> like to recommend a book that might help you better comprehend the
> engineering battle behind what is happening with the searches. This

> is important, as the battlefield is no longer one about music, but
> about engineering and the internet landscape. The book is called
> Blown to Bits, and it is written by Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and
> Harry Lewis. (Harry Lewis was the Dean of Harvard College, and he
> teaches engineering at Harvard). He released the book under a
> creative commons license, and it can be viewed at http://
> bitsbook.com. I recommend chapter 6 for you to read as a start.
> The book is loaded with references to important academic blogs which

> provide fresh information about net neutrality, etc. Link to the
> blogs.
>
> The key points in the battle over access take place at the server
> priority level (access to high speed servers, for example),
> filtering, bandwidth, software needs, software licenses, and
> reliability of service.
>
> The war is being fought by people and their machines.

Years ago, I sold things on Ebay. I discovered through my sales experience that search result filtering can be done (star sellers are rewarded with better presentation in search result pages). How can that be offered if altering search results can’t be controlled – right?

> Artists need to unite and sue google for every infraction of a song
> paid without copyright permission. Artists need to consider going to MIT and
> interviewing engineers about the current (and evolving) structure of
> the internet in order to learn how they can enjoy fair access status

> on servers, searche’s, etc. Oh ..Don’t let google tell you that the

> information can’t be retrieved. (They’ll keep the
> records of plays to track listening/sales patterns). A cease and
> desist order from united musicians might help.
>
> Please read Robert Lamm’s little post about his plan to have an
> “unauthorized remix” done from Chicago songs. He identifies the situation

> that the band is in (a kind of legal homelessness mixed with a
> desire to still have their music be heard). The band is, I think, in

> a unique situation to blaze a trail (or cut the path). If I were
> the band’s lawyer, I’d grab the concepts of the creative commons
> license (which was used by youtube), grab the tradition model of
> music creation, distribution, and copy law, and study them against
> this modern grid of servers, searches, access, filters, copys,
> software rights, etc. I’d then work out my own “Memorandum of
> Understanding” for all parties having a music business relationship
> with the band that protects the band, allows listeners quick access
> to their music, protects copying, and reflects the modern internet/
> communication structure. In other words I’d design and then push
> for a new law that prohibits a search engine like google from
> unauthorized capture and playing of music, etc. It’s a lot of work,
> but it’s worth it. If Chicago can’t do it alone, I suggest uniting
> with others bands. If they sought advice from folks at MIT, they
> could have a voice against the corporations designing a structure that -in my opinion – allows stealing music from an artist.

> The book Blown to Bits exposes the technology behind the business of

> copying songs. The battlefield is in full action. Although certain individuals don’t own the key servers (yet), it’s an important part of this battle to watch.
>
> I confess that I’ll resort, as a music customer, to going to a large

> retail site to buy music if I can’t successfully do it quickly from
> the band’s site. I am suspicious, however, that the large retailers

> have access to servers that the band’s sites don’t enjoy. Is that
> legal? It would be like allowing major retailers access to a highway while leaving all other traffic the option of side roads or horse and buggy. I wouldn’t be surprised, either, if the large retailers
> figured out ways to deny access (or slow down access) to band sites so that frustrated customers buy their music at one of the major retailer sites. It’s worth looking into.
>
> Thank you for your patience in listening to my rambling here. I
> hope the book recommendation is helpful. Please continue to post to
blueinfinitymusic.com
> – I’ll be watching! Oh..check out the book Access Denied, too. It has a country by country organization showing that filtering is, indeed, taking place. (So..the software exists to do this).! Thank you for your concern for the artists!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sandra Perkins
> An old Chicago fan

A sincere good luck to everyone,

-|/_ peace

Maybe you could tell us who you really are. It must be fun to post comments on people’s blogs anonymously.

There was no mention of a conspiracy in my post, just healthy commentary on a situation that runs contrary to the indie trend. Big music is over and even Google is not going to change that. I was just trying to point out some challenges to the model presented by Google when the rest of the coverage was pablum from the press event.

I still believe that the indie artists are getting the raw deal here. Not sure how you make your living (because, well… ) but most artists I know struggle for their daily bread. We have to band together to find a new path to positive cash flow in the music business.

Dave

Just curious, how often do you find a new band by Googling the name? If you planned on actually buying a track, would you really go to Google first? What about iTunes, Amazon, AmieStreet, Bandcamp, blah blah blah? I’ve never seen someone Google a song to purchase it.

To me it just seems like Google is trying to put in a middle man that isn’t necessary. Although I would prepare, I would not worry about it.

The lyrics Google talks about being searched so much are probably from major label’s top 100s. I doubt it’s a typical way for a fan to really connect with an artist and have long term value.

I don’t know, I could be wrong about this, but I think smaller artists will be fine.

I don’t think it’s conspiratorial; it’s a fact of how the licensing deals have gone down. Access to their catalogs is traded for an equity stake. And whatever value or gain is derived from that stake will not find its way to artist royalty accounts.

As for Gracenote, they have no music service, so it is confusing to me that they would be lumped in with the mix of companies in the google search results. Google’s press release explains that they are providing lyrics, and as anyone familiar with Gracenote knows, their database is all-encompassing and not limited only to music from major labels.

So at the very least, the article here seems to be cherry picking facts, but there appears to be a substantial amount of misinformation or lack of information. Is there really a conspiracy? This is not to say that search results won’t be biased towards high profile results (I don’t know), but logically that would seem to make sense to me. Most people will want to search for high profile music, and they would be silly to not tune searches for the most likely results.

I suppose conspiracy theories make for good press. The earth would probably jerk off its axis if someone didn’t propose at least one here.

Kirk A-Zar & Dave,
I have the same question about the “free” stream. If it is free does that mean that the entities that licensed to these services waived the fees for these particular streams? Given that the deals are setup on a per stream basis, it would seem that something would have had to change. And if the independent distributors like CD Baby (who are not the rights holders) waived the per stream fees, wouldn’t they have had to get permission from the rights holders, which in many cases is the artist?

As long as there exists a listenable and acceptable non drm format(mp3), a cool gadget(ipod,iphone), torrents, services like rapidshare and megaupload, and net neutrality, google is and will always be chasing their tales with this sh*t.

And finally if Google does roll this crap out people will simply be annoyed with the advertising a go to another search solution. There are plenty of those waiting to take the spillover.