Says fight is unwinnable, that file-sharers will just disappear into darknets, and that allowing record labels to legislate the Internet means that eventually we’ll have an Internet “controlled by and for big business, which can only be accessed by those willing to pay.”
Billy Bragg, English alternative rock musician and member of the Featured Artists’ Coalition (FAC), which formed this past March to give artists an equal voice in the P2P debate, has written an op-ed in the UK’s Guardian that offers “A Better Way to Sink Internet Pirates.”
He first talks about how artists had come together to support bandwidth throttling versus disconnection at the recent “urgent” P2P summit in London’s Air Studios as an example of how artists can have a united voice in the file-sharing debate, even if it’s one that contradicts the record labels’ party line.
Bragg , who long ago argued that artists should be able to “decide when their music should be used for free, or when they should have payment,” says that ultimately fighting illegal P2P will be a costly, long-term endeavor with absolutely no guarantee that any savings, if even achieved at all, will wind up in the hands of artists as the record labels promise. When have record labels ever gone out of their way to make sure artists get their fair share?
“While the recording industry continues to make threatening noises towards kids who swap music files among themselves, our real enemies, the illegal download sites that make money giving our music away for free, are disappearing off the radar into darknets,” he says.
Exactly. Though I don’t condone file-sharing for commercial gain, the true definition of piracy, it’s nice to finally hear a music artist mention darknets in regards to the futility of fighting illegal file-sharing. For every method that can be concocted by record labels or the govt to fight it there are least a dozen ways it can easily be circumvented.
It’s as Bragg puts it, a “war that no one can win.”
More importantly, new sanctions have implications for society. Filters, throttling, and disconnection all mean that society’s main tool for communicating with one another could eventually be controlled by big business.
“As the pirates always manage to stay one step ahead of the latest clampdown, the recording industry will continue to ask legislators for ever tighter sanctions, leading ultimately to an internet controlled by and for big business, which can only be accessed by those willing to pay,” he says.
Unlike Lily Allen, whom called P2P a “disaster” for emerging artists, Bragg thinks it’s “vital” for them to “flourish” and he’s right.
Independent music business online expert Andrew Dubber pointed out recently that the biggest problem for artists twenty years ago was ‘How can I just get my music out there?’ Record labels were the gatekeepers of music and the fortunes of emerging artists rested solely in their hands. Now the Internet allows them to put their music directly in the hands of fans all across the globe for absolutely free.
Hip hop artist 50 Cent has called P2P a “part of the marketing” necessary to make up for what the record labels are no longer able to afford.
Even pirates “end up at the concerts,” he continues, “because they can’t help but fall in love with the material at that point whether they consumed it from downloading it on the actual Internet or they went and purchased the material.”
Bragg’s solution to it all is to create viable digital alternatives that offer music fans what they want while earning the industry a profit.
The first would be all-you-can-eat subscription services like the one Virgin Media plans to roll out later this year. For a nominal monthly fee you can stream or download as much music as you want.
The second would entail P2P services offering advertising platforms with the proceeds being used to reimburse artists whose music is downloaded.
Both are excellent ideas in my opinion, with the latter being especially appealing. I could even envisage a donate button on individual artist pages of BitTorrent tracker sites like Waffles.fm so that you can easily give money DIRECYLY to the artist with the simple click of the mouse.
Either way, at least Bragg is thinking outside the box.
For the real truth is, if lawsuits become part of your business model, then you no longer have a good business model. File-sharers are actually highlighting a market failure and pointing out a better way to do things.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related
- Billy Bragg: Music Industry Wants ISPs to “Do Their Dirty Work”
- New Blog Will Let Artists, Music Fans Solve P2P
- Former EMI Chief Says it’s ‘Useless’ to Fight P2P
- Billy Corgan’s New Album to Be Free Download
- a2f2a Goes Live, Let the P2P Debate Begin
“I could even envisage a donate button on individual artist pages of BitTorrent tracker sites like Waffles.fm so that you can easily give money DIRECYLY to the artist with the simple click of the mouse.”
I think the big problem is that many in the industry today underestimate the power of donations. It may seem like a stupid idea at first, but think of how many content producers these practically sustain a comfortable lifestyle from the pay-pal link on their website. Sure you won’t make millions, but It’ll keep the bills paid and keep you doing what you love.
If 200,000 people visit your site in a day, and 25% of them donate $1 you will be doing very well.
For a good artist that people love who can make and sustain communication to and between fans on a common website/forum this shouldn’t be a problem.
The main thing here is you have to produce something people like. No more recording something in an RIAA studio, and having it played on the radio every 10min, and CD sales hyped up with expensive marketing.
Either you’re good and people want what you make, or you suck and you’re back to flipping fries .
the best way is to attach some merchandise and other perks to the product such as buy the cd and get concert tickets from the artist’s site via a code printed on the back of the cd or
the cd is the concert ticket so you show at entrance and get in.
show the cd to the stores that sell the other goods and get them at reduced price or free.
unwinnable …. exactly
Other marketing ideas is any donation or purchase of the album gives you a chance to win a free private concert (small acts) or backstage passes (big acts).
Alternative models could also include a system where the song is withheld until a certain amount of money is raised via a donation button. With only a 30 second preview being available prior to the sum being reached. Afterward the music gets slapped with a creative commons license.
These are just a couple ideas as to how artist can generate revenue. It would be nice to see it implemented.
Interesting…..
Just like to point out that Bragg is a Communist (an actual Marxist Communist party guy) and thinks that EVERYTHING shoudl be free, not that there is anythign wrong with that, just that is where he is coming from. He thinks we shoudl share everything, so of course he thinks music should be free.
Of course, never mind he got where he is by selling lots of records….
The only thing specific I can say about the article right now is that ads don’t pay for squat, that’s why yahoo is in a world of hurt – google makes most of it’s money from selling web services, ad revenue is bullshit, that’s why mp3.com was BS, it was a ponzi scheme and they paid artists from new investment money, not revenue. If artists could be paid by ad revenue there would be no debate about any of this, it would already be a done deal, it’s just impossible – which is why Imeem is tanking now.
Communists just aint got no business sense.
Certainly he’s not a true communist and convinced in the end of private ownership.
Even if he is (highly doubtful), it’s a moot point.
What’s important is the fact that he highlights the need for creating “viable alternatives.”
By trying to fight P2P (impossible) all you do is drive people even further underground and lose the opportunity to monetize the file-sharing platforms that currently exist.
10 years later and its the same thing.
Pretty sad.
Unless you plan on inspecting each and every data packet, and violating the 4th amendment in the process, there’s nothing that cane be done.
For a “communist” he sure seems to be sanest capitalist music artist around.
Whatever, dude. He’s a Marxist and a Communist. Has been for his whole career, it’s common knowledge.
“Unless you plan on inspecting each and every data packet, and violating the 4th amendment in the process, there’s nothing that cane be done.”
As I said, hide and watch. You guys are ruining it for everyone.
? But it’s so easy to hide, and how can the 4th amendment be “ruined?”
Are you asking for a constitutional convention to repeal it? :S
its pretty bad when you blame technology for your lack of a proper business model.
No, I mean you are ruining the internet. It’s like there was a great town square, full of people communicating and sharing, and selling their wares. There were no cops around becuase everyone is grown up and honorable. Then some dumbasses show up and start stealing everyhting they can, and lo and behold, before you know it there are cops everywhere, and there’s no spirit, no freedom, all becuase some people can’t be adults and behave in a responsible way. Like I said, you guys are ruining it for everyone.
Technology is not the problem, that’s just more rationalization and a way to avoid personal responsibility for what you do. Technology is neutral, it can be used for good or for evil – it’s up to the individual.
Technology enables someone with the right ability to steal thousands of bank account numbers. Does that make it OK? According to your logic, yes because the bank has a ‘bad business model’.
“No, I mean you are ruining the internet.”
Impossible.
“It’s like there was a great town square, [...]”
That is absolutely not the case. The Internet is not a central location for users to enter and leave. Comparing the Internet to a physical space just shows your incompetence in understanding abstract concepts. Assuming the average person, how does one “steal” anything that is already there? If something is stolen, then there must be something lost. What has been lost? How do you prove the loss? Speculation is not acceptable. If you were to choose to use mathematics, you must collect sufficient data; otherwise you are utterly making things up.
“Technology is not the problem, that’s just more rationalization and a way to avoid personal responsibility for what you do.”
Technology is an application of science. Obviously, it is not something to scapegoat if the technology was designed to perform specific functions completely irrelevant to the matter.
“Technology is neutral, it can be used for good or for evil – it’s up to the individual.”
Your statement is also a subjective generalization. Technology is not something that has personal preference.
“Technology enables someone with the right ability to steal thousands of bank account numbers.”
Technology also enables thwarting that ability.
“Does that make it OK? According to your logic, yes because the bank has a ‘bad business model’.”
And how is this relevant? Unlike you guys, banks are not fighting against technological advancements. Have you not noticed what is call “Online Banking”?
Your arguments just suck, malgre.
“As I said, hide and watch. You guys are ruining it for everyone.”
You wish.
Communism has no capitalist sense, it has plenty of business sense. Communism acknowledges social value, rather than purely materialistic values. Since you need the support of society to sell goods, fighting society is bad business sense. At the same time if there is no incentive to produce, why produce at all? There is a balance to be had between them, your view does not fit that balance in my opinion. Any solution will not come from legislating away file sharing either, that will just criminalize common social behavior. A new business model has to emerge that works with file sharing, not against it. Personally I think the only way money can be demanded for music is if you withhold the product until payment is received. In the case of file sharing that means getting paid for a track before releasing it to the public.
Otherwise one has to be content with just getting what people are willing to pay for the music, and make your profits from goods that aren’t easily copied such as experiences and merchandise.
Also, one of the reasons, in my opinion, that the filesharing based retailers have all failed is not because of the filesharing system. It is because those that control the music are entrenched in their old way of doing things. A model that revolves around filesharing will work for the artist that do most of the work themselves, or at least with fewer middle men. The artist needs to cut out the distribution cost, cut out many of their promotional costs, and finally remove the costs associated to the management of those services. The internet becomes their advertising and promotional tool.
If the big 4 want to profit from filesharing they are going to have to slim down significantly, and from the looks of things that is not likely to happen, so any attempt by them to monetize filesharing will fail. Their only option is to destroy filesharing, but that is impossible, so in my opinion the big 4 will eventually disappear in favor of multiple smaller labels, or online resources that can cater to the smaller needs of online distribution. You will also have lenders that will loan money for tours, much like how a business is financed. The risk will be taken up by the artist, rather than a label.
I think you have some interesting ideas but if you are right about filesharings inevitability (I personally think it will end up shrinking) it basically comes down to not making money off of recordings – especially older stuff, ‘catalog sales’ will go away, you’ll have to release a lot more stuff, because those ‘new releases’ that get the promotion will be the only thing making money. The older stuff is just floating around and when people hear it or collect it it might help promote the new stuff.
The hard part about making stuff faster is keeping the quality up. Youre also going to see a lot more ‘work for hire’ stuff where the artist just works for some global company that churns out massive amounts of cheap junk and the artist doesn’t get anyhting but a paycheck – like comic books were in the 50’s and 60’s. Because individual artists as it stands can’t take the risk – the money comes from labels and managers – so file sharing makes things more corporate.
Of course its shrinking? Why (and studies have proven it) is because there a ton of FREE streaming services where artists see meager compensation (last.fm, youtube, pandora, winamp, etc..)
BTW the number albums released since the advent of Napster has doubled, and a lot of its arguably better then that late ’90s nonsense when the record labels were at the height of physical distribution.
The number of albums released has what to do with the health of music or the music business? I can ‘release’ a cd for about a thousand bucks. So what? I can ‘release’ that album on itunes for chump change. So what? What does that say about anything other than the cost of making cd’s and paying an mp3 distributor?
Has what to do with it? It proves that music is as healthy as ever, that even though labels may be doing poorly people are still recording new music and “releasing” it to fans.
And why on earth do you need to pay an mp3 distributor?
Sigh.
To get on itunes and other legal services. The size of the music indistry, including all of those records, is quantifiable. It’s half the size it was a decade ago. You might want to learn something about the pool you are pissing in before you try and have these kinds of conversations.
Do I understand you correctly. You are arguing that its bad that the industry has grown beyond capacity? Unless I’m misunderstanding you that is what you are arguing. That is just a sign that the market has become free again and is starting to follow normal market value rather than the old bloated monopoly we had.
mountain rage – No, all I was saying was that the music industry has shrunk in half post napster.
As far as the number of releases goes, the number of records released increasing like that is due to two things that happened in the late 90’s, one was that cd’s got really cheap to replicate in bulk and a lot of new fabs opened up, and the other was that recording got cheap thanks to computing power, and cheap imports from china. etailing had a lot to do with that too. Now it’s pretty common to release in hardcopy and in the electronic market at the same time, releasing electronically adds next to no cost.
But what I’m saying precisely is that it doesn’t matter that there are more releases, becuase those releases altogether are making half as much money. Artists are making less money. Less money off of recordings. So saying that there are more recordings is a red herring, it doesn;t mean the industry is healthy. It just means it’s really cheap to make a recording. Rel;easing a cd is cheaper and easier than renting an apartment or buying a car, and that wasn’t always true. I’m not complaining about that, it’s just not a statistic that can be used to show the health of the industry.
At the same time, not to beat a deads horse, there are fewer and fewer venues to play in every year – a trend that started in the 1970’s actually. Some people have argued that the health of the music industry as a whole is somewhat related to that decline, but I’m not so sure.
So saying that the industry has grown in any way would be an error. It hasn’t, it has shrunk. So twice as many albums being released at say, ten percent of the cost (or something like that) just means that albums are cheaper to release. The industry altogether, majors, indies, all of it, is half the size it was a decade ago.
Now granted, that doesn’t include all the corporations that make money directly and indirectly off of file sharing, for instance, advertising money that would go to an artists website instead of a p2p search engine, and all the companies making money off of sharing like ISP’s charging more for the high-bandwidth accounts that people use to share, ad impressions on google, forums, the venture capital going to torrent software, etc, all hard to quantify but probably at least as much money in all that as there used to be in the music business – just none of it goes to the people making the music, the musicians and the people that work for them.
malgre: “blah blah blah blah blah …”
It just seems not worth my time to respond to such utter nonsense.
You entire statement is ad hominem, malgre, and a factually incorrect statement at that as well, if not an an outright lie.
I was in the party for ten years. I admire Bragg.
Hmm , so you think everything else ought to free but no music
Actually, something like that. Your only real property is the stuff you create.
No, anything one owns is their property, and I’m not specifically referring to intellectual property.
So you finally reply to one of my comments, malgre, but it seems you can’t do so without employing ad verecundiam and hypocrisy.