The awesome folks over at Planet Money recently did a podcast about why Korean pop music (K-Pop) is taking over the world, using (obviously) Gangnam Style as exhibit number one. Of course, you could argue that one faddish song is not proof that they're taking over the industry, so there's a bit of journalistic hyperbole at work here -- but the larger point comes clear in the podcast: the US's music industry was built for the 20th century -- a world of scarcity, limited distribution channels, hyperfocus on music and a strong reliance on copyright -- but the Korean pop music landscape is focused on a much more 21st century strategy.

They focus on "industrializing" the production of music, with hit factories and star making academies. They focus on a multimedia experience. Korean pop music is released on TV. New debuts are released on TV with a video... and, of course, via YouTube. And that's the third point: Korea is incredibly wired. It was the first country with 3G networks in place and one of the first to have super high bandwidth broadband widely available. The end result? The industry, mostly built up in the past two decades, is built for the modern digital world, while the US industry still pines for the way things used to be. And that has some people worrying that, like many other products that the US used to lead in only to see foreign countries take them over, Korea might supplant the US in cultural exports over time. I still think there's a long, long way to go before that happens, but it is a scenario worth considering. It is still held back somewhat by the language barriers, but that's hardly a complete game stopper.

Of course, we've written about this before. Nearly four years ago, I wrote about seeing Korean music mogul JY Park speak about the K-Pop industry, of which he's a leading player. The points he made back then fit nicely with what Planet Money's report noted, but take it even further. One point he made was that the K-Pop world really took off as an industry once broadband became common. I'm reaching back 4 years into my memory banks, but I'm pretty sure he said the tipping point was when 70% of the country had high speed broadband connections. At that point, the business of just selling music was no longer the real business he was in. Instead, it was all about building up multimedia stars for the global stage, with a diverse set of revenue streams that rely little on using copyright to get royalties. He talked about the academies where they train artists -- picking those who are bilingual and who can act as well as sing. Basically, the K-Pop world expanded what it meant to be in the music business, changing the definition to suit the times... and it's working.

There is no reason to think that the South Korean music business is about to surpass the US's any day now, but there's no set rule that the most popular music has to come from the US forever. And those countries who encourage efforts that embrace the future and what the technology allows would seem to be in a much better position to go after the big opportunities.

I was in the audience to see Eliot van Buskirk interview Rovio's CEO, Mikael Hed, on Monday morning at Midem, but with so much going on at the conference (and then traveling), I'm finally getting a chance to write it up. Hed made a point of telling music industry execs that not only was the music industry's approach to piracy entirely wrong, he believed Rovio's approach was much smarter: embracing the piracy. I'd heard that Hed made it a special point to make sure that the interview included a discussion on piracy -- and brought it up two separate times during the interview -- saying that the company was basically doing exactly the opposite of the music industry:

"We could learn a lot from the music industry, and the rather terrible ways the music industry has tried to combat piracy."

He explained how the important thing for the future of Angry Birds was to keep building "fans" and that piracy can actually help with that. He noted that they were "embracing" pirates where they could, recognizing that it could help the company get more fans. Later, he noted that if there's too much piracy, it's the company's own fault for not providing access to the game in a convenient enough manner. His comments went even further than the comments from his colleague Peter Vesterbacka a few months ago about how the company used counterfeiting as market research to figure out where to invest.

Either way, it seems clear that Rovio has taken to heart many of the points that we've discussed here about proactive ways to deal with piracy: by recognizing that it's an opportunity, not a threat.

A few months back, we wrote about how famed singer Drake was angry at Universal for sending takedown notices and getting his leaked tracks taken down. Given Drake's history of building up a lot of popularity through releasing mixtapes, it's not a surprise that he realizes that getting content spread far and wide creates more benefits than it does "downsides." Now he's confirmed that point of view even further, tweeting his somewhat enlightened views on file sharing: If you can't see it, it says, "Listen, enjoy it, buy it if you like... and take care until next time." In other words, don't attack fans for wanting to hear and share your music, learn to recognize that these are fans, and they have their reasons for doing what they do. But connecting with the artist directly also builds up significantly more goodwill. It's nice to see someone of Drake's stature willing to speak up about these things. The thing that he seems to realize is that even if people are "pirating" leaked material, that's no reason why they might not give him money in the future -- and one way to make that more likely is to really connect with fans. Threatening them with lawsuits is kind of the opposite of connecting, and it's backfired on more than a few artists.

Hopefully more artists will make their position on such things much more clear than it is today.

Reader Alan points us to an interview with an executive from Atari, where he talks about a new program to work with file sharing sites, even as they make unauthorized copies available:

With the GO affiliate program, you're intending to work with sites that host illegitimate versions of Atari games - it's rare to see a company engaging with, rather than fighting, unlicensed distribution.

Truth be told, why in the world would I ever want to go after my fans? These are people who absolutely love our classic old arcade games. I joke about the fact that it seems like every computer science student, after their first year of programming class, goes off and writes a copy of Asteroids or Missile Command or Battlezone. The web is filthy with those.

Now, instead of arming up a cadre of lawyers the smart thing to do is say, "Look, you're fans of our games, let us give you the legitimate version of the game," and then bring those affiliates into the fold by saying, "We'll actually share revenue with you." They've been running that less than optimal, if not [coughs] a little dodgy, version of Asteroids or Missile Command, so why not just run the original one, share in the revenue and still have the same appeal to the fans they want to draw to their site? And we've got the library of all our other great games that we can bring to them as well.

Now some of those quotes struck me as interesting, because as you may recall, Atari was actually one of the earliest believers in "arming up a cadre of lawyers" and having them send out pre-settlement notices. It was one of the customers of Davenport Lyons, which was the predecessor of ACS:Law in the practice, and it only backed away, when it realized how much negative publicity it was receiving for threatening people if they didn't pay up.

So it's great to see the company looking to be a lot more embracing of ways to work with sites, and recognize that these are fans, not people to be attacked, but we shouldn't forget that it initially approached the space very differently.

It's no secret that we live in a world of moral panics -- where new technologies are feared by those who don't understand them, often leading to regulations that block their potential. For years now, a number of politicians have sought laws to ban social networks in schools, assuming that they are either bad or simply inappropriate for schools. While those laws have yet to pass, many schools already do ban access to social networks and other sites. I've never quite understood how this makes sense. Rather than training students to use those sites properly, now they're seen as forbidden -- which only makes them more attractive to students, while making it even clearer that students won't be prepared to handle those sites properly. On top of that, as more powerful mobile phones become popular, students will easily bypass the school's own network and access those sites on their own -- and there will be nothing the schools can do about it.

So it's nice to see a sensible opinion piece in Slate arguing that rather than ban or block social online services like Facebook and YouTube, schools should be embracing them and looking for ways to incorporate them into the learning process. There are a variety of strong arguments for why this makes sense, but two that stick out:

1. Students already like using these sites quite a bit. Using those sites to make other things more relevant and interesting seems like a good way to reach kids in a manner that they understand, and which doesn't feel quite as much like "education," but more like something fun that they want to do.
2. Using these kinds of free tools may be cheaper, easier and much more effective than a number of the super expensive e-learning tools out there, which would require a steep learning curve anyway. But incorporating lesson plans and info and assignments into the tools that students already use would be both cheaper and more likely to actually be used.

Of course, some will decry that these sites are automatically bad for kids -- or that it makes no sense to waste time on such issues. But the fact is kids are going to use these sites no matter what. Ignoring that doesn't change that. Banning the sites doesn't change that. It just makes the activity more underground without any oversight or reasonable lessons. But incorporating the technology into the educational efforts could actually get a lot more attention. Yes, some of the examples in the Slate article seem pretty lame (and would be seen as such by the kids), but if done right, it really could add a lot more value to students' educations.

For many years, a small group of people has been trying to explain to the world of folks who freak out about "piracy" that there really are tons of opportunities in not trying to prevent it, but simply flipping it around, and using it to your own advantage as a part of your business model. The steps to doing so really aren't that difficult, but since many people have a natural aversion to "piracy," it's sometimes difficult for people to see beyond the big fat "free" to the huge opportunity right behind it.

Might that finally be changing?

MIT's Technology Review has an article about how a variety of companies are finally starting to push the idea that content providers should embrace piracy, and put together business models that take advantage of what piracy really can be: a free input into a larger business model, that provides free promotion and free distribution, while enabling a number of new (previously impossible) business models. Nothing in the article will be all that new to folks who've been around here for a while -- but it's somewhat encouraging to see the concept getting slightly more widespread acceptance.

With all of the recent news about merchants up in arms over negative online reviews, a San Francisco pizzeria has decided to take a brilliant approach to the (albeit few) negative Yelp reviews about their restaurant. In a sort of "take back the night" approach, Delfina Pizza has adorned its staff with t-shirts that bear the text of their 1-star reviews. With sayings like "The pizza was soooo greasy. I am assuming this was in part due to the pig fat," Delfina boldly acknowledges that it understands everyone is a critic, and that it is not afraid of a bad review or two. Gone are the Ratatouille days where restaurants live or die by one star of some food critic's review; instead, perhaps restaurateurs will learn that reviews are a starting point for holding meaningful conversations with their customers. Of course, in this particular case, the strategy may backfire -- already one Yelp reviewer has submitted a 1-star review asking "am i good enough for a t-shirt now?"

Slashdot points us to the news that a new study, by the MCPS-PRS Alliance, which represents music rights holders, and Big Champagne, a company that measures file sharing activity claims that the music industry should embrace piracy rather than continuing to fight it. Specifically, it points to the success of Radiohead's "name your own price" promotion, and the fact that the music was still widely available on BitTorrent, even though you could download it for free from Radiohead's own site. This, the study's authors, suggest, show that stopping piracy has little correlation to "success." That's not a surprising finding as plenty of previous reports have shown the same thing. In fact, albums that are considered a success tend to have a lot more unauthorized file sharing than those that are not. It's not hard to understand why, either: popularity is popularity.

Slashdot highlights the fact that this is a study done by the music industry itself, suggesting that maybe the industry is open to changing its strategy. But, that's not quite accurate. The "music industry" is made up of made different parts, with very different motivations. The two players who did this study are both angling for different benefits. Big Champagne has been around for years, and has established itself as the sort of "go to" player for the industry in monitoring file sharing. The more the industry embraces file sharing, the more business Big Champagne gets. As for the MCPS-PRS Alliance -- that represents songwriters, composers and publishers -- not necessarily the labels. MCPS-PRS is looking to establish a new set of draconian compulsory licensing system, where you could still make use of file sharing, but where it would (perhaps with Big Champagne's help) get paid for every download through some sort of system, whether sharing in the ad revenue or through subscription fees. This is the deal it's already worked out with Google's YouTube, even though it's unclear what legal basis there is for such an agreement.

So, this study is hardly the "music industry" embracing file sharing, but a very biased part of that industry trying to push the rest of the industry towards compulsory licenses and an effective "music tax" on file sharing.

There's a really inflammatory headline and opening paragraph in an article in the Times Online in the UK stating that "book piracy on the internet will ultimately drive authors to stop writing." This claim is actually unsubstantiated by history (which has actually shown book piracy ends up helping authors) or, actually, by the rest of the article. Rather than a reactionary RIAA-style response from the UK's Society of Authors, the article shows that the group isn't so much fearing internet piracy, but simply noting that business models need to change. Once you get beyond the headline and first paragraph, it's actually a rather refreshing article, as the head of the Society of Authors basically says that new business models are needed, and even suggests a few.

This isn't a "doom and gloom" story as the opening suggests, but rather a "let's figure out how to change before it's forced upon us uncomfortably." While many are covering this story as if the authors group is acting like the RIAA, the head of the Society even notes: "We have to evolve and create a very different pay system, possibly by making the content available free to all and finding a way to get paid separately." That seems like a rather reasonable and thoughtful approach to a changing marketplace, rather than a "sky is falling! run! run! run! sue! sue! sue!" response. The group seems to recognize that shared files can act as promotion, and the article even highlights the story of the first known literary "pirates" who were later applauded by the author, who was thrilled at the publicity the piracy generated.

This actually is a really interesting (and even surprising) recognition by authors that the business model they're used to is changing. It's just too bad that the Times Online chose to portray it in a totally inaccurate manner.