2007 person-to-person music downloads were worth a staggering $69 billion, and movie/television piracy continues to grow, says a new study.
And all that free promotion didn’t cost them a penny.
At least, that’s how Techdirt sees it. And I agree. Instead of embracing what might be the largest free marketing giveaway in the history of the world, the music labels instead sue their customers.
And ask the social networks for handouts.
Somebody over there needs to put their thinking cap on, quit screwing around and just give the damn music away for free with no lawsuit strings attached. Then use 360 contracts to find a way to survive on other revenue stream. Or even thrive.
I agree, its getting ridiculous, the business model of 1970 is faded, the artists are more tech-savvy and the music industry needs to realize that. More importantly so does the movie industry, there are millions of ways to get free movies, there is more money to be made for these movie studios by partnering with sites rather then sue and entice more people to steal. There are a lot of great sites out there that aren’t main stream but as soon as the right money exchanges hands, poof, they are the next big thing.
To all those who want to enjoy free music, check this out.
http://www.addi...ock-your-world/
Music sharing should be legal.
Totally agree and Your employer shouldn’t pay you,
Hiring people for free should be legal
Nakodari,
Me again, just had a look at your site, very interesting, google ads everywhere, why don’t you share your links for free ?
So to sum it, you don’t mind if artists are not paid to produce their tracks, but you hope on google ads money and want free traffic by sharing somebody else’s work. How lame’s that ?
I agree with Sean, I use a ton of good sites. There is a site I’m using now, Jadsters.com, and its good. Good movies, good quality but I’m sure some studio will have a problem with them, go at them and shut them down. But you move to the right and look at hulu.com with $20M in VC money and its all good. What a shame.
hey mike….
here’s a question? i’m a songwriter/musician. I produce a song/product/etc… Do I have the right as the owner, to determine what you can do, if you buy my song? Now, assume that I create a license for my content, that states what you can do with the song if you buy it. Now do I have the right to determine what you can do?
You see, I don’t believe that the people who want to “steal” my content have the right to do whatever the hell they want to with it, and then tell me that I should do something else to go make $$$. Which is the fundementalt argument that “mike at techdirt” makes. I got tired of his rabble on this a while ago. I assume he’s on his same rants.
I’m a firm believer in distributing digitial content, provided it has a unique embedded watermark, so it can be traced back to the actual purchaser. This approach allows you to pretty much do whatever you want with the content, provided you don’t violate the terms of the license. Personally, I don’t care if you put it on your computer, your car, ipod, or whereever, provided you don’t give it to 20K of your closest friends.
You see mike, you don’t really have a dog in this fight, because you arene;t reaaly getting paid for your content. But, if there was a situation where you were paid, based on you selling/reselling your articles, then I;m willing to bet you’d be pissed if your revenue was reduced because someone copied your content, and then gave it away….
My point, you the owner of the content should be the only one who gets to decide what/how you want it to be used. I don”t get the right to take it, just like I don’t have the right to come to your hous, and snatch your car.
peace
sam, the reality of the situation is that music is going to be free unless the government starts shooting people over sharing.
i explain why here:
http://www.tech...c-towards-free/
the dinosaurs weren’t happy about the meteor, either. but complaining about it isn’t going to get you anywhere.
life isn’t fair. adapt or die.
Micheal,
Apple is making in the billions on iTunes. If you say music is going to be freed, do you suggest I short Apple? Because iTunes will be useless.
I agree – in the end, anything that isn’t tangible ends up drifting toward the $0 mark.
That being said, the music industry isn’t anywhere near dead. In fact sites similar to the one I founded, the Madtown Lounge, are helping artists profit in other ways: bringing a level of awareness to music fans so they can pack the venues – a primary revenue source for independent musicians. We also sell their CDs for a very minimal cost ($3/sale, no startup fees) and will soon be launching an online ticket sales option… all in an effort to save folks time, and time is money.
While technology can hamper industries in some ways, it can be used to help in many other ways.
Allen
http://www.madtownlounge.com
paid downloads will fall off the cliff in 1-2 years. just like instore cd sales.
inevitable evolution – no one can stop it.
I don’t think there is any fundamental difference between a song and a car. Both make money and recover the upfront investment by selling “a creative idea replicated many times”.
For more on this:
http://slowblog...s-anderson.html
“just like I don’t have the right to come to your hous, and snatch your car.”
what if you could look at a picture of my car and, zap!, have an exact copy in your driveway without taking mine away? ’cause that’s what we’re talking about.
So your argument is; if you have the tools to make an exact copy of anything/everything, then it is within your right to do so?
no, if you read the post, my argument is that if you have perfect competition (check) and zero marginal production costs (check), the market price will tend towards zero. quickly.
Well put. Music is free.
nope…
not the same.. not even close. and this straw argument is frequently trotted out.
which is why i propose an entirely different licensing issue. where if you violate it (ie give it to 10K of your closes friends, then i do get to shoot you, kick your dog, or whatever….) this would premit me to know exactly who has the copy. case closed. i ppropose the license for a song, be similar to the licenses for software. and i go even further by allowing a distribution system to be setup that downloads a unique song to the owner. this would pretty well solve the entire problem…
you want to try to claim that a car, and a digital thing don’t have the same rights.. and in fact, i don’t know if there’s a court ruling that statest that they do. but i’m pretty sure that you couldn’t/wouldn’t make this argument before your law prof with a straight face!!
might be time to do some legal research to see exactly what the legal rulings are on this.
but mike, by your view, the entire software industry has it wrong!!! i’m willing to side with the ip lawyers on this one.
otherwise msoft is spending serious amounts of cash pursuing people who are doing nothing wrong.
on, by the way, given your love for apple, would you rip off oa copy of the apple OS (or any of their apps) if you could??
peace…
So for the sake of argument, if money is not an option, what incentive are you offering musicians? Sure, there’s art for art’s sake, but let’s face it, humans have to eat.
@swede – No, the argument is that, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of it, it is inevitable. The average person (again, rightly or wrongly) perceives it as a victimless crime, so they see nothing wrong with copying content.
The *AA have two modes of attack for this:- try to change the perception that there are no victims, or adapt the business model to bring in revenue in spite of, or because of, digital replication of content.
I have seen many attempts at generating sympathy for the poor, starving artists, however these tend to fall on deaf ears as to make consumers take notice, they bring out famous people to say “you guys are stealing” and the message heard by the public is, instead, “I may be richer, but I want to be richer”.
On top of this, the “stop pirating our stuff” message is usually prepended to legitimately purchased media, so the innocent consumers feel insulted and become indignant. This just makes them want a “pirated” copy that has had that message removed.
Which brings us to the constant calls (like this one) for the *AAs to get over it, stop punishing the innocent and embrace, rather than fight, the digital age.
The sad part is that everybody else will pick up the headline, and won’t clarify that this should not be considered a loss.
If there were no electronic means to share files, the music industry would never in their wildest dreams sell so many tracks.
What they (RIAA) should be thinking now is… no matter what we do, the file swapping won’t go away (same thing with MPAA and Big TV), why don’t we just provide those file sharers with good quality music in easier ways, and regain control of distribution, instead of everyone sneaking around and getting it since it’s so damn hard and expensive as it is right now… and sell ads on it.
has worked for tv and radio, why not for digital music?
Sam, I respect your body of work, but isn’t the whole point of making music, writing and movies so the world could enjoy it? Or is it just about getting paid for being talented, because personally your approach to being an artist is not what I would consider artistic, I would look at you as a businessman with a skill. I can remember a time when making music wasn’t about money or who owned what, it was about the music speaking to people and getting into as many ears as possible no matter how it got there. I personally believe its the greed, glamor and lifestyle expectations set out by other artists who have made it that spawns this “I own this mentality.” Because if popularity and true art were currency then this wouldn’t be an issue. I’m not saying don’t make your living, I’m just saying how much does one need before they feel fulfilled?
If your an artist you want your work in front of as many people as possible, by any means necessary, so your work does something to impact their lives, not your wallet.
no. it’s apparently about getting paid.
no…
it’s about you (or me) as the owner being able to determine what gets done with my work. if i want to give it away for free, i can. if i want to sell it for $1000 per song, i can… but i get the right to decide what to do. as do you.
i don’t get the right to walk into GE, or IBM, and simply copy their software, and take a copy with me, and tell them, “you’ve still got the original, what’s the issue!!”..
and you as a customer get to look at me as an owner, and decide if you want to abide by my terms… i might make a fortune, i might not.. i might give it all away.. but it’s my right as the “owner” to determine what i want to do…
and this is what Prince has been fighting for for awhile…
peace…
And that’s the sad part, Mike. Because getting paid to do what you love doesn’t always mean to be “rich.” Rich is relevant, and I wish these artists would see that.
I would like to ask an artist if they would trade their talent in (which could change the world, done right) for money? I’m curious as to what they would say?
Artist should feel privileged that their work is being used and is being utilized in peoples everyday lives and businesses because its a true testimonial to what art is! Its when nobody is listening/using your music, writing or movies, that’s when you have a problem. Because your not on anyone’s mind. WAKE UP!
I think its called Greed
They are going in circles… If it wasn’t for the popularity of iTunes they would be in even more trouble
It is an illusion that the music industry is in trouble. We are just going through a metamorphosis. We live in an incredibly abundant universe with dynamic mind-blowing technology at our disposal.
The rebirth of the music industry is frought with intense labor pains at the moment. This too shall pass. I’m betting the baby will enchant us all.
Well said…You can either fight change or embrace it. It’s coming whether you like it or not. 10 years ago, small independent artists didn’t have a say. Now we are becoming empowered.
No comment!
RealEstateLocator.com
the only music i pay for is underground hip hop. and one reason is because i refuse to give my money to someone that i will see on mtv cribs 5 hours after giving them my 10 dollars. i’d rather support good music that needs the money. the record companies brought this on themselves by publishing mindless crap and then blowing tons of cash to shove it down our throats.
Sam, you absolutely have the right to restrict who listens to your music in any way you want. But good luck developing a loyal fanbase once they start to perceive you as “that a$$hole that goes around suing people that want to listen to his music”.
The equation is very, very simple: Fans will gravitate toward artists that put their energy into developing a rapport with them, and away from artists that persecute them. The reasons for this are partially financial – obviously not having to pay for music is better than paying for it – but they are also in large part emotional. If I think you’re a self-serving prick, it doesn’t matter how good your music is, I’m not gonna like it. Conversely, if I think you’re aligned with me (politically, spiritually, whatever), than I’m going to want you to succeed.
Thus, for an artist to be succesful, they must split their time and energy evenly between creating good music and good community. This is something that the new generation of artists excels at, and that the old guard of music strongmen will never be able to do well.
The record labels aren’t stupid – they understand this, but the reason they continue their heavy handed litigation is that there’s nothing they can do about it. The most successful artists will be the ones that have as close, as direct, a connection with their audience as possible. Which makes signing up with a record label that wants to control that relationship (for financial gain only) exactly the wrong thing to do.
Addendum to my previous comment…
This is also the reason that record labels will be displaced by companies that offer artists the tools and services they need to establish a rapport with their fan bases.
robert.
i don’t disagree with anything you’ve stated. the fans that i might try to attract might not come to me, because they view me as an a$$hole!! but it’s my right to have the say in what happens to my music. which is why i proposed the ability to license “my music/songs” as i choose…
it’s like anything else.. if you don’t like what i’m doing, don’t buy my stuff. and you and anyone else should be able to have the same control/say over your content as well…
and don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of open source apps that i contribute to and willingly give away.. and i’ve given away more chunks of serious code to people than i care to try to recall.. but that’s my right.
and for all you guys/gals who are screaming for “free” music, and who buy into the “it’s ok to make a digital copy”, if you’re working for a company that produces software, either for sell, or because you create internal software to run your operations, let me know.
i’d like you to give me a copy of it for free.
oh, mike, can you go ahead and post on the site a text file of all the contacts/phone numbers you have for the various players in the industry you’ve created. shouldn’t be an issue for you as you’d still have the original information…
peace!
interesting. that’s the smartest statement i’ve ever heard on the subject.
Well said.
Gimme a break! Now it’s “greed” to want to be paid to do what you love?
I love it. Dissension amongst the ranks. Where was this passionate discussion 3, 4, 5 years ago? I think we’re all feeling the pressure of our internet freeconomy, esp considering that the “give stuff away now and hope to monetize later” is blowing up all around us.
This seemed like a one-sided argument a few years ago between all of us and the recording industry. Now it seems that many of us have different perspectives and realize the inherent problem with free labor. And yes, free labor is a problem. Without fair compensation, what’s the incentive to manufacture and distribute?
What will probably happen is we’ll see far fewer artists, which could be a good thing overall. Maybe only the truly gifted will actually get to shine as we’re all spared the next Britney Spears.
chris…
i’m in my mid 40s… i and others i know, have been screaming this since 1990… however, it appears to be a generational thing.
i’ve flat out told people that there’s no way in hell anyone should go into a field/area where you’re creating digital “thigns” and focusing on a target group between “10-17″ it’s like you’re creating a product for the very people who’re going to rip you off…
peace…
Hey Sam….thanks for all the great comments on this post…as you are likely aware, people do still pay for music when it’s being used commercially (i.e. in ads, videos, films, and other audio-visual projects)…if you are interested, come on over to AudioMicro and post your music….our revenues are rising and we are sending payments out on a monthly basis to our artists….when the music is sync’d to a project that is used in a commercial context, people still pay for it, and rightfully so. This is not to say Mike is right or wrong about the future of music, but people are still paying for music, especially when used in a “non-personal”, commercial manner…and it’s music from primarily unknown artists that is being purchased
I will continue to “steal” all of your software and music and there is nothing you can do to stop me. Better find a new job.
Yes, it’s about payment. And about services. Art for arts sake and art for entertainment. The “artists i know, i love. The music industry provided a service to the artists and to the fans, this was and is a business structure for art. The artists just are not business people and i like it that way. Get paid to produce art as artists, produce art as a business. Great relationship! Patents were put in place, originally, for the same reason. Inventors, invent and get paid by the industrialists through protections set forth. This is a good thing and more power to the industry. The bad guys are adapting as we speak. The bad guys got bloated and drunk on allot of money when vinyl got tossed cause of technology and raped the fans by charging more for something that cost less. Now it’s adapt of die. But please don’t punish the artist!!!
I assume when builders build houses for the fun of having people living in them, and chefs serve food for the sheer love of it, Sam will be happy to make music for purely artistic goals.
There’s a difference between zero cost and zero marginal cost. Even if we could make a Xerox of a car, someone still had to make the car in the first place. Who does that? How does that person get paid.
Mike: Wouldn’t you have a problem if someone took your content and destroyed your business model? And then helpfully said “Simply write a book – that’s where you should make money”.
Talking of books – what is your proposed “360″ business model for authors when their books are showing up on Kindles for free? Go on tour? Sell t-shirts?
What’s the “360″ business model for musicians who don’t want to tour?
The more fundamental question: When did stealing become okay?
Oh Great!
This means that all iPhone Applications would be free as well soon enough!!
And all the Hollywood movies too!!
Perfect competition + Zero marginal cost, right?
Oh, think about all the great software out there.. Photoshop, Premier, Maya (3D Animation) – it would all be free!
Yes, good days are coming upon us.
Or not.
Listen to this idiot muso argue!
You can live in denial all you like Pal but it doesn’t change reality! The music/film industry were getting sued for price gouge BEFORE Napster came along and they have NEVER allowed retail access to their entire back catalogue preferring to limit supply to push the latest rubbish at a premium. The market demanded cheaper prices and broader selection, the fat cats ignored it and the result is what we have today, the use of available technology by the consumer to get what it wants.
Labels and studios COULD still compete with p2p with iTunes type deals that offer proper quality versions of the home copied rubbish found on p2p but they’re just too slow to catch on. P2P has been around for almost a decade now and by the time these greedy pri*ks figure it out their entire back catalogues will have already been globally distributed and they will have missed the biggest sales opportunity in the history of their industry.
The brain dead muso thinks what he creates is actually worth something… it’s not a patent for a life saving medical device pal.. it’s just noise that may or may not be popular. If no-one ever hears it &/or likes it then it has no value what so ever in actual fact! So if you want to earn some money get a real job and contribute something of value to society you bludger!
Where is this all going?
1. We sure as hell don’t need a big hungry plastic-disc-printing industry in order to enjoy music. We used to rely on them to get the music to us but that’s over.
2. Concerts are still awesome, perhaps moreso than ever. They are the main way most artists make any money these days. They continue to be pretty expensive though, and it won’t help for the plastic-disc-industry to get their fingers into it.
3. At some point we will arrive where all this is going: easy digital distribution for musicians, free downloads for listeners, revenue for musicians from live shows. Perhaps with labels out of the mix those shows will even be cheaper.
4. Digital distribution allows a greater number of musicians to share the attention pie. The plastic-disc-printing industry wants us all to listen to the same 10 albums, because it makes economies of scale for them. But with them out of the mix, perhaps the diversity of what people are listening to will rise. One of the more awesome effects of this is smaller live shows for everyone, since we’re all going to see different stuff.
We’re going toward free downloads and smaller live shows. The future looks pretty awesome for listeners and musicians. No industry of any kind required. That is if we can murder ticketmaster as effectively as we’re bleeding the labels.
In reality it is not the artist’s work. it is, the artist’s work based on the law, but not really . Humans have a shared consciousness, in addition to the fact that most of what is put out is based on regional or universal concepts, cultural experiences and influences from your favorite musician or style of music or movie. If an artist is blessed enough to be a vessel for good tunes, it is the artist’s responsibility to find the best and most prosperous way to get that music to the right people. Without saying that the big homie Michael agrees with my spiritual ideas of music, it seems that he is simply saying that the writing is on the wall with respect to free music. The proper dialog that should follow should be something like – “hey, I heard a guy way giving a way music and selling special releases on record.” or “hey, what do you guys think about giving music away and then sell ads on a blog or discussion site about the process? I mean heck we musician do like to talk about the artist” these are simply examples and perhaps they are really stupid but eventually this winning attitude will get us to the money faster than this incessant complaining. I agree with the big homie. The reality is, people are going to trade and share. There are laws about shooting people, but if bullets start fling your way, you are going to change your path of travel, and fast. Well, bullets are flying at artists who think they are going to sell more and more music instead of less and less.
Please, someone answer this: What is the business model for an author, once their books start appearing free on Kindle-like devices that are just as convenient as paper?
Seems like digital music has caused a lot of drama today…
On a different note, and a couple people above me have made this point already, but its not about whether its right or wrong, its the fact that its inevitable. Whether musicians like it or not its the fact that the fans and the consumers perceive it to be right. Rather then fighting every battle, it makes more sense to take advantage of all this promotion.
It only sucks for the musicians that are unable to take advantage of it. It helps a lot though for the musicians that are able to use this promotion and make a name for themselves that otherwise they would have been unable to do.
Peter Epstein
http://www.thewebwar.com
I think what mike is saying is not that its OK, just that its inevitable. Therefore, they are better served trying to ride the wave than fight against it.
Okay, I’m a musician (with an IT day job how original right?.) I’ve worked for 27 years to learn my craft. I’m not a super-star, but I can write, perform, record, produce, master, and distribute my own music. I have invested roughly $25,000 over the years in equipment and a pretty nice home studio. I’ve been in bands on and off for 15 years and it just doesn’t pay off (time versus reward (of any kind,),) on the average. Playing out means your customers are 90% wasted. If you could imagine going into the office and everyone being totally lit up all day and trying to make any progress in your career, I think you’d find yourself pretty frustrated. That’s part of my logic for being an @home recording artist, that and no one has come along and offered me a music career (aside from those Sally Struthers commercials.)
I can record, produce, and distribute my music worldwide for pennies on the dollar compared to a “professional.” I know because I can do all of this myself, that by virtue there are millions of other people world wide that have the same if not better capability to do the same.
Economics (being relatively simple when you boil it all down to supply and demand,) dictate that what I’m offering (a decently recorded album of hopefully decent music written from talent, dedication, and hard work,) is in high supply. Therefore I have the PROPER EXPECTATION that I’m not going to make much (if any,) money off of my investment. Why am I so coy about it? Because, I LOVE doing it and would do it if there were no market or even anyone else around to listen at all. Music is a METHOD of communication and it’s God given in my opinion. Anyone can sing, anyone can play, all is fair game.
My point of view when it comes to copyright… If you make money with my music, I better make money from you making money. So if I make a dime from iTunes and iTunes is getting a dime in the process… I’m okay with that.
If people feel that my music is GOOD ENOUGH to share with their friends (keep in mind sharing music directly is a personal endorsement of that material,) and they actually go through the trouble of ripping and sharing my music in a market where there are millions of musicians competing for ear time from pretty much anybody… I’m feeling pretty good about myself.
The record industry was built (not all that long ago,) on the fact that recordings were hard to make and distribute. That’s it. Recordings were and have always been the record industry’s primary product. Before that, people shared music by getting together and making it… Churches, theatres, front porches, living rooms, and bars were the distribution method.
The internet has cut that equation in half, giving the common man back his after-work hobby with the ability to play with the big dogs as well as on his front porch (even at the same time if they want.) As a musician, I’m excited by the fact that via a company like cdbaby.com, I can equally distribute my music right along side the likes of famous people, who HAVE made millions. In fact, I shipped off my master today for distribution.
Like any industry who has come face to face with the nature of computing and automation, the music industry is getting a bit of serendipity if you ask me. I can appreciate their marketing abilities and wouldn’t necessarily thumb my nose at them if they came knocking at my door, but as a musician on the ground floor, all is fair game at this point. In my mind when I hear a musician complaining about music sharing, I hear a person who is losing at business, not a person who embraces current reality.
In summation, I’m in the middle… If I could trade my day job in and make a living at making music full-time, I’d do it in a heartbeat. However, I have the PROPER EXPECTATION that I’m going to continue on as I am now; Making music, being happy with it and sharing it with people I give a damn about. As for the investment, 25k is pretty much nothing as far as fun expenditures go.
http://www.j03l.com
Aw I just went to your site hoping to hear your music but that didn’t work out to well for me
. but anyway, I love that love for music that you have and I wish more musicians were like that. And I think the ones that are embracing that and getting to the grassroots of music are the ones that will be successful musicians, performers and businessmen for the future.
Good luck
Peter
http://www.thewebwar.com
I’m just curious. Though I agree music is going to be “Free” then why is called intellectual property ?
Dudes this convo has been had.
Music is free.
It is not free to produce.
People who create music don’t do it for the $$$ but they need to eat so they can make music and make our lives better.
The Major labels are have some great musicians and producers running them who really love music and understand more about the process of music making than most of us.
Doug and Jimmy are two of the most knowledge music people/ executives I have ever met, They know the industry model to broken and are looking for solutions that will help change it.
Stop winning.
Help create a robust solution that will enable free consumption of music while supporting the necessary infrastructure needed to produce music.
Peace Love and Soul
You are so ignorant to the way the music industry operates.
http://uk.youtu...h?v=08s4EOqt98I
I honestly think that music should be free, but there are other unique ways the owner can make income of it. Endorsements, Concerts and Ringtones are just some of the different ways. Be creative, that’s all there is to it!
Oh btw
Check out http://www.jobstaxi.com
New Jobs. AiLive. Ning.com. Blizzard. AdMob.
I’m surprised nobody has come up with a foolproof method of protecting digital material. I wouldn’t be surprised if far more is known about who is stealing copyrighted material than is presently revealed.
In the end, I think there is too much at stake in the commercial value of intellectual property to the US and other industrial nations in a globally competitive marketplace to allow widespread theft of intellectual property to continue indefinitely. Who knows what the new copyright czar will come up with? I don’t know exactly what equipment like the Narus stuff that AT&T has been using to monitor main cables can do, but apparently they can monitor a lot of internet traffic in real time:
“NarusInsight focuses on two layers: number four, the transport layer, built on standards like TCP and UDP, the physical building blocks of internet data traffic, and number seven, the application layer, built on standards like HTTP and FTP, which are dependent on the application using them, i.e. Internet Explorer, Kazaa, Skype, etc. It monitors 10 billion bits per second at level four and 2500 million bits per second at level seven. For reference, the 256K DSL line I am using equals .24 million bits per second. So one NarusInsight machine can look at 10,000 million DSL lines at once in great detail.”
“Under a ruling this month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, such surveillance — which does not capture the content of the communications — can be conducted without a wiretap warrant, because internet users have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the data when using the internet.
According to the affidavit, the CIPAV sends all the data it collects to a central FBI server located somewhere in eastern Virginia. The server’s precise location wasn’t specified, but previous FBI internet surveillance technology — notably its Carnivore packet-sniffing hardware — was developed and run out of the bureau’s technology laboratory at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. “
Before the internet it was everyone’s dream to be a rock star or movie star and be a millionaire.
Now things have reversed since the Internet, it is more a case of simply being an Internet Geek/Entrepreneur Millionaire instead!
The Internet arrived, so music should be free.. I wonder if all of you claiming music should be free, would agree that your income now suddenly changes from secure and clear, to “look for it somewhere else”.
I agree that the Internet can create new business models. I suggest, like US TV right now, we give you advertising all the way. Maybe than, people will appreciate a minor monthly fee to music… and music only.
Peace indeed! We’ll get there… Don’t worry too much and start being creative.
I <3 piratebay and all the whining in the world will not stop PB or me. Long live free content! Death to $-motivated artists!
Wow! Great blog. I do not get to read many of these types of blogs any more. But a lot of what has been posted in this blog is true and to the point. It was my web presents that landed me a recording contract. First and for most fans come first.. As far as theft of copyrighted songs this has gone on since the invention of the tape recorder. I do not believe this is right but it is an unfortunate part of this business. The trade off of one or two free download has been well worth it for me! My downloads are always 128kbs. The recording industry has always bitched about this issue and always will. However the creation of any product has a price tag attached to it. Shouldn’t I be paid for my labor? The art of putting together words and music to tell a story in three to three and a half minutes is not and easy task, if you are foolish enough to think it is try it! The forgotten fact here is the cost to create, record, produce and publish this music. Studio time is not cheep and even if you have a home studio the equipment is not cheep. Sorry folks theft is theft and persons stealing should go to jail. Great job friends this always helps all artist to hear the pros and cons.
Coy
I stole all your work in 10 minutes and there is nothing you can do about it except write these stupid long comments that nobody is going to read in their entirety. Wind bag…
Music Industry now, then Movie industry next.
My music industry colleagues are not fat cats, but they are losing their jobs. They are often paid less well than in other similar careers (Music Marketing<Marketing Soap Powder) and take that lesser pay due to the fact they love music and want to promote it and work with artists.
here is an unsigned artist you might want to check out Michael.
REALITY CHECK
A new, independent artist CANNOT make a living of sales of T shirts, and revenues from touring. Much of the comments here indicate a complete lack of knowledge of exactly how the music industry works.
So, Allow me to inform you the realities. I am on this at the ground level.
Reality Check #1
Touring, except for the VERY biggest bands (i.e. Madonna, U2, Police) COSTS money. That’s right. Most bands going on a small tour will , at best break even. Hence, ’sharing revenues’ from concert sales doesn’t do anything for you.
Reality Check #2
Making an album costs a lot of money. Those costs need to be reimbursed. And spare me the ‘it doesn’t have to cost’ nonsense. You are WRONG. Making an alubm costs money, lots of it.
Reality Check #3
No, you can’t make any real money from ‘advertising revenue’ off your web site, or ancilary income streams by giving all your music away. You might, realistically, if you were very popular, make a few hundred bucks from that over 5 or 6 years.
Reality Check #4
Musicians can be highly intelligent, skilled and gifted. They DO deserve to get paid and make a living off it. Laywers get paid, so do video game developers. Where in hell is this attitude from that says Musicians don’t deserve to make a living?.
Reality Check #5
Sales of music, in physical or digital form is the ONLY revenue stream to a musician that has any hope of allowing them to make a living. All of this ‘new income’ streams and the digital world ‘liberating’ artists is complete crap. It doesn’t work.
Reality Check #6
Great albums from artists like Stelly Dan, Pink Floyd, etc could not be made now, because the high costs of making those albums can’t be offset now. PS – Steely Dan didn’t tour, so for them, nearly 100% of their income came from album sales. Same for Pink Floyd, because they rarely toured and only used the tours to promote album sales.
“Music Should be Free”
Sure, go ahead and make us some free music genius. Get your copy of garage band, put a few loops together and give it away. Why not.
Now, do you want to hear something *good*. Something that uses actual musicians, singers etc. Woah! That’s going to cost. So, go ahead. Spend your money, borrow from credit cards and make that album. Then give that sucker away.
And go bankrupt.
Sorry dude, no more albums from this artist.
Get real – Unless Musicians can make money from their album and music sales they CANT make a living at it. Meaning our world will become a poorer place because of all the great music we will never hear, because the musicians can’t afford to make it.
There, I’m done now.
Alex
That’s fine. No more music from you. Plenty of others will put out more music than ever. Like any competitive market there will be winners and losers. I guess you’re going to capitulate.
In centuries past there were no such thing as record sales. Mozart didn’t need record sales. Neither did any of the greatest musicians before the 20th century.
Get real, good music will be made one way or another. If you don’t care to make, no worries. Get a day job and let the hobbyists make the music. They seem to do just as well as the pros anyway.
Well said.
I work in music- and the simple fact is that making a great recording is a very expensive process.
Fine, you can do it all on a laptop, but that effectively spells the end of nice instruments recorded in nice sounding rooms through nice desks with nice mics by groups of people that can really write, play, arrange, mix and master.
I can think of about 3 “great” albums that were done without those elements- and kudos to artists that made something very good out of very little.
If no revenue can be derived from selling records the simple fact is that its going to affect the quality of the records that are available- and we’ll all be stuck listening to recordings made in garages rather than the sweeping epic huge productions that stream counts, sales charts, radio plays, fanbases etcetera rather suggest that we all like.
just read an interesting article fro a while back – http://www.thes...e-music-not-u-s
it’s about china. geez.
I’m a songwriter, and I’d like to know from all the smart people how, if an artist signs a 360 deal with a label, will the songwriter – the one who provides the material to record, make money? Does anyone believe that a songwriter will get a cut of t-shirt sales? honestly. does anyone really believe that a songwriter will get a cut of the door?
People who talk about ‘free’ understand the economics of the music industry about as well as an Obama voter understands what he really stood for.
Mike, the writing is on the wall… your business model is dead. Internet ads will soon be blocked by everyone. In fact, I needed to open up another browser just now to double check that your site has ads.
The business model of 2004 is dead. You should start writing this blog for free.
If the music industry is dead then so is the movie, video game, software & book industries plus everything else connected to them.
For those of you that say you wont pay for music etc.
Do you pay for movies, video games, software/operating systems or books yes or no. If yes why, when you dont pay for music same principle
@Peat
Your exactly right big artist may not have a problem with it but what about small or medium artist, and new artist. If theres no money in something how many people would continue to do it.
If the artist cant afford to go on tour how are they supposed to make money you have to pay for (hotels, transit, help/assistants, food, book a place etc) and after paying those cost after the tour you may be in the negative, earn nothing or broke even but those still dont equal profit.
So how does anyone make money just by going on tour unless your big enough or already have money out the a** imagine a new artist how the f**k will you afford a damn tour, pay for the t shirts, hats, shorts etc. to be made.
If this is the case then how many of the people posting on this blog would continue with there current job if your employer one day came and said where not paying you anymore because what you do is just for promotion.
kk – you hit it exactly right.
Right now, there’s this very inexplicable (and completely narcissistic) attitude , widely spread, that musician’s are doing something wrong by trying to make a living off sales of the music they create. To those people I say this.
Are you a carpenter?. Build a house, spend all your money on lumber, tradesmen etc. Someone asks you to GIVE it away when it’s finished. ‘Housing should be free’. Yeah right. Get a job hippie. How many houses are going to be made if you commit financial suicide by building one.
Are you a software developer?. Build the world’s greatest 3-D flight sim shooter game. Hire on 12 developers, pay for the software tools. Spend money on cover artwork etc. Then, some wiener asks you to GIVE it away because ‘play should be free’ or some similarly idiotic statement. Again, the economics don’t support it?
The ONLY reason we haven’t seen the same problem with movies, video games is BANDWIDTH. As the digital pipe to your home improves and improves, it will be possible to bit torrent down the next movie in 10 minutes. Do you know how many millions it costs to make even a ‘low budget’ movie?. They CAN”T give it away. If they did, they would have to stop making movies. Then all we would ever be able to watch is cute puppies on you tube. (Which has it’s moments, but – - not all the time)
J031 – I would love a world where your proper expectation of becoming a musician full time could become true. That works out for both of us. You get to do what you really want for a living, and I get to hear the music you create. We both win. And guess what. Sales of your music in digital form is the ONLY what that’s really going to happen.
There is NO ‘golden age’ in music due to digital media. Things right now for musicians are WORSE not better from digital music distribution. Music sales dropped over 30% last year. Record labels have stopped artist development (meaning, new artists), are reducing their catalogues and a new entry has virtually no chance. I know a lot of people think labels are evil, and largely, that’s true. However they do perform ONE function that has value. Marketing. A label can take an artist and generate demand through marketing (radio, press, print, etc). It’s still virtually impossible to market music yourself. That’s the other key that’s missing from the non-signed artist.
I think what needs to be done is for *someone* to create a strong motivation among consumers to pay for the digital media they use. Suing people isn’t the way. We need a carrot here and not a stick. Not sure what this model is yet, but I sure hope it comes about soon.
Now, I”m going to watch cute puppies
================
In centuries past there were no such thing as record sales. Mozart didn’t need record sales. Neither did any of the greatest musicians before the 20th century.
================
I”m kind of amazed that anyone could actually write something this moronic. Do you think composers like Mozart worked for free?. They worked under a commission basis, meaning a sponsor or nobility would pay them to create. Then the composer was usually sponsored financially by a ‘promoter’ who would pay to book a concert hall and musicians. The composer was paid a fee for each performance – a performance right based on their copyright, EXACTLY the same analogy to composers being paid for a digital performance. Let me type it slowly so you can understand. THEY WERE PAID ON EXACTLY THE SAME PERFORMANCE RIGHTS PRINCIPLES AS DIGITAL MUSIC SALES.
The way it worked was like this . .
Concerts were NOT free. That allowed everyone to get paid. And concerts were VERY expensive in comparison to personal income.
If music was FREE in 1780, then you would never have heard anything from Mozart because he would have been working as a laborer or something, and would not have had the financial resources to spend years of full time effort on his music, nor could he have ever staged a performance.
What do you do for a living?. I think what ever you do, you should do it for ‘free’ too.
Alex
Your comments don’t deserve a reply it just shows your intelligence!
Pete
Your right 100 percent and its time for change. If we as artist are forced to give away our music then everything else should be free. Ford should build cars for free, homes should be free, cloths should be free, food you got it should be free. This is the problem with the me ology age group. I call them the give me generation the world owes me because I was born so give me give me.