OPEN CONTENT AND THE MUSIC INDUSTRY

OPEN CONTENT AND THE MUSIC INDUSTRY
How Open Content can contribute to the exposure, sales,
creativity and distribution of independent music.
Thesis supervisor: Martin Lacet Marten Timan
Project supervisor: David Garcia IMM, 2004
Preface
Almost a year ago I first learned about Open Content and Open Source, and watched the
movements around these terms grow very big very fast since then. These movements are of
incredible importance for anyone involved with computers or digital content, as they might change
the way of treating digital content forever. For anyone related to the branch of multimedia these
developments are of particular importance. I decided to learn more about Open Source and Open
Content and discovered a whole new world in doing so.
My love for music and my discontent of the current situation of the music industry has led to the
topic of music. It is sad to know that there are so much talented musicians that might never get a
chance to reach a wide audience, while others with less talent are being hyped by the media. I
decided to combine Open Content and music, as it seemed to open up a lot of possibilities.
The EMMA was an intensive and difficult year for me, also partly due to my still present injury
(RSI). I would like to thank Martin Lacet (my thesis supervisor), and David Garcia (my project
supervisor) for guiding me through this last half year. I want to thank Björn Wijers in particular for
his help in my thesis and project, and for sharing his enthusiasm.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
M AIN INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
T HE IMPORTANCE OF OPEN CONTENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................9
2.Open Content..........................................................................................................................9
2.1. A definition........................................................................................................................9
2.2 History of Open Content.....................................................................................................9
2.3. Differences between Open Source and Open Content...................................................11
2.4. Creative Commons..........................................................................................................11
2.4.1. What does Creative Commons provide?.................................................................12
2.4.2. The licenses.............................................................................................................12
2.4.3. Influence of Creative commons:..............................................................................13
3. Copyright..............................................................................................................................14
3.1. A definition of copyright:..................................................................................................14
3.2. History of copyright..........................................................................................................15
3.3. Copyright in the digital era...............................................................................................15
3.3.1. The effects of file-sharing.........................................................................................16
3.3.2. Did CD sales drop because of piracy? ...................................................................17
3.3.3. A categorization of users of peer-to-peer file-sharing programs............................. 18
3.4. The future of copyright.....................................................................................................19
3.4.1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.......................................................................19
3.4.2. Digital Rights Management......................................................................................20
4. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................21
T HE COMMERCIAL CONTROL OF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2
T HE MUSIC INDUSTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2
5. Introduction..........................................................................................................................23
6. The music industry...............................................................................................................23
6.1. A definition and a global structure...................................................................................23
6.2. Record companies...........................................................................................................23
6.3. Record promotion............................................................................................................24
6.3.1. Payola......................................................................................................................24
6.3.2. Indies.......................................................................................................................25
6.4. Creativity in music ...........................................................................................................25
6.4.1. Music as a business.................................................................................................26
6.4.2. Copyright and creativity ..........................................................................................26
6.5. Independent musicians ...................................................................................................27
6.5.1. A definition...............................................................................................................27
6.5.2. Personal experiences..............................................................................................27
6.5.3. Ignorance towards copyright....................................................................................28
7. Music and the Internet..........................................................................................................28
7.1. Commercial success.......................................................................................................28
7.2. Successful independent music websites ........................................................................30
7.2.1. Problems within independent music websites.........................................................30
7.3. Internet radio....................................................................................................................31
7.4. Personalisation................................................................................................................31
8. Conclusion...........................................................................................................................32
I NTERNET AND NETWORK STRUCTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3
9. Introduction..........................................................................................................................34
10. Networks.............................................................................................................................35
10.1. A definition.....................................................................................................................35
10.2. Advantages of networks................................................................................................35
10.3. Centralization and Decentralization...............................................................................36
10.4. Motivation for participation.............................................................................................37
10.4.1. People and content................................................................................................37
10.4.2. Motivation in developing Open Source software. ................................................. 38
3
10.5. Physical and virtual networks........................................................................................39
11. Communities......................................................................................................................40
11.1. A definition.....................................................................................................................40
11.1.1. The Digital City.......................................................................................................40
11.1.2. The Open Source software community.................................................................41
11.2. Openness and organization...........................................................................................41
11.2.1. The importance of openness.................................................................................42
11.2.2. The danger of openness........................................................................................42
12. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................43
C ASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3
13. Introduction........................................................................................................................44
14. IUMA....................................................................................................................................44
15. Last.fm................................................................................................................................45
16. Magnatune..........................................................................................................................47
17. Wikipedia ............................................................................................................................48
F INAL CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 9
F urther research suggestions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1
B IBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2
ILLUSTRATIONS
Cover: a reminder from the Recording Association of America. This is a perfect example that
shows the absurdness of the clinch between the music industry and the Internet.
(Image URL: http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~pepband/images/mp3communism.jpg)
Illustration 1: Creative Commons attribution license icon
Illustration 2: Creative Commons non-commercial license icon
Illustration 3: Creative Commons no-derivative-works license icon
Illustration 4: Creative Commons share-alike license icon
(Images URL: http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses)
Illustration 5: a kite network model
(Image URL: http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000006.php)
Illustration 6: people-content model
(Image URL: http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000006.php)
4
MAIN INTRODUCTION
5
Turn on the television and switch to a music channel. All you will see are big superstars with new
hits. Tune in to the radio and all you will hear are the same songs over and over again. The music
you hear is all very much the same. What happened to creativity? It looks like new, innovative and
creative music is not given a chance to flourish. There are however hundreds of thousands of
musicians in this world who are bound to create beautiful new music. The majority of them might
never be discovered. Whether it is because of the corporate control of the music industry, lack of
money or other factors; these musicians should be given a chance to expose their music
effectively.
Since the rise of the Internet, the ways of sharing and distributing content have changed radically.
The Internet provided lots of new ways for independent artists to produce and distribute their work
in a cheap way. Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs have become extremely user friendly, and
created an environment for many people to share massive amounts of content. This has led to
many copyright issues; sharing digital copyrighted content for example is considered to be illegal.
In the last couple of years there has been more and more attention and distress around this type
of peer-to-peer file-sharing, and about sharing music in particular.
Many independent musicians (musicians not signed by a record company) also shifted their
attention towards the Internet. To be able to reach a great variety of listeners directly without the
need for a record company as an intermediate is, still today, one of the major advantages of the
Internet for musicians. Since the ease of access, its wide usage and other benefits the Internet
offers one might expect an explosion of independent music distribution through the Internet.
However, this has not happened yet. Many believe this is due to the corporate control of the music
industry, others feel that a lack of organization is the cause for this problem.
It is also important for musicians to avoid being exploited; someone else might get the credit for
their recorded music and make a profit out of it. To copyright their work makes the use of it illegal
and thus protects the artists’ rights. Current copyright standards make the sharing, copying, and
distributing of these works without consent of the copyright owner illegal. It therefore also limits
the distribution of this work through the Internet, which is in turn a negative aspect for independent
musicians.
There are also organizations trying to legalize Internet file-sharing by providing special copyright
licenses for artists. These state that the artist can (partly or wholly) free the rights to his work in
order for others to be built upon and distributed freely. These licenses, also known as “Open
Content licenses”, become more popular among artists every day. Open Content can be defined
as something that you publish with the intention of making it available for others to distribute or
use at no cost.
Taken all this into consideration, I will base my thesis on the following question:
How can Open Content contribute to the distribution and promotion of independent music
through the Internet?
This question in turn raises other questions that need to be answered first. Is it really that hard for
independent musicians to distribute or promote their music? What is the exact definition of Open
Content and why is it necessary to use the Internet? It is therefore not only important to know what
Open Content is and what it does, but also to find out more about copyright and how they relate to
each other. The importance of Open Content in the context of independent artists’ exposure
obligates us to further investigate the music industry and the means of music distribution.
Effective distribution requires networks in one form or another; therefore it is necessary to gain an
insight into these networks’ inner working and in particular the Internet. The answers to these
questions will form arguments which will form the base for my final conclusion. My thesis is
therefore divided in four chapters:
6
Chapter I:
In this chapter I will first research the development of Open Content and point out the importance
for artists to license their work as Open Content. I will also show the differences of copyright and
Open Content, and the important role both are playing (and are about to play) in the digital era.
Chapter II:
I will research the development of the music industry, and the role of record labels and
independent musicians. I will define the structure of the music industry and discuss the changes
that are still in progress. I will then research possible solutions to the problems of distributing
music through the Internet effectively.
Chapter III:
In the then following chapter I will describe the need for networks in our society, and how the
Internet changed the way we communicate. The decentralization of certain Internet applications
has also led to a lot of confusion and problems, with which the demand for organization may even
be greater than ever before. I will discuss the preconditions for effective virtual networks, and how
they relate to social networks.
Chapter IV:
I will test the conclusions from the previous chapters on a few online case studies to show their
relevance. These case studies will all have a different relation to the subject.
Based on the former arguments and case studies I will form a final conclusion.
7
Chapter I
THE IMPORTANCE OF OPEN CONTENT
8
1.Introduction
In this chapter I will address a few examples to show the impact that Open Source and Open
Content have already had on our society. I will discuss peer-to-peer file-sharing in particular, a
new technology that has emerged and has caused lots of uproar in the music industry. A large
number of record labels and musicians believe their copyrights are violated and that they suffer
from the massive downloading that occurs, because the overall CD sales have dropped.
Opposed to that I will discuss the growing dominant market position of copyright in our digital
society and the restrictions that it is causing, and will cause on creativity in the near future.
2. Open content
2.1. A definition
Open Content can best be defined as content that is published with the intentional purpose of
making it available for further distribution and improvement by others at no cost. Content in this
context is anything that isn’t executable and digital that could be distributed or accessed
electronically that isn’t software. In short it could be images, audio files, movies and text. Although
the main issue in this thesis is music, I will also address other forms of content. But to actually
understand the meaning and purpose of Open Content, it is important to research its origins.
2.2 History of Open Content
According to an article by Florian Cramer, who is a lecturer in comparative literature science,
history of art and German philology at the free University of Berlin, Open Content originated from
Open Source software (cf. Cramer, 2004). I will explain both terms in this chapter.
In 1984 the GNU project was started by Richard Stallman1, who worked at MIT Artificial
Intelligence Lab for over 10 years. There he worked within a hacker2 community3, which basically
developed “free software” in the way Open Source projects later on were to be made.
The community fell apart, the company bought licensed software, and the sharing days were
over. He decided that he couldn’t continue working in these conditions, and that his skills should
not be wasted. He then founded the free software movement out of a moral choice. Richard
Stallman also developed a part of an operating system, called GNU that was free for use in order
to recreate the sharing hacker community.
The GNU project was a success, and the free software movement had followers like Eric S.
Raymond (also writer of “the Cathedral and the Bazaar”, a piece that opened a lot of eyes in the
Open Source movement). The 1990’s saw the rise of the GNU/Linux operating system4 and its
leader and founder Linus Torvalds. In 1998 the term “Free Software” had been replaced by “Open
Source” to provide a business-friendlier alternative. “Open Source” is described as that what is
published along with its source code, so others can alter it or use it freely.
1 For a more complete biography visit http://www.stallman.org/#serious
2 The term “hacker” is here defined as “someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever about it”
(www.gnu.org) and not as a security breaker
3 For a definition of a community, see chapter III, paragraph 11.1
4 This operating system is generally called Linux, and uses the GNU project by Richard Stallman.
9
A few weeks after that a site went online that was called “opencontent.org”, which coined the
term “Open Content” for the first time. It was a site which held two licenses, the “Open Content
License” and the “Open Publication License”. The first was an almost exact copy of the GNU
General Public License (a license published by the Free Software Foundation), and was released
in 1999. The Open Publication License allowed authors and publishers to restrict the modification
and commercial reprinting of their works, and became very popular very fast.
The Open Content license simply states that a specific form or quantity of content is available for
use, distribution and improvement, for free. At the same time, this license provides for some
limitations on how specific content could be used for profit. It is because of this aspect that Open
Content and Open Source are sometimes explained as “free as in freedom, and not free as in
beer” by the Open Source community.
However, opencontent.org did not have legal expertise for its licenses nor any institutional
support. Rather then going out to look for expertise and support, David Wiley, a specialist in
educational computing, decided to leave opencontent.org behind and joined Creative Commons
(www.creativecommons.org) which was founded in 2001. Creative Commons is an organization
that provides a place for free content, and allows any individual to adopt customized Open
Content licenses for free. I will discuss the Creative Commons licenses in paragraph 2.2.2. more
thoroughly.
More specific and better organized then opencontent.org, it is now a leading force in providing
Open Content licenses, devoted to expanding the range of creative work available for others to
build upon and share. The number of resources and participants are growing everyday, as is their
popularity. They state themselves:
“Adopting a Creative Commons license enables you to support a culture, where new
ideas are based off of old ones, and culture is accessible to all.“
(http://creativecommons.org/learn/artistscorners/musicians)
2.3. Differences between Open Source and Open Content
There have been a wide range of Open Source projects, some of which did not have a very long
lifespan, and some of which turned out to be incredibly successful, innovative and influential. I will
give some examples of successful projects:
The GNU/Linux Open Source operating system described earlier has had a tremendous
influence since its development, and is now an operating system that is used worldwide. The
mySQL database standard, which was created after releasing the source code for the SQL
database has now become a commonly used standard. Apache, a web server language
developed in Open Source, claims to be the leading web server platform since 1996. According to
the statistics on http://www.php.net, over sixteen million people are currently using PHP, a
scripting language that is developed through the Open Source model.
The impact of Open Source software might be an indication that there is a demand for openness
in our society. There are however significant differences between Open Content and Open
Source software that are to be considered. Open Source software has one main objective (it has
to work) and less diversity in matter of personal taste than music for example. In developing Open
Source software it is easy to see whether the code is improved or not. Code is functional, and its
functionality is more important than the design of the code. Programming can only be done in
languages written for it. Not everybody is able to be a programmer (let alone a good one). You
have to follow rules laid up by the language, otherwise it will generate errors. In developing
software there is a general purpose of a piece of software; people have to be able to use it.
10
Anybody can create content, and there are basically no restrictions. There is still a difference in
quality, creating (digital) content does not require any knowledge of programming language or
extended knowledge of a type of software. Since there are less restrictions on creating content it
is likely that there is a far larger amount of content available than there are Open Source projects.
“Everything is art. “ (Andy Warhol)
“Everybody is an artist. “ (Joseph Beuys)
A good example of an Open Content project that took advantage of the aspect of diversity is
Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia on the Internet. Since its foundation in 2001 it has outgrown many
encyclopedias that were created in a conventional way. The real strength of this project is that you
are able to find information about an unimaginable variety of subjects, since anyone is able to add
or share their information about what they consider to be important or what they happen to know a
lot about. I will discuss this project in chapter IV more thoroughly.
There have also been online projects that involve Open Content music. A few of the most
successful projects are Magnatune.com, Opsound.org, Archive.org and Netlabels.org. The music
distributed for free through netlabels5 is mostly referred to as netaudio. Often the music released
by netlabels is freely distributable (for example under a creative commons license). I will also
discuss Magnatune.com more thoroughly in chapter IV. Before discussing the projects it is
important to know what these licenses are and how they might be helpful for independent
musicians.
2.4. Creative Commons
2.4.1. What does Creative Commons provide?
Creative commons is founded in 2001 with support of the Center for Public Domain, and is led by
a Board of Directors that includes cyberlaw and intellectual property experts like Lawrence Lessig,
James Boyle, MIT computer science professor Hal Abelson, and public domain web publisher Eric
Eldred among others. The organization is based at the Stanford Law School.
Creative Commons is an organization that provides free licenses for artists. These licenses state
that the license holder partly or wholly cedes his rights to his work in order for others to build upon.
The licenses still count as copyright, but with specific conditions. I will discuss these licenses in
the next chapter.
On their website (http://www.creativecommons.org) the organization claims to try and find a
balance between two extreme visions. At the one end a (digital) world where every use of a work
is totally copyrighted and regulated, and where building upon someone else’s work can be
severely punished, and creativity will stagnate. At the other end there is a world of total freedom
for creators and developers but also one that leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. Creative
Commons offer licenses which encourage other artists to use, share or build upon the work,
though they let the original creators benefit from it by keeping some of the rights which are stated
in the license they provide with the work. So, these licenses will allow especially unsigned and
independent artists to take advantage of the expanded opportunities for promotion of their work
that come with digital file-sharing, but prevent exploitation of their product.
5 : Netlabels are online record labels that distribute music in digital formats. They normally do not
distribute music on sound storage mediums such as vinyl, tape, CD or DVD like normal record labels.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netlabel)
11
2.4.2. The licenses
Creative Commons has been making its licenses available, free of charge, since December
2002. The licenses that Creative Commons provide are based on certain conditions. These
conditions are stated below, and are each represented by a fitting icon. Every individual can
match these conditions to form their license. The licenses are explained on their website, and
translated into an easily comprehensible form. There are a total of eleven licenses to be made
and to choose from. The four conditions are explained below. I will give examples to clarify the
meaning of these conditions.
Attribution
Illustration 1: Creative Commons attribution license icon
This first condition lets others copy, distribute, display, and perform the copyrighted work and
derivative works based upon it, but only if they give the owner credit. This condition may also be
the most important option for independent musicians since it permanently binds the music to the
artist’s name, ensuring his attribution when the music (or a derivative work based upon it) is
distributed.
Say I just recorded a new song with my band “We vs. Death”, and adopted an attribution license
for it. The song may now be used by others to build upon or to distribute freely. A theater group
notices our song and desperately wants to use it in their new play. With the attribution license they
can, as long as they mention our name. The same goes for another band that wants to perform
that song or a filmmaker that want to use it in a new movie, and so on.
Noncommercial.
Illustration 2: Creative Commons non-commercial license icon
This condition let others copy, distribute, display, and perform the copyrighted work and derivative
works based upon it, but for noncommercial purposes only. If an individual want to use a
copyrighted work for commercial purposes he needs the copyright owner’s permission, as is the
case with current copyright.
By adding a noncommercial-condition to our license, we restrict others from using our work for
commercial purposes. The filmmaker for example who wants to use our song for his new movie is
now not allowed to make a profit out of it without our approval.
No derivative works
Illustration 3: Creative Commons no-derivative-works license icon
This condition states that others may copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies
of the copyrighted work, not derivative works based upon it. This is an option for those who want
their music distributed for free, but do not want others to build upon it.
By adding or choosing this option we state that others may not alter or build upon our song.
People can still distribute it freely, but must leave it in its original state.
12
Share Alike.
Illustration 4: Creative Commons share-alike license icon
‘Share alike’ allows others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the
license that governs your work. A license cannot contain both the Share Alike and No Derivative
Works options. The Share Alike requirement applies only to derivative work.
By adding this condition to our license, artists that altered or build upon our song in any way must
also use the same license to publish their work. The filmmaker has to publish his film under the
same license as the song.
These Creative Commons licenses still count as copyright licenses, since they still protect
the owner’s rights over his work. The difference with normal copyright standards is that the
owner now has an option to grant others more freedom to use his work.
An artist can also choose an option to publish their work in the public domain, releasing all the
rights to his work.
2.4.3. Influence of Creative commons:
Creative Commons is a fast growing organization. More artists, but also organizations, adopt one
of its licenses every day and allow others to benefit from their work without the interference of a
middleman or legal doubt. Among them are the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org) and
Common Content (http://commoncontent.org), who started hosting content under a Creative
Commons license for free. There is an enormous amount of content hosted at these sites:
“The catalog includes 2779 records, many of which are collections which include
hundreds or thousands of other works.” (http://commoncontent.org)
Several music sites started using these licenses, granting musicians the opportunity to publish
their work under a Creative Commons license. In a short film called “Reticulum Rex6” the
influence of the Creative Commons licenses is shown after a year of their existence. In the first
few months of existence a hundred thousand individuals adopted a Creative Commons license,
according to the short film, which already expanded to a number over seven hundred thousand.
The Creative Commons licenses were first launched in the United States but are currently
already translated fitting the law in five different countries including the Netherlands, Germany,
Japan, Finland and Brazil. With this project (called the iCommons project) Creative Commons is
heading towards a globalization of these licenses.
This shows there is a huge demand for using these licenses and that artists actually want to cede
part of their copyright. Does this indicate that people lost faith in copyright as a totally restricted
system, or is there another reason that makes these licenses popular among artists?
John Buckman, founder of Magnatune.com7 has his own theory for the popularity of the Open
Content licenses:
6 Reticulum Rex is an anagram for “Remix Culture”. The flash movie is freely available for download at
http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/reticulum_rex/
7 Magnatune.com is an online record label where musicians can offer their music under a Creative
Commons license, and was founded in 2003 by John Buckman.(http://www.magnatune.com/info/why)
13
"Creative Commons is like a marketing tool […] Free distribution generates exposure, and
that builds commercial demand, which is where the real money is." (Interview with
Buckman,J by Raskin,A, 2004, business2 magazine)
According to the statistics on Magnatune.com on July 25th 2004 Magnatune already sold over
4000 songs out of 161 artists under a Creative Commons license since 2003. These songs are
not free for download, but can be streamed and listened to for free as a whole. People still buy the
songs when they are able to listen to it for free. The songs are offered through an Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, which allows people who purchased it to distribute it for free.
Thus, generating exposure for free through these Creative Commons licenses has proven
to be successful marketing for independent musicians.
But what is it about current copyright standards that interfere with generating this exposure? Is it
not also profitable to keep all the rights over ones work? To show why it is important to use Open
Content it is vital to not only look at its influences, but also to look at the influences and the
definition of copyright.
3. Copyright
3.1. A definition of copyright:
A copyright provides its holder the right to restrict unauthorized copying and reproduction of
content. A copyright is not meant to be a monopoly right such as patents (although it seems like it
is used more and more as a means of a monopoly right), but merely as a right to prevent others
from using your material. Copyright protects ones property so to speak. In fact copyright is a kind
of property, since it is attached to ones work. But what is exactly the definition of this property?
Lawrence Lessig8 is a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school’s
Center for Internet and Society. In his last book Free Culture Lawrence Lessig describes the shift
in the development of American culture along with the shift of the definition of copyright. He
argues that big corporations benefit from copyright in such a way that developing new content
based on old ideas is becoming virtually impossible. It’s this fact that I want to address in the
upcoming chapters.
3.2. History of copyright
Lessig describes the history of copyright and also shows the changes that it went through in the
past centuries. Although it is American law that Lessig mostly discusses, the definition of copyright
applies globally. I will summarize these changes below and point out the shift of the definition of
copyright over that period.
Copyright was first introduced in 1710 by the British Parliament. They named this act the “statute
of Anne”, and it stated that all published works would get a copyright term of fourteen years, and
all existing work would still have a term of twenty-one years under license left. After that, if the
author was alive he could renew the act, or the work would go into the public domain, free for use.
(cf. Feather, 1994)
8 Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, Lessig was the Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
He is the author of The Future of Ideas, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, and his most recent book
Free Culture. Lessig was also a fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, and a Professor at the
University of Chicago Law School. For a more complete resume, visit http://www.lessig.org
14
English Parliament introduced this limit on the copyright term to limit the power that the crown
and the booksellers (one of the most powerful copyright holders group in that period) possessed.
With introducing a limited term, the chances for competition were increased and the spread of
knowledge would be encouraged in stead of being held back.
So, in 1710, this act forbade others from reprinting a book, but stated nothing about the different
ways a work could be used. Anyone was free to make a play out of your work or translate it for
example. Copyright was attached only with registration, and only those people who wanted to
make money out of it would register. Therefore copying through publishing of noncommercial
work was also free.
In 1790, the American Congress adopted the first copyright law which was basically a copy of the
1710 copyright act of the British parliament. Then, starting from 1962 Congress then extended the
copyright terms eleven times. In 1998 Congress extended the term of existing and future
copyrights for the last time, and cancelled the renewal act. Congress decided that all works that
were under copyright at that time would be given the maximum term (which was ninety-five years
at the time) keeping all the copyrighted works out of the public domain.
It is however not only the extension of the copyright that has changed, but it is also the scope and
the reach of copyright that has changed its definition. Originally the copyright term could only be
given to publishers, and counted only for maps, charts, and books. It meant that you violated the
law if you copied copyrighted material without the owner’s permission. It did not state, as I have
mentioned before, that others were not allowed to make derivative works out of the copyrighted
material.
3.3. Copyright in the digital era
Today the copyright term applies to any work published with no need for registry. Since in this
age anyone is capable of copying material it not only applies to publishers but also users and
authors. The term covers practically any creative work, even music and computer programs. It
gives the owner not only full control over his content, but also over the content that is created out
of it; the derivative works.
The legislators that introduced copyright could impossibly have foreseen the rising of the Internet
and new information sharing technologies; therefore we should reconsider the existing terms of
copyright. The reach of copyright has expanded incredibly, and with that the power of the
copyright owner. This is also the reason large corporations benefit the most from copyright; they
can use their power to eliminate competition.
The reason that copyright was introduced has reached its opposite: copyright is now a
means to avoid competition.
What consequences does this have for independent musicians? To have complete control over
ones work does in fact have its negative aspects. Protecting the artists’ property might seem
important, but to expose the artists’ name and music is assumed to outweigh this issue, as I will
discuss in chapter II. With these new technologies it is now possible to distribute your music, but
under current copyright standards this is made legally impossible.
Another claim Lessig makes in his book, is that competition or the ability to build upon somebody
else’s work is vital for the development of a culture. He refers to a few examples, one of which he
likes to call ‘Walt Disney creativity’. He describes an example of the first popular Mickey Mouse
movie, which was build upon ideas and works of others. If current copyright law ruled back then,
the Walt Disney Company could have never flourished as it did. This is also a strong aspect for
musicians, since a lot of music is created by this principle. Remixing music and using samples of
earlier recorded music is a common phenomenon.
15
3.3.1. The effects of file-sharing
Peer-to-peer file-sharing has become a major issue in the last couple of years, since it is
extremely easy to use. Anyone is able to use these programs, and the amount of file-sharers has
grown dramatically because of this very aspect. Major lawsuits were filed against companies that
provided file-sharing programs like Napster and Kazaa. Record companies and musicians believe
that downloading their music result in major losses of income, since people buy less CD’s, so they
claim. To be able to understand the effects of peer-to-peer file-sharing it is important to look at its
consequences not only for independent musicians, but also for the commercial music industry.
According to Jonathan Zittrain, director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society9 with the
introduction of the radio the recording industry tried to ban music from being broadcasted,
claiming no one would buy records if they could hear music for free. When the video player came
with a recording button the movie industry claimed no one would go to the movie theaters
anymore or buy movies. The same goes for the audiotape cassettes (Zittrain, 2003)
These examples turned out to have no effect or even turned out to be a better promotion for the
products offered than imaginable at that time. In fact radio airplay has become one of the most
effective methods of promotion for musicians today. Then why is it so hard to stop and think that
Internet file-sharing might as well be a good way of promoting material?
Even artists themselves believe in exposure of their music to have a positive effect. Courtney
Love, lead singer of the rock group Hole10 speaks out positively about downloading music:
“Recording artists have essentially been giving their music away for free under the old
system, so new technology that exposes our music to a larger audience can only be a
good thing. […] There were a billion music downloads last year, but music sales are up.
Where's the evidence that downloads hurt business? Downloads are creating more
demand. “(Love, 2000, Salon.com)
Of course, the quality of content and the means of spreading them are getting cheaper, better
and faster. But, as I will show later on in this chapter, there seem to be a few leaks in the
arguments of the recording industries. Still, according to the law they have the right to treat online
content as “normal” content, and are therefore legitimate to sue any individual downloading
copyrighted material. According to a survey in The New York Times, there have been over 43
million violations in America alone. Nevertheless all these people are treated as criminals, and
however absurd it sounds some of these individuals have already been sued for downloading
content.
3.3.2. Did CD sales drop because of piracy?
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has started lawsuits against individuals
and businesses over this "sharing" of copyrighted material. Penalties for file-sharing include huge
fines and even imprisonment.
The RIAA wins these lawsuits. According to Lessig, partly because the law still treats copyright
material on the Internet as normal copyright material. And also partly because all the individuals
9 The Berkman Center for Internet & Society is a research program founded in 1996 by professor
Jonathan Zittrain and Charles Nesson to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and help pioneer its
development.
10 Courtney Love was also married to Kurt Cobain of the band Nirvana, and has starred in films like "The
People vs. Larry Flynt" and "Man on the Moon."
16
can simply not afford an expensive lawsuit. The RIAA then applies for a “settlement” which
basically states that these individuals must pay them whatever they have.
This story may seem a bit one sided. Is it really odd to see this sharing of copyright material to be
wrong? Many would agree that piracy is wrong, but with the rise of the Internet the amount of filesharing
has gained massive proportions. It is not as much the individuals but the copyright itself
that should be considered to be altered, as new technologies make sharing content inevitable. To
truly understand this it is not only important to take a closer look at the accusations made, but also
to consider other effects of file-sharing.
On the RIAA website there is a list of actions and statements about piracy. One of their
statements include:
“… Though it would appear that record companies are still making their money and that
artists are still getting rich, these impressions are mere fallacies. Each sale by a pirate
represents a lost legitimate sale, thereby depriving not only the record company of profits,
but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, and the list goes on.”
(http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp)
This accusation is build upon one single statement, which is that each pirate-sale would
represent a lost legitimate sale, CD’s in this case. It is easy to conclude that this is not the case
even without thorough investigation. The RIAA reported a decrease in CD sales in 2002 of 8.9
percent (from 882 million to 803 million). They also state that “computer users illegally download
more than 2.6 billion copyrighted files (mostly songs) every month”
(http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp). The RIAA estimates that 2.1 billion complete CDs
were downloaded for free in the same year.
This would indicate a decrease in CD sale of 100 percent, and not 8.9 percent as it states.
Downloading music has a different relation with CD sale, as a recent investigation by the Harvard
Business School also points out. A logical explanation would be that there also are other causes
that could account for this drop.
“The RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that
could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more than 20 percent
drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no doubt accounts for some of the
decrease in sales. Rising prices could account for at least some of the loss. […]
Competition from other forms of media could also account for some of the decline.”
(Lessig, 2004, p70)
Along with the CD sale drop of 8.9 percent the RIAA reported a fell 6.7 percent of its income.
With this statement they are suggesting an increase of CD prices at that period, which is also a
possible explanation for the decrease in CD sales.
Also consider the option that other distribution mediums are starting to rise in popularity:
“DVD-Audio sales remained stagnant in 2003, with a 0.08 percent increase in sales to
approximately 400,000, says the RIAA’s “2003 Yearend Statistics” report. Sales for DVDAudio
discs were first tracked in 2001 at about 300,000 units and increased to 400,000
units in 2002. Music industry executives point out that these numbers could be slightly on
the low side, because Soundscan allegedly has yet to track DVD-Audio sales on the
Internet, which is currently the best place for fans of the format to purchase discs.”
(Colliano, 2004, Audiorevolution.com)
A last argument I want to address is that the legal downloading services like iTunes are starting
to gain massive popularity. There have been a huge number of legitimate downloads, which also
indicates people start buying more and more music through the Internet. These are all plausible
explanations for the decrease of CD sales. In fact, considering the numbers, one could even
conclude that CD sale is doing fairly well.
17
3.3.3. A categorization of users of peer-to-peer file-sharing programs.
There is of course, some truth in the accusations made. There will be people that rather
download a CD than purchasing one at a store, just as there were people who rather recorded a
movie than renting one or go to the theater. According to Lessig however, there are to be
considered more types of users (cf. Lessig, 2004). The users just described are part of the first
group.
A second group uses the new technology to listen to music before purchasing it. Almost like
listening to a CD in a store, only without the queue. Lessig describes this use of the sharing
technology to be ideal for discovering new music, and also that the effect of this sharing could
increase the quantity of music purchased. It is this particular statement that makes it worthwhile
for independent musicians to share their music. Not only can individuals easily find their music,
but the amount of their music purchased could also increase.
The use of peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies can have a positive effect on the
discovery and purchasing of new music.
There are also people who use sharing networks to find content that is not available anywhere
else anymore and is still under copyright. It not being available also states that no loss is made out
of the downloading of the content. It just witnesses a re-emergence without harming the copyright
owner. One could also consider the fact that before the copyright renewal act was dismissed over
85 percent of copyright owners did not use the renewal act, as claimed by Lessig. They did not
mind getting their work out in the public domain, as will a majority after the dismissal of the
copyright renewal act.
The last group uses the sharing technologies to get content that is not copyrighted or that the
copyright owner wants to share for free.
It is only the last group of users that seem to benefit from the new sharing technologies without
actually harming the right of the copyright holders. It’s only the first group that abuses this new
technology without benefiting the copyright holders in some way. The first three groups are all
considered to be illegal, but the last three groups do not seem to inflict any harm on the copyright
holder.
Unfortunately it does not matter whether the sharing of copyrighted content is harmful or not.
Copyright remains a kind of property, and it is still illegal to take property without the permission of
the owner.
3.4. The future of copyright
“It didn't matter whether you did anything harmful--the offense was making it hard for
the administrators to check on you.” (Stallman, 1997, updated in 2002, Gnu.org)
In “the right to read” Richard Stallman describes a future where practically all content is
copyrighted and computerized. Even sharing each others content, like trading school books is
considered illegal. In this controlled world, the whole system seems to run on copyright, and
copyright is only accessible for those with enough money.
This story might seem a bit far fetched at first sight, but given a closer look it seems to fit
perfectly in the line of copyright development. Some of the laws and acts described in the story
are already proposed and even enacted in the United States and Europe. In some way these acts
might be justified, but it is already showing that some businesses use these laws to increase their
influence and power and avoid competition.
18
Stallman explains that one of these acts is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, enacted in the
United States in 1998, and that in 2001 similar restrictions on copyright were enacted by the
European Union.
3.4.1. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Briefly summarized the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), signed into law on the 28th of
October 1998 by US president Clinton, is ensuring the protection of digital copyrighted work at all
costs, granting copyright owners monopolies on their work. While this act was enabled to stop
copyright pirates from cracking copyrighted works, one must ask what advantages and
disadvantages this act has in an age where global communication is possible since the first time
in human history.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) claims that the DMCA gives intellectual property
holders the right to take away the fair use and related rights of the public to protect a commercial
"digital rights management" scheme (which I will discuss later on in this chapter). It also interferes
with the legitimate operation of peer-to-peer file-sharing systems. They point out that the DMCA
caused a few (unintended) side effects since it was enacted. It has instead been used to stifle a
wide array of legitimate activities, rather than to stop copyright piracy. By banning all acts of
circumvention and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA
grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights.
Fair use is a rather vague term in the copyright world, but can best be described as a use of a
copyrighted work that is treated as legitimate, because it may otherwise grant the copyright owner
too much power or may interfere with society in general. Whistling a tune while walking down the
street (public performance), cutting out a cartoon and posting it on your office door (public
display), photocopying a newspaper article for your files (reproduction) are all examples of “fair
use”.
Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation specialized in
intellectual property issues11, states that fair use doctrine operates to limit copyright in order to
preserve competition and spur innovation. As certain usage of a copyrighted work is allowed,
incentives arise to develop new technologies for the use of that work, or other works that derive
from it. Lohmann refers to the rapid innovation surrounding the VCR, and new technologies that
arose from the mp3 format (for example mp3 players, the Apple iPod). Of course this is not the
only way to come to the development of innovative technologies, but as Lohmann argues,
innovation generally proceeds most rapidly in an environment where copyright owners do not have
a veto over new technologies, and where free competition between technologists is the rule.
(cf. Lohmann, 2002)
11 For a more complete biography visit http://www.eff.org/homes/fred_von_lohmann.php
19
3.4.2. Digital Rights Management
Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems restrict the use of digital files. DRM technologies can
control file access (number of views, length of views), altering, sharing, copying, printing, and
saving. These technologies may be contained within the operating system, program software, or
in the actual hardware of a device.
Digital Rights Management lays restrictions on the uses of copyrighted digital content. For
example, it may very well be that Sony stereos only accept Sony CD’s12, that mp3 files can only be
played (on any or just one particular device) when paid for, and so on. Also DRM was meant to
protect copyright holders’ interests, but it is clearly posing a threat against the policy of fair use, as
it limits and even prohibits the copying and reproducing of copyrighted work. Not only does this
oppose the intention of copyright by pushing it to an extreme even beyond patents, but it also
infringes civil rights as it literally deprives people from their freedom to copy purchased material.
Some DRM technologies even demand personal identification for access to certain content,
which can eventually lead to a much smaller public that accesses that content. This, in turn, can
be devastating for new artists trying to reach a wide audience as the spreading of their content is
being halted. EPIC, a public interest research center in Washington, D.C.13 states that the use of
DRM technologies is being exploited and poses a threat to fair use, Open Source software, and
privacy:
“DRM systems can prevent the anonymous consumption of content [and] could lead to a
standard practice where content owners require all purchasers of media to identify
themselves. In other areas where individuals can borrow or purchase media, such as
video rental stores or libraries, statutory and ethical protections prevent the transfer of
personal information linked to the content acquired. Such protections do not exist in the
music and growing electronic book markets. In these unregulated areas, artists and
authors may have more difficulty in finding an audience for their work because of the
privacy risks associated with linking identity to content consumption.”
(http://www.epic.org/privacy/drm)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act can interfere with a user's ability to access content. It
creates civil and criminal penalties for the creation or distribution of DRM circumvention tools. As
a result, a user attempting to circumvent copyright protection, even for legitimate reasons, may
violate federal law.
Already, the music industry has begun deploying “copy-protected CDs” that promise to reduce
consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal copies of music they have purchased. Yet, as a
buyer of a copyrighted work, one should be able to get full use of out of what was paid for, and not
be hassled by restraints on the usage of that item.
12 in fact, Sony Music Entertainment signed an agreement with Audible Magic in June 2004 to use the
latter company's audio fingerprinting technology in a number of ways, including CD piracy prevention,
blockage of unauthorized Sony Music content on networks, and broadcast monitoring.
(http://www.audiblemagic.com/news&press/press_20040601.html)
13 EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect
privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.
20
4.Conclusion
Copyright in this digital era has become a means to ensure total control over ones work, with or
without consent of the copyright owner, in stead of supporting competition. Big corporations make
use of the current copyright standards to focus on piracy, and blame the downloading of
copyrighted music for the decrease of income in the music industry.
The use of peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies can have a positive effect on the discovery and
purchasing of new music, and is thus a positive development for independent musicians trying to
promote their music. However, due to current copyright standards this sharing is treated as illegal
and interferes with the distribution of the music offered.
By adopting an Open Content license the artist creates an opportunity for his work to be
distributed freely, where otherwise current copyright standards would interfere. These Open
Content licenses are not totally “open”, and also count as copyright licenses. They still protect the
owner’s rights over his work. The independent musician can use these Open Content licenses as
a promotional tool.
Copyright in the future might even be more controlled, and may cause less diversity and
competition in music. However, the movement of artists adopting Open Content licenses is also
growing. These Open Content licenses may become an even more popular alternative to
copyright in the future. Open Content is also an aspect rights organizations will have to take into
account in copyright issues.
21
Chapter II
THE COMMERCIAL CONTROL OF THE MUSIC INDUSTRY
22
5. Introduction
To really understand the difference Open Content could make for independent musicians it is
important to know about the structure and the environment of the music industry today. In this
chapter I will pay attention to its global structure and the role of record labels, record companies,
and independent versus commercial interests within the industry.
6. The music industry
6.1. A definition and a global structure
The music industry is the industry that creates and performs music, both in the form of
compositions and performances. According to the RIAA the music industry has become a $40
billion dollar a year business14. The music industry has become more and more complex in the
past decades thanks in part to new technologies and new laws. Not only singers and musicians,
but also producers, sound engineers, record promoters and distributors, record labels and so on
are part of this industry.
According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry15 (IFPI), the music industry
is owned for over 80 percent by a few major record labels, also often referred to as “the big five”.
These are: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Group, Warner Brothers
Music, and BMG Entertainment. This leaves less then 20 percent of market control for
independent record labels. In fact Sony and BMG recently merged, leaving only four major
corporations that dominate the music industry. Sony and BMG now control about 23 percent of
the world market. EMI and Warner are also in discussion about a fusion, which was also the case
in the year 2000, but was then blocked by the European commission to avoid a monopoly
position.
6.2. Record companies
Distributing and promoting the recorded music are the most important features of a record
company, and are of great importance for a band or musician. It is one thing to create a possibly
hit single or a nicely recorded song, but it is useless if it is not distributed in some way.
In an article on Salon.com Courtney Love, a famous musician and lead singer of the band “Hole”
accuses the record labels of committing piracy by exploiting artists. In this article she explains the
methods of record companies and how major label contracts work. In an example of a band –
major label contract it shows that after selling a million copies of the produced album, the record
company ends up with millions of dollars while the band itself is charged for expenses and is left
with almost nothing. The music that is recorded is also permanently owned by the record
company.
Recording studios and sound engineers are expensive. Commercial recordings are still being
done in professional recording studios in spite of the digital revolution. Some record companies
invest in musicians by also paying for the recording costs. According to M.W. Krasilovsky and S.
14 http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/default.asp
15 IFPI represents the recording industry worldwide with over 1450 members in 75 countries and affiliated
industry associations in 48 countries, including the RIAA. For more information visit http://www.ifpi.com
23
Shemel16, the authors of “this business of music”, recording costs depend on many factors
including the size of the project, and/or the complexity and level of perfection desired. For
relatively new signed artists recording costs can range from $80.000 to $150.000 for one album,
where established artists can sometimes spend $500.000 or more for an album. For independent
musicians these huge amounts of money are, of course, out of reach. (cf. Krasilovsky and
Shemel, 1995)
6.3. Record promotion
The large record companies do succeed in promoting their music in an effective way. The actual
promoting of the recorded music is also believed to be one of the most expensive features in the
commercial music industry. According to many experts and artists, the most effective method of
record promotion has proven to be commercial radio broadcasting:
“We'll still have to use radio and traditional CD distribution. Record stores aren't going
away any time soon and radio is still the most important part of record promotion.” (Love,
2000, Salon.com)
6.3.1. Payola
Record companies have to pay money for the broadcast of records on the radio. This is called
payola. According to Krasilovsky and Shemel payola started out in the 1960’s and has been a
federal criminal offense since then. Officially payola is equal to bribery, but it is not an offense if
the payment is disclosed to the station and the independent or other program producer (or
person) for whom the program is produced or supplied.
There are also independent FM radiostations, but they are hard to find and only reach a very
small audience compared to commercial radiostations. The importance of radio airplay becomes
clear when looking at the amount of money that circulates around radio broadcasting. The
Recording Artists Coalition (RAC), with members like Elton John, Eric Clapton, Billy Joel, Tom
Waits, Neil Diamond (and so on) follows the recording industry’s practices up close. On the issue
of payola it states:
“ ‘Payola’ is the practice by which record companies routinely pay millions of dollars in
independent promotion fees to consultants who in turn ensure radio play from radio
conglomerates. U.S. record labels pay out an estimated $100 million-plus a year to
influence airplay on stations owned by the nation's biggest broadcasters, making payola
the industry standard in the U.S.’s deregulated radio environment.”
(http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/payola.html)
Payola is regulated by law, and brings (unwanted) obligations to both radio stations and record
companies. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), there's nothing wrong
with a radio station's accepting money in exchange for playing a song. The payment only
becomes payola (and illegal) if the station fails to inform listeners about the cash changing hands.
16 M. William Krasilovsky is an attorney specializing in music and entertainment matters.
Sidney Shemel was formerly Vice President (Music) of MGM-UA, as well as Vice President and legal
counsel to United Artists Corporation’s record companies […]. (Krasilovsky, M.W. and Shemel,S. This
business of music, 1995)
Sidney Shemel and M. William Krasilovsky worked on “this business of music” for almost 40 years, and
have finished 9 editions of the book since, which is recognized as the definitive reference source in the
music industry. (http://www.thisbusinessofmusic.info/introduction.htm)
24
Thus legally, a radio station must mention the name of the artist and the name of the record
company for every song played.
6.3.2. Indies
Naturally, radio stations want to avoid this inconvenience, and record companies do not want to
pay as much money for the broadcasting of their music. Both parties often tend to look for a
different settlement. The RAC, for example, states that radio stations allegedly evade the laws
pertaining to payola by accepting payments in the form of gifts, vacation travel, and other luxuries.
Record labels sidestep payola laws by hiring independent record promoters to pay stations
"annual budgets."
Eric Boehlert, a senior writer at Salon.com17, confirms this statement. To avoid huge payola costs
and obligations the music industry invented a middleman, the independent record promoter, or
"indie." These indies18 stand in between the record companies and radio stations. As the costs of
indies are high but considerably lower than payola-costs, the record companies have turned to
(and relied on) indies for decades, granting them much power. Over the past few decades these
indies have virtually gained control over the commercial music industry. According to Eric Boehlert
record labels do not interfere with indies due to fear of failure, as mainstream commercial radio
remains the most effective way to sell the largest number of records.
“Indies are not the guys U2 or Destiny's Child thanked on Grammys night, but everyone
in the business, artists included, understands that the indies make or break careers. “
(Boehlert, 2001, Salon.com)
Indies have become a source of significant importance for artists, as it seems virtually impossible
to land significant FM commercial radio airplay today without them. Costs for each single shipped
to radio can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote, as an indie gets paid for every
time a song is played on the radio.19
For an independent musician these costs are unimaginable. With the current system there
is no chance his music will get played on commercial radio.
17 Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon. His topics include news, music and politics. Eric Boehlert has
been honored with the Deems Taylor Award for music journalism by the American Society of Composers,
Authors, and Publishers (http://archive.salon.com/about/staff/ )
18 indies are independent record promoters, and not independent labels which are sometimes also
referred to as ”indies”.
19 This indie system does not officially apply globally, but is believed to be enacted illegally in many
countries. With or without the indie, commercial radio appears unreachable for independent musicians.
25
6.4. Creativity in music
6.4.1. Music as a business
As only major labels are capable of effectively promote their music through “large” mediums like
radio and television, the smaller labels have to seek other ways of promoting their music. Many
people believe these majors are selling a formula, and stifle creativity in music. They promote
music that sells, and that is what the mass likes. Creativity creates uncertain sales therefore big
companies are not very fond of “innovative” music. It seems money has become more important
than the artist himself. The music industry, as a $40 billion dollar a year business has altered its
values.
Don Henley, singer and drummer with “the Eagles” and a founding member of the Recording
Artists' Coalition, explains that:
“[today the major corporations] do not recognize music as a vital art form and social
barometer as it is a way to make profit. [...] Labels no longer take risks by signing unique
and important new artists, nor do they become partners with artists in the creation and
promotion of the music.” (Henley, 2004, Washington Post)
Henley claims as record companies lose the relationship with their artists, artists lose the
connection with their music. The discontent about the commercial control of music industry is
expressed by many artists. This year the famous band KORN released a video called "Y'all Want
a Single" in which they clearly point out the amount of control the industry really has on artists.
The record label “Epic Records” wanted KORN to change the video, but instead they added that
message in text, among other facts of the music industry. The video claims:
"The music 'industry' releases 100 songs per week," "Only 4 songs are added to the
average radio 'playlist' each week" and "Hit songs on Top 40 are often repeated over 100
times per week." Then it asks, "Is that all you want to hear?" It goes on to point out "Two
radio conglomerates control 42% of listeners," "90% of all singles get to the 'hook' within
20 seconds" and "98 % of all #1 singles are less than 3 minutes and 30 seconds long"
— "Does this seem like a formula to you?" (Moss, 2004, MTV news)
6.4.2. Copyright and creativity
In a wired magazine article in 1993 Richard Stallman describes the abuse of copyright by record
companies. He talks about a law implemented by Congress that taxes each unit or recordable
disc sold to consumers. The tax funds are then distributed among various participants in the
music industry. As I described earlier the music industry is large and complex, which means only
a fraction of the amount will eventually end up with the musicians. According to Stallman the
record-company law divides the money according to record sales, which means only the big
superstars will see some of this money.
This is wrong even to the American Constitution. It states that the purpose of copyright is to
"promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Stallman describes a fundamental principle
in economics called the “law of diminishing returns”. This states that additional increments of
efforts or funds spent on a given goal eventually produce smaller and smaller increments
of results.
26
“When applied to the activities of musicians, the law of diminishing returns tells us that
successive increases in the income of the music industry will diminish the amount of
creativity in music.” (Stallman, 1993, Wired magazine)
So, if applied to the idea of copyright, there seems to be no apparent reason why copyright
owners should be allowed to extend their copyright beyond the point where it is “promoting
progress”. But exactly this, as I have pointed out already in chapter I, is what is happening.
The record industry is treating copyright as a natural right to restrict the public use of
information, and uses it to make money rather than promote the process of creating new
forms of music.
Courtney Love also confirms this in the article previously discussed:
“We suffer as a society and a culture when we don't pay the true value of goods and
services delivered. We create a lack of production. Less good music is recorded if we
remove the incentive to create it.” (Love, 2000, Salon.com)
6.5. Independent musicians
6.5.1. A definition
Independent musicians are musicians not signed with a record company, and do not share the
advantages a record company offers. However, independent musicians have other advantages
over signed artists. The freedom to create music without worrying about record contract
obligations is such an advantage.
6.5.2. Personal experiences
I have been a musician almost all of my life. I have played in over 17 bands, and of those a few
rather successful ones. One of these bands is “We vs. Death”, in which I’m still playing. We have
started out about three years ago and played in big venues20 and made several recordings and 2
releases (one seven inch record, and a split CD with a Belgian band). Our next release is also a
split album, this time with a band from Denmark.
We paid for the recording costs ourselves. The average of one recording day in a semiprofessional
studio lies around 390 euros, which is still a huge amount for us but a very small
amount for the average recording studio. With the new recordings we tried to record as much as
we can ourselves, but it quickly proved that the right equipment and expertise is required for a
professional result. But it also proved the possibility for independent musicians like us to record an
album with just limited costs.
The distribution for the first two releases was done by Zabel (www.zabel-muziek.nl), an
independent music platform that guided us since our second year of existence. Zabel is a
collection of bands and artists who share a common passion for music, and help each other with
performances and recordings. Zabel has gained some good connections with distributors and
independent labels since its foundation in 1997. It does not pay for recordings or sleeves, but it
20 Paradiso, Amsterdam; Tivoli, Utrecht: Vera, Groningen; and many others, including a few shows in
Belgium and France. For more information visit www.wevsdeath.nl
27
does buy a part of the records and use them for distribution. Zabel generates exposure for us by
distribution, reviews, shows, and more.
In the last three years in this band I have noticed that good connections within the music scene
and generating exposure are of extreme importance for a musician. Not only connections with
labels and distributors, but also connections with other bands that share a common influence or
passion are important. It generates a feeling of unity and strength to find that others are sharing
the same passion for music and are willing to help each other out. Labels like Zabel rely on this
principle and have done so successfully for many years. It is mostly through these labels and
connections that we ended up with more than forty shows last year.
As an independent band we are doing well, but we’re not making a lot of money on making
music. The main expenses cover buying new gear (strings for example) renting a van, renting a
practice room, recording new material, printing the CD’s, making the covers, and hosting our
website. Besides that a lot of CD’s are spent for promotional purposes (not only for live shows, but
also to get reviews by music magazines for instance).
6.5.3. Ignorance towards copyright
A common mistake I found made by most independent musicians, including ourselves, is to rely
on copyright as a tool for complete control over ones recorded music. The cause is mostly not
only the fear of losing control over ones precious recorded material, but also the ignorance on the
complicated subject of copyright. Many independent musicians therefore signed up with
Buma/Stemra21, without complete understanding of the copyright system. It is most of the time not
even profitable to sign up Buma/Stemra, as they explain themselves:
“Aansluiting bij Buma/Stemra is pas zinvol wanneer iemands muziek op een bepaalde
schaal wordt gebruikt. Een paar voorbeelden:
er zijn regelmatig live-uitvoeringen
er zijn regelmatig radio- en tv-uitzendingen via de nationale of commerciële zenders
een platenmaatschappij brengt het repertoire uit (geen producties in eigen beheer)”
(http://www.bumastemra.nl/InterXtranet/content/)
Buma/Stemra checks where and when the artist’s music is played, collects money from those
organizations or companies, and passes part of it back to the artist. The artist can pay a fee every
year to the Buma/Stemra for this service, but by doing so also passes on part of his copyrights to
the company. Buma/Stemra thus has a monopoly position in the Dutch music market, and also
gains control over the music exploitation rights of the artist. It does not however ensure the
distribution of the music. If the music does not get exposed the artist gets nothing in return, and
still loses his rights.
21 Artists who register their works at Buma/Stemra transfer the exploitation of their musical copyright to
this company (http://www.bumastemra.nl/InterXtranet/content/). for more information visit
http://www.bumastemra.nl
28
7.Music and the Internet
7.1. Commercial success
There have been lots of attempts and different strategies to sell or distribute music through the
Internet, both in the independent as in the commercial music business. Apple introduced iTunes
last year, which has become really popular. On July 5th 2004 apple.com announced that it
approached the sale of 100 million songs since its existence. As they announce on their website,
iTunes contains the largest legal download catalog available. There is an option to choose from
over 700,000 tracks from the major labels and more than 450 independents for 99 cents per song.
This huge amount of downloads suggests that many people are willing to pay for legal
downloading of music. Apple’s iTunes works with DRM controlled music (see chapter I),
something which also recently stirred up the debate on DRM.
But the launch of iTunes in Europe however did not measure up to the American service. In a
recent article in Wired magazine it shows that Apples iTunes have many competitors on the
European music market that all work with independent artists, like the Association of Independent
Music, which represents 820 U.K. labels. (cf. Roberts, 2004) As a result the European iTunes
version only offers a few dozen independent labels where America’s iTunes offers 450. The
number of iTunes downloads in Europe is still rather high but does not measure up to the average
number of downloads n America. This indicates that there is indeed a large audience that wants
to discover new music. ITunes in Europe so far has failed to fill that demand, and mainly depends
on the music offered by the major labels.
There are also others besides iTunes in the commercial music industry that offered digital music
for sale online, whether in the shape of ringtones, mp3s, or other. Besides the major companies
also independent musicians were able to offer their music online, whether for free or not. Why is it
then, that independent musicians have not already conquered the Internet as a distribution
medium?
According to Janelle Brown22, a senior writer at Salon.com, the revolution of the music industry
has failed because the Big Five record labels have maneuvered the digital distribution industry
into their control. One of the ways these corporations stay in control is to sell out innovative
independent companies by business savvy, legal warfare or simple cartel power.
“Not only Napster or MP3.com have been taken over this way, but even independent
companies eMusic, Scour, IUMA, SonicNet, Musicbank, CDNow have been taken over,
gone bankrupt or been forced to lay off virtually their entire staffs.” (Brown, 2001
Salon.com)
This statement is also confirmed by Michael Pfahl23, a management and marketing lecturer at
Bangkok University. He states that no one suffers more from the control of the digital music
distribution than independent musicians. He addresses the shift in the recording industry since the
Internet, for the better sake of independent musicians. Where artistic expression is stagnated in
the music industry (by maintaining the commercial formula to sell more music) the Internet may
bring about a return to the independent musician as the center of the music world. But in order for
them to succeed in this, they have search for a way to get around the monopoly position of the
major record companies first.
22 Janelle brown spent four years as a senior writer at Salon, covering subjects from Internet culture to
the war on drugs, pop culture to style, public policy issues and the mp3 movement. She was cited as one
of the most influential "Net-generation" writers to explore the impact technology is having on our lives,
and was named one of the Top 25 Women on the Web in 1998. For more information visit
http://www.janellebrown.com
23 Michael Pfahl has a BBA from Ohio University (International Business, Marketing, and Sales) and an
MBA from the University of Toledo (Management).
29
“Music on traditional formats like compact discs will never completely disappear, and with
it an entire production and promotion industry. For independent musicians to achieve any
form of success in a medium like the Internet, they will need to take radical steps […].
Suppose independent musicians do something completely unexpected such as providing
music for free on the Internet. This idea is the complete opposite of most schemes today
considering Internet distribution of music; it may be the only way for independent
musicians to take control and ultimately achieve success.” (Pfahl, 2001,
Firstmonday.com)
7.2. Successful independent music websites
Independent musicians have a hard time exposing their music, since the industry is mostly
controlled by large corporations. Offering their music for free on the Internet has already proven to
work as a promotional tool by Magnatune. Some other online services also managed to find a way
around the commercial control of the few big corporations, a few of which have gained a strong
market position on the Internet. One of the most successful independent music selling sites is
CDbaby.com, which started in March 1998. They are the largest seller of independent CDs on the
web, as they state themselves on their website. The site functions as a record store and basically
takes over the role of a record company, as they only offer CD’s that directly come form musicians
and not distributors. This way the artists can earn more money from their CD’s without the need
for a distributor, since CDbaby generates exposure. Since the start of CDbaby it has sold
1,055,857 CDs to customers, paid $8,374,236.98 to artists, and has 66,229 artists that offer their
CDs24. Cdbaby on itself shows a whole new marketing system for artists to sell their CDs without
the need of a record company.
Another successful website for independent musicians is GarageBand.com. It is a place where
new artists can upload music and be discovered. The site is also in the process of transferring
songs from the old MP3.com archive into GarageBand.com, which will bring its library up to
300,000 bands with 1.8 million songs.
7.2.1. Problems within independent music websites
According to these numbers there is a huge amount of music offered by independent musicians.
This has also led to many discontents within the commercial music industry, but also among the
independent musicians themselves. There are many genres within music, and it is hard to find
new music that suits ones taste, even through music community websites. John Buckman states
it has become hard to find good music, and blames the lack of filtering out the less qualitative
music from these music community websites:
“most music sites have little quality control, hence it's very difficult to browse for good
music. MP3.com, garageband.com, ampcast.com (and many other sites) all charge the
artist to join, and accept anybody who pays the fees.” (Buckman, 2003, Magnatune.com)
As a solution to this problem he suggests to aggregate enough music on one website so that it
becomes a destination. Another solution might be to offer high quality Internet radio stations in
specific niches where people have the option to explicitly specify what genres they enjoy. Others
believe it is not as such the quality control that matters, but rather advanced searching
technologies and filtering.
24 for more information visit http://www.cdbaby.com
30
“But in a world of total connectivity, record companies lose […] control. With unlimited bin
space and intelligent search engines, fans will have no trouble finding the music they
know they want. They have to know they want it, and that needs to be a marketing
business that takes a fee.” (Love, 2001, Salon.com)
7.3. Internet radio
Regarding the importance of exposure for artists, it is also important to view the thriving
technologies around the Internet that ensure this exposure. Internet radio (also referred to as
“webcasting”) is an alternative to FM radio, and may become the ultimate tool for independent
musicians to expose their music. Internet radio has a strong reception, is easy to access, and can
make use of a huge variety of music offered while granting the listener more control over the
music than ever before. However, the issue of payola and copyright is still an obstacle for these
technologies to thrive since huge amounts of money are being charged for broadcasting
copyrighted material though the Internet.
Katie Dean, who covers the digital entertainment beat for Wired News since 199925, refers to
webcasting as ”the best thing to happen to radio since FM.” She is also a bit skeptic on the issue
of webcasting, as she believes the music industry itself will not tolerate the service. Again, this is
all about control of the digital music platform.
“Of course, the music industry, with help from allies in Congress, is doing its damnedest
to shoot itself in the foot and kill the medium before it takes off. They're extorting fees
from webcasters for each song they play to each user. So for now, most of the best
services are offered by companies with vast financial resources.” (Dean, 2004, Wired
Magazine)
As she concludes in her article the new medium still has hurdles to overcome, but analysts
predict music fans will eventually stream their music to a variety of wireless devices allowing them
to take the music anywhere.
In a rapport called “the endless ether” presented by technology magazine “de Ingenieur”,
broadband and wireless Internet are predicted to outgrow regular broadcasting within 5 years.
Most Dutch national broadcasters and politics are also rather skeptic about this issue and present
problems like the quality of programs, the speed and cost of broadband, copyright issues, and
technical problems.
7.4. Personalisation
Another new technology that emerged is generally referred to as “personalization”, and is also
applied to webcasting. In the past year I have witnessed an explosion of new personalizing
technologies. Personalization in webcasting can best be described as a technology that
recommends new songs that match ones personal taste. In some programs this is “calculated” by
comparing other users’ interests, and search for similarities. Sometimes this is referred to as an
“affinity mechanism26”. The strength in these technologies lies in both the comparison of
musical interests to find new music as well as in finding other people with similar
interests. This aspect can also be traced back to real life situations where people recommend
25 Her topics include digital music and media services, copyright law, digital rights management and the
clashes between the entertainment industry and consumers over file-sharing.
26 The affinity mechanism started out with Amazon.com, and compares users’ interests. In musical tastes
this has also been interpreted with programs like Audioscrobbler (http://www.audioscrobbler.com).
31
each other on new finds, and where people influence each other. This can also be seen as
sharing of content but is also not similar to stealing or piracy. I will discuss Last.fm, a website who
uses this technology of recommendation, in chapter IV.
According to Janelle Brown these personalizing technologies for webcasting are emerging in a
fast rate and are quite accurate when it comes to matching musical tastes. The accurate filtering
of music through recommendation based on similar interests is an interesting development for
independent musicians, as it increases their chances to be discovered through the Internet.
Janelle Brown also addresses the merging of this personalization technology with peer-to-peer
file-sharing technologies.
“A peer-to-peer file-sharing system would be the perfect place to test-drive the new bands
that the recommendation system had told you about. There's no question that this is
where the personalization technology companies are headed. Both Mubu.com and Media
Unbound are packaging themselves as technology solutions for Web sites, file-swapping
services and radio stations that are hoping to better target consumers.” (Brown, 2001,
Salon.com)
The concept of personalization in combination with a peer-to-peer file-sharing system might be
ideal for independent musicians. Peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies allow an extremely broad
public to search for new music, and personalization can effectively narrow down the search
results. It also allows independent music to be compared with “commercial music”. This might
prove to be a very strong aspect of this technology, as it increases the chances for exposure for
independent music. People who listen to commercial music a lot can be exposed to independent
music that shows some similarities. Since the music industry is still controlled by a few major
corporations for over 80 percent and regular radio promotion is too expensive for independent
musicians, it is safe to assume a majority matches this profile.
8.conclusion
The music industry has become a complex and expensive business that is mostly controlled by a
few large corporations. As concluded in chapter I, copyright has become a means to ensure total
control over ones work and to avoid competition. These corporations are also treating copyright as
a natural right to restrict the public use of information, and use it to make money rather than
promote the process of creating new forms of music. This in turn leads to discontent among
artists. However, it is also the artist that is sometimes ignorant about the issue of copyright, or is
reluctant to do without a record company.
Traditional forms of promotion like radio promotion have become a big business on itself, since it
has proven to be successful. It has become a business so expensive that only large corporations
are able to use it as a form of promotion. Independent musicians must look for other ways of
promotion for their music.
The Internet may very well be a solution for this problem as it is easily accessible, widely used,
and has many features. Webcasting may prove to be an effective alternative for traditional radio in
the future. Personalization of this medium is an important step to finding new music, as comparing
musical styles and tastes can introduce new artists to people and can get people with similar
musical interests in contact with each other.
Due to the huge amount of music offered on the Internet though, it has become hard to find good
music. Copyright issues make the use of this Internet radio currently limited.
32
Chapter III
INTERNET AND NETWORK STRUCTURES
33
9.Introduction
The Internet may seem to be a solution for independent musicians to offer and expose their
music in the future. However, the decentralization of many Internet applications (like peer-to-peer
file-sharing) in combination with the huge amount of music offered is believed to have worked to
the disadvantage of independent musicians. Peer-to-peer file-sharing systems and new
technologies like the affinity mechanism may prove to be a solution, but are insufficient at the
moment.
Felix Stalder, director of Openflows27, also recognizes the advantage for musicians of using peerto-
peer networks.
“What does an artist really need a label for? Distributing CDs and collecting money. And
for this, the bigger is the better. Small labels would like to do that, but there are structural
reasons that favor economies of scale, not the least, because you need a large apparatus
to distribute stuff and collect money. The p2p networks are great at doing the first, but
lousy at doing the latter. […] If you can wrestle control over the other half also away from
the majors, their lease on life as expired for good. Then we will have a situation where
smaller labels will prosper because they can concentrate on doing what they do best --
support talent -- while not being structurally disadvantaged when it comes to
compensating talent. In this perspective, a network architecture that has top-down
aspects can have a decentralizing effect.” (Stalder, 2004, nettime mailinglist)
While it remains arguable whether compensation is a main issue (as I argued, exposure can be
considered to be more important for independent musicians), Stalder also addresses the
importance of distribution. So, how can the distribution of music through the Internet be most
effective? To answer this question it is important to research the need for networks, the
advantages of the Internet and the prerequisites for an effective virtual network. In this chapter I
will research organizational structures for virtual communities, the different aspects of
decentralization and centralization, and openness within networks.
10.Networks
10.1. A definition
Networks are a wide variety of systems of interconnected components, or nodes. There are many
forms of networks, and they have been a pool of inspiration for researchers and developers. The
most important and interesting types of networks related to this thesis are social networks28 and
organizational networks, since it is important to know how networks are organized and how
effective organization relates to social behavior.
27 Felix Stalder is a researcher and pragmatist working on the intersection of new media, politics and
culture. Founded in 2000 by Jesse Hirsh and Felix Stalder, Openflows is a network of people who create
platforms and projects that adhere to the notion of Open Source intelligence”.
(http://www.openflows.org/index.pl?section=about) For a more complete biography on Felix Stalder visit
http://felix.openflows.org
28 A social network consists of any group of people connected through various social familiarities
ranging from casual acquaintance to close familial bonds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network)
34
10.2. Advantages of networks
Manuel Castells29 is a Professor of Sociology and Professor of City and Regional Planning at the
University of California, Berkeley, and recognizes the advantages of networks as an
organizational tool because of their flexibility and adaptability.
“Networks have extraordinary advantages as organizing tools because of their inherent
flexibility and adaptability, critical features to survive and prosper in a fast-changing
environment. This is why networks are proliferating in all domains of the economy and
society, outcompeting and outperforming vertically organized corporations and centralized
bureaucracies” (Castells, 2001, p.1)
The Internet is such a fast-changing environment. Therefore networks should be free to develop
themselves and prove their advantages over other forms of organization. Castells also claims that
in most of human history, decentralized networks have been outperformed by organizations with a
centralized hierarchy and defined goals. This was mainly due to the difficulty of coordinating
functions and tasks within a network. But with the introduction of new communication
technologies, and especially the Internet, decentralized networks are free to fully develop
themselves and use their flexibility and adaptation skills. But the problem here remains the
organization of such a network. This statement does not solve the question whether an
organization or hierarchy is required or not or even wanted.
10.3. Centralization and Decentralization
Castells claims that decentralized networks outperform organizations with a centralized hierarchy
and defined goals, due to new communication technologies. But how can a decentralized network
then be more effective by using new technologies, like peer-to-peer file-sharing? To answer this
question it is important to research the flows of communication within a social network, and to
define its strong and its weak points. To clarify this aspect researchers have developed the
concept of social network analysis. This involves the mapping and measuring of the otherwise
invisible relationships between people, providing an overview of a virtual organizational structure.
Valdis Krebs, a management consultant30 and David Krackhardt, a leading researcher in social
networks, measure the distinction in centralization of a network structure referred to as the “Kite
Network” (see Illustration 5). They distinct three important centrality measures: Degrees,
Betweenness, and Closeness.
· Degrees. Social network researchers measure network activity for a node by using the
concept of degrees; the number of direct connections a node has. Susan is a "connector"
with 6 direct links to other nodes.
· Betweenness. A node with a high level of betweenness has great influence over what
flows in the network. Claudia has only 3 connections but holds a powerful position as the
sole "boundary spanner" between different groups.
29 Manuel Castells is author of ‘The Rise of the Network Society“, “The Power of Identity “, “End of
Millennium” and “the Internet galaxy” (among others). For a more complete biography visit
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/castells/
30 Valdis has a graduate degree in Organizational Behavior/Human Resources and has studied applied
Artificial Intelligence. He has consulted and researched organizational networks since 1988. He is also the
developer of InFlow, a software based, organization network analysis methodology that maps and
measures knowledge exchange. For more information visit http://www.orgnet.com/VKbio.html
35
· Closeness. Nodes with the highest level of closeness can access all the nodes in the
network more quickly than anyone else. Sarah and Steven have the shortest paths to all
others. They have an excellent view of what's going on.
Illustration 5: a kite network model.
According to Krebs, the relationship between the centralities of all nodes can reveal much about
the overall network structure. A very centralized network is dominated by one or a few very central
nodes. If these nodes are removed or damaged, the network quickly fragments into unconnected
sub-networks. A highly central node can become a single point of failure. A network centralized
around a well connected hub can fail abruptly if that hub is disabled or removed. In the above
example, “Claudia” is the single point of failure in the network structure.
Thus, a decentralized network has no single points of failure. Many nodes or links can fail
while allowing the remaining nodes to still reach each other over other network paths. A
decentralized network like the Internet has many of these nodes. Castells refers to these nodes
as being “weak ties” within a network, which I will discuss later on in this chapter.
10.4. Motivation for participation
10.4.1. People and content
Peter Morville31, president of Semantic Studios (an information architecture and strategy
consultancy) believes that relationships, trust and serendipity play key roles in the understanding
of social networks.
To understand people’s motivation to share and how they run through the process of learning is
essential for the interaction design of a virtual community. According to Morville, the truth lies
within the social fabric that connects people to people and people to content.
31 Peter Morville holds an advanced degree in library and information science from the University of
Michigan, and served clients such as AT&T, Barron's, Ernst & Young, HP, IBM, L.L.Bean, Microsoft, Procter
& Gamble, Vanguard and the Weather Channel. He is co-author of the best-selling book on information
architecture design, (Information Architecture for the World Wide Web) For more information visit
http://argus-acia.com/bios/morville.html
36
Illustration 6: people-content model
“Success in the former requires we know what other people know and who other people
know. Success in the latter demands good search, navigation and content management
systems. […] The concepts of network analysis and socially translucent systems are
[widely applicable]. In fact, these concepts are critical to the creation of truly useful
knowledge economies and online communities.” (Morville, 2002, Semanticstudios.com)
So, Morville considers connections with other individuals, easy navigation and good
search options to be essential for an effective social network. This is comparable with the
viewings of Janelle Brown on webcasting and personalization. By being influenced by other
people’s preferences you literally use people to find content. Morville also considers this aspect to
be critical for useful online communities.
It is important to look at the difference of interpretation of this model between different social
groupings, since there could be fundamental differences in the behavior of other forms of network
structures. Online communities that compose Open Source software can both be useful and
successful. They can benefit from their flexibility and openness, as I will show later on in this
chapter.
10.4.2. Motivation in developing Open Source software.
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, who is a founding international and managing editor of First Monday, a
widely read peer-reviewed journal that covers Internet economics, law and technology,32 studied
the motivations behind the development of free software. He refers to this free software as
FLOSS, standing for ‘Free as in Libre Open Source Software’. In doing this he makes a distinction
between free of use and free of cost, and indicates that Open Source software can function as a
marketing tool and is not meant to stagnate business.
Ghosh points out that the most important reason for participation within the Open Source
software community is to get in contact with others, and not out of idealism. This shows
similarities with the statement of Peter Morville that “connections with other individuals” is
important for an effective (social) network. This seems to be an obvious statement, but it does
point out the main motivation for participation in a social network. People usually start participating
out of a social choice, and most of the time further political interests or ideals emerge later on.
Other reasons for contribution range from learning new skills, earning a community’s respect and
using the ability to work on magnificent projects. All of this can (and often does) results in a
situation where people tend to find themselves being selfish as they take a lot from the
community, explains Ghosh. Manuel Castells also recognizes this gift-culture in the Open Source
software communities:
32 for a more complete biography visit http://orbiten.org/rishab.html
37
“Prestige, reputation and social esteem are linked to the relevance of the gift to the
community. So, it is not only the expected return for generosity, but the immediate
gratification of displaying to everybody the hacker’s ingenuity.” (Castells, 2001, p.47)
So the gift a hacker delivers to the community results in immediate gratification, and the object
delivered has a value as well. In this hacker-culture, a person achieves status within a community
by producing a technically advanced product which can be used and modified by others. Castells
refers to this as a techno-meritocratic culture, since advancement is based on individual ability or
achievement. Of course, the hacker culture is not a representative for all Internet usage, but it
uses an open organizational model that seems to work and can in some degree be deployed in
other virtual communities. It can for example also be compared with the peer-to-peer file-sharing
culture: if one would only download files without sharing them it might be seen as a social barrier.
The gift-culture could apply to a wider audience than just the Open Source community.
10.5. Physical and virtual networks
As I pointed out earlier record companies (and also independent musicians) rely on networks, as
well as social as organizational, to distribute their music. Record companies use indies to
generate exposure through the radio (see chapter II). Indies are thus a strong link in the network,
and may even be seen as a single point of failure. This is a form of a physical network. But if an
independent musician wants to be able to communicate and promote his music through the
Internet he operates from within a virtual network. Do virtual and physical networks share the
same features and capabilities?
Castells implicates that, in stead of the extremes (the Internet as source of renewed shapes of
communities, or source of isolation and alienation from the real world) the Internet does not have
a direct influence on people’s daily life patterns. It is also argued that virtual networks do not
necessarily replace social networks, but are merely supportive towards social interaction. Castells
refers to this aspect as “the Social Reality of the Internet’s Virtuality”, and points out that the
Internet is largely used to keep in touch with friends and family in real life. E-mail is used for this
purpose (among work purposes and specific tasks), and is believed to represent over 85 percent
of all Internet usage. Physical and virtual networks thus have a connection, but do have distinctive
features.
The scale and dynamics of networks for example are considered to be different online than in
real life. The high mortality rate of on-line friendships is generally seen as a negative aspect of
virtual communication. A key distinction that Castells finds to be in the analysis of sociability is that
between weak ties and strong ties:
“The Net is particularly suited to the development of multiple weak ties. Weak ties are
useful in providing information and opening up opportunities at a low cost. The advantage
of the Net is that it allows the forging of weak ties with strangers, in an egalitarian pattern
of interaction where social characteristics are less influential in framing, or even blocking,
communication.” (Castells, 2000, p.388)
As strong ties represent more intimate relationships, weak ties represent less formal relations.
Both off- and on-line these weak ties make it easier to link people with different social
characteristics, as they are not restrained by their own socially defined borders. This logically
increases the chances of connecting to a larger number of individuals then in real life, allowing a
virtual network to be more effective in seeking content than a physical network.
So, as the Internet allows easier forging of weak ties than in real life, it has a really strong
advantage in gaining information or seeking content. Regarding the model Peter Morville
suggests that people use people to find content, these weak ties can be considered critical for a
successful organizational model within a (virtual) network.
38
The importance of the Internet regarding network connections also shows when looking at the
growing amount of Internet users over the past few years. According to Internetworldstats.com the
amount of Internet users was close to 790 million at the end of May, 2004. Being excluded from a
network this huge, diverse and with this much influence can be seen as damaging for any
business or individual, especially since global core economical, political and social activities are
being structured by and around it.
11.Communities
11.1. A definition
Whereas a network can be explained as a set of interconnected nodes, a community is best
described as a gathering of people who live in a particular place or region which usually are linked
by similar interests. Professor Barry Wellman33, who studies networks (community,
communication, computer, and social), describes communities as networks of interpersonal ties
that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging, and social identity. (Wellman,
2001)
11.1.1. The Digital City
One of the first successful online virtual community projects was called ‘the Digital City (DDS),
which was founded in 1993 in Amsterdam. According to Geert Lovink34, a media theorist, net critic
and activist, the Amsterdam Digital city was one of Europe’s best-known independent community
Internet projects, with free email, free dial-up access, web space, and wherein many online
communities formed. The project existed for over 8 years, during which it adapted frequently to its
growth and change of the Internet and new technologies. Founders of Xs4all, a Dutch Internet
provider, Felipe Rodriquez35 and Rop Gronggrijp got involved about the discussion of DDS at an
early stage. The Digital City started as a temporary local experiment. It was founded as a cultural
organization, and not as a business. But within 5 years the experiment had evolved into a fully
professionalized technology and business driven organization. According to Lovink, the prime
cause of its success was the freedom it granted to its users from the very beginning. DDS looked
at a balance whereby subcultures grew optimally without politics being discarded altogether. For
this to work though, the community system had to be independent.
Hapee de Groot, who worked at DDS as a Content Manager in 1997-1999, criticizes the structure
that DDS had gained over the years. The project started with an open structure, as a collective.
As the project grew an internal closed structure was formed with one decision making body as the
33 Prof. Wellman is the Chair-Elect of the Community and Information Technologies section of the
American Sociological Association. His research examines virtual community, the virtual workplace, social
support, community, kinship, friendship, and social network theory and methods. For a more complete
biography visit http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/vita/index.html
34 Geert Lovink studied political science on the University of Amsterdam (MA) and holds a PhD at
University of Melbourne. Since January 2003 he is a postdoc fellow at University of Queensland
(Brisbane). For a more complete biography visit http://laudanum.net/geert/biography.shtml
35 Felipe Rodriquez is co-founder, majority shareholder and former managing director of Dutch Internet
provider XS4ALL, founder and former chair of the Dutch association of Internet Providers NLIP, cofounder
of the Amsterdam Digital City network and co-founder of the first hotline against child
pornography on the Internet. He is currently a board member of Electronic Frontiers Australia. For a more
complete biography visit http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg98/Panelists/rodriguez.html
39
head of the organization. According to Hapee an internal structure concerning the division of labor
may have been inevitable, but it could have worked perfectly in combination with an open
communication which it lacked at the end. Felipe Rodriquez also recognized the need for
leadership within a community:
“today the Freenet model wouldn’t work, because Internet access and services have
become a commodity, available to almost anyone in the western world. In order to
maintain a community an organization needs leadership that knows how to communicate
online, how to resolve conflict and how to create a pleasant environment. (Rodriguez in
Lovink, 2002)
11.1.2. The Open Source software community
A working open organizational model can be found in Open Source software development
communities. Eric S. Raymond, commonly known as the resident anthropologist and roving
ambassador of the open-source community, wrote the movement's manifesto in The Cathedral
and the Bazaar36 in which he discusses about the difference between two types of Open Source
project development. The “cathedral” style of software development is done in isolation, with only
a few talented individuals working on one project. In the start Raymond believed this was the only
way to successfully develop delicate software (like operating systems), but was convinced
otherwise after carrying out an Open Source project in the bazaar style. This “bazaar” style of
development meant that the programmed software would be released to the public (usually a
community) early and often and to delegate as much as possible. As the development of the
operating system Linux has proven, the bazaar style can be really successful and much stronger
and more effective then the cathedral style if carried out correctly. Eric Raymond came to the
conclusion that the bazaar style of developing an Open Source project needed a few
preconditions in order to be successful.
Originating a project in bazaar style would be virtually impossible, so a base is required from
which others can start developing. It is essential that there is a coordinator who guides the project.
He must be able to recognize good design ideas from others, rather then being an excellent
designer himself. A possible more important skill is for a coordinator to have good communication
skills. In building a community one must be able to attract and interest people as well as
complementing them on the work delivered. The personality you project towards the community
matters too, as Raymond agrees. A number of ‘rules’ are referred to in “the Cathedral and the
Bazaar”. Although these rules are mostly ideological, it is proven that they apply in a bazaar style
community.
Raymond states it is essential to have a coordinator and to maintain a level of openness
within a network or community.
This statement reflects on the ones made by Felipe Rodriquez and Hapee de Groot, and also
points out the need for leadership and guidance within an organizational structure. An important
factor in both examples is the freedom and openness used in communication and organization.
As clear communication combined with an open organizational structure has proven to work well,
the question remains what level of openness within networks ensures better communication
between different individuals or “nodes”.
36 Eric S. Raymond is also the editor of The New Hacker's Dictionary and has been a Unix developer since
1982. The writings of Eric S. Raymond inspired a lot of developers, including the developers of the
browser Netscape. They released their source-code in 1998 as one of the first large real-world tests of
the bazaar model in the commercial world. Today it resulted in several browsers and utilities, said by
many to be more stable and reliable than programs like Internet Explorer. A more complete resume of
Eric S. Raymond can be found at http://www.catb.org/~esr/resume.html
40
11.2. Openness and organization
11.2.1. The importance of openness
With the rise of the Free Software Foundation and new technologies that demand a certain
amount of openness (like wiki or peer-to-peer networks) also arose the idea for openness as an
organizing principle. However, the concept of openness is not always interpreted and enacted in
the same manner within a network structure. Felix Stalder identifies the key elements for an open
organizational model as:
“[…] communal management and open access to the informational resources for
production, openness to contributions from a diverse range of users/producers, flat
hierarchies, and a fluid organisational structure.” (Stalder, 2003, Openflows.org)
Castells also recognizes the importance of openness within a network, and points this out by
using the example of the creation of the Internet. He states that the Internet became what it is
today because of its openness. As it started out as a military experiment in 1969 called ARPANET
it grew larger, ended up in the public domain, and added new protocols and source code along
the way (like the TCP/IP protocol for packet network intercommunication, which is still used
today). It is also the openness of the Internet that allowed its globalization, as it was easier to
agree on a common international standard.
So is it safe to conclude that openness within a network has a lot of advantages compared to a
closed organizational structure? It is until certain extend, since these past examples show that
open networks produce and communicate more quickly than ‘closed’ organizational structures,
which allows them to adapt more quickly.
11.2.2. The danger of openness
However, openness in a social structure can also raise a large expectation with its members as it
can be seen as a key for change. This can lead to extreme visions of the effect of openness. It is
therefore in many cases understood within many social movements that besides openness being
a central element in its organization it would also have a positive effect on any part of the
organizational structure, since openness always can only have a positive effect. I find this to be a
rather naïve view of an organizing principle. This idea of networked openness is mostly referred to
as network horizontality and basically rejects organizational models based on representation,
verticality and hierarchy.
Jamie King, an editor at MUTE Magazine, and a founding member of the General Intelligence
Group37 researched the possibility of using openness as an organizational model in other forms of
social structures, as well as in political context as in cultural groupings. He compares five key
areas of correspondence within the social movement with the open organization of Open Source
software (or FLOSS), based on his personal experiences in social organizations. These five key
areas (meetings and discussions, decision-making, documentation, demonstrations, and actions)
do show some similarities with the FLOSS model of openness, but are not always implemented
as such. According to King even, these areas seem to be extremely compromised when carefully
examined.
37 JJ King is also a Research Fellow at the University of Minnesota's Design Institute, and speaks and
writes regularly on the subjects of information politics and intellectual property. The General Intelligence
Group is a distributed workgroup operating at the research and activism layers, and can be found at
http://gig.openmute.org
41
He also found that the absence of decision-making bodies can eventually lead to a concealment
of control of the organization per se. This in turn leads to confusion about decision-making among
members of the organization. In many cases, according to King, this leads to the point where just
small amounts of individuals gain control over the decision-making, but do not necessarily
constitute themselves out of “will-to-power”. Within political networks these individuals are referred
to as “supernodes”, as they control more than they are supposed to. In social networks however
these people obtain their status by commitment, charisma or other qualities, but their level of
control is comparable with those of the ”supernodes”. Jamie King refers to this sort of control as
“soft-control” by “crypto-hierarchies”, because this control is not open to other members of the
organization. (cf. King, 2004)
So ironically, by rejecting any form of organizational structure based on hierarchy and “pushing”
openness, a new ‘secret‘ organizational structure can arise from within a social movement that
controls its actions while maintaining the illusion of openness. Clearly, in any organization (virtual
or physical) this has to be avoided at all cost.
Maintaining an open organizational structure within a network is thus possible, but to
avoid misuse of openness, there has to be a hierarchy with clearly defined decision
making bodies.
12.Conclusion
Networks like the Internet can be extremely effective and are even critical for a virtual music
community. A decentralized network is more effective for distribution than a centralized network
since has no single points of failure and allows more connections. The Internet allows easier
forging of weak ties than in real life; it thus has a really strong advantage in gaining information or
seeking content, as new connections are more easily made than in real life. Connections with
other individuals combined with good search options allow people to successfully find content. It is
also this content that is believed to strengthen a social network. Thus, a virtual community can
have a positive effect on the distribution and discovery of music.
Openness and clear communication is important within a virtual community. However, this
community cannot rely on a totally horizontal structure. Maintaining an open organizational
structure within a network is possible, but to avoid misuse of openness, there has to be a
hierarchy with clearly defined decision making bodies. These decision making bodies should
respect and maintain this openness, and have to have good communication skills.
42
Chapter IV
CASE STUDIES
43
13.Introduction
So far the open organizational model applied to a few communities, including the Open Source
software community. But in order to test the relevance of the conclusions from the previous
chapters, a few case studies are needed. Especially interesting, of course, is to show the
relevance of the previous conclusions applied to music and Open Content. I chose four different
case studies, as they all show a different relevance to this thesis.
14.Iuma
http://www.iuma.com/
The Internet Underground Music Archive (IUMA) is an online service for independent musicians
to store their music. I chose Iuma.com as a case study since I am already a member of this music
website since 2001, and because it was one of the first professional websites that allowed
independent musicians to submit their music online for free. Iuma.com has partnered with a few
top labels just recently, but it is still a place where artists can freely submit their music. Today
there are thousands of artists registered at Iuma.com.
A strong aspect of this website is the easy to use navigation. Artists can easily sign up and get
started. Every member gets his own webpage within Iuma which he can modify at will. It is
possible to add a biography, upcoming shows, images, and extra information. A menu is
automatically created, but the style of the webpage (color, menu-images, layout) can also be
chosen by the artist. These options are somewhat limited but it grants the artist a certain level of
control and the ability to try and fit the style of music to their style of their webpage. Visitors can
leave a message to the artist at his webpage. Site traffic can also be checked.
Music can be easily uploaded by entering the name of the song, and selecting four different
genres for the song. In doing this the music is thus filed (and can be found) under four different
genres. However, there are ten main genres to choose from, and forty sub genres. Fifty options
make it rather hard to find an ideal match for the music. Visitors and members can also not
search for music filed under more then one genre, making searching for the right music almost
impossible. The only ability to narrow down the search results is to browse by letter (the first letter
of the band’s name), or to select a date when it is last uploaded together with a state or country
and the musical category. The search options state nothing about musical interests or
combinations.
Users and visitors have the option to download the music offered. The music can be streamed
through any media player, either by song or by album. This is a strong feature, but the connection
is very poor, making it hard to actually listen to the music in one piece. Iuma.com calculates the
top downloads for each genre, and also creates an overall top 40 list. The website also offers a list
of featured artists which simply link to the artist’s web page, but does not engage more in his
interests.
There are forums where members can discuss, but they are not that popular considering the
amount of artists that registered at Iuma (one or two posts every few days). There are a few
moderators who check the forums now and then but do not introduce new and interesting topics.
So generally speaking Iuma.com is a rather static website. The interaction and connection
options with other artists and fans are very limited. The main reason for visiting the website should
be to “Discover unsigned artists, independent bands, and local talent” as their title suggests. But
this site is just a perfect example of a place where a huge amount of music is offered, but where
sufficient search options and clear communication lack. The reason this site has so many
applicants is not because it is a place where people can easily track the artists down. Rather, its
free, easy to use service and long term existence are to account for this success.
44
The right content on this site is hard to find and the website is poorly organized. Thus, according
to the model Peter Morville suggested, the social network aspect in this website is ineffective. This
conclusion also reflects on the statements made by Eric S. Raymond and Felipe Rodriquez, as
clear communication and good coordination are essential for an effective network.
15.Last.fm
http://www.last.fm
Last.fm is an online radiostation that allows its users to create their personal musical profile. I
have been a member of Last.fm for half a year. The radiostation uses the technology earlier
referred to as personalization that searches for similar musical interests between users in order to
find new music.
“Last.fm then calculates which people are the most similar to you, based on shared music
taste. With this information Last.fm can play you new artists and songs you might like.”
(http://www.last.fm)
Last.fm is free to all users. Users have an option to donate money, for which they receive more
control over their radiostation in return. Last.fm pays the MCPS/PRS (an organization similar to
the Dutch Buma/Stemra) a license fee which gives them permission to broadcast the copyrighted
music. Their license fee is distributed as royalties by the license authority. All songs are streamed,
but one can only download songs which collaborating labels have enabled for free download.
Last.fm streams copyrighted music from the major labels as well as independent labels. This has
proven to be a strong aspect (as I already pointed out in chapter II) in finding new music, since
unknown music can be linked with popular music. Independent labels can offer their music for
free on Last.fm, and over a hundred independent labels have done so already.
A distinctive feature in the personalization technology that Last.fm uses is the way of creating a
personal profile. Where many other similar services create a profile for users after filling in a huge
form Last.fm allows its users to create and edit their own musical profiles.
At first it asks to fill in three artists the user likes, which can all differ in musical styles. It then
immediately starts to search for (and play) music similar to those artists. The user can specify for
each song whether it is a song he loves, hates or if he wants to skip it. This information is stored
in his personal profile. This profile is used for searching other users with similar profiles from
which new music is drawn. When a user has around two hundred songs in his profile these users
with similar interests (“neighbours”) become visible. A user can edit his profile at any time, and
can also add his own avatar and short biography.
A few thousand people have already registered with Last.fm since its start in 2002, and the site is
still in a beta test mode. On average there are about thirty people online that use the radiostation.
These users can easily communicate with each other by sending messages, by chat, and by
posting in the forums. Users can easily add other users to their friends-list, and can even listen to
whatever music other (online) users are currently listening to.
The communication towards the users is clear, friendly and open. Emails are sent once in a while
if the site is heavily updated. There is a news section that displays updates, a manual that easily
explains the functions of the radiostation, a FAQ section, and contact information. The website is
very dynamic and well maintained, which is a possible explanation for its success.
However, the site does not have a very strong design and shows banners and ads. But
unfortunately this advertising is needed in order to pay for the free service and the license fee for
the copyrighted songs. There is good communication between music lovers and the site
administrators, but it is impossible to contact the artists themselves. Users cannot stream music
at will (only previews, but these only last for thirty seconds) and are totally dependent on the music
45
the radiostation offers. There is also no preview of what music is played next. This lack of control
makes it less attractive to listen to Last.fm for a long period.
But most importantly Last.fm proves that the concept of recommendation based on similar
interests works until certain extend. Occasionally a song that doesn’t match your profile at all is
played, but overall the songs match the user’s musical taste quite well. New music that matches
the user’s taste is played regularly, and sharing musical interests with “neighbours” also leads to
interesting new music. The good communication skills of the administrators make other users
behave and respond with patience and respect, also considering the fact that the site is still in a
beta mode. This is what makes it a pleasant environment to look for new music and to meet new
people.
This confirms the statement that good leadership and communication skills are essential for a
network to be effective. And it also confirms the statement that connections with other individuals
(in this case; music lovers with similar interests) make it easier to find specific new content.
16.Magnatune
http://www.magnatune.com
Magnatune is an open music record label, and publishes all its music under a Creative Commons
“Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike” license38. Magnatune, founded by John Buckman in
2003, is one of the first online record labels that experiments with these Creative Commons
licenses. Since March 2003 161 artists signed with Magnatune, and already over 4005 of their
songs were sold. As concluded earlier in chapter I, using these Creative Commons licenses as a
marketing tool to generate exposure has proven to be successful. Magnatune refers to music
under these licenses as “open music”, comparing the concept of FLOSS.
“Open Music is music that is shareable, available in "source code" form, allows derivative
works and is free of cost for non-commercial use. It is the concept of "Open Source"
computer software applied to music.” (http://magnatune.com/info/openmusic)
All artists have their own webpage that allows a picture, a biography, and additional information.
Every song on Magnatune can be streamed as a whole in different quality formats. One can also
stream all songs of a particular artist or genre. Using webcasting as a tool to apply the “try before
you buy” principle also fits the statements of Lawrence Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain (and many
others). People are still willing to purchase a song even if they can listen to it for free through a
webcasting service.
Magnatune chose to categorize its music in seven different musical genres and one genre called
“others”. In stead of adding sub genres Magnatune decided to also use the principle of
recommendation (Customers who bought this also bought ...). This makes searching for new
music a lot easier and friendlier than using sub genres, in contrast with Iuma.com for example.
Artists that sign up with Magnatune get fifty percent of the price paid for their songs and keep all
the rights over their music, unlike the policy of most record labels. People who purchase the
music can decide themselves what kind of price they pay, ranging from five to eighteen dollars.
Magnatune also offers merchandise (posters, clothing, mugs with artist's likeness) and sublicensed
music for commercial purposes, both from which the artist receives fifty percent of the
total price as well.
Communication towards users/visitors is done through the forums on the website. Reported
bugs, suggestions, and musical discussions are the most common topics, and John Buckman
38 This license states that derivative works (for example: remixes, cover songs, sampling) are explicitly
allowed. (Some of the artists at Magnatune publish the "source code" to their music so you can rework
and improve it. Non-commercial use of the music and its "source code" is free, and the derivative works
from the licensed music must be published under the same license.
46
personally replies to most of them. Visitors can easily contact Magnatune through e-mail,
telephone or regular mail. All email is answered by one person. Musicians (or their managers) can
easily send music to Magnatune, which is then reviewed to be accepted or not.
The term “network” is not fully applicable to this website since it is simply a record label offering
music. Visitors cannot contact the artists or interact with each other, other than through the
forums. Thus, visitors are limited to the music offered and selected by Magnatune. In return, since
Magnatune only accepts music they consider to be of good quality, visitors are less likely to listen
to junk. Finding new music at Magnatune is relatively easy and the music is generally of good
quality.
17.Wikipedia
http://www.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia is both a wiki39 community and a free online encyclopedia that is collaboratively
developed using wiki software. According to Felix Stalder and Jesse Hirsh, founder of the Media
Collective and director of Openflows.org40, Wikipedia is a project based on another project called
Nupedia. Nupedia is an encyclopedia project inspired by Richard Stallman’s GNU project (thus
the name Nupedia). The process of publishing articles was similar to the traditional way. Experts
wrote articles that were reviewed by a board of experts, and then the finalizing and publishing
could occur. This very extensive process made that the development of the project was rather
slow. (Stalder and Hirsh, 2002, Firstmonday.com)
Wikipedia was founded in 2001. The idea is somewhat similar (a free online encyclopedia), but
the process of publishing articles is another matter altogether. In Wikipedia, any individual can
contribute and edit to the encyclopedia. This editing will take effect immediately, without the need
for a board of experts. Of course every individual has his own opinion, and not necessarily the
right one as well. To solve this problem there is a history page on each entry, which enables users
to look at the former posts of the topic. The entries of Wikipedia are published as Open Content
(under a GNU Free document License), and are thus freely available to anyone.
Wikipedia is managed and operated by the (non-profit) Wikimedia Foundation. Since its founding
several people have taken on the role as a mediator in order to guide the project. Content that is
considered to be not appropriate or copyrighted is put on the “votes for deletion” page by a
number of individuals called “blackboard monitors” who patrol the Wikipedia regularly. People can
become blackboard monitors themselves too, and blackboard monitors are rated as well.
One might expect an enormous amount of vandalism that might occur when giving individuals
such an amount of freedom to edit pages. However, there would have to be a lot more blackboard
monitors if this was the case. It seems that authors and creators of an entry have an interest of
improving and maintaining their entry. Also there seems to be a general “community feeling”
within the project. According to Stalder and Hirsh, this indicates people see Wikipedia as a
valuable resource which must be maintained carefully. When a discussion arises about a certain
subject it remains easier to just create another entry then try and resolve the problem41. This
39 A wiki (pronounced "wicky" or "weeky") or WikiWiki is a website (or other hypertext document
collection) that allows users to add content, as on an Internet forum, but also allows that content to be
edited by other users. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki)
40 Jesse Hirsh is an activist and analyst of open media based in Toronto. Educated at the McLuhan
Program at the University of Toronto, he has been speaking and publishing in Europe, North & South
America on the political economy of culture and technology.
(http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors2/hirshbio.html)
41 This phenomenon is also seen in Open Source software development, and is generally referred to as
‘forking”. (Raymond, Eric. S. The cathedral and the bazaar, 1998)
47
creates a lot more diversity within the encyclopedia as well. Furthermore, recent research at IBM
shows that most vandalism that occurs within Wikipedia is solved within five minutes42.
With over 10000 contributors and only a tiny staff Wikipedia managed to establish itself as one of
the most significant information resources on the web. Also has it outstripped the attempted
development of other commercial encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica which has
been around since the beginning of the 18th century. Wikipedia has developed into an
encyclopedia which currently (July 2004) contains over 310,000 articles in English and over
530,000 in other languages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics).
As I stated earlier the real strength of this project is that people are able to find information about
an unimaginable variety of subjects, since anyone is able to add or share their information about
what they consider to be important or what they happen to know a lot about. Wikipedia is carefully
maintained, well organized, and incredibly successful. Its hierarchy consists of visitors, users or
editors, blackboard monitors, and a mediator who guides the project as a whole. Still the content
is free for all to read and edit. Wikipedia is a perfect example of how an Open Content community
works with a pre-defined hierarchy.
42 more information on this research can be found at http://www.research.ibm.com/history/results.htm
48
FINAL CONCLUSION
49
Independent musicians have to struggle to expose their name and music in an effective way, as
the music industry is mostly controlled by large corporations. The music industry relies on
copyright. Copyright has outgrown its purpose in this digital era, and has become a means to
avoid competition rather than stimulate the use of ones work. Today, any published work,
including an artist’s song, is automatically copyrighted, granting the copyright owner a lot of power,
wanted or not. Since the enacting of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this power has been
abused by many corporations (an example of this abuse is DRM). Exposure for independent
musicians is being troubled by the use of copyright.
By adopting an Open Content license the artist creates an opportunity for his work to be
distributed freely, where otherwise current copyright standards would interfere. These Open
Content licenses count as copyright licenses, and protect the owner’s rights over his work.
Traditional forms of promotion like radio broadcasting have become a big business on itself,
since it has proven to be successful. It has become a business so expensive that only large
corporations are able to use it as a form of promotion. Independent musicians must look for other
ways of promotion for their music.
A decentralized network is more effective for distribution than a centralized network; it has no
single points of failure and allows more connections with other nodes. The Internet has a really
strong advantage in gaining information or seeking content, as new connections are more easily
made than in real life.
The Internet can function as a tool for independent musicians to distribute their music effectively.
In combination with Open Content licenses they will be able to reach a huge audience and
create a chance for their music to be distributed optimally without using a record company as a
middleman. However, just adopting these Open Content licenses to independent music and offer
it through the Internet is insufficient. The distribution of independent music will only be effective if
people are actually able to find new music that matches their musical interests. An online
community for independent music is part of the solution for this problem. In my opinion
musicians should be able to offer their music for free in this community, and anyone should be
able to find, download and distribute that music for free.
By meeting people with similar musical interests the chance of finding the right music is
increased. This virtual community must have an open organizational structure, but must rely on
some form of top down hierarchy in order to function properly. Clear and open communication is
extremely important within this community to successfully connect with others, and to maintain an
open organizational structure.
By offering the music for preview through a webcasting service the chances for exposure of
music are increased. This webcasting service would be effective for finding new music in
combination with a personalization technology based on recommendation of others with similar
musical interests. Meeting people with similar interests in this manner also strengthens the
community, creating an ideal environment for looking for new music.
Open Content can contribute to the promotion and distribution of independent music
through the Internet. But it will only be effective if it is supported by an online community
with an open organizational structure and tools for exposing their music in an effective
way.
50
FURTHER RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS:
Will the development of new technologies ultimately change the business model of the music
industry? If there is a system that combines television, radio, and the Internet (and maybe more),
it might radically change the possibilities for distribution. This will possibly have a tremendous
effect on copyrights and licenses. Already many technologies are merging, introducing new
products and new possibilities. DRM technologies might be developed to even further extremes
because of this very aspect. And will webcasting ultimately take over the music industry due to
new technologies?
Is there a future for Open Content music projects carried out under the same conditions as
current Open Source software projects? And to what extend would it be profitable for independent
musicians? If a hundred musicians contribute to one song and they all have to be named, one
might expect this is generally considered to be rather annoying and not very profitable for
musicians either.
Will the process of creating music be different in the future? Already there are several online jam
rooms where people can join in and mix or create a song. With new communication technologies
that allow more personal interaction through the Internet the first online band may not be far away.
How will this affect the process of creating music and will it ever compete with live presence?
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Audible Magic, Inc., Audible Magic Signs Agreement with Sony MusicTo Work On Wide Range of
Content Management and Anti-Piracy Initiatives
http://www.audiblemagic.com/news&press/press_20040601.html (viewed July 15, 2004)
Andrews, R. (05/2004) Huge gaps in Europe’s iTunes, Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,64000,00.html (viewed July 4, 2004)
Associated Press, (2004) RIAA singing the same old song, Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,63026,00.html (viewed June 26, 2004)
Boehlert,E. (2002) The empire strikes back, Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/08/07/pfp_empire/index.html (viewed July 10, 2004)
Boehlert,E. (2001) Pay for Play, Salon.com
http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/03/14/payola/index.html (viewed July 26, 2004)
Buckman, John. (2003) The Plan: problems with the music industry and how Magnatune is trying
to fix them. Berkeley, California
http://magnatune.com/info/plan (viewed March 25, 2004)
Brown, Janelle.(2001) Personalize me, baby. Salon.com
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/04/06/personalization/index.html (viewed June 16, 2004)
Brown, J. The music revolution will not be digitized, Salon.com (06/2001)
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/01/digital_music/index.html?sid=1032634 (viewed April
9, 2004)
Castells, M. (2000) The rise of the network society - 2nd ed.
Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (UK)
Castells, M. (2001) The Internet galaxy
New York, Oxford University Press Inc.
Colliano, J. (2004) How Are DVD-Audio and SACD Discs Selling? RIAA Releases New Studies
and Reports, Audiorevolution.com
http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0404/30.dvda_sacd.html (viewed June 26, 2004)
Dean, Katie. (2004) Forget radio, Tune In to Net, Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,63982,00.html (viewed July 4, 2004)
Dean, Katie. (2004) GarageBand.com Leaves Door Open, Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,63720,00.html (viewed June 18, 2004)
Dean, Katie. (2004) New spin on the Music Business, Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,63474,00.html (viewed May 16, 2004)
Feather, John. (1994) Publishing, Piracy and Politics: An Historical Study of Copyright in Britain
London, Mansell,
Gettler, L. (2004) Balancing battle between pirates and innovators, The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224515491.html(viewed May 8, 2004)
Henley, Don.(2004) Killing the Music. Washington Post
52
http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/wp042704.html (viewed July 5, 2004)
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. What is copyright?
http://www.ifpi.org/site-content/copyrightcreativity/what_is_copyright.html (viewed June 22, 2004)
Kacper Poblocki (2001) the Napster Network Community, firstmonday.com
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_11/poblocki/ (viewed May 22, 2004)
King. J.J. (01/2004) The Packet Gang: Openness and its discontents
MUTE magazine #27
Krasilovsk, M.W. and Shemel,S. (1995) This business of music
New York, Watson-Guptill Publications (USA)
Krebs, Valdis. (2004) An introduction to Social Network Analysis
http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html (viewed July 7, 2004)
Lessig, L. (2004) Free culture.
New York, Penguin Group (USA)
Lohmann, F. (2002) Fair Use and Digital Rights Management: Preliminary Thoughts on the
(Irreconcilable?) Tension between Them. Computers, freedom & privacy.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html (viewed June 15, 2004)
Losowsky, A. (07/2003) Creating the Commons
MUTE magazine #26
Love, C. (2000) Courtney Love does the math. Salon.com
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html (viewed April 24, 2004)
Lovink, G. (2002) Dark Fiber
Cambridge, The MIT Press
Morville, Peter. Social Network Analysis (21/02/2002)
http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000006.php (viewed July 12, 2004)
Moss,C. (2004) Korn releases new video/single, MTV news
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1485272/20040223/korn.jhtml?headlines=true (viewed June 10,
2004)
Pfahl, M. (2001) Giving away music to make money: Independent Musicians on the Internet.
firstmonday.com
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_8/pfahl/index.html (viewed June 20, 2004)
Raskin, A. (2004) Giving it away for fun and profit, business2 magazine
http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,608619-1,00.html (viewed June 2, 2004)
Raymond, Eric. S. (1998) The cathedral and the bazaar
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar (viewed June 2, 2004)
Recording Industry Association of America, (2004) Anti-Piracy
http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp (viewed July 7, 2004)
Reuters, (2004) Maybe the music’s just lousy? Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62871,00.html (viewed July 4, 2004)
Stalder, F. (2003), One-size-doesn't-fit-all. Particulars of the Volunteer Open Source Development
Methodology, Make World Newspaper #3.
53
http://openflows.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/25/1722242 (viewed July 6, 2004)
Stalder, F. and Hirsh, J. (2002) Open Source Intelligence, Firstmonday.com
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/stalder/index.html (viewed April 17, 2004)
Stalder, F. (2003) Wikipedia: Wie sich eine Encyclopaedie selbst verfasst, Openflows.org.
http://felix.openflows.org/html/wikipedia.html (viewed July 18, 2004)
Stalder, F. (2004) Re: "Content Flatrate" and the Social Democracy of the Digital
Commons
Nettime mailinglist, (17/07/2004)
Stallman, R.M. (1993) Copywrong, Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.03/1.3_stallman.copyright.html (viewed May 27, 2004)
Stallman,R.M. (1997, updated in 2002) the right to read, Communications of the ACM
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html (viewed June 15, 2004)
StyleFree, a seminar on FLOSS in design, (19/05/2004)
Personal notes
Wellman, Barry (2001) Physical place and cyberspace: the rise of networked individualism.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
Zittrain,J. (2003) The Copyright Cage, legal affairs magazine
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2003/feature_zittrain_julaug03.html (viewed June
17, 2004)
54
55