a2f2a

One of the things that’s a really beginning to strike me is: It’s becoming clearer and clearer the supposed gulf between musicians and fans is in the minds of the corporate music industry alone.

A very significant number of fans and artists have something major in common.

They both create music.

Way back in the dark reaches of time, I was involved with a band which produced a significant part of my income, and I still write music and play guitar and several other instruments. For myself.  And I know quite a few of the people who’ve signed up on a2f2a are musicians, some of them ex-pro, and some of them amateur.

Dreddsnik, for instance, is a frequent a2f2a poster with strong views on what’s happening with online music. But he’s also a performing musician who was forced to drop his career after 27 years because of health concerns. These days, he  works out of his home repairing computers.

He and his wife, Melanie, who’s been with Dredd for most of his almost three decades as an artist, have two children, identical twins Katie and Tia, 18 .

Dredd is the only musician in the family, but everyone loves music and “our combined tastes cover every single genre,” he says.

Recenty, in response to SteelWolf, another frequent poster, Billy Bragg posed the question, “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?”

Dredd answered, and added a few more considerations, so we’ve deleted the comment and added the new thoughts for a separate post.

Jon Newton

Read on  >>>

Free is …

If I like an artist’s work well enough to listen to over and over again, I should pay for it. And I do. In spite of what industry executives may say, I am NOT in the minority.

This is probably the most important factor …

If I am in the dentist’s office or any other business that uses CDs to create background  noise or a pleasant environment, Yes, it should be Free. It should be free for the business  owner as well. The business owner paid for that CD. There’s no demonstrated proof that his  ‘profits’ have  increased in a significant way because of that CD and it’s ridiculous that he should have to pay royalties for such an innocuous use.

The same goes for cover bands in bars. The amount of money the band gets and the extra business it brings in isn’t nearly enough to justify  the ridiculous royalty fees —- which most of the actual artists don’t see a penny of anyway.

So Yes: this it should be free too.

Charging schools and groups such the Girl Scouts, etc, royalty fees for  using label music is  also questionable. I see this as educational use. This should be free.

I download a track from iTunes and I want to put it on a CD, my mp3 player and about six other  players for my kids, wife, etc. Other than the initial payment, those other uses should be free. The labels don’t agree and to me, that’s  just petty.

The artists may not agree but the larger portion of the customer base do, and it WILL show in less than robust sales.

It’s reasonable and proper to expect payment for your works if the user enjoys them.

It is not reasonable to expect customers to pay for it just because you created it.

It is not reasonable to blame customers if they simply don’t like what you’ve created.  ( Yes, Elton, it IS possible for you to write songs that people JUST DON’T LIKE ).

This is just a start of an answer to a ‘not so simple’ question.

I haven’t even touched on Radio, MTV, and Streaming internet stations.

That’s another entire article.

But why don’t we start with this?

Looking at it from the other end

In asnswer to Billy’s “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? ”Dredd responded, “Here’s what I DO think I have a right to …

1: I have a right to return a purchase that I’m not satisfied with for whatever reason. It’s called a right of fair return.RIAA member labels disagree, and as a result in nearly every retail outlet that RIAA/MPAA member products are sold, that right is now denied. One can only exchange for another copy of the same product. The reason given ? Fear of ‘piracy’.

2: I have the right to use what I paid for in any manner that I see fit, on any device that I wish to use it on.
RIAA/MPAA members disagree, and thus DRM was created. DRM serves only to punish those who DO pay for product, making it extremely difficult for some to use on different devices, sometimes to the point of crippling your PC. ( Sony Rootkit ). As long as these rights are denied to the people that you wish to pay for your offerings, they’ll be less inclined to risk their money.

I will NOT risk my money on a CD I haven’t been able to hear in full as long as I know I can’t take it back for a refund if I don’t like it. To not allow me that right costs you the confidence and goodwill of the potential fan, even though this policy wasn’t your decision to make.

I won’t spend money on a download I can’t use on any device in any manner I see fit for my own personal use.

Since most member-supported sites use some form of DRM, it makes it a major hassle to move ‘product’ from device to device, especially for the non-technical. This is an apparent assumption of dishonesty and costs you the confidence and goodwill of the potential fan, even though this policy is likewise out of your control.

Paying customers

The labels operate under the fallacy that you ‘can’t compete with free’. That’s untrue, and has been proven untrue. The AllofMP3  model made ( and still makes ) a lot of money.

Why they ws AllofMP3 so successful? Per byte charge. This enabled fans to choose the sound quality they were happy with. Better sounding files are larger, so they paid more for them.

NO DRM. Files can be used on ANY player without any difficulty, and nearly no technical skills required.

This model had an incredible number of PAYING CUSTOMERS. Free alternatives abound but people were willing to PAY.

They wanted to pay, believing the artists were getting their cut (according to AllofMP3 staff, the proper fees were being paid to the Russian versions of the label collective societies).

It is living proof that fans WANT to pay and are WILLING to pay if condition number 2 above is met.

You have to ask yourself why the labels wanted it gone so badly. They wanted it shut down so badly they pressured credit card companies not to honor purchases.

That’s a lot of potential money for the artists the labels insisted on turning their nose up at.

Doesn’t anyone find that a little odd ?

Do artists think they have the right to continue to make money of their creations in perpetuity ?

Forever? Almost no other occupation has that benefit.

For all us other folk, if our kids want money, they have to get jobs and earn it for themselves. Why should that not apply to RIAA member label artists and other artists ?

“Addressing points 1 and 2 above will go a long way towards earning back the goodwill of the fans,” Dredd believes.