There’s been some nice commentary out there about the EFF VCL proposal. I largely agree with these criticisms/suggestions. Unless it sacrifices some flexibility (e.g., licensing to particular services rather than to individuals) then compliance is going to be a more tricky issue. Compliance will be a key issue in general, for, at bottom, the model assumes (hopes?) that this offering can ensure compliance by being an appealing option for consumers.
The current online music stores hope for the same thing – why can’t they be enough without shifting to this licensing solution? They certainly could be enough, but there are reasons to believe that this solution is more likely to sustain and stabilize the industries. There would be greater cost savings from reducing storage servers and credit card transactions. Because licensing would be consolidated and simpler, it too would be less costly. These savings could then lead to the lower price that the EFF suggests. The plan would more easily support the creation of a deep catalog and the convenience consumers have come to expect. Indeed, by working within consumers preferred downloading environments, convincing them to pay will be easier.
Will that be enough? One could argue that it isn’t. I’m optimistic.
A tangent: The EFF points out that this plan will aid independents; similar sentiments were expressed at the Digital Music Forum. I certainly agree, but I think that the current online music stores will also help indies.
In brick-and-mortar stores, indies are often forced to back-racks, if placed at all. Through “cooperative advertising agreements,” labels pay to ensure that record stores prominently featured certain artists. The need for radio promotion – and thus forms of payola – harms those with lesser marketing budgets.
P2P can help level the playing field. As distribution becomes much cheaper, indie artists will be able to reach far greater audiences. Their songs can now be found on P2P alongside major label recordings. Shared folders can lead people to serendipitously find indie artists in their file searches.
But many similar things can be said of the Internet generally and the current online music stores. The limits of server space are much smaller than the limits of a physical store. Apple has already offered all indie labels the exact same deal it has with the majors. Recommendation systems can help users find artists they normally would not. Such systems could be run by the stores, but they could also be bottom-up collaborative filters. Webcasting and other similar promotional avenues will aid P2P distribution as much as distribution through the store.
The online stores certainly could mimic the physical ones’ promotion of major label artists over indies. But, first, I’m not sure why it’d necessarily be to their advantage to do so – it costs them hardly anything to add another aritst to their server, while, given users demonstrated interest to buy broadly (see note on Apple here), the upside is quite large. Second, the same could be true of P2P systems – see KaZaA putting Altnet artists at the top of search requests.
Again, I’m not arguing against the EFF’s assessment of how VCLs would help indies, nor their implied assessment that this would be superior to any help the stores will provide – having this revenue stream open will probably be superior to selling copies through the online stores. Just saying that the online music stores can aid indies, too.
Filed by Derek Slater at 8:04 pm under General news
2 Comments
