BitTorrent's Future

VentureBeat is reporting that DAG Ventures is scaling back its investment in BitTorrent from $17 million to $7 million. This is unfortunate, as I think BitTorrent has a useful service, not to mention I'm a big fan of Bram Cohen. However, both VentureBeat and TechCrunch seem to illustrate that the move has been in the making for months due in part to changes in their business model and a growing lack of confidence in the company.

Interesting developments, but I'm not surprised, as BitTorrent's service relative to the music industry is a bit cumbersome for general music enthusiasts. That is, the average music fan is just looking for quick access to music without having to download software or participate in a P2P network, one of the reasons why web apps like Hypem, Pandora and Last.fm, as well as playlist sites like blip.fm and playlist.com have experienced massive adoption rates. Even audiophiles download lossless recordings from other places besides BitTorrent (e.g. Archive.org).

It's hard to say what will become of BitTorrent, but I wish them the best in the ever evolving music industry.

Live Music Archive Revisited

Over the weekend, I re-explored archive.org and their Live Music Archive for the first time in over a year. I was impressed with some of the changes they've incorporated through their integration with etree.org (a lossless live show repository I've been using since 2000). For example, you can now stream most live concerts that have been uploaded, or even embed them on your site. That's a great free widget for bands trying to build a following, as you can introduce potential new fans to your live music directly on your blog with ease. Here's an example of a show from Gomez:



Your fans can also sign-up to receive RSS alerts for newly added recordings of your live shows by other fans. Here's an example for Ween (located under their photo). It's also a great way to see what your fans think about your live shows, like Jack Johnson's recent performance at Bonnaroo (scroll down to the bottom of the page).

There has certainly been a great deal of discussion about free music and the potential benefits it has on generating new listeners and larger audience attendance. For some bands, it does seem to have a positive impact, for others, little to none. So my only suggestion to Archive is that they allow an option for bands to sell their downloads if they like. But until that happens, Maybe the Live Music Archive is where you allow your fans to freely exchange your live shows, but not your studio work or commercial recordings - there are scores of bands on Archive doing just that. Not to mention, most recordings are in high-quality lossless formats like SHN or FLAC, even 24-bit FLAC, and most bands have MP3 files as well, so this should suit everyone from the general music enthusiast to the audiophile. However, with any music repository, there are some potential licensing issues to consider, so you may want to seek guidance from an attorney first.

To get started allowing your fans to record and upload your live shows, just send archive.org an email. To learn how to upload music, go here, or if you have additional questions check out their FAQ.

Separately, from a consumer's perspective, there are literally thousands of live shows from hundreds of bands you can download. Chances are, one of your favorite artists has a show there for you to download.

Recovering Recording Costs, a Response by Jimmy Ether

A couple of months ago, I wrote about the challenges musicians face trying to recoup their recording costs. Specifically, I asked how bands and musicians that do not tour frequently recover these expenses when the general public wants their music for free? Jimmy Ether, a musician, engineer and studio owner responded with such thoughtful and detailed comments that I thought his reply would be better suited as its own post, so here it is:

"Hey man, just taking a peak at your blog and thought I'd offer my perspective on all this. First, a little correction on the recording side of thing. There is a big difference in major label and indie rates in the recording business. There are literally dozens of good recording studios in every major city who provide great quality recording at around $500 a day, and a lot of those are having to cut deals to entice the home recordists to step up in quality. $1500/day studios are strictly for major label acts and there isn't a single sane independent artist that would use them.

That said, it would be quite impossible in this day and age to track and record an album in less than a week and you'd need another week to mix (unless you are, like Frank Black, going completely live to 2-track. Most records take about 3 to 4 weeks. But, you're price is pretty close. Most quality indie "studio" records are made in between $4000-$10,000.

I agree that there is no way the industry can function on a entirely free model, but I also firmly believe that most bands and labels are far too short-sighted with their tight-hold on their music. Free music goes both ways. If you can entice (essentially link-bait) press, bloggers, fanatical music lovers, etc. to write, talk, review, distribute and promote your music by giving them music for free, then your gain far outweighs your cost (in fact, in digital, the cost is essentially nil provided that the person otherwise would never have purchased it). There just have to be terms and limits. You have to figure out the value of a digital asset verses the potential value of an action resulting from allowing that asset to be given to someone free. The more direct control you have over that, the better return on investment.

There is also a pricing:convenience ratio. If the price is reasonable enough and the payment/download process is significantly easier than dealing with P2P, a large enough percentage of people will buy the download to make it profitable. $1 a song... is *not* that price.

I'd love to see a number on the budget being spent to subvert P2P file-sharing. If that amount were instead spent on making the experience easier for the consumer and *especially* on artist development (which is basically non-existent these days), then the industry as a whole would be in a much better position.

People who trade on P2P are a label and band's best friend when you get the model right. They are DJs sans-payola. P2P is the new radio. It is practically impossible for an indie-band to get attention without them. Just look at the correlation between the artists who are traded on these networks with the playlists on top college radio, 'zine coverage, indie store sales rankings, paid digital downloads, and blog coverage. Is it that the media is feeding the P2P? Nope, because the records are getting leaked (by, *cough* smart label promoters) to P2P *way* before even press copies get mailed. They'll never admit that in public, but the smart ones know it works.

I'm not saying the Radiohead model works. It doesn't, *unless* you are already a famous artist on the level of Radiohead. They only rose to that level because millions of dollars were spent in the promotion of their previous albums. Promotion costs a lot of money and far eclipses production and manufacturing costs. That's a budget that has to come from somewhere. And where to find that money is the major problem we face with new industry models.

Good blog BTW!"

Great feedback Jimmy, and I agree with you that P2P can certainly be a musician/band's best friend "when you get the model right." This philosophy also seems to be the direction Larry Lessig is suggesting, as seen in this video - as it becomes a middle ground where P2P becomes the distribution vehicle for music, but artists are still compensated.

Again, thanks for your detailed reply, and best wishes in 2008!

Btw readers, the picture in this post is of Jimmy Ether's  studio.

----------------
As I finished this post, I was listening to: Melpo Mene - Hello Benjamin via FoxyTunes