MSA Remote for iPhone from Memo Akten on Vimeo.

Since the dawn of computing, developers have been free to create whatever software they can imagine for computers. Windows, Mac, UNIX, Linux, Atari, Amiga, Apple II, Commodore 64 – it doesn’t matter. Come up with an idea, and short of doing something destructive on the system, you can make it work on a computer. It’s this freedom that has made the computer age possible. Game consoles have been different, a relic of the days when cartridges were physical objects you put in the machine. But mobile devices have generally acted more or less like computer platforms – look at Windows Mobile, Symbian, Linux, Android, Palm OS, Palm’s Web OS, and so on. It wouldn’t be odd to expect the same of the iPhone or iPod touch, which is essentially a Mac running on a low-power platform with a mobile-optimized set of libraries. The iPod doesn’t even connect to a wireless phone network; it uses WiFi just like your computer.

As musicians and artists, this sort of freedom has given us the freedom to make expressive music and art using powerful tools. That same freedom hasn’t applied to comparatively restrictive game platforms, which is why music apps for platforms like PSP and Nintendo DS require hacking hardware and software.

But then there’s the iPhone / iPod touch. Apple claims that they create a superior user experience by controlling quality, and they use that control to pick and choose which applications they think are appropriate for their phone. Never mind that a whole lot of what’s available on the iTunes store is simply worthless crap. And, frankly, that’s okay – users pick and choose the good stuff, and a lot of it’s really great.

But far from simply protecting mobile carriers like AT&T from abusive apps, it’s clear from developer experiences that Apple has extended that supposedly superior judgment to second-guessing developers on design and application purpose.

The latest victim: a fully free wireless multitouch server that would empower iPod touch and iPhone users to control live art and perform, created by one of the world’s leading interactive artists, Memo Akten. It seems Apple’s powers that be rejected the app because they simply don’t understand what the heck it is.

The story so far:

Apple’s iPhone should be a herald of a new age in interface design. But now, with speculation that Apple and Palm could get into a patent battle, and murky concerns about patents in multi-touch interface design in general, it’s unclear how much intellectual property legal wrangling will have to happen first.

I’m going to resist turning this into a long rant – partly because I think the jury is out on so many issues. It’s never been entirely clear what Apple continues sacred in its intellectual property on the iPhone. It’s even less clear – with similar multi-touch designs spreading back decades and murky law around gestures in general – what their legal standing is. No one knows at this point whether there will actually be a lawsuit between Palm and Apple (or which direction). But one thing I can say with confidence: we need alternatives to Apple. Even if you love your iPhone, I think you’ll agree it’d be tragic if other vendors didn’t push the technology forward. And we need alternatives like Google Android that support real open development, release free and open source code, and provide an option to Apple’s deeply proprietary, restrictive development platform. Innovative music software in particular won’t be able to thrive if alternatives are closed or nonexistent.

Here’s a quick look at where we’ve been, and where things are:

SoundCloud, the music and sound sharing service we saw launch this month has added a very important feature: support for different licenses. When you upload tracks, you can elect to protect your work with a conventional copyright or opt instead for a Creative Commons license. That’s an important feature I’d like to see all these services support. The one thing Creative Commons and conventional copyright advocates agree on is that being explicit about what rights you want to your work is essential.

Naturally, this means not only that you can upload works, but that SoundCloud could soon become a rich repository for CC-licensed work to use as video soundtracks or sample, in the way that Flickr’s CC search has fired up lots of (legal) image use. We have heard some dissatisfaction from readers about SoundCloud’s pricing scheme, but this announcement means SoundCloud remains one to watch — even if you’re not personally uploading to it.

SoundCloud also came up with a unique idea: they created a drop box for CC-licensed works which they played at a party.

You can read about the new licenses and other news tidbits on the SoundCloud blog:
Introducing SoundCloud Creative Commons Support

To any of you who get tired of incessant griping, remember: sometimes, people listen — especially if the griping is well-reasoned and constructive. Such seems to be the case with Apple’s NDA on mobile application development. Apple announced today:

…the NDA has created too much of a burden on developers, authors and others interested in helping further the iPhone’s success, so we are dropping it for released software. Developers will receive a new agreement without an NDA covering released software within a week or so. Please note that unreleased software and features will remain under NDA until they are released.

To Our Developers

I would be remiss if I didn’t give Apple some credit for making this move. This is what really matters: being responsive to criticism. We’re seeing some tremendous innovation in development for the iPhone and iPod touch, and in the mobile arena in general, from new kinds of synths and music making applications to Star Trek-like controllers. It’ll make a big difference to those developers to be able to talk.

And, speaking of which, this now means we can have all of those developer discussions that were crippled by the NDA. So, developers, we’d love to hear from you.

As music listening takes new forms, that builds new business models. But who calls the shots? Who gets to play, and who reaps the benefits? One immediate danger is that major label deals will dominate as outlets vie for position. Online outlets like MySpace have started to look a bit like the same-old, same-old world of major labels and big deals. “Indie” music sometimes makes an appearance, but nearly always in the form of signed artists and often in the shadow of the majors. Unsigned artists can get onboard, but the playing field often isn’t level – and while majors negotiate lucrative deals for their music, unsigned artists and indies have to give theirs away for free. At the other end of the spectrum, unsigned artists often don’t get paid by services that benefit from their work (like MySpace).

That’s why Last.fm’s announcement yesterday was a potential bombshell. Now fully available after months of development, the Artist Royalty Program will pay artists royalties on plays directly – no label required. Unsigned and independent artists can sign up to earn royalties from on-demand plays and Last.fm’s streaming radio.

Last.fm Artist Royalty Program (last.fm/uploadmusic)

Royalties 101

To fully understand what that means, let’s back up and talk about where royalties come from in on-demand online music. This is entirely separate from downloadable music – that’s pretty straightforward. If you, for instance, sell a track on your band’s website for 50 cents, people pay 50 cents, own the track, and you get 50 cents. If you sell it through another vendor, then you get a slice of the sales pie.

But on-demand, streaming music, via radio stations or elsewhere, works differently. Since the days of radio, broadcasters have wanted broader access to music. Obviously, if they had to negotiate rights individually for each track, they couldn’t exist. So the solution has always been a system of blanket royalties. In the online space, there are two kinds of royalties, coming from two different licenses. Here’s the simplified version (lawyers, feel free to clarify):