Moby Not Just Giving Away His New Album For Free On BitTorrent, He's Okay With You Profiting From It

from the an-enlightened-view dept

The musician Moby has long been an outspoken critic of the old recording industry. He's been a big fan of giving away works for free (and noting that he's made quite a bit of money from music he's made available for free) and has argued strongly against the old gatekeepers. He's criticized their anti-innovation views, suggested the RIAA should disband for suing music fans, and said he can't wait for the major label gatekeepers to die.

So it shouldn't be too surprising that Moby happily teamed up with BitTorrent to release his latest album as a BitTorrent bundle for free (you just have to provide an email address). But here's the more surprising part. Not only is he happily making it available for free, but he's actually fine with people profiting from potential remixes or other uses of the music. As he explained in a recent interview with Mashable:

Are people really free to do whatever they want? Can they sell their recordings?

I met with the BitTorrent people and they were asking, "What if someone comes up with their own remix and they sell it?" They were wondering what I would want them to do with the money. And my response was that they could take their friends out to dinner or give money to their favorite charity. Even if I make the stems, if they made the effort to make the remix, they should be the ones to profit from it.

This is a really enlightened view. Even among people who are accepting of how to use free in a business model, we still see artists get uptight about "commercial use" -- even though it's often not entirely clear what qualifies as commercial use. We've long advocated that more people should be open to the idea of allowing commercial use of their works, as the potential benefits for everyone -- including the artist and fans -- could be great. I recognize this still makes some artists (who otherwise support remix and open culture) nervous, but I think as we get more examples of artists who allow for commercial use, and see how well it works, that we'll see more artists get comfortable with allowing others to profit as well.

The rest of the Moby interview is worth reading as well. He points out that artists who adapt aren't worried about infringement:

Artists who are adaptable are doing fine. A musician who makes records, tours, DJs, remixes, does music for video games and films is doing fine. If you can learn how to adapt — it's really weird and unhealthy when people talk about restricting progress to accommodate the inability of people to adapt. Every industry has been impacted by [changes in technology] in both negative and positive ways, but I feel like to complain is pointless. I love Thom Yorke, but when I heard him complaining about Spotify, I'm like, "You're just like an old guy yelling at fast trains." I love anything that enables people to have more music in their lives.

He also talks about how great other services like Spotify, SoundCloud and Pandora are -- and notes that he's actively lobbied Congress not to restrict such services. He also talks about how ridiculous it was when his old label, EMI, tried to control everything to prevent infringement:

It was about 7 or 8 years ago when I was on EMI, and someone at EMI business affairs contacted my manager and told him that I wasn't allowed to play my own music when I DJ'ed because they didn't want people in the audience pirating it. This was back in the days of the Nokia flip phone. If someone recorded a song in a nightclub it would be the worst sounding recording you could possibly imagine. You probably wouldn't even be able to identify the song. That seemed like nonsense to me.

Instead, he notes, that wonderful things happen when you stop focusing so much on control, and let creativity and innovation flow:

My approach is to not try and control it at all. I really like the idea of not just giving people finished content. It's giving them something that if they choose to they can manipulate and play with however they want. There's absolutely no restrictions on it and that makes me happy. When people try to control content in the digital world, there’s something about that that seems kind of depressing to me. The most interesting results happen when there is no control. I love the democratic anarchy of the online world.

This kind of stuff is very refreshing after the latest round of artists on the wrong side of history trying to hold back creativity, culture, innovation and progress.

Filed Under: bittorrent, business models, control, free, moby, music, recording industry, sharing

Moby Says The Major Record Labels 'Should Die'

from the again dept

Moby is no stranger to speaking out against the major record labels. After the original Jammie Thomas ruling, he spoke out saying that the RIAA should be disbanded. More recently, he's highlighted how giving away free music has been helpful in making money and pointed out that the major record label's entire strategy seems based on trying to "make the future die." So it's hardly surprising to hear him say that he thinks the major labels should die. Of course, that's just the quip that gets the attention. His full statement is a lot more nuanced and relevant:

"There was a time when the music business was incredibly monolithic and there were only two ways to get your music heard: sign to a major label, get your music played on MTV and get it played by big radio stations," Moby continued. "Thank God, that period has come to an end... Signing to a major, for 99.9% of the musicians on the planet, is the worst thing they could do... They've treated musicians badly. They've treated fans badly. They've treated the music badly, most importantly. For that reason, they either need to reinvent themselves or die quietly."

And that's the key point. They don't have to "die." They could reinvent themselves, but they've shown little indication that they're really interested in doing so. But the earlier point is also important: in the past you needed a major label deal to be successful. They were the gatekeeper. These days, you no longer need such a deal. A record label deal could still make sense for some artists if the labels are smart about things, and can actually help enable those artists, but artists now have a lot more options -- and signing to a traditional record label, where you basically sign over everything for what's effectively a pretty small loan, is not a very good business move.

I think we'll see a lot more interesting label deals start appearing, where the musicians actually have a lot more leverage and are able to relegate the labels to being supporting players, rather than the main dogs. So far, the majors have been resisting those types of deals, but I think they'll have to start caving pretty soon if they want to survive.

Filed Under: moby, record labels

Moby Explains RIAA Mindset: Please Make The Future Die

from the moby-and-mossberg? dept

It's a bit of an odd pairing, but musician Moby was recently interviewed by Walt Mossberg, and among other things they discussed issues like file sharing and the RIAA's strategy. Moby, of course, has complained about the RIAA's strategy in the past, calling for it to be disbanded following the Jammie Thomas verdict. He's also found success experimenting with giving away his music, so his positions probably don't come as a surprise. He says he has no problem with people downloading his music (though he likes it when they buy it as well), as he's "honored" that people want to listen to his music, and if they download an unauthorized copy: "more power to you." On the RIAA, he can't understand why they're doing something that so clearly alienates fans, but then does a pretty good job explaining why, noting that the current business model of major labels:

"underpins the failure of major labels--they think, it used to be this way, so it ought to be this way." Their ethos is, "Please go away. Make the future die."

Not much new, but the quote is definitely a succinct way of explaining the position held by some at the major record labels over the past decade. Rather than deal with reality, they just want it to go away.

Filed Under: moby, music, recording industry, riaa

Moby Shows (Again) That Free Music Doesn't Cannibalize Paid Music

from the *sigh* dept

To hear the recording industry tell it, you would think that free music means that musicians have nothing left to sell. That's obviously false, as we keep seeing over and over again that musicians who connect with fans (rather than suing them) and give them something worth buying (rather than forcing the same old thing on them) have no problem selling plenty, despite any "piracy." In fact, there's increasing evidence that free music isn't even a real substitute for paid music, anyway. Earlier this year, we wrote about Corey Smith, and the experiment he ran last summer. Smith offers up all his music for free on his website, but still sells tracks on iTunes. The experiment involved removing the free downloads -- and watching as the iTunes sales fell. This is the exact opposite of what the recording industry lawyers insist will happen.

It looks like something similar is happening with Moby, as well. In an email to Bob Lefsetz, he points out that the new song that he's giving out for free is turning into a chart topper in sales as well:

How's it going?
The album just came out and it would be #1 euro charts if not for michael jackson re-releases.
So that's good.
But here's something funny: the best selling itunes track is 'shot in the back of the head'.
Why is that funny?
Because its the track we've been giving away for free for the last 2 months and that we're still givng away for free.
Odd.
How are you?
Moby

Of course, it probably helps that Moby doesn't treat his fans like criminals.

Filed Under: business models, free music, moby

Moby Says 'Disband The RIAA' For Winning $1.92 Million From Jammie Thomas

from the representing-the-artists?!? dept

As a whole bunch of you have sent in, the musician Moby has put up a blog post where he suggests the RIAA should be disbanded for its $1.92 million win over Jammie Thomas. While (unfortunately) he gets a few of the facts wrong (they didn't sue her for $2 million, but it's what the jury chose -- though it is accurate that the RIAA has clearly suggested it has no problem with the statutory rates for infringement in the past), his overall point is sound. It's ridiculous that the RIAA thinks this is the proper strategy:

argh. what utter nonsense. this is how the record companies want to protect themselves? suing suburban moms for listening to music? charging $80,000 per song?

punishing people for listening to music is exactly the wrong way to protect the music business. maybe the record companies have adopted the 'it's better to be feared than respected' approach to dealing with music fans. i don't know, but 'it's better to be feared than respected' doesn't seem like such a sustainable business model when it comes to consumer choice. how about a new model of 'it's better to be loved for helping artists make good records and giving consumers great records at reasonable prices'?

i'm so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music.

the riaa needs to be disbanded.

This isn't new territory for Moby. Way back in 2003, he got angry after finding out that some of his songs were being used by the RIAA to sue people, and stated: "I'm tempted to go onto Kazaa and download some of my own music, just to see if the RIAA would sue me for having mp3's of my own songs on my hard-drive."

Still, we're seeing more and more artists react poorly to the RIAA, who still claims to represent them. Why is it that our politicians still buy that clearly incorrect story?

Filed Under: jammie thomas, moby, music, recording industry, riaa
Companies: riaa