THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IN A DILEMMA: HOW NEW TECHNOLOGIES CAN TURN AN INDUSTRY UPSIDE DOWN
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IN A DILEMMA:
HOW NEW TECHNOLOGIES CAN TURN AN
INDUSTRY UPSIDE DOWN
Research Paper for the ITS Conference
Helsinki, August 2003
By Tung Q. Nguyen-Khac
ITable of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3
1.1 The Situation 3
1.2 Objectives, Approach and Scope 3
2 Overview of the Music Industry – Development and Structure...............................................5
2.1 The music market- once a dynamic growth market, now in consolidation 5
2.2 The Big Five: an Oligopoly within the Music industry 6
3 The Music Industry in a Strategic Dilemma ........................................................................10
3.1 Digital Technologies – the main driving forces for the change within the Music industry 10
3.2 Change in the industry’s value chain 13
4 Solutions from outside .....................................................................................................15
4.1 Rethinking the Status Quo 15
4.2 Online Music Downloads with the Apple approach 15
5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................17
6 References .....................................................................................................................18
II1 Introduction
1.1 The Situation
„The music industry in a vale of tears – German market breaking in – turnover of sound storage
media is dropping by more than 16 per cent“ reports daily newspaper “Die Welt” in an article on the
occasion of the popkomm 2003. Therewith it describes the recent emotional state of an industry that
still used to celebrate itself in the Nineties. Currently experts name to main reasons to explain the
music industry’s situation: the high technology standard to date and wrong strategy concepts by the
music industry. So far the music industry has not found the right answers to its current problems. 1
One cannot ignore the fact that the industry has taken either taken half hearted or wrong measures
to cope with the fast-paced technological development. Factually it has not faced up to the
challenges and is now in a transition period where the old business model is only functioning to a
limited extent and where a new one – such as online distribution – does not function at all. All this
has made the industry very vulnerable as market entry barriers are lower than ever before.
Strangers to the industry, coming from the technological side and not thinking in a one-sided
manner, are increasingly taking over positions that threaten music companies and they are even
capable of re-shaping the industry.
1.2 Objectives, Approach and Scope
The topic of this article is more prevailing than ever and is still in a fast ongoing process. For this
reason it is the objective of the author to give a short and practice-oriented overview over the issue.
In order to convey a first basic understanding of the topic, the article starts with a description of the
historic development, the structure and recent trends in the music industry as a first step. This is
followed by a description of possible causes underlying the current status quo of the music
economy as well as by an analysis of potential developmental scenarios, which could arise out of
the latest developments on the technology side. Technological progress increasingly calls
previously existing structures and processes within the music economy, especially the marketing,
the multi-utilization and the distribution of content into question. A connected questions is in how far
a sustainable and survivable business model can be established within the music industry in the
future. Due to rapid developments and the limited scope, this article will not be able to settle this
claim.
1
For example in an interview with Tim Renner, CEO of Universal Music Germany, with professional journal w&v in August 2003.
3The article has an interdisciplinary nature but focuses on economic aspects. Therefore and because
of the complexity of certain fields (e.g. Copyrights and Digital Rights Management) the paper can
only touch many issues but certainly will leave some open questions.
42 Overview of the Music Industry – Development and Structure
2.1 The music market- once a dynamic growth market, now in consolidation
The music industry today is a multi billion business. With an industry turnover of about rund 32
billion US-Dollar in 20022 the music business is even larger than the book of movie industry. Drivers
of growth were mainly technological innovations The introduction of cassettes in the mid 60s gave
the industry a new sales perspective. Music was not focused solely on Vinyl and with the
introduction of the Walkman in the early 80s music entered the transportable age. A real quantum
leap was reached when the CD became a mass product because music as digital data on CD
enabled the users a new listening experience. CDs are almost indestructible and the playing of CDs
on a home stereo equipment was much more comfortable than a cassette or record. These
convenience motivated consumers to buy not only their new music on CD but also to convert their
traditional record archive into a CD archive. Based on that from 1990 until 1995, the largest music
market in the word, the U.S., had a dynamic growth of roughly 60 percent. With the increasing
maturity the industry growth slowed down to 14 percent and since about three years a trend
reversal is obvious: a shrinking music market with significant turnover losses.
Just a glimpse at recent figures illustrates the current dilemma of the music industry and thus which
challenges it is facing. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry estimates that
about one billion illegal CD-copies were circulating in 2002. Comparing this figure with 2.3 billion
officially sold CD albums, it is understandable that the music industry is in a rather bad mood.
Germany too, meanwhile the world’s third largest music market, is affected by this trend. According
to the German Phonographic Association3 the size of the German music market had to face a
decline of roughly 25 percent. In 2002 alone, industry revenues dropped by further 11.3 %. Half a
decade ago, in 1997, the music industry still had revenues of about 2.6 billion Euro, while in 2002
the turnover was only about 1.97 billion Euro.
2
Figures, recently published by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, July 2003.
3
Piracy Report of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, July 2003
5German Music Market is shrinking since the late 90s
New storage solutions and download technologies are also
hitting the German market
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
-2
-2,5
-4 -3,5
-4,1
-6
-8
-10
-12
-12,7 -12,6
-14
Source: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
During the last decade, the fast-paced technological development of the IT industry in regard to
transmission possibilities of digital information has exerted a massive influence on all media
industries. There are two aspects that have mainly contributed to the redevelopment of particular
fields in the media economy or that will make them redefine themselves. Most notably, the
increasing penetration of the internet, which has reached more than 50 percent of the relevant
population groups in highly developed countries, but also the sharp drop in prices for highly
advanced hard- and software in the consumer market need to be mentioned. Apart from some
segments of the publishing industry, the music industry has been largely affected for more than
three years now.
2.2 The Big Five: an Oligopoly within the Music industry
Considering its structure the music industry can be described as an oligopoly4 because the five
biggest music companies control about three quarters of the world-wide music market. In 2002, the
market shares of these five majors were as follows: Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG) reached
about 9.8 %, EMI Music had a share of 12 %, Sony Music’s share was 14.8 %, Universal Music
Group had a share of 24.6 % and Warner Music reached 11.9 %. Together the „Big Five“ hold a
4
An oligopoly is defined as “few” sellers operating in the market, with “few” being everything between one firm to many firms.
6share of 73.1 % and left a residual part of 26.9 % to several thousands of small, independent music
companies. In the following, the „Big Five“ are described in regard to their company structure and
their historic development.
Bertelsmann Music Group
The Bertelsmann Music Group, which is globally known as BMG, belongs to the media company
group Bertelsmann, that has its head quarters in the tranquil German city Gütersloh. The family-
owned Bertelsmann started its music activities in the late Seventies when planned and targeted
acquisitions for the music segment by the then music-responsible manager Monti Lüftner created
an external growth. By taking over Arista Records in 1979 and RCA Victor in 1986, Bertelsmann not
only bought a huge backlist catalogue, but also succeeded in entering the world’s biggest music
market. Today BMG runs more than 200 labels in 54 countries and just recently it was in the news
again, when it had to take over the small label Zomba Records in 2001 for an approximated 2.7 mill.
USD due to an obligation arising out of a put option. Today, BMG achieves between 50 and 60 % of
its turnover in the USA. Europe and Germany are BMG’s second most important market. Key Artists
are e.g. Britney Spears, Elvis Presley and Miss Elliot.
The Big Five of the Music Industry
An oligopoly that shares three quarters of the market turnover
Universal Music Others
24,6% 26,9%
World market
shares 2002
Data in per cent
Sony Music BMG
14,8% 9,8%
EMI Warner Music
12% 11,9%
Source: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
EMI Music
EMI Music is part of the EMI Group. EMI Music began with the merger of three labels in the United
Kingdom in 1930. Colombia Graphophone, Gramaophone Company and Parlophone joined to
7create Electric and Musical Industries Ltd which was later named EMI Ltd. With the acquisition of
Capital Records in 1956, Chrysalis Records in 1989 and Virgin Records in 1992 EMI, Music
became a leading player in the recording business. The Group is operating in 45 countries and has
licensing and distribution agreements in further 26 territories. Overall the company manages 65
labels, 23 music publishing companies and several manufacturing facilities. Furthermore The EMI
Group owns 43 percent of HMV Media Group, a music retail chain. EMI has a global market share
of about 12 percent and was recently in serious merger talks with BMG and Warner Music which
finally failed. In both cases the European Commission gave no permission for the European market.
EMI’s Key artist are Robbie Williams and Kylie Minogue, on the German side Herbert Grönemeyer.
Sony Music Entertainment
Sony Music Entertainment is owned by the Japanese Sony Corporation which has a high reputation
for its excellent consumer electronics products. The Sony Group operates in four key industries:
electronics, games, music and movies. The Sony Corporation entered into the music business
when it took over CBS Records from CBS in 1988 for 2 Billion US-Dollars. The key business units
of Sony Music are Sony Music Publishing and Colombia Records, other labels are Epic Records
and C2 Records. Key Artists are e.g. Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen.
Universal Music Group
Universal Music Group is currently owned by the French Vivendi Group. Vivendi, formerly a natural
resources company came into trouble when its former CEO Messier tried to transform the former
state company into an entertainment and telecommunication company starting in the late 90ies.
Thanks to large acquisitions Vivendi showed impressive external growth on the one side but
increased its debts position to an unhealthy level on the other side. Today, since Vivendi needs to
reduce its liabilities, Universal Music is on sale. Vivendi was recently in take over talks with 20th
Century Fox and Apple.
Universal Music Group was formerly owned by the Canadian Seagram Company which entered into
the music business through the acquisition of MCA in 1994 and Polygram N.V. in 1998. The Groups
owns more than 800.000 copyrights and has the most interesting music catalogue of the music
industry. The rapper Eminem who just recently won 2 Grammy awards is a Universal artist.
Warner Music Group
Warner Music is owned by AOL Time Warner which was formed through the merger of AOL Inc.
and Time Warner in 2001. Warner Music started when Warner Brothers purchased Atlantic Records
in 1967 and was extended with the Acquisition of Elektra Music in 1970. With these three labels,
8Warner/Elektra/Atlantic Distribution was formed which was later simply called WEA Distribution. In
addition it owns Warner / Chappel Music Publishing, WEA Manufacturing, whigh owns CD, CD-
ROM and videocassette manufacturing facilities. The music unit of AOL Time Warner operates in
68 countries through various subsidiaries, affiliates and non affiliated licensees.
Current developments within the music industry
Despite the oligoplistic structure and an impressing market power, the music industry has to fight
with many problems and a shrinking market. It is conceivable that the market in a phase of
consolidation. The British EMI Music was already in detailed merger negotiations with first BMG and
then with Warner Music. In both cases the European Commission has refused to approve because
of antitrust issues. Today experts believe that the Commission is likely to go a different way due to
the recent market developments. Just recently AOL Time Warner and Bertelsmann officially
announced that they are in exclusive merger talks to merge their music business and Vivendi
Universal is reported to be in merger talks with General Electrics NBC.
93 The Music Industry in a Strategic Dilemma
3.1 Digital Technologies – the main driving forces for the change within the Music industry
Analyzing the reasons for this development, it becomes obvious that, similar to other fields of the
media industry, there are a variety of exogenous and endogenous factors affecting the music
industry. Only their combination and their concurring effects led to the development of the current
status quo. Still, in the following the focus lies in the description of exogenous factors.
The development of digital technologies have created a number of new business opportunities and
effected the music industry at large. The parallel evolution of four distinct technologies is driving the
change within the industry. These are
ß Software Development for Consumers: e.g. Compression technology, Player formats of digital
data, Encryption and security solutions
ß Hardware: e.g. PC and processor hardware, Memory card formats, PDAs
ß Access and Transportation Technology: e.g. Internet, Broadband, Mobile Telecommunication
ß Peer-to-Peer and Network Technology: e.g. networks like Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa
The technological influence factors in the consumer market need to be mentioned first. About ten
years ago, it was still too expensive for the private user to buy the hardware that is necessary for
writing, copying and saving music files on CDs. Today, private consumers – for a decent investment
- have the technological capabilities to do that. Reasons: The increasing and accelerating degree of
maturity of hardware (combined with parallel designed user software), progress in industrial
production and associated economies of scale. Furthermore, with the help of today’s fast PC
processors, private consumers are able to process a large amount of digital data (required by
digitalized songs) and to save them on CDs and large hard drive capacities.
Another relevant factor is the increasing internet penetration in industrialized countries as well as
improving possibilities to transmit a larger range of bandwidths. In combination with the
compression format MP3 a faster transmission of a large amount of digital data is possible.5 This
strongly influences the possibility to create, to market and to distribute digital music data.
5
MP 3 is a data compression standard that compresses music without degrading the audio quality. While a typical CD normally takes hours to
download, an MP3 version can be downloaded 10-12 times more quickly. There is a proven loss of quality but this is not crucial since Humans
can only hear about eight percent of the sound that is recorded on a CD. MP3 files do have all relevant data for the human ear. To transfer an
MP3 file across a computer network, all one has to do is take a CD, use a program to convert the data to MP3 format, transfer the data to a
hard drive and send the file to another user through the network. The greater the bandwith, the faster the file can be transferred. The end
10Additionally, due to the increasing maturity of hard- and software in the field of music, artists took
the opportunity to influence the development and production of music content during the past ten
years. For creating and marketing music content a private person is not solely dependant on the big
music corporate groups any longer. The industry’s attitude acts as a further aggravating factor, in so
far as instead of strategically build artists and formats, it has always focused on short-term profit
maximization.
The Internet, high sophisticated Hard- and Software and
mass storage capacities are devouring the music
industry‘s turnover
36964
34649
32228
Worldwide turnover of
sound storage media in
mill. USD (retail prices
622 incl. VAT)
492
Number of songs
downloaded from the
316 internet in millions
2000 2001 2002
Source: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
It is mainly the rapidly-spreading Peer-to-Peer (P2P) or File Sharing Technology that has had a
massive influence on the established industry structure over the last three years. The first popular
File Sharing service was the illegal download platform Napster which was founded by the college
student Shawn Fanning in 1999. Fanning programmed a software that used a peer-to-peer
architecture for users to exchange MP3 files freely without transaction costs other than the
connection fee. Although file sharing technology can be used for all kinds of digital data it was the
massive illegal exchange of music files that made Napster so popular. Within a year, from February
2000 until February 2001, the Napster community grew from 1,1 million users to roughly 13,6 million
members. Already at the end of 1999 the music industry, represented by the Recording Industry
usder can then listen to the music in MP3 form (using computer software), transfer the MP3 to a portable MP3 player, or convert the MP3
music back onto a CD if he or she has access to a CD writer. The resulting CD can be played on conventional stereo equipment.
11Association of America (RIIA) brought Napster to court for copyright infringements. After several
hearings in spring 2001 Napster was forced to eliminate all copyrighted music files from its servers.
Bertelsmann took over the majority of Napster shares and tried to establish a legal peer-to-peer
distribution model with the Napster brand but failed since it couldn’t come to an agreement with the
other Majors. Although Napster lost in court and had to stop its service6 the technology has inspired
many others to adopt the principle by programming a similar model. Morpheus, BearShare and
most of all Kazaa are prominent successors of Napster and have boosted the illegal, i.e. unpaid,
spreading of music content. Napster has used a centralized file sharing model where users leave
their files on a central server located somewhere in Boston and therefore legally available. The
successors use a decentralized model where e.g. Kazaa delivers the software but let the users
exchange their music among themselves. This is still illegal but in order to get the illegal use under
control the music industry would have to bring every single member to court. Although there were
some first court rulings in 2003, Kazaa is still the most used file sharing platform with about in the
world 230 million downloads of Kazaa’s software.7
The Filesharing Technology: from centralized to
decentralized File Sharing
P2P Network
File-swapping network
Internet
Internet
File transfer
Technology
Shift/
Decentralisation
Central Index Server
e.g. Napster Network
e.g. Gnutella Network
(Kazaa, Bearshare, Limewire,...)
Source: Own Graphic
6 rd
On June 3 , 2002 Napster filed for bankruptcy. The Software company Roxio just recently bought the Napster name rights and aims to introduce a
online music download model by the end of 2003.
7
According to information published on Kazaa’s website in July 2003.
123.2 Change in the industry’s value chain
According to Haes and Hummel, “The actual property rights of music did not change. It had always
been legal to copy a CD for private reasons (within sensible limits) and illegal to do it out of
commercial rights.”8 The problem of the new digital architecture is to make a clear distinction
between a legal copy made for private use and an illegal one that is offered to many other music
consumers. Actually for many experts of the music industry the main critical issue if it comes to a
discussion about new technologies and its consequences for the music industry is a legal one.
Music is an information good in a mass production market, traditionally distributed on physical way.
People used to copy their music on cassettes and shared it with others but had a natural limitation
to use and distribute their copies. Now, with the new technologies music files can be easily copied
and distributed without physical limitation. Still, consumer behaviour has not changed. People think
that nobody is harmed by exchanging music. But the music industry, facing heavy sales und
turnover losses, has neither actively sought for solutions concerning rights in digital copies of music
nor has it developed a new business concept beyond the traditional business model.
The Industy‘s traditional Value Chain
Development Production Sales & Distribution
(Artists & Marketing (Pick, pack & Wholesale Retail
(Recording)
Repertoire) (Publicity) ship)
Source: Durlacher Research
According to Michael Zhang from the MIT, “The traditional business model for distribution music is
no longer the architecture bridging the creators, the sellers and the buyers.”9 So, the developments
8
Haes, Joachim; Hummerl, Johannes: Napster and the Economics of Music Distribution, p. 725
9
Zhang, Michael: A Review of Economic Properties of Music Distribution, p. 1
13mentioned before, have a profound effect on the music industry because it completely changes the
industry’s entire value chain. They both allow and influence business models with regard to music
creation and distribution like virtual record labels, online radio, streaming and music destination
sites.10 The Internet and the new technologies offers music creators and performers the opportunity
to take a more prominent role in the industry’s value chain than they could in the past. Prince, David
Bowie and other artists have proven that the Internet gives them, for the first time, the chance to
control the marketing and distribution of their music.
Although several functions of the music industry’s value chain such as A&R11 marketing and
promotion can be adapted and migrated to the internet, other like the manufacturing and distribution
of music will increasingly be replaced by digital technologies like downloads, file sharing or
subscription services of digital data. For the Majors there are two crucial questions if it comes to
rethink the distribution value chain. One is centered on sales, the other on distribution. The first one
is whether online music retail will generate significant sales and on the long run might even replace
offline sale. The second one is whether the industry can come up with a online distribution model
that will be accepted – based on a working copyrights system - by artists, retail partners and
consumers.
10 st
Preiser, Jürgen; Vogel, Armin: The Music in the 21 Century, a study published by Screen Digest Limited, London, 2002
11
A&R: Artist & Repertoire
144 Solutions from outside
4.1 Rethinking the Status Quo
Interestingly, the music industry has not been able to find acceptable solutions for this development
so far. There have been numerous attempts in co-operation to establish competing download
platforms. However, to date they have not been accepted by consumers and therefore are
unsuccessful. This is surprising, since the national and the international music industry have more
or less the structure of an oligopoly. Disregarding single independent labels on the national level,
the number of the relevant music companies is lucid: BMG, Warner Music, Sony Music, Universal
Music and EMI. In the past these Majors dominated a music market that was characterized by
increasing turnover and high profit margins. Yet, the problems that the music industry has to deal
with today, are partly self-inflicted. In booming years, with stable revenues, it has neglected to fight
against structural problems, such as the lack in sustainability in the creation of artists and their
development. Moreover, the industry did not manage to create a sustainable business model
focused on the new media and technologies. Consequently, the industry was late to realize the
imminent danger of increased internet usage and the high advanced PC equipment in private
homes.
The developments described above, require the industry to rethink their processes in the fields of
artist management (A&R) marketing and distribution. The question is whether the music economy
needs to reinvent itself.
The problem has become virulent for the music industry. However, the right answers still need to be
found. Will the CD stay the music medium No. 1, given that huge amounts of MP3s can be saved
on current hard drives which are getting smaller and smaller and increasingly handy? Will the music
industry be able to earn money with a format that you cannot touch, which can be exchanged in
large quantities via internet? Will enough money be circulating in a reshaped music economy to
keep the conventional “Star System” alive?
4.2 Online Music Downloads with the Apple approach
There is perhaps one example that could pave the way for the industry: In 2003 a company from an
unrelated industry, in a way a nobody, succeeded with a new product: PC producer Apple known for
its personal computers for users in the creative sector, presented its new “I-Tunes Music Store”: For
15the first time a working music download model based on the internet. With more than two million
paid downloads within two weeks after its introduction, I-Tunes Music Store has demonstrated
some first, convincing successes. During this short period, Apple had a higher turnover than the
competing download platforms of the Majors (e.g. Musicnet and Pressplay) in their whole first year
of operation. What was the success formula? Difficult to say after this short period but Steve Jobs,
CEO of Apple, succeeded in long-lasting and difficult negotiations to convince all Majors to make
their content available on this platform. Currently there are only about 200.000 songs available on
Apple’s platform. Yet, in combination with an easily comprehensible and attractive price model (99
cent per download), with extended usage and license terms (unlimited usability on several media)
and a successful PR Promotion, the “apple from an unrelated industry” provided a new impetus in a
market characterised by lethargy.
With the introduction of the “i-Tunes Music Store” pressure on the music industry has risen. In
Germany the big Majors Universal Music, Sony Music, Warner Music, BMG and EMI, together with
Deutsche Telekom as technology partner, prepare a common download platform which is supposed
to be launched at the end of this year. The name of this new music web catalogue: Phonoline. The
platform will be based on an electronic distributional system that has already been existing for years
and which will be operated jointly by the record labels.
The question whether this offer will be successful and accepted from the market is still open. From
today’s point of view, Phonoline is rather a compromise than a thoroughly designed marketing
system designed for the needs of the consumer. In contrast to its competitors, Phonoline is just a
bunch of offers by the participating companies. If a consumer decides to download a song by
Christina Aguilera (who is under contract at a BMG label) they buy the song under the terms and
conditions of the respective Bertelsmann subsidiary. For playing a song by Jennifer Lopez for
instance, the consumer will have to conclude a contract with Sony. As all companies set their prices
irrespective of each other, there is no stringency for the offer.
165 Conclusion
A first slight hope? At least the music industry can make out a ray of hope at the dark horizon and
got some hints on their seek for a solution. This, however, should not hold back the industry to face
a further challenge: the long-termed building-up of artists and their further development. After all,
despite the threat deriving from new technologies, there are artists such as Herbert Grönemeyer,
Nena, Robbie Williams, Madonna or Eminem who still succeed in selling millions of copies of their
albums. On the one hand Eminem’s album “The Eminem Show” was the album with the most
downloads in 2002, but on the other hand it was also the album that sold most copies in the USA.
The music industry has realised its dilemma and is forced to develop and implement quick-acting
counter measures and strategies. A challenge to be won?
176 References
Albers, Sönke; Clement, Michel; Skiera, Bernd: in Musik-Vertrieb online. Der illegale Konsum als
Chance, in: Absatzwirtschaft 12/2001, Düsseldorf 2001.
Haes, Joachim; Hummel, Johannes: Napster and the Economics of Music Distribution.
Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston,
August 2. - 5., 2001, pp. 724 - 726, 09.2001.
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry: Commercial Privacy Report 2003
Jennings, Rebecca Ulph: Downloads: 13% of Europe’s Music Market in 2007, in: Tech Strategy
Forrester Research, May 12, 2003, Cambridge/MA, 2003
Moon, Youngme: Online Music Distribution in a Post-Napster World, in: Harvard Business School
Papers, June 19, 2002, Boston, 2002.
Nguyen-Khac, Tung: Das Dilemma der Musikindustrie: Der Einfluss von neuen Technologien auf
die Musikökonomie, in ARGOS, August 2003, S. 37-41, Leipzig 2003.
Preiser, Jürgen; Vogel, Armin: The Music in the 21st Century, a study published by Sreen Digest
Limited, London, 2002
Reitsma, Reineke: Downloading Music hurts Europe’s CD Sales, in: Technographics Series
Forrester Research, January 20, 2003, Cambridge/MA 2003.
Theurer, Marcus: Die Fünf gehen online, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, 10. August
2003, Nr. 32, S. 27, Frankfurt, 2003.
o.V.: Die Musikindustrie im Jammertal, in: Die Welt, Freitag, 15. August 2003, S. 13, Berlin 2003.
Zhang, Michael: A Review of Economic Properties of Music Distribution, in: internal Sloan of
Management paper, 15th November 2002, Boston, 2002
.
18You can also read
