Why Aren't More Albums Available For Digital Download? What Year Is This?

[Grimjack]

The seller makes the product available in formats that best suit their business model and artistic intent. That this doesn't perfectly match what you want is not their fault. Typically the buyer has to pick the best option that is closest to his need. Retailers do not typically provide unique designs specifically to the customers request unless they are in that business and you'll be paying a lot more than $10 for it. I totally understand that in your situation you want a download. Get over yourself and buy the one closest to your need or don't, your choice.

True that it isn't their "fault". That said given we are now 10 years down the road since the introduction of the iTunes store, the ease and lack of expense in which the creation of fully lossless (true CD quality without compression) digital distribution of audio with artwork is within the hands of any artist at any level, to *NOT* do so is going to frustrate a certain number of customers. Which will result in lost business. Again, not their "fault" but certainly their responsibility.
If you aren't making your music available digitally you are leaving money on the table. It isn't difficult, time consuming or costly to distribute digitally, and the data available to you on who is buying can be valuable in your decision making process. Get off your butt. Register at Bandcamp. Especially those of you trying to grow an international audience...the only people making money on the sale of your music are the postal carriers these days. All the arguments against digital..."its too complicated" "CDs are better" "vinyl is better" "my audience is older and don't know how to download" "it doesn't sound as good" "downloads lead to piracy" are all FEAR talking. Don't listen to fear.
I am not saying abandon CDs, vinyl and physical sales. This genre thrives on them (at least for now). But few of us are getting wealthier, none of us seem to be finding MORE spare time in our lives which means the more FRICTION you can remove from the discovery, purchasing and acquisition process the better chance you have to make the sale. Let me put it this way...in the limited time I have to browse PE and other music sites to consider music recommendations, when I find something cool on an obscure label overseas, if I find I have to give up my credit card number to some foreign shop I haven't heard of, pay through the nose on shipping, consider any additional insurance costs and then hope it arrives undamaged, I'm already primed NOT to buy. But same music available lossless (FLAC or ALAC) via Bandcamp that will download in about 4 minutes? I'm in. Artist nets more, I spend less. And BOTH of us spend less time on administrative tasks. It's a win-win. Do I want this in EVERY situation? Of course not...sometimes the physical media is what I crave if there's something special about the package. But another standard CD that's just going to get ripped to lossless files anyway and then take up space? No thanks. Give me the download. And finally, I have a bunch of clients who rightly bitch about what they are losing to piracy. But you lose a lot of credibility if you are bitching about piracy but refusing to offer a legitimate alternative. If a torrent site is offering a better digital experience than you are, its a helluva lot easier for you to up your game and provide a superior digital offering than to try and sue the torrent sites out of existence or play whack-a-mole with individual downloaders.
Windshields are bigger than rearview mirrors for a reason. Attempts to rationalize a sales & marketing strategy that deliberately ignores digital because "it doesn't suit their business model" or "artistic intent" are misguided, unless the artists' intent is to limit their audience. The number of people sticking to physical media is shrinking. The number of people moving to digital acquisition and consumption of media is growing. The whole "CDs>downloads" thing is nonsense...like and dislike have no place here. Demographics have shifted and artists need to adjust. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube...digital is here to stay.

[rcarlberg]

If you aren't making your music available digitally you are leaving money on the table. It isn't difficult, time consuming or costly to distribute digitally

Many retailers and labels and probably artists too fear that digital distribution makes it just a tad too easy to rip off the source without paying for it. Of course stuff gets into the digital domain pretty quick anyway, so offering downloads probably doesn't accelerate the process.

[Birdy]

Unique designs? I'm not asking for it on reel-to-reel tape or Edison cylinder. I'm asking for it to be digitized for download. It seems to me that a business would be able to do a better job than someone who makes a torrent available hours after something is released. If a so-called pirate can provide a lossless download of an album, including the artwork, in less time than it takes me to make a spaghetti dinner then certainly a business or even an artist can do the same. I'll even spot them a few hours more to get it done.

I don't know man, my spaghetti dinners are pretty complex!

[rcarlberg]

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

Tell that to Napster.

[rcarlberg]

AFAIK, Amazon doesn't OFFER full-package downloads (i.e. getting a booklet in pdf format) for any downloaded musical material

This sounded right to me, until I happened to look at "Milk and Honey" on Amazon today. Same for "Double Fantasy Stripped Down." Doing a search for "digital booklet" in their MP3 store turns up 72,270 hits.

[Steve F.]

luckily, I said AFAIK!

My personal experience is that we (Cuneiform) supply our digital partners (iTunes and Amazon, among others) digital booklets.

My understanding is that iTunes makes them available to those that buy the music digitally, and Amazon doesn't.

but I certainly could be wrong.

[Grimjack]

Many retailers and labels and probably artists too fear that digital distribution makes it just a tad too easy to rip off the source without paying for it.

Might have been a more valid hypothesis in 2006, but...

Of course stuff gets into the digital domain pretty quick anyway, so offering downloads probably doesn't accelerate the process.

Correct.
The bigger fear that more and more of my artist clients have is ever getting heard in the first place due to the enormous amount of music being released. They would much rather be pirated and heard then never heard at all.
The democratization of distribution is a mixed blessing...it certainly has empowered artists to take matters into their own hands but it also means there's a lot more crap cluttering the system. Again, I go back to the notion of friction. One of the many great things about PE is that the involved, multi-faceted community tends to act as a good discovery funnel--a great, totally unknown prog album can work its way through the discussion ranks and have a shot at reaching its intended audience without the need for the traditional label, press and radio systems. PE is one of several mechanisms that can take some of the friction out of the discovery process. What the OP (and I) are saying is those bands that take it a step further and remove friction from the acquisition/transaction process via digital distribution only help themselves become more established more quickly across a wider spectrum by not cutting off a growing percentage of music fans who no longer have use for physical media.
There is simply NO argument against a well-considered digital distribution strategy at this point. In 1987, CDs were still in early days and vinyl was still plentiful. 10 years later in 1997, if you were releasing your album on vinyl only and ignoring CDs you'd be considered pretty short-sighted in terms of your business strategy in the context of the marketplace. Well, iTunes opened for business in 2003. 10 years later in 2013, if you're still resisting digital distribution....

[Grimjack]

Tell that to Napster.

Not sure I understand your point here. Napster was a proof of concept that would have been a great opportunity for the labels and publishers to embrace, rebuild (the centralized server node model scaled horribly, but that was fixable), and figure out a statutory licensing rate that everybody could have done very, very well from. And that music consumers would have loved and paid for. Sadly, that idea didn't go over very well when I proposed it back then...

[rcarlberg]

My understanding is that iTunes makes them available to those that buy the music digitally, and Amazon doesn't.

but I certainly could be wrong.

Actually in my experience iTunes offers the front cover only.

[rcarlberg]

Not sure I understand your point here. Napster was a proof of concept that would have been a great opportunity for the labels and publishers to embrace

My point is that the toothpaste was very much out of the tube by the time Napster reached 28 millions users. That didn't stop the DOJ from shutting them down, which was unfortunately made easier by Napster's business model which centralized the database used for sharing files. Other file sharing services, which used DISTRIBUTED databases, continued to thrive because they couldn't be shut down with a single on/off switch.

And Napster's business model also made it impossible to monetize the file sharing, meaning the labels (and RIAA) had no way to recoup any revenue stream. It was not a "great opportunity" for them it was a fucking disaster.

[Steve F.]

Actually in my experience iTunes offers the front cover only.

For the last 2 years, whenever possible, we supply them with the entire booklet; maybe with older items it's front cover only?

[davis]

Quote Originally Posted by davis
^ or you could buy the CD, get the dl, and resell the CD.

Which is why it is getting so hard for labels like Cuneiform to remain in business.

why? or he could give it to somebody, like Goodwill.

[Grimjack]

My point is that the toothpaste was very much out of the tube by the time Napster reached 28 millions users. That didn't stop the DOJ from shutting them down, which was unfortunately made easier by Napster's business model which centralized the database used for sharing files. Other file sharing services, which used DISTRIBUTED databases, continued to thrive because they couldn't be shut down with a single on/off switch.

And Napster's business model also made it impossible to monetize the file sharing, meaning the labels (and RIAA) had no way to recoup any revenue stream. It was not a "great opportunity" for them it was a fucking disaster.

Semantics are important here. Napster's business model was going to be either subscription-based or advertising supported and that hadn't been fully determined before the implosion. Don't confuse that with their technology stack which relied on centralized architecture which 1) made it easy to pull the plug and 2) made it difficult (and expensive) to scale. But neither of those two things were insurmountable obstacles to creating a robust digital music service. Napster was better branded, easier to use and far more beloved by consumers than any of the other available options at the time. Hence it WAS a superb opportunity for the recorded music and publishing arms of the industry to buy it out, determine a workable business model around the two key payouts (master recording and underlying composition).
The RIAA doesn't "recoup" anything...they are a trade association. The labels earn income from the sale of master recordings. The publishers earn income from royalties on the underlying compositions. Figuring out the splits was a huge obstacle which is where the industry made its big mistake that did indeed become a disaster...they decided to try to sue their challenges into oblivion and ignore the technological advances that were going to become a threat instead of embracing both the tech and the challenges and reinventing the business. Napster was an opportunity. The labels turned it into a disaster.

[JKL2000]

I don't know man, my spaghetti dinners are pretty complex!

Thus allowing LOTS of time for a pirate to provide a lossless copy of an album...

[JKL2000]

luckily, I said AFAIK!

My personal experience is that we (Cuneiform) supply our digital partners (iTunes and Amazon, among others) digital booklets.

My understanding is that iTunes makes them available to those that buy the music digitally, and Amazon doesn't.

but I certainly could be wrong.

You could really piss off your CD-buying customers by including some extra material in the booklets you supply to iTunes. Not that you'd want to do that.

[Jerjo]

iTunes has a hard time with album art on CDs that you rip. I can't even make it find Exile on Main Street. I can't imagine them handling booklets properly.

[Steve F.]

You could really piss off your CD-buying customers by including some extra material in the booklets you supply to iTunes. Not that you'd want to do that.

Is there some reason for you to say this or do you just like posting whatever pops into your head?

[Grimjack]

iTunes has a hard time with album art on CDs that you rip. I can't even make it find Exile on Main Street. I can't imagine them handling booklets properly.

You are talking about two different things. iTunes personal software does occasionally choke on adding album artwork when individuals try to do so to ripped CDs, even on fairly common albums. This is a huge frustration. That said, that has NOTHING to do with the iTunes music store platform and its ability to handle commercially distributed artwork, digital liner notes, booklets and video included with downloads purchased from the iTunes store. Those are handled just fine.

[NogbadTheBad]

Is there some reason for you to say this or do you just like posting whatever pops into your head?

I suspect the later.

[rcarlberg]

Semantics are important here. Napster's business model was going to be either subscription-based or advertising supported and that hadn't been fully determined before the implosion. Don't confuse that with their technology stack which relied on centralized architecture which 1) made it easy to pull the plug and 2) made it difficult (and expensive) to scale. But neither of those two things were insurmountable obstacles to creating a robust digital music service. Napster was better branded, easier to use and far more beloved by consumers than any of the other available options at the time. Hence it WAS a superb opportunity for the recorded music and publishing arms of the industry to buy it out, determine a workable business model around the two key payouts (master recording and underlying composition).
The RIAA doesn't "recoup" anything...they are a trade association. The labels earn income from the sale of master recordings. The publishers earn income from royalties on the underlying compositions. Figuring out the splits was a huge obstacle which is where the industry made its big mistake that did indeed become a disaster...they decided to try to sue their challenges into oblivion and ignore the technological advances that were going to become a threat instead of embracing both the tech and the challenges and reinventing the business. Napster was an opportunity. The labels turned it into a disaster.

Well that sounds like revisionist history to me. I doubt Sean Parker had ANY plans to convert to a subscription service. And Napster's assets actually were purchased by Roxio and relaunched as a subscription service, but it's had like 12 users since then.

Lawsuit
Napster's facilitation of transfer of copyrighted material raised the ire of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which almost immediately—on December 7, 1999—filed a lawsuit against the popular service.[25][26] The service would only get bigger as the trial, meant to shut down Napster, also gave it a great deal of publicity. Soon millions of users, many of them college students, flocked to it. After a failed appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, an injunction was issued on March 5, 2001 ordering Napster to prevent the trading of copyrighted music on its network.[27]

Lessig[28] claimed, however, that this decision made little sense from the perspective of copyright protection: "When Napster told the district court that it had developed a technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing material, the district court told council for Napster 99.4 percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements 'down to zero.' If 99.4 percent is not good enough," Lessig concluded, "then this is a war on file-sharing technologies, not a war on copyright infringement."

Shutdown
In July 2001, Napster shut down its entire network in order to comply with the injunction. On September 24, 2001, the case was partially settled. Napster agreed to pay music creators and copyright owners a $26 million settlement for past, unauthorized uses of music, as well as an advance against future licensing royalties of $10 million. In order to pay those fees, Napster attempted to convert their free service to a subscription system. Thus traffic to Napster was reduced. A prototype solution was tested in the spring of 2002: the Napster 3.0 Alpha, using the ".nap" secure file format from PlayMedia Systems[29] and audio fingerprinting technology licensed from Relatable. Napster 3.0 was, according to many former Napster employees, ready to deploy, but it had significant trouble obtaining licenses to distribute major-label music.

On May 17, 2002, Napster announced that its assets would be acquired by German media firm Bertelsmann for $85 million. Pursuant to terms of that agreement, on June 3 Napster filed for Chapter 11 protection under United States bankruptcy laws. On September 3, 2002, an American bankruptcy judge blocked the sale to Bertelsmann and forced Napster to liquidate its assets according to Chapter 7 of the U.S. bankruptcy laws.

[PeterG]

It's 2013.

Some artists don't profit at all from downloading so they stick to hard copy.
Other artists just don't agree with the whole digital age
And other artists don't think their music shoud downloadable at all, or even streamable for that matter (Show me a streamable King Crimson album & I'll show you a happy man.....me )

All that said, the default setting is no longer CD, hasn't been for about 2 years now. Hardly any street shops are selling new product by new artists. Nearly everything now is obught either from internet shops or from downloading services.

Like I said in another thread
The CD is dead
Long live the CD.

[Paulie]

Okay -- I stand corrected but I would still like the artwork and lyrics and not getting those things makes for an inferior product.

Even iTunes doesn't include the digital booklet on this release. I suspect it was not provided as their other iTunes offerings do indeed include the digbook.

[Grimjack]

Well that sounds like revisionist history to me. I doubt Sean Parker had ANY plans to convert to a subscription service. And Napster's assets actually were purchased by Roxio and relaunched as a subscription service, but it's had like 12 users since then.

Not trying to start an argument here. This isn't revisionist history. It's the historical perspective from a music industry executive who was there in the middle of it. And you're certainly entitled to your opinions

[Gruno]

You could really piss off your CD-buying customers by including some extra material in the booklets you supply to iTunes. Not that you'd want to do that.

Is there some reason for you to say this or do you just like posting whatever pops into your head?

I suspect the later.

HAS to be the latter. Is he a failed comic? My question is based off of the poor material used.

[Dave (in MA)]

iTunes has a hard time with album art on CDs that you rip. I can't even make it find Exile on Main Street. I can't imagine them handling booklets properly.

Every few weeks my ipod randomly reassigns the artwork to the wrong albums, and the only fix is to wipe it and reload, which takes about 15 minutes with my laptop.