I think that’s an impressive quote considering Nietzsche didn’t have the benefit of funk, jazz, soul, hip hop, blues, rag, reggae, or gospel to pen his declaration.  He also didn’t have the Internet.

So what is this thing that the Internet has done to music?  Not much.

I hope you feel very disagreeable right now, because I’m ready to concede: what style you listen to, and how often, and what you pay for music may have changed dramatically… but the Internet has done nothing to the music except, maybe, help it evolve faster.

But that’s just my take.  The lawyers (okay, I happened to one: boo me) have wrangled over the effect of a new path of distribution on copyrights.  Major music industry players have focused on how to address profit margin problems.  Consumers, from teenagers to grandmothers have consumed more… and dealt with the ramifications of the above wrangling and profit concerns.  Artists’ approaches have varied wildly—from free album releases to fighting against and supporting lawsuits against purported rights infringers to seizing on inventive ways to proliferate their creations.

Underlying all this activity is the consistent decline in the cost associated with making and distributing music.  Instruments, microphones, a computer and software, a little production expertise, and an internet connection are, technically, all that’s required to go from unknown to world-wide sensation.  (If you thought to yourself that I missed electricity, you are a lawyer or an engineer… Am I right?)

What remains is the selling component.  Is the question, “how do we get people to pay for what they want?”  Or, is it, “how do we get people what they want to pay for?”  The focus of each of these not-so-clever questions is drastically different.

The old-school approach’s marketing is merged with its acquisition, development, and advertising, and addresses the consumer as a known and relatively static quantity. It’s circular and does involve internalized feedback, so this is just a short-hand:

• Locate talent based on some set of projected sale-ability metrics;
• Develop that talent internally based on similar metrics;
• Push the product to institutionalized advertisers (radio stations, MTV); and
• Cut-losses or increase production for large, long-term investments based on sales.

This is what Joni Mitchell calls “the star-maker machinery behind the popular song”—the record industry and the commercial radio business it pays that help manufacture and promote big time artists.

There are ways to adapt this model, such as utilizing different sales approaches a la iTunes or putting videos on YouTube.   The bottom line, though, is the approach works very well when tangible product sales play a major role—buy a record/tape/CD at a store; ticket for a concert; t-shirts and posters online—because margins are relatively high.

To be fair, I’m mostly guessing at the high margins rationale.  Then again, it is the industry saying they are hurting for money.  And so, for a moment, I consider the money problem as they have voiced it—people aren’t paying enough (they’re stealing)!  And I think, okay, getting people to stop stealing is an understandable reply.  But I also recognize other approaches and wonder, when the stop-them-from-stealing approach has been engaged for several years and there is supposedly still a problem, where’s all the talk of the other side—i.e. how can we increase efficiency?

A new school marketing approach has the same components—a person makes a product, it’s distributed, and paid for—but embraces the communication possibilities brought on by the internet, et al to address the consumer dynamically. Such an approach would:

• Locate talent based on information from the dynamic marketplace—utilize emerging taste-makers (have you noticed how many DJs there are now that DJ doesn’t just mean spinning a disc at a radio station?) and listener data from single-sale and play-for-free online sources to locate talent;
• Develop talent on a consultancy-basis tailored to maximize existing success;
• Push the product through a dynamic network of personal connections (this component could include significant synergy with the talent location component); and
• Manage a portfolio of smaller, potentially short-term investments based on the overall success of the relationship between and for the artist and representative.

The marketing problem is no less complicated and maybe more complicated with this approach because of access to a proliferation of increasingly tight niches, but I believe in time such an approach will prove the last vestige for non-musicians to play a significant role in the world of music.

On Tuesday, June 9th, the World Copyright Summit (2nd annual) brought in international industry leaders to Washington D.C. to address topics that cover the entire entertainment world. Although the Summit certainly provided more questions than answers, I find it useful to keep tabs of what’s brewing in the minds of the movers and shakers of industry. The event advertised four main topics to be discussed:

• New Visions for Creative Industries
• Challenges for Creators and Rights-owners in the Digital Era
• Weather Forecast on Copyright Climate
• Valuing the Creative Eco-System

In reality, it turned into an anti-Internet piracy fest. Unless you coughed up the dinero to attend in person (admission ranging from $800 – $1,199), here are some of the highlights collected from a variety of sources:

• There is a real debate over whether there should even be copyright protection. One speaker, author and Columbia Law School professor Michael Heller, referred to the tremendous made-for-television documentary, “Eyes on the Prize,” about the Civil Rights Movement as an example of this “copyright gridlock.” Because many of the images, photos and songs used in the documentary had so many different (often unknown) rights holders, there was a major hold on distributing the series after its initial airing. Given the majority of attendees to the conference, I don’t imagine Heller’s theory was well received. As a side note, if you have any interest in Civil Rights, read Juan William’s book that the docu was based upon (also titled, “Eyes on the Prize”). It’s tremendous.
• Whether or not it was a tongue-in-cheek offer is a bit unclear, but the head of Harry Fox Agency allegedly offered to help YouTube locate rights holders to music appearing on the YouTube website. There has been an ongoing and mostly unsuccessful stream of negotiations between the two groups over a royalty rate.
• Things got heated over whether radio broadcasters should pay a performance royalty. There is currently legislation in the works covering this issue. It is supposed to pass through the Senate Judiciary Committee this summer.
• Just about the only concession the industry made over illegal piracy was that it should not have fought new technology. Rather, it should have found a way to profit from it. Presumably the speaker (National Music Publishers Association president, David Israelite) was referring to Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (production of a VCR with recording abilities did not render the manufacturer a copyright infringer). Aside from that, there was many a harsh word directed toward the illegal piracy dilemma. Needless to say, the industry is less than thrilled with the direction of Internet piracy.
• One suggestion to combat a seemingly un-winnable battle was to participate more actively in the free entertainment websites like Amazon’s music store, DRM-free iTunes, Spotify, Hulu, and Epix.. If you can’t beat them, might as well join them…
• Finally, there was some support for France’s new “three strikes and your out” policy against copyright infringement. I discussed this law in a previous posting.

While nothing substantive seems to directly result from these forums, it’s nice to get some insight on where the industry is headed.