Muffin is one of the many, new music apps or technologies which use some clever mathematical formulas to work out what kind of music we like! 

Muffin can be embedded into Itunes and Facbook as well as being used on its ow website http://www.mufin.com/us. It looks at your current music, learns the tempo, instruments and other musical components. It then suggest tracks which are similar (well similar if based upon the criteria like tempo etc!).

Muffin is not unique and we have seen similar technology being pushed. Why the sudden increase is services like Muffin? Simply that traditionally the majority of consumers ‘found new’ music by watching TV and listening to Radio. This worked when there were only a few channels the nation watched, or only a few radio stations. However, in the world of mass media we have witnessed not only music shows being given their own channels (good) and hence coming off the main networks (bad), but via the net we have witnessed a fragmentation of the audience. 

So along with the fact that there is now MORE music than ever, and that none of us know about it or have the time sift through it it seems that that why there is the demand for Muffins!

Its been rumoured on a number of sites now that Itunes will be dropping DRM. Well hurrah if they do. Lets quickly go through the pros, and cons of this decision. 

Cons -

From Apple’s perspective they loose a reason to buy an IPOD or to keep buying an IPOD. Traditionally music bought was tied into that piece of hardware. It would not play on anything else

Music which is exclusive to the Apple’s, Itunes Store can be copied and shared with as much ease as any other material.

Pros - 

For the last two years, people have been able to buy music, legally, without DRM from a number of players in the market. That music would work on an IPOD. So Apple’s business model had actually become a barrier to them growing the Ipod market, as consumers would soon become use to the idea of music download interoperability (remember in the early years, Apple were not the only company with closed DRM).

It should also be noted that the Ipod has now grown beyond its original functionality. Its now a phone, a games machine and slowly becoming a business smart phone which is competing with Blackberry. Hence, there are lots of different ways Apple can make sure it still has content exclusively tied to its hardware by having the best business applications and games to play (adapted uniquely to its hardware). 

Apple still has the Itunes store, and for many that is of value in itself. The Apple hardware, with a dedicated ’streamlined’ (some people think that the Itunes Software needs a MAJOR makeover) software application for purchasing and managing content is a major plus. There are still very few competitors with a fully joined up experience such as Apple’s (Sony are slooooooowly getting there with their PS3 and PSP platforms).

All we need is the record labels to allow Apple to lift DRM across its entire catalogue. Does this mean Apple was always telling the truth when they said it was the Record Companies that forced DRM on them? Well I suspect, that yes, in their continual fear of anything which is not some form of physical distribution system they did insist on DRM. However, I reckon that Apple then saw how they could make it proprietary and use it as a way of making sure no one could ride their success in developing the Ipod platform. 

That market reality has now gone, and now we look forward to a world where, music at least, has no locks on it. The question remains will the Movie Industry follow suite and also allow Apple to unlock the films and tv shows? That would be superb boost to the world of legal digital content, and would result in many more people embracing it.

After all EMI recently stated that since they had lifted DRM via a number of download sites they had not seen an increase in illegal sharing. Those that want to break the law always will, and for the rest of us, if the price is right, if we feel we own the content and can use it across all our hardware without being punished - well we always buy it.

After all we can STILL buy it on CD/DVD and rip it with ease. If companies were THAT concerned with stopping Piracy they would have stopped making CDs and DVDs by now!

Web User is reporting that many of the music retailers, who sell music downloads which are not encrypted with DRM, will be adopting a universal logo to highlight this fact. It will be a ‘MP3 compatible logo’ and will make it clear to the user that the files purchased from this store can be used on any digital device without restrictions.

Now we have discussed the issue of DRM many times before on our podcast. We recognise that IF as a label you fear the internet, then yes it does offer a degree of protection. This in turn makes it easier for you to bring your content to the marketplace, which is good for the consumer. However, taking into account CD has no protection, the question is why have the fear in the first place? Yes, it is easier to copy a file than a CD, but not that MUCH easier. 

Hence we have been applauding those companies pushing content without DRM, and I want to applaud this initiative, as not enough people know that there are alternatives without DRM out there. In fact why not have a logo that says, ‘legal, paid for and DRM free’. That way we have education about why people should pay wrapped up into the message too.

Talking of which; I saw the new Bond movie the other night. A lot of fun it was too. However, preceding the movie was not the normal ‘dont copy or you will go to hell’ message, but instead a very very short video of Daniel Craig asking us not to film it (with our camera phones!) because without people paying to see the movie, all of ‘these people’ would not get paid - with a video of all the real people behind the movie playing as he spoke.

What a great idea. More of this please. Its not a battle between us and them. It should be much more about regular communication and education of the public. Let the public see the faces behind the product, not just get the corporate letters threatening to sue them.

Recently Nokia has announced its Comes With Music range of products. This is where you get one of their handsets and can then legally download an unlimited amount of music via their service for a year onto your newly acquired phone. 

Now when we say ‘unlimited’ that always means ‘within reason’ or that which could be ‘reasonably’ listened to by an individual in a year. 

The point is, this is slowly becoming a mainstream model. Sony Music is launching its own version (it has in scandinavia already) along with Sony Ericsson. I think we can expect that a similar deal will eventually work with the PS3/PSP platforms (at least for Sony content) and EMI recently went into a joint venture with Warner Music, not tied to a piece of hardware but allowing ‘unlimited’ downloads for a one off fee. 

Now in many respects these deals with labels add REAL value to music. The labels will get paid a slice off the hardware price or package fee (as with the EMI platform). The customer values music enough to want it and pro-actively download it, but they have lost the sense that they should pay individually for each track/album. Yet this way they are still paying for it, without feeling that they are - and then the money is distributed through to the labels and appropiate artists/songwriters etc etc. 

The flip side is that it could be perceived as the nail in the coffin of the traditional value system. The system which says:

‘That an artist or collection of artists and skilled individuals spent ‘x’ amount of time on this track/album. By purchasing it you are supporting them directly (and not the label - even though must of the money used to go to the label) and making sure they can continue to make music to the same high standard.’

Also it could be a way of blocking off the long tail. I.E. if an individual or band cannot get with a content aggregator.  They may also find that these new services only push material from major labels, as by associated with material with high cache levels adds value to the hardware and is a win, win; for the labels and tech companies. 

Does this squeeze out the individual, semi-pro? If they are left to ’sell’ their music, it would put them at a perceived disadvantage in the market place compared to the labels who have their ‘price hidden’ in the cost of the phone etc etc. 

Times are a-changing as they have been non-stop for the last 10 years. However, is something fundamental happening in front our eyes? As labels panic and seek to find an income (something which is kinda important for a business) are they undermining, further, the very product they wish to make money out of? Or, are they smelling the roses and leveraging the content the best way they can, today, making sure there is money to invest into the music of tomorrow.

Also does this mean that it will impossible to have a complete music collection in the future? Might we see a situation, as with movies and Blueray, that certain acts can only be listened to on certain playback devices? I’m not too sure thats ‘bad’ as its the norm for videogames and as I said, movies. However it would be a complete change for the consumer. 

Discuss……