the record industry consumers would appear to be happy to purchase their product in increasing amounts. Some of main beneficiaries (other than the telecomm companies and lawyers) of MP3 and digital distribution appear to be those organisations that are actually complaining loudest about digital distribution and companies like Napster – The major labels. Consumers appear to be sampling music online then buying the cd. The Gartner Group (Aug 2000) reports that MP3 users are purchasing significantly more music cds on average (9.23 per six months) compared with non-MP3 users who purchase 6.43 per six months. However buoyant current cd sales may be it is not the present that is being fought over, it is the future. A future of technologically enabled digital distribution that as the largest holders of the largest proportion of rights and representing the worlds best known artists the major labels understandably want to have control over. They clearly consider their control being undermined currently, hence the legal conflict against the backdrop of the new Internet technologies. Swiss (1999, http://www.drake.edu/swiss/popularandbusiness.html) comments, ‘While discussions of the Web by those involved in popular music are sometimes characterized by a millennial utopianism, it's more useful to think of the Web as a technological entity located within fields of power where designs of corporate colonization and desires for communal creativity and individual autonomy often merge or collide.’ He continues, ‘‘It is important to concentrate on the ongoing tension between music’s role as a form of cultural expression and music’s position within an economic and industrial context’. The courtroom collisions have given way over recent weeks to a partial meeting of minds between the two ideologically disparate parties, on the one hand the establishment with their traditional approach to rights management and on the other the dotcoms with their new models of distribution that challenge the control of record companies.At the Music.Online (Oct 2000) conference Simon Wheeler Sales Manager of the Beggars Group shared a refreshing and candid attitude to the use of the Internet and mp3 technologies in order to promote his organisations bands and back catalogue. Already in discussion with mp3.com to set up a channel of rare and deleted back catalogue, the Beggars Group are showing a grasp of understanding invisible elsewhere within the industry especially the majors. Mp3 and it’s use by ‘real’ music fans is offering then a differentiating and added value tool they can use to promote and exploit works that might not even otherwise have even seen the light of day. As an independent organisation Beggars Banquet benefit from the fact that they don’t have to be seen by their shareholders to be taking a public stance against mp3. A latitude that’s not afforded to most of the majors whose shareholders may see mp3 file sharing as a threat to the value of back catalogue and the profitability of the organisations within which they have an investment. Beggars Banquet has adopted a positive attitude to file sharing and mp3. Viewing digital distribution as an opportunity and not a threat and working with MP3.com to enhance the value of their catalogue. Arguably the most monumental break with the status quo has come from BMG on the 31st October 2000. In a unilateral move possibly afforded them by their private status and partially attributable to their progressive stance on most issues Internet related (as with Beggars) BMG struck a strategic alliance with Napster. Breaking rank from the other majors all of whom (including BMG) were suing Napster through the RIAA, BMG’s action marks a sea change in attitude and approach to their once sworn enemy. Time Warner President Richard Parsons described Napster during his keynote at the Plug-In music conference in July 2000 as ‘Hijacker, ‘Devil’ and ‘Pirate’, (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,37614,00.html). ‘Most of the traditional music industry has shown nothing but fear, anger and an appetite for Napster's destruction,’ Fagelson (2000 , http://musicdish.com/mag/?id=2236). Hank Barry the CEO of Napster states, "Three weeks ago every label was out to kill Napster, and now we're moving forward.’BMG at face value appear to have adopted a more pragmatic, ‘if you can’t beat ’em join ‘em’ type approach, a tiered subscription model offering an improved, more robust and functional service based on a membership scheme through which artists and the record companies can be remunerated. This radical move by BMG has radical implications for the whole of the industry. In one swift and decisive business move Napster has become legitimised. BMG are already in discussion with three of the other majors in order to involve them too in this new project. Thomas Middelhoff, chairman and chief executive of Bertelsmann stated, ‘This is a call for the industry to wake up……..It is not enough to fight file sharing in the courtroom.’ Whilst BMG have their own business agenda and strategic motivations for the alliance their actions put a completely new complexion on the possible relationships between the establishment and the new digital distributors. There is evidence to suppose that this is a progressive starting point from which an overall consensus of agreement concerning Digital Distribution might be worked out. An October Webnoize survey found that 67.6% of Napster users surveyed would pay $15 per month to use Napster, up 9.1% increase from results of a survey Webnoize conducted in April. The prospect of a legal ‘celestial jukebox’ where a consumer can source any music by any artist any time and download it can now start to be realised. Napster as an existing imperfect version of this with 38 million music hungry users has proven the demand for a free version of such a service. The challenge to the majors and any ongoing strategy with Napster will be to ‘square the circle’, to freely share files AND screen out files that other labels and music publishers perhaps don't want to be traded on Napster whilst keeping consumers happy. Huge amount of time, energy and money has been spent investigating Digital Rights Management systems such as SDMI, primarily as a means to lock content and prevent its access by unauthorized users. The recent events concerning Napster and BMG would appear to undermine encryption, digital wrapping and the building of technological barriers as a viable approach to music distribution on the Internet. ‘The programming talent that SDMI is focusing on foolproof security should instead be directed toward developing systems that track how music is being sent through subscription networks, and compensate labels and artists correspondingly.’ Brown (2000, http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/11/13/jukebox/index1.html). The fact that there are approximately 18 billion unencrypted, copyable physical cds in circulation world wide (Robertson 2000, http://bboard.mp3.com/mp3/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000053.html ) suggests that digital piracy is not likely to disappear in the immediate future. The record companies might be best advised to pursue a policy of making their product a convenient preferred option so as to render the experience of illegal file transfers an inferior way of obtaining music. Cassidy (2000 http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/11/13/jukebox/index1.html ), observes, ‘Putting a lock on the CD or music is not about making a transaction doable, pleasurable and honest. Why put a lock on it when you can put a payment mechanism on it? The first step is an authentication scheme to make sure you know what is being consumed, and SDMI has the talent to do that.’ It would appear that this is a scenario that BMG have recognised and hopefully the rest of the majors will be quick to follow. Willingly or not the majors are having to face up to the new ways of offering music via the Internet. A failure to do so would potentially leave them weakened, victims to the illegal file transfers they are currently so unhappy about. All the majors have developed proprietary systems that offer users a limited service but as Napster has proven so clearly people want it easy, cross label and cheap.Another well-publicised legal battle has been raging over the my.mp3.com service. This dispute has also recently been partially resolved, as Universal became the fifth and final major to agree to license their content with MP3.com. The my.mp3.com scheme is based on ‘private digital lockers’ that allow cd owners to access their digitised cd collections and stream them over the web from any location. The costs to mp3.com have not been insubstantial, damages that total approximately $140 million dollars plus the actual licensing costs themselves for a service that in effect allows people to listen to cds that they already own only via the internet as opposed to via local device. An expensive resolution, however a resolution that might go to reflect how the majors are evolving their attitudes towards providers of Internet based distribution services once they feel comfortable with the fact that they can see a return and start to exert some control over the environment. That the major labels are now starting to use their financial muscle to influence and control the new digital environment to their own ends is not necessarily so reassuring to independent artists. The majors are sure to be concerned only with those artists though whom they earn a return and will use all their marketing power to promote them accordingly, much in the way that MTV has been seen to evolve. As well as the $53.4 million in damages MP3.com has paid to Universal it has announced that it has sold to Universal Music Group (UMG Recording, Inc.) warrants to purchase up to 3,000,000 shares of MP3.com common stock. BMG through their alliance with Napster have acquired an undisclosed stake in the company. Scour another high profile file sharing dotcom has recently been acquired by Listen.com in whom all the majors have stakes, (Mi2N.com http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=14488 )Leonard (1998 http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/03/cov_20feature3.html) comments.’ As far back as 1994, the founders of the IUMA (www.iuma.com) were hyping the potential emergence of the "middle-class musician" to everyone who would listen. The distributive powers of the Net, they argued, would allow recording artists to cut out expensive middlemen and realize the bulk of the profits from sales of their cds.’ By 2000 this still hasn’t happened in anything other than exceptional circumstances. Michael Robertson (2000) at In the City in using the term ‘The monetisation of content’, referred to schemes such as mp3.com’s Payback for Playback where a pool of advertising revenue is proportionally distributed amongst artists based on the number of daily listens. There are examples of artists making huge amounts through this scheme, Mexican easy listening artist Ernesto Cortazar earned $139,527.41 in the first year of Payback for Playback, American electronic artist 303Infinity earned $15,432.89 in October 2000 alone. Also to be considered are the ecommerce possibilities to sell physical product such as T-shirts and other merchandise directly to fans. Cutting the record companies out of the retail loop. Though these figures are impressive they are exceptional, the author believes that rather than highlighting the revenue earning opportunities for independent artists they only prove to distort the realities of ‘monetisation’ that currently exist for artists on the net. Payback for Playback exists at the behest of Mp3.com and they are the only dotcom offering such a reward scheme. The royalty collection agencies seem to have been caught as cold by digital distribution as the major record companies have been. The collection of songwriter and recording royalties are in turmoil, the pan global, territory crossing nature of the Internet providing a administrative nightmare to agencies based and brought up on dealing regionally. When an artist represented by a particular collection agency has songs played by a consumer in a different country with the songs served from a different country again the question of who to pay, how much to pay and where to pay it to becomes extremely confused. Slater (2000) states, ‘as members of the PRS, we also have a responsibility: to conquer our Luddite fears of the unknown and quickly find a compromise that will ensure both the survival of Napster and its due remuneration to artists and composers.’On a positive note the industry’s recent enlightenment will lead the way to the introduction of mechanisms that will track those files shared and reward the artists financially. This is potentially extremely good news for all artists who (literally) by rights should be rewarded too. The author notes that there is certainly scope for a new form of Internet based royalty collection agency to step in and administer rights on digitally distributed media. When Courtney Love (2000) says, ‘We don't have to work with major labels anymore, because the digital economy is creating new ways to distribute and market music. And the free ones amongst us aren't going to. That means the slave class, which I represent, has to find ways to get out of our deals,’ it is worth noting that she is herself partly a product of Major Label branding. Love is speaking from a privileged position and to an extent this gets to the heart of the issue relating to an overall music industry paradigm shift. The process of elevating any particular artists profile ‘above the noise’, Harrison (2000) can require huge amounts of marketing investment infact if anything the vast new numbers of media channels though which artists can now have their work ‘exploited’ demand more and more advertising revenue. The size and scale of the Internet is playing into the hands of the major corporations. The scale of the Internet does offer many opportunities for localised and niche success and this should not be overlooked or under emphasised. Once again though it is likely to be the major players who will be able to apply their resources best on a global scale to focus on these areas. Paul Brindley (2000) states, ‘Excessive marketing budgets may make it prohibitively expensive to break through into the mainstream market place. I don’t see how the Internet is going to change any of the fundamentals in any way other than on a lower level for those bands that aren’t commercially viable on a major because they are less likely to sell hundreds of thousands that are necessary to justify those marketing budgets, but already have an established brand name’. There will in the authors’ opinion still be a demand for physical offline product for the foreseeable future. The major record companies are the best-equipped organisations to meet this need. Not only do they have the business know-how in manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling records but they have their back catalogs which gives them an ongoing vested advantage over newcomers such as dotcoms or individuals representing their own work. The majors are also starting to take more of a control over the Internet and profile that artists enjoy. Bands are money pits, especially for a new band, meeting the costs of recording, video production, touring, press promotion, radio promotion and all the other costs associated with creating and marketing music can only be met through label intervention. In return a label will still demand their share of the rights. Artists knowing this, the labels know it too. The disintermediation that the Internet so convincingly offers is undermined by the necessity for artists to exchange the ownership of their material for debt in order to be represented. Until structures of new ‘revenue streams’ appear that enable artists to develop and thrive without label assistance and as long as the labels continue to insist on owning the rights to music in exchange for advances and the marketing infrastructure that they provide, the necessity to perpetuate the established practice of ‘signing’ to a record company will remain the ‘reality’. Dolfsmar (2000, http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_5/dolfsma/ ) states, ‘While musicians and consumers may contact each other directly without recourse to a third party, this is not likely to become the dominant means of interaction. There is a fundamental problem in Internet-mediated commerce in selecting and qualifying information, a problem that neither the consumer nor the producer (artist, musician) can best resolve.’
There is no paradigm shift in the fundamental way the industry operates. The shift is theoretical, motivated by the conspiracy theorists for the major record companies and the mp3 evangelists. The industry and the essential rules haven’t changed, just the way they are applied. The actual paradigm shifting is occurring primarily on a technological level and subsequently in the way artists and consumers deliver and receive music. In the same way that the Internet can allow music to feel free to consumers (through subscription or even in the current context of free file sharing at Napster), so artists too can feel free, liberated to distribute their work outside of the establishment. Both feelings to an extent are illusions. The harsh reality is that with or without the Internet and Digital Distribution both scenarios involve good old fashioned money, either from the consumers perspective in the purchase of time and/or rights to access material or from the artists perspective in the costs of creating, marketing and selling work. Stuart Till the Deputy Chairman of the British Film Council speaking at the All Together Now conference Nov 2000 stated, ‘There will be enormous changes but within the existing paradigm,’ he continued, ‘The traditional cycle of distribution channels is the most effective.’ New forms of relationship with organisations such a record labels and dotcoms that have the foresight and flexibility to offer more modern, equitable and mature relationships with artists are being heralded as the way forward for artists. Whilst there have been initiatives such as the Rosenberg's deal with Robert Fripps’ Discipline Global Mobile Label (Appendix 5), truly innovative possibilities for emerging artists to bypass the label system and operate independently on a professional basis are rare. Most non-corporate independent relationships exist irrespective of the Internet and Digital Distribution. Forms of traditional ‘indie’ 50/50 deals that have to be more flexible and generous as the labels offering them have less financial power and marketing infrastructure to commit to the relationship. Independent artists will always be perfectly free to contribute their work to music dotcoms but whether they’ll be financially rewarded to a level that provides them with the ability to work outside of the established paradigm remains in doubt, ‘You need intermediaries to reach a large audience. And if that is what you want, these parties need to get a slice of the cake as well. That is the crucial question: which intermediaries do I want. The choice is broader now,’ Dolfsmar (2000) The irony in the majors conversion to a belief in file sharing as a viable business model is that in order for a legitimised file sharing system to work all the majors need to get involved. Majors embracing file sharing and new forms of digital distribution may well signal a new form of dominance, an online dominance extending and strengthening their offline control and the paradigm as it already exists.
Michael Robertson CEO of MP3.com lists ten things that he feels should be known about mp3 ( http://www.mp3.com/news/070.html). The author recognises that he has a vested interest in the success of digital distribution and that that view is reflected in the perspective he offers. Whist not necessarily sharing all of Robertson’s opinions as enthusiastically as him, the author believes that the issues presented provide a useful overview of some of the issues concerning mp3.
1) MP3 is not illegal, it is simply an audio
compression format. 2) MP3 is the standard for high quality music
and will soon be on every PC. 3) MP3 gives artists and labels freedom to
market and sell their music anyway they wish. 4) Hundreds of companies are building businesses
around MP3. 5) Thousands of artists are distributing content
in mp3 today. 6) MP3 is the most cost effective and easy way
for artists to explore online music. 7) MP3 can be as secure as any current audio
format. 8) The music industry is not losing billions to
MP3. 9) Artists and labels can make money employing
MP3 technology on the net. 10) MP3 users should respect copyrights.
Napster is a form of peer to peer (P2P) file sharing system. Unlike some of the other forms of file sharing service such as FreeNet or Gnutella, Napster uses a Central Index Server through which search requests are sent and direct transfers between clients initiated.
Source http://javatest.a-net.nl/servlet/pedit.Main/http://www.howstuffworks.com/napster2.htm Napster Overview (source www.napster.com)
Appendix 3 – Growth In Napster Usage
Napster Software-Application Usage Soars 500 Percent To Nearly Seven Million U.S. Home Users, According To Media Metrix NEW YORK, October 5, 2000 - Media Metrix (NASDAQ: JMXI), the pioneer and leader in Internet and Digital Media measurement worldwide, today reports that usage of the Napster software application increased from 1.1 million users in February 2000 to 6.7 million users in August 2000, a 506.8 percent increase. Further highlights on Napster, the controversial music file-swapping service, include:
Media Metrix Definitions Unique Users: The estimated number of total users who used the software application once in the given month. All Unique Users are unduplicated (only counted once). Multimedia Players: Includes such applications as Realplayer, Media Player, Quicktime and Spinner. * Indicates unreported traffic. ** Indicates unreportable traffic.
Source www.mp3.comMP3.com was incorporated in March 1998. During 1998, our operations consisted largely of developing the infrastructure necessary to download music on the Internet. Since the beginning of 1999, our growth has been dramatic. -- Approved artists grew to 99,800 for the third quarter surpassing the 100,000 milestone shortly after the close of the quarter. The number of artists posting to MP3.com increased 23 percent from the end of the second quarter 2000. -- Content (songs and audio files) grew 25 percent quarter-over-quarter, topping 647,700 at the end of the third quarter showing, once again, that MP3.com's dynamic and diverse infrastructure and data management capabilities continue to attract content on a record-breaking level. -- MP3.com's communication platform served up over 103 million listens (songs delivered online; play or save) during the third quarter compared to 100 million at the end of the second quarter. That's over 1 million listens every day or over 10 listens each second. For the month of September, total number of listens climbed 20 percent to over 38 million, up from August's total of 31.6 million. -- During the third quarter, average daily unique visitor traffic increased month-over-month beginning in July with 562,000, August with 583,000 and September's visitor count at 663,000. The average number of daily unique visitors grew to 602,000 for the third quarter, an increase of more than 37,000 daily visitors from the 565,000 reported for the second quarter.
Appendix 5 - The Rosenbergs Find a Partner in Robert Fripp
By STEVE HOCHMAN http://news.webnoize.com/item.rs?eID=20000829&ID=10257
Bibliography, Linkography and References Brindley, P (2000) New Musical Entrepreneurs, London UK, Institute For Public Policy Research. Burrell, G & Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, London, UK, Heinemann. Dannen, F (1990) Hit Men, London, UK, Muller Random Century Group. Harrison, A (2000) Music, The Business, London UK, Virgin Publishing Hirschheim, R, Klein, H, K, and Lyytinen, K. (1995) Information Systems Development and Data Modelling, Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations, Cambridge, UK, University Press. Kuh | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
