Bit Revolver

I was recently very impressed with the band O.A.R.’s approach to distributing their live performances, and then equally disappointed by Live Nation and Jones Beach’s choice to ruin the fun.

O.A.R.’s USB Wristbands

Last weekend’s O.A.R. concert at Jones Beach in Wantagh, NY was promoted along with the availability of a special USB wristband that would contain a recording of that very night’s show, along with the band’s new album and a few other goodies. The band’s official website states:

At select shows on The All Sides Tour, concert-goers will have the chance to bring home a live recording of that evening’s show along with a copy of the band’s new album, All Sides. The performances and the new album will be packaged together on a USB flash drive wristband and will be available at all venue merchandise locations.

The following quote from front man Marc Roberge illustrates the band’s fantastic attitude towards their live music, and ultimately their commitment to their fans:

For us, performing live is about sharing experiences. Technology is all about convenience and being able to offer our shows on a USB flash drive? That’s all about the memories. What a fantastic thing to be able to give back to our fans.

The official list of shows at which USB wristband recordings would be available includes “August 2^nd - Wantagh, NY - The Nikon at Jones Beach”.

For this author, music doesn’t get much better than a good live show — I enjoy going to concerts, and I collect recordings of all the shows I have attended. Being both a live music fan and avid technology enthusiast, I love to hear about stuff like this. $30 for a USB drive with a soundboard-quality live recording, a copy of the band’s album, and a bunch of photos? I’d reach for my wallet without a second thought.

Sorry, tonight’s show isn’t available

The staff at O.A.R.’s merchandise booth at the August 2^nd was very busy informing fans that a recording of the night’s show would not be available on the USB wristbands. They explained that the band was told upon arrival at the venue that they would not be permitted to record and sell that night’s performance. Instead, fans could choose wristbands from one of four recently recorded performances.

Let’s get this straight — the music business is losing money left and right these days. Young people are not interested in traditional media. Live performances are a top money-maker for any act. A band like O.A.R. puts a great idea to work — give the fans instant access to a high-quality recording of the very show they just enjoyed, and include the new album and a few extras in order to round out the package. Wait… is that? Yes, it is! A business model adapted to keep up with the changing pace of music in the digital age!

But someone in an office somewhere thought it would be a good idea to say no.

Fans get their recordings anyway, but keep their money

The Internet has done wonders for the live music-trading community — dedicated tapers bring advanced audio gear to shows, and their recordings are available online within days. So now, many fans will still obtain a copy of O.A.R.’s show at Jones Beach. The venue prohibits taping, but as of today recordings from more than one source are available for download. The sound will be good… not as good as a soundboard recording, but still very good. And it will be free.

I previously covered the news that Yahoo! was shutting down the licensing servers for its music store, leaving its customers out in the cold come October 1^st, 2008. CNet is reporting that Yahoo! plans to issue refunds to customers affected by the shutdown, and is also looking into a way to issue replacement tracks as DRM-free MP3 files.

My hat is off to Yahoo! for choosing the high road and taking care of their customers. I only hope that Microsoft follows their lead, since the MSN Music store is involved in a similar controversy.

The WAKE ‘n BACON is an alarm clock that wakes you with the smell of a freshly cooked strip of bacon. Much safer than putting a foreman grill on the floor next to your bed.

Link via Ross McKillop.

Effective October 1^st, 2008, customers who purchased content from the Yahoo! Music store will no longer be able to move their tracks to new computers. Should these customers buy new computers or wish to put their tracks on different hard drives or other devices after 10/1, they will find themselves quite out of luck.

Content from the Yahoo! Music store is crippled with DRM software intended to prevent piracy. In order to legitimately transfer music to new computers and other devices, the software must download a license key from the Yahoo! Music servers. Yahoo! plans to shut down this licensing system on October 1^st.

Yahoo! representatives state that they have been encouraging customers to backup their music to discs for the last six months, however that method results in a sound quality reduction.

Microsoft made this very same announcement with regards to their MSN Music Store in April, and eventually agreed to leave their licensing servers online for a further 3 years. We will soon see if a public outcry forces Yahoo! to make the same compromise.

Whether the deadline is extended for 3 years or 30, a compromise is not good enough — at some point, the licensing servers will be shut off and customers will be left out in the cold… customers who did the right thing and paid money for their digital music. None of this music should have been crippled with Digital Rights Management in the first place. A recording industry waging an all-out-war against piracy should be ashamed of itself for showing such disrespect to people who choose to open their wallets in lieu of illegally downloading free MP3s.

There are a number of online music retailers who sell DRM-free content: Amazon MP3 deals in DRM-free music, and many of the tracks available in the iTunes Music Store do not have DRM.

Link via Daring Fireball.

This YouTube video shows KTLA reporter Eric Spillman ridiculing customers who are standing in line to buy the new iPhone 3G in Burbank, CA. As if Spillman wasn’t doing a good enough job of making himself appear unprofessional, the first customer to whom he lobs a few snide questions fires back with some questions of his own regarding Spillman’s integrity as a journalist. Someone buy that man a beer.

Link via Daring Fireball.

ZDNet blog Between the Lines talks about the evolution of the web over the next 25 years. Web 3.0 will be the semantic web, and Web 4.0 will be the “Web OS”.

Can I take a stab at Web 5.0? I don’t think I’ve come across anyone discussing that iteration yet.

Actually, better yet, what will Web X appear as, and will it have minor incremental upgrades named after various cats?

It appears that someone recently registered and then sold the e-mail address “iPhone_wholesaler@yahoo.com” on eBay. The auction attracted over 35 bids, and the winner paid $355 for the e-mail address.

We’ve all heard of companies that buy domain names containing common surnames and then selling e-mail addresses on those domains, but individual e-mail addresses? Commenters on John Chow’s website, where I found this story, note that eBay’s “similar items” feature reveals many more similar iphone e-mail addresses for sale.

“I suspect that children will eventually support some kind of thin-client email-to-affection gateway. From an evolutionary standpoint, it may be the only solution that scales.”

— Merlin Mann’s particularly witty reflection on work, burnout, and work’s intrusion into our homes through technology.

Just as CES wraps up, four senators are reintroducing a bill that would overturn the fair use rights afforded to us by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. The four senators are Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Joseph Biden (D-DE), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Ars Technica has the full scoop in “Senators introduce bill to restrict Internet, cable, and satellite radio recording“.

The primary purpose of copyright is to enrich the general public, not not protect the interests of corporations. Time-shifting broadcast content for personal use constitutes fair use. I know “the industry” just doesn’t want to hear it anymore, but how many times must it really be said?

Actually, I don’t think they ever wanted to hear it.

When considering the benefit of the various organizations that constitute “the industry”, the saddest part of the copyright debate is realizing how wildly successful they could be if they would just get out of their customers’ way, survey the evolving nature of that audience, and truly innovate. Instead, “the industry” prefers to whine and cry like a big, old baby.

The race to unify all of your media and devices is obviously well underway, as seen by the recent release of products like the Apple TV. In “YouTube coming to your TV (in several ways)“, Ars Technica explores several of the ideas floating around for bringing YouTube content to your living room. Ars covers the two core options: creating a YouTube television channel that highlights the most interesting flicks, and creating an on-demand television interface to the library of YouTube videos.

A YouTube channel may be interesting, but this concept is not exactly new. First of all, various celebrities like Jim Breuer already count down the “funniest” and “most viral” videos on VH1’s Web Junk 20. I don’t know many people who watch Web Junk 20. Secondly, America’s Funniest Home Videos did this model in ‘89 (albeit via VHS and snail mail). As ABC’s third-longest-running primetime series [source], AFV has been extremely successful. The problem is that the “AFV model” doesn’t jive with the inherent on-demand nature of YouTube and the Internet in general. Massive numbers of people flock to YouTube because the site offers something different for each of them.

YouTube is not a one-way road either. Another reason the site is successful because it has bred a massive community of devoted followers who interact with each other and the YouTube service daily. On America’s Funniest Home Video’s, Bob Sagat does funny voices over videos of people getting hit in the crotch. On YouTube, community members post replies, blog entries and response videos in reaction to clips of people getting hit in the crotch.

The floundering Recording Industry and Motion Picture Association have certainly taught us plenty about the difficulties of an arranged marriage between traditional distribution methods and the next generation of media consumption. Not even Bob Sagat, given his own dedicated cable channel, could count down enough top videos to pique the interest of that many people in the same way that an on-demand service can. Perhaps a YouTube channel will make its way into our homes, and perhaps it will be successful. It’s not a bad idea. I just don’t think it will be as successful as a service that brings YouTube, in all of its on-demand, web 2.0 social networking glory to our big screens.