An author used to sell their novel to a publisher. The publisher then sold copies of it to retailers for them to sell to readers. Given that copies now cost nothing, the author is going to need a new buyer of their novel. It’s pointless the author trying to sell copies if the publisher can’t. So I’m suggesting the author should instead try selling their novel directly to those who would like it written, i.e. those who like the author’s work, his readers.

Sellaband at least demonstrates that a musician’s fans have enough confidence to commission a recording, even if Sellaband doesn’t actually provide such a deal.

When you can’t sell copies of your music, all that’s left is to sell your music. Fortunately, the same fans who used to buy copies (rather than make their own) still want your music, so you can still sell them your music.

Indeed, given your fans can still make copies for nothing anyway, you might as well embrace this and restore their liberty to make copies (suspended in the 18th century).

“it might also be necessary as the new technology continues to diminish the price value of the copy.”

No ‘might’ about it.

Cheers!

Crosbie is making a distinction between a recording and a copy of a recording.

The pure recording itself is a work of art embodying a set of creative inputs, the ones that are familiar enough to us such as composition, arrangement, performance, production, engineering, programming, editing, and mastering.

The copy is a copy of the art. The art is the work itself and the processes involved in creating it.

Historically the record business grew up around selling distinct copies of the art. That way of doing business is no longer viable.

The idea that artists might find ways of funding the work in its purest form and forgetting about the copies is not only a good idea and one worth looking at, it might also be necessary as the new technology continues to diminish the price value of the copy.

I thought you might bring up Sellaband. However, this is artists appealing to their fans to advance funds to pay a record label for a recording session. The fans don’t actually purchase the recording, so much as make an advance purchase of a CD (and a small share of any future CD sales). So, ‘close, but no cigar’.

See SellaBand – A New Middleman.

Most of the artists in the world are not on labels. They are independent and sell directly to their fans (or they may have their own ‘label’ which is just them or their band, etc.) There are also many shop services that allow artists to keep 100% of their earnings from their downloads.

The other stuff is supporting arguments of what I would say. Given he’s a politician, he won’t listen to anything longer than 30 seconds, hence the quotes.

The complaint is against the privileged persecuting the public.

As to artists selling their recordings directly to their fans I’d be impressed if you can list me five let alone five thousand. But, to make it easy for you, how about you list me one?

I found one a few days ago quite easily, but then I knew where to look.

Traditionally, labels fronted the cost of a studio recording if they’ve done a deal with the artist. If not, other investors would front that cost. There are actually quite a few artists who sell direct to their fans without a ‘label’. A lot of artists simply set up their own label, apply for bar codes for their products and ISRCs. There are thousands upon thousands of independent artists who do that.