But information wants to be freeeeeeeee! At least, that's the opinion of people who don't rely on information production (music, software, art, etc) to eat.
I prefer the model where I pay the artist directly. Screw the RIAA, and iTunes for that matter - they are only interested in lining their own fat pockets. They TALK about how they fight for the artists, but as far as I can tell, they fight for the profits.
Matthew Ebel
· 2 years ago
Well, iTunes and the RIAA are concerned with album sales. But right now, it seems like the only way musicians are going to get paid are through sales of round plastic discs. If that's the only money-making avenue left to musicians, then folks had better get used to $30 albums that are heavily-laden with DRM.
I'd prefer to let the community hash out some kind of standards that both fit the new landscape and keep everyone fairly represented.
Khyber
· 2 years ago
Sadly I see the RIAA being a major factor in the industry until the day we remove the corporate lobbyists and do some major redacting of useless laws designed to screw the consumer.
As it is, it's getting worse. The FTC just abandoned net neutrality. Be prepared to pay a premium for reliable access to websites, or even for people to hear your podcasts, etc.
Joe
· 2 years ago
When free guitar lessons are forced off YOUTUBE because a few rifts are shown to students from copyright songs, it shows the level of lunacy that has been achieved.
If cd's were fairly priced to actual cost plus an expected *modest* profit, disc shops would still be doing a decent business, not closing doors forever. Instead, even with all the advances in production and technique, the prices went up!
The music industry is long overdue for a major overhaul!
Bryce Moore
· 2 years ago
I've always subscribed to the theory of making sure the musician eats by personally buying their little plastic discs as well as buying him a salad. ;)
In all seriousness, though, I understand your frustration.
My personal shows are a complete money sink -- I have no sponsors, no fancy discount codes, no paid pre-roll, no free hosting, nadda. I don't say this in an attempt to martyr myself or any such silliness, but as much as I love nearly all of the music I am able to play, the idea of ponying up $500+ in ASCAP/BMI licenses, per show, per year, for something that generates negative income for me already would make me seriously think twice about podcasting as a hobby, as it would for others.
Then again, as much as it grates my "low barrier for entry" senses, perhaps a $500 a year entry fee for music podcasting would be the ticket to weed out the podcast directories and separate the serious producers from the putz-around amateurs in a bloody hurry....
Not to go all anti-capitalistic, but I think the scenario would be completely different if podcasting was generating a profit for me, or if I was "corporate" or had some other type of "sponsorship" generating black numbers on a top line. At that point, ASCAP/BMI becomes a moral obligation (profiting from the music being played) if not a legal one (PMN considerations aside).
I'm not saying podcasters shouldn't make a profit (if they chose to, that is), but I think there needs to be an eye turned towards those generating some serious profits and doing so thanks to the music they are playing. Someone has to be making some money with all these sponsorships flaying about, right?
As far as the RIAA is concerned, they need to find a way to make people want to pay for music (and I believe it can be done, despite the fact there will always be pirates on some level). Until then, they are going down the same losing battle plan they used with the cassette tape. Apparently, they never played Risk as a kid....
Short of doing the things I do now (CD/iTunes purchases, concerts, preaching the gospel to all who would listen), I'm not sure what else I can do to be supportive, financially and otherwise, of artists such as yourself.
Apologies for comment-blogging in your space (again). I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but I do sympathize with the plight, for what it's worth.
Michelle/chelpixie
· 2 years ago
Let's make this a conversation that isn't about the RIAA. We can hash that until blue in the face, it doesn't matter.
What the community needs is a way to gather podcasters, musicians and others involved in media in a campaign to make changes to the way that independent music is used. I believe that there are leaders in the community that want to make that happen, bringing them together and to the table for a serious talk should be the start.
Here are a few ideas:
- The PMN and other podcasting music directories should purchase a BMI and/or ASCAP licenses. Yeah the compensation would come from the companies and not the podcasters. The companies are responsible for the content on their websites/directories. Those with big pockets should swallow the cost. It's $300. It's not going to make or break the companies. When an artist is played on a podcast/downloaded they would receive *some* compensation. Would this be significant?
- As much as the RIAA has a point that all folks should have to pay for the music, the RIAA isn't concerned with paying you. I'm not going to hash that point at you because we've gone there and back. There are two ways of ensuring that music isn't downloaded and then able to be resold/stolen. Create a tracking system and monitor it. And educate those in college and high school why what they are doing is damaging and create awareness of why buying music is important.
- How can you make virtual purchases compensate you as much as disc sales do? Is Virtual Hot Wings a realistic model on how to make and sell a CD? A archive of music downloaded to your hard drive where you create the CD or just put the tunes on your mp3 player.
- All of the Second Life venues should start taking a hard look at purchasing a BMI/ASCAP license. From my perspective they can be held legally responsible for the charges of playing those covers/music if the wrong person starts paying attention. Eventually it will happen. This is the right thing to do legally and it covers them from being liable. If Linden Labs can be taken to court over adult content, then this will not be far behind.
- I don't get how asking to be paid for your work is asking for special treatment. The musicians involved agreed to front their travel expenses but to have to pay to attend the conference in addition to their travel, etc? That is just astounding. This point of view needs to change and fast. Otherwise resentment will build within the new media community. This is a place where, again, discussion needs to happen.
The "contract" that the musicians were asked to sign for SLCC wasn't a contract and I hope that the rumors that is being reworked are accurate for the community's sake.
Chris
· 2 years ago
I agree 101% with Michelle/chelpixie. We all love to call the RIAA evil, but the reality is exactly what you pointed out: there is a problem with properly compensating artists for the work that they do.
I think one step that can be taken is building an environment of compensation. That's sort of a generalised statement, but up until podcasting has always (to me, anyway) had the feeling of "free entertainment". That's all well and good, but building a culture where encouraging compensation would be a great step forward. Like you pointed out, podcasters are wonderful at promoting albums and CDs, but I think we can take that further in actually making it "cool" to donate - as corny and old-school marketing as that may sound. Again this is just a generalised thought... trying to respond quickly!
I completely agree that "kids today" (grin) don't want to buy music. I am one myself - I'm embedded right in the environment and see it from every angle. On one hand I feel the old (oh yeah, teach the RIAA a lesson) but it's hurting the artists. And I think that's something that needs to be changed and chel is right - this can't be about the RIAA. This needs to be about the artists first and foremost.
I'm kind of rambling on this, but ultimately I completely agree with everything you (and chel, for that matter) said. There needs to be a change in attitudes that will make compensation of artists far more common. I know I'm up for the discussion!
(by the way, on a similar vein that may be useful later down the road - I have mostly finished code for a music upload/selling service, sort of like the sales aspect of iTunes with the user-generated aspect of YouTube. I don't know if this could be of any use to anyone who is looking to help in this area, but I'm willing to discuss sharing the code... no need to duplicate work, yes?)
Ed Roberts
· 2 years ago
Great post, Chel....but I do need to mention one thing. Having directories such as the PMN pay for a single $300 ASCAP/BMI license would not work. That would be the same as having Clear Channel, one of the biggest radio Mongols, pay for a single license would cover all their stations. It's not quite that simple.
I don't believe that Napster and the ability to download pirated music as being the cause of people thinking music should be free. Years of radio and television have instilled some of this in our minds. While there is advertising, the content is still FREE. Add the digital revolution... now people can easily take LARGE QUANTITIES of this music for their use later. The viewpoint is not necessarily "I'm out to steal" but more "I can listen to this free on the radio already... so it's already free... hence ALL music should be free."
We need to get to a point where people VALUE this music again. Make them WANT to support the artist. Have the labels show us that THEY support the artists as well by giving them a majority share of the profits of their creative work. It's a HUGE hill to climb, but if the industry wants to survive, it's the only way.
vaspers the grate aka steven e
· 2 years ago
I have been a performing and recording artist for many years, and this whining about "not getting paid" is annoying.
It's not about "getting paid". If you need payment, there are abundant opportunities. But most music bands should focus on Getting Known.
There is too much music. It is too available. Thus, consumers need guidance. How can a music fan decide which unknown band to investigate, perhaps buy music from? Not by looking at a MySpace mess or reading user reviews in Amazon. You see extreme praise and extreme loathing.
You must hear. To go beyond just letting consumers hear your music, you need to let them download it. FREE. Let them download maybe 30 or 40 songs, for FREE. Why? Because then you have a wide variety of material out there, and somebody sometime might like a few things.
By providing free mp3s in abundance, your music could catch fire and go viral. Be a meme. A smash hit on the internet. Then your payday shall arrive with huge bundles of cash.
But to quibble about 20 cent royalty on each song each time somebody plays it? Taxing internet radio, like KillRadio.org? DRM? All counter-promotional nonsense.
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating making podcasters pay to play tracks. That's the whole point of podcasting, being able to set up a show with no overhead and get the word out. What nobody has been talking about, though, is a way for musicians to pay their bills without stifling the revolution. I'm clueless on this one, but the community has to have SOMETHING to contribute.
Steven-
The whole point of this conversation (or, as you call it, "whining") is that the opportunities to make money at music seem to be shrinking as people expect more and more for free. As I already said in my first bullet point, I've got no problem letting podcasters play the tracks for free and sharing whole MP3's on my website/MySpace, etc.
But at some point just "Getting Known" has to translate into a profitable business, otherwise original music will always just be a hobby of people with day jobs. Maybe you're saying that people should only make music after they get home from work, I'm not sure.
But to say "Then your payday shall arrive with huge bundles of cash" is a bit naive. If people are accustomed to getting their music for free, where do you expect these "bundles of cash" to come from?
You didn't really contribute anything here. WHERE are those "bundles of cash" coming from? CD and track sales alone? What kind of volume and pricing would be necessary to support a musician even on a bare-bones budget? Where are your bundles of cash coming from?
Matthew Ebel
· 2 years ago
Riffing on the whole "I don't want to charge podcasters" bit... I guess the vibe of this whole discussion should be seen as "I don't want either of us to starve." I don't want some indie entity like a podcaster or internet radio station to have to pay me... unless they're getting paid.
If they're taking in ad dollars and sponsorships, can they funnel the love to the people who are making THEM popular?
Christopher S. Penn
· 2 years ago
Where's the money? One of the most obvious things is that podcasters, by and large, are NOT making money in any significant amount to justify the purchase of an ASCAP/BMI license. Until podcasting develops sustainable, large scale revenue models, don't expect podcasters to even be able to pony up to pay artists.
Should musicians be compensated for their work? Of course. Substitute any other profession for musician/content creator and the argument is a short one. The question isn't whether they should or not, the question is *how*.
Some concrete steps I'd suggest:
1. Determine which is a better payout for artists - a link to the track in iTunes (via Linkshare) or a link to the artist's web site. Gut instinct tells me that the iTunes link would be more valuable for the artist because the barrier to purchase is much lower at 99 cents than $12 for an album. As a podcaster, develop a stable of consistently great music that can be copied and pasted into show notes, so that putting together shows is quick and easy. Or, alternately, use IODA promonet, which will generate affiliate links automatically.
2. Artists should get in the habit of compiling a set list of their original works along with the appropriate identifiers to make reporting easy. For example, the hit song Drive Away is BMI Work #7849298. Every public venue that plays an artist's music should have an ASCAP/BMI license, without question. Second Life, First Life, a martial arts school, whatever. Want to make sure venues pay? Start reporting violations en masse to ASCAP/BMI - when the lawyers start knocking, venues will either pay up or shut down. Most will probably opt for the latter, but the infringement on artists' works will stop real quick.
3. Give artists and musicians proper legal paperwork and tools to work with. Give them a toolkit of a waiver of licensing, a modified licensing agreement, and a good cease and desist letter, plus access to a local notary. If they see flagrant violations of their rights, they can at least start the process for compensation.
4. Create a modified licensing agreement for preferred venues, podcasts, etc. For a $10 monthly fee, a non-commercial podcast that accepts no advertising can play Matthew Ebel's music royalty free, or a commercial Second Life venue (one which accepts advertising, fees, cover charges, or any other form of compensation including tips) can buy a commercial license on a sliding scale based on estimated revenue and benefit to the venue for the artist's performances.
Ultimately, the way for musicians to earn money is to enforce the rights they have. The reason the RIAA and associated bodies grew into the monsters that they are is that too many musicians were unwilling to enforce their rights and ceded control of their music to a third party. The balance between intellectual property theft and RIAA pillaging is when the artist or his/her management enforces the rights of the artist. One artist alone might not make all that much of a difference, but if every podsafe artist started enforcing their rights, new media would need to pay up damn fast.
Michelle/chelpixie
· 2 years ago
Let me clarify here.
I do not think that podcasters should take a hit in any way shape or form. I do think that there has to be a better model. Most podcasters do this as a hobby or on their own time and maybe some of them use google ads to recover some cost of hosting, maybe they don't and do it for the love of doing so. If you know me, you know that I want to encourage the creative process, to free artists to be able to create without worrying about marketing or getting paid for their music being played.
Community discussions are going to move this forward.
Ed, good point. PMN buying one license would be pointless. Maybe a premium for more than one? Meh, it could just not reasonably work.
Turning the mindframe that music should be free will be a huge undertaking, perhaps one that should be folded in to creating awareness of artists and the new media community. Brogan posted about touching 5 people with various media that they might not have known about before. It's the same concept, reach out to 5 people that don't understand the effect of their bad habits.
Turning it around means creating respect for the work that podcasters and musicians do. Huge hill to climb, indeed.
Shamrock
· 2 years ago
well i think that a musician needs to be paid for every aspect of their art no matter what unless they willing share it for free
Rich
· 2 years ago
I'm very late into this conversation, but thought I would throw in a few things.
I, like Matthew, often "supplement" my music income by doing works for hire. Podcast jingles, music beds for commercial stations, industrial training music, and of course, voiceover work. There can and should be a better model for those of us that want to send out our creative product to wider audiences -- while being able to generate income.
I surely don't know what that model can/should be. There are some great comments in this thread and some very good ideas. If they can be effective is yet to be seen. We would only know if some grassroots spear-heading would take place.
I wonder if there's a way to create a licensing model alongside a service like LibSyn, or one compatible with it. I'm currently paying $5/mo for hosting there. (If I were actively podcasting at the moment) I'd quickly pay another ~$5/mo to license music if it was easy to get and add to my podcast. I'm imagining a system that would allow you to add music links to the show notes with one click, as well as associate tracks with episodes for the sake of finding similar shows and similar music.
As for the culture, yeah, it's tough. Most college kids (I speak as a rising senior) have no problem ripping off an artists work. Not only are they used to it, now the RIAA's on their backs with crappy "Stealing is bad!" PSAs that just make people proud to be "pirates". Honestly, it doesn't bother me too much when people share RIAA music, because I know the artist wouldn't see much of anything from the album sales anyway. But an indie artist? Now you're stealing food out of someone's mouth.
Matt, I think of you as my friend, and I want you to get what you deserve. I think of a lot of artists as friends, though mostly friends I've never met. I care about them as human beings and I want them to get the money they deserve to, you know, live. I think it's time we started our own campaign. Not a campaign of fear and chiding like the RIAA's, but a campaign of humanity. We need to show people who is at the other end of their music, and the direct line between the listener and the artist. When people rip off music, they shouldn't worry that an RIAA lawyer is going to send them a letter, they should worry that a very talented person in Nashville, or New York, or Los Angeles isn't getting compensated fairly for the hard work he does.
I'm your man on campus if you're ready to get the word out.
Komuso Tokugawa
· 2 years ago
This is a very good topic, but I'm not sure it's all to do with RIAA.
from Will Page of MCPS-PRS, the UKs version of ASCAP. It's a little dry to read, but it explains in economic terms what you have highlighted and possible solutions, at least from the perspective of a rights collecting agency - which gives you the link to RIAA I guess, but there is more to it than that.
The basic premise is that music is becoming little more than a commodity [duh!], and as such the value in the music business in the future will be in the services that surround the music and the performance of the music itself not the formats in which its delivered [ie:cd, mp3 etc etc].
A combination of factors technological and social have also combined in a lot of cases to cause people to even perceive live music as being of little value. Opportunities for playing live in rl have shrunk in most countries due to the above factors.
The live music scene in the emerging metaverse, such as sl, does provide new performance opportunities and income potential but it is very early days and time to experiment. It's also a micro-payments mindset at the moment, so you have to be open-minded and flexible. I also have my own views on this area but that's an evolving topic for my metaverse music blog -> http://www.sonicviz.com/blogs/
I think giving away a certain amount of your work is the only way to get some marketing traction in such a crowded commodity market. There are many ways to do this, as you have identified. However, giving away everything for free, if you are a pro/semi-pro doing it for a living, may not be a wise move either tho considering the way people generally look at value, but that would depend on a lot of factors I think. Personal branding, community building and relations, how you actually make money from performing and tie ins, etc etc.
And giving it away for free does not mean signing your rights away in one sided contracts in the hope you may get "discovered" via "exposure", as the recent farce with SLCC07 live music has turned into. These sort of deals are written to advantage people keen to maintain the old paradigm of control over artists, especially artists still under the illusion that if they can just get discovered they will be a "star". If you think this way you not only fail to understand how the record industry fundamentally works [or doesn't as the case is now], but also fail to understand how the media and general entertainment industry machines work. You need to educate yourself as to how they do so that anytime you need to sign something you are fully aware of the risks and rewards and have judged them accurately, not clutched at a hollow straw in desperation.
You now have all the tools at your own disposal to get out there. The downside is, even if you are good, you may have to be satisfied with the fact that your market may not be as big as you think it should be;-)
Welcome to the niche market century!
Komuso Tokugawa
· 2 years ago
And good link Rich...http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/icst-6-full.html in on the right track.
Especially in relation to SL and the emerging new virtual performance mediums, given they are micropayment economies and may remain so, at least in some respects, for a while to come.
Gotta start somewhere and the best place for a musician is playing live and connecting with people I think. Live music isn't dead, its just evolved.
It's a fantastic service that benefits both musicians and music buyers. Enjoy it as much as we all enjoy Matt's music. :)
Komuso Tokugawa
· 2 years ago
Actually there are some possible flaws with the Magnatune model.
The biggest one is their manual submission and filtering process. It is scaleable only to a certain point, due to the following.
I asked John Buckman about this, at a web 2.0 conference in Tokyo a few months back, in relation to the next point, and he agreed that even their system was based in part on an old model if I recall correctly - and could be done differently if it was implemented now.
One of the hottest trends in music at the moment, tho not on everybody's radar, is music recommendation services. These can range from simple user playlist sharing to sophisticated taste recommendation services combining playlist sharing and sophisticated Artificial Intelligence algorithms to parse huge music audio fingerprint databases like http://www.musicip.com/
Due to information overload we are experiencing on all levels I predict you will find more and more people turning to systems like this, combinations of personal trust systems and automated analysis/recommendation, to filter the mass of content out there. The old model of "exposure" via mainstream media as the only path to success is failing both due to overload and the fact that people, to a large degree, do not trust what they see in the media.
2d/3d Social networks mean people can build customised trust networks to get filtered content they believe in and not have to rely on thinly disguised advertising such as the tradition media "article" system has been ie: payola for play or write still exists.
Which probably makes http://www.bob-baker.com/musicpromotionblog/200... a very timely topic:-) [tho one of the commenters has a very good point also in relation to songwriters, but that is a different career path from musician really]
Mike Wills
· 2 years ago
Podcasting has changed my outlook on musicians and their music. I used to have the "screw the big man" mentality. But now looking at these great artists working hard to live, I have a new outlook. I buy the music when I can and if I can't afford it, I add it to my wish list and buy when I can.
I think PodShow needs to finish up the PMN. When I read their license at one time I believe if you are non-commercial you can use the music for free. Thus one would assume a fee would have to be paid if you are commercial. The question is what is commercial and how do you pay those fees? I am sure there is a handful of podcasters out there that qualify as commercial, but I am also sure many of them are buying music and CDs from the artists as well. I don't mean to just pick on PodShow for this, I believe most of the "Podsafe Music Networks" have similar licensing. They should finish defining these rules and systems and get them in place.
As a podcaster, I can't afford and would have to quit podcasting if they charged everyone a fee to use the music. However, if I was turning a profit, I would have no problem paying for playing. But I don't think podcasters are the problem. We are a handful to the thousands of listeners and consumers of the music.
I realize what Matt's concern is and the many others that have gotten to where they are today because of podcasting. I think what one person suggested about the PSA would help, but we are talking about a small percentage of the whole listening audience would listen or care.
What is the solution? Personally, I don't think there is a silver bullet. Americans are cheap and lazy. They will go cheap if it is easy. File sharing is pretty easy these days. If you make file sharing difficult (like in the pre-Napster days) consumers will buy the music. Since that isn't going to happen, we need to figure out a better solution.
C.C.
· 2 years ago
I too wish that all the sites out there that allow people to podcast music also easily allowed for the artists to sell their tunes as well. Some do it, but none do it as easily as I would like to see. I've always liked the idea that you could record a song one night at a show and upload it and set a price to start selling it as soon as possible with the music going right into your pocket. I have yet to see that happen.
As a club owner in Second Life I've thought about charging for events. Ticket prices basically with the money going to the musician that night. I'm not sure how the community would react to this as I have not seen it done except in charity situations. But, I feel it's yet another way to help the artists. I always pay/tip the artists that play at my venue. It's the lease I can do for them.
This is a new path that we are walking down and one that no one has figured out yet. Some great comments in here so far which is great.
Peter Jaros
· 2 years ago
I wasn't very clear above when I said "campaign". I don't think PSAs are going to do much. No one's going to care. What I'm envisioning are events, maybe a concert series. We've got the start of that with the Podsafe Showcase shows. Let's expand on that idea and make it about raising awareness of how artists actually make their living.
Komuso Tokugawa
· 2 years ago
"Ive always liked the idea that you could record a song one night at a show and upload it and set a price to start selling it as soon as possible with the music going right into your pocket. I have yet to see that happen."
I've done this but not charged, free giveaway.
I also released a live recording policy of CC 3.0 by-nd-nc on my website ages ago http://www.sonicviz.com/music/members/6/blog.php that releases the users to record their own "album" live and bypass the selling/download stage. Trust them to pay you, if not now at some point in the future maybe. And they may share it which is free marketing.
They do it anyway, may as well go with it because you sure ain't gonna fight it. It gets back to my first post about the value not being in the download anyway, and you always have the option to release higher quality recordings for sale later.
ok
· 2 years ago
I agree with you, that the ethics of art are INSANELY INEQUITABLE these days. People out there bitching and holding up fists saying "may characters are copyright ME ME ME! don't copy or I hate you sue you bite you!!" ... the same person has NO qualms about stealing music ;P Music SHOULD be exposed, but people need to re-learn the idea that if it's something you love, you BUY it, or it's just not fair to exploit the musical artists.... (as if they aren't WORTHY, like drawing artists)... ;/
Matthew Ebel
· 2 years ago
So far I'm really digging the commentary here... hopefully you folks are discussing this OUTSIDE of my website as well!
Chris Penn-
I don't think charging podcasters to play tunes would do anything to help the revolution along. I would, however, like to see some kind of payments coming in from podcasters that are sponsored. If GoDaddy's writing someone a check for a music podcast, why does the announcer get paid but not the creators of the actual content?
Unfortunately, the rates BMI or ASCAP would charge don't reflect the kind of money that's actually present in podcasting right now. You're lucky, you've got a company that can afford it, but even $600 a year is too much for most podcasters. Even sponsored shows.
Dang, there are a lot of good comments I just don't have time to address right now... fortunately everyone else is. :)
All Comments
I prefer the model where I pay the artist directly. Screw the RIAA, and iTunes for that matter - they are only interested in lining their own fat pockets. They TALK about how they fight for the artists, but as far as I can tell, they fight for the profits.
I'd prefer to let the community hash out some kind of standards that both fit the new landscape and keep everyone fairly represented.
As it is, it's getting worse. The FTC just abandoned net neutrality. Be prepared to pay a premium for reliable access to websites, or even for people to hear your podcasts, etc.
If cd's were fairly priced to actual cost plus an expected *modest* profit, disc shops would still be doing a decent business, not closing doors forever. Instead, even with all the advances in production and technique, the prices went up!
The music industry is long overdue for a major overhaul!
In all seriousness, though, I understand your frustration.
My personal shows are a complete money sink -- I have no sponsors, no fancy discount codes, no paid pre-roll, no free hosting, nadda. I don't say this in an attempt to martyr myself or any such silliness, but as much as I love nearly all of the music I am able to play, the idea of ponying up $500+ in ASCAP/BMI licenses, per show, per year, for something that generates negative income for me already would make me seriously think twice about podcasting as a hobby, as it would for others.
Then again, as much as it grates my "low barrier for entry" senses, perhaps a $500 a year entry fee for music podcasting would be the ticket to weed out the podcast directories and separate the serious producers from the putz-around amateurs in a bloody hurry....
Not to go all anti-capitalistic, but I think the scenario would be completely different if podcasting was generating a profit for me, or if I was "corporate" or had some other type of "sponsorship" generating black numbers on a top line. At that point, ASCAP/BMI becomes a moral obligation (profiting from the music being played) if not a legal one (PMN considerations aside).
I'm not saying podcasters shouldn't make a profit (if they chose to, that is), but I think there needs to be an eye turned towards those generating some serious profits and doing so thanks to the music they are playing. Someone has to be making some money with all these sponsorships flaying about, right?
As far as the RIAA is concerned, they need to find a way to make people want to pay for music (and I believe it can be done, despite the fact there will always be pirates on some level). Until then, they are going down the same losing battle plan they used with the cassette tape. Apparently, they never played Risk as a kid....
Short of doing the things I do now (CD/iTunes purchases, concerts, preaching the gospel to all who would listen), I'm not sure what else I can do to be supportive, financially and otherwise, of artists such as yourself.
Apologies for comment-blogging in your space (again). I certainly don't claim to have the answers, but I do sympathize with the plight, for what it's worth.
What the community needs is a way to gather podcasters, musicians and others involved in media in a campaign to make changes to the way that independent music is used. I believe that there are leaders in the community that want to make that happen, bringing them together and to the table for a serious talk should be the start.
Here are a few ideas:
- The PMN and other podcasting music directories should purchase a BMI and/or ASCAP licenses. Yeah the compensation would come from the companies and not the podcasters. The companies are responsible for the content on their websites/directories. Those with big pockets should swallow the cost. It's $300. It's not going to make or break the companies. When an artist is played on a podcast/downloaded they would receive *some* compensation. Would this be significant?
- As much as the RIAA has a point that all folks should have to pay for the music, the RIAA isn't concerned with paying you. I'm not going to hash that point at you because we've gone there and back. There are two ways of ensuring that music isn't downloaded and then able to be resold/stolen. Create a tracking system and monitor it. And educate those in college and high school why what they are doing is damaging and create awareness of why buying music is important.
- How can you make virtual purchases compensate you as much as disc sales do? Is Virtual Hot Wings a realistic model on how to make and sell a CD? A archive of music downloaded to your hard drive where you create the CD or just put the tunes on your mp3 player.
- All of the Second Life venues should start taking a hard look at purchasing a BMI/ASCAP license. From my perspective they can be held legally responsible for the charges of playing those covers/music if the wrong person starts paying attention. Eventually it will happen. This is the right thing to do legally and it covers them from being liable. If Linden Labs can be taken to court over adult content, then this will not be far behind.
- I don't get how asking to be paid for your work is asking for special treatment. The musicians involved agreed to front their travel expenses but to have to pay to attend the conference in addition to their travel, etc? That is just astounding. This point of view needs to change and fast. Otherwise resentment will build within the new media community. This is a place where, again, discussion needs to happen.
The "contract" that the musicians were asked to sign for SLCC wasn't a contract and I hope that the rumors that is being reworked are accurate for the community's sake.
I think one step that can be taken is building an environment of compensation. That's sort of a generalised statement, but up until podcasting has always (to me, anyway) had the feeling of "free entertainment". That's all well and good, but building a culture where encouraging compensation would be a great step forward. Like you pointed out, podcasters are wonderful at promoting albums and CDs, but I think we can take that further in actually making it "cool" to donate - as corny and old-school marketing as that may sound. Again this is just a generalised thought... trying to respond quickly!
I completely agree that "kids today" (grin) don't want to buy music. I am one myself - I'm embedded right in the environment and see it from every angle. On one hand I feel the old (oh yeah, teach the RIAA a lesson) but it's hurting the artists. And I think that's something that needs to be changed and chel is right - this can't be about the RIAA. This needs to be about the artists first and foremost.
I'm kind of rambling on this, but ultimately I completely agree with everything you (and chel, for that matter) said. There needs to be a change in attitudes that will make compensation of artists far more common. I know I'm up for the discussion!
(by the way, on a similar vein that may be useful later down the road - I have mostly finished code for a music upload/selling service, sort of like the sales aspect of iTunes with the user-generated aspect of YouTube. I don't know if this could be of any use to anyone who is looking to help in this area, but I'm willing to discuss sharing the code... no need to duplicate work, yes?)
I don't believe that Napster and the ability to download pirated music as being the cause of people thinking music should be free. Years of radio and television have instilled some of this in our minds. While there is advertising, the content is still FREE. Add the digital revolution... now people can easily take LARGE QUANTITIES of this music for their use later. The viewpoint is not necessarily "I'm out to steal" but more "I can listen to this free on the radio already... so it's already free... hence ALL music should be free."
We need to get to a point where people VALUE this music again. Make them WANT to support the artist. Have the labels show us that THEY support the artists as well by giving them a majority share of the profits of their creative work. It's a HUGE hill to climb, but if the industry wants to survive, it's the only way.
It's not about "getting paid". If you need payment, there are abundant opportunities. But most music bands should focus on Getting Known.
There is too much music. It is too available. Thus, consumers need guidance. How can a music fan decide which unknown band to investigate, perhaps buy music from? Not by looking at a MySpace mess or reading user reviews in Amazon. You see extreme praise and extreme loathing.
You must hear. To go beyond just letting consumers hear your music, you need to let them download it. FREE. Let them download maybe 30 or 40 songs, for FREE. Why? Because then you have a wide variety of material out there, and somebody sometime might like a few things.
By providing free mp3s in abundance, your music could catch fire and go viral. Be a meme. A smash hit on the internet. Then your payday shall arrive with huge bundles of cash.
But to quibble about 20 cent royalty on each song each time somebody plays it? Taxing internet radio, like KillRadio.org? DRM? All counter-promotional nonsense.
http://twitter.com/vaspers
My free mp3s are, among many other places, here:
http://newreformedinsane.ning.com
http://www.garageband.com/artist/str8sounds
Just to clarify, I'm not advocating making podcasters pay to play tracks. That's the whole point of podcasting, being able to set up a show with no overhead and get the word out. What nobody has been talking about, though, is a way for musicians to pay their bills without stifling the revolution. I'm clueless on this one, but the community has to have SOMETHING to contribute.
Steven-
The whole point of this conversation (or, as you call it, "whining") is that the opportunities to make money at music seem to be shrinking as people expect more and more for free. As I already said in my first bullet point, I've got no problem letting podcasters play the tracks for free and sharing whole MP3's on my website/MySpace, etc.
But at some point just "Getting Known" has to translate into a profitable business, otherwise original music will always just be a hobby of people with day jobs. Maybe you're saying that people should only make music after they get home from work, I'm not sure.
But to say "Then your payday shall arrive with huge bundles of cash" is a bit naive. If people are accustomed to getting their music for free, where do you expect these "bundles of cash" to come from?
You didn't really contribute anything here. WHERE are those "bundles of cash" coming from? CD and track sales alone? What kind of volume and pricing would be necessary to support a musician even on a bare-bones budget? Where are your bundles of cash coming from?
If they're taking in ad dollars and sponsorships, can they funnel the love to the people who are making THEM popular?
Should musicians be compensated for their work? Of course. Substitute any other profession for musician/content creator and the argument is a short one. The question isn't whether they should or not, the question is *how*.
Some concrete steps I'd suggest:
1. Determine which is a better payout for artists - a link to the track in iTunes (via Linkshare) or a link to the artist's web site. Gut instinct tells me that the iTunes link would be more valuable for the artist because the barrier to purchase is much lower at 99 cents than $12 for an album. As a podcaster, develop a stable of consistently great music that can be copied and pasted into show notes, so that putting together shows is quick and easy. Or, alternately, use IODA promonet, which will generate affiliate links automatically.
2. Artists should get in the habit of compiling a set list of their original works along with the appropriate identifiers to make reporting easy. For example, the hit song Drive Away is BMI Work #7849298. Every public venue that plays an artist's music should have an ASCAP/BMI license, without question. Second Life, First Life, a martial arts school, whatever. Want to make sure venues pay? Start reporting violations en masse to ASCAP/BMI - when the lawyers start knocking, venues will either pay up or shut down. Most will probably opt for the latter, but the infringement on artists' works will stop real quick.
3. Give artists and musicians proper legal paperwork and tools to work with. Give them a toolkit of a waiver of licensing, a modified licensing agreement, and a good cease and desist letter, plus access to a local notary. If they see flagrant violations of their rights, they can at least start the process for compensation.
4. Create a modified licensing agreement for preferred venues, podcasts, etc. For a $10 monthly fee, a non-commercial podcast that accepts no advertising can play Matthew Ebel's music royalty free, or a commercial Second Life venue (one which accepts advertising, fees, cover charges, or any other form of compensation including tips) can buy a commercial license on a sliding scale based on estimated revenue and benefit to the venue for the artist's performances.
Ultimately, the way for musicians to earn money is to enforce the rights they have. The reason the RIAA and associated bodies grew into the monsters that they are is that too many musicians were unwilling to enforce their rights and ceded control of their music to a third party. The balance between intellectual property theft and RIAA pillaging is when the artist or his/her management enforces the rights of the artist. One artist alone might not make all that much of a difference, but if every podsafe artist started enforcing their rights, new media would need to pay up damn fast.
I do not think that podcasters should take a hit in any way shape or form. I do think that there has to be a better model. Most podcasters do this as a hobby or on their own time and maybe some of them use google ads to recover some cost of hosting, maybe they don't and do it for the love of doing so. If you know me, you know that I want to encourage the creative process, to free artists to be able to create without worrying about marketing or getting paid for their music being played.
Community discussions are going to move this forward.
Ed, good point. PMN buying one license would be pointless. Maybe a premium for more than one? Meh, it could just not reasonably work.
Turning the mindframe that music should be free will be a huge undertaking, perhaps one that should be folded in to creating awareness of artists and the new media community. Brogan posted about touching 5 people with various media that they might not have known about before. It's the same concept, reach out to 5 people that don't understand the effect of their bad habits.
Turning it around means creating respect for the work that podcasters and musicians do. Huge hill to climb, indeed.
I, like Matthew, often "supplement" my music income by doing works for hire. Podcast jingles, music beds for commercial stations, industrial training music, and of course, voiceover work. There can and should be a better model for those of us that want to send out our creative product to wider audiences -- while being able to generate income.
I surely don't know what that model can/should be. There are some great comments in this thread and some very good ideas. If they can be effective is yet to be seen. We would only know if some grassroots spear-heading would take place.
I found an interesting "theory" posted at this web site: http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/...
What do some of you think about this concept of micropayments?
As for the culture, yeah, it's tough. Most college kids (I speak as a rising senior) have no problem ripping off an artists work. Not only are they used to it, now the RIAA's on their backs with crappy "Stealing is bad!" PSAs that just make people proud to be "pirates". Honestly, it doesn't bother me too much when people share RIAA music, because I know the artist wouldn't see much of anything from the album sales anyway. But an indie artist? Now you're stealing food out of someone's mouth.
Matt, I think of you as my friend, and I want you to get what you deserve. I think of a lot of artists as friends, though mostly friends I've never met. I care about them as human beings and I want them to get the money they deserve to, you know, live. I think it's time we started our own campaign. Not a campaign of fear and chiding like the RIAA's, but a campaign of humanity. We need to show people who is at the other end of their music, and the direct line between the listener and the artist. When people rip off music, they shouldn't worry that an RIAA lawyer is going to send them a letter, they should worry that a very talented person in Nashville, or New York, or Los Angeles isn't getting compensated fairly for the hard work he does.
I'm your man on campus if you're ready to get the word out.
Read this research paper titled "Is the price of recorded music heading towards zero?"
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/whatshappeni...
from Will Page of MCPS-PRS, the UKs version of ASCAP. It's a little dry to read, but it explains in economic terms what you have highlighted and possible solutions, at least from the perspective of a rights collecting agency - which gives you the link to RIAA I guess, but there is more to it than that.
The basic premise is that music is becoming little more than a commodity [duh!], and as such the value in the music business in the future will be in the services that surround the music and the performance of the music itself not the formats in which its delivered [ie:cd, mp3 etc etc].
A combination of factors technological and social have also combined in a lot of cases to cause people to even perceive live music as being of little value. Opportunities for playing live in rl have shrunk in most countries due to the above factors.
The live music scene in the emerging metaverse, such as sl, does provide new performance opportunities and income potential but it is very early days and time to experiment. It's also a micro-payments mindset at the moment, so you have to be open-minded and flexible. I also have my own views on this area but that's an evolving topic for my metaverse music blog -> http://www.sonicviz.com/blogs/
I think giving away a certain amount of your work is the only way to get some marketing traction in such a crowded commodity market. There are many ways to do this, as you have identified. However, giving away everything for free, if you are a pro/semi-pro doing it for a living, may not be a wise move either tho considering the way people generally look at value, but that would depend on a lot of factors I think.
Personal branding, community building and relations, how you actually make money from performing and tie ins, etc etc.
And giving it away for free does not mean signing your rights away in one sided contracts in the hope you may get "discovered" via "exposure", as the recent farce with SLCC07 live music has turned into. These sort of deals are written to advantage people keen to maintain the old paradigm of control over artists, especially artists still under the illusion that if they can just get discovered they will be a "star". If you think this way you not only fail to understand how the record industry fundamentally works [or doesn't as the case is now], but also fail to understand how the media and general entertainment industry machines work. You need to educate yourself as to how they do so that anytime you need to sign something you are fully aware of the risks and rewards and have judged them accurately, not clutched at a hollow straw in desperation.
You now have all the tools at your own disposal to get out there. The downside is, even if you are good, you may have to be satisfied with the fact that your market may not be as big as you think it should be;-)
Welcome to the niche market century!
Especially in relation to SL and the emerging new virtual performance mediums, given they are micropayment economies and may remain so, at least in some respects, for a while to come.
Gotta start somewhere and the best place for a musician is playing live and connecting with people I think. Live music isn't dead, its just evolved.
Good Copy Bad Copy http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7522 also has some interesting points on this.
I love Magnatune ("we are not evil") at http://www.magnatune.com/
Read the founder's own story at http://www.magnatune.com/info/why.
The team has a presence in Second Life too: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Kula%201/58/159/22.
It's a fantastic service that benefits both musicians and music buyers.
Enjoy it as much as we all enjoy Matt's music. :)
The biggest one is their manual submission and filtering process.
It is scaleable only to a certain point, due to the following.
I asked John Buckman about this, at a web 2.0 conference in Tokyo a few months back, in relation to the next point, and he agreed that even their system was based in part on an old model if I recall correctly - and could be done differently if it was implemented now.
One of the hottest trends in music at the moment, tho not on everybody's radar, is music recommendation services. These can range from simple user playlist sharing to sophisticated taste recommendation services combining playlist sharing and sophisticated Artificial Intelligence algorithms to parse huge music audio fingerprint databases like http://www.musicip.com/
Due to information overload we are experiencing on all levels I predict you will find more and more people turning to systems like this, combinations of personal trust systems and automated analysis/recommendation, to filter the mass of content out there. The old model of "exposure" via mainstream media as the only path to success is failing both due to overload and the fact that people, to a large degree, do not trust what they see in the media.
2d/3d Social networks mean people can build customised trust networks to get filtered content they believe in and not have to rely on thinly disguised advertising such as the tradition media "article" system has been ie: payola for play or write still exists.
Which probably makes http://www.bob-baker.com/musicpromotionblog/200...
a very timely topic:-) [tho one of the commenters has a very good point also in relation to songwriters, but that is a different career path from musician really]
I think PodShow needs to finish up the PMN. When I read their license at one time I believe if you are non-commercial you can use the music for free. Thus one would assume a fee would have to be paid if you are commercial. The question is what is commercial and how do you pay those fees? I am sure there is a handful of podcasters out there that qualify as commercial, but I am also sure many of them are buying music and CDs from the artists as well. I don't mean to just pick on PodShow for this, I believe most of the "Podsafe Music Networks" have similar licensing. They should finish defining these rules and systems and get them in place.
As a podcaster, I can't afford and would have to quit podcasting if they charged everyone a fee to use the music. However, if I was turning a profit, I would have no problem paying for playing. But I don't think podcasters are the problem. We are a handful to the thousands of listeners and consumers of the music.
I realize what Matt's concern is and the many others that have gotten to where they are today because of podcasting. I think what one person suggested about the PSA would help, but we are talking about a small percentage of the whole listening audience would listen or care.
What is the solution? Personally, I don't think there is a silver bullet. Americans are cheap and lazy. They will go cheap if it is easy. File sharing is pretty easy these days. If you make file sharing difficult (like in the pre-Napster days) consumers will buy the music. Since that isn't going to happen, we need to figure out a better solution.
As a club owner in Second Life I've thought about charging for events. Ticket prices basically with the money going to the musician that night. I'm not sure how the community would react to this as I have not seen it done except in charity situations. But, I feel it's yet another way to help the artists. I always pay/tip the artists that play at my venue. It's the lease I can do for them.
This is a new path that we are walking down and one that no one has figured out yet. Some great comments in here so far which is great.
I've done this but not charged, free giveaway.
I also released a live recording policy of CC 3.0 by-nd-nc on my website ages ago
http://www.sonicviz.com/music/members/6/blog.php that releases the users to record their own "album" live and bypass the selling/download stage. Trust them to pay you, if not now at some point in the future maybe. And they may share it which is free marketing.
They do it anyway, may as well go with it because you sure ain't gonna fight it.
It gets back to my first post about the value not being in the download anyway, and you always have the option to release higher quality recordings for sale later.
Music SHOULD be exposed, but people need to re-learn the idea that if it's something you love, you BUY it, or it's just not fair to exploit the musical artists.... (as if they aren't WORTHY, like drawing artists)... ;/
Chris Penn-
I don't think charging podcasters to play tunes would do anything to help the revolution along. I would, however, like to see some kind of payments coming in from podcasters that are sponsored. If GoDaddy's writing someone a check for a music podcast, why does the announcer get paid but not the creators of the actual content?
Unfortunately, the rates BMI or ASCAP would charge don't reflect the kind of money that's actually present in podcasting right now. You're lucky, you've got a company that can afford it, but even $600 a year is too much for most podcasters. Even sponsored shows.
Dang, there are a lot of good comments I just don't have time to address right now... fortunately everyone else is. :)
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives...