Updated: Online Music: How I Almost Feel

Note: This post was originally posted on Sunday, March 23 at 11:23 AM... but I've had a couple requests not to let it fall of the front page, so I'm refreshing the time. There's now over 130 comments and going strong. Please join the discussion if you've got some thoughts on online music.

Artists deserve a cut of Bebo's $850 million sale to AOL, says Billy Bragg in a NYT Op-Ed. His argument: Because social networks like Bebo use music as a lightbulb, around which the moths swarm, the musicians should get part of the payoff. Predictably, because it's online music, everyone's got an opinion on this.

I'm not 100 percent sure how I feel on the matter of artists rights and online music.

But I am 60 percent sure how I feel: Creating recorded music these days is no different than playing music on the subway. Once you do it's out there, and there's no helping the fact that some people will stand there, enjoy it, tap their toes, and then get on the L-train when it comes, without paying you a dime. Obviously, no subway musician is going to sue or claim that they're getting ripped off when train riders don't pay, but it's part of the bargain. If you can't stand the fact that some are getting a free lunch from your cover of Lovesick Blues, then play in your appartment.

And at this point it's the same way with recorded music. You put it out there, and there's really nothing that will ever be done to stop people for getting it for free (Bragg thinks it's only a matter of time before piracy will be eradicated online: "Technology is advancing far too quickly for the old safeguards of intellectual property rights to keep up, and while we wait for the technical fixes to emerge..."). Some will pay you in some way (paid downloads, merch, concert tickets, etc.) and some won't. If you don't like it, play in your apartment.

Again, I only feel 60 percent confident that this is the right attitude. Maybe 70 percent. But if we just accepted that the average recording artist had the same rights as a subway artist, that would really resolve all of this nicely.

Update: Billy Bragg stops by the comments below to explain why I'm off the mark. Also, my wife makes a rare appearance too, to point out that I'm a moron and to agree with Billy. Fair enough.

As for whether a site that uses music to make a buck has a "moral" obligation to the musician... well, I do think that's tricky territory. My preference would be to leave morals out of the equation, though I can understand why that's tough. If you're playing music on the subway and someone films you and puts that in a film, my 60 percent sense is that: well, that's tough, you didn't have to be playing music in public. And either way, I'm not sure that the subway musician can legitimately claim to have been harmed by their work being "exploited" this way. And with the advent of digital distribution, there's not much difference between having your music go out over the open air and having your music go out into the digital aether. So to some extent, I see things the same way.

Comments

[Billy Bragg]

Joe,

I don't think your analogy properly reflects the argument I made in the NYT.

Imagine if a person who walks by everyday without paying you a penny is using your performance in the subway to make money.

Does this person have a moral obligation to offer you some reward for your creative input to their business?

[Mrs. The 'Wart]

Billy:
I think you're right on this one. Joe is off the rez.

(Disclosure: I'm a big fan)

[boyhowdy]

I agree that Joe went too far.

But I also I note that many, many other bloggers have used Billy's NYT piece to suggest that he would be opposed to, say, putting a song FROM an album on a NON-profit blog along with promotional text, urging people to think of that song as a sample of an album, and providing direct links ot purchase of said album.

It looks here like neither of you are not making that argument. Yet Billy's concept of technological rights protection seems to disallow bloggers to promote you in that way -- which, as many others besides Joe have noted or alluded to (playing in your apartment cannot be promoted, not profitable), this is a big part of how sales/popularity seem to be driven in modern music culture.

Joe/Billy: thoughts on this?

If it helps, I note that, if fan promotion on blogs using single tracks was disallowed, I would not have purchased both the Bragg/Wilco Guthrie tribute CDs, as I would not have been introduced to them.

[Tim Lee]

Joe,

You're right. Billy (and your wife) are wrong.

[Billy Bragg]

Tim,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.

Boyhowdy,

I have no problem with my music appearing on a non-profit site. I think peer-to-peer recommendation is a crucial promotional tool for independent artists. And I'm not in favour of criminalising my audience either. There is a simpler way. Listeners don't pay me royalties when my song is on the radio - the station and the advertisers do. Thats the kind of model I want to see operate.

[Joe]

Billy,
Thanks for engaging with us here. I want to point out that despite the seemingly "extreme" view I have, I don't consider myself to be particularly reactionary on the subject of online music. I certainly don't think the view that musicians should get paid for their works online is "dumb" or anything like that.

Re: royalties. Yes, the radio model works, though I think that's partly because radio stations are always licensed and regulated and they really have no choice in the matter.

As for online, I don't think we'll ever get there. There will never (probably a stupid word to use on my part) be a way to adequately measure where, when and how many times a given track is being streamed. My assumption is that is that online is a true Pandora's box, and there's no way to get it back in. Sure, some sites will try ad-supported models, but for the most part, music, once it's out there, it's just out there.

I don't say that with any judgment of how it "should" be. Music "should be free"; artists "should get paid" -- whatever. Questions of "should" aren't as interesting as questions of "what is".

[Billy Bragg]

Joe,

The reason radio stations are licensed is to ensure that they pay their royalties. Wasn't so in the early days, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into line with intellectual property rights. Lots of people still taped stuff of the radio without paying for it - me included - but that wasn't used as justification by the stations for not paying royalties.

'What is' only is for as long was we let it be is.

[Tim Lee]

It's worth mentioning that Billy is essentially describing Imeem's business model: users share music freely and the site gives artists (more precisely, labels) a cut of the ad revenue. It's not a bad model, and one that other sites may adopt.

The essential point, though, is that the way to determine the right compensation for artists is in the marketplace, not on the op-ed page of the New York Times. Nobody's forcing musicians to post their music on Bebo, and if musicians are being undercompensated, that's a market opportunity for one of Bebo's competitors to capitalize on. My personal hunch is that free music is going to become the norm within the next decade, but I'd be perfectly happy to be proven wrong by a successful site that turns a profit while paying musicians. I don't, however, think it will be a sign of some kind of deep moral failing if the market price for most music in the 21st century turns out to be zero.

[Mike Masnick]

Billy,

Radio royalties don't really support your point. In the US, musicians DON'T get royalties from radio (publishers and composers do, musicians do not). In fact, for many years, the money exchange went the other direction (not legally) through payola. In that scenario, clearly, there was much more benefit to the promotional value of being on the radio than the royalties.

So, in fact, there is a constant flux between who benefits the most.

But the key point is rather straightforward. If it was such a raw deal for you, why did you allow Bebo to use your music? You can't go back and complain in retrospect. If you wanted a piece of the monetization, you should have negotiated for it.

You chose not to. To complain afterwards isn't particularly convincing.

[Billy Bragg]

Tim,

What will happen if the market value of music becomes zero is that independent artists won't be able to make a living and all the music you hear will come directly from corporations. Goodbye Radiohead, hello Hannah Montana.

Mike,

The point about the radio analogy is not how or what they pay, its that they pay at all. Radio recognises the value that music adds to their business. That's the principle we need to establish on the internet before we can start to work out the complex business of how to actually distribute royalties.

btw I never joined Bebo. I guess I should have made that clearer in the article. None of the dozen or more Billy Bragg's on there are actually me, but that's another problem for another NYT op-ed.

[Joe]

Billy,
On radio: whether licensing came before royalties or royalties came before licensing isn't too significant. The point is that radio is inherently a highly regulated, transparent market, with high barriers to entry, where it's trivial to monitor how often a given song is being played. That will never be the case online.

The suggestion that if the marginal value of a track went to zero, we'd see the end of independent music is almost provably false. Funny that you should say: "Goodbye Radiohead, hello Hannah Montana.", when it's Radiohead that did the whole pay-what-you-will music thing. Hannah Montana also happens to be a success story of the post-album music industry. The big money with her is TV and touring, though I guess that's what you mean that she's a product of the corporations.

Besides Radiohead, there are numerous examples of bands finding other ways to make money besides selling tracks or CDs. In fact, independent musicians seem more eager to experiment with these models. It's the corporate-backed ones that are reluctant to see things change.

Part of me wonders whether this is in fact a generational thing. We're used to established media companies railing against certain changes, while the upstarts tend to embrace them. It does seem to me, so some extent, that established musicians that have successfully navigated "the game" feel they have more to lose by the shifting sands, while upstarts take the new terrain more in stride.

I'd also like to see some evidence that the decline of music sales has had a negative impact on musical output. My hunch is that it has not.

[Saw Lady]

Hi,

I'm a subway musician. When people LISTEN to my music and don't give me money, that's OK because I'm essentially giving my music for free when I busk, but when people VIDEO-TAPE me when I busk, or record my playing and don't pay me - that is stealing!
And by the way, subway musicians do sue. I was filmed by VH1 when I played at Times Square - they filmed me without my permission and they were going to air it without my permission. I sued, and won - not only did they not air the footage, but the team that filmed me got fired.

All the best,

Saw Lady
http://www.SawLady.com/blog

[Billy Bragg]

Joe,

You missed the thrust of my comment.

Yes, Radiohead put out a pay-as-you please album, but that was only after having a pervious album debut at No1 in the US charts. Could they have based their whole career on that model? I doubt it.

You proved my point about Hannah Montana - without her huge tv ratings she wouldn't sell tickets nor record. That's where future stars will come from, while the potential Radioheads will languish in obscurity.

On your radio/web distinction, are you suggesting that it will never be possible to tell who has downloaded what song from which site? The click-through technology is already there. With a little bit of imagination, surely it could be modified to count music file downloads?

I agree, independent musicians do find ways to navigate the new technology, but no-one, to my knowledge, has broken out without selling their recordings to the public.

[Joe]

"On your radio/web distinction, are you suggesting that it will never be possible to tell who has downloaded what song from which site?"

Yes.

As for Hannah Montana. Sure, she's backed by a corporate parent. But she also proves that money can be made outside of the traditional track model. And just because the most prominent example is corporate-backed, I don't think it necessarily follows, at all, that all future Hannah Montanas have to be.

[Joe]

Also,
With respect to Hannah Montana. Sure, she, (well, Miley Cyrus), parlayed TV popularity into ticket sales, but I see no inherent why a band or musician couldn't parlay popularity on blogs and social nets into ticket sales as well. How does the declining value of recorded music kneecap a musician from becoming popular and turning that into a touring career?

[Billy Bragg]

Joe,

Hannah Montana didn't 'parlay' her tv appearances into a pop career. She was brought into existence by focus-group led marketing and then force fed to her potential audience by Disney's media empire. Nothing about her is organic.

Think about the megabucks Disney put behind promoting her and ask yourself who is going to back a cutting edge artist who can't get on tv and can't make any money from recordings?

The bloggers and the SocNets? Again I ask you, where is this band that has parlayed their popularity on blogs and social nets into a successful career? Don't you think people like Michael Arrington would be nailing me with their example if such a band existed?

[Mike Masnick]

Billy,

No offense, but it's simply incorrect to say this model only works for the Radioheads of the world. I spent nearly a decade chronicling example after example after example of it working for smaller named artists, and everyone whined and complained "oh, that will never work for big name artists."

And now it does work for big name artists and people complain "oh that will never work for small artists."

It will, it does and it will continue to.

The problem is that you are thinking too much in terms of the old way of doing business, where everything is judged based on how much MUSIC you sell. But that's not the way to look at it.

The simple facts are this, despite music being widely available for free, more music is being made today than ever before in history. More people are listening to more music than ever before in history. More musicians are earning money from careers in music than ever before in history. More money is being made from concert revenue than ever before in history. Hell, even the sales of musical instruments is higher today than ever before in history.

The only thing not doing better than ever before? Sales of recorded music itself. But every other part of the industry, all of which only functions because of the music, is made much more valuable.

That "free" music makes every other aspect of the industry more valuable, and it allows all of these participants to make more money than ever before in history.

Don't fret the simple economic fact that the price of music goes to free. Celebrate it. Embrace it, and let it make you even MORE money in many different ways.

[boyhowdy]

Joe: I have concerns about the business model that says that recorded music cannot inherently be profitable, but it can lead to touring profitability. Saying that the value of recorded music is declining makes this process sound inherent, but our technology is not so determinant as all that -- this process exists, in part, because parts of the industry have not yet agreed to meet in the middle, but that does not mean the reactionary position is the only possible solution. In other words, I think it is still legitimate to believe that, as Billy points out, recorded music is only valueless if we make it so.

Why cannot a recorded track be a product -- why music musicians themselves be "product"? Well, in part, because it winnows down what music is, and can be, beyond anything we might consider healthy in a larger sense. What would a touring-as-profit model mean for a disabled artist who cannot tour without huge cost? An artist who makes music which is inherently unperformable? Artists who require ten guys on stage to make the sound they like?

I'm oversensitive to this, yes -- my brother was a member of Skavoovie and the Epitones, a popular ska band that went bust when they found that after four albums, though their last album was by far the most popular, touring could not sustain the costs incurred by ten guys on the road. In their case, selling records was totally profitable enough to keep them -- barely -- paying rent for the first three albums. Then Napster came along, and they couldn't afford to keep going. Now most of them make music which requires smaller bands, or perform solo. THIS is a model which supports independent music? Or is it a business/economic model which limits the types of music and musicians which can succeed, thus inherently hurting MUSIC by narrowing the possibility set to that kind of music which can best be performed?

In other words: notice the prevalence of LO-FI music in the world these days? That's because this economic model best sustains music which has low production values, i.e. low costs for production. I prefer a diversity of sound, and, like Billy, believe there is both a third way...and that if people really want it, it will be sustainable.

And Billy: thanks for stopping in, and validating the efforts of honest non-profit music bloggers like myself, despite my garbled posting. I'm especially proud to be one of your promoters on my own music blog, and will continue to look for opportunities to help others hear about, sample, and purchase your music whenever I get a chance. Your willingness to engage in this, and help listeners see that they are not being criminalized, but are being asked to help sustain a model which better sustains artists, is part of the third way, right there.

[Joe]

Billy, I suspect more bands have turned touring and word-of-mouth buzz into successful recording careers, rather than the other way around. The reverse: success selling CDs turning into a successful touring a career doesn't make much sense.

How did it work for you coming up? Did you record some music and then have that turn into demand for you to tour? Or did you bust your ass in small clubs, ultimately leading to word-of-mouth interest and other commercial opportunities?

[Billy Bragg]

Okay Mike, maybe you can tell me the name of this band that has broken big using the internet as its only base?

And why it is that MySpace shouldn't pay for the content that brings people and advertisers to the site?

If I am guilty of thinking in an old way, then its because I believe that businesses which use my music to generate revenue for themselves should pay me a royalty for doing so.

[Joe]

Boyhowdy,
Cool about your brother having been in Skavoovie... I actually saw them a few times in high school/college.

That being said, I wonder if the decline of Napster might just be a useful whipping boy. After all, the big Northeast Ska scene sorta went bust after a major bubble in the mid-to-late 90s (Masnick, back me up on this?)

Also, yeah, I do imagine it's tougher for touring to support you if you're a 10+ person band, because unfortunately, that doesn't give you any pricing power.

[Joe]

Also, Bowhowdy,
Unfortunately, the value of music isn't determined by what we want it to be. Nothing ever is. Otherwise, oil would be worth $20 barrel, Bear Stearns would be back at $60, and I'd be drawing a $300k salary. For that matter, there'd be people wiling to pay $15 for a CD of the music I've written. Unfortunately, they're not.

[Billy Bragg]

Boyhowdy,

I have no problem with people like you whose love of music drives you to tell the world about what you enjoy. My problem is with the big earning SocNets and their owners. They're making money off of free content and we need to wise up and get out act together so we can enjoy the benefits the internet offers - but on terms we can live with.

Joe,

Sure I started out doing shows and then made a record. But until that record was on the radio, I couldn't get gigs outside of my area. The record legitimised me in a way that passing out cassette tapes never did. Promoters and media around the UK started taking me seriously and, more importantly, people in the US heard me and invited me over to tour.

I recognise this model no longer functions, but the point I'm making is that I could not have done it on live alone.

[Joe]

Billy,
When those radio stations gave you the much-needed jolt to your career, were they required to pay royalties at that point? And if they were, was that the main value you got out of that? It sounds like the main value you got from radio play was the promotional aspect, or as you say, the legitimization.

[Billy Bragg]

Joe,

I'm afraid its 2am here and I'm reluctantly going to have to leave your discussion. Thanks for hosting an interesting debate.

I will check in tomorrow though, just to see if any of you 'free music' guys have come up with the name of a band that has broken through on internet promotion alone.

My regards to your wife.

Billy

[Joe]

Thanks Billy. And my wife just screamed at your last comment. I'll make sure us "free music" types have some examples at our disposal for you tomorrow.

[Mike Masnick]

Billy,

You are asking the wrong question when you ask for a "band that has broken big using the internet as its only base."

Because the legacy industry is still present, of course every band we name will have used a hybrid model that involves both, rather than a "internet only" situation. But, there are many, many, many bands that have made a name for themselves using the internet -- and were able to use it the way you used radio: to allow them to get shows outside of their home base.

And, even better, they were able to do that without having to go through the incredibly painful process of getting their songs on the radio. The gatekeeper has gone away.

But the number of musicians who have used these new business models (i.e., not relying on the sale of music as their sole source of revenue) are large and growing.

Look at the history of Maria Schneider. She got a grammy for her album that was produced entirely thanks to internet support.

Look at Jonathan Coulton and what he has done thanks to the internet.

Many people point to the Arctic Monkeys as a band that built it's fame using the internet.

Boyhowdy points out that his brother was in Skavoovie & the Epitones, a band I actually saw many times back in the 90s. But he's wrong to say that Napster killed the band. The "3rd Wave" ska scene mostly died off, but because it tried at exactly the wrong time to go mainstream and act more like the rest of the music industry. One of the few bands that made it through that time was the Slackers -- and they've kept themselves going incredibly strong how? By effectively using the internet to stay in touch with their fans and to forge a close relationship.

The point is simple, though I can understand why it may be more difficult to accept having lived in the old system for quite some time: giving away the music for free helps boost nearly every single ancillary product related to your music.

The music, by itself, is an "infinite good." Once produced, it can be infinitely replicated at no cost. In basic economics, that means the supply is infinite, and it's natural that the price will get pushed to zero.

But rather than fret, just start to look at that free music as a resource... a resource that helps make everything else you sell more valuable. How? Because it gets more people interested in you and your music. It makes more people want to come see you. It makes more people demand you come see them. It makes more people interested in access to you.

And it works if you're big or small. When you're small, you play locally and promote yourself online and by giving away the music. At that stage, obscurity is a much bigger threat to your music career than piracy. Then, as you get bigger, you can start to charge for all sorts of things: concerts, access, the ability to write new songs.

And, no, boyhowdy, it's not just concerts. You'll notice that Trent Reznor just made millions without performing a concert, but while still giving the basic music away for free. Why? Because he also gave people a *REASON* to buy. He gave them something extra beyond the music itself: a combination of convenience, collectors items and for the diehard fan, a limited edition product with his signature.

No, that doesn't work for a first time artist by itself, but they can start to build up a fan base using the exact same methods, and they can keep them as well.

Some links that may be helpful in understanding all of this:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030912/1032238.shtml
(note that this is from 2003, when people insisted it would never work, but now we're seeing it in practice):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080115/095022.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php

So, there are new business models showing up that embrace "free" music and show that a band can do better embracing that free music, just at the same time that paid music becomes less and less sustainable.

And, best of all, free music helps everyone. The musician can make more money. The fans are happier, and there's even room for the industry to take part in helping with the marketing (just not on "selling music" but selling everything else that's made more valuable by the music).

It really is a win-win-win, except maybe for the guy who owns a factory making CD inserts.

[Chadwick Wood]

I'm curious what the "free music" folks have to say about how this debate would translate over to the realm of writing, for instance novels and educational texts. Right now those still primarily get distributed on paper, but with the inevitable eventual arrival of ubiquitous digital reading devices, the book publishing industry is going to face a very similar crisis to that of the music industry. Literature, too, is an "infinite good". So, what are you going to tell the authors? Start doing more readings and lectures?

[Billy Bragg]

Mike,

You say you spent nearly a decade chronicling example after example after example of the free music model working for smaller named artists. Where are these people?

Trent Reznor? I suggest you read his blog regarding his experience with offering the Saul Williams album as a free download:

http://ninblogs.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/saul-follow-up-and-facts/

It is clear from what he writes that he does not consider the method to be economically viable.

Maria Schneider? Have you read her acceptance speech from the Grammys?

" I wish to share it with all the great people who brought this piece to life: Peter Sellars and the New Crowned Hope Festival who commissioned it,"

The Arctic Monkeys did follow your model of giving their music away to fans as promotion, but didn't get taken seriously until they actually released an album.

Afraid I couldn't find anything out about how Jonathan Coulton benefited from giving his music away free.

Will Reznor's next record be free? Radiohead's? Would Schnieder have a career without her commissions? How come the Monkeys haven't used the give-away method again?

And how about addressing the crux of my argument: why it is that MySpace shouldn't pay for the content that brings people and advertisers to the site?

[Fluid Mercury]

Can't help but hum "Which Side Are You On" whilst reading through these comments. That's a song that coincidentally enough, I first heard on a mixtape a friend made for me back in 1984. True story.

There are quite a few different conversations at work here. I agree with Billy that an artist should be paid for their work; especially if SOMEONE ELSE is making money from it.

Let's look at the busking analogy. A busker sets up shop in the subway and performs an acoustic set of Billy Bragg material. In that set, the aforementioned "Which Side Are You On" is performed, a song that was written by Florence Reece and adapted by Billy Bragg.

Now, some other enterprising fellow comes along, records the buskers' performance on audio tape and sets a table up next door to the busker selling the tapes for $5.00 a pop. It seems there would be a lot of legal ramifications involved in correctly determining who gets what out of that $5.00. There is the songs' writer, the performer, the publishing company and the guy who bought and produced the tapes. They should all be included in a payout in some way. My feeling is, the last person I would think who should be entitled to the biggest portion is the guy selling the tapes. Yet isn't THAT the model the record industry has used to famously rip off artists since the beginning of time?

Also, how is music being available on the internet much different from someone tuning a radio dial and hearing a song on the radio? Now it's a clicky-click to hear the song, not a radio dial. I don't know how I feel about reimbursement for the "airing" of material (which is ultimately free promotion) but as someone who still regularly purchases CDs, I do feel that there is STILL value in recorded music as product. Sure, I can download a crappy 128kbps copy of a new CD, but it doesn't really equate with purchasing the 3D product in all it's colourful, superior sounding, leather-bounded, limited-edition status glory. Computer files are just that cheap, computer files. The product has to be the presentation of the recorded music, not the music itself.

I used to be able to tape record an album from a friend and have a copy to listen to. However, I didn't own the album, it wasn't considered "in my collection," and when I would make mix tapes, that record wasn't in available to use for the mix (tape dubbing was a pain).

Just my scattered 2 cents.

[Mike Masnick]

Billy,

I think you should actually read Saul William's feelings about Saul Williams:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9848536-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

As for Trent, he too noted that while he was "disheartened" everything else about the experiment went great. Which part didn't go great? Oh right, SELLING THE MUSIC. It proves the point. Selling the music directly is difficult, but giving it away helped get Williams a ton of attention.

As for Reznor he DID just release his latest album for free under a CC license. But he made millions... Why? Because he gave people a REASON to buy, not by demanding a compulsory license. He gave them different options and different benefits for buying that went above and beyond just the music, which he himself uploaded to the Pirate Bay.

As for Maria Schneider, you seem to have not understood what she did. She had her fans PAY her AHEAD OF TIME to CREATE the music -- not pay to buy it afterwards. That's a major difference. She had them commission the music, but once the music was created it acted as promotion for the further commission of new music.

As for Jonathan Coulton not benefiting from the internet... yikes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/magazine/13audience-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

Arctic Monkeys are again proof of what I said. You've put a totally false dichotomy by saying that they can't use the old system at all. But you have a band that gave away it's music and used that to build up a huge audience.

And, I thought I DID address your original question, but if you want more I wrote up a long post here explaining it:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080322/142342625.shtml

The simple crux of it is that musicians who upload their music made a fair choice. There was no favor asked. It was a fair choice: you upload your music for the sake of promotion, we get to sell ads.

If you don't like the deal, don't do it. But I'd bet that most of the artists doing so believe it's a fair deal and they're thrilled with the promotion they got out of it. And I'm not saying, as you imply in your op-ed, that we're saying this after the fact. We're saying that the musicians FAIRLY DECIDE that this is beneficial for them. It's rather childish to go back afterwards and demand the terms of the deal be changed.

[nipsey russell]

BB: "And how about addressing the crux of my argument: why it is that MySpace shouldn't pay for the content that brings people and advertisers to the site?"
I not sure I understand this question. isn't the arrangement that myspace offers a free webpage for promotion purposes to the bands and the bands can either put their content on the page or not??? in one sense, the trade is webserving and promotion in exchange for content, an arrangement that both parties can either agree to or freely walk away from. but in another sense it is entirely at the artists discretion to either put the songs on the pageror choose only to have a page with tour dates and blogs and the like -thus meaning there is not really an exchange at all but simply an opportunity the artist can either use or not use.
in any case, myspace is free to offer cash for music or not, and the artists are free to accept or not. they can continue to stick to the "i must be paid for every song streamed" mindset in plenty of other places, but that is not what myspace is offering so just stay away and don't complain!!!

[ddbb]

While I sympathize with Billy's point about wanting to be paid, he makes a crucial error in distinction between the "artists" on Bebo and investors in a start up. They are nothing alike. The investors risk capital in the enterprise while the artists trade content for promotion. Each has its potential risks and rewards, but this does not mean that artists deserve the benefits of the owners of the enterprise (or the risk that they lose their investment) or that investors deserve any of the income the artists may generate as a result of any individual artist's efforts. These distinct roles are not similar.

Billy actually makes this point with his MySpace story. If you have an issue with a contract, you can live with it, negotiate to change the terms or walk away. You do not get to change the terms of the agreement after the fact because someone else received a benefit you did not bargain for in the first place. Has Billy (or anyone) used a site or service that went bankrupt? Did they try to give that site start up capital after bankruptcy? By Billy's logic, his content would have driven them out of business and he should be liable for their losses. However, my guess is that artists only want to share in the upside without the risks that investors take.

I understand the frustration at being able to make as much money as you would like exactly as you would like to make it. However, this does not mean other people with other business models owe you anything in the absence of an express agreement to that point.

In addition, with respect to the prediction of the imminent death of the independent musician, there is more music available than ever before through more channels than ever before in more forms and styles than ever before. It is not going anywhere. That said, there is nothing that says anyone anywhere owes them a living a musician just because that is the vocation to which they aspire.

Nobody is entitled to a career as a musician or artist. As a former professional musician, I realized the limits of the marketplace and changed professions. However, I continued playing. I share music with more people now than when I playing for bored restaurant, bar and museum patrons. Nobody owed me anything and I had to change my situation to feed myself. Labeling yourself as an "artist" does not confer on others the obligation to hand you money. It is funny, however, that the so-called artists complaining about evil corporations, big business and commerce were the first to whine about not getting paid.

[Billy Bragg]

Mike,

<>

How is that any different from commercial radio? I give them my music for free, in the form of promo CDs, they use it to sell ads.

[Billy Bragg]

Sorry Guys, something weird happened to part of my post.

Should have read:

Mike

"The simple crux of it is that musicians who upload their music made a fair choice. There was no favor asked. It was a fair choice: you upload your music for the sake of promotion, we get to sell ads."

How is that any different from commercial radio? I give them my music for free, in the form of promo CDs, they use it to sell ads.

[Jamil]

I'm confused. Or maybe stupid. But shouldn't artists be paying companies like Bebo? After all, artists are getting advertising out for their music and making money of increased sales -- which is advertising in my book. Advertising is usually paid for.

[Jamil]

Sorry, I was a little quick with my last post, and not sure I was clear. I am saying, couldn't the reverse argument that Billy is making be made? That artists should in fact be paying companies like Bebo, because Bebo is promoting artist's music so that artists make more money for themselves (sounds like advertising, which is usually paid for to the advertising medium). Couldn't the argument be easily, why should artists get a free ride off the hard work Bebo did to bring people in?

[Curious]

Jamil just beat me to my point.

I am curious, Billy, if you had become the next Radiohead which would have been in some part responsible due to the promotion done by Bebo (which I know is impossible in your opinion, but let's just speculate the absurd), would you have felt obligated to financially reimburse Bebo for their promotion of your music?

[Just wondering.....]

If you were just starting out and were giving your CD's away for free, and you stood out front of a business to do this, then wouldn't you owe that shop owner some sort of monetary payment for allowing to use the customers that are coming to his business to promote your music?

[Professah Funkensteen]

Billy,

Are you going to ask Joe for a cut of his Google ad revenues from this page, since he's making money off of the "free content" you're supplying?

[Thomas Hawk]

Billy Bragg is wrong.

http://thomashawk.com/2008/03/billy-bragg-is-wrong.html

[Mike Masnick]

Billy wrote:

"How is that any different from commercial radio? I give them my music for free, in the form of promo CDs, they use it to sell ads."

Yes, and that was the trade that you made, which you felt was fair. Would you NOT want your album played on the air if you weren't getting royalties?

Clearly, for many musicians the answer is yes: because that's exactly what they did with Bebo. They valued the promotion and if the cost was that Bebo made money off of it, so be it. That was the fair trade. Each party benefits.

So if musicians are perfectly happy with the deal, why change the terms?

Hell, with the Bebo situation, the cofounders took on a much bigger risk. Musicians got almost immediate payback, for the promotion, and if the site had eventually cratered, would they offer some of the concert revenue they made out of it back to the founders for the help they gave?

I doubt it.

At the time the trade was made, it worked well for everyone. The cofounders had a much riskier proposition, but with risk comes reward. What you're asking for is for musicians to take much less risk, but get the same reward.

[Philip]

I'm just a lonely guy on the internet, who likes to listen to music. Even I have herd of Jonathan Coulton. I love his songs! They are so creative, innovative and down right funny in many circumstances.

So yeah...speaking as a person Billy tries to target; I know of Jonathan Coulton, but never herd of Billy Bragg until Mark's post on TechDirt.

[Billy Bragg]

Should I pay Bebo for the privilege of being on their site? I don't think so. I never had to pay record shops - remember them? - for the privilege of being in their racks. They stocked my record so people would come into their shop. Same reason why Bebo hosts music.

If I had become the next Radiohead should I pay a percentage to all the radio stations that played my music? No, because they benefited from my popularity by selling advertising while they played my song. Same goes for Bebo. They use music to attract advertising - except they don't pay for it.

No, I'm not about to ask Joe for a cut of his advertising revenue, but maybe I should. Looking at the posts he's made during March, his average response is zero comments. He has a few articles that generated a single comment and his previous high was 7. I don't know if that's an average month and, Joe, I'm not trying to denigrate your site, but what are we up to now, 40+ comments? Obviously, something is pulling users to this site.

Is it Joe? Has he invested in a new technology to draw people in? Has he suddenly come up with a new business model that outstrips everything he did before? What risk has he taken, Mike?

[Thomas Hawk]

Billy,

How much should musical acts be paid per page view and why only musical acts.

I'm a photographer. Although I don't use Bebo I use other social networks. Shouldn't my art be valued on equal terms to a musical act?

How much do you think I ought to be entitled to per page view or are musicians the only artists that matter?

Tom

[Professah Funkensteen]

What's pulling people to this entry? Techmeme, I'd imagine. Those bastards are using Joe's content to build up their site and not paying him for it!!!

Oh wait. He makes ad revenue from the traffic they send his way. Sort of like the way musicians sell stuff to people who hear their music on Bebo.

[Mike Masnick]

Billy wrote:

"Should I pay Bebo for the privilege of being on their site? I don't think so. I never had to pay record shops - remember them? - for the privilege of being in their racks. They stocked my record so people would come into their shop. Same reason why Bebo hosts music."

Right. That was a fair trade as well. Notice the pattern. In each case there is a fair trade, where both parties make it willingly.

So why, suddenly, should Bebo be forced into a deal it doesn't make willingly, when musicians appear to be perfectly fine with the deal granted to them?

Billy wrote:
"If I had become the next Radiohead should I pay a percentage to all the radio stations that played my music? No, because they benefited from my popularity by selling advertising while they played my song. Same goes for Bebo. They use music to attract advertising - except they don't pay for it."

They DO pay for it. Just not with money. They are trading the hosting, the community and the promotion. THAT is the payment. That's why it's a fair trade and why people make it.

Without a site like Bebo, you have to build up your own community, pay for your own hosting and set everything up yourself. So the PAYMENT that Bebo made is to provide all of that.

If it's not enough, then don't use Bebo. But many musicians did find it a fair trade.

In the meantime, if the radio station benefited but you didn't pay them, why should Bebo pay you if you benefited and they didn't pay you?

You seem to want things both ways.

Billy wrote:
"Is it Joe? Has he invested in a new technology to draw people in? Has he suddenly come up with a new business model that outstrips everything he did before? What risk has he taken, Mike?"

Joe has kept this site going with not all that much traffic and (I believe) not all that much ad revenue either. That was the risk he took... and it paid off as well. I know because I hired Joe and he worked for me for a year and a half, and that helped him get another job as well. Why did I hire Joe? Well, in large part because of this blog. I read it every day and was impressed with his ability to think and write. But that was a "risk" that he was taking in giving away his work.

So he put his hard work and effort and gave away his content for free, and it paid off nicely for him.

[Billy Bragg]

Fair comment MIke, but what was it that Joe did that suddenly brought in all this traffic? Why isn't this thread just like all of the others - one comment then dead?

[Mike Masnick]

This thread is different for a few reasons:

1. You commented on it.
2. Joe is incessantly promoting it on Twitter :)
3. Techmeme linked to it
4. The ongoing conversation continues because we haven't reached a conclusion.
5. I linked to it from Techdirt.

Now, I'm helping to give Joe traffic, but I'm certainly not going to ask him for any ad revenue or anything in return. Hell, if I had my way, he'd still be working for me and this whole conversation would be taking place over at Techdirt rather than here. But that's how things go.

If you want to take up your share with Joe, then go ahead, but again, you should have done that before your commented. When you commented, you felt it was a fair trade. Going back now and demanding extra for helping get more attention would be like... hmm... well, it would be like demanding a cut of the money Bebo's founders got after they sold out.

[Joe]

Billy:
I don't think there's any question why this thread has generated so much traffic: it's you. When it's just me ranting, people care much less. So I do appreciate all the added traffic and attention. I think I've maybe made $1.25 in adsense these days. And if I offered you, say, half of that, that'd be derisory, I think. Of course, I know that's not the real question.

On the other hand, this whole thing goes to show the uncertainty that goes along with online media. I'm not sure how you chose this blog as the one to comment on, of the various blogs out there responding to your op-ed. It seems like it was total happenstance.

The popularity of stuff like blogs and social nets can be totally arbitrary. You could have great features and access to music from everywhere in the world and there's no guarantee anyone would take off. Or you can have some chintzy design and major limitations (like: MySpace) and it becomes the biggest thing since sliced bread.

This is just the opposite, I think, from the radio industry, where stuff like market share is distributed in a very orderly fashion and customer acquisition is easy (just offer prizes on the top of each hour) and you can probably predict your market sahre pretty easily. As such, stuff like standard royalty rates work very well in such a predictable market.

But online, where no such certainty exists, it becomes a tall task. Ok, MySpace and Bebo should give users a cut... what about a lightweight social networking services, like chat or Twitter, where artists may be mentioned and promoted. What about a network of bloggers whose interactions is a defacto social net? What about a video search engine profiting from legal video around the net? What about a legal video search engine that gets no users what so-ever? What about a legal search engine that sells for $1 billion, but which has not revenue or profit to speak of. Trying to craft a royalty scheme that works for all these situations seems destined to fail and be arbitrary.

[Professah Funkensteen]

Uh, he wrote a post that struck a chord with some people. How difficult is that to understand? Or is this (latest) red herring a backhanded way for you to try and take credit for this apparent spike in traffic?

[Thomas Hawk]

Billy, how much should artists get of the Bebo deal? Should it be based on page views? How would you propose to equitably split the pie?

Should musicians be the only artists that are entitled to dividend compensation based on the deal?

More details please.

[Nick Dynice]

Billy's argument is quite simple: just becuase the music business functioned a certain way in the past, it should continue to function that way in the future, and that we should all be ignorant of the market changes that have taken place of the past 10 years. He is allowed to do that (have his belief), while acts like Trent Reznor and Radiohead, Arctic Monkeys, Jonathan Coulton, Kristen Hersh forge ahead and don't wait for someone else to figure out how to make money in the new music business. This is no different than the sheet music publishers and live musicians crying foul when the phonograph came of age.

[Curious]

Billy wrote:
"If I had become the next Radiohead should I pay a percentage to all the radio stations that played my music? No, because they benefited from my popularity by selling advertising while they played my song. Same goes for Bebo. They use music to attract advertising - except they don't pay for it."

Didn't you put the music on Bebo? If you did and it wasn't shamelessly put there without your consent, were you expecting to get paid for it (either immediately or at a later date)?

My guess is that at the time, you expected (the contract to which you agreed) no monetary compensation in return. You expected what everybody else expects when they put their music up - that you would get exposure from being on their site while they made money from advertising. A pretty fair trade if you ask me. If these were unacceptable terms, you did not have to upload your music.

Would you have paid Bebo if you had become wealthy because of their promotion? No. Would you have contributed if Bebo had gone bankrupt? No. Had you assumed any risk at all? No. It seems like you want more of a partnership only when it suits you. You can't expect to assume no risk but reap all the rewards.

[Billy Bragg]

2. Joe is incessantly promoting it on Twitter :)
Fine. Why doesn't he do that with all his other postings?

3. Techmeme linked to it
How many of his previous postings have they linked to? Why this one?

4. The ongoing conversation continues because we haven't reached a conclusion.

Oh yeah, like all his other threads reached a conclusion.

5. I linked to it from Techdirt.

Why Mike? Why did you do that?

[Joe]

Just to point out something. It got sort of buried here, but Billy didn't actually upload his music to Bebo. Everyone assumed he did cause of the op-ed -- I don't think that changes too much though.

Fact is: no musician would be willing to share in the downside risk facing a net startup, nor would they be willing to pay some percentage of all future royalties to a given site, even if their future success was germinated there.

[Philip]

This thread is popular because it's actually a rare attempt to actually discuss things of this nature with an actual musician who feels the way you do, Billy.

I got here through Techdirt. I have to say, I'm an avid reader of the site; I insure not to miss a single post (although, one of your writers I think can use a lesson in speaking to the lower crowd. Julian Sanchez confuses the hell out of me. lol). When I saw Mike's post on this, I had to check it out.

These comments have gotten quite interesting.

I have to admit, being an avid Techdirt reader, I agree with Mike, Joe and Tim on this subject. Music is a infinite good. Much like software, which is my field. Once it's digital, it costs nothing to copy. Eventually it will get out, which means you need other methods which cannot be easily copied to make money. This includes ads or even better, as a musician, appearances, writing custom songs, producing custom covers, etc. Bebo is an example where a contract should have been made up front, before the buy-out, for compensation. Since none was, why do musician care?

The purpose of the music, now, is to use the internet as your "radio." Get it out there to as many people as you can, digitally, and hope that it gets picked up to the point people will be willing to pay to see you live, buy your merchandise and even buy a CD that's not just a playlist of your current songs.

[nipsey russell]

billy, what IS the point of your last 3 posts?

[Billy Bragg]

Do I have to spell it out for you nipsey?

[Mike Masnick]

So, Billy, if you think that all this traffic, and the full $1.25 Joe earned is due to you, why did you bother posting the comment?

Why didn't you ask him ahead of time for any cut of the revenue?

[geoff]

Or indeed nipsey, Must he paint you a picture?

The challenge all artists (and I'll include musicians, photographers, painters, etc in that definition) are facing is that the cost of near-perfect reproduction is zero in the digital age. Artists have to decide whether or not they want to create content for artistic satisfaction (which gives them a warm inner glow but won't feed their kids) or for profit. I don't think the two can co-exist, and if my assumption is correct that they are motivated by creativity more than profit, then they need to find alternate sources of revenue, based on something that can't be commoditised. For musicians, live performance is how they do this - and that is why record companies are looking at 360-deree contracts. I think the issue of authors having to give readings is a great conundrum - they need to spend that time locked away in their lonely garret coming up with the next one.

A fair day's pay for a fair day's work? Choose your days carefully in Days Like These.

[Billy Bragg]

Mike,

I'm not after Joe's $1.25, nor am I seeking to aggrandize myself.

I'm just trying to see if I can get you guys to admit what it is that is driving this spike in Joe's traffic. Joe didn't make any extra investment, he didn't upgrade or employ any more people, he didn't take out ads. He just did what he normally did.

All this content just fell in his lap. Joe's a host, just like Michael Birch.

[Mike Masnick]

geoff wrote:
"Artists have to decide whether or not they want to create content for artistic satisfaction (which gives them a warm inner glow but won't feed their kids) or for profit."

Why should they be mutually exclusive? If you stop thinking about the content as a product to be sold and start thinking about it as a resource that can promote (freely!) every other scarce good you have to sell, you should be able to make much greater profits.

The history of economic growth is based on using infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable.

This would be the first time in history that infinite goods wouldn't increase the overall market size. So I find it odd to claim that profits can't co-exist.

"I think the issue of authors having to give readings is a great conundrum - they need to spend that time locked away in their lonely garret coming up with the next one."

Actually authors are still doing quite well selling the scarce: books. Because ereaders just don't have the same experience.

But even in a situation where e-readers take over there are plenty of other ways for authors to make money. I've outlined a bunch on my site, so I don't feel like re-listing them all here.

[Mike Masnick]

Billy insulted Joe thusly:
"I'm just trying to see if I can get you guys to admit what it is that is driving this spike in Joe's traffic. Joe didn't make any extra investment, he didn't upgrade or employ any more people, he didn't take out ads. He just did what he normally did. All this content just fell in his lap. Joe's a host, just like Michael Birch."

Well, that's a huge insult, Billy. No offense, but you might want to step off your high horse.

"Just a host."

Just a host who was able to bring together a bunch of interesting, smart, knowledgeable folks for a debate.

You didn't bring in those people. Joe did. We followed Joe and then chose to engage with you to show that you were wrong on this particular topic. It was the resulting conversation between all of us -- not just because of you -- that drew more attention to this site.

The fact that you are unwilling to bother understanding what we are saying is what has kept this conversation going. It's not your presence alone.

"Just a host."

That's insulting. Bebo "hosted" a huge community of folks who became fans of musical acts, and you insult every one of them by claimining their community is just there because of you.

"Just a host."

Billy, I had no clue who you were prior to reading this yesterday. But I know Joe and follow Joe and I came here and read this because of Joe and the people who associate with Joe. I didn't come here because of you.

Today I'm learning about you, and over on Twitter people are telling me about your music and letting me hear it. I hadn't heard it before. Now I have. Shouldn't you be happy that people are promoting you? Or is Twitter and Songza and Hypemachine "profiting" off of your music unfairly? Are they all just hosts? Would you be better off if I didn't hear your music at all?

"Just a host."

Billy, you are also a host. A host to all your fans. The community of folks who like your music. When you insult Joe as "just a host" you insult yourself as well.

"Just a host."

Everyone who build a community is a "host" but those communities are valuable. Sure, they may have differing levels of value, but don't kid yourself that you're the only host with value.

Bebo has value. Joe has value. You have value.

Based on those values you make fair market trades. If you think the value of the trade is unfair, you don't do it. To assume that all the value is on one side is simply incorrect. If that were true, no trade would have occurred in the first place.

"Just a host."

It's a sad statement that you would treat the biggest resources that are helping musicians make money as "just a host."

[geoff]

Mike, I'm not too sure that artists generally will embrace the concept of the fruits of their labour - artistic expression - being reduced to a loss-leader for their other (presumably secondary) goods like t-shirts. But then, aren't CDs really a secondary product to the real article of value: the song. How do we put a price on them? I guess the answer is concert tickets.

I'd like art and commerce to co-exist but sadly, I don't see how they can in the digital age. There aren't enough consumers like me - who still find the experieence of looking at the artwork and reading the liner notes from the CD (album!) when they listen to the songs for the first time - left in the market since the fundamental article became able to be commoditised.

[Billy Bragg]

So, Mike, as far as you are concerned, it's Joe that is driving this spike.

Joe, if I have in any way insulted you and this site, I wholeheartedly apologise. I'm simply trying to get Mike to recognise what is going here. When I log back on in the morning, I'd love to read your thoughts on why this seems to be your most popular thread ever.

[Mike Masnick]

geoff:
"I'm not too sure that artists generally will embrace the concept of the fruits of their labour - artistic expression - being reduced to a loss-leader for their other (presumably secondary) goods like t-shirts."

It's not "being reduced to a loss-leader." It's using the fruits of their labor to build a huge market. Maybe I've just been doing this so long that I fail to see why that's such a problem. They're better off this way. So are fans. So is everyone.

Why does that seem so troubling?

"I'd like art and commerce to co-exist but sadly, I don't see how they can in the digital age. "

Did you miss the part about how more money is being made today in the music industry than ever before in history?

"There aren't enough consumers like me - who still find the experieence of looking at the artwork and reading the liner notes from the CD (album!) when they listen to the songs for the first time - left in the market since the fundamental article became able to be commoditised."

Again, you are missing how much additional value is created (and monetized) from the free distribution of music. You are mourning an industry that is thriving because the one way you're used to experiencing it is going away.

Mourn the CD, if you must, but there's no need to mourn the music industry.

[Mike Masnick]

Billy,

No. I am not saying that it is solely Joe. I'm saying it's a combination of all those factors, and for you to take sole credit is so elitist it's rather sickening.

I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Joe. I'm sure others are here for you. I'm sure you have a much bigger following that Joe, but I'm here because of him, not you.

But you still chose to come to this forum and participate. And that's because you, too, felt that Joe had value. To now claim all that value is yours is the same elitist stance you pulled in your op-ed and when you called Joe and Bebo "just a host."

You each brought pieces to this conversation, which is how it works. You each have value, and you each decided that there was value in this forum (as did I).

To pull out an elitist "you're just a host" and suggest that you're the only reason anyone is here is rather disgusting.

[geoff]

MM: 'It's not "being reduced to a loss-leader." It's using the fruits of their labor to build a huge market.'

A huge market for what, exactly, if not music?

MM: 'Did you miss the part about how more money is being made today in the music industry than ever before in history?'

Who is making that money, Mike? How much of that turnover is going into the pockets of the musicians who create the artistic product the industry is based around?

Oh, and I think it's a bit rich to repeat a misquote six times. "Joe's a host".

[geoff]

Oops, now you're up to eight.

[Jamil]

I'll chime in and tell you why I'm here. Because I think both Techdirt and the NY Times Opinion section gives away for viewpoints that I think are interesting and worth my time. I've never heard of Joe or Billy before, and frankly aren't really interested in them other then the fact that Billy has a viewpoint that I disagree with and Joe has a nice free forum to discuss this over (frankly, I'd be perfectly happy to discuss this over a beer with anyone).

With that said, I have a question. Billy, were you paid for your editorial in the NY Times? I hope that's not too forward to ask, but if you were not, why did you write it, given that you just helped increase the value of the NY Times for no payment? And if you were, would you have written it anyway if you weren't paid?

[nipsey russell]

i WAS hoping for an answer. you say you weren't after his $1.25, but you have led us down that path. further the case against self aggrandizement seems weak after your continued posts at this point. is there a third reason? you still havent answered the question except to discount the two above reasons, and i dont believe it.

[Nick Dynice]

Billy Bragg is just a guy that makes noise. He used to adds value to plastic discs by allowing large companies to put his noise on them.

What is that is driving traffic here, Billy? It is a conversation between some people with strong opposing viewpoints. And yes, as the person with the strong viewpoint that things should not change simply because you want to be paid for your music without doing anything about, you are driving traffic and adding to this conversation.

If you are trying to say that everyone posing comments here has some sort of self-interest, which may be true. But we also like engaging in this conversation. Just like you like selling music, but you also (I will assume) like making it and enjoy it when your music connects to people.

Welcome the blogosphere, Billy, where people enjoy having high-level conversations about abstract topics. Most of the people posting here were informed of this post through the "live web," and ecosystem of aggregators, search, recommendation, and chat that occurs between users. Are there companies making money by enabling these conversations? Yes. Do we care? No, we accept this and we are happy for the free use of these tools.

Attention is a scarce commodity. You are now competing with a million other artists on MySpace, Bebo, YouTune, iLike. There mere existence brings you down to the level of one of these new artists (minus your current fans). Having your music online today is merely a seat at the table to get your music heard by potential fans. It is not a guarantee of type of success in any way. You must now give away things that you used to be able to sell. If you don’t like it, take your music and go home; you deserve to be obscure. Meanwhile, those that get it are going to kick ass in the new music economy.

The market can no longer bear the handouts you want companies to offer. You need to be remarkable against all the new odds. There are too many competing artists who are getting paid not with money, but attention. It is now the artists’ job to convert attention into money.

Billy, I challenge you to make a difference in the new music economy. Mike, Joe, and others have given you plenty of ideas on how to do that in this post. Or you can go commiserate with Elton John and Doug Morris. Which is going to pay your bills? Do you have what it takes?

BTW, I had heard of you before. But, I haven't heard anything from you since your tune "Sexuality" from the early 90's. I noticed the video is on YouTube! Free promotion!

[Blaise Alleyne]

Joe:

Thanks for the post, and for starting this discussion (not merely "hosting" it :P).

Billy:

I've come here a little late, but I wanted to say a couple things.

First, I'm here because of Mike, because of the link from Techdirt.

Second, you were asking about bands who have become big through free (as in price) music. A personal favourite that immediately comes to mind is Dispatch. They testified in *favour* of Napster during the legal dispute. Napster helped them to become popular and build up their fan base around the United States (like radio helped you). In 2002, they broke up, but they came together for a free "Last Dispatch" concert in July, 2004 in Boston. 110,000 people from 20 different countries showed up. They had another post-humous concert (this time a benefit) last summer, and they SOLD OUT Madison Square Gardens THREE NIGHTS IN A ROW.

This, from a band that's never been signed to a major record lable or had any heavy radio airplay.

Just because you haven't heard of these types of bands doesn't mean that they aren't successful. It's a different type of success than the "traditional" MTV-style success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatch_(band)

Lastly, I'm a musician too, but I side completely with Mike and Joe. It's not a matter of "devaluing" music (value and price are two separate things), nor is it a matter of forcing anyone to give away their music at no cost (Trent Reznor asked for money in his latest release). It's a matter of recognizing and capitalizing on the digital nature of music and the inevitable economics that follow it.

I'm a bit embarrassed to be a musician when this sense of entitlement arises.

[Mike Masnick]

Geoff wrote:
"A huge market for what, exactly, if not music?"

Every scarce good that the music touches.

"Who is making that money, Mike? How much of that turnover is going into the pockets of the musicians who create the artistic product the industry is based around?"

So now it's my fault that musicians like Billy who refuse to understand the models don't set themselves up to collect the proceeds?

The economics are simple. The infinite good (the music) expands the value of many different scarce goods. The trick is merely to position yourself to capture the monetary value of that scarce good -- and to do so in a way where only you can provide that scarce good.

There are, indeed, some positive externalities that get thrown off. "Freebies" that don't get paid for. But if you take advantage of those, and let those make the rest of the market bigger, why is that a problem?

If the musician can make 3x what they were making before, but others also make a bunch of money as well, why is that a problem? On an absolute scale, everyone is better off.

Do you begrudge the tourist book sellers who make money by telling you about where to visit? They're making money off the work of others.

Do you begrudge Google for pointing people to interesting websites? It's making money off the work of others.

Do you begrudge those of us who make money on the internet, off the work of our computer suppliers and our internet service providers?

No. You don't. Because each and every one of them recognize that they're better off as well. Just because YOU don't see how musicians are better off, it doesn't mean they're not.

I repeat (since you seem to have missed it) MORE MUSICIANS are making money from music than ever before in history. MORE MONEY is being made by musicians from concert revenue than ever before in history.

MORE MONEY is being made because having that free music act as a promotional good INCREASES the size of the market, and MORE MUSICIANS are capitalizing on that fact. Yes, there are some externalities, but only a fool says he'd rather have $1 than $5 if that $5 means someone else gets $10.

[Greg]

Billy, I think you owe Joe for posting this blog, since it just increased your popularity. Joe, you owe Mike for the link from Techdirt. Mike, you owe Google for offering Techdirt as a gadget. Google should pay Dell for providing the laptop that I view their site on.

Joe, don't forget the Saw Lady. She owes you some for allowing to post a link to her site, generating some traffic for her. To be honest, I was intrigued by her music, but I'm kinda sad that she turned free publicity from VH1 into an opportunity to launch another malicious lawsuit, and even seems to gloat that she cost people their job.

Billy, I know it looks like you're being attacked, but just by posting I've gotten intrigued enough to look up your music and see if I'm interested. Use the energy you could expend suing to instead make positive and insightful posts, and you might just expand your exposure and fan-base.

[geoff]

I wrote:
"A huge market for what, exactly, if not music?"

and Mike replied:
"Every scarce good that the music touches."

I'd like to hear some examples of what those scarce goods are please Mike.

I wrote:
"Who is making that money, Mike? How much of that turnover is going into the pockets of the musicians who create the artistic product the industry is based around?"

and Mike replied:
"So now it's my fault that musicians like Billy who refuse to understand the models don't set themselves up to collect the proceeds?"

I didn't suggest anything was your fault, Mike. I think Billy's point is that 'the new model' will eventually swallow up the primary conduit his proceeds used to come from.

I understand the economics of what you are saying, but I don't think you understand the artistics of what I'm saying. I don't know many musicians who want to use their songs as jingles for their other scarce goods - whatever those scarce goods might be. The only example I can give is live performance.

I also don't know many musicians who are making MORE MONEY in the digital environment. I know a hell of a lot who are making even less than they were a few years ago. There are certainly a few at the top of the ladder who are banking more. But there are many many more at the bottom and middle of the ladder who aren't making squat. All the economic theory in the world won't feed a hungry songwriter.

[ddbb]

geoff wrote "I don't know many musicians who want to use their songs as jingles for their other scarce goods"

Too bad. As I and others (Blaise Alleyne and Mike Masnick) mentioned, you have to change with the times. Just because you don't like how the market has changed, it does not obligate the market to remain static to your satisfaction. You can try to generate value in the new system, work for free for your own satisfaction or quit.

As a former professional musician, I realized that I could not make a living from music in the manner which was acceptable to me. I changed professions and continue to make music on the side. Unfortunately, this decision was made 15 years ago before the digital age was truly available (cassette tape 4-track recorders were high tech). Now, I have shared my music with far more people than I did when it was my job.

I wish I had been able to foresee the opportunities that would become available. A part of me wished I had been able to find an innovative way to make a living at music at that time in a way that was acceptable to me. However, I recognized then that the market did not owe me a living simply because of my artistic ambitions.

Billy, I have followed this discussion based on a link from Techdirt (Mike, I really like your site and appreciate the effort your put in over there). The discussion has been lively and interesting. If you had been another anonymous musician or even if you did not bother to post here, I still would have followed the discussion due to the high quality of the debate. Unless someone agreed to pay you for time and effort, nobody owes you anything, just like Bebo. You were presumably paid when I purchased your CDs a long time ago. I had not thought about them in a while and may go back or even purchase more. geoff, how is that for using free labor to generate more money for scarce goods?

[Nick Dynice]

You need to be more than just a musician today even more than in the past.

You could have made this same argument 30 years ago. Back then there were fewer avenues to successes. The mainstream perception was that you had to get "the record deal," and it was based mostly on luck, having an A&R person hear your music.

However, this was not the case. There is something to be said for networking and being charming. It is as if 30 year ago there were a bunch of people preaching that you should forget about demo tapes, showcases, and traditional promotion. It is all about charming people who have the resources to make you a star. What? Now a musician has to charm A&R people or other wealthy people who can sponsor an artists? You would say "But that is not what artists do! They make art! I don't know any musicians who are paying they bills with charm!"

Indeed, this was how many artists attained fame and power: by using skills that not as many people were willing to try becuase they wanted to win people over solely with merit, with the quality of his or her art.

No where is this skill more evident than in hip hop. Charismatic figures such as Snoop Dogg, 50 Cent, P. Diddy, and others all created auxiliary businesses by leveraging their personal brand (an infinite good) into selling scarce goods such as clothing, fragrances, dining experiences, and video games. This is becuase entrepreneurship is built-in to hip hop. Old rock stars are now leveraging their personal brand into reality TV.

Sell out or shut up.

[Billy Bragg]

I appreciate your comments guys, but none of you has shed any light on what it was that Joe did differently from all his previous posts that had the effect of making this thread his most popular ever.

Any suggestions?

[Mike Masnick]

Geoff wrote:
"I'd like to hear some examples of what those scarce goods are please Mike."

Please read Techdirt. I have listed out a ton, and given plenty of examples. It may be different for every artist, but a few quick ones are certainly concerts (as you noted), but also access to the musician, the musician's time, the ability to write new songs.

Look at what Maria Schneider did as a business model. Look at what Jill Sobule is doing as a business model.

They didn't sell music -- they sold scarce goods that they controlled.

"I don't know many musicians who want to use their songs as jingles for their other scarce goods"

Well, if used as a jingle you mean gaining fans for the musician, then yes, just about every musician already wants their songs used that way.

I wasn't talking about using songs as a jingle to sell toilet paper. I'm talking about using them to sell *the artist*.

"I also don't know many musicians who are making MORE MONEY in the digital environment. I know a hell of a lot who are making even less than they were a few years ago. There are certainly a few at the top of the ladder who are banking more."

Well, the stats on who's making money from music doesn't support that statement. The artists at the top are making less than in the past, but the "long tail" of artists are making much much more.

That doesn't deny the fact that there are some artists -- mainly those who are unable to grasp the implication of these economics, who will make less. But those who are embracing the economics have found that it works quite well.

[Mike Masnick]

Billy wrote:
"I appreciate your comments guys, but none of you has shed any light on what it was that Joe did differently from all his previous posts that had the effect of making this thread his most popular ever."

Then you have a reading comprehension problem.

Given your response to the rest of this threat, perhaps not so surprising.

Many people have discussed, in detail, why this thread is popular.

Many people have also discussed, in detail, why your original op-ed was wrong.

You have not responded to any of that.

I don't know why.

[Nick Dynice]

Billy, you want us to guess what Joe did differently. Me thinks you are trying to prove some sort of point that justifies his position. But the point must be so obscure and far-reaching that no one can guess what it is. We give up. Tell us.

[Nick Dynice]

I meant to say "...you are trying to prove some sort of point that justifies YOUR position..."

[Billy Bragg]

Mike,

Quit goofing - do you not know the answer to the question of what it was that Joe did differently on this particular thread??

[Joe]

Billy,
As I said in a post that ultimately got buried up there. Yes, I do think that the reason this post now has 85 comments, as opposed to my normal 0 or 1 is the fact that it's exciting to debate Billy Bragg. No doubt. There are some other factors, too, but that's a big one.

That being said, I don't think this really proves anything. The reason this discussion was able to emerge is that there were no transaction costs for anyone. Commenting was free for all. The moment you introduce a cost to commenting. Or a royalty for comments that generate more pageviews, things break down. Best to let everyone voluntarily handle monetization as they please, without adding to the complexity with an untenable web of financial relationships.

[Joe]

Furthermore, the fact that you commented without any expectation of financial remuneration suggests that even you see the value in free media. Ok, your comments aren't as valuable as your music, but to some extent, they're the same thing. You put it out there, and you see what happens. Sometimes it becomes something big, like a hit viral track or a very lively online discussion. Other times it's nothing. But either way, having the attitude that without a payback, there's no reason to put something out there, doesn't even square with your own actions.

[Professah Funkensteen]

Billy,

What difference does it make? Any answer to that question won't make your op-ed or your position any stronger.

[Billy Bragg]

Hey Prof,

I wish I had your self-assuredness

Joe,

What I'm trying to discover with this line of argument is what it was that you did differently when you posted this blog?

[Joe]

Billy,
I've already said. It's obvious that the reason this post has grown so long is that you've decided to join the conversation.

Now that we agree on that premise, what conclusion should I make?

[Billy Bragg]

Its not about what I did, Joe - its about what you did.

What did you do differently when you wrote this blog?

[Joe]

Billy,
I don't know what you're asking. I didn't do anything differently, except I usually don't write about digital music. But, now that I've acknowledged that. What conclusion shall we draw?

[Billy Bragg]

That content, not hosting, is what drives popularity.

That was the crux of my argument in the NYT and it appears to have been borne out here on at Stalwart.

[Jamil]

Billy,

I think you are missing something critical. It's content + discoverability + hosting. All three are critical. An interesting conversation is useless without knowing it's there and a place to have it.

But even with that said, your OpEd didn't come across as Content is King. Your argument came across as there is a moral obligation to be paid for creating Content. Is that not what you meant?

[Blaise Alleyne]

"Content, not hosting, is what drives popularity."

There seemed to me more to your argument in the NYT, when I read it. Namely that because of that, websites owe musicians money.

I agree, content is what drives popularity. But that doesn't mean everyone needs to be paid royalties every time they upload their content to a website.

The deal that Bebo/MySpace offer musicians is a platform, a host, for their content, available at no cost, in exchange for the use of their content at no cost. Musicians don't owe Bebo/MySpace when they make a profit, and neither do Bebo or MySpace owe musicians.

Billy writes:
"That content, not hosting, is what drives popularity."

Sorry, Bill, that's not the message at all. The content is meaningless if there was no community to discuss it. It was the combination that made this work.

"That was the crux of my argument in the NYT and it appears to have been borne out here on at Stalwart."

Ah, I see. So the crux of your argument is that the "content" is *MORE* valuable than the "community."

That's a rather elitist position to take, and it's proven wrong pretty simply by the very point we made at the beginning: if that were the case NO ONE WOULD AGREE TO PUT THEIR MUSIC ON ANY OF THESE COMMUNITIES.

Yet, they did. Why? Because they felt it was a fair t