Holy shite theres some long posts on here!!!

Aside from all the issues that have been brought up with NZonAir it has generated a question for me - someone commented about the charters appropiatness in the age of the internet and that linked into something which I had been reading recently.

Taken From : http://newmusicstrategies.com/download/NMS.pdf (well worth a read)

[Quote Begins]

The economics of the internet are different to the economics of the offline world. The ways in which it’s different are still being shaken out, but the most well-established principle is that of The Long Tail.

Originally an article by Wired Magazine editor Chris Anderson, and then a blog and a very successful book, The Long Tail is actually a very simple concept. It’s a model for describing an important characteristic of the online environment.

The top left of the graph represents a very small number of popular items that have a very high number of sales. These are the hits. The tail towards the bottom right represents the vast number of items that sell in smaller quantities.

The main point of Anderson’s article is that the internet enables the large number of non-hits to expand to the extent that they economically outweigh the hits. And, he argues, this is exactly what’s happened.

In a sense, it’s all about physical space. In the offline environment, there’s only a certain amount of shelf space. Online, storage is not a problem. In traditional record shops and bookstores, only the most popular items can be offered. Online, far more things can be made available, and that raises some issues.

The first issue that arises from this is that the more things you make available, the more people will explore the non-hits. The repercussion of this is that the sales of the most popular items suffer. If 100 things are available, those 100 things will enjoy sales success. If a million things are available for sale, the 100 most popular things will still enjoy sales success, but a greater proportion of people will explore the tail instead of consuming the hits.

The second issue is that the more things you make available, the more things people will consume overall. Amazon.com sells more books than any other bookstore because it sells a greater range of books than any other bookstore.

The third, and perhaps most important aspect, is that the Long Tail provides not only greater potential for mass market retailers moving online by reducing the problem of shelf space, but also a route to market for a wide range of niche products that might not otherwise have been made available by more traditional means.

The book has had two subtitles (in the American and UK versions), each with different emphasis. The first is: ‘Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More’ — that is, the trick is to make everything available, and sell a small quantity of a large number of items, rather than the other way around. The second subtitle is: ‘How Endless Choice Is Creating Unlimited Demand’ — a slightly more problematic assertion, but it does carry a message of hope to niche businesses.

The simple fact is that economics are transformed online. An online music retailer will never sell out of a record. They will never have to stop stocking an item in order to stock another. There is no reason for labels to delete catalogue and every reason to reissue everything.

And the more easily searchable you make it, the more you will benefit at the business end.

The real reason the major record labels are experiencing problems is not the issue of piracy or filesharing. It’s that they no longer have only to compete with other hits. Now they have to compete with a range of choice that is exponentially greater than anything they’ve ever come across. The age of the hit is over.

Because the simple, powerful fact is this: for the first time in history, the sum total of the economic value of the tail is now greater than the sum total of the economic value of the head. Amazon sells more books overall that are not in the top 100 bestseller list than those 100 combined. Probably more outside the top 1000 than in it.

Add all the sales of all the records that made it into the charts in the last year, and the economic value of everything that never made it close eclipses it.

This is something that requires more reading — because understanding these concepts could radically transform both how you approach what you do for a living, and how much money you could make doing it.

Search out the book – or at least read Anderson’s blog.

[Quote Ends]

Now once we take on board we can see that funding only those tracks which the industry identify as "hits" is a flawed concept with distribution via the internet - it seems clear that the NZ on Air funding hasn't kept up to speed with the changes in the music industry and is still concentrated on trying to develop individual artists as opposed to the entire industry.

I found the PDF I've linked to be quite an eye opener - maybe not so much for people here but for my next project I want to actually have some visability and it seems to lay out the basic steps to do so quite well.

The two bigs things that stood out for me were...
- The age of the hit is over.
- for the first time in history, the sum total of the economic value of the tail is now greater than the sum total of the economic value of the head

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on the above - even if it's disagreement.

If anyones interested theres been some quite good discussion on Public Address (the blog of Russell Brown, and a number of others including Graham Reid) about associated topics.

Well worth a read if you have the time...

http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,399,random_play_so_you_wanna_b...

Theres a couple of other good threads too but I don't have the time to dig them up.

::But then again the privy council are somewhat more qualified than me to make that decision...::

Actually they went to pains to make sure everyone understood that their overturning of his convictions has nothing to do with his innocence or guilt and is simply based on failures of the legal process - they are in no way stating an opinion as to wether he is innocent or guilty.

The only people who can decide wether he is innocent or guilty is a jury of his peers (that is if you believe in that stuff).

He may leave NZ - but with what exactly? I don't see much potential for him getting compensation from the government considering the criteria - up sh*t creek without a paddle?

Either way the guys life is ruined :-(

It's certainly an interesting question - and I think a lot of people are currently revaluating the "NZ Music" brand which has developed.

Personally I think the fierce indepdence is a good thing - but I am somewhat biased in that direction myself.

One of the questions which has been floating around my mind for the last couple of months is, "is there still an advantage for bands to be identified as being NZ music or is it limiting their potential in overseas and local markets". To me, the NZ Music brand seems to have passed it's peak point of a couple of years ago and is at the risk of diminishing returns - much the same way as fashions fade.

Do bands see it as advantageous to push the "NZ Muisc" angle or is it better to simply playdown the fact that we're from a very protected (because the government grants do equate to some level of protectionism) and musically segregated area of the world?

Has the support which artists received via government funding steered them away from expanding into the international market because they feel they can comfortably manage here? Are we making it too comfortable for NZ artists and as such removing their incentive to look off shore?

Personally I would have jumped at the chance to work in London - but I'm strictly a bedroom engineer/producer (so far). I've thought about doing an audio engineering course, but all the engineers I've spoken too have been somewhat scathing about the level of expertise which is offered at a lot of these courses - I recognise that these are just their opinions but they are people who I respect for their opinions and their technical skills.

Very interesting all round...

Yeap I'm still getting the same error as above...

*could* be a good thing - there would be a significant possibility that could stop being a live venue all together depending on who purchased it. Though the Bodega name has a pretty long association with live music in NZ - but theres no reason the new owners couldn't change the name too...

Hopefully it will turn out the way you've suggested :-)

Awww shucks :-)

If you look hard you can probably find some live K1500 videos (of some of the rock stuff) on YouTube too!!

Yay!

If anyones interested theres a whole bundle of K1500 tracks available for both streaming and downloading at LastFM.com (see link below). Track listings as follows.

No Aiming, Just Shooting (S.Common, DJ Green, J Nolan, G Chadwick)
- KbK
- Dance Floor War
- Fistycuffs
- Church of Elvisey

Demos
- Monsters (S.Common, DJ Green, J Nolan, G Chadwick + random sax player)
- Glory Days (S.Common) [4-track]
- Interstellar Life (S.Common) [4-track]

Debut EP (S.Common) [4-tracks]
- Just In Time
- Hanging By My Side
- Spirit In The Stone
- The Sunday Song
- Ramble

Enjoy

[ external link ]

I would have thought more people would be interested in this but I guess not...

Some more interesting items from the bill... oh by the way format shifting will be at the discretion of the publisher... [some of these have been taken from other posts on other sites (mostly public address - I have included a link at the bottom of the page to the great discussion there for anyone interested) because they sum up the information well - appologies to anyone who I may have infringed upon by doing so :-]

//"(1) Copyright in a sound recording and in a literary or musical work
contained in it is not infringed by copying the sound recording, if the
following conditions are met:

There are then 7 conditions that must be met, all of which I find reasonable. However, subsection (2) is the kicker:

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the sound recording is
bound by a contract that specifies the circumstances in which the sound
recording may be copied."

So basically if the publisher chooses to they can restrict how you convert you music - or wether you're even allowed too... so the format shifting is totally pointless because companies can just say that they do not authorise format shifting (which removes any point of having a fair use provision to start with).

Of course there are provisions which allow you to remove the DRM - but to do so legally would be nigh on impossible as demonstrated here...

//I buy a CD, and it has the SonyBMG rootkit on it. If I stick it in my PC it won't allow me to copy the music to my iPod.
Step 1: Under the new Bill, copying music to the one iPod I own is a Permitted Act, so in theory I'm allowed to do this (albeit I can't do it for commercial gain - which is fair enough). However the TPM restricts me from engaging in the Permitted Act.
Step 2: Under s226E(a) I can "apply to the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee for assistance enabling the user to exercise the Permitted Act". I can just see the letter from SonyBMG now - we refuse to help, go buy another copy of your entire music library from iTunes to play on your iPod.
Step 3: Under s226E(b) I can then "engage a qualified person to exercise the Permitted Act on the users behalf ... but only if the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee has refused the user's request for assistance or failed to respond to it within a reasonable time." Note - reasonable time is not defined. Think .. I dunno .... years?
So far, so good. If SonyBMG tell me to clear off, I can go and get one of these qualified persons to crack the DRM for me. And under the Bill, these people are:
- A prescribed library
- A prescribed archive
- An educational institution
So there I am with my shiny new CD in my hand, trying to explain to the receptionist at the National Library (or maybe Archives NZ) how it would be really helpful if they could just clean the TPM off for me, 'cos they're the only people who can legally do this ....

Yeah, fucking, right.

Of course circumventing the DRM is a breach of the act itself and would make you a criminal for holding down the shift key on a windows based computer.

//s226: "TPM ... includes any process, treatment, mechanism, device or system that is designed in the normal course of its operation to prevent or inhibit the unauthorised exercise of any of the rights conferred by this Act." [emphasis mine]

So clearly holding down the Shift key qualifies as a process designed to inhibit the TPM.

s226A(1): "A person ... must not make, import, sell, list for hire, offer or expose for sale or hire, or advertise for sale or hire, a TPM spoiling device that applies to a technological protection measure if (the person) knows or has reason to believe that it will, or is likely to, be used to infringe copyright in a TPM work."

This appears to get you off the hook ... but wait, there's more!

"s226A(2): A person ... must not provide a service, including the publication of information, if --
(a) the service or the information is intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent a technological protection measure; and
(b) knows or has reason to believe that the service or the information will, or is likely to, be used to infringe copyright in a work that is protected by a technological protection measure." [emphasis mine]

Presumably you can therefore keep the whole hold-the-shift-key-down thing to yourself, and avoid criminal conviction. But if you were to tell your girlfriend .... remember, there's no requirement that the service is a commercial one. Simply "publishing" the information by whatever form (verbal advice on the phone? E-mail to a mate having problems with his computer? Drunken conversation with work colleagues?) has the effect of invoking the penalties.

[ external link ]

Yay for people who get it :-)

I use this site quite a bit for checking out broadband options...

http://www.nzdsl.co.nz/ISPPlans.phtml

In the current state of NZ internet I just can't find it worth while to fork out for a home connection. Specially with their stupid peak usage (use more than 700mb in one day and get bumped into the high usage pool) - but at least they've backed down on the 200mb an hour idea (which would have had most users up shit creek).

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/0B93ABD2C1E01ABDCC25721F0027D39...