Why The Labels Love Play Anywhere
Merlin, WMG and Universal have all finalized deals with PlayAnywhere. The new service puts personal music and video collections onto the “cloud” and enables
subscribers access and play across multiple devices including mobile,
PC and in-car regardless of DRM and formats. Why, at a time when they seem to be suing new services and trying to renegotiate their deals with existing ones, has PlayAnywhere been able to finalize these deals?
According to a spokesperson, Play Anywhere is a subscription based service, except they do not sell direct to consumers. Rather they "supply their service to device manufacturers, telecoms companies and ISPs who can then offer it to their user base either as part of their package or as an extra".
WHAT WILL CONSUMERS THINK?
"The system monitors what music you play, not what you download, so although they do not condone unlicensed file sharing, to the ‘Play Anywhere’ system a track bought from iTunes would appear just the same as one ripped from a CD would or one taken off a P2P network," The spokesperson continued. "It will keep a log of what you play, whether you are on or offline and then when it can it will send that information back to Catch who use it to determine how to divvy up the money received in the form of subscription fees and distribute that to the rights holders."
Conceptually, the ability to play your music whenever you want wherever you want and on any device is wonderfully attractive. But how will consumers feel about having their habits monitored and will they or their ISPs, telecoms and device manufacturers be willing to pay for the priveledge.
How will consumers feel about being monitored? They won’t care – and they’ll feel great about the convenience of getting their music when and where they want it. People send incredibly sensitive information via email services, txts and media sharing sites all the time. As long as their porn consumption doesn’t hit anyone’s corporate capture system, it won’t matter a bit. These sorts of monitor/payout solutions are the future of music revenue. The question we’ll be asking 5 years from now is why didn’t the carriers move into this space when they had the chance?
Very interesting…..this is clearly a different approach by the labels, with the open ‘wholesale’ type structure of this platform with an emphasis put on song use rather than song source. Whether it’s successful or not will be largely dependent on the ISPs interest in offering this to its customers and whether or not they can make the entire experience seamless and unintrusive to the user….if its kept at a safe distance they might not mind the monitoring.
I think it’s over for the carriers (ISPs) for this kind of aggregation. They’re too slow and dumb. These sorts of wholesale collection/payout schemes can (and I predict, will) fall onto other big players in the value chain. Why not Hulu, Netflix, Blockbuster, EA… heck anyone with a larger customer base who’s currently shoving out large quantities of media?
Think one layer up above the pipes and into who’s providing media services. That’s where the magic will take place I suspect. Carriers are really bad at positioning nuanced value.
I agree Jesse; there will be many other players who will see the value and take action faster than the carriers….but surely the labels would love to have the carriers on board…they are the gatekeepers for everything. You are right though, a number of smaller successes would still be a positive for them. Will the ISPs implement this? Maybe not, but I don’t think they are as dumb as you’d think…their decisions are just based from a different set of criteria (way of the corporation); they are under increasing pressure from the entertainment biz/governments to do more regarding illegal file sharing (I have to believe this hot potato is sitting on someones lap right now). The much theorized about ISP music tax/levy is perhaps too complex and controversial to ever implement, but could this deal be the middle ground/olive branch a carrier might use to take a step forward? Perhaps I’m over-analyzing the motivations behind this deal and the strategies involved. Only time will tell I guess; as with most things music biz related these days, I’ll believe it when I see it!
I’ve ranted many times about this: it’s not a “tax”. That word was applied by those with an agenda to kill the concept. Taxes are levied by govt’s. The ISP music access charge is a LICENSING FEE from private sector IP holders- people only call it a tax because one variation of this scheme calls for all ISP customers paying it, even if they’re not per se ‘using’ it (meaning xfering music files through the pipes). Personally, I’ve been a fan of the compulsory approach since the late 90’s, but I’m starting to think it’s just too tough to implement. Even with the pressures you speak of.
This is why I’m revising my perspective and starting to think about players above the pipes.
As far as the labels? Can’t speak for them, but one suspects they’re geared more towards short-term cash flow – meaning as much advance money as quickly as they can collect it. Not sure they have the luxury of time to foster longer term revenue strategies.
Although one never really knows until a press release comes out. 🙂
Well said Jesse. I did understand the concepts behind the fee in priciple, but i’ve just heard it commonly referred to as the ‘tax’, as incorrect a term as that may have been…I guess the opposing side got their word out pretty effectively! Consumers hate anything with the word ‘tax’!