Home / News /
Reasons why outlawing P2P isn't good for everyone: a musician speaks
Posted:
There’s a lot of talk today about the findings of the Digital Music Report 2008, which claims over 75% of people who download music off P2P sites would stop if their ISP put pressure on them to do so. This is cheering news if you’re a major label exec; but as an independent, defiantly DIY artist, I’m none too pleased.
I’ve been in the music ‘business’ for about 10 years, variously as a journalist, music producer, and PR. About 4 years ago I (very) briefly signed to Wall of Sound and put a record out with them. I came out of the whole deal disillusioned by label politics, and about £75 richer thanks to a couple of spins on Radio 1. That was pretty much the last time I ever dealt with the traditional music industry.
A year ago this week I self-released an album called Isaac and the Secret Chord. I distributed it to the major online music stores via Tunecore and promoted it purely online through Last.fm, Myspace, The Sixty One and other similar music websites. And then… well, nothing much happened, because I didn’t really spend a lot of time worrying about it. I made $51.98 in download sales. The album’s been streamed almost 6000 times in total. No better or worse than I expected, really.
Then this weekend I decided to put the whole thing up on Mininova, a popular torrent site, and enable people to grab it for free. Mininova gives you the chance to be featured for a couple of days on the frontpage of a website that gets over 117 million visits a month. It’s also a site your ISP will hassle you for using. In two days the album was downloaded almost 500 times. It’s now cropping up on other torrent and P2P sites as people start sharing it with friends. Some of the people who snatched it have Last.fm accounts, so now my scrobble stats have increased significantly, which means more people may hear it as it propagates through the Last.fm system more effectively.
In two days more people have been exposed to my music than in the entire previous 12 months. If I was a major record label exec, I’d now be complaining that I’ve lost 500 potential sales here. But that’s obviously nonsense: the people who grabbed it off Mininova would never have bought it in the first place. They’d never have even heard of it, for a start.
Putting the album up was my decision to make, and obviously I understand the major labels having issues with their content appearing on sites like this without their consent. But punishing everyone is detrimental to music – major, indie or DIY – in the long run.
Look at this way: I knew giving the album away for free would be a good idea, but still, I’m pretty much unknown, and here are 500 people willing to take a punt. Why the hell should they, even if it does cost nothing? What the experiment proved to me is that there’s a significant amount of passionate music fans congregating around these so-called illegal download sites who are actually willing to take a chance on new music. They trust you because you’ve approached them in their own habitat, on their own terms, and said, “here’s my album, transcoded at 320 kbps so you know I’m not pissing you around, and it’s free: take it.” And they do.
I used to worry about making money from music. Now all I worry about is getting heard. Those 500 downloads were not lost sales – they were 500 new potential fans. I’d rather the ISPs didn’t scare those potential fans away, thanks very much, because it’s getting harder and harder for musicians like me to reach them.
From the archive
-
Superb article
And I agree with pretty much everything you say.
-
interesting take on it.
and a great read and point to be made to be honest. not gospel for every situation but i think it's true, the more people hear of you, even if that May be for free, the more potential new fans you may have to buy your merch/come to your shows rather than not a single one of them having never heard you. great article DiS and well wrote Fakesensations
-
damn right.
its all about being heard. if you're not being heard then you haven't a hope of being successful, and even if you're not, the chances are someone thousands of miles away could well be loving every minute of your music.. which frankly still makes it worthwhile
-
On the one hand, I entirely see your point.
Give it away free, get new fans, new potential future revenues, etc.
But, when does that revenue come into fruition? If everything becomes available for free, then that becomes the status quo, and people will simply stop paying for their music. It would be nice to thing that most people would be willing to fork out to support artists they love, but I'm sceptical that there would be enough of those decent souls (as I know most on DiS are) to counteract the people who simply don't care and will take what they can and ignore what they can't.
You say you "used to worry about making money from music", so you're clearly in a situation where that's not a major issue any more. But I think there are a lot of bands and artists out there who'll never get heard if they haven't got the oppurtunity to make a living from what they do.
I hope I'm wrong.
-
i just don't know
This article doesn't really say anything new- yes people will download your album if it's free. but then what? you're getting exposure no question, but of the people taking a punt on the album, i'm guessing most will be heavy downloaders anyway and taking a punt on quite a few others anyway- for that reason i don't see that musicians will make it back playing live and through merch, especially if gig prices continue to rise. and i think it's established that even if people really like an album they've downloaded, they still probably won't buy it.
the downloaders are potential new fans, but surely you would get many times the exposure by running a decent myspace, and offering a couple of tracks for download and having a few more streams. surely that is enough material for someone to make an informed decision to buy an album? you don't need the money by the sounds of it, but what about the bands who do?
I just don't see it as a sustainable model, but maybe it's the way its going anyway.
-
But I'm pretty sure
I've had more than 500 illegal downloads anyway cos of russian MP3 sites and I'm unconvinced those fans as you call them are more into the music than the 300 or so who paid for it?
-
Interesting read
though I'd like to hear from a musician with an opposite view for a bit of balance.
-
whoopy-doo
like, loads of people dug my music cos they got it for free. man.
tell me you're not bothered about the money when you've made another 4 albums and you're still on housing benefit, living on peanut butter sarnies.
-
The Joys of Tech
I wish record companies and RIAA (which is *EVIL*) stopped standing in front of the avalanche of the digital revolution and simply embraced the storm. I will tell you on my example how much they are wrong. Since I bought an iPod (160GB now), subscribed to last.fm and got a fat Internet pipe to be able to effectively use BitTorrent (I also use Mininova mostly) my CD buying increased 500% - I bought at least 150 new CD's of artists I wouldn't be able to encounter if not for the Internet and her services. I have several Smart Playlists to sort out first the songs I never heard before (uncategorized, no stars) - I have this playlist in iTunes. Every time last.fm or Pandora recommends some new artist to me I use Mininova to download discography of that artist and at the latest synchronization I put those new files on my iPod. There I have a "The Best" playlist, "Loved" playlist (five stars), "Liked" playlist (four stars), "OK Songs" playlist (three stars), "Undecided" playlist (two stars) and "To Be Removed" playlist (one star). I also have "Recently Added" playlist, that show all recently added songs that have no stars (uncategorised). If I have time I categorize songs while listening - the four and five star songs automagically go into the "The Best" playlist I can use when I am working and have no time to categorize songs. This way if I don't like some record or artist it shows fast (after a week or so) and I can sort the iPod library by rating and simply delete those songs. If I listen to most of the album and like it I buy a CD to have a hard copy, backup, so I can rip the music in case my hard disk fails. iPod in this case become another backup, geographically relocated backup of all the songs I like (2048 and counting, over 450 various artists). I also have a backup of my iTunes library (several gigabytes above 200GB worth) on an external Firewire drive so I have three backup copies of my music which kept me sane several times when due to crash I was unable to access my iTunes library. I buy CD's also because it compensates the author (I buy shareware too if I use some program more often than once a week...). I can't use iTunes because it refuses my card (Amazon.com and Audible.com have no problems with it...) - instead if I want to buy a single song I use eMusic.com service, for example lately I bought "She Is The Dark" by My Dying Bride and a whole small album by Loreena McKennitt (five songs, I will buy a CD as soon as possible). Using this strategy and those services I found myself listening to music of genres ranging from ethereal mediaeval folk to darkest gothic metal to candy pop. I listen to music I really like. I give money to artists if they deserve it and have multiple backup strategy at the same time. I wish Audible.com didn't use such hardcore DRM, one can only burn their books once and if you fail, you can't plead for more. I think with horror that one day they might shut down the access servers required to play the Audible audiobooks (I own over 200 of those). DRM is *EVIL*. Hack the Planet! I am a paying member of Electronic Frontier Foundation and sincerely hope something will change in the future, especially in case of Internet radio, like Pandora or last.fm - problem with last.fm is that they have mostly only 30 second fragments of songs and it's too little to really judge the song - it's almost as useless as a 10 second preview function on my CD player (yes, I still have one, just in case I need to go off the grid) - I never used it, it's useless. When I come back in my thoughts to pre-iPod times I can't believe how clunky is the whole record (casette, CD) business - I take my iPod everywhere I go, including hikes. I would not be able to take more than five or so CD's with me if I go out of the city. With iPod I can take almost all my Apple iTunes library with me. I hope Apple will soon make 320GB iPod Touch so I have incentive to buy it (right now the 16GB of space is simply not enough as I listen to songs in highest possible quality). Long live Apple leading the digital revolution! Music for the Masses! We will prevail!
-
i think the point he is making is that if one doesnt need the money (like he)
then it's just great to get your music out there for people to hear and potentially enjoy.
i think also theres something to be said for the potential of an artist to be realised by the initial free distribution of their work. if enough people like it then surely they will ultimately be up for paying even a small amount for more.
however it would be good to hear from someone/a band whos potential has been severely limited by the fileshare/download generation
-
Well of course
It is surely no secret to anyone who has even the vaguest contact with a major label or one of their employ that veiled behind the clarion calls of 'PROTECTING THE ARTIST' is the real issue of 'CONTROLLING THE MARKET'
Nice article and I hope someone in a relevant position is paying attention
Legally, the reason for the introduction of copyright and patent acts was to enable (or at least 'not hinder') the further creation of later works - a fact that most corporate copyright holding entities appear to be ignorant of
Anyway, if the law is to be set dead against p2p and thus close down a legitimate avenue of distribution (because it is independent of the labels) then it should at least go hand-in-hand with a complete review of contract law with regards ownership of works not created by the company
-
JAG!
[safety wank]
-
Some good points here
I've been trying and failing all night to log in as Fakesensations, eventually gave up and signed up again with a new user name. But rest assured this is actually the author of the article speaking ;)
Just wanted to address a few points made by people here (and say thanks for responding).
1. Let's be honest, I realise that of the 500 or so people who downloaded the album, maybe 1 or 2 will go on to be true fans (if that). I'm under no illusions. But that's 1 or 2 fans more than I had on Friday.
2. I am lucky enough to have a 'proper' job. So making millions is not a priority right now. But I have been making music seriously for over 6 years, I've watched the landscape change, I have struggled and scrimped and saved along the way. I'm not particularly happy that less people are willing to pay for music these days. Nor am I a great believer that T-shirt sales or ringtone sales will make up the shortfall, once I've gathered thousands (!) of fans from giving away my music for free. But right now the options are - try and sell CDs and make no money and potentially put people off even giving my stuff a listen; or give the music away and get it heard, with the remote possibility that at some point I will build up enough of a momentum to be able to tour, or make another album, or write for other more established artists, or score a film, or whatever. My goal is to do music 24/7, not to own a mansion in the country and develop a debilitating coke habit, so this is just a step towards that.
3. This route is not for everyone. There's a strong argument to be made that I'm devaluing my music by doing this. So be it. But as I said, this is a new landscape, and good luck to anyone outside the traditional industry trying to make a living solely from their recorded music. You may pull it off, and I'll be cheering from the sidelines if you do. But I don't think I can right now, so as I say, getting heard is the main priority.
4. Rhodri Marsden from the Independent has written a fantastic, if controversial, piece for Music Think Tank which adds some more aspects to this discussion. I'm not sure I wholeheartedly agree with him, but it's worth a read: http://tinyurl.com/6awfsj
5. Remember, this is just one aspect of promoting your music. I don't expect artists to just throw up their hands, give their music away, and be done with it. There are many ways of making *some* money from your music, and many other ways of building a fanbase (gigging remains the best, obviously). I talk about lots of other things I've been trying out on my blog, www.songaday.co.uk.
Thanks for all your responses. This is a crucial debate, and I don't think anyone has the ultimate answer yet.
FS
-
damn good read
well argued
best of luck with the music in future man -
When I couldn't afford CD's,
I downloaded a fair bit but I also borrowed as well. Now I can afford them I buy one album a week at least and a handful of 7" singles etc, compared to the average of three albums a year I sleep easily downloading the odd b-side from a blog or checking an album out first.
I've always expressed a complete distaste for "Lol I downloaded 200 albums this week" scum but I do sometimes go "huh" when I hear record companies claiming that each download is a lost sale. I think that recent studies have shown it's the tech savvy that are downloading illegally in large numbers as they; i) know how to ii) have a low threshold for boredom (will download whole album and listen to three songs on it) iii) Didn't grow up buying singles as a way into music as previous generations have done . I think that if they couldn't download for free they'd not suddenly find the money, if they did it would probably hit live audience numbers.
-
you've made another fan here
will keep an ear/eye out for tours.
-
Great article
Quite interested to hear what you sound like after reading that so I'll give it a download.
-
Right on, brother!
I'm with you. And if anyone needs more on the debate - just check out Rhodri Marsden on the futility of flogging music.
http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/please-buy-my-record-the-futility-of-flogging-music.html
-
From a personal point of view
Once upon a time all my spare cash, and the bank's, was spent on gigs and cds, now its on spent on kids and bills.
Rightly or wrongly I justify using bittorrent et al as a way of keeping me connected to the music I love until my finances allow me to indulge in gigs and cds once again.
I figure I invested on music once and I will do again.
-
so you've
...made a couple of extra fans!? and your happy about giving away all your music? you'd do better by playing well at gigs wouldn't you?
of course things have changed - there is soooooo much choice now for people when it comes to music - but i'm not sure giving your music away is a good way to start out - well not giving it ALL away - in fact i think that's a good marketing tricj for the big bands...
there is no right or wrong way on how to make it big these days - look at the Artic Monkeys - they gave cd's away at early shows - just EPs...and then look at Bon Iver - no one liked him for years, then, boom.
"This is a crucial debate, and I don't think anyone has the ultimate answer yet." you say - indeed, and i think like most things in life (make that all of them) there isn't 1 answer, one thing that may work for you may not work for me...
but what i do think is, when your starting out - giving away your whole album is not a good thing, i don't really see where it can go - the best thing that could happen (maybe) is that millions of people will DL it and love you....but you'd still be broke. dunno.
it's much harder now to start out in music than it's ever been.
in fact what you've done, could be argued, actually devalues music more and in turn makes it harder for small bands/artists to make a buck from their art. why should i pay for an album when you gave me the whole thing for free....
maybe a little bit of both, giving away 2 tracks to promote yourself, then selling the rest is the good way to go.....
-
You, sir,
are my absolute fucking hero
-
Hmmm
I'm not entirely sure I can agree with this. Great, 500 people more have heard it, but if you want to make another record, is that going to have any bearing on whether you can fund it? I suspect not.
I run the websites of two bands and it's been an eye-opener. One of them (not the one on my profile) is new, entirely independent, and the effect of their album having been available online since before release, presumably due to one of the promo copies being uploaded, has been pretty much entirely negative. Money from it is specifically intended to fund the next one, and lots of people downloading something for nothing doesn't mean lots of potential buyers for the next one, it means lots of potential downloaders for it.
It depends what you want out of all this. If you can afford to make this in your spare time and give it away, that's fine. If you actually want to make some sort of living out of it rather than having to fit around some crappy part-time (or even full-time) job, it isn't especially. The only possible benefit is perhaps a few more attendees at gigs if you're lucky, but you'd probably need to be an artist that draws hundreds of people (at least) to gigs to notice any major difference. And when those few do get there, they won't be buying your album off the merch stand.
-
In answer to your points
1. I would do better, possibly, by playing some gigs, and will do at some point. I'm talking about pure online promotion in this article, though.
2. And I don't give all my music away. This was an experiment with one album. Other tracks are still for sale. Indeed, the album is still for sale on iTunes, Amiestreet etc, if you do want to buy it. Not everyone knows how to use torrent sites. A lot of people don't even know what a torrent is. Nonetheless, I would like to engage with the people who do know, who will never buy my album because that's not the way - rightly or wrongly - they get their music.
3. I agree, there is no one answer - there are lots of different answers according to your situation. I am a one-man band, I record and produce everything myself, so I only have myself to answer to. If you're in a 7 piece band and everyone needs to earn a wage, then maybe embracing P2P is not for you.
4. It's hard for everyone starting out. Am I devaluing music and putting other careers in jeopardy by doing this? I don't think so. I'm adapting to the times. Things will evolve. AllofMp3 proved that people will buy music if the price is right and the service is convenient. I don't think recorded music is doomed to be free, but I also understand that we're never going back to the boom times of the '90s.
-
You're not giving it all away...
...but are you saying that you think that people who download the 'given away' stuff will buy the 'for sale' stuff?
-
Well...
"...but are you saying that you think that people who download the 'given away' stuff will buy the 'for sale' stuff?"
Radiohead did alright out of it.
I know they're huge n all - but it's a case in point.
-
Radiohead
A lot of the people who d'loaded the Radiohead album grabbed it from their favourite torrent site. I know I did. I then went and bought the box set for my g'friend. I don't like Radiohead, but she does. I would never have bought their CD in normal cirumstances. But somehow, we've ended with me having In Rainbows on my iTunes (free), and her having a £40 box set. I listened to the album. Maybe it would have blown me away, and I'd have gone out and bought their back catalogue (it didn't, but still). You see what I'm getting at? With free you can reach people who might never usually pay attention, and maybe they'll become fans. Back that up with something of value for the true fans, and you're on your way.
And the other point is, even if you're offering stuff for free, some people want to get it from their usual vendor, e.g. Mininova or whatever. That's where they go every day, they don't even want to make the effort to go to your homepage and plug in their email address to get free stuff. Sad, perhaps - but it's the reality of the situation. So should you not try and engage with these people?
-
the facilitators of
P2P/Torrent/Filesharing sites make an absolute shedload, do you not think some of that wealth should be redistributed to the artist?
You make it sound like Mininova are doing you the biggest favour to distribute your music for free and keep all the money they make money through advertising. Although servers cost money, I"m way too much of a cynic to think they wouldn't be offering the service they do if they weren't making a profit.
-
Of course they make a profit
So do Myspace. Do you have your music on Myspace? Do you see any of the ad revenue?
The whole system is broken in that respect. That's why the Featured Artists Coalition has been set up (www.featuredartistscoalition.com). All power to them.
Mininova have a massive audience. So does US commercial radio. You don't get paid for being played on either. It's promotion. Is that good or bad?
-
Liked the article
Good read, that was.
-
I think there's clearly
a big difference between commercial radio and a filesharing site. They do not both fall under the umbrella bracket of promotion. I think artists should get a cut of the money that these online "storage lockers" get. The FAC looks really promising, but I don't see how it will impact this kind of online site.
-
paragraphs
argh
and i do wish apple would fuck off and leave the digital revolution to someone else. the limitations of ipods never cease to amaze me sometimes. (they do have nice user interfaces though, i'll give them that)
-
comparing what you did with Radiohead...
....is like comparing Ice Cream to door handles.
it's doesn't work and is not relevant......i shouldn't need to explain why.
-
Agree, but....
Fair play to you and I certainly don't disagree with you that P2P sites are a good way of getting your music out there. But the point is, it was your choice as the artist. The trouble with P2P is that for many cases the artist does not have the choice, but someone who they have no relationship with chooses to put their music up. I'm all for P2P, but I'm also for artist choice and control.
-
Agree completely
...and hope that comes across in the article. I found benefits in this; others won't; and some want nothing to do with it. Fair play. But the situation is not as black and white as some of the anti-P2P propaganda would like to make it (and nor is it as simple as some of the equally blinkered file-sharing evangelists would have it). We all need to get round the table and figure it out....and hope that comes across in the article. I found benefits in this; others won't; and some want nothing to do with it. Fair play. But the situation is not as black and white as some of the anti-P2P propaganda would like to make it (and nor is it as simple as some of the equally blinkered file-sharing evangelists would have it). We all need to get round the table and figure it out.
-
they'll change their mind
when they start getting popular.
Then if there is a definate chance to make money you watch them change their opinion. Money talks. The only people who says music should be free are the rats who steal it from these sites or are musicians starting out who don't know any better and need the publicity so give it away.
Music is art, comes from the (ar)soul and should be cherished and valued and should ultimately be sold at a price, not given away for free.
-
Points well made.
and I don't necessarily agree with all of them - particuarly the notion that everyone should get whatever music they want for nada.
As an aside I've got some left over credits on Emusic so I think I'll download your record legally if you don't mind...
-
I understand the logic here.
My band spent loads on a CD, getting it recorded properly, doing all the artwork, promo and gigging to support it locally. Guess what? It took a lot to get people to fork out for it. Now it might not have been Nevermind, but we were confident that based on positive reaction to the band we could do OK on the project. We have gotten rid of most of the copies, and the first night we sold around 10 CDs but in terms of the financial aspect it was a disaster.
So realistically should we have given it away? In this case I'd say no, I'm still glad we did it this way. We are really proud of the finished product and it's great to think our CDs are dotted around peoples houses, for the most part being listened to.
I'm not suggesting we should be paid handsomly for our efforts, more that we would like to take enough in sales to make another CD. All the money goes back into the band so it's not a case of greed, it's a case of covering the costs by (hopefully) being valued for the work we've done.
Having said all that, the record companies missed out big time when filesharing was on the rise. It could have been nipped in the bud and the culture of "Nada for the Music" could have been diluted or even avoided altogether. I can see why people use the services for legitimate reasons but it has accellerated the disposable MP3 culture of bands and music.
I think it could be an interesting experiment to undertake but as the original guy says, of 500 people downloading random MP3s only a handful will actually take him up and buy music or go to a show. That kinda sums up the accumilation not exploration style of music listening which has developed over the years.
-
oh now that is not where i replied
thats supposed to be under the really long one
-
I can comment for both sides
our first e.p. has been on archive.org, torrent sites, last.fm, etc. and we did a creative commons licence on it and it got d/l's of about 15,000 at the last count (this was under our own name, not the one that pretended to be new leaked smashing pumpkins songs, that one did about double), now on the brink of releasing our first proper album and we're worrying about selling 200 cd's to recoup our recording and manufacture costs, we just have no idea how many of those people who sent us emails and messages to say how much they loved the e.p. will want to buy more of it or if it'll leak (is it worth leaking? is it good enough to leak?) and how much damage that will do in relation to how much good it would do... the record has become to all intents and pruposes an investment of both time emotion and money and we're no longer in a position like the article's author to say "fuck it" and go for the easy giveaway and be rewarded in praise. I envy him, he must have a good job...
-
Hey
It's not a question of saying "fuck it". The album's been out a year, I've promoted it as best I can with no budget and a day job. It was an experiment. I may not repeat it. This should not be seen as a 'defining' move by me as an 'artist'.
And don't envy me having a job. I envy you having time to make music. I haven't made any significant tracks since that album a year ago, because my job has taken over. Which one of us is better off, in terms of our music?
People should be rewarded for the blood, sweat and tears they put into their work. I wish I had been for the long long hours I put in creating an entire album on my own in my bedroom studio. I wasn't. So what should I do? Stop people from hearing it? Or try and get it out there any way I can? It wasn't an "easy giveaway" and I haven't been "showered in praise". It was a tough decision and I've have a few bits of (extremely welcome) positive feedback. Let's not lose our perspective here.
I wish you luck with your music. Don't give up.
-
Word to the wise...
I understand, in your case, you didn't record this album for the sole purpose of giving it away.
This is a collection of old (and possibly recent-ish?) material that you just want to 'get out there'. Correct?
So, this move may not suit or work for other artists. Take heed, mockers, knockers and critics alike!Getting seen and heard in an ocean filled with mediocrity is difficult challenge but, a good thing, if it works out.
I know (from hearing it) you will gain some new fans, certainly.
I also hope that one day (for your sake and mankinds') 'some' will actually BUY the music, too.
Eventually, you might even be able to 'afford' to make another album?
I'm sure, as a consequence of giving this particular album away, you won't be poorer than you already are.
But, you have nothing to lose, other to gain interest from potential 'fans'.I personally think people should pay for 'quality'.
i.e. WAV, FLAC, WMA Lossless, MP3 320k.
If you must give the music away, make the free version 128k MP3.
I realise, if your music is 'in-demand', eventually, someone somewhere will upload a higher bit rate rip. You can't stop that, i know.
But, if and when that happens, it might prove a good indication that you are becoming 'popular' - Perhaps?
After good word-of-mouth spreads, just how you persuade others to buy (whatever format) legally is the REAL challenge.
An interesting hurdle to overcome, indeed!Best of luck :)
Comments (44)
- Post a new comment on this article