[rumori] pho: pho-[Fwd: Vorbis press]

From: Don Joyce (djATwebbnet.com)
Date: Sat Dec 23 2000 - 16:24:27 PST

Forwarded by Negativland.

>X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.onehouse.com: majordomo set sender to
>owner-phoATonehouse.com using -f
>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 04:25:26 +0000
>From: Tom Barger <tomsongATearthlink.net>
>Reply-To: tomsongATearthlink.net
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: phoATonehouse.com
>Subject: pho: pho-[Fwd: Vorbis press]
>Sender: owner-phoATonehouse.com
>Precedence: bulk

>Ogg Vorbis is mentioned in CNET's MP3 Insider newsletter.
>I'm sending this article and another one that takes more
>thorough look at internet music distribution (from the same
>There is a widespread illusion that the MP3 file format is not a
>proprietary codec. It'd be nice, but it's just not true. At any
>time, Thompson (owners of Frauenhoffer Gesellschaft, who invented
>MP3) could start charging whatever they want to anyone using MP3
>in any way. They certainly won't start charging users directly,
>but they could start charging the companies that make MP3 playing
>software, as well as sites that offer MP3s for download, the same
>way they already charge companies that offer MP3 encoding for
>each download. If you don't like the sound of this, start getting
>yourself acquainted with Ogg Vorbis files. They use a codec that
>was developed as an open-source project, and there will never be
>any licensing fees to pay for using Ogg VOrbis.
>Ogg Vorbis, the real free codec:
>The Big Story
>If you think about it, the music industry is founded on the
>principle of exclusivity. Artists sign exclusive contracts with
>labels. Fans are excluded from almost everything unless they're
>willing to pay prices that aren't dictated by the laws of supply
>and demand. It goes further than that--independent scenes try in
>vain to exclude the masses from ruining their little parties, and
>technology firms and record companies sign exclusive deals with
>each other. In this day and age, it's impossible--and even
>counterproductive--to continue the exclusionary mentality that
>has permeated the record industry up to this point.
>There are too many new approaches being taken to limit music
>distribution to just one method. Likewise, it no longer makes
>sense to exclude fans from accessing music the music they want,
>since they're going to get what they want whether or not the
>labels like it. Exclusivity is out, and the sooner the players in
>online music realize this, the better it will be for everybody.
>It's still a party, but this time we're all invited.
>Exclusive Contracts: Bad
>Traditionally, artists have had no choice but to sign exclusively
>to any label with significant marketing clout. They lose the
>right to do anything with their name (now a brand) or music (now
>the label's property) during the life of the contract. As Tim
>Quirk of Too Much Joy pointed out in his Expert Sound-Off column
>for Music.CNET.com, it's quite ironic that the life of the
>contract is referred to as the "period of exploitation." But
>there is a veritable army of companies and individuals setting up
>a new mechanism of music suggestions, based on intelligently
>recommending music to people who will like it. This stands in
>opposition to the old method of promotion, which involved placing
>ads, shooting videos, buying prominent brick-and-mortar rack
>placement, and paying off whatever it is that has replaced the
>human element of broadcast radio.
>If these services, combined with the massive word-of-mouth effect
>brought about by the Internet, succeed in making it easier for
>sounds to find the ears that like them, then artists will no
>longer need to rely on the massive promotional budgets of the
>labels who require exclusive contracts.
>For those of you who want to read more about this, here is Tim
>Quirk's column:
>Exclusive Online Distribution: Bad
>Likewise, a number of online music companies have tried to sign
>artists to distribute their downloadable music exclusively
>through their sites. While most sites that experimented with
>exclusive contracts have given up on that approach, EMusic
>perseveres. In order to get your music on their site, you need to
>agree not to upload it to other Web sites. Agreeing to this
>exclusivity runs counter to the everything the Web is about. The
>fans themselves can download your tunes from one service, and
>then set it loose on the Internet via Napster, email, IRC
>channels, online storage sites--you name it. To pretend that it's
>possible to distribute music exclusively through one central Web
>site is to see order where there is chaos, walls where there are
>Exclusive Formats: Bad
>There is nothing the record industry wants more than for everyone
>to uninstall Winamp and install 10 or 12 different media players
>in order to handle the different DRM schemes currently large
>enough to consider using. Then, they could encode their entire
>catalogues of music and sell them on the Web for $3 per song,
>confident in the fact that every song would be paid for and never
>heard by anyone other than the person who ponied up the three
>bucks. There is nothing we, the consumers, want less than this.
>The Internet has turned music into a buyer's market, and the
>powers that be can no longer dictate how (or even whether) goods
>are bought or sold. Bluematter, OpenMG, secure WMA, Liquid
>Audio--whatever it is, we don't want it. If the American
>government really wanted to stop speeding on the highways, they'd
>force manufacturers to make cars that never went over the speed
>limit. But if they did, people would buy older models without the
>new mechanism or find a mechanic who specialized in circumventing
>the restriction. The same goes for music.
>Exclusive Scenes: Bad
>In real life, you need to wear a safety pin in the proper nostril
>in order to join a community of safety-pin-in-the-proper-nostril
>music fans. But on the Web, all you have to do is pick the screen
>name Proper_Nostril_Pin_88, and you're in. OK, that might be a
>slight oversimplification, but it's undeniable that the Internet
>has made it possible for more people to access previously
>inaccessible music. Music speaks for itself on the Web, since
>it's divorced from real-life interaction. Anyone can find and
>join a community of people discussing and trading the music they
>like, whereas before, people were excluded from each other by
>clothes, appearance, and location. The Internet does not like
>exclusivity, and that goes for the cliques that surround
>underground music scenes. Anyone can get into the party, as long
>as it's being held online. There will still be old- fashioned
>record store clerk snobbery about who knows or doesn't know about
>which seminal band, but the sheer quantity of knowledge available
>at sites such as UBL.com and AllMusic.com make it much easier for
>newbies to get in the know and up to speed.
>Exclusion is out, and everything else is in; the sooner people
>let go of the idea of the exclusive contract, exclusive
>distribution agreements, exclusionary formats, and insular music
>scenes, the more they'll get out of this heady collision of music
>and the Internet.
>Eliot Van Buskirk, Senior Editor, CNET Music Center
>--- >8 ----
>List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/
>Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
>To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-requestATxiph.org'
>containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed.
>Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.

Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.