As noted last night — with some very witty responses from incredulous readers — the record industry is now pushing for DRM on all radio. It’s a bad idea to begin with, and they’re bringing it up in a context in which it doesn’t even belond, negotiations on royalty rates, at a bad time — in the midst of negotiations that have broken down. I’d love to stop covering this issue, but the most recent round is too absurd to pass up. (Feel free to spread the word, since Congress demonstrated that, at least on a basic level, they’re listening to you.)

So, record industry, why is it you would want to push for a broken, proprietary, exorbitantly expensive to a problem that doesn’t exist as part of a discussion to which it’s entirely unrelated? The RIAA’s Senior Vice President of Government Relations (otherwise known as Grand Poo-bah of Politician Lobbying) Mitch Glazier was happy to explain to Technology Daily:

“Why wait until it is a big problem to start addressing it? There are available technologies in the marketplace to address this issue.”

Yes, indeed. Why wait for a problem to actually exist before legally mandating a solution? A technology exists! Therefore, you are obligated to use it — regardless of cost, whether it functions on the devices people use, whether better technologies exist, or whether there was even a problem in the first place. Which would you prefer: a record industry that works to solve today’s real problems, or one that creates massive, new problems to solve the problems they imagine might exist in the future?

Act now, fellow musicians — before Sound Recorder destroys music!

It’s amazing how complete and total crazies can suddenly wind up with the backing of organizations powerful enough to dictate the law. Witness the strange story of the “stream-ripping” scare, and how it somehow led to a push for mandatory, proprietary DRM on all Internet radio.

Gasp as the experience of bringing back Mark Twain’s ghost somehow inspires a company you’ve never heard of to build their own DRM for streams!

Recoil in horror at the evil pirating capabilities of Windows Vista and its Sound Recorder, as Microsoft earns billions — billions! — of dollars by encouraging people to steal music from radio streams!

Sigh with satisfaction at the realization that we can put a stop to these unprotected broadcasts of music forever, saving music itself in the process!

What? None of this sounds familiar? Bizarre, absurd, even illogical and out of touch with any recognizable reality, you say? You’re right, but alas …read on.

(See previous: Internet Radio Wins Temporary Delay, Possible Minimum Rate Break. You knew it wasn’t really going to be that easy, right? Apparently some of you missed my sense of irony. I was on vacation, so I wasn’t trying as hard to make my sarcasm apparent.)

You can be making incredible music, but if no one knows about it you probably won’t be making it for very long. Having a good project name is the first step to getting publicity and having your music heard by a large amount of people.

Don’t be difficult. It has to be easy to pronounce and say over the phone. Try to avoid using numbers for letters (leet speak) since it will confuse people. Yes, there are exceptions like “!!!,” μ-siq, and whatnot, but the object is to make it easy for the press to write about you and for people to talk about you. While you’re welcome to choose a difficult name, it’s only going to make the rest of your publicity efforts that much harder.

Steer clear of profanity. While James Fucking Friedman has a somewhat high profile, whenever he gets listed in local papers that don’t allow profanity they star out either the entire middle word or just use stars after the F. People will get confused–”Did they star out ‘Faggot,’ ‘Fucking,’ or ‘Fellatio’? Should I Google for James Star Star Star?” Also profanity limits the types of publications that will feature you. While XLR8R and URB are magazines that are pretty laid back about their language, you might one day discover that your music has an interesting crossover audience (be it mountain climbers or acoustic engineers) and you want to make it easy for those types of journalists to approach you and write about you and your music.

It sounds good. Pick three of your favorite names. Say them out loud. Ask some friends what they think and notice how they respond. Do they laugh out loud when you’re aiming for a super serious image (”Abfahrt Hinwil” might cause some giggling)? It may sound obvious, but electronic musicians who tend to work alone and communicate through their computers could use some IRL human feedback once in a while.

Nat “funnelbc”, creator of the CDM logo and graphic appearance, took on a project the rest of us at Team CDM thought was completely insane: make 28 gig posters, in 28 days, for free.

Miraculously, Nat has escaped alive, and the results are fantastic. Good luck paying a designer to give you gig posters like this. These two warm my heart because of their digital music create-i-ness:

Day 27, Tsuki

28×28 Day 17 - Moulinex + Xinobi

For the complete set, see the lineup on onetonnemusic:

Gig Posters Archives

Have a gig coming up? Need a rocking poster to publicise said gig to the wider community? You should check out Nat’s 28 Posters in 28 Days Poster Challenge! You know you’re going to get a great result, because Nat designed this here website, and CDMo, and the forums. You should get in quick, however, because he doesn’t seem to be starting out in the most positive frame of mind:

They said I couldn’t do it! My girlfriend said I couldn’t do it. I don’t think I can do it… Let me preface this by saying that I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn’t one of my brightest ideas. Good? Clear? Okay.

For the month of February, I am going to attempt to do 1 FREE gig poster per day.

That means I need details for 28 gigs and bands who want posters done. Starting tomorrow, the 1st of February. 

At first, I thought I was reading something wrong when I got this press release this morning: “Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Universal Music Group, the world’s leading music company, announced today an agreement which creates a groundbreaking, new revenue stream for UMG and its artists: in addition to the standard payments it will make to UMG for the sale of its music, Microsoft will also pay UMG a portion of Zune device sales.”

Wait, what? Microsoft is giving money away from hardware sales to a company in exchange for … um … well, nothing, actually?

Believe it or not, that’s exactly what’s happened. Mighty Microsoft is paying tribute money to Universal, and getting nothing in return.

Let’s be clear: paying for music is a good thing. I’m happy to pay a cover at a club to hear a live artist. I’m happy to buy a CD directly from the band. I’m happy to purchase a download from a band’s website. I’m happy to purchase an album from an independent label, many of which really can do a good job of promoting their artists’ work and sharing profits from record sales. I’m happy to support real-world record stores and independent online stores that support those labels. And, of course, I’ll buy mainstream big-label records because I enjoy some of the music — again, if possible, from an independent distributor.

And I’m equally happy to support license fees, which simplify the problem of how to cover more intangible uses of music. To take ASCAP as the US example, the idea is that a venue (like a bar) that uses music (bands playing covers, jukeboxes playing tunes) makes money off that music (and they do) so artists should get paid. (CESAC is the European equivalent.) I know people who have made a little money off ASCAP checks. ASCAP the organization is not an evil industry conglomerate. It’s run by members, and those members are publishers, composers, songwriters, and lyricists. It’s also a service organization that provides training, group health insurance, equipment insurance, community events, and contests to its members. You can argue with ASCAP on some matters, but at least what it does is determined by the people actually producing the music. (I’ll also say, both ASCAP and rival BMI are very supportive of contemporary concert music, which is a rare asset.)

There’s one underlying principle in all of these models: you’re paying for the music. And while any of these systems can be abused, the basic model makes sense.

Here’s a different model, proudly unveiled in a press release from Microsoft and Universal Music Group today. It involves paying the label (not the artist) for your hardware (not the music):