Opponents of the British proposals are quick to point out that the Swedish sales rise coincides with the emergence of new legal digital services such as the popular Spotify. Music industry groups concede that too, but they insist the combination of carrot and stick is the key to changing consumer behaviour.
"We shouldn't be surprised that digital revenues are going up in countries like Sweden now that new services have been online for a while. The question is whether it is necessary to have harsh enforcements," he said.
Killock believes music companies and other rights holders are already alienating consumers. He points out that Sweden's Pirate party, which wants to legalise internet filesharing, has won a seat in the European parliament. His own group, which is running a "say no to disconnection" campaign, has seen its membership grow by 20% in the last two months, to just over 1,000 people.
"Filesharing is not the root of the problem. It's a symptom not a cause. It's a symptom of a lack of relevant services," said Killock.
But the company questioned whether piracy was on the wane. "We have almost no idea how much content is being accessed illegally because people are migrating away from P2P (peer to peer) platforms and increasingly access content via proxy servers, encryption, ripping from internet, radio and so on – all of which is undetectable," said a spokesman.
"If I could, I would put everything out there. The way the music business has developed means that spread is much more important than short-term gain … It's a changing climate and you have to look at new ways of getting your music out, such as the live scene and bundling music together with other services and so on," he said.
"I do get a smaller piece of the pie but the pie is getting bigger. People in Kuala Lumpur would never have known before about a band in a suburb of Stockholm."
Interesting that you bring up Clinton. Most of the people I know who got upset over that whole ordeal were angry about the way he handled the issue, dodging questions and splitting hairs and generally being deceptive and insincere. WHAT he did meant a whole lot less than how he handled it, and the latter DOES say a lot about his character and what we can expect to see in foreign and domestic dealings. I expect the same reaction to Social-Networking-Generation candidates who try to scrub their past: better to be upfront about where you've been than to be caught being dishonest.
"People need to know that while file-sharing is possible, it isn't honest or legal for copyrighted material."
This can only be a true statement if the file sharing in question is unauthorized. There are many people who produce software, literature, AND music who want their works to be shared via such networks. Doing so is not only honorable and legal, but it's obeying the artists' wishes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce
Because some people want to buy t-shirts?
You make a valid point, but I don't think such side-projects have to take away from the creative process. Trent Reznor and Jill Sobule have done some interesting things that he helped them connect with fans and have had neutral or positive effects on their "making music" bits.
I mean, really, so long as it's a small thing, why NOT sell t-shirts?
That's an approach that might work. Offering an actual product won't DETRACT from that and, potentially, such side projects can enhance the "connect-with-fans" aspect of things and/or coincide with the creative process. it doesn't HAVE to detract from the "making music" bit, is the thing.
But, yeah, asking for tips is one thought. Frankly, I think any artist who doesn't accept tips (and set up an easy way for them to be contributed) is being kind of silly.
As Blaise noted, between 1986 and 2002, the main outlet for music was the radio. NIN was big back then, and back then "big" meant getting air play and making the charts. After 2005, the Internet has been a HUGE component of Reznor's art; additionally, he quit the Lable he'd been signed onto and did his own thing.
You see a correlation between fewer works and more airtime, assuming that if Trent worked less he'd make more. I see a correlation between dropping his Lable and less airtime, assuming that he's found other outlets to get his art out there. What neither of us are talking about is how much Reznor made, back then or currently. I don't think either of us know, and he's not sharing, but I think success is more about how much compensation he's getting than how high on the charts he is.
Also, I'm a big NIN fan myself, but I think it's generally agreed that while Interesting, The Slip was kind of weak. It had a few good songs (I'd vote for 1,000,000 and Corona), but nothing spectacular.
Re: Re: Re: Imagine musicians on every street corner
It's an interesting idea. I don't think it holds, though, precisely because not everyone is talented like that. I'm not -- I've tried, here and there, but my skills aren't in music performance or composition. And, based on this observation, I think we'll still see stars and fans, even if it will be on a smaller, more-personal level. I don't think everyone will have to have a "day job," but I do agree that it'll be better.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce
The AC you commented to agrees with you. AC there agrees with your apocalypse. I and many others here don't. AC there ignores the fact that it's not just about buying a t-shirt or box set, it's about supporting the artist. If you can't get fans who want to support you, you've already failed.
As far as using logos and whatnot, if you have loyal fans, all you have to do is say "that's not me." If nothing else, despite "railing against" copyright and similar, we support false-advertising laws, so it's not like we're out to kill ALL protections.
I dispute that it isn't there. I dispute all the ifs in my above comment. And income quotes elsewhere around here seem to support that. It's an economically harsh time, but I haven't heard of bands dissolving; quite the opposite, it seems like there are more and more bands forming. They can't all be just scraping by or some WOULD dissolve. So, somehow, I think your observations are wrong.
I think I tenatively agree with you. But only tenatively. In the past, a really talented local band still hat to win the lottery to get signed to a Lable, and at that point they were probably f'd over, because it's either sign or stayb local. The lables had all the power. That's not the case any more. A talented band in Seattle can be heard WORLDWIDE at almost no cost. The trick, and what we talk about here at Techdirt, is how to capture and take advantage of that free exposure.
I don't think it'll be easy. And I'll admit, I'm not sure we'll have megastars like Jackson, Bono, and The Beatles (but i'd argue that's not much of a loss). I think MORE people will be able to make a living at music because exposure and distribution will be easier, less expensive, and not reliant on the Lables.
I agree that artists should play for the love of it, and that DIY isn't necessarily easier than the old lottery, but it's better for the artists (who retain the power, rather than signing it away) and it's better for consumers (who get to be exposed to more and better and more-diverse music). I see a bright, bight future ahead.
More songs, sure, but I haven't seen evidence that they move away from favorite bands. If a band stops producing they might (might) beforgotten, but it seems to me that popular bands stay popular.
You're still ignoring the fact that fans want to support the artist. If you don't, he can't make more music, and that upsets fans. They won't buy the knockoffs because that hurts their idol. Therefore, you can't be undercut. They want to pay YOU, not some outsourced knock-off.
I'm not sure your vision of the future is realistic. If they're good, they'll get support. If they're not, they won't and they'll stop. They will not wallpaper the world.
The question is this: one musician is on the street corner playing; you can hear his stuff and decide whether or not you like him, and based on that choose to give him money. Another musician hids inside and requires that you give him money first, and then he'll let you inside to hear his song but you aren't allowed to tell anyone about him and there's no money-back garontee. For the sake of argument, assume they're both of even talent and appeal. Who do you expect to get more patronage?
If no one's spending money on music, there's no pie to begin with.
If no one's spending MORE on music, the pie isn't getting bigger.
It's true we're in economically hard times, but that's not something that any business model can fix. if no one's buying music, it doesn't matter if you're using a new modle or you're signed up to a old Lable, you're still not making money.
If you think money has no real value, I don't know how to discuss these things with you. Are you advocating that musicians are just trying to rip off their fans, tricking them into paying for something that's worthless?
Of course, a limited number of truly inspired, gifted performers will succeed. But the millions of aspiring bands who hope to make a living at this will find it a tough go because they are one of millions.
This is nothing new, but because it's not happening behind closed doors, you'll see more of it.
On MySpace they would send bulletins, event announcements, post on your comments board.
Now I am starting to get so many event notices on Facebook, I rarely look at those now either.
But I bet you still keep in touch with your friends and keep up with things you care about. I get reams of spam every day, but I don't quit talking with my college friends. So, what's your point?
So if you like the design and want a cheap copy, you'll find it.
And if they want your music for free, they can find that, too. It's not enough, and never really has been, to just offer something for sale. You need to give people a reason to buy. But that's still only half of it; you need to connect with people so that you can make them fans. Fans don't just want the t-shirt for cheap, they honestly want to support the musician. That's key to making this work.
For example, now there are lots of bands with cellos. And so it goes.
And this is nothing new. Similar bands with similar sounds have existed for as long as there's been music. It's competition. The good artists will do well. The mediocre artists maybe won't be able to sustain themselves, and the bad artists will go away. even at that, just because I like one band doesn't mean I'll necessarily like a sound-alike. and maybe I will. Again, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.
Everything they do is likely to blend into the mass of other artists doing something similar.
If you don't stand out an differentiate yourself, you'll die. I don't see how that's different from the way things are today, or why it's even a bad thing. At the very least, musicians can now go directly to the public to succeed or fail, rather than trying to convince a Big Lable gatekeeper before they get a shot at it. I predict that this will lead to more diversity, not the bland future you see. There will be fewer Backstreet Boys and over-processed pop because they won't have corporate backers to keep them alive.
On the post: Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy
Re: Legislation works !
Opponents of the British proposals are quick to point out that the Swedish sales rise coincides with the emergence of new legal digital services such as the popular Spotify. Music industry groups concede that too, but they insist the combination of carrot and stick is the key to changing consumer behaviour.
"We shouldn't be surprised that digital revenues are going up in countries like Sweden now that new services have been online for a while. The question is whether it is necessary to have harsh enforcements," he said.
Killock believes music companies and other rights holders are already alienating consumers. He points out that Sweden's Pirate party, which wants to legalise internet filesharing, has won a seat in the European parliament. His own group, which is running a "say no to disconnection" campaign, has seen its membership grow by 20% in the last two months, to just over 1,000 people.
"Filesharing is not the root of the problem. It's a symptom not a cause. It's a symptom of a lack of relevant services," said Killock.
But the company questioned whether piracy was on the wane. "We have almost no idea how much content is being accessed illegally because people are migrating away from P2P (peer to peer) platforms and increasingly access content via proxy servers, encryption, ripping from internet, radio and so on – all of which is undetectable," said a spokesman.
"If I could, I would put everything out there. The way the music business has developed means that spread is much more important than short-term gain … It's a changing climate and you have to look at new ways of getting your music out, such as the live scene and bundling music together with other services and so on," he said.
"I do get a smaller piece of the pie but the pie is getting bigger. People in Kuala Lumpur would never have known before about a band in a suburb of Stockholm."
On the post: As Expected, Social Networking Generation Running For Office Face Their Permanent Record Online
Re:
On the post: Dear PR People: If Your Exec Has A Comment, Our Comments Are Open
Re: Name & Shame
On the post: Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free
Re: Another point of view...
This can only be a true statement if the file sharing in question is unauthorized. There are many people who produce software, literature, AND music who want their works to be shared via such networks. Doing so is not only honorable and legal, but it's obeying the artists' wishes.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re:
I don't believe money has any intrinsic value at all, it's just a placeholder to make bartering more efficient.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re:
The only value in music ... is because the store has a $15 price on the CD. Remove that price ... and what you are getting has no real value.
And yet:
If you want me to pay money for something of value, SELL ME MUSIC.
Clear up that discrepency and then we can continue the discussion.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce
You make a valid point, but I don't think such side-projects have to take away from the creative process. Trent Reznor and Jill Sobule have done some interesting things that he helped them connect with fans and have had neutral or positive effects on their "making music" bits.
I mean, really, so long as it's a small thing, why NOT sell t-shirts?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re:
But, yeah, asking for tips is one thought. Frankly, I think any artist who doesn't accept tips (and set up an easy way for them to be contributed) is being kind of silly.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You see a correlation between fewer works and more airtime, assuming that if Trent worked less he'd make more. I see a correlation between dropping his Lable and less airtime, assuming that he's found other outlets to get his art out there. What neither of us are talking about is how much Reznor made, back then or currently. I don't think either of us know, and he's not sharing, but I think success is more about how much compensation he's getting than how high on the charts he is.
Also, I'm a big NIN fan myself, but I think it's generally agreed that while Interesting, The Slip was kind of weak. It had a few good songs (I'd vote for 1,000,000 and Corona), but nothing spectacular.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re: Imagine musicians on every street corner
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce
As far as using logos and whatnot, if you have loyal fans, all you have to do is say "that's not me." If nothing else, despite "railing against" copyright and similar, we support false-advertising laws, so it's not like we're out to kill ALL protections.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: They won't continue to be scarce
I don't think it'll be easy. And I'll admit, I'm not sure we'll have megastars like Jackson, Bono, and The Beatles (but i'd argue that's not much of a loss). I think MORE people will be able to make a living at music because exposure and distribution will be easier, less expensive, and not reliant on the Lables.
I agree that artists should play for the love of it, and that DIY isn't necessarily easier than the old lottery, but it's better for the artists (who retain the power, rather than signing it away) and it's better for consumers (who get to be exposed to more and better and more-diverse music). I see a bright, bight future ahead.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Price perception
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re:
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Imagine musicians on every street corner
The question is this: one musician is on the street corner playing; you can hear his stuff and decide whether or not you like him, and based on that choose to give him money. Another musician hids inside and requires that you give him money first, and then he'll let you inside to hear his song but you aren't allowed to tell anyone about him and there's no money-back garontee. For the sake of argument, assume they're both of even talent and appeal. Who do you expect to get more patronage?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re:
If no one's spending MORE on music, the pie isn't getting bigger.
It's true we're in economically hard times, but that's not something that any business model can fix. if no one's buying music, it doesn't matter if you're using a new modle or you're signed up to a old Lable, you're still not making money.
So what was the point of your comment?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re:
If you think money has no real value, I don't know how to discuss these things with you. Are you advocating that musicians are just trying to rip off their fans, tricking them into paying for something that's worthless?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued
Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce
This is nothing new, but because it's not happening behind closed doors, you'll see more of it.
On MySpace they would send bulletins, event announcements, post on your comments board.
Now I am starting to get so many event notices on Facebook, I rarely look at those now either.
But I bet you still keep in touch with your friends and keep up with things you care about. I get reams of spam every day, but I don't quit talking with my college friends. So, what's your point?
So if you like the design and want a cheap copy, you'll find it.
And if they want your music for free, they can find that, too. It's not enough, and never really has been, to just offer something for sale. You need to give people a reason to buy. But that's still only half of it; you need to connect with people so that you can make them fans. Fans don't just want the t-shirt for cheap, they honestly want to support the musician. That's key to making this work.
For example, now there are lots of bands with cellos. And so it goes.
And this is nothing new. Similar bands with similar sounds have existed for as long as there's been music. It's competition. The good artists will do well. The mediocre artists maybe won't be able to sustain themselves, and the bad artists will go away. even at that, just because I like one band doesn't mean I'll necessarily like a sound-alike. and maybe I will. Again, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this.
Everything they do is likely to blend into the mass of other artists doing something similar.
If you don't stand out an differentiate yourself, you'll die. I don't see how that's different from the way things are today, or why it's even a bad thing. At the very least, musicians can now go directly to the public to succeed or fail, rather than trying to convince a Big Lable gatekeeper before they get a shot at it. I predict that this will lead to more diversity, not the bland future you see. There will be fewer Backstreet Boys and over-processed pop because they won't have corporate backers to keep them alive.
Next >>