a2f2a has launched with one vital, underpinning principle: Artists need to be paid, and fans want to pay them.
The internet has huge potential for artists to make a living on their own terms. Previously, they’ve been forced to rely on the recording industry to fund recordings, manufacture and distribute their art and collect money for them. Without industry help, it was almost impossible to find enough fans to support a career.
Fans have also had to rely on the corporate recording industry to provide the music they wanted to hear. They listened to the radio in the hope of hearing the artists they loved, they bought weekly music mags to find out where and when their favourite bands were playing, and they went to record shops to get the music they wanted.
But fans can now do it all with the click of a mouse – and significantly, increasing numbers of artists are learning to do the same. Fans can get all the information they need about their favourite artists, and artists can find their fans online, without the scattergun approach of putting product into every record store in the country — and then keeping their fingers crossed.
But most important of all, fans can now support artists by paying them directly.
The new paradigm
Fans are already benefitting from the new technology. The internet has freed them from their reliance on the record industry. Their excitement about new music and their willingness to share it with one another is helping to fuel a boom in live performance.
Artists, however, haven’t yet freed themselves from the old business model that relies on the record industry. Some have grasped the potential of the internet and are busy exploring new methods of making a living. However, those still signed to major labels simply don¹t have that freedom.
Clearly, the majors have the most to lose from this new paradigm. Their power resides in providing a middleman service to both artist and fan, extracting the lion’s share of revenue in the process. To maintain their power, they need to retain exclusive control of how music is distributed online, and who distributes it.
With their corporate lawyers, lobby groups and PR machines, they believe they can shape the new music industry to their traditional business model. As a result, for the past decade, the unstoppable force of the internet has been colliding with the immovable object of the recording industry.
The resulting carnage has damaged all parties.
Record shops have all but disappeared, music mags shut down, record company employees have been laid off and individual fans have been pilloried in the courts by multi-national corporations claiming millions in damages for the downloading a few music files.
Featured Artists Coalition
The major labels are a dying breed and they seem hell-bent on taking the entire music industry down with them.
So far, fans and artists have confronted the flailing record industry in isolation. Individual artists have spoken out about the problems they face within the industry, while p2p users have had to confine their outrage to message boards and blogs.
The situation for artists in the UK recently changed with the formation of the Featured Artists Coalition, an alliance of recording artists that seeks to intervene in the vital debates about the future of the recording industry that are currently going on in a closed loop between the major labels, the internet service providers and legislators.
Now the FAC is engaged in this debate, there’s still one voice missing the most important voice of all — the men, women, and children who used to be contemptuously know as ‘consumers’ but who, in this digital 21st century, have become customers again — people of free choice and free will.
They have the power, and they know how to use it.
And yet until now, they’ve had no cohesive means of formulating and expressing their ideas as the people upon whom everyone depends. Instead, they’re continually hounded by a record industry that portrays them as criminals and thieves.
Fans and artists together
P2P users are demonised by the labels who encourage artists and legislators to view them as exactly the same as ‘pirates’– the organized criminals who use the CDs and DVDs churned out every minute of every day as templates from which they counterfeit and duplicate the illicit product which appears on street corners, swap-meets, boot sales and black markets around the world.
Not a penny of the money they make ever finds its way to the artists whose work they’re ripping off.
These pirates will find it almost impossible to operate when music lovers are buying fairly priced music directly from artists or from adequately stocked download sites selling legally licensed material.
a2f2a aims to bring fans and artists together to discuss the problems we all face with the goal of offering constructive solutions. We believe that this is the only way for us to both get what we want without having to rely on the outdated business models of the recording industry.
This forum is the place to put such ideas to the test.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
To be honest, I take issue with your vital, underpinning principle. Artists do not need to be paid any more than your average citizen needs to be paid. I feel like that language suggests the sense of entitlement that runs rampant in our culture, especially that of today’s content industry.
Artists want to be paid. As I fan, I want to pay them for their work. But the idea that they need to receive my money rubs the fur the wrong way.
I think that the statement should be equivalent. Either artists need to be paid and fans need to pay them, or artists want to be paid and fans want to pay them. Obviously I’d prefer the later.
October 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I just want to start by thanking Jon and Billy for starting this website. It’s been too long without real dialogue about this issue. I’m looking forward to participating in this discussion as a fan and hope that we can make some real results.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
To Jon and Billy,
Glad to see this up and running!
To a certain degree I agree with SteelWolf about the underpinning principle statement wording. But in the long run, worrying about word choices isnt going to make any real difference in the debate that needs to be held here.
I count this as a good starting place to have discusions about the real issues all of us face
October 20th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I want to thank both Jon and Billy for starting this website.
Most people don’t think this issue is remotely important, BUT I believe music is the greatest invention (if you may say), that Man ever invented.
It’s time for a REAL and PROGRESSIVE dialogue to start, and…
Let us save the music.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:12 am
There’s a lot of work to be done, especially with ISPs…but in the meantime, is the tipjar too needy? Artists, Paypal buttons on your sites. Ripping groups, include a text file with the Paypal link – it’s the least you can do. And fans need a ‘do the right thing’ campaign.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:43 am
Hi SW:
I think ‘need’ is apt. And it has nothing to do with entitlement. I don’t want to get paid to do the work I do. I need to be. Otherwise I can’t do it.
Fans don’t need to pay artists. But they most definitely should.
But I know what you mean.
Cheers!
Jon
October 21st, 2009 at 6:45 am
Mysteron:
“Do the right thing?” This is the kind of thing that in my mind follows immediately after the idea that artists “need” to be paid, and why this has become a point of contention for me. “The right thing” is by no means an imperative to donate to every artist or creator whose works you enjoy.
The problem is not that people are refusing to pay artists – as the second half of the statement says, fans want to pay artists. The question is, for what? If I receive music from a friend and enjoy it, I doubt I’m going to run to the nearest PayPal button and click. But the next time I see that band coming to my city, I might get three friends and buy concert tickets.
The solution is not guilting fans into paying up, nor is it providing ubiquitous ways for fans to pay for the same things they’ve been getting for free for years. The solution is primarily in selling things to fans that they want. As in, scarce, valuable items that personalize the music experience for the fan. Not digital downloads or other infinitely copyable data.
To me this is huge. I think every creator should have a means of accepting donations – it’s just good practice. But the idea that this is a primary means of getting money or that this is the means by which fans should be supporting artists is false. As soon as artists sell things people want to buy, they’ll be making a steady income.
Here’s a specific example: instead of “releasing” an album, sell it song by song to individuals. Not as any kind of exclusivity arrangement, but as a “first” arrangement. I think a lot of fans would love to release a new song from a favorite artist on their own blog. Big torrent communities or music/artist fan sites would love to be able to do the same. I think this is a benefit that both would be willing to pay for. Either way the song is going to spread around the web, so the benefit to the artist is the same. But one person or site gets to say that they had it first, and will get a bunch of new traffic because of it.
To me this is smart because:
-It doesn’t try to fix, monetize, or otherwise deal with sharing. It correctly accepts free sharing as the new norm.
-It benefits the artist because he or she is connecting with the fan community, getting attention for each new song individually, making money from the actual work (the song) instead of the copies, and gets the music heard all around the world anyway.
-It benefits the fan because they get to be the first person to hear and release a new song from their favorite artist; all of the sharing that will go on over the next several months and years will have started from them. They get a link from their favorite artist’s site when they release the song and get a lot of extra traffic because of it, and they get to spend money not out of guilt or pity but because they are getting something in exchange that is both valuable and desirable.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am
Looks nice
I hope that we get more than a few
label folk in here so that we can
clear up most if not all of the
misconceptions we have of each other.
@mysteron “but in the meantime, is the tipjar too needy ”
No way.
An artist page tipjar some of us feel
is the only way to be certain an artist
we like gets what we want him to have.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:15 pm
To quote SteelWolf “Here’s a specific example: instead of “releasing” an album, sell it song by song to individuals. Not as any kind of exclusivity arrangement, but as a “first” arrangement. I think a lot of fans would love to release a new song from a favorite artist on their own blog. Big torrent communities or music/artist fan sites would love to be able to do the same. I think this is a benefit that both would be willing to pay for. Either way the song is going to spread around the web, so the benefit to the artist is the same. But one person or site gets to say that they had it first, and will get a bunch of new traffic because of it.”
This is a great idea, but it doesn’t go far enough. Artists can distribute any kind of digital content this way, not just their latest track. For example, put up a camera during a rehearsal session or an acoustic jam, then let a blogger pay you to exclusively distribute your video. That’s the kind of thing that your fans are interested in that are easy to “create.”
October 21st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
steelwolf,
Lets try looking at this from the other end of the bargain: Do you think that you have a right to get the music you want for free?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:24 pm
@Steelwolf
For you “paying” the artist is going to see perform live, as has been said elsewhere for others like myself, I would like to be able to pay an amount directly to the artists whose music I am enjoying at the time.
You can go and see the artist now if they are performing near you and they will get paid, but for people like myself who do not go to see them perform then I have no means to pay what I can for what I enjoyed, instead of being a paying fan now I am criminalised.
A paypal/donate button for me (and maybe many others) would be far more useful, and I would feel like I am supporting the artist more directly.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Billy:
You’re asking the wrong question. The issue isn’t whether Steelwolf (or anybody else) has a ‘right’ to the files, but whether anybody has a ‘right’ to monopoly privileges like copyright, and if so, how long it should last.
Because ultimately, everything else is implicit in that question:
You urge Steelwolf and others to look at the “other side of the bargain”, but what exactly is that “bargain” you’re talking about?
At root, the bargain is that governemtn grants “rights-holders” the temporary monopoly privilege of copyright, on the condition that works so encumbered enter the public domain in a reasonably timely fashion, so that they become available for future creativity.
Same thing with patents.
Undoubtedly, many patent-holders would love it if their monopoly privileges exist in perpetuity (as with the crafting guilds and such, from the Middle Ages), but such wishes are completely beside the point.
Same with copyright. Sonny Bono figured copyright should last ‘forever minus a day’, and it’s pretty improbable that he even thought about whether the public domain is important or not, but again, his ignorant/misguided views are just that: ignorant and misguided.
Instead of asking Steelwolf whether he has a “right” to the stuff he gets from p2p networks, you should be asking whether anybody has the “right” to keep gutting the public domain, by means of ever more frequent copyright extensions.
Further, do artists (or more realistically, their corporate backers) have a ‘right’ to monetize *every* use of “their” product, no matter how small (say, in quotations or criticism)?
Do those same “rights-holders” have a “right” to get a cut of sales at used bookstores or record stores?
In other words — and to put it as firmly as the posting rules will allow — how far do *you* think your monopoly privileges should extend?
October 21st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Billy:
I have the right to get the best price available on things I like. When you’re selling something as ubiquitous as air, that price is free.
It’s quite simple: sell something people want to buy, and they will buy it. It’s just confusingly difficult for some to understand that an infinite good has zero monetary value. The creation of that good, however…now there’s something valuable.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Chairman,
I’m not asking the wrong question.
Finding out if you think you have the right to get the music you want for free is absolutely crucial to the debate that we’re hoping to have here. But if you don’t want to answer it, fine.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
David:
Nice thinking! Just be careful with the word “exclusive.” In these kinds of transactions it’s not that somebody gets to be the only source, it’s that they get to be the first source.
Being first is worth more than an artificial “exclusive” deal because you can build a reputation as a source of quality content, while garnering public goodwill (and traffic) as the content spreads around and a decent portion links back to you in some way or another.
cqb:
That’s why I think that having a donation option is essential. I don’t think it’s a bad idea at all, I just think it’s a small part of a larger business model. Too many models focus only on the donating fans, like yourself, or the collectors, who enjoy physical media. What I find lacking in these models is that they assume the rest of the fans are freeloaders.
As a kid, I had far more success raising money for things when I was selling stuff than when I was asking for money. Some people (like yourself) didn’t want the stuff and just gave the money, because they believed in the cause. But those people were in the minority compared to those who bought the product.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Billy:
Public information is free. The moment a recording or any other creative work is shared with the public in any form, it is free.
The modern business model involves:
A) Getting people to pay you to actually do the work of creating new content.
B) Using free information to sell something unique and scarce.
There will always be people who pay for free information for whatever reason, and there will be generous souls like cqb who will give freely without anything in return. These groups are minorities, and to truly succeed in the digital age one must acknowledge that information is free and focus instead on maximizing both A and B above. Ignoring it is just bad business.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Billy:
It’s not that I “don’t want to answer it”, so much as “I don’t understand the question.”
And I really don’t.
Is your issue with whether people have a ‘right’ to the mp3 files available on p2p sites? Or is the issue broader — a question of whether they have a “right” to quote your works, or deal in ‘used’ physical copies of copyrighted books/albums?
So I’ll repeat the question:
Do you — or any other beneficiary of the existing copyright regime — have the “right” to monetize — or even control — all uses of such content?
I also notice that you sidestepped/failed to answer any of my questions regarding the public domain, fair use, first sale, etc.
You’re trying to load the deck here, Billy, and we’re not going to get very far with that as a starting point.
Because ultimately, what you’re asking is if Steelwolf (or anybody else) think they have a right to access content *without paying you first*.
By asking Steelwolf whether he has a “right” to the mp3s, you’re trying to imply that the p2p networks have some kind of responsibility to provide him with a given amount of content “free as in beer”. It amounts to a really-thinly veiled attempt to claim p2p users as “freeloaders”.
So respectfully, answer the counter-questions I posed. Do you have the “right” to monetize any and every use of copyrighted content? Does the surrounding culture have any ‘right’ to reign that in? Where’s the line between ’supporting artists’ and ‘profiteering?”
So if you want your initial question answered, you’d do well to re-phrase it in a less ‘loaded’ form.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
@SteelWolf You’re right, by “exclusive” I meant first or original source. Exclusive as in the artist would only let one source be “first,” rather than a simultaneous distribution from multiple sources. Although when I put it that way, I suppose it wouldn’t matter how many “first” sources there were as long as it was clear in the agreement between artist and source.
@Billy
I’m not sure I’m ready to say that fans should pay for music.
Here’s what I am ready to say. I love music and I want more music from my favorite artists. If my favorite artists are working day jobs, they’ll have less time to work on music. So if I want more music, I want artists to be able to make a living based on being an artist.
That is something we all agree on, an artist should be able to be an artist first.
There are many different ways to make money as an artist: touring, merchandise, selling copies of music, sponsorships, donations, commissions, etc… Selling copies of music is just one of these. If through this discussion we determine that the only way for artists to be career artists is to sell copies of music, then so be it. But to me it seems there are other ways that artists can earn money and make a living. These alternative revenue streams may not make millionaires of artists, but most never made that much anyways. That music is being shared for free online is a given that may not be possible to change. Artists should be compensated, but it may be through alternative revenue streams rather than the sale of copies of music.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 am
Dredd,
I agree with both points one and two. You have the right of return under consumer law any way and with regard to having the right to use music you have purchased in any way you see fit, that should be a given.
The fact that under US and EU law it isn’t legal doesn’t mean that people don’t take that right for themselves. I for one think that DRM was a mistake and that the industry have shot themselves in the foot by introducing it.
With regard to your other points, I think we don’t need to waste time telling each other how venal the labels are when trying to protect their analogue business model. We know that is busted, just like the 20th century copyright laws. That’s why were trying to formulate a new model that is directly artist-to-fan.
In order that we can get started on that debate, we need to look at YOUR role in this process, which is why my question has to be addressed at this forum.
Do you think you have a right to get the music you want for free?
And Chairman2009, I’m not trying to ‘load the deck’ I’m just trying to get an answer to my question.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:35 am
“Do you think you have a right to get the music you want for free? ”
Although I DO think this is a loaded question, and in fact a veiled attempt to hint slyly at thievery, i’ll bite.
No, not always and yes, sometimes. You see, this question can’t really be answered with a definitive yes or no. It’s the kind of question a lawyer would ask.
Now, my question again, Do you think you deserve to continue to be paid in perpetuity .. as in forever ?
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 am
I know it’s pretty early yet, and we may not have many industry folk here yet, but I would like to suggest that my points 1 and 2 be submitted for potential Consensus.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Billy, you ask “Do you think you have a right to get the music you want for free?”
There are at least four words that can be confused there.
We’ve already seen how words such as ‘need’ in “artists need to be paid” or even ‘right’ as in “artists have a right to be paid for their work” can add more heat than light to the discussion. So it’s important to have a clear understanding of the language and meanings intended.
Here are those four words that you’ve used that can be confused:
‘right’: Is that a natural right recognised and protected by the law, or an unnatural/legal right created by the law?
‘music’: Is that the actual musical work, or a copy thereof?
‘free’: Is that ‘free to share and build upon’, or ‘free of charge’?
‘get’: Is that ‘get’ as in ‘receive’ or ‘be given’, or as in ‘fetch’?
So depending upon the meanings we infer in your words we could come up with questions at either extreme, e.g.
“Do you believe the law should grant you the privilege of keeping musicians as slaves such that you can force them to produce music without pay or other reward?”
or
“Do you believe you have a natural right to share and build upon the published music you receive without having to seek permission, or pay any tax or royalty?”
You’ll be glad to hear that my answer to the first is “No”, but I’m not so sure how glad you are to hear that my answer to the second is “Yes”.
There are many other variations of question that can also be inferred.
In other words, this site is going to have to explore the questions as deeply as the answers. We certainly aren’t going to attain a concord of enlightenment in the first traunch of comments.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
i agree with dredd’s contention that it’s a loaded question, bordering (at the least) on the idea of “free equals thievery”.
and i agree his position of “No, not always and yes, sometimes” on the “right” to get it for free.
and i agree that BB hasn’t answered the question, to my recollection of p2pnet postings on the point of perpetuity. although i do think that advertisers who want to use a song or film clip in an ad must pay the artist for that privilege.
i think crosbie’s questions regarding “right”, “music”, and “free” are vital and valid points to discuss, as they are often raised in courts of law.
but i disagree on his definitions of “get”, “receive”, and “be given” are the same things, whether or not the giver is known to the receiver. i’m a former english teacher and i know what “get” means.
i could receive, or be given, something by someone i know or someone i don’t know, whether i requested it or not, for example junk mail. i didn’t ask for it, yet i still got/received it.
“fetch” is a different thing altogether. it more than implies a person physically, or electronically, going to retrieve or buy something, which is also a meaning of “get”.
legal terms – and these can be used that way – are too often used in generalisations, and the arguments for/against the use(s) are often peppered with accusations of semantics.
there’s no easy way to use these terms in a set way, as they’ll always be interpreted differently by different people or entities.
*****
*****
as far as the idea that musicians “need” or “want” to be paid, this is a false argument. the correct way of looking at it is they “should” be paid.
and since we all agree they should be paid, then who should pay them?
well, if they’re under contract to receive royalties from a label, then the label should pay – and we know they often don’t, as has been documented many times in the past.
i can tell you, as i’ve said on p2pnet several times, where i live copying and sharing for free (including p2p) is legal, as long as it’s not for profit. these things are written into law.
and no, i will not say where i live. that’s no one’s business but my own.
where i live, levies are imposed on all blank CDs, DVDs, storage media, playback devices. these levies are to be paid as royalties to the artists.
because personal data can also be stored on blank mediia and device, the levies are betweem 5 cents and 30 cents/two hour capacity (525MB).
customers are willing pay these levies – it’s not like they can refuse. but if the labels don’t pay out to the artists (film, music, text) that’s a problem between themselves and their paymasters and it has absolutely nothing to do with the customer. te same goes for the purchase of a store-bought cd, dvd or book.
and as far as asking if i have the right to get the copies of music for free, i can say, yes, i personally do. i have my own reasons which are not for public consumption at this time (although they might be at a later time), and i also have the law on my side where i live.
as far as my own situation is concerned, i’m not doing anything against the law. and i do not have to pay the labels a cent directly, if i choose not to buy an official CD, DVD or book.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
to amend my last sentence above: “and i do not have to pay the labels or artists a cent directly, if i choose not to buy an official CD, DVD or book.”
although i am willing to use a paypal payment link attached to a free file, after i’ve sampled it and decided i like it ebough to pay the artist directly.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Dredd,
Thanks for addressing my question. It’s really not designed to entrap, it was simply something that seemed to be a suitable response to Steelwolf’s opening comment.
I have to admit I found his statement a little hard to take. He sounded like some skinflint 19th century factory owner: ‘Workers want to be paid, and I as a factory owner want to pay them, but the idea that they need to be paid just rubs the fur up the wrong way’
Artists do need to be paid if you want them to produce music that you enjoy. If records are just public information, then artists will have to consider whether they are worth making.
That’s what I had to do with video clips. My chances of getting a video shown on tv were very low and the costs very high, so around 1992, I stopped making them. I still film live clips for YouTube, but the idea of making the kind of produced video clip that I made back in the 80s never comes up in discussions about promoting the album.
Clearly for some artists, it does work. Shakira has 10 million hits for her She Wolf video on YouTube. However I don’t think writhing about in a flesh coloured body-stocking would do the same trick for me.
With regard to your copyright question, I think that is something that is so important that it deserves a thread of its own, so if you don’t mind, I’ll write something tonight and post it so we can have that discussion in full without entangling it in this thread.
Crosbie,
I get what you’re saying about semantics. So let me rephrase my question in a way that you might feel able to answer:
Why do you believe you have a natural right to share and build upon the published music you receive without having to seek permission, or pay any tax or royalty?
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:55 pm
BB:
I notice you mention the idea “Do you think you have a right to get the music you want for free?” a few times.
I also recall your comment on p2pnet.net about the lack of incentive to record music if it is just to be given away for free.
I can understand those feelings, especially as you explain it with the video analogy. I hope though that in time you’ll understand the infinite good versus finite good theory and help other artists understand it too.
Press releases, are you paid to do them or do they cost you money? If those are free, you don’t make any money so why do them? It helps promote your music. Well, now your music is your press release and instead of just promoting your music, now you promote you! That’s your music, your views, your live performances, etc…
You still sell your music, through finite goods such as live performances or jam sessions or videos/digital media/pictures/tab books/autographed vinyl/coffee-with-Billy type events, etc…
Yes, I know you said before that the digital media could be shared for free, but even though it is, most who like you will buy it. Those who don’t know you will get a taste of what you’re all about, then they’ll buy or donate or see you live or have coffee or whatever.
That’s what we’re trying to help promote; this awareness of the new world we’ve entered where things could be free but believe it or not, they don’t have to be and they can still make money!
Gone are the days where everything was controlled and you either paid or did without. Now the customer has the choice. Things are different and that ain’t bad at all! You’ll see, just be open man, we are not going to rob you blind, we’re not labels
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Billy,
How do you think artists survived before the artificial monopolies of copyright? Our entire culture, every single invention, song, or painting has built upon the “published” works of others. That’s how culture works – everything you put out there belongs to the public.
There are plenty of ways to be rewarded for creating something, as Crosbie and others continue to say. But the artificial limitations set by “permission culture” are not one of them.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Semantics aside, I don’t think I have the right to get the music I want for free. If music were to disapear from filesharing networks, should I feel affronted? I don’t think so. The fact that I can get it all free is great, for me. But I know I’m getting a free kick out of someone else’s creativity. I’d suggest a majority of people feel the same.
So I’d like to pay. I suggested the tipjpar/paypal idea as a short term bandaid, perhaps a good habit to get into. Copyright is indeed broken (a copyright holder holds the right to copy which he releases in exchange for consideration. Assumption: Control of scarcity, i.e. how many copies are made. That assumption no longer holds). So now we need to look at getting compensated for ubiquity.
Talk of giving up monetizing recorded music, instead to pursue popularization for collateral benefits is fine, it works for some artists to a point. But I understand the focus here to be about restoring some degree of compensation for those dependent on recorded music. And it’s the ISPs now, not the labels, who stand between artists and fans. So, question: How to meaninfully engage them? What tools do we have?
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 am
Actually, Mysteron, nothing at all stands between artists and fans, which is why the internet revolution is so powerful.
Distribution of digital files is both ubiquitous and free. You’d think people would jump at the opportunity to quickly and cheaply populate the world with their stuff, but instead we’ve seen an industry fight tooth and nail to go back to a time when distribution cost something.
You’re focusing on trying to “change the culture” of p2p as many others have done in the past, but it’s the wrong way to look at it. You might respond well to donation links or digital stores (and that’s why it’s a good idea to have those), but there are millions of people out there who don’t. Those people want to spend their money in exchange for something they find valuable. It’s as simple as giving them something valuable to buy (it’s not digital files).
There’s no guilt, coercion, or middlemen involved (labels or ISPs). Just artists and fans working together in a mutually beneficial relationship. Why would anybody want to fight against any aspect of p2p when they could so easily make money by accepting it and moving forward?
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Steely,
You state correctly that the distribution of digital files is free, then you wonder why artists don’t jump at the opportunity to give their stuff away?
The simple reason is that music is free, but it’s not worthless. Artists believe that it has intrinsic worth and that is why they are loathe to give it away for free. Hence, they fight against it.
There is also an economic imperative at work for artists. They have to invest to make the recordings which then have no intrinsic economic value in themselves.
I believe that, ultimately, artists will follow your advice and find other ways to make money, but you have to be prepared for that move forward to be accompanied by a huge drop in the amount of music that is being recorded.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Billy,
It comes down to a misunderstanding of what constitutes the “work.” Nobody, not even me, is saying that you should give your work away if you don’t want to. What they are saying is that once you decide to put something out there, it is infinitely copyable and without monetary value. As you said, though, there is more to it than monetary value. The promotional value is near-limitless and focusing on how to use that to your advantage is time well-spent.
As for the drop in recordings, I sincerely doubt that. People can have more recording power than the Beatles ever had in their basements and put out some great stuff. As a popular, established artist, you’ve got the most enviable position of all. You’ve got hundreds of thousands of fans, you can sell out venues. I’m willing to bet that if you put up that initial investment to make a new recording, you’d make the money back with interest not from selling records, but from the myriad of new income channels the internet era has opened for you.
The possibilities are limitless, and the music world is waiting for somebody both popular and revolutionary to take advantage of it them in a big way.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Steely,
You are absolutely right to point out that I am in a prime position to benefit from the new paradigm, as an established artist who owns their own back catalogue.
The big question – one that this website was set up to shed some light on – is how, in a market where recordings have no value, are new artists supposed to establish themselves?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:44 am
@Billy
First, let me thank you and Jon for sharing with us this forum in which to brainstorm the future of viable business models to support the creation and enjoyment of music (as well as artistic effort in other industries). I have made my way here from Crosbie’s natural rights blog.
I would like to address your question “How, in a market where recordings have no value, are new artists supposed to establish themselves?”
By “value” I infer you mean “economic value” and move forward to my suggestion.
The present model (as I am aware of it as a layperson) is that an artist must first refine their work and establish a following. Making a name for yourself in the 20th century has always been a very labor intensive effort. Even when your natural talents are exceptional, being trapped in a small town (or cultural cul-de-sac of any sort.. ghetto, small country, you name it) without capitol or means can make recognition challenging to obtain.
In any event, the Shangri-La of budding artists has traditionally been in garnering the attention of a talent scout and/or ultimately a record executive, who may sign them to a contract. Until such eventuality, I am to understand, any new artist in the 20th century still has a day job and after this event, their career is entangled with the big business of record production.
Today, the internet is helping to level the playing field of recognition and global distribution. Talented artists from small towns to projects to Uzbekistan need nothing more than modest computing equipment and (not too heavily censored) internet access to share their work amongst any global community that they choose.
Such artists are bound to have to release work to the public with little or no compensation early on just to establish a name for themselves. Just as budding film directors presently post their work to free video sharing sites to establish a following.
The key here is that the value of these recorded copies of performances is best measured and utilized in their ability to promote your future work and reflect well upon you as an artist, not to insert your work into the cultural pantheon as some kind of a pay-only experience.
So a new artist must establish themselves as being a producer of music that people wish to hear, by offering their music (inexorably into the de facto public domain) for consideration until enough fans and aggregators feel they would like to finance the production of the next work and the artist can make a primary living on this and ancillary revenue streams.
In this way recorded work is like the “magic penny” from the old schoolyard rhyme. Artists who cling to the notion of monetizing work that already lies in the public’s hands instead of relinquishing their grip and maximizing public exposure stand to gain pale recompense for lost opportunities to incite public interest and support.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:29 am
Thanks for this open discussion, it’s been missing for years…
After stumbling over the first sentence of your mission statement already, I would suggest to re-consider… everybody needs to be paid for his work of course.
What artists really need is a business model that pays for recorded music in order to be able to pay studios and realise their ideas in the way they should be… so they need new models to get paid for this work. You cannot pay to create something and then be willing to give it away for free – nobody would do that. Or be able to afford that over a long period of time.
A second proposition: many users have NO IDEA about what artists earn and how dramatic the situation really is. Try to put numbers on the table (records, live, merch…) you don’t have to mention the bands names, but if a well-known internationally acclaimed artist cannot pay for his rent or studio anymore, we all face a huge problem, with massive effects on our culture.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
AT LAST!!!!! I’m so happy to read a clever analyse of the situation and discover that words are put into action. I have the feeling that more and more people are begining to understand what is hapening and how great the power of change at the bottom of their finger is. I can’t wait to see how things will change, and they will change very soon. Governments should thank god, today citizens worldwide are questioning and breaking “only” the music industry. Internet really is the first provider of democracy.
thanks guys for your initiative.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“The big question – one that this website was set up to shed some light on – is how, in a market where recordings have no value, are new artists supposed to establish themselves?”
I know there is something wrong with the language but I am not good enough to figure out a better way of saying things.
Music has value
The coping of music has a price of zero
The price of making music (time, labor and equipment) is more than 0.
So artists should be paid for making music not coping it.
One example I have seen (I might be modifying it) is put out low quality versions for free then charge for higher quality. The secret is the price. Charge too much, or be too restrictive with your product and people will just go somewhere else, charge too little and you don’t get paid.
No matter what the price some will go elsewhere the goal is to get the right amount. That amount will be different for different artists and maybe different for each song. A van Gogh goes for millions, one of my paintings I have trouble giving away.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Frankly, that question has already been answered. New artists are having no problem at all “establishing themselves,” if by “establishing” you mean getting their music heard as widely as possible, building and engaging a fan base who will gladly support them through the purchase of scarce items and attendance at live shows.
New or small artists are often used as a foil by established artists either unwilling or unable to adapt to a new business model that doesn’t revolve around selling copies of music, digital or otherwise. If you’re a musical artist who loves what you do and are just trying to establish yourself by getting heard and building a fan base, the 21st century was practically built for you. Never before has a relative “nobody” been able to instantly connect with interested persons worldwide.
It’s not them we should be worried about at all. It’s the people who are trying to find “solutions” to a “problem” that doesn’t exist that are holding themselves back. Every abundance creates new scarcities – the trick is finding and capitalizing on those scarcities. Not trying to artificially limit the abundance through copyright law, guilt tripping, or argument.