There’s a very serious disconnect in the world of music.
Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien is a director of the Featured Artists’ Coalition which last year voted >>>
… overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer’s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
a2f2a.com co-founder Billy Bragg is also a director and back in October he told p2pnet, “Despite evidence that technical sanctions will not work from several IT experts that we invited, the majority was clearly in favour of some kind of sanction.
“In order to try to stop disconnection, we opted for bandwidth squeezing as a compromise between all of our positions. Our task now is to convince our colleagues that there is no technical solution, but this will take time.”
And while we wait for musicians — many of them the very old guard — to make up their minds which way they want to jump, the labels are grinding relentlessly forward with their virtual Hollywood partners, turning the entertainment industry into a desolate wasteland where only hugely wealthy multinationals can hope to survive.
‘You’re building your tribe’
a2f2a.com was founded on the concept that it’s vital for fans to work directly with the musicians whose art they buy, and for artists to work directly with the fans who support them.
With that in mind, the Midem website has a video interview with O’Brien and in it, “musicians have to interact with their fans,” he states unequivocally.
“You’re building your tribe.”
Connecting with them “is as important as it’s ever been — probably more so when you’re a bigger band because you can lose touch with your fans,” he says.
And >>>
It’s really important and you have to remember what it was like when you were a teenager … when you were at those tender ages when music means so much to you.
You have to build up this trust.
And >>>
It’s sort of been forgotten in a way, over the years, that actually the key relationship is between the band and the people who like that band.
We have a wonderful means to do that, to achieve communication, through the web, through the internet.
File sharing
Says O’Brien >>>
File sharing is the hot potatoe of the moment …
There’s a part of me — a very strong part of me — that feels that that peer-to-peer illegal downloading – and this is my own personal view – is just a more complete, or sophisticated version, of what we did in the 80s,which was home taping.
Maybe that’s a bit naive, but I still believe that people … if they actually get into your music, that’s a huge thing.
What we used to do is, classicly, you know, someone would buy the album — and it was when this whole home taping is killing music, the skull and crossbones stuff which we all laughed at because we were listening to lots of music and if we really liked it we went out and bought the album.
[...] I think what happens [today] is very similar, that peer-to-peer illegal file sharing happens and if they really like it, some of them might go and buy the records, might buy the CD …
So is file sharing devastating the music industry, as it claims?
O’Brien doesn’t believe that’s the case.
“I have a problem when people in the industry say ‘it’s killing the industry, it’s the thing that’s ripping us apart’,” he says.
“I don’t actually believe it is … [file sharers] might not buy an album, but they’re spending their money buying concert tickets, a T-shirt, whatever.”
Selling music in the 21st digital century
To go forward, he says there absolutely must be more websites selling more music.
“It’s got to happen,” he says emphatically, continuing >>>
You’ve got to make it slightly cheaper as well to get music, in order to compete with the peer-to-peers. But more people are consuming more music than ever before.
The web is a very utilitarian way of getting music. It’s deeply unsexy.
The Richard Branson of nowadays would be able to license and set up a really amazing website for like 14-to-24-year-olds that deals with their music, music that they want, and that has really good content.
I mean it’s all about content on the web.
It’s about the personal touch and doing something really, really innovative …
And make it really easy for people to buy music, “and cheap,” he declares, because “a lot of 14-year-olds to 16-year-olds, whatever, 17-year-olds, don’t have credit cards.
“So how are they going to get music digitally?
“We haven’t addressed this. These are very, very very basic issues and I find it staggering that the industry seems to be really dragging its heels on this.”
This is “stuff you could do in one week,” says O’Brien, adding, “Move quicker. And that’s been the whole problem over the last 10 years.
“Why we are here now is because the recording industry dragged its feet over digital.”
But, Ed, it’s not only the recording industry.
While your fellow FAC board members prevaricate, the corporate music industry is driving its wedge ever more deeply between you and the fans you admit you can’t do without.
It’s simple.
If they win, you lose.
Jon Newton
[PS - For anyone who's interested, I posted a different version of this on p2pnet.net. With additional material, it's posted as an open letter to Ed.]
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
It’s amazing to me how somebody can say this:
“I don’t actually believe it is … [file sharers] might not buy an album, but they’re spending their money buying concert tickets, a T-shirt, whatever.”
And then think that the way to move forward is more digital stores. No, folks. Digital sales are great right now, but they’ve already started to decline. We need to move beyond the industry-sponsored idea that “selling music” is equivalent to “selling recordings of music,” and realize that what artists offer is far more personal than that.
Set up the stores by all means, but realize that even those places are not selling the recordings, but the convenience. Identifying what you are really selling is key to building an adaptable business model that doesn’t need artificial government monopolies to survive.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:55 pm
that’s all fine for artists/bands. But, what happens to composers and songwriters? They aren’t likely to have gigs and t-shirts to sell and it’s not their job to ‘personalise’. They simply build the houses for a lot of these artists… the artist’s make it the ‘home’. so, how do they cope? In the music business, nearly every record label that has ever had any glint of success has realised that the real estate in music is ‘the song, the song, the song’. Just like ‘location, location, location’. I completely agree with Ed Obrien on all his points that pertain to artists, but, for songwriter’s and composers it isn’t as straight forward. There is an identity. Performing artists (some of the greatest) haven’t been songwriters. And many composers and songwriters simply don’t have the public appeal. I guess what you are saying is that we would be creating and ‘elite’ of artists who could afford to pay songwriters in the new digital future?
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
They make a contract with whatever band they are writing songs for. If they wish to sell their songs for a lump sum, that’s their business. If instead, they wish to trade their songs for a % of the bands profits on whatever songs the band uses, there is nothing in contract law that forbids this, and copyright is not required. You keep acting like songwriters would starve without copyright, but there is no reason they couldn’t make the same or more money from a business contract as described above where they got a % of the bands profits.
You keep claiming no one “understands” how copyright works, well if it’s so complicated no one understands it then that’s a problem too.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:59 pm
“…what happens to composers and songwriters?”
[scratches head]
I’d venture a guess there would have to be appropriate deals with the performers who would directly make money from their creations. Something writers should have already been doing, when I think about it.
What exactly am I missing?
January 24th, 2010 at 10:36 am
It’s all economics. Without the copyright as a songwriters potential “security blanket” or “pension” there becomes a greater demand placed on the product. Therefore the better the song/songwriter the more weight there is in total cost to have them work for an artist. This is common among both artists and songwriters. Al forms of musical entertainment will become more relateable to a real-time busines venture. By ownign a company that provides a service you earn in a real time basis for services rendred. The smart business person will invest a portion of that earning into their future, including your “pesion”. Instead of relying on the cough out from royalties keep building your protfolio and invest your money. A plumber won’t make any extra funds off of a job he did 10 years ago that is still used every single day in a public washroom. Musicians, entertainers and content creators need to learn how to act as a business. Cut out the middle men as much as possible and earn real time funds building on the long term career possibilities. Make informed and educated investments to get your money working for you after you earn it!
January 24th, 2010 at 10:48 am
we’re supposed to believe that it is somehow impossible to writers and others to craft their own deals, or that we’re too simple to grasp the complex problems of the current copyright privileged. I’m not sure which is more insulting. It all boils down to the same attempts to justify the laws they want to promote.
January 24th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I believe that songwriters can do deals with artists. But, realistically, I think it would always need to be a percentage based deal (based on sales or whatever) simply because of the speculative nature. If an artist buys a song upfront from a songwriter, the song could just sit there and not go anywhere because the recordings didn’t work out or artist decides that they don’t want to use the song, (or whatever). The problem with songs is that nobody knows what the ‘value’ is. You could write a song for an artist and it could end up being the main reason why people wanted to buy their music, it could be all over radio and in adverts and movies or you could write a song and it could just sit for a long while and do nothing. A song can suffer because it didn’t have the budget for a big orchestra or didn’t have the right vocalist to carry it off. etc. This is the main reason why songwriter’s have worked on ’spec’ unless they are working with the ‘elite’ who can afford a hefty ‘buy-out’ and have a proven track record.
January 24th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
That makes no sense.
Songwriters always have been and always will be the ones who can determine the value of their creations, and put the price on them, along with whatever licensing/royalty demands and stipulations they want, before releasing anything.
If “spec” isn’t doing it for them, I would have to ask why they even go that way.
Value is only an unknown when you’re depending on someone else to assess it. (Appears to be another residual effect of the old model. Some pre-arranged contractual obligation, maybe?)
January 24th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
@DA, you may be able to put a ‘price’ on anything, but, if it’s about a ‘one off’ sale (as per the Crosbie model) how is it really determined? Spec actually does work pretty well. It’s also part of the ‘use it or lose it’ approach. (which I agree wholeheartedly with). Value is usually dependent upon the market. Clearly, the market is distorted at the moment (would you not say?) “Some pre-arranged contractual obligation” is exactly what all ‘deals’ are based upon. I simply think that if I write a song and an artist says, “I’d like to give that song a go and try it out.” They tell me what their marketing plan is. Let’s say I’ve written a relatively accessible retro-jazz tune that has some hooks that I think Artist B can pull off. Let’s say he/she isnt’ an ‘established’ act, but, I pitch this song to them because I think it could realy work well. Should I ask that artist for 10k upfront? or would I rather say, try the tune out and send me the recording and let’s do a percentage based deal because neither of us know whether it’s going to work out, but, we’re both willing to speculate on the chance that it could? It’s more of an ‘investment’. I can do the same thing with a new start-up. I might say, ok, I think your product is great so Im willing to invest X dollars in exchange for a percentage return. I wouldn’t call that an ‘old’ model, it’s simply a more mutually beneficial model. (IMO)
January 24th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
@Indiana
No one is saying a songwriter can’t do a % based deal with a band, I don’t think even Crosbie said that can’t be done. As I pointed out, and you seem to agree with in your last post is that this can be handled under contract law, copyright isn’t necessary. I think a lot of bands may even prefer that deal, as you mentioned they may not be able to afford 10k or whatever, but can afford a % deal. Perhaps, at least on this topic there is less disagreement than people think?
January 24th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
” No one is saying a songwriter can’t do a % based deal with a band, I don’t think even Crosbie said that can’t be done. As I pointed out, and you seem to agree with in your last post is that this can be handled under contract law, copyright isn’t necessary. I think a lot of bands may even prefer that deal, as you mentioned they may not be able to afford 10k or whatever, but can afford a % deal. Perhaps, at least on this topic there is less disagreement than people think? ”
I think that the last sentence is more likely true than not.
January 25th, 2010 at 1:11 am
@Indiana:
It all comes down to what Crosbie said initially…
You ask yourself how much you want, or can reasonable expect from your creation, put a price tag on it, and release it when you accumulate that price, either from a “one-off” purchase (which would be just wonderful if/when it can happen) or from a “collective” purchase where multiple contributors each pitch in a fraction.
There can still be other “expectations” placed on the use of the creation, that would be included in the purchase agreement. What those are would be a matter of the creators’ preference.
No copyright needed. No new laws. No changes to existing laws. No need to interfere with the Internet.
All that’s needed is to determine where your market actually exists, and direct your efforts toward it. This part, I’ll admit, would seem to be the most intimidating, but I strongly believe once that hump is conquered, you have something.
January 25th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
In any free market where goods or services are exchanged there are two parties who place value on things: the potential sellers and the potential buyers – those who have something and want to exchange it for something else, and all those who have something else and would consider exchanging it for that something. Usually, the ’something else’ is simply money. As an intermediate object for exchange it makes commerce far easier, but it needs only to be a commodity with a stable, widely held value, e.g. salt, beads, chips, gold, or bank notes. This can then be used by buyers and sellers to reckon and express their value of anything else.
In terms of the free market exchange of art the two parties who place value on it are the artists who expend work in producing it and those (fans) who want it and will exchange their money (obtained from their work) for it.
So, we may have an artist who reckons their latest work has a market value of $11,000 and a thousand of their fans who reckon their value of its production and publication at $9 – constituting a market value of $9,000.
Here are three things that can happen for an exchange to occur:
1) The artist and/or fans haggle (adjusting their offers) until equity is agreed, e.g. $10,000 and $10 each.
2) Both sides further promote the artist and their work, causing an increase in fans.
3) Either party becomes impatient and concedes to accept the other’s offer.
This of course assumes the fans all pay an equal share of the price they agreed with the artist. Some fans could offer a sweetener on top of an equal share, but we might as well keep things simple for now.
Anyway, at some point, in a free market, the amount of money offered by fans for an artist’s work is agreed by the artist as equal to the amount they are prepared to accept in exchange for publishing it. In other words both artist and fans agree the monetary value of the work.
The artist’s delivery of their art and the fan’s delivery of their money in exchange need not all occur in perfect synchrony. All that has to be sorted out at some point is the exchange agreement, or contract if you prefer.
On the subject of contracts it is important to recognise that they are agreements to exchange what can be exchanged (and the agreement may stipulate conditions). A contract cannot alienate a person from their natural rights (a priori inalienable). So a person cannot sell their liver just as they cannot sell themselves into forced labour, just as they cannot sell their right to free speech.
A contract cannot involve a person surrendering their liberty to make copies (even today). Only the (unnatural) privilege of copyright can attempt to do this (unethically) because it is legislated and enforced by the power of the state. As we see today, millions of people are ignoring copyright’s suspension of their natural liberty and right to copy each other’s published works. So it must be borne in mind that contract is not able to do what copyright cannot. Even if a thousand fans contract to exchange $10,000 for the artist’s work they still cannot as a part of the contract surrender their liberty to copy it (nor anyone else’s). Such liberty is only suspended by copyright – and not very effectively. It would be like specifying that the artist could only spend the money they’d received from the fans on carbon neutral products and services.
Therefore contracts concerning the exchange of art cannot specify royalties on sale of copies – without the existence and enforcement of copyright.
This is because people are naturally at liberty to copy what they can access (without violating anyone’s privacy). Even so, there’s nothing to stop a songwriter and singer forming a company and agreeing shares in proportion to the mutually agreed estimations of the contribution the writer’s song and the singer’s performance will make when it comes to the company selling the recording of the song to the fans of both. However, once the recording has been sold neither company, songwriter nor singer can prosecute or charge anyone who receives it for playing it, covering it, or copying it (whether they are paid to do so or not). Such unnatural power is only pretended by copyright.
The better the songs, the better the singing, the more fans are attracted, the more money is made on subsequent sales of new songs and/or new recordings. Individuals can agree percentage shares of sales, but only copyright has the power to command royalties on use. That said, there’s nothing stopping the owner of a diner rewarding the artists of tracks played on a jukebox in proportion to the number of plays – by way of incentivising artists to write more popular tracks. The diner and its clientele is interested in popular music, and has plenty of motive to commission artists to produce popular music.
The difference between a commission and a royalty is that a commission is voluntary whereas a royalty is enforced by law (the king).
Commission: “We will pay you $ each time we play your music, though we don’t have to”
Royalty: “If you copy/play my music you must pay me $ or I prosecute”
And of course, if a singer/songwriter duo have agreed a 40:60 split in shares, then when the diner owner disburses the accumulated takings from the jukebox to the artists’ company, they receive their dues in proportion. But, again, the company represents an agreed partnership for a joint venture, not a set of manacles that each can coerce the other with.
When you go about doing business with people who want to do business with you (your fans, or your favourite artist) then you don’t treat them as people to be coerced, threatened, or have money forcibly extracted. It’s all about having the liberty to make an agreement as to what is an equitable exchange, and then to make that exchange of one’s own volition.
If no-one wants to exchange their money for your music you either need to improve your product or your marketing. Suspending people’s liberty to make copies or taxing them if they do may appeal to the unscrupulous, but it does not appeal to you.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:59 am
doing a percentage deal with an artist (as a songwriter) is called a ‘royalty’. Royalties are simply payments made by one party (the “licensee”) to another (the “licensor”) based upon usage. A royalty-free license is called a ‘buy-out’. Whether or not the law would protect this or not via ‘copyright’ or not isn’t the issue (IMO) In my opinion, asking an artist to pay for a song upfront, in many cases, simply isn’t practical for the artist. I’m confused as to what this has to do with ’suspending’ people’s liberty or some kind of ‘manacles’. If someone doesn’t pay their agreed ‘commission’ many people would prosecute as well. If you work in sales and the company you work for doesn’t pay you the commission that you are due on the sales you made, you would probably take that company to court. If you use electricity or gas and you don’t pay for that service, the electric company will probably take you to court. Fundamentally, whether or not an agreement is held up under contract law or via copyright law doesn’t matter. People still sue each other under both because fundamentally, they both represent ‘agreements’. I don’t think that most artists, bands or even songwriters are in the business of ‘coercing’ or ‘threatening’ their fans. In fact, I don’t know any artists who have done that or supported that up until recently (e.g. the FAC) . In my opinion, however, companies who generate revenues based upon the use of music (e.g. TV, radio, websites etc. who directly use music & other media to generate revenue & traffic) should license that music for use.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:58 am
@Indianna
There is a huge difference between copyright and contract law. Copyright is a federal mandate, granted automatically. You have to specifically declare you work is NOT under copyright for it not to apply. A contract is a voluntary agreement between two or more parties , it is NOT federally mandated and NOT granted automatically.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Indiana [14],
I can do a deal with you that if you sell my car for me I’ll let you have a 10% commission. That is not a royalty. It doesn’t involve a royal prerogative. No-one’s liberty needs to be suspended. It’s an agreement, a contract that we must both agree.
I can also say that if I sell my car I’ll pay you 10% toward a commission for your next performance. However, that’s not a contract (doesn’t involve your agreement), but a promise or pledge – and so if I sell my car and don’t pay you 10% you have no legal recourse (nor should you).
Copyright is not an agreement, but a privilege that suspends the individual’s natural liberty and right to copy covered works. That’s why it’s call copyright. The right is legally suspended and granted as a privilege of the holder.
If copyright was an agreement I’d be able to say “I don’t agree” and enjoy my liberty to copy my CD collection, but as you should know, it is not an agreement (unless you mean the ‘agreement’ of the Stationer’s Guild and Queen Anne in 1709 to enact it – much like ACTA is an ‘agreement’ today).
So, without copyright there are no royalties. However, composers, singers, and songwriters can still do deals to split the revenue their combined work sells for in a free market, in whatever percentages they fancy. Moreover, I propose to you that it is better splitting 100% of revenue direct from fans than the 1% that remains after the label and the rest of the value chain have taken 99%. So, choose between 100% of copyleft revenue vs 1% of copyright revenue, and don’t forget the latter involves suing or taxing your fans.