Apple Buys Hulu ... Wed's Big Announcement? 5 Reasons It Could Happen

Apple's September 9 mega-press event is fast approaching -- and the rumor mill and pundit speculation are at a fever pitch.  I certainly have entered the fray in separate interviews in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, etc.

One central theme in all of this pre-event hype is Apple's inevitable launch of its own Netflix-like subscription streaming video service -- will (or won't) it happen on Wednesday?  I just published my own Apple v. Netflix 5-factor analysis in a head-to-head showdown when it does -- and, my headline was, "Maybe Apple Should Just Buy Netflix."

But, here's the thing -- Apple won't buy Netflix.  But, Apple may buy Hulu (and it wouldn't be beyond the pale that Apple announces that on Wednesday).

Here are 5 reasons why an Apple/Hulu mega-deal would make sense -- and why Apple's not-too-distant acquisition of Beats on the music side is both consistent and highly instructive on this tantalizing possibility:

(1) Hulu gives Apple the immediate mass of content (and related rights) it needs.  It is no secret that Apple has been challenged in its content negotiations with studios and broadcasters for the streaming rights it need (just like it was on the music side).  That has delayed Apple's "Netflix Killer" over and over again.  Hulu (like Beats Music) would solve that problem immediately at mass scale.

(2) Hulu gives Apple the immediate marquee differentiating content it needs.  Hulu has been on bender lately buying up exclusive premium marquee video content and television rights at significant price-tags.  Cases in point include South Park ($192 million for 5 years), Seinfeld ($160 million for 5 years), and last week's coup of stealing away Epix cable movie rights from Netflix.  A new boldness at Hulu is in the air -- highly differentiated from its appetite in the past.  Was this all simply part of plan to better position itself to Apple (and potential other mega-buyers)?  Certainly, Hulu has actively flirted with the idea of being acquired for several years now (that has been big news in Hollywood for years).  This may be the time.  Previously, those who woo-d Hulu (including Yahoo! and several media behemoths) didn't step up to the plate to meet the bold demands of Hulu's media owners (Disney, Fox and NBCUniversal).  Apple, with its mega-$200 million cash hoard certainly is in a position to be significantly more aggressive.  It certainly was with Beats -- spending a cool $3 billion (which is significantly more than any purported Hulu offers previously).

(3) Hulu gives Apple the immediate core creative and production expertise it needs for its inevitable "Originals" strategy.  The buzz about Hollywood this past week centered around Apple's reported newly-rejuvinated plans to develop its own premium original movies and series a la HBO, Netflix, Amazon ... and Hulu.  I was interviewed this past week over and over again about this captivating rumor, underscoring how critical and fundamental an effective originals programming strategy is to differentiate any one service from the growing field of mega streaming competitors.  Hulu -- which already features a deep slate of original programming -- has those chops (and the relationships that go with them).  Let's not forget -- Apple still is first and foremost a technology company -- it critically needs that Hollywood expertise and those authentic relationships with the creative community.  Hulu immediately solves that problem (just like Beats did on the music side with Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre -- critical creative and relationship elements to that deal).  Apple should (and likely will) augment that expertise further by buying an innovative, connected premium marquee production house (and the talent that goes with it) in an effort to "out-marquee" all others.

(4) Hulu gives Apple an immediate widely-recognized video brand and immediate mass distribution.  Yes, everyone knows (and uses) Netflix.  But, everyone also knows Hulu.  It is a widely-known -- and increasingly widely-respected -- brand (especially now as more and more exclusive compelling premium content is available on its platform).  Hulu also -- importantly -- already is featured on most significant non-Apple distribution platforms.  Yes, I know, Apple dropped the Beats brand when it recast that music streaming service as Apple Music.  But, remember, Beats Music had launched only months before Apple's acquisition (and didn't yet build its own significant user base yet and the "goodwill" associated with it).  And, let's also not forget that Apple DID retain the Beats brand for headphones -- its established business that had built up a significant customer base and goodwill.  So, it certainly is no longer unprecedented for Apple to feature a different brand name.  Hulu's brand is fundamentally different from the Beats Music service brand.  It is an established premium video brand, as well as a respected video service with mass scale, goodwill and a generally applauded customer experience (an Apple hallmark).  Hulu's "Swiss" non-Apple brand is beneficial to further expand the service beyond the Apple platform.  And then, of course -- in the big inevitable shot across the bow to Netflix -- Hulu (in the hands of Apple) would also be the headline primary featured service on Apple TV and in the overall closed Apple eco-system.  Others may still exist on that platform (as they do now), but they would be buried into relative obscurity.  You can be sure of that.  Membership has its privileges -- and Apple controls what we see on its platform (and in its retail stores).  That, of course, significantly impacts what service we use (and the switching costs from Netflix to Apple are minimal in this subscription streaming game).  Compelling.

(5) Hulu gives Apple a significantly more cost-effective way to enter the streaming video market at mass scale.  Yes, Apple could afford to buy Netflix (as I pointed out in my recent blog post).  But, Hulu would be massively more cost-effective (by a significant multiple).  Again, Apple's Beats deal is highly instructive in this regard.  Apple could have easily bought the market mega-leader in the streaming music space -- i.e., Spotify.  But, that move would likely have carried a $10-$15 billion price-tag (since Spotify's last round valued the company at $8+ billion).  Instead, Apple paid $3 billion for Beats (and got the lucrative headphone business to go with it).  Apple likely could buy Hulu for something more in the $4-$6 billion range (previous reported Hulu M&A discussions indicated that a $2 billion-ish price likely would have closed the deal).  Netflix, which trades at around a $42 billion market cap (as of this past Friday), likely would cost $60-$80 billion.  And, although Apple holds $200 billion in cash, that massive differential (between Hulu and Netflix) matters -- especially if Apple gets many of the ingredients it needs via Hulu.  Apple also could sweeten the pot to further entice Hulu's owners (i.e., the studios) to consent to the transfer of Hulu's content licenses to Apple by giving them some equity in the newly-acquired company to give them a piece of the action -- and to make Hollywood a bit more amenable to licensing its content to Hulu as a result in the future.  Again, membership has its privileges.

So, will Tim Cook announce a Hulu deal on Wednesday?  I absolutely believe he will make some kind of major strategic video content announcement as part of his Apple TV "main event."  But, I peg odds of this intriguing Hulu possibility as being small ... for now.

However, that doesn't mean it's not a logical move.  Nor does that mean that it won't eventually happen.  Apple understands it needs to enter the streaming video service game now in a big, big way.  There is no time to wait any longer.  Netflix has simply gotten too big, too fast.  It ultimately saw the same writing on the wall on the music side.  Spotify had simply gotten too big, too fast.  So, Apple finally made is long overdue move with Beats.

Apple will make a massive move on the video side too.  That is inevitable.  Hulu could be that move.  And, when it does, its vastly different (and significantly more compelling) underlying business model from Netflix's will be a significant advantage (see point 5 in my recent blog post which discusses that oft-overlooked point).

Ladies and gentlemen, buckle your seat belts.  It's going to be a bumpy ride.

But, an incredibly dramatic and exciting one as well ....

Apple v. Netflix (Or, Maybe Apple Should Just Buy Netflix)

Well, the grand-daddy of all digital media rumors is back again.  Yesterday, Variety reported that Apple's quest to build its long-anticipated "Netflix Killer" is hot again in Cupertino.  More specifically, that Apple too -- like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and virtually all OTTs and MCNs these days -- plans to "do an HBO" to accomplish its mission (i.e., have a significant focus on creating its own exclusive original programming to woo customers away from the other established streaming video services).

Variety's article is new, but certainly the inevitability of Apple entering the premium streaming video game -- as well as the article's focus on Apple's quest to create compelling and differentiating original content -- is not (I have written about it several times).  And, much like Apple finally choosing to focus on buying/building its own "Spotify Killer" on the subscription streaming side for music (and finally recognizing that the times had moved away from a "pay per download" model), Apple at long last will go the same route for video (initially focusing on longer-form premium video content like movies and series).

With this most recent story now breaking before Apple's upcoming announcements, it is worth revisiting my earlier analysis where I pit Apple v. Netflix.  In that direct battle royale -- which absolutely will happen -- who wins?  Let's analyze 5 individual battles that define that war.

(1) Content/Programming -- Let's take Apple first.  Apple will offer (i) both VOD and live/linear TV (Netflix only offers VOD), and (ii) both ESPN and HBO, the two premium channels that matter most (Netflix doesn't).  How does Netflix counter this attack?  In two ways (i) exclusive original "must have" programming like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black (although -- as I wrote months ago -- you can bet Apple absolutely will get into that "originals" game as well (and smartly fast-track those efforts by buying a high-end and highly-respected production house with deep relationships -- or perhaps even buy a major Hollywood studio), and (ii) a significant depth of content that Apple will not have ... at least for a long time.  Advantage Apple.

(2) Distribution -- Apple's ecosystem is closed.  Netflix's is open.  That means that Apple's OTT video service will be bundled only into Apple products, whereas Netflix comes with virtually everyone else (including Apple TV -- although you can bet that Apple's Netflix-Killer will be front and center and free (at least for a while) on Apple TV's when it launches).  So, Netflix's sheer reach significantly outdistances Apple.  Oh yes, and Netflix already has built a massive customer base -- and is growing fast internationally.  Advantage Netflix.

(3) User Experience -- Virtually everyone on the planet has Netflix.  It's part of our Zeitgeist and its UI is practically burned into our brains.  So, it is easy to use.  But, Apple's hallmark is user experience -- a UI/UX that is both "pretty" (yes, that matters) and intuitive/easy.  And -- and this is a critical "and" -- Apple can do (and does) what Netflix and others can't.  It seamlessly integrates software/services with its hardware (including Apple TV).  That means that Apple's new OTT video service will be front and center and easier to use.  Advantage Apple.

(4) Price -- Netflix charges $8.99 monthly for new users, whereas Apple's "killer" service likely will cost significantly more.  ESPN alone costs cable/satellite operators about $6 monthly per sub.  Advantage Netflix.

So, we have a draw here, right?

(5) Business Model -- Well, here's the ultimate rub.  The companies' fundamentally divergent business models.

Neflix is a pure-play video service.  The company monetizes its service only.  That is its business model -- and that means that it must be profitable based on subscription revenues alone (unless and until it finds a way to effectively mine its treasure trove of customer data).

Apple's business model is fundamentally different.  For Apple, its "coming soon" OTT video service can be (and likely will be) a loss leader -- a losing proposition that ultimately wins.  You see, Apple's core DNA is unlike Netflix's.  It is hardware pure and simple.  Apple makes money (boatloads of it) by selling "cool" metal -- iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs (and ultimately the iTV?).  That means that Apple's new video service is essentially a "marketing" expense that drives incremental hardware sales.  That also means that Apple can (and will) subsidize its content licensing costs -- and original programming efforts -- in order to keep its subscription pricing down.  Apple's massive cash hoard offers a lot of highly coveted freedom that others simply don't have.

How does Netflix match that?  Maybe, Apple simply buys Netflix with all that cash -- after all, as massive as Netflix is, its market cap is a downright paltry $49 billion compared to Apple's $643 billion, which includes about $200 billion in cash).  Now THAT would change the media landscape ....

Artists, It's Your Copyright - Don't Apologize for Defending It!

[An extended version of my article below originally appeared in Digital Music News this past week -- full link, with supporting graphics, here.] [Note - image to the right is via dreamtime.com]

We live in a world where many share the belief that content is “free” -- and of fast-growing piracy of movies, television, music and all media.  Yet, most of us don’t know that.  In fact, most believe that earlier rampant piracy has been significantly curtailed by new legitimate services and business models (like subscription streaming).  But, it just ain’t so.  Cisco forecasts that file sharing in North America will grow a massive 51% from 2014-2019 and analyst firm NetNames, in a study commissioned by NBCUniversal, concludes that virtually all of that P2P file sharing violates copyright.  On the music side, Bain & Company is reported to have concluded that recorded music sales would be 17 times higher in a piracy-free world.  And, on the video side, recently, at least 4 HD pilots of upcoming CBS shows leaked to pirate sites weeks before their scheduled premieres

Piracy robs creators, plain and simple.  In the words of Alex Ebert, lead singer of indie band Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros (and a tech innovator himself), “it degrades the craft.”  The act of creation is their work – it is their livelihood.  Circumventing payment for the results of that work (music, movies, television) is like asking someone to build you a house (or even a doll house) – and then refusing to pay for it.  No one can defend that.

Most creators in all forms of media will attest to that (i.e., that the product of creativity is no different) … at least privately.  So, why is it so hard for artists and other content owners to come out and say that publicly?  And, even more, to take the action necessary to proclaim “enough is enough!” and stop the madness (which has, for some, somehow become “right” in some strange twist of fate)?  The answer, my friends, is that artists and content owners today are saddled with the history of the past -- a history that has led us to today’s parallel universe where, for some, the act of stealing from creators has become accepted (and frequently encouraged) behavior and where the “good guys” are the ones frequently depicted with black hats. 

Let’s go back in time to see how this all happened first in the music business – and to discuss what the creative community can do about it for movies, television, and all forms of media – unapologetically. 

The digital age dawned on a mass scale just prior to 2000 – and mass piracy of music followed suit.  Two enablers of choice in this brave, yet completely unregulated and frequently abused world, included the original Napster and Swedish-born KaZaA (which, in an ironic twist, was born by founders who later started Skype and music streaming service Rdio – for which they expect customers and advertisers to pay).  Yes, artists and their representatives “felt” that something wasn’t quite right – that their “products” were disappearing from the shelves in a form of looting on a mass scale.  But things got out of control so fast -- and no real tools existed to do anything about it – that little was done to stop illegal downloading of content. 

Little couldbe done.  The Internet itself – and the technology enabling that piracy – were still new to everyone.  There was no mass education by artists connecting piracy to their livelihoods.  Few in the creative community really understood it.  And many artists didn’t particularly care as a result of a “system” they felt failed to treat them and pay them fairly.  So, no one (even the creators themselves) really talked about it.  P2P piracy was anonymous.  No visible victim.  And seemingly everyone did it.  After all, it kind of felt “good” – getting great stuff … all for free!

Except it wasn’t.  Not “free” for the artists and creative community who, like all of us, need to make a living – and whose “paychecks” were soon slashed to a fraction.  Yes, this happened to major artists whom got the most visibility (and the most blowback under the guise of greed when they tried to begin the conversation – perhaps most notoriously, Metallica).  But, it happened equally to smaller indie artists and creators -- musician “mom and pops” – hitting them right where they live.  As an example, since 2000, the number of full-time songwriters in Nashville plummeted 80%.  Once artists and the creative community fully grasped the severity of the situation – and the mass global de-valuation of their “product” virtually overnight – the music industry struck back with the only tool it knew in those early, frenzied, frightening P2P days.  That tool was the good old American lawsuit – a tool that was both horribly imprecise and wielded with an equally horribly imprecise strategic hand.

As a result, that so-called “strategy” – which seemed to initially focus most on the leastegregious cases of piracy rather than on major pirates – failed.  Most importantly, it failed miserably in the court of public opinion, with serious repercussions to artists’ and industry brands and images.  In a dark form of alchemy, the most egregious wrongdoers proclaimed themselves to be most in the “right” and reveled in stories of 12-year-olds and grandmothers being sued (which purportedly demonstrated pervasive greed across all elements of the music industry).  Mass infringers somehow successfully defined a narrative that deflected the real issue -- and defended their virtual online mass looting of hundreds of millions of creator dollars when virtually no one in their right mind could defend mass theft in the physical world.  Imagine a warehouse filled with stolen CDs from your favorite indie artists – and then multiply that exponentially (because that was – and remains -- the reality in the virtual P2P world).  Right?  Wrong?  You be the judge.

The result?  Artists and the creative community were hit where it hurt most – their livelihoods, threatening many from the very act of creation that the most egregious pirates proclaimed they purportedly fostered through their illegal actions.  Edward Sharpe’s Alex Ebert passionately punctuates this point, underscoring piracy’s potential to create a generation of “hobbyist musicians” unable to focus their lives on the arts (and our enjoyment of it).  “To master anything, you must be able to devote your whole life to it,” he explains -- something that is increasingly difficult for creators.  That means a generation of lost art – songs, shows, movies that we will never hear or see.

Yet, many of those same creators shied away from protecting their own work, their own intellectual property – fearing losing their fans’ support (ultimately their most valuable resource) and frequently lacking motivation in an aging system not equipped for the brave new Internet world.  And, in the process, artists and the creative community essentially capitulated to a “not-very-brave” new world of “well, that’s just the way it is.”

So, here we are today.  What is different today than before?  What can (and should) be done now that wasn’t done then? 

On the music side, the answer is a three-pronged strategy that is properly defined, clearly articulated, and fairly carried out: (1) economics – the new monetization realities and consumer Zeitgeist of our digital-first world demand re-evaluated artist/label and distributor royalty structures, especially since – as Ebert points out -- many consumers are willing to pay only if they believe their money is going directly to the artist; (2) education – we all know (at least intellectually) that P2P piracy is wrong; artists and creators need to be motivated to openly support each other and be in a position to actively articulate piracy’s impact on their lives … on their art; and (3) technology– we now, for the first time, have the right set of tools to protect artists and content owners, target the most egregious pirates with precision, and seek reasonable restitution efficiently and privately.  Forget the 12-year olds and grandmas – focus on the real bad guys -- those with the virtual warehouses of stolen CDs in the sky.

On the technology front, one leader is Rightscorp (note -- a client), a company supported by industry heavyweights like Peter Paterno, Joel Katz and David Lowery and that counts Warner Bros. and BMG as clients.  Rightscorp identifies precisely where music, movies, and games are illegally uploaded or downloaded and then discretely (i.e., no names are made public) sends a series of low-cost offers to privately resolve violations.  There are no surprises here -- and the creative community can take back what’s rightfully theirs … their livelihoods.  Rightscorp alone has returned more than $1,000,000 of stolen creativity to date. 

With a significant percentage of all current Internet traffic used to illegally distribute copyrighted content without compensation, artists and content owners are victims still of mass theft valued at multiple billions of dollars just for music.  Isn’t it time for the creative community to take that back – unapologetically-- and help point the way to restoring what Ebert calls “the sanctity of the arts” in the eyes of all of us whose lives profit so much from the creative work of others? 

VR - The Rewards ... The Risks -- EXCLUSIVE Interview with Mike Rothenberg of River VR Accelerator

[My interview below first appeared yesterday in VideoInk .]  

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (VR), together “Immersive” technologies are increasingly meaningful actual realities for the business world and not just media and entertainment.  Much is written about the incredible promise and potential power of Immersive technologies for all of us (I too have written several times on that subject).  But, much less is written – at least in the industry press – about the known and, even more importantly, unknown risks associated with full sensory immersion. 

I became intrigued about this topic a few months back when I moderated a VR panel that featured Mike Rothenberg, a VR pioneer who runs the first VR accelerator, the “River Accelerator.”  (Here is a TechCrunch feature story of Mike from a couple years back -- am proud to say that my company's Manatt Venture Fund is an investor in Mike and his VC and Manatt Digital Media is heavily involved in the VR/AR Immersive space).  I recently interviewed Mike on this highly complex, fascinating topic.  Mike is one of VR’s strongest champions – and puts his money directly where his mouth is by financing VR startups through his venture capital firm Rothenberg Ventures.  Here is my interview.

Question (Csathy): Tell me at a high level what led you to not only be champion of VR’s amazing potential, but also a voice of caution with the cause?

Answer (Rothenberg):  I feel a social responsibility to address all aspects of VR given my role within the industry.  Like all great leaps in technology, there are really powerful things that could be positive or negative. VR is an entirely different type of visual medium because it bypasses your biological system to directly affect your memory.  It is not just visual; it is the difference in thinking that you are watching something and thinking you are there, which we call “presence”.

Csathy: Give me some non-obvious examples of Immersive’s potential to do great good.

Rothenberg: Definitely.  DeepStreamVR is a VR startup that helps cope with pain by refocusing attention. Some Washington hospitals have found that they can dramatically reduce the pain that child burn victims experience when changing bandages by immersing them in a VR world of snow.  In the snow world, the mind refocuses and the children report pain reductions comparable that of opiates.  It’s incredible.  Another example is FOVE, a company building a hardware system with eye-tracking software that translates a user’s eye movements to specific action.  An inspirational example of FOVE’s ability to change lives can be seen on its website, where a university student with muscular dystrophy in Japan plays a piano in a live performance using his eyes in a VR headset by looking at the piano keys with eye-tracking software.  Psious is another amazing startup changing lives. Its immersive technology helps people practice coping with fear, whatever they may be.  Fear of flying, fear of heights, etc.  If you can experience that fear in a controlled environment, you can learn to overcome it.  And think of the elderly and others who are immobile and confined to beds.  Now they can be transported anywhere in the world from their bedroom and be constrained only by our imaginations.

Ultimately the power of virtual reality is in its ability enable a permanently higher quality of life.

Csathy: How about on the other end of the spectrum.  What are some non-obvious examples of Immersive’s potential to cause great harm?

Rothenberg:  Watching a war movie makes you think you watched a war movie.  Inside a virtual reality war experience, you may feel like you are actually in a war.  VR could make a very different imprint on your memory and your brain that could lead to actual post-traumatic stress disorder.  If “Pirates of the Caribbean” is rated PG13 just due to the sight of blood, then how do we even begin to rate the potential impact of feeling what it’s like be there if someone cuts off a pirate’s leg right in front of us? We do not yet understand the implications there.  The ability to scar people is greater, and researchers will conduct studies to gauge how real those risks are.  I am not a proponent of blind censorship, but I’m afraid of what we don’t know.  That’s why we are not investing in potentially traumatizing VR.  We simply don’t know the real-life implications of experiencing terrifying content in VR.

Csathy:  In the panel I moderated, you used an example of how VR potentially could be used by terrorists like ISIS to create unimaginable impacts.  Are you aware of anyone yet – any group or company -- who has created VR content specifically designed to harm and cause pain?

Rothenberg:  Not yet, but they will come.

Csathy:  River seems to be mentioned in just about every VR investment conversation.  What is your investment strategy?

Rothenberg:  We invest in the intersection of where the world is going and where we want it to go We form proactive theses around next generation technology like VR, AR, and Artificial Intelligence, as well as invest actively in enterprise software and reactively in consumer.  Then we work with our network of hundreds of founders and startup CEOs to find and invest in the fastest-growing technology startups, most often as their first institutional investor, and help them get to the next stage with the right people for their company.

Csathy:  How would you describe the Immersive world as it is today, compared to where it will be?

Rothenberg:  I think VR in 2015 is like the Internet in 1994 or mobile in 2007.  It’s been in the preseason for decades but now it’s in the first inning.  There’s still so much exploration to be done!  So, although I don’t anticipate society’s immediate mass adoption of VR and AR technology, ultimately it is inevitable.

Scenes From MDM's Nordic Tech Showcase - 10 Hot Companies From That Cool Region

Yesterday, my company, Manatt Digital Media, hosted a Nordic tech showcase lunch in NYC for 10 top start-ups hand-picked by SLUSH (the major tech/digital media organization about which I have written several times).  Two "hot" tech companies/entrepreneurs from each very cool Nordic country -- Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland -- presented their stories to investors and others who may be able to accelerate their growth in the U.S. and globally.  Was an impressive group.  And an impressive event -- one which underscores the tremendous innovation flowing out that "under-the-radar" region (well, under-the-radar perhaps for those in the U.S.).  And one that underscores Manatt Digital Media's commitment to working with the most innovative companies and entrepreneurs in the Nordic region.

Here are some scenes from the event.  See you next at SLUSH in Helsinki, Finland in early November -- what I call a "must attend" tech event.

(Below, to the right, CEO/founder Katariina Rantanen of CosmEthics (from Finland) -- a tech company focused on the beauty space (and identifying toxins and other chemicals in products within it) presents.  Below Katariina, CEO/founder Didrik Steinsson of VR company Breakroom presents his case.  And, below Didrik, CEO/founder Jeanette Dhyre Kvisvik of social media-focused ad-tech company Faceforce presents.  All of these are companies to watch ... closely.)

MDM August Newsletter - The MUSIC Issue

Manatt Digital Media – August Newsletter: Music Edition

• So You Want Music in Your Video: 5 Things to Remember so You Don't Get Sued
• Streaming Can EXPAND Artist Revenues—BandPage & Rhapsody Point the Way
• Media's Online-Offline Nexus: Connecting Virtual, Physical Worlds
• Restoring the Value of Art and Enforcing Creator Rights—Unapologetically
• Digital Music Updates

In this edition, we focus on the world of music, exploring the opportunities for artist-fan engagement, examining the conflicts between piracy and artist livelihood, and, for creators, providing guidance on navigating the use of music in your own work.

So You Want Music in Your Video: 5 Things to Remember so You Don't Get Sued

By David Rappaport and Jordan Bromley

This article was originally published in Newsweek.

Last month we received a call from a woman who made an unassuming video of her daughter's wedding and added her favorite song as the musical bed. She was frightened, a little angry and perplexed by the copyright infringement letter she received from a major music publisher. Read more

Streaming Can EXPAND Artist Revenues—BandPage & Rhapsody Point the Way

By Peter Csathy

Conventional wisdom is that subscription music streaming services like Spotify—which now drive more overall music revenues than direct downloads—drive significantly less revenues to artists themselves. That's true if streaming service revenues are considered in isolation. Read more

Media's Online-Offline Nexus: Connecting Virtual, Physical Worlds

By Peter Csathy

This article was originally published in Wired Insights.

We always write and read about the virtual world of online media in Wired, but not so much about the physical world of live media experiences. But the virtual and physical worlds absolutely should be connected in this increasingly disconnected world in which we can all communicate with one another, but rarely really meaningfully communicate and feel that we are part of a real community. Read more

Restoring the Value of Art and Enforcing Creator Rights—Unapologetically

We live in a world where many share the belief that content is "free" and of fast-growing piracy of music and media. Yet, most of us don't know that. In fact, most believe that earlier rampant piracy has been significantly curtailed by new legitimate services and business models (like subscription streaming). But, it just ain't so. Cisco forecasts that file sharing in North America will grow a massive 51% from 2014-2019 and analyst firm NetNames, in a study commissioned by NBCUniversal, concludes that virtually all P2P file sharing violates copyright. And, leading consulting firm Bain & Company is reported to have concluded that recorded music sales would be 17 times higher in a piracy-free world. Read more

Digital Music Updates

About a month after launching Apple Music, Apple has announced that 11 million users have signed on for the three-month trial. While this number carries Apple a tenth of the way to its goal of 100 million subscribers, the true test will come after the trial period. Apple still has some time to win users over, but so do other players, who are continuing to up their game. Read more