Comments on: STUDY: Artists Earn More in a P2P World

By: soulxtc

soulxtc — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:53:29 +0000

Wasn’t aware people were guaranteed jobs

By: @IceCube85

@IceCube85 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:14:14 +0000

I'm doing just fine thanks.

By: @sti3

@sti3 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:12:49 +0000

Artists are working much much harder in a p2p world. Is that a good thing? Who knows.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:31:15 +0000

And where are the composers, who do not perform? They are the "original artists". It takes a lot more talent to write a song than it does to strum a guitar to something somebody else created.

How are they fairing in this new paradigm?

I'm married to one, so let me tell you: They are getting day jobs, and putting composing on the back burner. No more royalties.

By: @IceCube85

@IceCube85 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:14:04 +0000

As an artist, I completely disagree with your notion that artists do not fare better in a p2p world. It's been my experience of nearly 5 years of music production that p2p and the internet has significantly helped me in music production.

Most bands locally stick around for 3 or 4 years, then break apart simply because the local opportunities aren't enough to keep up a career in any way shape or form. The internet, as I've used it through promotion via p2p, has given me exponential exposure compared to what would have been possibly locally provided. In order to be this successful, I would have had to move to the largest city in my province to get anywhere near the exposure I have gotten now online.

By: Will

Will — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:41:58 +0000

Whilst the original Times article has been written with good intentions, (to provoke debate and offer spreadsheets for further analysis), I really don’t think the article, or your interpretation, is actually helpful to *artists*.
Broadly speaking, it’s a nice portrayal of overall headline trends but uses assumptions galore to make some mixed messages. However, there is little which can be transferred to a band that’s playing for a share of the £5 door in Camden tonight.

Part 1 of 2

By: T.j

T.j — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:37:07 +0000

You can stop me , but you cannot stop us all. Piracy is there piracy is here to stay.

By: Will

Will — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:43:25 +0000

Part 3 of 3.

The title of the original piece is “Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing?” This is surely a questionable leap from observation to causation, no? Hardly sound advice.
Breaking it down, here’s the deal: artist generally need some form of initial “advance”, have to cover their own “costs” and their only source of direct downstream income is “PPL” revenues.
Neither The Times article, nor your commentary, mentions none of these three concepts so it would *therefore* be very misleading for any artist reading this to think they could fare better or worse, surely?
Will

By: Will

Will — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:42:55 +0000

Part 2 of 2
Three points:
1. Record companies pay ‘advances’. That word doesn’t appear once in your text, yet it’s that word which helps drives a band from zero to ‘hero’ …or at least to *headlining* in the sort of venues where those live assumptions would apply. Support bands do not see that much of the pie, by the way.
2. Another word fails to get a mention is ‘costs’. The costs of going it alone are similar to any other make or buy outsourcing decision. Bands who *go it alone* need more management, who’ll need even more commission. More commission, with less scale is not necessarily a net positive outcome.
3. Finally, one more word missing from The Times article is “PPL”. To state that “the growing amount collected by the PRS on behalf of artists” reveals a mis-understanding of musical copyright, and an ignorance of how the artists The Times article is referring to actually get paid.

By: Desh

Desh — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:16:47 +0000

The internet will help freedom survive. Freedom for all.