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

[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.