“Regarding Record Labels and Free Art”
I received an e-mail from Robin K, who happens to be the webmaster of Disobey the Radio, a music promotion site based in the UK:
Just saw a post on slashdot from you regarding the itunes/record lables.
I liked what you were saying about copyright. I have set up a site in the UK that wants to explore similar philosophies. Its a IP radio with associated web site. We want to try to encourage people to explore the idea of free music as a marketing tool, reducing the value of a digital copy to what it really is: a means of promoting the artists.
I’m glad that more promotion companies are realizing that music offered at no charge does not mean it is being offered at no profit for the artist. Profit does not mean “financial gain” most of the time in life — we profit when we learn, we profit when we grow our businesses in customer awareness, we profit when we gain more money than we spent on a given action and we profit when we gain satisfaction or happiness. Profit is NOT just financial — in a free market sense, profit merely means “I gained from doing this action.” An artist that realizes that digital music has no direct financial value in terms of supply and demand is the one that can reap benefits from using that digital music for other profits — namely building a following of fans and interested listeners.
I think that taking control away from big record labels is great in theory, but many artists will need a hand in getting to grips with the practicalities of having a profitable online presence that is not just lost in the glut of information.
That is definitely true, but in the end what everyone wants is the “Show me the money” profit. Artists have two choices today: Play small venues for little money, or “sell out” to the large distributors in hopes of selling a lot of albums, which still may only guarantee little money. As long as copyright is the main topic of discussion, the distribution cartels will be the most powerful. The Internet is quickly changing this, but with so many artists holding on to copyright and other coercive schemes, it could be years before we see real change in the music distribution and financial profit models.
The site does not explicitly state its aims as well as some of your stuff, and a lot of the artists that have contributed so far have only done so knowing that the site only offers a stream, not actual downloads. Many still don’t seem to recognise the powerful opportunities that are now unfolding.
Powerful opportunities, indeed. The reality is that we need to find ways to support artists financially in new ways. I’m working on a variety of ideas on how artists can provide themselves with income without needing to deal with the coercion of copyright. I’ve recently talked to artists about selling their time (not their music, their time) to mid-budget movie production companies in exchange for providing sound tracks at a discount. We’re talking about hiring out their labor — the production company just wants a unique sound. We’re also finding more artists who are interested in making money by selling their time to large groups of people — we call these concerts. It is your time that is important to sell, not the product of your time if that product is easily duplicated by others. I’ve also talked to bands about co-oping together to create a “House Musician” group of 100-500 bands who play as house musicians at various clubs and bars. These bars get a great sampling of new musicians, and they pay the musicians’ co-op a base salary to get them to play. The band will take a lower pay-rate in exchange for being able to reach out to new fans, and the bars and clubs get the incentive of being part of a larger promotion and marketing experiment at no real cost increase.
It would be great to get some ideas from others who have managed to make this work for them. I’d like sections on the site offering advice and links on how this might work. I’ve looked into creative commons, copyleft and sponsored art and sites like freesound, itunes. Would you be able to offer any advice or links?
Creative Commons is bunk, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it was another shill for big business. Lawrence Lessig seems like a nice guy, but he’s a lawyer! How can you ever trust a lawyer, the players who create the legal mess we live in today. No thanks. A lot of people love to tout CC as the copyright “fix” but they still don’t realize the problem — how will you protect that content if someone violates the contract? With what money are you going to go out and sue someone who infringes on your art? There is no way to do it financially — you will run out of money before the lawsuit is finished. I am as anti-CC as I am anti-copyright, because it still puts the power in the hands of those who have the deepest pockets.
Copyleft is no better, it also revolves around copyright laws, which again don’t work for the common artist or resident.
I don’t like those terms, but I still don’t have a term of my own to cover my beliefs. I think the right term would be Copymorally, which is what I’ll use for now. If anyone has any recommendations on a better term, let me know. I also like the term Effingo Virtus which is basically “Copy” and “Moral Virtue” in Latin.
What does Copymorally provide for? First, it tells people that the artist knows their music is easily duplicated at almost no charge. The artist has a moral belief that copies are absolutely fine to make in terms of promoting the music to others. Want to share with your friends, family or others? Go ahead. Just let them know where you received it from. If you’re trying to copy it for a financial profit, you’re performing an immoral act, and if you’re caught performing this act, you’ll be humiliated and embarassed. Someone who violates Effingo Virtus is now Effingo Turpis (Copy, Morally Corrupt).
Without copyright, would most people care if they were buying something “approved” by the original artist or copied by a pirate? Who cares? If the artist is 100% satisfied that their music is easily copied and can be morally copied, who is going to steal it? Why would a big company or a big pirate try to sell something that everyone can already get for no cost if they want? If the art is good, the artist will gain a fanbase and be able to find financial profit in a multitude of ways. This site will be dedicated to looking into those ways in coming weeks. We’ve raised 5 figures to start providing financing for artists to create Effingo Virtus music, now we just need to find those artists.
Discuss this at the Repudiate Copyright forum.
June 16th, 2006 at 8:34 am
[…] In a reply to yesterday’s e-mail exchange, Robin K, webster of Disobey the Radio in the UK shoots back another interesting e-mail offering me hope of a worldwide realization to the fraud of copyright in general. While Robin and I don’t come from the same political beliefs, I think this is a key relationship that can help bring both sides to common terms of agreement. In my experience, most anti-copyright advocates (not necessarily Robin, though!) come from the ultra-left wing establishment. They want MORE State-control of business, without realization that it is this State-control that hurts the artists and consumers the most. I’m not certain of Robin’s political leanings, but I’m glad that we agree on many different aspects of creative content control. Read you post last night. It was very well worded and clear. I already think along the same lines as you regarding copyright. The radio station seems like an isolated voice at the moment, so it would be really good to link up with musicians who believe in the same ideals. […]