DOCSLIB.ORG

Saving the Spotify Revolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Saving the Spotify Revolution JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY& THE INTERNET· VOL. 4 ·No. l · 2012 JouRNALOFLAw, TECHNOLOGY&THElNTERNET · VoL.4 · No.4 · 2012 Searching the Clouds SAVING THE SPOTIFY REVOLUTION: Until law enforcement routinely recognizes the Fourth Amendment protects the cloud network, an additional added protection is to continue to allow magistrates to impose restrictions RECALIBRATING THE POWER on computer warrants. Magistrates can do this by strictly enforcing the particularity requirement and by placing strict parameters on IMBALANCE IN DIGITAL COPYRIGHT computer warrants. If a magistrate grants a warrant for a computer hard drive, he should specifically note that the search cannot expand onto the cloud. Then, if the agent oversteps his bounds, the defense 1 may use the warrant's imposed limitations to suppress any data seized E. Jordan Teague unlawfully from the cloud. Restrictions 'Such as limiting the search ABSTRACT parameters to the physical hard drive, requiring searches to be conducted on copies of the hard drive instead of the actual computer, Many believed that Spotify would revolutionize the music or requiring that search of the computer takes place off-line223 will industry, offering a legal alternative to file sharing that compensates prevent law enforcement from even "accidently" exceeding the bounds musicians for use of their digital music. Why, then, have artists been of the warrant. If magistrates clearly and consistently apply abandoning the Spotify revolution in droves? Because the revolution restrictions to computer search warrants and suppress unlawfully has a dark side. Since Spotify is partly-owned by major record labels, seized evidence from the cloud, law enforcement will get the message: it has a serious conflict of interest with independent artists. Spotify's if they want to go beyond the physical hard drive, they must obtain a lack of transparency about its financial flows gives musicians further separate warrant. reason to question whether the service has their interests in mind, These additional steps will not interfere with law enforcement's particularly in light of the microscopic royalties Spotify has paid ability to continue to perform effective searches and seizures. Users of artists to date. This climate of suspicion has caused many artists to the cloud network have not given up their expectation of privacy abandon the service and pursue alternative means of digital simply because they choose to use the best means of data storage distribution and promotion. Even listeners have begun leaving available. When the user has not shared the documents through a Spotify on account of how it treats artists. Ironically, Spotify has network beyond one he has created for himself, he has not exposed managed to alienate the very audiences it needs as allies: artists, who the documents to the public and maintains his reasonable expectation supply Spotify's "unlimited" song library; and listeners, who fund the of privacy. The law must recognize this and must be willing to service through subscriptions and advertising. As such, the Spotify develop criteria for the expectation of privacy to meet the demands of revolution is destined to fail-an unfortunate reality, as the streaming the evolving technological world. music business model has great potential to benefit artists and serve the underlying goals of copyright. I argue that the most effective way to save the Spotify revolution is through a compulsory licensing scheme. This is because the primary impediment to Spotify changing its treatment of artists is its insulation from competitive pressures, which ultimately stems from the major labels' formidable bargaining position in digital sound recordings. The labels have assumed a gatekeeping function in streaming music, demanding corporate equity in exchange for access to their so"und recordings, which every streaming service needs to build a comprehensive catalog. As a result, the streaming music market has very few participants, all of which are partially controlled 1. Jordan Teague is an associate at Burr & Forman LLP in Birmingham, Alabama. She received her J .D. in 2012 from Vanderbilt University Law School, where she was the Senior Technology Editor of the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law. Jordan 223. In some cases, data saved in a cloud network account is not accessible received her B.A. magna cum laude in Mathematics-Economics from from a device that is off-line. Furman University in 2005. 206 207 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY&THElNTERNET ·VOL. 4 ·No. l · 2012 Saving the Spotify Revolution JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY&THElNTERNET ·VOL. 4 ·No. l · 2012 Saving the Spotify Revolution by the major labels. Compulsory licensing would make the major labels' sound recordings more readily accessible to would-be streaming and pursuing alternate avenues of spreading their artistry. Even listeners have begun leaving Spotify on account of how it treats services. A more competitive marketplace will lead to greater artists. Ironically, Spotify has managed to alienate the very audiences transparency and fairer treatment of artists-and will ultimately enable the Spotify revolution to succeed. it needs as allies: artists, who supply Spotify's "unlimited" song library, and listeners, who fund the service through subscriptions and INTRODUCTION advertising. As such, the Spotify revolution is destined to fail; yet Spotify. continues to bow to the interests of the major labels. When Spotify reached the U.S. market in mid-2011, While artists may have good reason to be distrustful, the commentators acclaimed that "the future of music" was here.2 technology is not the problem. By reducing distribution costs for Finally, legal access to a nearly unlimited catalog of music had artists and improving the public's access to creative works, the become possible.3 Although sharing many of the same characteristics streaming music business model could serve copyright's goals of as its illegal peer-to-peer predecessors like Napster, Spotify claimed to promoting creation and dissemination. 8 Further, Spotify could be a have an objective that distinguished it from other file sharing sites: viable way for musicians to monetize digital recordings if its user base compensating artists.4 With potential to be the holy grail of music­ increases through network effects. 9 With promise to benefit artists, unlimited songs for listeners with a paycheck for artists-Spotify the Spotify revolution does not need to be stifled-it needs to be seemed to be on track to revolutionize the music industry for saved by recalibrating the power imbalance in the digital music market. consumers and musicians. Why, then, have independent artists been abandoning this This Note argues that the most effective way to save the Spotify revolution is to enable a competitive marketplace through compulsory revolution in droves? Because the revolution has a dark side. Artists 10 began growing suspicious of the service after receiving microscopic licensing. Because of the dangerous combination of the labels' royalty checks.5 Though artists have urged it to divulge how it market share and their holdout right under copyright law, the major calculates royalties, Spotify has been far from forthcoming with artists labels sit as a formidable gatekeeper of the streaming music market, about its financial flows, giving artists all the more reason to distrust deciding who will enter and on what terms.11 This has resulted in a the service. 6 Further cementing this climate of suspicion is the fact marketplace consisting of only a handful of key participants, all of that the U.S. major record labels partly own the service, meaning that whom are part-owned by the major labels. 12 I contend that a the labels, as shareholders, did not necessarily have artists' interests compulsory licensing scheme, similar to those already in place in the in mind during negotiations with Spotify.7 Left in the dark, artists Copyright Act for other music markets, would dissolve the labels' must make a seemingly lose-lose choice: stay on Spotify and collect gatekeeping ability, for it would make the labels' catalogs available to 13 miniscule royalties, or leave the service, forgoing Spotify revenue and any potential streaming service. Further, it would prevent the labels exposure. Many musicians have chosen the latter, abandoning Spotify from leveraging copyright ownership into streaming service ownership.14 A more competitive marketplace will lead to greater 2. Randall Roberts, Critic's Notebook: With Spotify, the Future of Music is transparency and fairer treatment of artists-and will ultimately Here, POP & HISS: THE LA TIMES MUSIC BLOG (Jul. 22, 2011, 5:34 PM), enable the Spotify revolution to succeed~ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2011/07/critics-notebook­ with-spotify-the-future-of-music-is-here.html. 3. Id. ("rUlnlimited access to a huge chunk of the world's recorded music library ... has become reality."). 4. Tom Krazit, @ FB: Highlights from Mark Zuckerberg's Keynote Address, PAIDCONTENT (Sept. 22, 2011, 9:51 PM), 8. See infra Part III.A. http:/ /paidcontent.org/2011/09 /22/419-fS-highlights-from-mark- . 9. See infra Part III.A. zuckerbergs-keynote-address/ (noting that Daniel Ek, creator of Spot1fy, "[S]tated [his service] 's goal was to help people discover more music 10. See infra Part III.C. while fairly compensating artists."). 11. See infra Part III.B. 5. See infra Part II.A.iii. 12. See infra Part III.B. 6. See infra Part II.A.ii. 13. See infra Part III.C. 7. See infra Part II.A.i. 14. See infra Part III.C. 208 209 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY& THE INTERNET· VOL. 4 ·No. 1 · 2012 Saving the Spotify Revolution JouRNALOFLAw, TECHNOLOGY&THEINTERNET · VoL. 4 ·No. I· 2012 Saving the Spotify Revolution by the major labels. Compulsory licensing would make the major and pursuing alternate avenues of spreading their artistry. Even labels' sound recordings more readily accessible to would-be streaming listeners have begun leaving Spotify on account of how it treats services.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Napster: Winning the Download Race in Europe
    Resolution 3.5 July/Aug 04 25/6/04 12:10 PM Page 50 business Napster: winning the download race in Europe A lot of ones and zeros have passed under the digital bridge on the information highway since November 2002, when this column reviewed fledgling legal music download services. Apple has proved there’s money to be made with iTunes music store, street-legal is no longer a novelty, major labels are no longer in the game ... but the Napster name remains. NIGEL JOPSON N RESOLUTION V1.5 Pressplay, co-owned by UK. There’s an all-you-can-download 7-day trial for Universal and Sony, received top marks for user UK residents who register at the Napster.co.uk site. Iexperience. Subscription service Pressplay launched While Apple has gone with individual song sales, with distribution partnerships from Microsoft’s MSN Roxio has stuck to the subscription model and service, Yahoo and Roxio. Roxio provided the CD skewed pricing accordingly. ‘We do regard burning technology. In November 2002, Roxio acquired subscription as the way forward for online music,’ the name and assets of the famed Napster service (which Leanne Sharman told me, ‘why pay £9.90 for 10 was in Chapter 11 protective bankruptcy) for US$5m songs when the same sum gives you unlimited access and 100,000 warrants in Roxio shares. Two months to over half a million tracks?’ earlier, Napster’s sale to Bertelsmann had been blocked Subscription services have come in for heavy — amid concerns the deal had not been done in good criticism from many informed commentators — mostly faith — this after Thomas Middlehoff had invested a multi-computer and iPod owning techno journalists like reputed US$60m of Bertelsmann’s money in Napster.
    [Show full text]
  • Financing Music Labels in the Digital Era of Music: Live Concerts and Streaming Platforms
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLS\7-1\HLS101.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-MAR-16 12:46 Financing Music Labels in the Digital Era of Music: Live Concerts and Streaming Platforms Loren Shokes* In the age of iPods, YouTube, Spotify, social media, and countless numbers of apps, anyone with a computer or smartphone readily has access to millions of hours of music. Despite the ever-increasing ease of delivering music to consumers, the recording industry has fallen victim to “the disease of free.”1 When digital music was first introduced in the late 1990s, indus- try experts and insiders postulated that it would parallel the introduction and eventual mainstream acceptance of the compact disc (CD). When CDs became publicly available in 1982,2 the music industry experienced an un- precedented boost in sales as consumers, en masse, traded in their vinyl records and cassette tapes for sleek new compact discs.3 However, the intro- duction of MP3 players and digital music files had the opposite effect and the recording industry has struggled to monetize and profit from the digital revolution.4 The birth of the file sharing website Napster5 in 1999 was the start of a sharp downhill turn for record labels and artists.6 Rather than pay * J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, Class of 2017. 1 See David Goldman, Music’s Lost Decade: Sales Cut in Half, CNN Money (Feb. 3, 2010), available at http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_ music_industry/. 2 See The Digital Era, Recording History: The History of Recording Technology, available at http://www.recording-history.org/HTML/musicbiz7.php (last visited July 28, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • The Quality of Recorded Music Since Napster: Evidence Based on The
    Digitization and the Music Industry Joel Waldfogel Conference on the Economics of Information and Communication Technologies Paris, October 5-6, 2012 Copyright Protection, Technological Change, and the Quality of New Products: Evidence from Recorded Music since Napster AND And the Bands Played On: Digital Disintermediation and the Quality of New Recorded Music Intro – assuring flow of creative works • Appropriability – may beget creative works – depends on both law and technology • IP rights are monopolies granted to provide incentives for creation – Harms and benefits • Recent technological changes may have altered the balance – First, file sharing makes it harder to appropriate revenue… …and revenue has plunged RIAA Total Value of US Shipments, 1994-2009 16000 14000 12000 10000 total 8000 digital $ millions physical 6000 4000 2000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ensuing Research • Mostly a kerfuffle about whether file sharing cannibalizes sales • Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf (2006),Rob and Waldfogel (2006), Blackburn (2004), Zentner (2006), and more • Most believe that file sharing reduces sales • …and this has led to calls for strengthening IP protection My Epiphany • Revenue reduction, interesting for producers, is not the most interesting question • Instead: will flow of new products continue? • We should worry about both consumers and producers Industry view: the sky is falling • IFPI: “Music is an investment-intensive business… Very few sectors have a comparable proportion of sales
    [Show full text]
  • The Music Industry and the Fleecing of Consumer Culture
    The Music Industry: Demarcating Rhyme from Reason and the Fleecing of Consumer Culture I. Introduction The recording industry has a long history rooted deep in technological achievement and social undercurrents. In place to support such an infrastructure, is a lengthy list of technological advancements, political connections, lobbying efforts, marketing campaigns, and lawsuits. Ever since the early 20th century, record labels have embarked on a perpetual campaign to strengthen their control over recording artists and those technologies and distribution channels that fuel the success of such artists. As evident through the current draconian recording contracts currently foisted on artists, this campaign has often resulted in success. However, the rise of MTV, peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and even radio itself also proves that the labels have suffered numerous defeats. Unfortunately, most music listeners in the world have remained oblivious to the business practices employed by the recording industry. As long as the appearance of artistic freedom exists, as reinforced through the media, most consumers have typically been content to let sleeping dogs lie. Such a relaxed viewpoint, however, has resulted in numerous policies that have boosted industry profits at the expense of consumer dollars. Only when blatant coercion has occurred, as evidenced through the payola scandals of the 1950s, does the general public react in opposition to such practices. Ironically though, such outbursts of conscience have only served to drive payola practices further underground—hidden behind co-operative advertising agreements and outside promotion consultants. The advent of the Internet in the last decade, however, has thrown the dynamics of the recording industry into a state of disarray.
    [Show full text]
  • 14Th Annual ACM Honors Celebrates Industry & Studio Recording Winners from 55Th & 56Th ACM Awards
    August 27, 2021 The MusicRow Weekly Friday, August 27, 2021 14th Annual ACM Honors Celebrates SIGN UP HERE (FREE!) Industry & Studio Recording Winners From 55th & 56th ACM Awards If you were forwarded this newsletter and would like to receive it, sign up here. THIS WEEK’S HEADLINES 14th Annual ACM Honors Beloved TV Journalist And Producer Lisa Lee Dies At 52 “The Storyteller“ Tom T. Hall Passes Luke Combs accepts the Gene Weed Milestone Award while Ashley McBryde Rock And Country Titan Don looks on. Photo: Getty Images / Courtesy of the Academy of Country Music Everly Passes Kelly Rich To Exit Amazon The Academy of Country Music presented the 14th Annual ACM Honors, Music recognizing the special award honorees, and Industry and Studio Recording Award winners from the 55th and 56th Academy of Country SMACKSongs Promotes Music Awards. Four The event featured a star-studded lineup of live performances and award presentations celebrating Special Awards recipients Joe Galante and Kacey Musgraves Announces Rascal Flatts (ACM Cliffie Stone Icon Award), Lady A and Ross Fourth Studio Album Copperman (ACM Gary Haber Lifting Lives Award), Luke Combs and Michael Strickland (ACM Gene Weed Milestone Award), Dan + Shay Reservoir Inks Deal With (ACM Jim Reeves International Award), RAC Clark (ACM Mae Boren Alabama Axton Service Award), Toby Keith (ACM Merle Haggard Spirit Award), Loretta Lynn, Gretchen Peters and Curly Putman (ACM Poet’s Award) Old Dominion, Lady A and Ken Burns’ Country Music (ACM Tex Ritter Film Award). Announce New Albums Also honored were winners of the 55th ACM Industry Awards, 55th & 56th Alex Kline Signs With Dann ACM Studio Recording Awards, along with 55th and 56th ACM Songwriter Huff, Sheltered Music of the Year winner, Hillary Lindsey.
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T MOBILE MUSIC: Take Control of Your Music
    AT&T MOBILE MUSIC: Take Control of Your Music AT&T Mobile Music is the only service that lets you bring subscription music services to your wireless phone, and it offers the largest collection of mobile music content available today from leading music retailers, such as Napster, Yahoo!® Music and eMusic. Designed to deliver “your music, your way,” AT&T Mobile Music puts you in touch with all things music directly from the handset. Available on select handsets, such as the Samsung a717 and a727, AT&T Mobile Music is the ultimate mobile music experience and provides one-click access to a complete suite of music-related content. Music Player Rip music from your CD collection, load it to your phone and select handsets, or play tracks that are accessible from digital music stores. You’ll need a data cable, memory card and stereo headset to fully rock your phone. Shop Music Show your style by downloading ringtones and Answer Tones™. Buy tracks from leading digital music stores, such as Napster, Yahoo! Music and eMusic on select handsets. Streaming Music When you need a change from your music, dozens of commercial-free channels stream the latest tunes in rock, hip-hop, jazz, Latin and other favorites. Add XM Radio or MobiRadio for $8.99 a month. Music Video With an AT&T 3G phone, you can watch your favorite music videos anytime, anywhere. The dancing, the amazing effects, the hot hits — all in the palm of your hand. MusicID “Who sings this?” “What’s this song called?” Know in a flash just by holding up your phone to the music.
    [Show full text]
  • Directory of Music Publishers
    Directory of Music Publishers Music-makersThe tap major into this and directory indie publishers to connect in thiswith MC indie directory labels, marketingpromote, exploit & promo and experts collect andpayments indie publicists. for their writers’ Plus loads music. of contact informationAll info tois aidupdated you in for promoting 2020 with your info music supplied career, by theDIY listees. style: T-shirt Please and respect CD development, those who do blog not sitesaccept and unsolicited social media material. tools. R3 RING CIRCUS MUSIC 818-922-0807 Los Angeles DEEP WELL RECORDS 2209 Grantland Ave Email: [email protected] 6100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1600 1750 Vine St. Nashville, TN 37204 Web: bigdealmusicgroup.com Los Angeles, CA 90048 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Email: [email protected] How to Submit: no unsolicited material 323-969-0988 Email: [email protected] Web: 3ringcircusmusic.net Email: [email protected] Web: deepwellrecords.com Contact: Darrell Franklin, General Manager BIG FISH MUSIC (BMI) CALIFORNIA SUN MUSIC (ASCAP) Nashville DEFEND MUSIC, INC. ABET MUSIC 12720 Burbank Blvd., Unit 124 29 Music Sq. E. 1667 N Main Street 411 E. Huntington Dr., Ste. 107 Valley Village, CA 91607-1421 Nashville, TN 37203 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Arcadia, CA 91006 818-508-9777 615-329-3999 323-305-7315 626-303-4114 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: facebook.com/bigfishmusicbuilding Web: defendmusic.com Web: abetmusic.com Contact: Chuck
    [Show full text]
  • Music Industry Report 2020 Includes the Work of Talented Student Interns Who Went Through a Competitive Selection Process to Become a Part of the Research Team
    2O2O THE RESEARCH TEAM This study is a product of the collaboration and vision of multiple people. Led by researchers from the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Exploration Group: Joanna McCall Coordinator of Applied Research, Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce Barrett Smith Coordinator of Applied Research, Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce Jacob Wunderlich Director, Business Development and Applied Research, Exploration Group The Music Industry Report 2020 includes the work of talented student interns who went through a competitive selection process to become a part of the research team: Alexander Baynum Shruthi Kumar Belmont University DePaul University Kate Cosentino Isabel Smith Belmont University Elon University Patrick Croke University of Virginia In addition, Aaron Davis of Exploration Group and Rupa DeLoach of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce contributed invaluable input and analysis. Cluster Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis were conducted by Alexander Baynum and Rupa DeLoach. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 - 6 Letter of Intent Aaron Davis, Exploration Group and Rupa DeLoach, The Research Center 7 - 23 Executive Summary 25 - 27 Introduction 29 - 34 How the Music Industry Works Creator’s Side Listener’s Side 36 - 78 Facets of the Music Industry Today Traditional Small Business Models, Startups, Venture Capitalism Software, Technology and New Media Collective Management Organizations Songwriters, Recording Artists, Music Publishers and Record Labels Brick and Mortar Retail Storefronts Digital Streaming Platforms Non-interactive
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Napster, Beyond the United States: the Technological and International Legal Barriers to On-Line Copyright Enforcement
    NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 46 Issue 1 Judge Jon. O. Newman: A Symposium Celebrating his Thirty Years on the Federal Article 10 Bench January 2003 BEYOND NAPSTER, BEYOND THE UNITED STATES: THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL BARRIERS TO ON-LINE COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT Jeffrey L. Dodes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Communications Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffrey L. Dodes, BEYOND NAPSTER, BEYOND THE UNITED STATES: THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL BARRIERS TO ON-LINE COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT, 46 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. (2002-2003). This Note is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. \\server05\productn\N\NLR\46-1-2\NLR102.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-FEB-03 13:48 BEYOND NAPSTER, BEYOND THE UNITED STATES: THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL BARRIERS TO ON-LINE COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT I. INTRODUCTION Courts in the United States and throughout the world are faced with great challenges in adjudicating legal conflicts created by the rapid development of digital technologies. The proliferation of new technologies that allow for fast, reliable and widespread transmission of digital files has recently created a swell of litigation and media cover- age throughout the world. Copyright
    [Show full text]
  • To Stream, to Spend, Or to Steal? Alexa Koch University
    RUNNING HEAD: THE DIGITALIZATION OF MUSIC 1 The Digitalization of Music: To Stream, To Spend, or To Steal? Alexa Koch University of Miami RUNNING HEAD: THE DIGITALIZATION OF MUSIC 2 Abstract A music-streaming format delivers audio files or radio waves on a continuous basis, often through a subscription or verified user account. Streaming can be hosted traditionally, on a computer or Internet-enabled device, or via Bluetooth or other connectivity technology. Today, audio streaming accounts for almost one-third of the music industry; this forces record labels, organizations, and legislators, amongst others, to question the role played by music pirates in an industry so dominated by technological means of transmission. Critics suggest that there may be a link between streaming and piracy, such that the former enables the latter and that the two can coexist in a world dominated by music- streaming services. This link might exist within, and be more prevalent within, certain demographics, such as male millennials, but there is no evidence that all music streamers and paid subscribers. Keywords: music streaming, P2P file-sharing, music piracy, sound culture RUNNING HEAD: THE DIGITALIZATION OF MUSIC 3 The Digitalization of Music: To Stream, To Spend, or To Steal? Introduction Music streaming continues to grow, a force to be reckoned with, even as the rise in sales of vinyl has gone up in the last few years. Total revenue from all streaming services, which includes both passive and active streaming media, surpassed that of paid downloads by $1 million last year (Rosenblatt, 2016). According to the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) 2016 Mid-Year Report on Music Shipment and Revenue Statistics, streaming music revenues from the first half of 2016 totaled $1.6 billion, “up 57% year-over-year, and accounted for 47% of industry revenues compared with 32% [in the first half of 2015],” a figure that includes revenues from subscription services, streaming radio services, and non-subscription on-demand services.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: P2P Networks for Content Sharing
    Title: P2P Networks for Content Sharing Authors: Choon Hoong Ding, Sarana Nutanong, and Rajkumar Buyya Grid Computing and Distributed Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Australia (chd, sarana, raj)@cs.mu.oz.au ABSTRACT Peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies have been widely used for content sharing, popularly called “file-swapping” networks. This chapter gives a broad overview of content sharing P2P technologies. It starts with the fundamental concept of P2P computing followed by the analysis of network topologies used in peer-to-peer systems. Next, three milestone peer-to-peer technologies: Napster, Gnutella, and Fasttrack are explored in details, and they are finally concluded with the comparison table in the last section. 1. INTRODUCTION Peer-to-peer (P2P) content sharing has been an astonishingly successful P2P application on the Internet. P2P has gained tremendous public attention from Napster, the system supporting music sharing on the Web. It is a new emerging, interesting research technology and a promising product base. Intel P2P working group gave the definition of P2P as "The sharing of computer resources and services by direct exchange between systems". This thus gives P2P systems two main key characteristics: • Scalability: there is no algorithmic, or technical limitation of the size of the system, e.g. the complexity of the system should be somewhat constant regardless of number of nodes in the system. • Reliability: The malfunction on any given node will not effect the whole system (or maybe even any other nodes). File sharing network like Gnutella is a good example of scalability and reliability.
    [Show full text]
  • The Napster Case: the Whole World Is Listening, 15 Transnat'l Law
    Global Business & Development Law Journal Volume 15 Issue 2 Symposium: Beyond Napster -- The Future of Article 7 the Digital Commons 1-1-2002 The aN pster Case: The Whole World is Listening Grace J. Bergen General Counsel for MTS, Inc. d/b/a Tower Records Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/globe Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Grace J. Bergen, The Napster Case: The Whole World is Listening, 15 Transnat'l Law. 259 (2002). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/globe/vol15/iss2/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Global Business & Development Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Napster Case: The Whole World is Listening Grace J. Bergen* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: IS NAPSTER DEAD? ................................... 260 A. Napsterand Its Progeny ......................................... 260 B. The Recording Industry Dilemma ................................. 261 1I. BACKGROUND OF THE NAPSTER DECISION ............................. 261 A. The District CourtDecision ...................................... 261 1. Napster's "Safe Harbor"Arguments .......................... 262 2. Napster's FairUse Arguments ................................ 263 i. Works on NapsterAre Not "Transformative".............. 263 ii. Negative Economic Impact...............................
    [Show full text]