Why is it the Brits have all the crazy-stupid ideas about how to screw up the music industry even more than it is already?
British musician Billy Bragg argues in the New York Times today that some portion of Bebo’s $850 million sale price should go to the musicians who uploaded their music to the site.
Note that Bragg neatly sidesteps the fact that music was uploaded to the site by artists (or their labels) themselves, with full knowledge that they would not receive payments of any kind (except free marketing, of course, and access to Bebo’s tens of millions of music loving users).
His argument is based on the notion that Bebo’s success was based on the availability of streaming music on the site: “The musicians who posted their work on Bebo.com are no different from investors in a start-up enterprise…Now that the business has reaped huge benefits, surely they deserve a dividend.”
Bragg also tries to take direct credit for Bebo’s success:
Mr. Birch has cited me as an influence in Bebo’s attitude toward artists. He got in touch two years ago after I took MySpace to task over its proprietary rights clause. I was concerned that the site was harvesting residual rights from original songs posted there by unsigned musicians. As a result of my complaints, MySpace changed its terms and conditions to state clearly that all rights to material appearing on the site remain with the originator.
A few weeks later, Mr. Birch came to see me at my home. He was hoping to expand his business by hosting music and wanted my advice on how to construct an artist-centered environment where musicians could post original songs without fear of losing control over their work. Following our talks, Mr. Birch told the press that he wanted Bebo to be a site that worked for artists and held their interests first and foremost.
Bragg does attempt to argue his case, primarily by (1) saying that social networks are as much to blame for declining music sales as the people who are downloading songs in violation of copyrights, and (2) saying that arguments that social networks are doing musicians a favor by marketing their music are “disingenuous.”
Both arguments have holes in them so large you could drive a BitTorrent stream through them.
Social networks have absolutely nothing to do with the decline in music sales. The fact that recorded music can be reproduced at a zero marginal cost is why music sales are declining. You can hate that or love that, but it’s simple economics that drives it.
And in fact the argument that social networks actually provide free marketing to artists is not disingenuous. In fact, it’s quite correct. Bragg notes that radio stations pay royalties for playing songs, even though they also obviously provide free marketing for artists.
His argument isn’t quite factually correct – In the U.S. royalties are paid by radio stations to song writers but not artists (it comes to about $450 million per year). In most of the rest of the world, though, artists are paid royalties. But a much more interesting analysis of the radio industry is the very strong desire for labels and musicians to pay them to play songs. Payola is now illegal, but the practice almost certainly continues. As recently as 2005, former New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer prosecuted payola-related crimes in his jurisdiction.
Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist. Websites that bring that music to listeners are doing artists a favor. In fact, they’re doing them a favor that they should (and will) be paid for. Young artists and songwriters in particular benefit from these services – Until a few years ago they had almost no way to break into the mainstream without getting a label to promote them. Now those walls are being torn down, and Bragg has the audacity to complain about it.
I think the main reason Bragg wrote this article is jealousy over the massive success of someone he once met – Bebo cofounder Michael Birch. The paragraphs quoted above where he takes credit for their business model reveal his angst in that regard. Bragg had absolutely nothing to do with Bebo’s $850 million payday. And everything else he wrote in that article is dead wrong, too.
what about those artist who can not arrange big concerts?
musicians should get money from recorder money, but its not going through prohibiting music download or drm. well, someone has to come up with a model for monetizing free music. but how?
why? Why MUST musicians make money off distribution? They didn’t before music could be recorded, why should they now. People seem to think it’s a law of the universe that musicians should be able to record a few songs, sit back and watch the cash roll in. “oh, but musicians can’t sell music any more because of downloading”. Well, too bad. The technological innovation of records allowed musicians to distribute their music on a physical medium and charge money for it. Now, the technological innovation of the internet cuts out the physical part of the distribution, hence there is nothing to charge for… They’re just pissed because the lost their cash cow. The party’s over people, get used to it.
of course people made money of music before it was able to be recorded- what do you think sheet music is?? and why do you think its called “copy”right because you are paying for the right to copy a piece- regardless of the format.
The physical reproduction of a CD is only a very small amount of the price of the overall product- artists should “sit back and watch the income flow in??” do you know how ridiculously hard it is to firstly get notice, secondly sell your own music (that you have put time and money into in order to create and record!)? and you think we dont deserve to get paid for that time and effort?
Im sure if you work for 8 hours on something then you would expect to be paid? Why should musicians be any different?
Interesting in reading this viewpoint after reading Nick Carr (http://www.roug...nwhile_back.php) .. was kind of surprised he wasn’t referenced somehow
It is easy to understand the frustration of Musicians and easy to empathize with their valid concerns.
The only problem is, should this policy extend to all creative outlets – such as YouTube, Flickr etc
These outlets exist to offer alternative ways for the common person to get massive publicity if their work is exceptional – without having to deal with the establishment.
surgery archive – well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.
if an artist can’t make a living playing concerts live, then he/she may want to think of it more as a hobby than a way to make a living.
Yes. That’s the heart of the matter. Is being an artist specializing in recorded music really something that should be a job or is there simply no real market for it? There’s money in super long tail aggregation but being a content creator in a super long tail means you need to make money somewhere else to make a living.
Arrington is right, only bloggers should make money. Not mucisians. Hobby should remain what it were.
You had me until this line “Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist.”
The fact of the matter is that recorded music is much more than marketing material, it is in fact product. Plain and simple. It is product that an musical artist can sell to generate revenue. This is especially true of smaller, lesser known artists who make money off everything they make: from recordings such as compact discs and Mp3s, to t-shirts and stickers, and even concerts.
If recorded music was nothing more than marketing material why even bother to sell it? I agree when it is a large artist with major label support, this statement would have a little more truth behind it. But to make a blanket statement like really does a dis-service to the smaller, more independent artists out there.
Artists under a record label get almost no money from their record, sales, they get publicity. the money for them comes from merchandise, concerts, etc. All things you can’t copy as easily.
this is why you’re seeing the record labels complain about pirating and such, the artists could care less, because the labels take the profits from the music, and use it to invest in new bands.
But, in a world where someone can be discovered just by posting a video or song they recorded themselves on the internet, there is no room for record companies any more.
you are actually seeing in the case of some bands, of them leaving their record company, and giving away their music on their websites, with a suggested donation asked for upon download. They are counting solely on concerts, and band merchandise to support them. And with out the record companies taking any of the money they earn, (they get almost all the profit from songs, and a good portion of the profits from things like concerts and merchandise) bands that do this are making more money than they ever have before.
It’s only a matter of time before the record industry collapses. they can’t prosecute the pirates fast enough, indie artists now have easy, and free access to publicity, and bands have incentive to leave there record labels to become indie again. only a mater of time.
Believe me, after being signed to both Sony AND Warner Bros., and touring for almost four years with MANY, MANY artists, I can say with CERTAINTY that artists absolutely DO care about people stealing their music.
I wrote this in response to a different blog, but I think it is just as relevant: http://www.tech...comment-2678517
With this kind of backwards thinking, see how many of your “favorite bands” actually stick around to make another record. Would you continue to make a product just to give it away for free or have it stolen? Only an idiot would do that. “Here, I just spent the past four months crafting this beautiful painting with 24kt gold trim, why don’t you just TAKE it? No, really, go ahead! I’ll be painting LIVE at the park next week, tell your friends!” Yeah, right.
I’m not saying that music shouldn’t be AFFORDABLE, or that labels weren’t charging too much, but if you think about the amount of marketing money they put into an album (also too much in my opinion), there was definitely a cost to be passed to the consumer. Labels aside, look at it from a creative standpoint. Do you realize how many hours upon hours of blood, sweat, and tears go into writing and recording a good song? To demand the right to own it for free, or feeling entitled to own it without compensating the artist is absolutely absurd. I mean, really, think about it. Why don’t we ask GM for free cars? I mean, we’re actually PAYING so that they can keep creating. Maybe the government should do an “Artist Bailout”?
I realize that there is the argument that bands can make money through touring and merchandise, but let’s be honest, there are only a handful of bands that can actually successfully do that.
So, go on stealing your “favorite artist’s” music, just don’t be surprised when there are no longer any new songs to steal.
Michael – Sure its a product. But it costs exactly the same to produce one copy of the song (the first one) as 10 million copies. Simple economics takes over. Free.
…and the artists are left holding the bill for making the first copy? (professional quality recording is still expensive, requiring up to hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment and taking months, if not years.) Sure, the 2nd digital copy costs nothing, but who pays for the first one?
Great post Michael
You’ve putting some solid thoughtful stuff lately.
The music question is a terribly complicated one which it seems like groups like RadioHead and NIN are beginning to solve themselves. I like Billy Bragg but agree he’s off the mark here.
Agree with Bragg. Also endorse his position, stated at SXSW gig at Thirsty Nickel, that musicians should organize a cross-industry union that can negotiate residual rights ala the Writers Guild.
Lots of acts and artists do not like touring, how do you propose they earn money if they give away their music for free?
Billy Bragg’s commitment to fairness in both music and society is well known in the UK and your final paragraph in which you accuse him of jealously over Bebo’s success is unworthy of you. He may be wrong or he may not but his input is undoubtedly sincere. He is not, at any rate, claiming that music content is the sole reason for Bebo’s success only a small but important contribution.
In an age where genetics companies and Big Pharma are busy patenting naturally occurring medications why should songwriters and artists, whose work demands some original creativity, not expect some reward for the use of their material?
it’s very simple:
if the user comes to hear the artist (but on the way “discovers” the site) then the artist should be paid
if the user comes to enjoy the site (but on the way “discovers” the artist) then the artist should pay
there is probably a point in the middle, where no one is getting paid.
That’s how reputation works. welcome to the real world. Trying to discuss it in such general terms, leaving the reputation out, is a muted conversation. Show me a single starving musician that wouldn’t sell his soul for a top spot in the radio-stations play-lists (even if he doesn’t make a dime)
“Billy Bragg’s commitment to fairness in both music and society is well known…”
Billy Bragg’s commitment to being a complete nutjob is similarly well known.
Michael, alright lets play with your insistence that emotional/values based analysis of the issue has to be replaced with an understanding of the underlying economics.
What would happen when in the future all movie and television production and distribution becomes digital and the marginal costs issue raises its head at the fundamental level of that industry too. Would the the George Lucas of that era have to give away the great work of his imagination for free in return for perhaps making ALL his money on merchandise and theme park rides? Would he even bother? In that alternate/future reality we have a situation where potentially a future “Starwars” or “Indiana Jones” never got made because the creators could not make a living to support the incubation of these works of art. If I had the choice between paying several bucks to go and gain the enjoyment of watching the next generation equivalent of “Starwars” and knowing that it may never get produced because of a lack of any financial incentive for the creators – I know for one that I would prefer to pay.
I don’t really see the functional difference in the supply chain between a traditional music aggregator and a music-toting social network – they are both just middlemen. Oh wait, the Olde Industry actually paid the musician something
I think the view that “Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist.” explains the rest of the post’s mindset perfectly – ie its a market and caveat sellor.
However, I think this misses the distinction between art and crap. SocNets can generate the latter as infinitum, but to get stuff to make people hang around requires getting talent onboard, so the SocNet longer term needs the artist more than vice versa.
We alluded to this in the analysis below, re the risks for a SocNet when its audience stops coming:
http://broadstu...ffic-Crash.html
The issue is the disparity in negotiating power – if the musicians could organise themselves they would start to have some chance of extracting revenue from the Bebos, YouTubes etc of this world.
They need to hand together, as right now they are most certainly being hung to dry apart.
I found Bragg’s article of interest, but you are right in that he’s insane if he thinks that Bebo should give artists any cut of the $850 million. The music industry has been imploding for some time now and it’s not of any fault of social networks. The music industry started imploding long before MySpace, Bebo or any other SN was ever created. And SNs are excellent platforms for promoting music. It’s my main source for discovering new artists.
Of course, radio is also a huge marketing driver for recording artists. It’s still the main platform for marketing music to the mainstream masses and that’s not going away anytime soon because there’s still big money in it; which is exactly why payola happens. Despite the fallen Spitzer’s crack down, payola is still happening today (it’s not right, but it’s an ugly reality that continues on and hurts those who take the high road and play fair…but that’s an entirely different issue).
The Internet is certainly challenging both the labels and radio and I certainly don’t have the answers on how to stop the bleeding of the music industry. But I do believe in supporting the songwriters/artists (and those who are part of that ecosystem, which includes my best friend and other friends). And I do believe that songwriters should be paid for their work, but a royalty model similar to radio on the Internet seems extremely far-fetched and challenging to create and control; but what I do know about the tech industry is that innovation abounds and I’m sure some brilliant person out there right now is working on a solution that will help bridge this painful gap between the two industries. But that’s only going to happen if those in the music industry accept that the old model will NEVER work on the Internet. Change or die!!!
“As a result of my complaints, MySpace changed its terms and conditions to state clearly that all rights to material appearing on the site remain with the originator.”
Have you seen how much the Beatles got to put their music on iTunes.
You don’t think the ownership of music question is important?
That question defines the entire music industry — who owns the music.
With the population of the World being 6 Billion and music being universal. Bebo’s 40 million users listening to new artist’s music does not make much difference to the artist if his music is really good, It will only give him more fans who will market his music to other friends and family which gives him free marketing and then the chain reaction starts of recording company signing the artist and making him a star.
What Bragg forgets to note is, if the artist becomes famous by using Bebo as a platform and when he is worth millions in future, will he give back some of his millions to Bebo. The reason being, when the user upload’s his music, all he wanted was people to appreciate his music and new fans and all Bebo wanted was the artist’s content which can keep their users happy. I think both of them are happy with the deal.
@Michael: “But it costs exactly the same to produce one copy of the song (the first one) as 10 million copies. Simple economics takes over. Free.”
I’m not sure what this means… and I don’t think it means what you meant it to mean.
So, can I copy all the content off TechCrunch and start a competing site with all the exact same content since the cost to reproduce it is free?
The thing is tho, arriving at that recorded copy does cost money and usually needs to be recouped somehow.
Record labels will have to begin looking at no longer being the guardians of music through their past control of the distribution model, instead they should be looking into becoming a “value added” enterprise – anyone can record their music now, but the record labels are the ones who can still provide talented producers, have the knowhow and connections to promote an artist.
Their control over the market as a whole has been smashed and they should learn to accept this, instead of trying to own the music, they should simply become a service to the artists in the future.
People forget that the music label is still a relatively new concept, and what they are is far from set in stone.
Maybe the musicians should look to the software industry for inspiration, how about selling the license to use their music in any form rather than as it currently is now, which is selling the rights to use that physical media for the lifetime of the item.
And don’t get me started on the arrogance that a pirated copy of something is a sure fire missed sale, there is only so much money per person to go round..
many people obtain pirated copies of something because they don’t mind watching/listening to it on rare occasions, but they don’t think the asking price is right.
Maybe we should look at a small annual license to cover any items they “pirate” and gives them the right to use that copy up to 5 or 10 times a year, any more and they need to buy a full copy of it.
A little bit of creative thinking and you can begin to see ways out of the hole they have dug for themselves.
Musicians make a heck of a lot of money from concerts and merchandise. Loyal fans should purchase both. They can charge for mp3’s on their site and even sell CD’s or i-tunes, but because the threshold to get in the music biz is so easy now that anyone can upload an mp3, it means that you will have to charge less or nothing for that music to be distributed.
Also, if musicians wanted to pay radio stations for airtime or pay a site like Yahoo or Myspace to feature and advertise their music that would be an interesting situation.
arn – congratulations on being the first meathead to add the “oh, yeah, well how would you feel if i stole techcrunch content” comment. Not only do we syndicate our content for free to a number of other sites (free marketing!), but we also give it away to all of our readers for…free. The correct analogy would be around us trying to charge people to read our content. I don’t want to do that, because i want to get as large an audience as possible and find other ways to make money. Think about it for a minute or two. If you agree, come back and apologize. If you don’t, keep thinking until you do.
And…when it comes to stealing our content, there are dozens of spam blogs that do exactly that. We don’t try to stop it, because the cost of doing so would far exceed any benefits. It’s inevitable.
This is actually a much more complex issue than it might at first appear from the point of view of taking a position for or against Billy Bragg’s claim on Bebo’s money.
Bebo clearly benefits from the inclusion of music on the website. Artists clearly benefit from the inclusion of music on the website. Arguing which of those two parties is getting the better deal overlooks the more interesting and relevant fact that this is actually a symbiotic relationship.
The nearest clear parallel is around music videos on television. Are the record companies supplying free TV content for the channels — or are the TV channels supplying free advertising for the record companies? The answer is both — and the answer is, in fact entirely irrelevant because both parties make money in different ways. There is an exchange of value – and some money does change hands, though not in any sort of direct way.
Everybody wins when music is available on social networks. Arrangements that factor in the wider and more complex music environment as a whole, rather than this very simplistic and linear ‘you’ve got money, so we want some’ approach seems a far more nuanced and rational approach.
The clear nonsense here from Bragg is that he seems to feel that social networks steal from artists in the same way that music fans do — which to me seems based on an entirely flawed presupposition.
Arrington’s post title is a clue that his tongue is somewhat cheekwards, but to suggest that artists not be allowed to make money from recordings is equally baffling.
Michael, please tell us how you really feel
I totally agree with everything you said. I was surprised to learn the songwriter vs. artist bit in regard to radio.
@16, if you have ever read posts where MA espouses this same opinion, you’d know that TC doesn’t like it, but they do not whine or litigate. Go check out ajaxgirl dot com (there are countless others) for an example.
SO, you are w/o a point here.
#8 and #13 hit the nail on the head. You want to demand revenue? Band together and get a contract. Otherwise, BigCorp will just laugh and sip their scotch.
If the owners of the musical work ( the ip of the song ) want to charge for it, or not, let them make that decision. I am so amused to see *everyone else* deciding this for them. This includes the industry analysts, tech geeks, freeloaders, RIAA haters etc etc.
Not everyone is Radiohead. Royalty for composing music is a fair and equitable method of receiving some reward for it. “Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist” does not help composers, and ignores their fundamental income stream. It may help the owners of the recording, and maybe the artist, but not the creator of the ip.
So, please consider who hurts more – the poor geek who has to pay a few cents to listen to a song, or the composer who has his work grabbed by the mob because the mob found out they can.
Bragg isn’t simply some jealous artist, he is a known campaigner of rights and politics in the UK, he isn’t ignorant, and he isn’t stupid.
I think that artists (large and small) should see some return on their contributed music, and i hope that bebo does figure out some sort of revenue/profit share scheme.
Billy Bragg FTW.
We shake our heads when a musician puts forth a “theory” that because he can play guitar and sing a song written by him in his “artistic angst” he is due a chunk of money.
Rarely have we heard a graphic artist asking to be paid for his Photoshop images used on these social network sites.
Rarely have we heard a writer crying for compensation because his words have been quoted too many times.
Rarely have we heard a software programmer claiming he should be paid for the widgets created by him and used by millions of teenagers.
Only musicians make frequent attempts to link their “art” with money.
Sigh.
I love this
“Simple economics takes over. Free.’
I love that if you drop the term marginal cost you are suddenly an economist.
Actually Mike, that’s wrong. The cost of reproduction has NOTHING to do with the sale price of music. What would be more accurate is to call music a commodity which is dropping in price due to increased competition and increased means of access (illegal and otherwise). Otherwise why wouldn’t this be the case with software, which most certainly isnt MARCHING TOWARDS ZERO.
I personally know artists who do not have concerts and yet are able to make a living from their websites or other sales of their music. To claim this should be made their hobby shows an arrogance I feel is deserving of your typical “disclaimer, my hubris in my own intelligence may create bias in this post.”
I’m not familiar with Bebo but there is an important point to know here. Was Bebo providing high quality, full length albums or just a few ‘teaser’ tracks?
If they were providing a few tracks to sample then they are definitely promoting album sales and recognition for the artist. If they offer high quality full length downloads then they are (possibly) competing with album sales.
Anyone know what they provide?
James – you’re right, more is necessary than zero marginal costs. But if you click on the link I provided there, you’ll see that all factors are present. In particular, the fact that anyone can create their own supply.
http://www.tech...c-towards-free/
The only thing that can stand in the way is massive civil and criminal enforcement. As we’ve seen with the drug war, even that isn’t enough to stop market forces from doing what they do.
Billy is a very decent person and a true artist and he deserves better from you Michael. You are only shining the spotlight on the portions of this story that support your argument. You know there is more to this issue that remains unstated in your post. I’d also suggest that while art can obviously be commercialized to the benefit of the artist as well as the public, our society should be careful when it sets standards such as “if an artist can’t make a living playing concerts live, then he/she may want to think of it more as a hobby than a way to make a living.” Real art is not simply a way to make a living, it is one of the most basic of human needs. Both in the production and the consumption. If companies like Bebo fail to maximize the potential they create with their service in terms of not only highlighting popular work but also sponsoring art that is valuable simply for the sake of art, then they lose, we lose, and you lose.
How interesting… an egg and chicken situation indeed!
How do you get to know new music from fairly unknown musicians if they do not “spread the word” (to call it something)…
A tree falls in the woods, no body sees it, so it doesn’t make a sound! PERIOD!
(Plus, bebo never charged them for uploading their music in the first place, so there).
The problem is the crux of that argument
“But the fact is that zero marginal production cost plus perfect competition (every consumer is also a potential producer of any song) inevitably equals a zero price.”
First, not every consumer has the talent or is willing/able to produce content. Second, and more importantly, only a small percentage of the supply created will be good enough to be bought in small quanitites. Thats ultimately why this won’t pan out, IMO, because the music anyone will want to still purchase will not be in a market that is that competitive. We’re talking about street musicians, small coffee shop people who hand out website urls, they dont need to be competitive to the rest of the industry and will keep their prices.
As for the music industry at large companys will continue to sell music and make money off of it for a long long time. I think they benefit from the psychology of ownership, i feel I am buying a product, which is why i like being able to get (steal) it for free. If they offer it for free, however, now it doesn’t really have the value it did before.
So marching towards zero would be due to rampant online theft, not the market. Competition and marginal cost isnt driving the price to nothing, ultimately it would be out of necessity.
Danny – In my last sentence I say that every single thing he says in his article is wrong, so I don’t see how you can argue that I’m “shining the spotlight on the portions of this story that support your argument.” If there is more to the issue that “remains unstated” in my post, then it’s all around emotional arguments and crap about art needing to be valued and supported by society. There was music before audio recordings, and there will be music after it’s finally free. To suggest that the natural destruction of an artificial barrier to economic law is unfair, or wrong, or anything else is just being naive.
James, you still don’t get it. “Producers” aren’t people creating new music in my argument, they’re listeners who make copies via BitTorrent or any other method for others. Consider each song a separate and distinct product, where you have zero marginal cost and anyone can produce it. Guess where the price is going?
All of your arguments come down to fairness and emotion. You’re ignoring reality. And I do understand these issues. I’m not an economist but my degree was in economics. The only reason people still pay for music is guilt over an outdated and artificial legal scheme (you keep calling it theft), and the friction in getting it from BitTorrent (most people don’t understand how to do it. There are also lingering concerns over quality and danger from file sharing networks (viruses, etc.). But that’s it. That’s all that is left to protect the music industry from its own inevitable death.
i do like bragg’s comment comparing the musicians to investors…
money is getting too far removed from value to be of much use as a marker of success
funny fact: may be no one here know a country called Azerbaijan. I grow up in there and music industry in Azerbaijan runs in web2.0 style.
although internet is not so wide, (may be 5% of population use internet) music is distributed via pirated cd sales, each of which cost around $1.
and the way arists earn money? they sing at weddings. thats it. at each wedding, (depends on wedding actually) they make $3,000-$10,000 for few hours of performance. thats the money they could make only if they sell 3,000-10,000 copies of CD.
some very popular and rich singers do concerts where 20,000- 50,000 people come, paying around $5-$10 per ticket, but those are who have connections and other stuff needed for setting up and promoting a big concert.
conclusion: its possible to use music as free marketing tool and make money via concerts or other private performances, but this will not work with every singer, especially very popular ones.
I wonder if Billy Bragg would be in favor of myspace and bebo charging artists (after the fact) who become successful for the free hosting they provided. Or is his opinion that artists are the only ones who can give something away for free, and then later expect to be paid for it?
Isn’t there some economic theory that in general, people are pretty good at figuring out how to act in their own financial self-interest? In this case meaning that if putting their music on Bebo was a raw deal for artists, they wouldn’t be doing it. No one is forcing them to join Bebo, they are more than welcome to put their music on their own web site (or not put it online at all for that matter).
@Michael: “…congratulations on being the first meathead…”
The reason I gave the TechCrunch example was that I didn’t think that’s actually what you meant…. but apparently it is.
So, the better example would be software applications. Should Adobe give away “Photoshop”? I think there is a valid point that you are missing from an earlier commentator that _the_song_is_the_product_. You can try to argue that the concert should be the product, but you could also argue to Adobe that they should exclusive sell Photoshop training as their way to make money and give the software away for free.
My point is that there is inherent value in the song itself, just as there’s inherent value in a piece of software. While I’m sure you can come up with alternative ways to monetize content, I don’t think you should blindly apply it to all digital content.
arn
if ol’ Billy was so concerned about $ how come he didn’t ask for it up front. he looks like an idiot try to get a ton of $ after the company sold for a ton of money.
You know better Michael. I watched you on Charlie Rose. You have a brilliant mind and, no surprise, are an artist too. You are a gifted writer and understandably feel you’ve worked hard and earned your place and voice. I agree. But recall for a moment a movement from Beethoven that touched you or a painting by the impressionist Renoir that allowed you to feel something beyond your own limited life experiences. Then consider that they were free to create these masterpieces for the ages because of “emotional arguments and crap about art needing to be valued and supported by society.” They were sponsored. But not because the benefactor expected to realize a return on the investment in monetary terms, but rather that we all as a society benefited from their art.
Ireland was at 100% penetration – (1 Million people on Bebo in Ireland yet less than that use the net here) well before Bebo did the music and bands thing. Bebo is not mySpace and most don’t see it as one. Bebo is all about people sharing awful taste in music videos and terrible photos and most on there joined because their friends were on it and didn’t want to miss out. Bebo would still be as big as it is if there wasn’t music on it, if YouTube didn’t exist though, I doubt the same could be true. Maybe YouTube should demand a cut instead?
There is pros and con to this old age question. I dont think it should be but maybe there can put a cap on how much you can a CD. These artist make too much money these days. The rule should be the more you sell the cheaper the CD should get. The disadvantage to this is that artist may mpt put much effort into it. But if there like what there do, then money should not matter.
@Youyap – Money shouldn’t matter except to…you know…to pay the bills and put food in your belly
ed – money is important. but really really wanting it doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. or that society should put people in jail who refuse to give it to you.
“Michael – Sure its a product. But it costs exactly the same to produce one copy of the song (the first one) as 10 million copies. Simple economics takes over. Free.”
I see you’re ignoring a very important point to support your own argument: Recording music professionally isn’t free. If you think we musicians should just check into studios so you can steal the results, your dick is loose.
We’re not asking for the down payment on a new Veyron (well, not most of us, anyway). In the burgeoning era of the truly “independent” artist, we’re just asking for a return on the investment that we put into going into a studio to provide a good-sounding product for our fans.
stanford won. wow. amazing.
#44: Face!
“Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist” — although I agree with most of your post, this claim is simply not true (and I don’t think you believe this either). It’s like saying that a painting/statue/film/any other art is nothing but a marketing material to drive awareness of the artist. You listen to recorded music because you like it, because you enjoy it or makes you happier — because it has some value to you. Professional musicians spent a lot of time learning to play music, invest in instruments and studio time etc. to give you the satisfaction you get when you listen to their music. They should be rewarded somehow if you don’t want the music “industry” to die. I’m not talking about record companies; their time is over because they don’t add any real value nowaways. But musicians should be rewarded for the work they do in some way or another.
First he ruined the Internationale, now this!