May 2nd, 2007
No Indie Sales Chart this week and maybe forever
I was about to work on the indie sales chart 5-2-07 but before I started, I checked the comments left on the IndieHQ site and the following one stuck out for obvious reasons. I am curious 1. why Nielson Soundscan cares about my very small blogsite and 2. I just publish the indie charts that are sent from me from various distributors. What are your thoughts? Jordan Baker (Mr. Pastepunk), please chime in and let me know your thoughts. I have no interest in getting involved in a lawsuit, but I think posting the indie sales chart is a valuable tool for bands and labels.
I am the attorney for Nielsen SoundScan (“SoundScan”), and it has recently come to our attention that your company, IndieHQ.COM, is publishing Nielsen SoundScan’s valuable proprietary data (“Data”) without any authorization or license from SoundScan. Specifically, your web site, indiehq.com, published the following Data on April 25, 2007, without permission:
THIS IS WHERE HE POSTED THE POST “INDIE SALES CHART 4-25-07″
Nielsen SoundScan’s Data is the valuable, exclusive, proprietary, copyrighted property of SoundScan and your organization’s blatant disregard of SoundScan’s ownership in and to the Data is a serious infringement of SoundScan’s intellectual property rights under Federal and State copyright laws, and can result in your organization paying statutory damages in excess of $150,000 per infringement.
Notice is hereby given that Nielsen SoundScan views this copyright infringement with the utmost seriousness and, unless you immediately cease and desist from using SoundScan’s Data, and confirm that you have, and will continue to desist from this and any other infringement of SoundScan’s rights in the future, SoundScan shall pursue all of its legal and equitable remedies against you.
Michael J. Duffy, Associate General Counsel, The Nielsen Company
Written by Virgil Dickerson
Subscribe
View more articles about
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Jack said:
Interesting. I wonder if you could post a smaller version with no/less/rounded figures, with/or just a small selection.
There are many sites and forums that publish Soundscan numbers. Some post the full the BB 200, while others post genre specific ( for example, a metal site might post the numbers for the weeks metal releases, often rounded to the nearest 100 or 1000).
Your chart was great, because I like to see the Indy numbers, especially for those who sell less than 5,000 a week and dont show on the big BB 200 chart. It’s also great to track and see how long bands sell enough to chart on the Independent chart, way below the radar of the main chart.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:08 am
guest said:
Fuxx!!!
a question, but could you modify the data
for example if the soundscan data is 13,455 u could approx it to 13,000 and then post on site 13,000 (fake data) and no 13,455 (soundscan data).
i think this isn’t illegal..13,000 isn’t their data!
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 am
Jimmy said:
Thats too bad. I really enjoyed reading those numbers each week not for business reasons, but its just cool to see how different releases are doing.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
Jack said:
Thats why I think some people round it. Maybe. Also I know Billboard publishes a partial chart, either the top 25 or 50, I think. So just the placing without numbers of the top 25-50 is readily available and I dont see how anyone could stop a blog from posting a partial chart w/ approximate numbers with maybe a few extra notables.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Adam Duncan said:
I’m very sad to read this. I always feared Soundscan might kick up a stink about you posting their data and now they have. My suggestion would be to round up the numbers and maybe restrict your analysis to a Top 100 or less. I hope you will be able to come to some sort of solution to this problem.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
alex said:
this link will probably be of interest to you - http://idolator.com/tunes/soundscan/a-soundscan-crackdown-have-you-seen-the-latest-nielsen-raidings-231093.php
On May 2nd, 2007 at 11:09 am
Bryce said:
We stopped posting these for the same reason. Not sure what you could do to keep on posting them though.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 am
ted said:
Just curious… why would a lawyer post a bulletin on your board and not send you a certified letter or at least an email. Most professionals would not make this a public dispute in an open forum. This is a private legal matter… i know its not worth the risk but did you possibly consider that this wasn’t actually a lawyer from Neilson at all? I could sign my name as anyone on here as well. Just a thought.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Karl said:
A lawyer posts a bulletin on a board to maximize the effect, knowing it will be seen by more people than it would reach otherwise…weasel marketing in reverse!
I wonder if Soundscan still sells specific store sales information to competitors (Newbury Comics gripe about 10 years back…in which Walmart and Strawberries were buying Newbury’s sales info from the SS “parent” company and configuring their stock accordingly)
On May 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Karl said:
(here s an article about SS vs. Newbury, for anyone interested)
http://www.inc.com/magazine/19990301/4559.html
(and Newbury’s current music industry worldview)
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts_entertainment/articles/boston_magazine_record_breaker
On May 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Sean-Michael Dore said:
AbsolutePunk was threatened by Nielsen (http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=6257)
But a post on a forum and not something through mail isn’t technically a legal threat… I believe
On May 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
tre said:
Doesn’t the Lefsetz letter have SoundScan figured in it every week?
I get the CIMS newsletter, which has top 200 (currently posted on hypebot.com)
And Newbury Comics also sends out a spreadsheet every week with its top 100 (all / indie)
There does seem to be a good amount of info out there these days if these assclowns are going to threaten you with scary lawyer people…
On May 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Jim B. Ovine said:
I mentioned this several weeks back when you were posting Lumberjack numbers. I knew it was only a matter of time before they came after you. The soundscan folks are really anal about their numbers. Just post approximate numbers, you’ll be fine.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Tim said:
I might’ve helped contribute to that because I used some of the numbers you posted on my site and quoted you as my source. So that might’ve helped with you getting noticed. Sorry if that was the case!
It’s just really messed up when Nielsen has a monopoly on that whole process. That’s why they can charge thousands of dollars for a monthly subscription to the service. It’s completely ridiculous.
It’s a monopoly at its finest!
On May 2nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
jason said:
hey tre, where can i sign up to get that newbury comics list?
On May 2nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
hed028 said:
I get it. It sucks, but I understand.
Neilson spent a lot of resources (ie: $$$$) coming up with their system for tallying sales. Think of the technical people, the legal team to set up deals w/ retailers, etc. etc. Bigtime investment.
They take this information that they compile on a weekly basis, and sell it (for a lot of money) to Record Labels, Distributors, Magazines/newspapers, etc. When you read in the Wall Street Journal, LA Times or USA Today that “according to Neilson Soundscan, Hilary Duff has sold X number of records” you can bet that they paid to obtain that information.
Its not unlike recording a bands record, pressing it, marketing it, and then having someone on the internet decide they should have it for free.
I loved reading the analysis every week, and I’m going to miss that feature. But I understand why the company is making an effort to protect their assets.
just my 2 cents.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Jordan Pastepunk said:
I’ll shoot you an email Virgil. Ironic that you posted this while I was out attending a copyright/IP law policy conference all day…
On May 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Tim said:
Hey hed028….I definitely see your point but Nielsen has a complete monopoly! With a label, there are tons of labels out there that can offer bands different things. There are tons of options. But with SoundScan, you have one option so they can jack the price up a ton. Yes, they spent a lot of money on it and have a team. But I’m sure they are making out like a bandit.
If there was one label out there, yes, they could offer a band whatever they wanted and that was it. No other choice for the band. The label would have a complete monopoly over the process. Sooner or later, other companies will arise to challenge Nielsen. Especially as the digital market explodes, there will be companies that will take advantage of that.
Don’t get me wrong, I know this is a business and they want to make money. But there is a way to do things without being a dick. There are ways that they can comprise with web site owners and work with them, instead of against them.
Webzines help create a market for music. Why not work with web owners that may not help you directly, but help the marketing of music which your company needs to survive?
On May 2nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
hed028 said:
I don’t thing they have a monopoly. If others want to compete with Neilson, I’m sure they have that opportunity. Lots of companies have created sales charts through the years. Neilson just does it better and probably more accurately, enough so that they became the industry standard.
I don’t think they are being dicks. They said stop, or else.
Remember, Neilson is in a bad place right now too. Their biggest clients, the labels and distributors are losing money like crazy, and cutting costs
On May 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Tim said:
Well, we can agree to disagree on the monopoly issue.
But I remember when AbsolutePunk use to post the numbers and when I use to post the numbers, there were a lot of comments from kids saying the were suprised that this band or that band ONLY sold X amount of CDs.
I really think it made kids go out and support their favorite artists more, especially on an indie level. No one will really know, I guess, but I think if some kids actually see the numbers, instead of just ‘hear’ about how bad CD sales are, it would push some kids to actually go out and buy their favorite bands CD.
No one knows if posting the numbers would make a big enough impact but we’ll never know.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
leftcoast415 said:
This is sad for me because the Indy chart is the only reason I visit this site. Hopefully you figure out a way to continue posting the full chart, even if it means rounding the sales numbers.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Jeff said:
this really sucks! for some reason, i really enjoy reading those charts every wednesday. i guess i’m a dork, but it seems that there is a lot like me out there. i hope you do what ever you can to keep the charts going. rounding the sales numbers seems to be the way to go?
good luck!
On May 2nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Seth Progression said:
Tim,
I think posting soundscan numbers on a site cause people to NOT go out and buy a record. Bands that make the indie 200 have sales of 700-800 a week at least. I would venture to say that the vast majority of indie bands don’t sell that much, but when all the sales kids are seeing are in the 1,000-10,000 range (per week!) it creates a false reality. If that becomes the norm, when they see a partcular record is selling 100-200 a week (which is not bad these days), they might think that no one is buying it, so it must be a crappy CD and not worth buying. I think it is the rare individual that sees a sales number they consider low and decides to buy the record in order to help the band push their numbers up. If they want to support the band they probably bought the CD already.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Jayme Gonz said:
this is sad news. i am into reading soundscan numbers that is one of the reasons i started reading this site. i only get to see the numbers of the bands the label i work for deal with which i dig but i like to see how other bands are doing. as a supporter of the industry it makes me feel good (or bad) to see a bands numbers.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Tim said:
Hey Seth,
The only reason why I would make that assumption because, like I said before, I saw comments from fans that said they couldn’t believe a band ‘only’ sold X number of CDs. And some said they would go out and buy it. But I never saw anyone say that the album must suck because of the low count.
I think it’s our jobs as blog/website owners to teach fans and bands about the business. I think sites like this one are great because it’s just not about posting news. I am incorporating articles on my site and in band interviews, we make sure we ask questions so smaller bands can get some ideas or even learn something about the business.
I love statistics. I love seeing numbers. There are a lot of us out there. I’m fine with no actual album sale figures.
How about just posting the Top 200 with no numbers? Billboard only shows the top 25, I think. I would love to see the Top 200.
On May 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Jimmy Jones said:
I agree with whoever posted before, I think it is legal for you to post appx. numbers rounded to the nearest hundred.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 am
Jono said:
Hits posts the top 50 with actual numbers and billboard gives you the top 100 online without needing a membership.
Maybe someone else can post the top 200 with rounded numbers and we can see what happens.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
leftcoast415 said:
I think Hits has its own system that estimates sales, so the numbers have nothing to do with soundscan.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 8:21 am
Bill Wilson said:
I don’t really understand the logic. Having these “kernels” of info available, whets the appetite for more information for those who care. We’re doing them a service. Those who don’t care won’t pay for the numbers anyway.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
Scott said:
Hits’ numbers are always pretty off to the tune of 1-5k for each entry — it’s a pretty good guesstimation on what the top 50 is, but it’s definitely not 100% accurate.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
El Paso Masso said:
Dude, for a guy who’s made a profession (or at least most of this site) whining about how people stealing music is ruining the industry, your bands and your lifestyle, to cop a big pussy-baby outfit when you get caught stealing someone else’s stuff is ridiculous. The fact you think swiping Neilson’s propriatary data is any different than people stealing your albums shows that your whole “support the makers of info” thing is 100% self-serving.
On May 4th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Good Hodgkins » Blog Archive » Breakfast Links said:
[…] IndieHQ, my main source of data for the This Week In Braff Rock posts, has been told to cease and desist by Nielsen Soundscan. This, despite the fact that the site actually gets its numbers from several independent distributors. Are there any lawyers reading this who can give them a hand? And can you really copyright a bunch of integers? Needless to say, TWIBR is on an unplanned hiatus. (But if you really want to know, Feist is on sale at Starbucks right now.) […]
On May 4th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Tim said:
I’m amazed at how many people are defending Nielsen.
On May 5th, 2007 at 10:41 am
hed028 said:
El Paso Masso. I woundn’t talk shit about Virgil. He thougt it was a valuable tool for bands and labels. He hasn’t complained once since it happened. That is other people giving their opinion.
With that said, to all those that are upset, I do agree and find it a bit ironic that people who make a living (or are trying to) off of music are bummed on Neilson. It seems to me that people are put out because they can’t get information they want. Why do people feel that information should be free? the information isn’t free. It wasn’t free to collect.
Neilson didn’t do anything wrong. They asked Virgil to stop posting their information, and agree not to post it in the future. Again I ask, why is that bad? Many of you have justifications as to why Neilson should allow these postings (they are a monopoly, they charge too much, Neilson does bad things to other companies in the past, we’re doing them a service by offering kernals of information, it helps sales of bands, its our job to educate).
It seems Neilson has decided they don’t agree with you, and they have that right. If they want to give away their information for free, then I’m sure they will.
Virgil is right. It IS a valuable tool for bands and labels.
On May 6th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
EVOL said:
Neilsen has sent this warning to all of these blogs. If you round your figures, you should be fine. When Time magazine publishes that the Green Day album has sold approximately 5.7 million (that’s just an example) they don’t get sued by Soundscan.
If you want to keep publishing this (and I think it serves some use to small artists and lables). I’d round figures and/or just publish the titles in order with their rounded cummulative totals or just comments on some milestones for certain titles and not use a chart format (the lists are what seem to get neilsen in a tizzy).
As for me, I look forward to your posts. You can find people arguing, on other blogs as to whether the Hillary Duff album sold 1.1 or 1.15 million. I am usually more interested in bands that sell just .05 and they don’t get any kind of chart press outside your posts.
Thanks
On May 6th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Tim said:
Hey Virgil,
Have you decided what you are going to do? I’ll post rounded numbers if you don’t want to.
Tim
On May 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
a quiet revolution said:
NIN gets Viral…
The recently released NIN’s album Year Zero had an impressive 18 month viral campaign leading up to its release. I had been following this with much interest and had planned to get around to writing something but this is better: 37 Signals has a …
On May 9th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Tim said:
Personally, I don’t see the difference between the owner of this blog posting copyrighted information, and other people downloading copyrighted music.
Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me…
On May 9th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Tim said:
Forgot to add this to my last post:
Need I remind the owner of this blog of his feeling concerning copyright infringement -
[QUOTE]
On March 19th, I made a post explaining my frustrations with a website giving away the entire Love Me Destroyer album. Looks like I wasn’t the only one frustrated with this happening. Marc, label manager at Eyeball Records, wrote the webmaster an email which eventually led to the site taking down all of the pirated music they had up. Pretty incredible. Good work Marc, now if you can get to work on Limewire and all of the other peer to peer sites, the industry might have a chance yet.
I commend Marc for doing what we all should do. If you are interested in reading Marc’s letter to the blog site as well as his own letter to all of the labels that had music pirated on the site, just click the link. Marc’s letter to labels suggest a united front of indie labels that can combat other sites that may give away full albums in the future. Good stuff!
[END QUOTE]
Tim
On May 15th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Devin said:
damn… i love seeing those numbers every week. but it definately isn’t very legal.
oh well…
On May 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
KAL said:
Nielson doesn’t really need to be defended. There’s no credible argument disputing the fact that the data is theirs and posting it in the blog allows unpaid access to it. The monopoly angle is misplace in this debate. There’s only one place to see first run episodes of The Sapranos but that doesn’t give me the right to post the episodes on the net for people who can’t afford HBO. HBO pays for the Sapranos production and has the right to profit from it. Same with the Nielson data.