An interesting development I heard about last week is the Content Recognition Rules (CRR) specification, an XML schema that allows content owners to express, in a standard manner, how they would like their content to be treated. Some examples from the document:

1. On recognition of at least 60 seconds (for example) of this asset, please remove it from use.
2. This asset is playable only in the US.
3. This asset is not playable in the UK until July 4, 2008.
4. In a mashup of multiple assets from the same series, if the total time of all assets from the series totals 3 minutes, then remove it from use.
5. On appearance of this asset on a UGC site, send an email notification to the rights holder.
6. When delivering an uploaded copy of this asset to a consumer, some ads are associated with it and should be shown.
7. If an uploaded video contains over 60 seconds from this movie, and that represents over 50% of the video‘s total length, quarantine it, pending investigation.
8. If an uploaded video contains more than 33% of an original asset, take it down and notify the originator of the copy and the owner of the original.
9. If an uploaded video contains an AACS theatrical use only watermark, send a DMCA notice.
10. If the quality of an uploaded video is low enough, take no action.
11. If the last 3 minutes of this show are found in uploaded content, replace the UGC with a teaser clip.

I understand CRR is not intended to express copyrights or policy, but to permit a much wider range, and granularity, of possibilities than simply "infringing" (can't use) or "non-infringing" (can use). In fact, I see here a parallel with the enabling framework of the Creative Commons that also provides for a spectrum of granularity beyond "all rights reserved" and "no rights reserved" under copyright.

Almost a year ago to the day, I wrote about how much had changed between 2007 and 2008 in terms of the availability of new ways to consume music, TV shows and movies. Well, the explosion of new business and delivery models between 2008 and 2009 is really heartening (see a slide from a presentation I’ll be giving in a week’s time).

In fact, there’s so much now available - legally and often entirely for free - that the problem is finding what’s available across so many different sources. Some sites are trying to address this issue, like Modern Feed, the United Kingdom’s findanyfilm.com and the Digital Citizen Project’s Birdtrax. Of course, what these sites reveal is that there is no uniformity not just in terms of sources, but also content: some television shows are available, while others are not; some only have certain episodes available, or available for a certain length of time; and some just don’t work from a Mac (hmpfh! :-).

But I’m not complaining too much: it’s a delight to be able to get access to so much online (legally!), whether I pay for it - through iTunes or Netflix, typically - or for free. Connecting my iPhone to my television has been useful; but I can now see why people might pay for a box like Apple TV or the Netflix Roku to “just make it work.” Or use your existing PS3.

And just wait until our mobile devices really take off in this space: for example, LG confirms 2009 launch for 3G wristphone. Dick Tracy, anyone?

Not to mention this should completely change the tenor of discussions during the negotiated rulemaking to begin shortly over the P2P provisions in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, which among other things requires colleges and universities to certify that they “...will, to the extent practicable, offer alternatives to downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property...” That language was written in the time and context of services such as Cdigix and Ruckus, both of which have now gone out of business.

Tags: new business models

Gregory Jackson, Vice President and Chief Information Officer at the University of Chicago, observed in The Digital Carrot, The Digital Stick (Chronicle of Higher Education, November 2007) that illegal file sharing would rapidly become moot if we could resolve these problems with respect to legal online acquisition of music and movies: I can’t always get what I want; I can’t always use what I get; and I don’t think the price is fair.

Maybe we're close. Consider:

Amazon.com offers music in MP3 format—free of digital rights management and thus untethered from the iPod—often for less than what iTunes charges. Nokia is bundling music access with cell phones, and Universal Music Group is looking to extend this model to other devices. iTunes is suddenly a dominant force in digital movie rentals, having partnered with all major studios, adding alternatives to services already offered by Amazon.com, Netflix (now with unlimited streaming videos) and hulu.com. NBC, CBS, and ABC make available streaming video of popular TV shows from their websites.

Then there's iTunes' new ranking as #2 music retailer in the world, behind only Wal*Mart. And as the ars posting indicates, that's #2 relative to all music sales, including CDs; not just digitally purchased music.

Still a lot of experimentation and practical problems, but the glimmer of a tunnel end seems apparent.

Tags: new business models

UCLA School of Law Student Wins GRAMMY Foundation Writing Contest

Tags: Grammy

A few articles I enjoyed because they offered me a better understanding of what people in the music industry are facing.

The Music Man (New York Times Magazine, September 2007), follows Rick Rubin, founder of Def Jam Recordings and now co-head of Columbia Records: "Columbia didn't want Rubin to punch a clock. It wanted him to save the company. And just maybe the record business."

Then a pair of articles from the December 2007 Wired Magazine. David Byrne and Thom Yorke on the Real Value of Music points out that music was originally tied to a certain time and space and only later, with recordings, could the knot be broken; until we've reached a point where it is the recordings, not the music, that counts. David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists — and Megastars is exactly that: a useful set of categorizations that can be used to think about new business models.

Edgar Bronfman (chairman of Warner Music): “The music industry is growing. The record industry is not growing.” See the Economist's article A Change of Tune.

Fascinating insight from the New York Times' The Music Man.

Protect Harvard from the RIAA by Charles R. Nesson and Wendy M. Seltzer (May 1, 2007).

Tags: Harvard