Open source software has proven itself in technological, economic, and cultural terms – it’s simply a matter of reality. This site runs atop free software nginx, WordPress, MySQL, and (Red Hat Enterprise) Linux; in music, we have Csound, SuperCollider, Pd, Ardour, JACK, Processing, and so on. Csound has even appeared on karaoke machines. These tools run alongside and interoperate with commercial, closed-source solutions. They’re a part of our technological ecosystem, both in general-purpose computing and in music and visuals.

But what about hardware? Facing scarcity and fabrication, hardware combines all of the challenges of software with new problems. And unlike software, open source hardware lacks clear licenses and definitions.

There’s clearly a role open source hardware could play in music. There are already components, like USB chipsets, that are available in open source form that can benefit music projects. And while true open source hardware has been rare or available only in limited runs, there have been hardware projects with open source components. Most notably, the fully open source software that powers the monome has been instrumental in facilitating the passionate community around that device. Here’s what the monome project proclaims on its official site:

we believe that open source is commercially viable and mutually beneficial for our collective and the consumer. in opening our software we eliminate wasteful, redundant coding for ourselves by incorporating proven libraries and frameworks. we in turn provide these same benefits to others who wish to incorporate our development efforts into their projects. we believe distributed development leads to more stable software and more creative application design. we believe open applications provide more flexibility for users to adapt tools to their specific needs, encourage creative use of software and hardware, and produce a greater diversity output from users.

But even given the monome manifesto above, music gear embracing open source hardware has been relatively scarce – even more so if you apply the definition adopted by many advocates. (The monome, for its part, would not meet a number of the criteria of open source hardware drafted for the summit.)

This Thursday in New York, on the eve of Maker Faire, the Open Hardware Summit promises to break new ground. It features a packed schedule of thinkers from NASA to Texas Instruments to the Arduino project, and the introduction of a first working definition of open source hardware.

I spoke to project co-chairs Alicia Gibb and Ayah Bdeir about the origins and goals of the event, and some of the unique challenges of doing open source hardware.

At the same time, I couldn’t help but notice the absence of music and audio figures on the program. That to me suggests that this discussion is not less relevant, but more so – if there is a disconnect between musical creators working with these ideas and the rest of the community, it’s worth exploring why that is, given that musical expression is such a fundamental part of our culture. More on that at the end, as we don’t yet have a good catalog of active, available projects for open source music.

CDM: Can you tell us how this project, and the Summit, came about?

Alicia: About 7 months ago, in January Peter [Semmelhack, of BUG Labs] said to me, “Hey, I’ve been getting a lot of people from hardware companies calling me and asking for advice. We have learned a lot of lessons in producing hardware and others shouldn’t have to make those same mistakes. Is there a way we could get all kinds of people who work with open source hardware together and all share information, a conference or summit – like an Open Hardware Summit or something.” And I replied to him – “Peter, this is going to be epic, consider it done.” I began working and thinking of key players to involve on this Open Hardware Summit.

Separately, in March, Ayah brought many excellent minds together at the Opening Hardware Workshop sponsored by Eyebeam and CC, it was such an impressive collection, to begin forming a definition of what open source hardware entails. (In the first video on the Eyebeam project site, Ayah explains a bit about how that event was brought together.) The definition that you have come across is the definition that was spurred from that workshop. It was there that I began talking to a couple people about the conference and Chris Anderson [Wired] said “Have you thought about doing it around … Maker Faire?”

Sherry Huss, Dale Dougherty and Becky Stern [all of Make] all sat down to chat with me and loved the idea of having it the day before Maker Faire, they invited me along to scope out the space and treated me as family. They got NYSCI on board as our venue sponsor for the New York Hall of Science. They were absolutely instrumental in getting the Summit off the ground. Ayah mentioned that with her new fellowship at Creative Commons, one of the things they wanted to do was a conference around Open Hardware. Becky told her she should come talk to me – and really, the rest is history

I do have to say it is such an honor to plan this with Ayah, I read her work as a grad student and as Peter texted me after our first meeting with all the key players in the Summit, “I think the fact that the first Open Hardware Summit is being chaired by women is a terrific signal”. I feel very fortunate to have a job that allows me to make my dreams happen, and CEO who truly has his heart in the right place when it comes to open source. Peter’s ability to be a successful business man while not forgetting the importance of sharing, giving back, and maintaining transparency in open source projects has been inspirational to me.

Ayah and I are the co-chairs of the Summit. However as we plan more and more we hope to bring on other volunteers for help. The other key players that we consider catalysts to this event are: Bug Labs, Creative Commons, littleBits, MAKE, Maker Faire, NYSCI, and Eyebeam.

littleBits intro from ayah bdeir on Vimeo.

Ayah, can you talk a little about your background in this, particularly since Opening Hardware was a project you created at Eyebeam?

Ayah: From my end, i have been working on Open hardware for my own project littleBits (www.littleBits.cc) with advisor John Wilbanks of Creative Commons for a while. Our talks were so interesting that we decided to host a small workshop in March where we would invited interested hardware makers and have a discussion between the open hardware community and creative commons to better understand the issues and licensing options. In the workshop we saw that a license would not be the way to go but rather a community-approved set of norms or definition might work best. Ed.: As noted in comments, littleBits is not yet available for purchase, but “design files, schematics and instructions will be online when we are done manufacturing.” -PK

Who is actively involved in that community effort?

Ayah: The Opening Hardware workshop was organized by me, with eyebeam, ted ullrich and celine assaf, and sponsored by CC. we then set up a mailing list and hosted discussions on the definition, where a bunch of us were actively involved in the drafting (dave mellis prodding people to hash out the version 0.1 draft and Windell did most of the writing for the current (0.3) draft (adopting from the DFSG and the OSI OSS definition)). Although lots of people contributed both comments and text including: Arduino, Adafruit, Buglabs, MakerBot, Chumby as well as Jonathan Kuniholm (Open Prosthetics), Chris Anderson (Wired), Mako Hill (OLPC, Wikipedia), Jon Philips (Qi), Shigeru Kobayashi (Gainer), Becky Stern (Make) and Thinh Nguyen and John Wilbanks (CC) and us (littleBits, Eyebeam), Parallax, Sparkfun, Lilypad.

What drove this effort; what made it come about?

It seemed like so many of us that were interested in porting the open source movement to hardware were struggling with adapting it, and its restrictions and specificities. We believe it is such a worthwile movement to fuel creativity in the world that we really wanted to share it with others.

The most common question I hear asked is by creators, who are concerned that people will simply set up cheap manufacture to clone products, undercutting costs and reducing their ability to invest in support and further development. Is there anything in this definition that would protect against this?

Ayah: From David Mellis, Arduino:

I think the best strategy is to provide good products at a reasonable price, offer good customer service, and establish a brand that people trust. We do mention in the introduction that you can’t imply your products are supported or or sanctioned by another manufacture or use someone else’s trademarks – both intended to help protect a company’s brand and reputation.

Ed.: Okay, there’s quite a lot more to discuss here, I know – so consider this the beginning of this conversation, not the end. I think what David suggests is one compelling answer, but I hope we do have a larger discussion of the issues here, as this a significantly multi-dimensional question. -PK

What’s essential to this definition in your view and what’s up for discussion? For instance, some (though not all) makers believe that some sort of non-commercial
restriction is needed to prevent cloning, but that’s explicitly forbidden in this draft. Is it possible that a future definition might include other tiers, like Creative Commons’ non-commercial license for creative works? Or is that anathema to the definition of open source hardware?

Ayah: We’re trying to define open-source hardware (not create a license). We mostly think non-commercial clauses are antithesis to open source. However, some want a really idealistic application for open source to hardware, but others, (like me) think it’s ok if different companies and individuals have different flavors so that the movement can gain the most traction and people can find their own ways to be sustainable.

What will the role of the hardware summit be?

Ayah: The summit will be a venue to share and discuss issues, problems and solutions in open hardware. This is also an opportunity for us to bring Creative Commons into the discussion with the community.

There will be a very deliberate attempt to remain practical and not too academic/theoretical, and we want to get work done in terms of the movement. We are also hoping to get more comments before the summit and be able to release version 1.0 of the definition to the world!

Where does Creative Commons fit in?

Ayah: CC committed, albeit in an early stage to support the open hardware movement, which can be seen by their awarding me of a fellowship to support the field and focus on open hardware. Even if it will not be throught creating licenses for us, they are interested in being involved in the discussion, and have been very generous supporters.

Are there any usable license models now that someone could look at? Definitions aside, is there a sense of best-practices for someone who has a hardware design now and wants to take the plunge?

Ayah: Again, from David Mellis:

I would recommend people share whatever they feel comfortable with. Open-source hardware doesn’t make sense for all companies or all products, and everyone should decide what makes sense for their own situation. On the other hand, we believe in the value of open-source as applied to hardware in the ways stated in the definition, and so we would encourage its use where possible.

If people want to get involved in the discussion, what’s he best way to do that?

www.openhardwaresummit.org/forum

What are some of the highlights of what you have scheduled for Thursday? What can people expect to hear?

Everything is a highlight for Thursday! The response and interest to the summit has been so incredible that we really tried to pack the best in. The panels are particularly going to be interesting, with such great participants from various fields, we expect to get lots of great questions and answers.
TOne of our most important goals for the Summit is to keep the event very action-driven and solution-driven. This means talking about best practices, advice on how to better make open hardware, and staying away from the theoretical jargon and bikeshedding. We expect there to be a lot of young makers and companies starting out in open hardware, so the more specific/real-world experiences and advice we can give them the better! Another particular highlight we are selfishly hoping for is to hash out the Open Hardware definition and take it from version 0.3 to version 1.0!

Since we’re talking to a music/sound (and on motion, visual) audience, anything likely to be specifically relevant to them?

The sprint talks will be specifically interesting to them. The speakers are showing their projects, in space research, art, design and education. We think it will be particularly interesting eye candy for your audience, as well as have a lot of value in terms of relating to the speakers and the problems/opportunities they face with their work.

(CDM) Call for Open Source Music Hardware

My read of the situation is that this is the beginning (or even a prelude) rather than the end of the story. So that means, since there really isn’t much, if any, representation of audio and music platforms at the summit (unless you count Arduino, or a possible cameo by a x0xb0x), maybe it’s time to do a tally of those platforms.

What projects do you consider “open source hardware” for music? Are there any you’ve seen recently, or use actively?

What would you want in an open source hardware platform?

And do you have a project you’ve considered for an open source license yourself?

I’ve actually seen a few projects recently that I’m excited about, either available now or coming soon, so I’ll be covering those, but at the risk of proposing a list that’s incomplete, I’ll leave them out for now and listen to what you think.

The Summit…

http://www.openhardwaresummit.org/

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:

I received the following response from Apple: “Thank you for submitting your application “MSA Remote”. We need clarification in regards to the functionality of the application as we do not have access to the interactive installations that the application controls. If possible, please provide login information for a server application we can use to review your application.”

So I sent them 3 desktop apps: a standard TUIO client, a MSATouch client (multiple devices can control a single client without interference), and an OSC Dumper so they could see all the messages being sent in detail.

Even after receiving that documentation, Apple decided that they knew better than their users and developers. Result: no app.

Apple’s response to this app is “We’ve reviewed your application, MSA Remote, and we have determined that this application contains minimal user functionality and will not be appropriate for the App Store.”

I find it hard to believe that a FREE TUIO SERVER for iPhone and iPod touch is not suitable for the App Store!! Please leave comments below if you think it is suitable and I will get back to them to try and sort it out.

MSA Remote for iPhone

TUIO, for the record, is the open multitouch platform employed in the powerful, expressive reacTable tangible interface that has been used by the likes of (Mac user) Bjork.

Let’s be clear. The point here is not just to rant. Memo is looking for comments from users. I’m hopeful that an upswell of support could show Apple the error of their ways and get them to correct course on this one, and I’ll applaud them if they do that.

But let’s also be clear: restrictive platforms are bad for artists. Apple is setting a dangerous precedent, and I’m frankly tired of the conventional assumption that they’re always right. I think the restrictiveness of the platform – well beyond what is “safe” for users or what might endanger Apple’s relationship with carriers like AT&T – is simply wrong-headed. The reason we love platforms like the Mac is that they have empowered us to express ourselves freely. And having seen the power of the Mac as a platform over the years, I’d be disingenuous not to point out that the iPhone has lost a big part of that soul.

The good news is, complaining and whining and griping can be productive. Tweetie, a powerful Twitter app that was censored because it might expose users to profanity on the open Web service, did make its way to the store after massive public outcry.

So, as I say, I don’t rant just because I like the sound of my own typing. I hope that the rest of you will join in, and it’ll make a difference.

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:

This has been a storm cloud since the beginning. Me, in January 2007, immediately following the keynote: Macworld: Will Apple Keep its iPhone Closed? Multi-Touch Patents? (I wish I had been wrong. No one believed me at the time that these two areas would be big issues.)

The original tech predates the iPhone. Engadget in 2007 on Apple’s multi-touch roots – FingerWorks gave them a patent portfolio and some key technology.

Google may have dropped out of the race. VentureBeat has a source that claims Google voluntarily dropped multi-touch to keep Apple happy. Even if that’s not true, I think potential legal battles with Apple – and the incorrect notion among consumers that this is Apple’s invention – could have a chilling effect. Update: There may indeed be some chilliness in the air, but there’s strong evidence that Google didn’t “cave” to Apple somehow — they just didn’t get around to it. And a multi-touch G1 may not be far off. Just asked the guy who’s already hacked the G1.

Both Apple and Palm are loaded up with patents – and no one knows what will happen. Engadget analyzes the potential for a Palm/Apple legal standoff – but there are two major issues here. One, Palm has a healthy patent portfolio of their own, meaning they could counter-sue. Two, no one knows if anything will come of this – aside from some saber rattling, we’re not even sure there will be a suit.

Just to keep things in perspective, though: I think multi-touch in general is safe. It’s a technology coming to phones, mobile devices, computers, Windows 7, Synaptic trackpads, Linux … the list goes on. To me, the question is whether developers will be free to try ideas without lawyers breathing down their necks, and that’s very much an open question.

And I think the deeper questions about whether open development, as on Android, can be competitive, may prove to be more important in the long run. Apple aside, we need more common-sense, modernized patent law – even if the Android in this case voluntarily dropped a feature, you can see that the issues are linked. And we need to have open development if people are to have freedom to experiment with design. This is about more than Palm and Apple; it’s about how we interact with our tech.

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

…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):

1. A license for the recording – the “statutory license.” These fees are set by the Copyright Royalty Board and collected by SoundExchange. It’s called “statutory” because webcasters don’t need your explicit permission to broadcast music. They’re paid to the owner of the recording. If you’re a signed artist, that’s your label.

2. A license for the “performance rights” of the copyrighted work itself. These fees are negotiated with performing rights organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.

That sounds odd (Last.fm isn’t “performing”), but it makes more sense if you think about the actual music. There’s the recording of the music, and the “work” itself. So, for instance, you might record a cover of a song. There’s the songwriter, and the artist recording the work; they may not be the same person.

If you’ve written and recorded your own song, you own both of these rights. You might sign with a label and give them the recording rights, but either way, the basis remains the ownership of the recording and the musical work.

So where does ARP fit in?

First, regardless of whether you’re part of ARP or not, you’ll always receive the performing rights if you’re the writer of your musical material. That’s why it makes sense to join an organization like ASCAP if you’ve ever produced anything; unless you do nothing but cover other people’s music, they’re there for you. They’re not the RIAA – they represent writers and publishers. In fact, even if you release your music under a Creative Commons non-commercial license, you are eligible to receive royalty payments collected by these bodies. (That’s the topic of an upcoming article.) If you join ARP, you’ll continue to receive income for this music.

What ARP does is to provide additional income for unsigned artists. A spokesperson for CBS Interactive (parent of Last.fm) tells CDM:

If you participate in the ARP, you should not be signed up with a recording rights society. In effect, Last.fm is cutting out the middle man here by paying the artist directly without going via the collection society. Writers benefit from the publishing rights royalties that Last.fm pays to the publishing rights societies. ARP is for recording rights only.

Who Benefits from ARP?

Here’s where ARP makes a difference. Previously, the system for the artist was to go get a label, and then get that label to collect royalties on the recording. The label, in turn, had to go to SoundExchange, formerly part of the RIAA but now an independent organization, to get the money. Result: fees get set by a board of judges chosen by the Copyright Office (the Copyright Royalty Board), and you’ve got multiple middle … men, actually.

Under the ARP, you go to Last.fm, and Last.fm pays you. You upload the music where you want it to go. And, via Last.fm’s community pages, you actually have some tools for your music:

Last.fm for labels and artists

In addition to royalties, that includes stats, event management, and the ability to connect with fans. And the other thing that’s interesting about this whole system is that both parties essentially have to be happy. Artists have to be getting value from Last.fm’s service, and royalties that make sense for them. Last.fm can then, in turn, build an ad-based revenue model that works for them as a business. That’s a far cry from a giant battle between the recording industry and large performers’ organizations in front of a group of judges. It’s new, so we’ll have to see how it works, but it’s nothing if not appealing.

(See also a similar announcement from imeem, though that one required working through SNOCAP for distribution, and comes from, arguably, a less popular service. I also think some of Last.fm’s unique tools for data collection and fan management make it more interesting than imeem. But this is all the more significant if other sites do the same thing in the future.)

ARP for Labels, Getting Paid

The ARP system isn’t limited to artists, either. New labels could embrace the system. Again, a Last.fm spokesperson clarified for CDM:

A label can participate in the ARP Program IF they own the WORLDWIDE rights to the content and have NOT signed up with any collection societies.  (Basically only startup labels that aren’t collecting any royalties would be interested in participating in the program since they’d only receive revenue from Last.fm in that case)

One other simple upshot of all of this is that people actually get paid. That’s not the case with MySpace. As Eliot Van Buskirk writes for Wired’s Listening Post:

We’ve had a bone to pick with MySpace about this for a while, because it plans to compensate major labels with a share of ad revenue without similarly compensating indie labels, unsigned artists, or possibly even the artists signed to them.

The headline says it all:

Last.fm Compensates Artists, Unlike Some People We Know [Wired.com Listening Post]

It’s well worth the full read. Eliot notes that even Last.fm doesn’t maintain the amount of money will be huge, partly because online streaming is still growing gradually (though I think listening habits will continue to grow). The money is coming from ads that appear with the streams. But Wired notes over 450,000 tracks are available on Last.fm as part of the Artist Royalty Program. And they also observe that, unlike MySpace, indie artists aren’t left in the dark, and unlike almost everyone, payouts are transparent – you can actually monitor what you’re earning.

Ultimately, I think that’s the bottom line: Last.fm is actually paying people. And I don’t mean to make an argument against labels. On the contrary, ARP is a tool many artists will likely use while looking for a label – alongside other useful tools (some arguably more valuable than direct revenue) provided by the service. The one question I do have, though, is whether new upstart labels might forgo the complex recording collection process entirely and start to use services like this directly. That would allow them to continue to fill the business and promotion roles labels have always provided, which artists and writers often can’t handle on their own. But it could be the first glimpse of a new set of models in which music creators, publishers, and labels deal with online business directly, rather than dealing with a middle man.

Update: Labels not so happy

I missed this: Merlin, one of the aforementioned rights bodies representing the labels (12,000 independent labels total, controlling more music than EMI) has protested the ARP license:

Merlin Opposes Last.fm’s Artist Royalty Program [Wired.com Listening Post]

The grounds: no retroactive license fees, a breakdown in negotiations with Merlin, and vague licensing terms. Now, I’m not sure on any of those points – in particular, Merlin’s negotiations should theoretically be independent of ARP to begin with; it explicitly excluded people who have signed with labels who are part of separate negotiations. If you’re an independent artist, it doesn’t really matter what Merlin thinks or even what they deem “illegal” – particularly if you’re uploading and licensing your own music, which is presumed by the ARP deal.

But the main thrust of this argument is that past Last.fm plays were illegal and unlicensed.

Last.fm’s response is, basically, ARP is about indie artists, not Merlin. Merlin’s banner says “representing the rights of independent record labels worldwide,” by which they mean, of course, their members, not necessarily anyone else.

But Does it Add Up to Anything?

The big problem is, streaming rates in general are a tiny fraction of a cent per play. If Last.fm achieves greater volume, that could be good news for artists. Until, then, though, this is largely symbolic. Further discussion:

Fine Print: What Do Royalty Rates Actually Pay?