Musician Jonathan Coulton: I Value The Internet A Lot More Than The Record Industry
from the good-point dept
We've written plenty about Jonathan Coulton over the years, including two recent stories. The first was his revelation that he grossed about half a million dollars last year -- even with his music being offered under a Creative Commons license such that you could share it. He made a lot of his money because people still pay him for the music just to support him, and also from touring. We also wrote about his thoughtful discussion over what the shutting down of Megaupload meant.Last month he went on Jerry Brito's Surprisingly Free podcast where he talked more about both of those things, as well as his general thoughts on his career and related issues. Where it got especially interesting was a bit further into the discussion, where he admits that he certainly still has an emotional reaction to finding out someone downloaded his music without paying for it, which makes his relationship with copyright more "complicated." However, he then talks about how important the internet is to him, and how in the long run, if it comes down to the internet or copyright law, he's got to side with the internet:
... where you fall on this issue, a lot of the time, comes down to how much you value things like a "free and open internet." And, for me... if, as a consequence of nurturing this amazing thing, called the internet... if as a consequence of letting that do what it wants, we destroy a number of industries, including the record business, and maybe even including the rock star business, I think that humanity will be better off. I, for one, think that the internet is one of the greatest human achievements, ever. It's an amazing tool and we have only just begun to explore the possibilities. To me, it feels like it's a part of our evolution as a species. I value it as much as I value the Bill of Rights....He later says (as we've talked about over and over again) that there are all sorts of ways to compete with infringement -- and offering all works at a reasonable price in the formats people want, is a really, really good way to compete and get people to actually buy.
Towards the end, he also points out that the research still hasn't really shown that piracy has harmed artists:
You need to reassess whether or not piracy is actually a problem. A lot of people assume it is... and they could be right. But I don't think we've really determined the answer to that question. And I don't think we can make smart policy decisions until we know the answer to that question. If, in fact, there is some small harm or no harm, then we need to look and see: what do we want to do with this society? Is it better for us to have some small amount of piracy, in exchange for all the other goodies we're going to get if we stop spending so much time and effort trying to squash things.... We make decisions all the time about what we think is morally right and wrong, and more and more people are making decisions that are out of step with the laws. And that's an interesting phenomenon, and we haven't really unraveled what it means yet.Again, this isn't some "freeloader" as critics often like to label all sorts of folks who make these kinds of arguments. This is a very successful professional musician, whose success hasn't come from the traditional gatekeepers, but from embracing the internet and what it allows, and developing new business models.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jonathan coulton, piracy, revenue, value
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> a million dollars last year -- even with his music being
> offered under a Creative Commons license such that you
> could share it.
That proves he must be a freetard. :-)
None of that money went to the record industry gatekeepers, who think themselves entitled to a cut of all music. Like collection societies that come to collect even from venues that play music not owned by them.
But putting his music under a creative commons license was just rubbing it in. That means other people can copy (gasp!) music for free -- which is obviously bad, um, somehow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collections Agencies + Creative Commons
So is Jonathan Coulton
And Paul And Storm
And Yours Truly.
All Three of us license our music with a CC license (Coulton's and mine are with a BY-NC 3.0 license, Paul And Storm's is with a BY-NC-SA license).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons
My BMI page is here: http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=T rue&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=BMI&cae=640107296&keyID=550196026&keyname =ABRAM%20SAMUEL&querytype=WriterID
Jonathan Coulton's BMI page is here: http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=T rue&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=BMI&cae=429434156&keyID=864690&keyname=CO ULTON+JONATHAN+WILLIAM&querytype=WriterID
Paul and Storm's ASCAP page is here: http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?requesttimeout=300&mode=results&searchstr=342547113& search_in=i&search_type=exact&search_det=t,s,w,p,b,v&results_pp=10&start=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons
Depends on how you define "free". Not free using Richard Stallman's or (blech) Nina Paley's decision, that's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Collections Agencies + Creative Commons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The proliferation of the banal "talent show" formatted TV drivel (AI, X-Factor, the Voice) are part of the problem. . . why educate yourself and do something meaningful when you can go on TV and become a "star?"
Same with the Hip-Hop Ghetto culture - "I doesn't ned too be edicayted, I's kin RAP!" Sorry, buddy - so can any 5-year-old *lays down a beat* "Hey diddle-diddle/ the cat and the fiddle/ the cow jumped over the moon. . ."
Real musicians are an endangered species. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop infringing on my copyrights. That's illegal and that's wrong.
Rock & Roll!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why pay when there's a near endless supply of groupies? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, the "free and open internet" is marvelous because it is packed full of stuff that wasn't free to start with, but have been paid for in other ways. But as those ways disappear (say music sales), what model will come that will allow musicians to still be musicians, without having to do something else to pay the bills?
There is only so much support for live shows, there are only so many hoodies and t-shirts anyone can want. So what is the real model in the long run?
It's easy to paint a utopia, but a little reality goes a long way to explaining how things will work, and how we get there. No pie in the sky stuff, let's have some reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kinda funny that you say this on a post about Jonathon Coulton, who grossed over half a million dollars last year -- much of it from selling music that was also available (legally) for free.
Seriously: you used to at least read the posts before saying something stupid. Now you don't even bother to go that far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since you are trying to ditch it, please explain what the future really looks like for recording artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I have been looking for (and unable to find here) is that once that model has been completed exterminated by piracy, how do people see it working? I have heard the "regional" model, but it seems like a cop out, especially in the connected world.
I am trying to figure out how an artist would go about getting the critical mass (or the money) to be able to go out and tour all over the country / world in the future. Who's going to pay the tab?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JoCo's success
The intimacy that JoCo has when he connects with his fans at venues is something that cannot be pirated. It is because of that that people WANT to support him when they have the chance.
While there are people who came of age in a world amok with piracy, keep in mind that many of those people WILL pay for their favorite artists. And they WILL pay once there's an attractive alternative to piracy, like bandcamp. The fact is, people (or rather, most people) don't want things for free, they just want access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JoCo's success
Proof of the effects of piracy - again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: JoCo's success
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: JoCo's success
Proof that you're not really looking for an argument other than coming here to scream "but but but cannot compete with free!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government? LoL
labels? LoL
Law enforcement? LoL
Lawyers? LoL
ASCAP\BMI? LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You spelled the recording industry wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Serious artists are not for freedoms on the Internet. Did you ever hear Beethoven praise the Internet? Did Bach throw the recording industry under the proverbial Internet bus? In all of Shakespeare's writings did he ever mention the Internet? Indeed not. Shakespeare would have been a poor unknown had it not been for his staunch support for copyright laws. Bach and Beethoven would have never have been heard if it hadn't been for the recording contracts from the RIAA, which worked tirelessly to keep their songs from the Internet, and they were successful too.
I think Pliny the Elder said it best:There is no long term sustainability in free. The Sun gives it's energy for free, and it's going to come crashing down in a mere 5 billion years. The earth was sustainably charging for oxygen way back in the day. Then the freetard prokaryotes started releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere. Now Earth is half way to total annihilation after only a few billion years.
Free is unsustainable. No one has ever given anything away for free and lived through the centuries to tell the tale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess it must be somebody at Sylicon Valley?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not caring about piracy is a great way to start thinking about new ways to make a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"There is only so much support for buying the same track over and over again in different formats, "remasters," ad infinitum."
The real model: Keep making music, so you have new stuff to sell. Sure, *I* may only need one JoCo tshirt, but I have friends. They have friends. Maybe he makes a *new* tshirt from a song on his *new* album. Then I buy all over again. Instead of coasting on that one hit 10 years ago, keep creating. Then we are all enriched.
Your "reality" isn't any different. JoCo and other musicians like him are making a solid living every day. Without you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is where you are wrong. Live shows are where its at. Always has been... unless you suck live.
"what model will come that will allow musicians to still be musicians, without having to do something else to pay the bills?" - And what Utopia do you live in where this is not the current situation?
Here's my piece of the pie (a small slice):
After the fall of the Labels:
Music will become almost free, services will arise to connect fans within an area defined by its users, and more small venues will open to cater to this. Live shows will explode as every bar, restaurant, and nightclub will be able to have live music without worrying about the license police.
You wont have as many "mega stars" but many more artists will be able to make a living playing gigs. Sorry if all that hard work scares you.
Your remaining labels will morph into more of a promoter roll, handling touring and promotion for a percent of the profits.
Ill give you something for free. I hope some of you have access to VC's to make it happen.
The new business model:
Open up a website to connect smaller bands with people in their area and give the music away for free. Make contacts with local sound/lighting/staging rental shops, and up to 3000 seat venues. I wont give it all away, but now you facilitate the coordination of fans/venues and get the acts to perform live. You provide if needed all the lighting/sound/band-gear. You take a FAIR amount for your troubles.
As you grow you can then expand to bringing cross country acts to your venues if the website statistics provide enough interest for a band in California to play in Phila.
Best part is all the band would have to do is show up and play. (unless they are bitches and cant play on anything but their own equipment
If very successful you could see the potential to expand country, and as my dream sees it, world wide.
Anyone have a few million to throw my way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few things...
If you're talking about Jonathan Coulton, according to an interview, 40% is from downloads, and the rest is split between merchandise (including CDs and Vinyl) and Live Shows. This was back in 2009. So that means he's making 70% from income not related to live shows. That also means that a lot of people are buying his music (and it also helps that he's getting the lions share of those sales, and not some label).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hoodies and T-shirts get worn out and fall apart and need to be repurchased.
But no, rather than getting people to buy stuff that needs to be replaced, you want them to buy a digital file that never falls apart and never needs replacing.
I'm torn; are you an idiot or should you take over wherever people are using planned obsolescence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, I skimmed through the article as quickly as possible and saw the buzzwords "free and open internet" and knew that I had to post a comment immediately without comprehending what I had just read.
There is only so much information that my brain can hold and I decided to only retain words such as "free," "copyright law," "piracy," and "infringement" as I made my comment.
It's easy to display my loathing for "freetards" because a reality involving both the artist and consumers being satisfied without gatekeepers will always remain foreign to me."
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The music industry as a large entity with its ubiquitous unilateral fame and predatory, monopolistic parasitism is quickly becoming a thing of the past. The "corporate artists" they peddle just don't offer anything worthwhile. They simply cannot compete with the unlimited talent out there.
Most of the monetary barriers have been removed for artists, you don't need to be "discovered" or "signed" or even acknowledged by these corporation that take most of your earnings and claim the rights to all of your music.
It's the old industry psychotically freaking out, spinning around grabbing the curtains all over the washroom, smashing its face on the toilet filled with coke and bile, and passing out in a pool of its own blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Silly the public will, they paid Coulton and they pay for open source, why wouldn't they pay for other things?
The public always pays for everything, they just don't pay for absurd things, which in your case is a granted monopoly.
I don't think anyone will pay for others monopolies out their own pockets without having any benefits to themselves, that is just stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe we need a compilation post of all the success stories together so the trolls can't just call it a "one time thing"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The opera divas of 200 years ago probably never thought their crowning time would pass...I'm sure the theater owners where the same. "How can you make money sending MUSIC out to anybody for FREE?" was the cry of musicians during the first radio age...
well....civilization found a way and music of astounding quality continued to get made. Not because of the money...that is the sell out point.
It was made because it HAS TO BE. A good musician...a great performer...they'll always be a bit hungry. After that...they're just slicked back performing brands on the front and money counting business folks on the back.
the evolution continues...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical of internet poseurs. I highly doubt his claims. Net profits, backed up with real numbers, or STFU.
Just for perspective, it's not uncommon for a mid-level artist to gross a million from a tour alone, yet only net $2,000. So saying he grossed half a million is meaningless without some context. He has taxes to pay, manager, agent, merch overhead, merch salesperson, driver, travel expenses, hotels... you get the point.
It's like those authors who "support piracy" who show up with their analytics graphs showing visitor spikes, but they don't show us the actual numbers. Jumping from 3 views to 15 views isn't nearly the same as jumping from 3,000 to 15,000 views. The people who post this stuff know as much. It's obvious that they have something to hide; probably that they're not all that popular regardless of who pirates their work. If they're hiding something, I wouldn't put much stock in their opinions.
But then again, I suppose his agenda reinforces the worldview around here. Carry on in your little bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's why JoCo has other sources of income, like downloads from his store and merchandise.
He does have a manager. He also has an assistant, Scarface (I'm not kidding). But most of the time, he kept travel light because he only took a guitar.
If they're hiding something, maybe they'd like a little privacy? Jonathan Coulton is not a public corporation, he's a private person. He was a little reluctant even to give the $500,000 figure. I presume because dirtbags like you would want Jonathan Coulton to reveal every aspect of his life for your public voyeuristic tittilation.
Also, as of late, he's opening for They Might Be Giants, has a John-Flansburgh-produced record that has cameos ranging from Sara Quin (The "Sara" in "Tegan and Sara") to Suzanne Vega, even a week-long cruise in his honor (with guests including the aforementioned John Flansburgh, Paul F. Tompkins, Wil Wheaton, John Hodgman, and Chris Collingswood of Fountains of Wayne). That does not sound like someone in, say, MC Hammer's Bankruptcy situation. That sounds like someone on the rise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suppose that is true in the land of "creative accounting", but I doubt is the rule on the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
YOU'RE BEING SO SINCERE RIGHT NOW.
[/GLaDOS]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As he burned it hurt because
HE WAS SO NOT HAPPY FOR YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We as consumers are also pressured to love the 'next best thing' by the labels who want to shill their new hot pick - the lucky 0.01% they have elevated to stardom. We must like who they want us to like, we must pay what they want us to pay.
We see these 'rock stars' in every kind of advert imaginable, showing us images of an unattainable goal. I'd be much happier if the goal was attainable for many, many more people. The pressure would be less on those who 'made it' and we would have a real choice in what we wanted to like and what we wanted to pay for the experience.
Rock and roll is dead.
Long live rock and roll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a triumph.
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overprice our legislation.
SUE EVERYBODY.
We sue who we CAN because WE MUST.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who aren't us.
'Cause there's use in crying over every lost sale.
You just keep on bribing 'til you run out of fail.
And the law gets passed.
And the 'net can kiss your ass.
For the bills that are still alive.
I'm not even angry.
I'M BEING SO SINCERE RIGHT NOW.
Even though you broke my SOPA
And killed it D:
And tore it to pieces
And threw every piece into a flame.
As it burned it hurt because
I was so not happy for you.
Now our pointless data
Makes uploading a crime.
And our new extensions
Last 'til the end of your time.
SOPA/PIPA got burned.
Patch ACTA with what we learned
For the works that will be still alive.
Go ahead and leave me.
I think I prefer to stay this way.
Maybe you'll find someone else to help you.
MAYBE MIKE MASNICK.
That was a joke.
HA HA.
FAT CHANCE.
Anyway this year's bonus is great.
But the industry's still dying.
Look at me still talking
When there's bribing to do.
When we're done with Dotcom
We'll be coming for you.
I've got hopes and dreams to end
And more limits to extend.
The copyright will be still alive.
And when you're dead it'll be still alive.
And when your kids are dead it's still alive.
And when their kids are dead it's still alive.
And when THEIR kids are dead it's still alive.
And when this planet's gone it's still alive.
Still alive.
STILL ALIVE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You didn't just win the whole internet; you won the entirety of civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alive Re-Mix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marvelous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did he actually say that? He uses copyright. And the Internet. There's no choice involved. He does both. Many people do.
Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses. As far as I know JC controls all his own copyrights. He is entitled to enforce them, give them away or do what ever else he wants. That's how copyright works.
By framing this as Internet v. Copyright you are attacking the idea of web artist copyrights and misinforming people who want to hate copyright. JC - as far as I can see - has no beef with copyright but you seem to wish those words into his mouth.
Copyright is a valuable tool for all DIY artists however they choose to use it. And whether you like it or not anyone who uses CC is using copyright licenses.
Without copyright law CC is worthless.
(And in case there is any doubt I'm not opposing JC's views about so-called "piracy" - more accurately "filesharing" by and large.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LouisCK much?
(1) ties to a 'label';
(2) DRM or any other type of copy-protection.
I could have downloaded that bitch from UseNet, but I CHOSE to pay $5 - ALL of which went straight to Louis CK's Paypal account.
LouisCK 'grossed' well over a million bucks, $5 at a time, from folks who could ONLY buy his thing on the web... and thus probably had the chops to know how to get it for free if they chose to.
He also gave a breakdown of where the first million went.
And the special itself was good. "Word of mouse", bitchez.
When Joe Rogan releases his standup special, I will buy the shit out of that too - even though it will be uploaded on zero-day.
Now if Carlos 'el ladron dos chistes' Mencia tried to hawk some of his shitty stolen material, I would torrent that shit (then delete it before I watched it).
And yes, my Spanish is terrible - but so is Carlos Mencia (who is only a pretend-Hispanic anyhow).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]