Internotes, and distribution....

[ani]

Okay, the idea has been tossed around just a bit, but we need to determine how we want to approach the distribution of the CC CD.

 

Something that I have long envisioned since day one of this project is the fact that with as many countries, covering 5 continents, that are involved in this project; with the technologies used to create and transfer files, this is Wall Street news for Corporate investors in innovative technologies.

 

I presented this idea to the members of the SOMA team through our private forum; this is the first time I will be presenting it to the whole of the Fantasy League teams.

 

Considering the fact that many, if not all, of us used some sort of digital technology to create our pieces of music and get them into digital formats to transfer the file via FTP over the miles; there's a promise for advanced technologies and the innovation in developing them. In a sense, eleminating the need for hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have been spent in travel and lodging expense... this method of record engineering could become the norm. Also, transferring files via Internet eleminated the need for spending out postage fees and the wait time in between tracks to attempt such a feat through the mailing of discs. Not only did mailing disks back and forth have a wait time and add up in the postage fee, you also did not know if the piece was going to work or not, and if not, it meant another mailing.

 

With the means used for accomplishing this project, at least I can speak representative for those of us on the SOMA team, our retrieval of files were as instantaneous as what it took to for one to upload and another to download the files with minimal expense for the hosting of the FTP space. This is technology at its' best and definitely worthy of Corporate recognition. There will always be 1 upmanship involved in the corporate world, and where the Recording Industry has been somewhat monopolized by the RIAA and pet projects for them; to get the corporate world of digital technology backing us, it would put the powers outside the reach of the RIAA who likes to come in a squash the little guy before he has a chance to get a foot off of the ground. I'm not opposed to even getting UEM involved in this if they would be interested, as it has been their forums that provided the meeting place and portal of communication for the most part for all involved.

 

I personally used Microsoft products to accomplish much of my end of hosting the files... I used Roland, Yamaha, AKG, and other various forms of technology to convert files into compatible form for transfer. I've started writing an article, for those that haven't seen it http://musicbizbuzz.net/internotes.htm , that tells how the project originated and evolved. It will be a kickoff to stimulate investor interest as well as the rest of us putting together a profound package that lists the types of equipment used and means of communication. I'm hoping that everyone is interested in pursuing this, as it will take approval from 100% of those participating on the CD for this to fly.

 

If we get the investor interest, then we have the funds to mass produce and market. Any corporate attorneys in here???? It's not too late to get involved in the FL project is folks want to pursue this.

 

If folks are not willing to attempt such a big leap, another option I thought about was proposing this to Cannedbannanas to see if United Entertainment Media might be interested in picking up the project sales for a percent of the tab.

 

He had mentioned something about collaborative works being lumped in with magazine sales or as an added bonus or something to that nature... they might be interested, but we won't know unless we ask. I don't have a problem presenting the idea to him if everyone would be in agreement to do so. It might be possible to do both the first suggestion on this thread, and this one as well... Strength in Numbers....

 

Below is yet another avenue to pursue through self publishing at Amazon, but we would be handing a large percent of sales over to Amazon, and still we would need to establish some sort of writer agreements, ownership rights, and etc. Then there would be the question as to WHO pays for the advanced stock of CD's?

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/partners/direct/direct-application.html/ref%3Dss%20%5Fad%5F/102-3176917-1503340

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/partners/direct/advanta ge/home.html/ref=adv_ld_advl/102-3176917-1503340

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/partners/direct/marketing -home.html/ref=adv_ld_mp/102-3176917-1503340

 

Folks, let me know your thoughts... when I dream, I dream big. But then again, I play a whole game of chess with each and every move on the board. Strategy often succeeds.

[DanS]

Some interesting ideas there, Ani. I'm not sure how to go about getting corporate investing going, but the way you've laid out all the technologies we've used to make this happen, I think it at least might be worth an article or 9 in a few magazines. I don't know what Amazon's % is, but we can set up a page on a few other sites as well (Artist Launch, etc).

[ani]

Dan,

 

I don't know what Artist's Launch, or some of those other sites use as terms; but I know that when I read the now defunct MP3.com's term of use, I opted to open my own website and host my own files. Whenever you sign away the freedom of use to an entity to exploit in any way they see fit, you are opening yourself up to getting your feet trampled on if any thing turns out to be successful on a large scale. I didn't like the way MP3.com had their contract worded as it left too many loopholes in it.

 

The one thing about Amazon would be the fact that they have sales tracking built into most of their programs, and with an applied UPC, items would be scanned and recorded. Also, if we were to take this to Amazon, the "Associate Program" that MusicPlayer has established witn Amazon would return funds back into MPN for each purchase that was made through the MPN website linked to Amazon. MPN would be able to post a graphic link to the CD and promote it as ONE OF OUR OWN. Any members of MPN that have website with Amazon book programs could do the same.

 

Amazon has a fee of 55% of sales on the Advantage program, where "they" will keep a supply on hand and ship direct to anywhere in the world. The Marketplace program pays out higher levels to the product supplier, but the the supplier would then be accountable for all the shipping expenses and the hassle of doing so. The Marketplace fees are 15% of sales, PLUS a flat fee of $0.99 per item. In buying packaging materials, paying labor to prepare and mail items and such; it wouldn't take much to exceed that 55% that would put the people at ease in knowing the only thing they had to worry about is restocking the product when levels ran low.

 

Bill Gates is a VERY global oriented technology producer, and with my using of FrontPage to set up folders, assign passcodes, and other things.... it'd be interesting to see if someone of the caliper would pick up interest... (I know I'm reaching for the moon on that one, but.... hey....)

 

Developers are always looking for new leads to make their products more attractive and to find what people are using which programs.....

 

Something like we have been doing, that saves time, travel, and lodging expense, well.... every company in America is seeking ways to cut expenses; why not give the developers some insight as to making the music business more fluent and accessible?

[DanS]

You da woman!

[nursers]

[Rim]

I'm not clear why we're getting investors and what the investors are investing in. If it's just for distro of this CD, couldn't we just go to www.cdbaby.com ?

 

Using the Internet for collaborative purposes is not new in the business world. Maybe it is for creating music but I doubt it. Wasn't that what RocketNetwork did?

 

Ani, I'm not trying to be difficult but you covered many topics on your posts that I wasn't sure what the point was. I do admire and support your enthusiasm for this project.

 

- Rim

[ani]

Rim,

 

Good questions. The point of investors would be to generate funds to mass produce and market these works the way that great music should be marketed. Rather than leave the fate of the music industry to lay in the hind pockets of some fat oversexed rich boys who think that music talent is second to tits and ass. I, personally, am sick and tired of all the Madonna, Britney, Christina manufactured clones. I'm tired of hearing the same old tired sampled loops moved from one project to the next, and I believe that "MUSIC" is what we need to get back to.

 

In the olden days, RADIO was supported by advertisers; sponsors who would pay the tab that kept the stations afloat. DJ's were not controlled by record label set lists and etc.

 

As Tommy Hilfiger will sponsor major artist tours; you give major techonology producers something that would promote their products and give them even more ideas to develop and you might be quite surprised at the interest it could spark...... IF PRESENTED PROPERLY.

 

My web site deals probably MORE with "World Trade and Intellectual Properties" than it does the Music Business, although my main interest for myself is music. I've been involved in Global technologies since day one of the introduction of the multi-lingual translators onto the internet; my site was a BETA testing site prior to any search engine ever adopting the multi-lingual capabilities.

 

My site has also been recognized by the International Federation of Trade Associations; it is an active member of their web ring as well.

 

This is NOT just another online collaboration of a few folks goofing around; this is a project that spans across the world with multiple players from several different parts of the world involved in it.

 

I've no time to finish what I want to say, but I will come back to this....

[ani]

Here's a bit more....

 

If you do not have product to back the sales because no one has put up the ante to pay the tab for production and replication in ample supplies; then even if you were capable of getting airplay, you would not be able to have sales due to a lack of availability. Also, without advanced funds from someone or some entity, you will not have materials available for marketing purposes. If you have no CD's available to send out to stations, then how would you expect to get radio airplay when no one has access to hear what you have to air?

 

These funds provided by investors would pay for the PROPER handling of marketing and SECURING your product. Things like acquiring a UPC and placing your product in retail markets that provide scanning and tracking devices that keep tabs on all recordable sales.... Pay attorneys to handle copyright issues that might evolve even after copyrights have been registered and secured, secure trademarks on product traits (such as the name Internotes), back up writer agreements, et al. Pay for accountants to monitor and ensure that percentages brought in from the sales of product are distributed in allocated percentages and etc.

 

You are correct in stating that the Internet is not a stranger to the transferring of files within the business industry; but the utilization of FTP to transfer digital lossless files without resorting to the snail mailing process to handle final tracks is not a broadly spread practice. The transfer of mp3 files via Internet is nothing and about as common as sending a Word document attachment; but the transfer of .wav files or other huge media files required by record engineers to master sound quality without risk of corruption or server timeouts during the transfer is entirely different. This rang true even with some of the participants in this project; some were forced to use the mail service to transfer files due to a lack of technology available to them in their countries.

 

The RIAA is operating on Dinosaur technology or they would not be so intimidated by their digital rivals. They would rather spend out multiple millions in attorney fees and in padding the pockets of politicians to alter legislation in their favor, than they would to bring themselves current with techology and become a leader in the innovation to enhance the use and security of digital transfer of files.

 

Yes, Napster needed to be stopped, I agree; but we all seen what happened to MP3.com who was adopted by the RIAA to do it the RIGHT WAY!!! The RIAA got their hands in the pockets of MP3.com and the service went bellyup.

 

I've not read the terms of CDbaby, IUMA, and likewise, but I'm sure that when you use their service; you sign a release (contract by law) that enables them "rights" to use and exploit your materials as they deem necessary to promote their services. In doing so, you void your chances of picking up a label or a contract with sponsors willing to support your product; most want exclusive rights of use without prior "rights" assigned elsewhere. Pre-existing agreements, as I see it, would hinder contract negotiations.

 

I am "not" opposed to major label interest, but I'm opposed to allowing "HYPE" to dictate the destiny of talented artists.

[nursers]

Just as an aside: Digidesign now have a system (called DigiDelivery) that meets a lot of the issues described by Ani in transferring files. My understanding is it's architecture is based on the old Rocket technology.

 

Also an interesting article on the business side of Rocket here

[ani]

Thank you Nursers, a very interesting article and a program that I was never aware of. It is ironic that the article mentions Microsoft co-founder as being the contoller of Vulcan Ventures who "invested" in the technology. One thing that I see about the article is the fact that participation required the actual software and also required the persons to be a paying member to a service; although it did mention different applications could be loaded through the software.

 

Perhaps what I have done with the SOMA team, merely by discovery of the tools I had to my advantage in using MS FrontPage, is exactly what these people tapped into. The thing is, there was no special software required outside of my having my site set up with FrontPage and hosted on a Windows Based Server for more secure transfer of files.

 

Now I am somewhat DEFLATED, but still I would like to question how many people COLLECTIVE from around the world sat in on ONE compilation CD of collaborative efforts, and included how many continents through the use of this technology? I also feel somewhat prided in the fact that I was able to provide a portal to the SOMA team members at no charge to them for something that other people were charging big bucks for; I'm sure that Rocket was not offering their services for free.

 

There is still a lot of means for innovative technologies, and Microsoft is still a player in investment potential as Bill Gates and ex-partner Paul Allen of Vulcan may be in competitive stages.

 

This Rocket company, why did it go under, any insight? I ran a search and found a page where AVID had acquired their assets in April of 2003 to look into incorporating the software into their technology. http://www.digidesign.com/news/details.cfm?story_id=49

 

What kind of prices are people paying for this technology??? We have accomplished exactly the same thing with SOMA at the expense of hosting my web site.

[ani]

Oh yeah, and no additional software was needed to be purchased by anyone. Some used Shorten to compress the files, but it wasn't an absolute necessity with broadband. I sometimes use it, but often went direct without compression.

[Franknputer]

Anyone ever actually use DigiDelivery? It sounds interesting, but I'm curious about their speed claims. I'd like to know how much faster than FTP it is.

 

Some places in their site, they say it's faster than going through public FTP servers, which is undoubtedly true...but maintaining your own server (which is what a DD owner does also) is faster than that, too - less traffic, and you get to choose your FTP protocol.

 

This would be the big question - do they use some kind of multicast file transfer to up the speed?

 

Timeouts are a pain, but lots of FTP clients support resumeable transfers. That's one of the things I dig about Ncftp.

 

My guess is that they mainly score big points for ease of use (wrapping it all up in a nice interface). Surely there are comparable transfer protocols out there. (Actually, on the receiving end it only matters up to the point of your d/l bandwidth, anyway. If you can only pull 256kb/s, then that's all the server has to put out on a single connection.)

 

(BTW, Ani - did you change servers? When I was getting files from you, I remember logging into a RedHat server.)

[ani]

(BTW, Ani - did you change servers? When I was getting files from you, I remember logging into a RedHat server.)

Nope, haven't changed servers, but called my hosting company to confirm after reading your post... I'm definitely on a Windows based server, not a RedHat. For money I spend, I damn well better be on Windows.

[nursers]

Ani, don't be deflated at all, just giving some history on what has gone before. Type 'Willy Henshall' or 'Matt Moller' into Google and you'll see how far advanced Rocket were as a business. There are also a bunch of ex-Rocket users who have their own website and have even written their own collaboration software (type Rocketears into Google).

 

None of this means we don't have something unique and marketable, just that investors will note what else is out there

[ani]

Yeah Nursers, I'm not too down about it and it is much better to be "prepared" with competition checks, comparisons, successes noted or failures noted and why something worked or failed, product advantages or enhancements that can be offered, and etc. I will conduct a few searches and do some homework there to see just what has actually been tried. To my knowledge though, there have not been any projects "IN THE MUSIC BIZ" that have been as wide spread as what we have accomplished on this project. I've known producers that have done some overseas collaborations with 1 or 2 persons from different countries, Mats Ollson is one of them, but to include as many countries that span across the world as has been done here merits recognition in the world of global technology.

 

It's been a while, but I had a music biz site owner that contacted me a few years back requesting that I put his link on my site under publicity... I was impressed with the fact that he had interviewed such stars as Jim Carey, Brad Pitt, and other big names in the motion picture industry; but the more prominent thing that stood out when I read through the resume on his site was the fact that he was the Senior Perl Executive Director for the Wall Street Journal.

 

I exchanged links with him and have kept a cordial but distant string of communication since; I called him during the WTC attack to ensure he survived it okay... but have only talked via email a couple times since. I think that there might be enough of a foundation laid back when he was launching his site for him to remember me... don't know if it would do any good, but there's always a chance in putting a bug in his ear to get this on Wall Street; never any harm done in asking.

[Franknputer]

Originally posted by Ani:

I'm definitely on a Windows based server, not a RedHat. For money I spend, I damn well better be on Windows.

Heh - My position would be the opposite. But, Windows or not I'd be wondering why they don't run Apache.

 

Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - February 2004 http://franknputer.complexero.com/images/WebStats.gif

[Franknputer]

Wow, nursers - thanks for the tip about Rocketears! That's pretty cool, that they've banded together & endured. I was always kinda disappointed that it never really seemed to fly here.

 

I'm going to check them out a bit. They seem to have a lot of music that they've produced.

[ani]

I found the Rockatears website and browsed around through it. Seems like a bunch of folks with high hopes that got left hanging with the bag and didn't want to lose the vibe; sad that the engineer of Rocket Network landed a sandbag on his shoulders type investment deal. Also looks like someone else went in and re-engineered the software to keep the ball rolling; probably some infringement going on there... but???? You really can't blame the users if they invested in a product that required online support to be functional and then they got hung without a host because the company went belly up.

 

My guess would be that the designer of the software was probably a sole proprietor or just a handful of designers who pulled together that requested enough funds to research and enhance their product, but did not take into account the means necessary to promote and market the same. Perhaps they did not have a strong business background and failed to negotiate for the salaries of the brains and the funds for materials necessary to put the product in the hands of the consumer when they wrote out their business plan. That is, "IF" they even wrote a business plan; inventors sometimes tend to have tunnel vision and are completely clueless outside their field of expertise, if you know what I mean.

 

Another variable might be that the RIAA stepped in and bought off the investor, so to have him drop the ball on the project.

[Franknputer]

I think the software's different. It runs under UNIX, actually, and IIRC the old SW did not.

 

The nice bit about that (and one of the big issues with Rocket, IMO) is that it's basically cross-platform. They do have it tied to Cubasis under Windows, but the file-transfer stuff stands alone. They gave me a link to download the bare-bones FTP_Sync for Linux, and I put it on here & ran it fine (just to test it, I'm at work..).

[Rim]

Originally posted by Ani:

You are correct in stating that the Internet is not a stranger to the transferring of files within the business industry; but the utilization of FTP to transfer digital lossless files without resorting to the snail mailing process to handle final tracks is not a broadly spread practice.

I'm not too sure about that either. About 4 years ago, I sent out an album the group I was involved in was working on to get mastered. The mastering engineer at DRT Mastering offered FTP as a way to transfer files to him and even from him. This is how I found out about Monkey\'s Audio , a free, lossless audio compression utility very similar to Shorten.

 

I've not read the terms of CDbaby, IUMA, and likewise, but I'm sure that when you use their service; you sign a release (contract by law) that enables them "rights" to use and exploit your materials as they deem necessary to promote their services. In doing so, you void your chances of picking up a label or a contract with sponsors willing to support your product; most want exclusive rights of use without prior "rights" assigned elsewhere. Pre-existing agreements, as I see it, would hinder contract negotiations.

From what I've read of cdbaby.com, their distribution right is not exclusive so it would not hinder an artist from getting major label support. What was also attractive to me was you can have a presence in their online store with as little as 5 CD hardcopies so very little upfront investment is needed. I think Lee Flier has more experience with it and has recommeneded them in a thread in her forum.

 

In a similar vein, cafepress.com offers artists a way to sell merchandise (hats, shirts, etc.) with their own artwork with no cash outlay. The artist retains the full right to the artwork, though cafepress retains the right (non-exclusive) to use it to advertise their services.

 

Ani, I'm not trying to deflate you but understand your vision. I agree that what we did here was very cool, but I'm still not convinced it was altogether that new. Maybe it was a combination of everything? Dunno. I'm also wary of your concept that you provided SOMA members the same service that RocketNetwork did for a lot less cost. The scale is not comparable, IMO. Yes, you did not have to buy any more software, but you had to buy that software originally. And Internet bandwidth is not free either. You may not have needed to pay for additional bandwidth for SOMA, but like I said, in a greater scale, you would have.

 

OK, I don't mean to pick on you. But maybe other folks are thinking the same thing as I am and could explain why some aren't as excited about this as you are. But I am still keeping an open mind for your ideas.

[ani]

From what I've read of cdbaby.com, their distribution right is not exclusive so it would not hinder an artist from getting major label support.

Rim,

 

I am not saying that cdbaby or likewise are asking for exclusive rights; I am saying that "LABELS" expect exclusive rights for parties that they are interested in signing. If you have already authorized another entity to use your works as they see fit for their promotional services, you are going to have a hard time finding a credible label that will touch you. You will have a hard time finding investors that will sponsor your works if "THEY" can't have exclusive rights to your works to promote their products. They are not going to want works that they have contracted to support their products popping up all over the place advertising someone elses services. If your materials happen to land in the hands of a fine promoter and become a success; I "GUARANTEE" that these loose ends in handing out privileges with your works "WILL" come back to haunt you. Those advertisers will exercise their "non-exclusive" rights to promote their services as they see fit. They won't have to acquire clearance rights or pay royalties, because they have already secured that interest.

[flyscots]

Wow Ani, that was a lot of reading!

 

Sorry for my late reply, I was getting a sore head so I printed this thread out and read it at work!

 

Thanks for putting so much time into this. It definately sounds interesting and possible, but I'm also very glad Nursers and Rim posted their concerns.

 

By the way, Rim mentioned Lee Flier, I also knoww Erik CMDN uses CDBaby, it seems to be a good service.

 

Sorry I don't have much more to say on the subject, I don't know enough about it all but I will be keeping a close eye on happenings here. I will say that I'll support whatever is decided.

 

Thanks again

 

John

[Franknputer]

Ani - I'm curious as to what you base your assertion on about using something like CDBaby? Sure, you don't want people having a bunch of rights to your stuff if you want to get signed, but having a simple distribution deal for a CD that you've already produced isn't necessarily a real liability.

 

If they are wanting the rights to your release, rather than creating a separate one, then there might be concerns; but, on the other hand, if you're moving a fair number of them then it goes to prove to them that you can in fact move product, making it less speculative to sign you.

 

If the former is the case, then I doubt that a reputable company would have much difficulty in settling anything still due CDBaby. If they have no stake in your creative work (which it sounds liike they don't), then it's just a straight dollars-and-cents issue.

 

And if the latter is the case, then it could turn out to be a boon for you, providing income while you work to recoup the record company advance. For instance, when Steve Vai first got signed, he didn't see any money from his major label for over a year, but sales of his self-released album - which also went up after the release - put money in his pocket to live on.

 

Just my 0.02

[ani]

Well Chris,

 

Here's a good start for an article about the conflict between using CDBABY and Major Label interest. The full article can be found at the provided link, but the excerpt covers "quite a bit" of what we discussing here. For those who don't know him, Moses Avalon is the author of "Confessions of a Record Producer" that is in the top sellers of Amazon Books for Music Industry resources. Some of his works are even used in college courses relative the the Music Business.

 

http://www.songnet.org/members/guest/derek-sivers/Moses_Avalon_-_Dere k_Sivers_-_CDBaby_iTunes_Debate.html

 

CD Baby has been called the Mecca of the Do-it-Yourself music industry, and

its CEO, Derek Sivers, the Pied Piper of up-and-coming recording artists.

But now, the country's most successful independent on-line distributor of

CDs may have crossed a line that could get them in hot water with thousands

of their clients.

 

CD Baby functions like Amazon.com for artists not signed to major labels.

Artists can use the company's website to sell their CDs and thus are

relieved of the burden of warehousing and shipping their inventory

themselves and the accompanying problems of monitoring credit card

accounts. More importantly, CD Baby takes only $4 for each sale and passes

the remaining $5-$8 per unit back to the artist every 30 days.

 

The deal has always been non-exclusive, allowing artists the right to

market their own work in their own way, and keep them free to make a deal

with a major label, should opportunity come a-knocking. The model has been

hugely successful, particularly among artists who are shut out by the

tightly-guarded distribution arteries of the major record labels. CD Baby's

recent alliance with Tower Records boosted their profile and its wunderkind

CEO, Derek Sivers, who has become a folk hero, gracing several music

industry trade magazines with his Tibetan Zen pony-tail and trustworthy smile.

 

This month, however, it appears that the dark side of the Force may have

seduced the young Jedi. CD Baby launched a new service that emulates the

very business model that their philosophy has thus far rebelled against -

one where the artists' music is controlled exclusively by CD Baby without

the promise of significant distribution.

 

THE NEW DEAL WITH APPLE/iTUNES

 

The new "Digital Distribution" deal offered on the CD Baby site has

attracted hundreds of enrollees over night (at $40 a head), due mostly to

CD Baby's claim that their clients will have the possibility of being

distributed on Apple Computer's extremely successful iTunes service. Only

one month old, iTunes has distributed millions of major label singles

already, breathing much-needed life into the desperate lungs of the retail

record business. Apple, until now, has been distributing only acts signed

to major labels. Several months back they invited representatives of the

five major record distributors to a "secret conference" to announce their

deal. Derek Sivers was the only invitee that didn't have an entourage of

lawyers. He was "chosen," many thought, to be the sole indie pipeline for

the iTunes service. It made Apple appear oh-so hip.

 

Giving a shot at distribution on iTunes is, in the minds of many unsigned

artists, almost like competing with the big name artists on MTV, a dream

come true for many struggling acts. But is it a real shot, and what rights

are CD Baby artists giving up in exchange for this chance? Is CD Baby

itself being played for a sucker? Facts that are surfacing as a result of

this investigation may reveal that there is another agenda for Apple's

choice of Mr. Sivers to be the sole emissary responsible for acquiring

content for Apple.

 

A CONTRACT OF TORTURED CREDIBILITY

 

According to the eight attorneys who responded to my initial query, the CD

Baby contract has several major loopholes that could permanently hinder an

artist's ability to navigate beyond the Do-It-Yourself realm to the strata

of major label artist; something most of CD Baby's clients presumably want.

Many clauses in the CD Baby contract tie up rights exclusively for a

minimum of three years, and some clauses attempt to grab rights to the

artist's "underlying compositions" themselves ("songs," for those who don't

speak legalese.) This turns the CD Baby contract into an EXCLUSIVE

publishing and distribution deal fused together.

 

Most major label recording contracts have similar clauses that stick their

hands deep into the pockets of artists, but there is usually an advance of

some magnitude as part of the exchange. With CD Baby's deal the artist pays

for the exclusive licensing of their music.

 

Furthermore, the CD Baby contract allows them to sell their exclusive

licenses to ANY third party without conferring with their client first.

(Let's hope it's to a third party that pays royalties, since their

agreement is a "flow-through" deal to their clients.) This in effect makes

CD Baby's basic business model no different that that of a standard major

label, except there is no advance to the artist, no promotion campaign, and

no MTV video. (And we thought record deals couldn't get much worse.)

 

Given my experience with the dark side of the music business, I immediately

jumped to a cynical conclusion. But several attorneys interviewed for this

piece felt that the CD Baby contract's "bad clauses" were more the result

of "sloppy drafting" rather than any attempt at subterfuge. Others were

less generous. They are backing-off from recommending the CD Baby deal to

their clients, saying emphatically that the contract contains "poorly

drafted [and] risky language."

 

After receiving several emails from artists and lawyers and reviewing the

contract myself, I contacted Mr. Sivers and went over each of the points at

the end of this article. Some changes were made the following day, like the

addition of a 30 day-opt-out clause, but the most egregious points remain

as of the date of this piece, and conflicting language makes even the

30-day-opt-out clause's validity questionable.

 

........ (see the rest of the article HERE )

 

Also.... here's another interesting article to read how easy it is for Producers, Publishers, General Licensers, and Labels to research to see if an artist, or for that matter... a writer of any sort, has signed away any rights.

 

http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/story/topnews/WST20020207S0006

[Franknputer]

Ani, if you read the rest of the page that is linked you see that a number of people, including Derek Sivers of CDBaby, are saying that Moses Avalon is completely wrong. Derek makes a point-by-point refutation of MA's claims, and says outright that all anyone has to do do be released from CDBaby is give 30 days notice.

 

Also, I see that MA's sight, with the side-by-side breakdown of Apple's iTunes contract & CDBaby's contract (for dealing with iTunes, incidentally - that's what his beef was with, specifically their digital distribution contract and NOT their CD selling arrangements) is still not up - even though he says he completed the analysis last August.

 

Got anything else? 'Cause this just doesn't amount to much IMO.

[nursers]

This is a great discussion to have folks - good to thrash these things out sooner rather than later

[Rim]

Originally posted by Ani:

From what I've read of cdbaby.com, their distribution right is not exclusive so it would not hinder an artist from getting major label support.

Rim,

 

I am not saying that cdbaby or likewise are asking for exclusive rights; I am saying that "LABELS" expect exclusive rights for parties that they are interested in signing. If you have already authorized another entity to use your works as they see fit for their promotional services, you are going to have a hard time finding a credible label that will touch you. You will have a hard time finding investors that will sponsor your works if "THEY" can't have exclusive rights to your works to promote their products.

I agree. It looks like all CDBaby needs is a 30 day notice to cancel all their distribution rights.

 

And as Christopher has stated, if there are doubts about the digital distribution, we don't have to sign up for it.

 

And really my point was, whatever we feel we need, why not look at exisiting services?

[ani]

The fact remains that there "ARE" controversial issues that are CURRENTLY under investigation into the terms of use on CD Baby's set up with Itunes; not only by Moses Avalon, but several other industry pros are involved.

 

Without further research into the "LOOPHOLES", I'm apprehensive about doing "RISKY" business; that includes using the service of CD Baby as a whole without legal review of noted changes that took place during their latest transition.

 

Intellectual Property Laws run hand in hand from one form of the art to another, here are a few articles pertaining to exclusive / non-exclusive uses and their advantages and pitfalls...

 

Non-exclusive Use: Purchaser is allowed to reuse (or resell) the image in specified regions and situations along with the artist. Non-exclusive clauses are usually an area of broad gray areas and need to be specified and clear to avoid future conflicts of interest. Non-exclusive clauses are often the home of grants not fitting anywhere else.

 

.....

 

Exclusive Use: No one except the purchaser of the image can use the image without permission of the purchaser.

 

... read the full article HERE

It is a matter of common sense that if you have already assigned non-exclusive rights of material to one entity, then you have voided the potential of assigning "EXCLUSIVE" rights to anyone else. With the first written agreement authorizing use of materials for promotional or other reasons by the holder of interest being in place, granting them freedom of "USE" for the said properties; no longer do you have the privilege or the legal power to offer another party "Exclusive" rights without first VOIDING the preceding agreement.

 

I just visited CD Baby's site to read their Terms of Use, and they "HAVE NONE" ahhhhhhhhhh.... explain that one to me! Once your works are in their hands, initiated by YOU, where have you covered your butt as to what they can do with your product? Obviously you are granting them freedom of use, but to what degree have you limited their exploitation of your materials without having that written agreement between the two parties? Point me to where "I" can read "CD Baby's" TOU... I'd really like to see it!

 

I browsed through their whole site, even including the "sellers" set up page that requested your personal information and still did not see any provisions. Not until I entered into the digital distribution section did I find a contract, which happens to be the one under scrutiny.

 

Here is a bit on Clearing Rights for Multimedia Works (in this case, I believe the primary focus was on print publishing; but Intellectual Property Laws from one forte are usually applicable to all of the fine arts) This article appears to be written by authors connected with Thompson & Thompson, PC; a well known Intellectual Property and Trademark Law firm.

 

Presently, requests to publishers for rights to use their works in multimedia creations probably represent an insignificant portion of all requests. Many publishers do not have settled policies, forms of permission or license agreements. The development of standards is a long way off; the pace of change in this area is so fast that what we may think is reasonable today will seem outrageous a year from now. These circumstances contribute to a sense of caution among rights holders. Even publishers who are enthusiastic about the advent of the electronic era will naturally be reluctant to make long-term arrangements that they may regret in a short period of time.

 

There is a dearth of guidance for the multimedia creator today. The following is garnered from Scott and from my own experience, which is not extensive:

 

The creator must be sure of who owns what. In some circumstances a publisher may not have the right to authorize the desired use. Ask for warranties and indemnities to be on the safe side.

 

It is best to perform a copyright search to confirm the status of any work to be used. This may be required if the creator will be seeking financing for the project; most financial backers require a thoroughly documented search as a prerequisite to their issuing errors and omissions insurance. Creators can perform their own searches through the Copyright Office. Circulars 22 and 23 provide information about how to proceed. The Copyright Office will perform searches for creators as well, for an hourly fee. The Copyright Office now supports online searches as well, though like other searches, these do not provide definitive results. Good results can be obtained from commercial sources such as Thomson & Thomson. 8

 

The creator must be careful to insure that the grant of rights is broad enough to cover the rights needed for the project. These should probably include the right to "use, modify, adapt, reproduce and distribute" the work in a specific format. Consider whether a nonexclusive grant will be sufficient for the project. If the work is central to the project, the creator may need an exclusive grant. Consider also the territory over which the work will be distributed.

 

...read the full article HERE

[flyscots]

Ani, do you have "All You Need To Know About The Music Business" by Donald S Passman? Not entirely relevant to our situation but I think it'd be right up your alley.

[ani]

Yes Flyscots,

 

I do own a copy, a few copies of different releases of Don's works. I've actually had the opportunity of getting to speak one on one with Mr. Passman through email. A very humble and nice man, not mention an icon in the industry.