“Increasingly, the mood of the zeitgeist is that rights owners are wasting their money by trying to control file-sharing. They are neither succeeding in their efforts nor acting with fiduciary responsibility to the content originators whom they are failing to recompense properly. Their vain efforts at control are merely Canute like attempts to maintain an anachronism of a business model.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. But I didn’t.
The words are Jeremy Silver’s, former acting chairman of the Featured Artists Coalition which, it states, “campaigns for the protection of performers’ and musicians’ rights”.
Does that mean FAC has finally seen the light — that it has done, or is about to do, another reversal on its file sharing policy?
Sadly, not even nearly. It’s still rooting for Mandy Mandelson’s Three Strikes law.
During the historic FAC meeting at Air Studios in London, late last year, Lily Allen’s, “intervention highlighted the conflicted feelings of many musicians and artists,” said Silver, going on:
“On the one hand they recognise the incredible potential and value of the net — on the other hand they can’t feel entirely comfortable knowing that their ability to make a living from their own creativity is being reduced by the actions of millions of people who consume without valuing their work — because they can.”
Having previously panned it, the FAC ended up endorsing, “The new proposal from Lord Peter Mandelson for the UK to adopt a policy of broadband account suspension to be applied to the heaviest sharers, the now famous ‘egregious offenders’.”
It said in an official FAC statement >>>
Our meeting … 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.
Now, “The Digital Economy Bill that is wending its glacial way through the UK parliament has produced an interesting row between the BPI (representing the interests of the major record labels) and the ISPs, telco’s and mobile network operators”, says Silver in a FAC post. “They are arguing over who should pay how much to fund remedial measures to clamp down on illegal file-sharing”, he says, noting:
“The BPI is in a tough place since the cheaper they argue the cost will be, the more the ISPs respond by saying ‘well then you can pay for it.’ Minister Stephen Timms recently suggested the split should be 75/25 (with the BPI paying the greater amount).”
Silver continues >>>
The chorus demanding collective licensing of recording rights is growing ever louder. The argument is very simple, instead of spending money trying to stop file-sharing, simply agree to monetise all the activity that is out there by licensing it, making it legal and charging for it. Essentially, this would create a baseline of revenue through a flat rate subscription which would legalise and remunerate the flow of music around the networks.
The first point in the argument is that a small levy of say £3 per month per subscriber to every UK ISP would generate more than the current £1bn that the recorded music industry earns at dealer price today. It’s of course a moot point and hard to argue without a) trying out a version of it somewhere small and harmless and b) seeking the active cooperation of the ISPs in trying to envisage how it might work.
The second point is that we could build added value services on top of the baseline revenues. Services like recommendation and discovery engines, market/user analysis and data-crunching, ticket sales and gig guides, digital bundling with physical products, quality of service – higher speed delivery solutions, etc, etc. What’s not to like? And what’s not to recognise – when all of these kinds of products and services are already being offered by up-and-coming businesses out there online.
One objection from the majors to this, of course, is that these kinds of businesses are not owned or controlled by them and they are all broadly based on the presumption of access to all content – not on the nurturing and distribution of some sub-segment of it. It’s true of course that innovation comes from elsewhere. They don’t own or control these new kinds of companies – although as we’ve seen very publicly with Spotify – the majors do take a stake if the market-entrant foolish enough to seek to jump over the licensing hurdle. The cost of jumping is very high – in cash and in equity. If we can’t continue to feed our old business model, the majors argue, how will we nurture and develop new talent? We invest in talent for the UK and make it internationally successful and these new ideas do not support that model, they protest.
The problem is that they are spending a lot of money defending the old model and it’s hard to find evidence of a single major record company investing in new ways of nurturing talent or developing artists careers online or offline. The nature of the recording contract has not fundamentally changed in fifty years – it has simply evolved recently to try to encompass even broader areas of an artist’s creative output.
So what might be the total added value of all these kinds of new services which live on top of the content? Nobody knows, but clearly the opportunity is very significant. In fact it is so great that, in my view, it exceeds the value of the entire recorded music and live industries put together. After all, it represents what the architecture of the new digital content industry will look like.
If we can shift from compulsory control (which has failed) to compulsory remuneration (which is highly feasible) then we can allow file-sharers to go crazy in consumption and we can all make money.
Independent labels (like Beggars Banquet and other smaller labels) are increasingly seeing the economic arguments in favour of the new model. The Zelnick report just published in France has recommended it. The UK Music Manager Forum has been calling for it for nearly a year. The UK music industry group called the Value Recognition Strategy group has been planning to trial a version of this on the Isle of Man for about eighteen months, but the major labels and the music publishers have prevented it. Universal music themselves proposed a form of collective license for unlimited downloads to the Virgin Media group for their music service and this has not launched due to the objections of the other major labels.
Running out ahead of the crowd, a group of thinkers with a great deal of experience and insight into digital media has been proposing this for some time. Myself, Pete Jenner, Gerd Leonhard, Paul Sanders, Paul Hitchman, Matthew Brown and occasionally our cousin Jim Griffin in the US have been meeting for about five years to develop the thinking around this. But we have often felt ourselves to be in the wilderness. Jim has been trying to work through the issues with his Choruss group courtesy of Warner Music in the US but his proposed trials on US university campuses have yet to launch – hopefully we will see some action this year. Meanwhile, the UK Government’s Digital Britain programme has spawned Digital Test Beds which are being managed by the Technology Strategy Board and which may become precisely the kind of platform that could help try out some of these new models in a relatively risk free fashion – and with some public subsidy – how enlightened is that?
[ Jim Griffin, eh? Actually, it's not 'courtesy of': it's for, and on behalf, of. Choruss is Warner Music's failing effort to scam American universities into taking on a licensing scheme described by TechDirt's Mike Masnick as a 'bait and switch' operation. Jon]
Of course all sorts of issues remain unresolved, desperately in need of further practical examination. It’s only when you try things out in the real world that interested unexpected questions surface and can start to be resolved. If a collective license were compulsory how could artists protect their moral rights? On what kinds of grounds would it be legitimate for an artist to refuse permission for their work to be used? It is perhaps not well understood or recognised, but today’s songwriters, lyricists and composers enjoy the fruits of a compulsory license by law. But should the law be reviewed for other matters? What is the relationship between the statutory license fee and the contractual sums agreed between artists and publishers? How do we balance the economic needs of creators against the creative competition of the market place?
Perhaps artists should be arguing for statutory minimum royalties for any contract – over and above which publishers could offer premiums according to the status and value potential of the artist? What kinds of new agency should we establish that could collect and administer royalties appropriately and with the lightest touch enabled by technology? How could we group rights together using their meta-data tags so that they can be handled with the maximum efficiency and rights owners can get paid in real time – not with the kind of 15% overhead charge and six month delays that are the norm among current collecting agencies?
Silver adds:
“The Digital Economy Bill has not helped any of these discussions surface. It has sought to listen to the high cost lobbying efforts of the incumbents and paid little attention to long view policy proposals. It has found political expediency in the short termism of the big business driven by quarterly results rather than really trying to place the country’s long term benefit at the forefront of its objectives.”
The pretentiously titled “Air Statement”
So what of the FAC decision to back Mandelson’s version of the corporate entertainment industry’s Three Strikes law?
Having initially said they were against it , they did a total about face.
Said FAC member Akira The Don not long afterwards >>>
So, there you have it. With that pretentiously titled “Air Statement” The FAC have announced that they are taking the Metallica route. They have revealed themselves to be greedy, backward, vindictive crybabies. So fuck them. Who wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with Adriano Buffone from Raygun and Timothy Rice-Oxley from Keane anyway? Are they going to personally sign the “warning letters”? “Dear naughty filesharer, I want more port, no more broadband for you, yours Timothy Rice-Cuntly, Oxford.” Come friendly bombs and blow these sad fucks to smithereens! I was not joking when I said that!
I mean. Really. “A three-strike sanction”? Who’d you pricks think you are, Rudy Gulliani? Rockefeller laws for file sharers? Are you fucking insane? Damn! You foolish, foolish people! These are not the seventies! Things are different now! Time has marched on and left you behind! You are dead meat! The wind changed, and you got stuck making a really stupid face! I feel sorry for you, but swear down, I will not have anything to do with you. (Goddamnit, there’s a photo of me looking celebratory on their homepage. I am embarrassed)
So goodbye FAC. Groucho was right, and I have learned my lesson.
In his new FAC post, Silver winds up:
“Perhaps the time is right to turn to Brussels for hope in this area with its broader perspective and more radical agenda — despite the bureaucracy and opacity of process — maybe change can be effected across all of Europe?”
a2f2a.com
My friend Billy Bragg is one of the FAC board members who voted for the Three Strikes measure. Later, he and I started a2f2a.com under the premise artists bneed to be paid, and fans want to pay them.
Billy recently decided he’d had enough of the way things were going and quit. I was, and am, sorry to see him vanish into the sunset. But you gotta do what you gotta do.
I, however, think things are really starting to come together on a2f2a, and I still believe in its goals to:
- Help each community better understand the other;
- Help find a practical and workable system which offers artists fair remuneration in exchange for access to material by fans; and
- Help set the agenda for discussions about the role P2P can play within the emergent digital record industry.
So a2f2a.com is still online and with that in mind, I recently posted a2f2a Massive Monster Mash
It’s going to take a huge amount of work and effort, but it can be done.
And, Jacqui, you’re right. It will take a while to put together. 
Cheers! And all the best. And stay tuned …
Jon Newton
February 25th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I’ve come across Jim Griffin on Pho. I think I’ve bumped into Paul Sanders (at least exchanged the odd word on the ORG list). I’ve argued at length with Billy Bragg here, and I’ve had lunch with Gerd Leonhard. I don’t share quite the same hymnbook as Mike Masnick, but at least we both agree that an Internet tax is a fricking stupid idea – albeit very lucrative to those few canny enough to be in the right place at the right time.
The depressing thing about a tax is that it appeals to far too many people. Heck, even copyright appeals to far too many people – people who will never be rich enough to afford a lawyer to sue anyone for infringing it.
If artists and fans cannot demonstrate they can do business with each other directly, then an Internet tax is inevitable.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:38 am
@ Crosbie
“If artists and fans cannot demonstrate they can do business with each other directly, then an Internet tax is inevitable.”
Completely agree 100%.
We quote you from Techdirt:
“So tomorrow’s musician no longer hires a record company to sell copies for them, instead they sell a recording directly to their fans. The market for copies has ended.”
Completely agree 100%.
Now the dust has settled on the final stages of the debate with the FAC / Billy Bragg version of reality, we would like to ask your advice.
In the recent argument with Billy about wether Jon had failed to get support from his readers – we “think” it was agreed that there is a difference between say bloggers, writers etc and musicians. They both have the same inherent scarcity in their work prior to it being made public, but a band has the potential to find more RtB once they have found their fans due to the fact that they are – in a lot of cases not all – not only writers but performers as well. Music fans like to see and meet their favourite musicians, this “may” not be true for all writers, we have of course been to our fair share of book signings. This area for a band is a great scarcity and therefore potentially lucrative.
If you accept that for some bands playing live can be THE best way to really CwF in a deep and lasting way – and this is our experience – in much the same way we return to a favourite blog/site because it gives us insight and ideas (value). Would you agree that a band that remains independent of labels has far greater personal overheads in the creation of the performance part of their art – than say a blog writer who is similar to those who choose only to record at home and use the internet to distribute their work?
EG: Van, roadcrew, equipment, petrol, upfront merch costs, advertising, accomodation, payment of backing musicians (not relevant to us we don’t even have a drummer to keep costs down) etc. We are not including food, household bills, time, and or effort because we all share those in our creative endeavours.
Jon wants to draw attention to the ideas many of us share, to one degree or another, and he has correctly in our opinion seen that an IRL event might better CwF and spread the word. Taking Jon as an example of someone entering the live arena, do you have any tips on how to turn “virtual” interest in an event into IRL interest?
The obvious answer is of course advertise and sell tickets. But who do we sell those tickets to? (and personally we think the first event should be free). If you think the artists will supply some of the fans, where did those fans come from? As stated we agree with “instead they sell a recording directly to their fans” but that pre-supposes the fans exist. Mike Masnick’s doesn’t/can’t rely on NIN to support the CwF + RtB – because of their existing fan base gained by their long time involvement with record labels marketing budgets – which is not relevant to emerging/independent artists.
We just sent Jon a very detailed breakdown of what the “Monster Mash” would involve, costs, time, planning etc and he seems to agree that it will take longer than he first thought.
So the advice we seek is this. We all talk about “artists” and “fans” on here all the time. If we can accept that some “artists” have found the “fans” they have by going out and finding them IRL – how does a “start up” event like the “Monster Mash” or a new band get off the ground without naysayers like Billy etc thinking CwF RtB means “Cash We Find = Rob The Bank”
So we, and Jon too possibly, would like your input and ideas on this. No theory, practical if possible. (Not donations – although that would be nice).
February 26th, 2010 at 7:37 am
@ Jacqui (and Crosbie
):
“personally we think the first event should be free”.
Me too. And as I told my wife, Liz, and daughter, Emma, yesterday, I’m going to devote my Sundays to making it happen.
Emma, 13, is a hard-core music fan. Last year she and her friends went to a Warped Tour concert in Vancouver.
I start work at 3:00 – 3:30 am every morning and while I was in bed last night she found the organisers of the tour, thinking they might be able to help. Could be. Who knows?
But the point is — Emma didn’t think Monster Mash ‘might’ be possible for even a second. She took that for granted and started looking for ways to make it work.
With my daughter as an example, I feel the same way.
Cheers!
February 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Jacqui, it’s good to hear from someone interested in the prospects instead of from someone terrified of them.
Firstly, I’d emphasise that CwF+RtB is rather a holistic approach to business and you’re better off consulting with Mike on it. It’s a pragmatic and copyright-agnostic philosophy, whereas my MfA+LfP (Money for art, Liberty for people) philosophy is natural rights based (the privilege of copyright being anathema). I am also focused quite specifically on the mechanism by which artists can exchange their art (they would sell) for the money of their fans (who would buy it). So, I’m not going to be the best person to help you ‘connect with fans’ or give them a ‘reason to buy’. The matter of exchange comes after those first two things have been achieved. In a way you could create one long formula: CwF+RtB+MfA+LfP
Of course different kinds of art involve different skills, different equipment, and different mediums, and so it’s quite likely that different kinds of art will involve different costs. That is also likely to be reflected in the market price of the art and the market price of copies. We also shouldn’t forget that there is also a difference in terms of the value of the material vs the intellectual aspect of a work of art. A digital music recording has near zero value in terms of the medium, whereas the medium of a sculpture or copy is vital to the art’s value (few care for a 3D scan or CAD/CAM file).
That said, digital artists can also have considerable costs, even if digital copies can be made and shared for nothing by their audience.
In terms of generating popular interest, I’d suggest something like franchising (see Dogme 95 ). Set out a simple set of rules for the event (like a warehouse rave say), and then encourage everyone else to do them on their own. Perhaps have an annual ‘best of’ or umbrella super-event which could be the ‘Monster Mash’. So the smaller events happen in pubs, clubs, discos, warehouses, fields, etc. and that buzz then provides promotion for the super event.
Here’s a quick draft of what you could do:
Mini-Mash (or mini-monster-mash)
“”"”"”"”"
1) Free speech, but not free beer
2) The organiser and/or venue:
a) Supervises the event, performers and their line-up, and all admission charges.
b) Controls admission and can charge on the door or sell tickets in advance (touts & scalpers welcome).
c) Controls location of audience and any items or equipment not easily portable by a single person.
d) Clearly publishes the disbursal policy of all revenue in advance, and the actual disbursal afterwards.
3) Advertising/sponsorship/merchandise is acceptable if it does not noticeably devalue the event or experience (hostile trademarking* is forbidden). A mini-mash without can be called a ‘pure mini-mash’.
4) The performance, all recordings, and copies thereof must be copyleft – free to copy, remix, distribute, broadcast, sell, perform, etc. NB This does NOT mean ‘must be surrendered or given away free of charge’.
5) Anyone is free to make and sell their own recordings, merchandise, even copies of copies they bought on the day – however, only on condition it is copyleft. That means merchandise such as t-shirts must also be copyleft.
6) No non-copyleft performance, recording or broadcast is permitted (even by the organiser/venue).
* The tactic of advertisers/sponsors/merchandisers polluting an event with their trademarks in order to commercially exploit unfair constraint over promotion, coverage, or recording (and use thereof) of the event. Compare with the Olympics.
The Monster Mash adheres to the same rules, but is simply a much larger event.
What’s the point of it? To start the snowball of a free market in music rolling, the idea that no-one, artist or fan, should ever be sued, disconnected, or prosecuted as a result of sharing music or singing a song, mixing it, making it, or selling it. This is the end of cultural prohibition, and the restoration of cultural liberty.
What’s the benefit? Promotion. Each act can be virally promoted (if good) because everyone is free to promote them (fans and broadcasters alike). Broadcasters are encouraged to sponsor. Each event promotes the next. The more popular, the higher the ticket price.
Like an artist’s music, the early stuff can be free, but they’ve got to make a living at some point. Free as in free speech doesn’t mean your art should be free as in free beer. The same applies to monster mashes. The point is to demonstrate how artists can be paid for their performances even though their fans can freely copy the recordings they buy of them. It’s not to try and achieve the impossible: ‘how to perform for nothing and survive’.
A viable business model means exchanging art for money (at some point), not giving it away and praying (for donations).
Artists are not charity cases, so let’s give them some business.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
@ Jon.
We are totally behind you on this and we really appreciate Emma’s enthusiasm, if you can’t be like that at 13, then when can you?
However the Warped tour is a Major Label backed event, one of the sponsors in the USA is Fearless Records which is a part of the Warner Music Group. Another sponsor is Rise Records whose label boss Craig Erickson had this to say on their ‘Labelsfordummies’page:
Quote:
With the condition of the music industry these days due to pirating, Rise realizes they can’t make enough money to survive just off CDs alone anymore. They are constantly exploring other routes to make revenue which has proved to be beneficial thus far. For example, the label recently started co-publishing deals with their artists in which they help get their bands’ music on television and in movies, and therefore receive part of the revenue. As for merchandising profits, these are also split fairly between the band and the label. Rise feels like they rightly deserve this money for their hard efforts they put into supporting their artists. End Quote.
http://labelsfordummies.blogspot.com/2009/04/rise-records.html
As an aside the practice of labels now taking part of a bands merch’ revenue is often called a 360 deal, and this move is blamed squarely on falling CD sales piracy etc etc. It is just a way for them to get their grubby mitts on more of a bands money. Nice!!
We can already see Crosbie cringing at the level of sponsorship and logo’s involved. And even though we are not as completely opposed to this in some ways – we must admit that this tour does look like and event for shoe salesmen.
We truly hope Emma proves us wrong, but we think that once they find out the kind of things you promote and are involved in – you will be as welcome as a fart in a space suit mate. If you are opposed to what they stand for, you can’t really expect them to help you.
And this brings us to another important point. These type of events are marketed as “Radical” – “Punkrock” “Alternative”, whatever, but they are in reality totally commercialised. If you want to be truly independent, then you need to stand alone, or with another group of “outsiders”. If these disparate groups of “outsiders” can’t find a way to agree and work together…..well.
So we all need to pull together.
@ Crosbie.
Thanks for taking the time to give such an in depth reply, we really appreciate it.
CwF:
Yeah we will get around to grilling Mike, if he is as open to questions as you are.
“CwF+RtB+MfA+LfP”
No problem with that at all.
“Of course different kinds of art involve different skills, different equipment, and different mediums, and so it’s quite likely that different kinds of art will involve different costs. That is also likely to be reflected in the market price of the art and the market price of copies. We also shouldn’t forget that there is also a difference in terms of the value of the material vs the intellectual aspect of a work of art. A digital music recording has near zero value in terms of the medium, whereas the medium of a sculpture or copy is vital to the art’s value (few care for a 3D scan or CAD/CAM file).”
We can understand how, say Dylan Thomas, might today be unable to sell copies of his poems – they could be distributed on the internet – but he (and this is why we chose him as an example) was also in his latter career a ‘performer’ of those poems. If he had started out performing them and built a following doing so he could certainly have used the “CwF+RtB+MfA+LfP” chain. But in those years when he was “building his following” he would have still had to survive – and we know how he did that because he chose the “deary me I’d rather be a poet anyday and live on guile and beer” route. He also for the most part achieved the “free” beer we seem to keep hearing about. Do you think that without a publisher (or label in a bands case) they need sponsors or patrons to survive the early period until they can reach critical mass in terms of income?
“In terms of generating popular interest, I’d suggest something like franchising”
That is an excellent idea, and Jon could certainly spread the word faster that way.
As for the outline for the “Mini MM” – lets see what Jon thinks.
“What’s the benefit? Promotion. Each act can be virally promoted (if good) because everyone is free to promote them (fans and broadcasters alike). Broadcasters are encouraged to sponsor. Each event promotes the next. The more popular, the higher the ticket price.”
Another good idea, which reinforces the notion that distributing things free is promotion and not just “giving them away”
“A viable business model means exchanging art for money (at some point), not giving it away and praying (for donations).”
Absoloutely!!
February 26th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@Crosbie:
Sounds like CwF+RtB to me.
Also see Ten Good Reasons to Buy.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
@ Jacqui:
This was way more about me being chuffed that Emma had taken the trouble to have a look, than anything else. But now I know. Thanks.
And having said that, UK connections would obviously be favourite anyway.
As for seeing what I think, for me, this is a wholly collaborative effort started to achieve something we all want to see, not a Jon thing. Hopefully, a lot of people here on a2f2a.com will get involved in one way or another, and equally hopefully (can you say that?
) we’ll all get to meet each other when the MM event happens. And that’ll be a blast.
Cheers!
February 26th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
@ Jon.
Yeah it would be cool to all meet up. And equally hopefully the free beers will be on Crosbie!
So after the Monster Mash we will all be saying CwF + RtB
= Crosbie was Fab – Replenishing the Beers
February 26th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
@ Jacqui:
Beer AND entertainment.
But wait! We get that already.
Also, a couple of people have asked me wtf is CwF + RtB
For them, http://techdirt.com/articles/20090719/2246525598.shtml
Cheers!
February 26th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Free is a good idea, but if you are planning a large venue it may be hard, as I’m sure almost everyone knows there are a lot of expenses involved. What I see as some of the requirements are:
* Venue – Generally speaking the bigger the place, the more $$, although an inexpensive or maybe free solution may be found if you could get a college to host it or (don’t laugh, they hosted woodstock on one), a farm.
* PA – again, bigger the venue, the more monstrous the PA will have to be. Can’t think of any way of getting around the expense of this
*security – you will want to hire a professional agency, bikers do NOT make great security people.
Of course that list is contingent on a LARGE venue. If the logistics of that can’t be worked out there is no reason things can’t be scaled down as necessary. If worse came to worse it could be held at a club; while not the ideal it would beat no show at all. Where ever it is held it needs to be live videocast over the web, so those unable to attend can still see it.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I have been saying for a while that if big music spent just half of the money and energy that they spend persecuting file-sharer on finding quality artists and building fan bases, they would have record profits every quarter.
As for file-sharing costing artists income. Artists have no reason to fear their fans. But record companies have a lot to fear when artists start standing up for their fans.
February 27th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
@ Jamillard
“As for file-sharing costing artists income. Artists have no reason to fear their fans. But record companies have a lot to fear when artists start standing up for their fans.”
Nice to see you here mate. Yeah totally agree with you about that.
@ Monkey D Luffy
“Free is a good idea, but if you are planning a large venue it may be hard, as I’m sure almost everyone knows there are a lot of expenses involved.”
If it is in the UK the cost of a large venue would be completely prohibitive, and without outside finance/funding it would be virtually impossible. Even if you find a “free” venue – that brings with it another set of problems where live music is concerned. As you point out:
“PA – again, bigger the venue, the more monstrous the PA will have to be. Can’t think of any way of getting around the expense of this”
“security – you will want to hire a professional agency, bikers do NOT make great security people.”
PA /sound engineers / advertising / expenses are all unavoidable. If you want to go down the professional security route then this will add considerably to the costs. Also if it is an event held at a farm/space not dedicated to music there will be a whole host of local authority issues, health and safety, noise etc. Unless MM is to go down the illegal “rave” avenue, in which case this would bring another set of problems. Paramount in most bands minds at an “illegal” event would be the confiscation of their equipment were the thing to go tits up!
Whilst Crosbie has some great ideas about Freedom and artists exchanging art with fans, unfortunatley the one slight problem for an artist or event organiser is the “risk” factor involved. We have chosen to tour (300 gigs and counting) and release our own music (4 albums and counting) and that was entirely at our own “risk”. If no one had responded when we CwF’s “live” then we, and only we, would have lost out. Henry Emrich pointed out on our original P2P “Rock Tsars” post:
“If anybody thinks the inability to gouge potential fans for the “privilege” of even knowing your stuff exists constitutes “doing something for nothing”, then they should just admit to being *solely* motivated by the (stunningly unlikely) prospect of stunning opulence and fame”.
We don’t think that – we have been able to connect with fans – and we explained why. But this highlights exactly why this event has to be free – for exactly the same reason music has to be freely available . We all want to spread the mesage of artists connecting directly with fans to prevent the internet tax Crosbie so rightly sees as the outcome if we fail. If the MM is going to to “gouge fans for the ‘priviledge’ of hearing this side of the arguement” that means SOMEONE will have to underwrite the cost of the event and its “content” – just like we had to do with our band when we were starting out – and again we stress that was our choice and no one owes us doodley squat.
Could anyone be pursauded to contribute upfront to financing this event? – they might or might not do so at subsequent franchised events if the first were successful – in much the same way that after our initial “risk” we have fans willing to support us upfront with recording and equipment costs. But to start a movement you need a prime-mover and something to build on.
I think so far we have reached the stage of agreement similar to the concensus on the “big bang” theory. A new universe with freedom for all, no copyright, no one is owed money, attention, fame, you can CwF’s and they will support you. But what we need to know is what happened before the big bang? Who makes the first move and puts their hand in their pocket? We did it for our art, who is going to do it for the MM?
Or is Jon going to have to shoulder this event and the expense involved as a “labour of love” – in much the same way we view our band along withour supporters who also “labour” with us for the love of our music and performances?.
To sum up:
A quote from a great movie ‘The Harder They Come’.
“You know, this is show ‘business’, Baby. No business, no show!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Harder_They_Come
Slight Return @ Monkey D Luffy
“If the logistics of that can’t be worked out there is no reason things can’t be scaled down as necessary. If worse came to worse it could be held at a club; while not the ideal it would beat no show at all. Where ever it is held it needs to be live videocast over the web, so those unable to attend can still see it.”
Even a small event will have some financial “risk” attached to it, so most of the above still holds true, just with a few less zeros attached.
We still think a smaller event is the best idea to start with. Yes it MUST be videocast, recorded and all the content made available copyleft for everyone to distribute.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
@ Jacqui:
“Or is Jon going to have to shoulder this event and the expense involved as a “labour of love” – in much the same way we view our band along withour supporters who also “labour” with us for the love of our music and performances?.”
No chance of me shouldering the expense. heh. But the labour part is OK.
I have a couple of things to get off my plate in the next few days before I can get down to anything. But I will. And for now, I’m paying attention.
Cheers!
March 1st, 2010 at 7:23 am
I think that as far as larger shows are concerned, “affordable” can be a good proxy for “free.” Few music enthusiasts are going to balk at paying a small ticket charge to help cover the costs of the venue.
However, this is also an argument for the smaller, more intimate shows previously mentioned. A venue like a coffee shop would likely enjoy having a band play because of the business it brings in. Perhaps arrangements can be worked out where the band plays and gets fans, the venue gets increased business traffic, and the audience connected with an awesome new band.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:10 pm
@ Steelwolf
“I think that as far as larger shows are concerned, “affordable” can be a good proxy for “free.” Few music enthusiasts are going to balk at paying a small ticket charge to help cover the costs of the venue.”
Unfortunatly we now live in a new “universe” post-big bang where a lot of potential new “music enthusiasts” will think that even clicking on a link to the event is more than it is “owed”. The likelihood of getting them to leave home, get on a bus and then getting them to pay to get into a venue might seem like asking for the deeds to their house.
The only valuable “content” the first event will have is the artists who can attract their existing fan base – which is theirs and theirs alone due to the pre-existing efforts they have made to connect with said fans. Those fans are the only ones guaranteed to part up with money, for something they already value.
“However, this is also an argument for the smaller, more intimate shows previously mentioned. A venue like a coffee shop would likely enjoy having a band play because of the business it brings in. Perhaps arrangements can be worked out where the band plays and gets fans, the venue gets increased business traffic, and the audience connected with an awesome new band.”
Agreed, but with the greatest respect, an event in a coffee shop is not really the FAC challenging event that will really “stick it to the man” that this cause needs.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:21 pm
SteelWolf took the words right out of my mouth. Logistically it’s just impossible to run a large venue show for free without a sponsor. As SteelWolf pointed out I don’t think there would be objection to a reasonable ticket fee, say $5 – $25? The big name rock stars are charging over $100 min, THAT’s gouging!
The coffee show idea was interesting, although a club that regularly hosts bands may be better, as a lot of clubs (In the U.S. northeast anyway ) have a house PA system, so the bands wouldn’t even have to pony up for that. A decent club should not charge bands, as they will make a LOT of money selling over priced drinks from the people the band(s) draw in. Unless all the clubs are insistent on a cover charge it may even be possible to pull it off for free.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:55 pm
How about this? Home-based mini concerts?
People in the UK are opening up their homes for cosy meals, restaurant style.
But maybe not. Copyrights even got mixed into that, if you can believe it – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/30226
Otherwise, I’m still up to my ears in stuff, but I should be clear within the next day or two. And I’m still paying attention.
Cheers!