Carting a crate of used CDs to your local record store so you can make rent is a rite of passage as ancient as it can be tearful. But what about those MP3s and iTunes songs you're ready to unload? Is there a way to sell those off, too, when you get tired of them or just need some extra scratch?
A new crop of consumer-facing music stores is focused on helping fans resell "used" digital music the way they do CDs. But the big conundrum with digital music is that there's no way to prove sellers legally own the songs on their computers. There's also nothing to stop them from keeping the songs they're hawking. Unlike CDs — physical products you hand over to a record store clerk — digital files can be replicated ad infinitum with negligible expense.
A physical piece of music is simple — sell it to someone, and you no longer have it. The digital marketplace is strikingly different from one where sellers exchange objects for dollars. The common analogy is that the digital file works like a candle: When you light someone else's candle, your own flame isn't extinguished. Figuring out a fair bartering system is one of many issues facing the new retail world of pre-owned digital media. But with traditional revenue streams drying up in the music business, enterprising companies are nonetheless banking on this uncharted industry.
Even though they're much dicier propositions than heading to Amoeba, several options are available for selling digital music to fellow fans. These range from the fully licensed to the probably illegal, and they offer benefits in both store credit and cash.
Bopaboo, a Washington, D.C.–based used digital music store set to launch later this year (possibly with a name change), is attempting to solve the online riddle without upsetting record labels. Its expected public debut comes after a somewhat aborted attempt to launch late last year using a different model, which asked sellers to delete music after they sold it.
Instead, Bopaboo — still in private beta — now allows you to keep the music files after someone else has purchased them, although you can sell each song only once. First, the service's spider figures out what music you have on your computer, and uploads the songs into an account. From there, you can sell your collection to the Bopaboo community at large, at prices determined by a demand-based algorithm, generally lower than what the same music costs on Amazon or iTunes.
The site pays out in credit on a one-to-one ratio. That means if someone buys a song from you for 43 cents, you'll get the same amount in credit to spend on Bopaboo's catalog of new music, which the company expects to be larger than its catalog of "used" songs. You can download purchased MP3s and do with them what you please. In order for other costumers to buy from your pre-owned collection, however, they'll have to pay in dollars, which go to Bopaboo and the label and/or artist who owns the rights to the recording.
"We're providing consumers with the first marketplace where they can receive some monetary benefits for their previous [digital music] purchases," Bopaboo founder Alex Meshkin says.
He sees a vacuum in the digital music marketplace that's ignored by eBay, which dominates the market for used vinyl and CDs. "There's been a lot of talk about treating consumers like retailers. But at the end of the day, unless consumers receive more flexibility in reselling their digital media, you're not going to be able to effectively leverage them through a new distribution channel."
However, many remain unconvinced that the model will work — especially because it requires such strong industry support. Without some sort of proof of purchase from Amazon or iTunes, Bopaboo's formula could falter. "It's hard to imagine that the major labels would sign a deal with a company, [even] to get resale revenue from any type of digital music file, without some sort of verification of where it came from first," says Susan Kevorkian of the technology market intelligence firm IDC.
Record labels don't want people who have downloaded music illegally to be able to turn around and sell their holdings. And the establishment's buy-in is crucial, because it controls so much of the music people want to hear. In order for Bopaboo to launch with all four majors (EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group), it will need each to agree to allow primary sales (where users redeem credits) as well as secondary sales (where users sell music to each other). In return, the labels would get a large chunk of the revenue generated by both types of transactions.
Meshkin believes the major labels are supportive of Bopaboo's plan, even though it will earn them less money per song than iTunes does, and the music will not be restricted by digital rights management (DRM) technology.
The labels might be willing to bet that Bopaboo users, by collating individual stores and promoting them via Facebook and other avenues, will be able to add to sales in ways that corporate stores like iTunes cannot. Bopaboo also hopes the major labels will see its service as a way to enter the secondary music market with an alternative to free, unlicensed P2P sites.
*indicates required fields. Please enable browser cookies before filling out this form. All reader comments are subject to our Terms of Use. By clicking Add Comment, you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms.
Comments may take a few minutes to process and appear on the site. Please do not click the "Add Comment" button again while your comment is being added.
Musician as Dog Kibble 08/26/2009 11:58:07 AM
"But at the end of the day, unless consumers receive more flexibility in reselling their digital media, you're not going to be able to effectively leverage them through a new distribution channel." Who gives a crap if you (musicians? labels?) can't "leverage" consumers for distribution. We have plenty of distribution. Any lamer can sell their lame music on the web. This is still theft of my work as a musician. It takes (let's say a typical band of) 4 people about a year to write, rehearse and record an album. Never mind even the cost of recording and gear and instruments -- just a living wage for that year would be $200,000 for the year's work. Even if the band act as their own label, the BEST they can get for that album is $7 (after the retailer takes a cut -- that's if there's no distributor). So even imagining the band spends NO money to package the music, NO money to tour (yes, touring COSTS money, doesn't make money) and NO money to otherwise market their music -- they'd have to sell over 28,000 units just to pay for surviving during the year they made the album. You know how few bands can sell 28,000 units? Almost none. Why is it that consumers won't just pay for the stuff they use? Huh? In the 1970s, it cost a dollar to buy a song. now 30 years later, it costs a dollar. Why is a dollar "too much" to pay for a song?? Folks are happy to pay $10 EACH to go see a movie ONE TIME in a theater... but unwilling to pay $10 for an album of music they can play over and over for their whole family and friends?? The whole situation is BS and caused by consumers with no ethical concerns for us musicians.