Indie Artists Support Peer To Peer

dpilgrim writes "Alex Veiga at the Associated Press has a good story on indie artists voicing support for file sharing networks. While not a new topic on Slashdot, it's great to see musicians speaking out about the value of p2p as an alternative channel for reaching audiences. Choice quote from Veiga's article, on what it's like to pass muster before a mainstream media company: "For Sananda Maitreya... online music distribution gives him the freedom he says he lacked when he was signed with a major label in the 1980s under his former name, Terence Trent D'Arby. Back then, Maitreya recalled, committees had to sign off on any music released. 'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.""

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

btw, there's a RealAudio clip of band member Colin Greenwood defending P2P right here [greenplastic.com].

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[cliffy2000]

I seem to recall that Radiohead released Pablo Honey (with the huge single "Creep"), The Bends (with the huge single "High and Dry") and OK Computer, one of the most successful albums of all time PRIOR to Kid A being released.
But that's not what made that (IMHO, disappointing) album sell, it was the P2P leak. Correlation != causation, foo'.

This time, it's not just indie artists

[EvilStein]

That quote was seen on another article talking about the Grokster case. I read it the other day.

There are a few label artists that have filed amicus briefs with the court as well, the rock band Heart being one of them. They've been using p2p (the "weed" application) to distribute new material. Heart may not have any chart topping hits right now, but they've been around since the 1970's and have been a consistant solid touring act. Howard Leese (guitarist) still owns the "Bad Animals" recording studio up in Seattle.

Another 70's artist, Janis Ian, has also thrown her support behind p2p. After seeing older tracks winding up on p2p networks, they noticed that her older albums had in increase in sales.

p2p is great for indie artists, true, but it's also nice to see some longtime "major label" artists throwing their names behind it as well.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[goldspider]

Are you paranoid or just a dumbass? On what grounds would The Man squash the distribution of YOUR film (as in YOU own the copyright)?

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[sahonen]

You have absolutely nothing to worry about. You own the copyright on your own film, and therefore have the exclusive right to say how it may be distributed. The MPAA has zero right to tell you how you may distribute your own film.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[AnonymousJackass]

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

It helped the record industry make money from you, and many others that do the same as you, but honest people such as yourself are in short supply. That's the problem. If everyone used P2P just to get free samples with the intention of going out and buying the full product later, the record industry would have no reason for being upset.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

(I actually bought Pablo Honey and it's the worst album I've ever heard in the entirety of my lifetime, my love of Radiohead notwithstanding, but anyway...)

The point is that the band did NO advertising for the album besides it being leaked on P2P. There were no singles, no music videos, no posters, no TV ads, nothing besides maybe a few displays in record stores. Precisely dick.

I also point you to this quote from Wikipedia:

The record industry assumed the album was now doomed to failure since fans already had the music for free. Instead the opposite happened and the band, which had never hit the US top 20 before, captured the number one spot in Kid A's debut week. With the record's absence of radio airplay, big time marketing, and any other factor that may have explained this stunning success, [a journalist] declared this was proof of the promotional powers of file trading and of word-of-mouth generated by the Net.

There you have it.

Whatever...

[AsnFkr]

While not opposed to P2P, indie musicians have the chance to put themselves out there without relying on virus/spyware/legally-scarry loaded p2p systems. You can get webhosting CHA_CHA_CHEAP (500 gigs transfer for $50 a month ain't hard to find..and 500 gigs is a SHITTON of mp3's) to distribute your songs on a website. The hot part is you have the chance to actually track how many hits you get and control what songs are available, not to mention create more traffic for your site giving you the chance to promote tours/shows/t-shirt sales all in the same swing. In fact, in a shameless plug....I'm *IN* a underground band that records and puts out our albums all DIY with full album distribution on our website.

This is our new album [atomicraygunattack.com]
And this is our "main" website. [atomicraygunattack.com]

In fact, within a couple of weeks we will have a music video on the site as well, with not only the ability to stream the video but actually download it in high quality to your hard drive. I don't get bands that don't offer these types of features. It's insane!

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[angle_slam]

Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable of sources. The simple fact is that OK Computer was one of the best reviewed albums of all-time. The hype for Kid A was through the roof in music mags because it was their first album in 3 years. They also appeared on Saturday Night Live. I have no idea how you think they did no publicity.

Re:You're an EXCEPTION

[Anonymous Custard]

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

Please. Do you really think the majority of people who have 250GB worth of MP3s are doing it to go out and buy the CD afterwards?

There's a difference:

250GBP [x-rates.com]

250GB [zipzoomfly.com]

$500/250GBP = about 40 CD's; a reasonably sized collection.

250GB = about 62,500 songs. Wow.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[nate nice]

The best part is the record label actually doesn't pay for that video. In the end, they are like a bank taking a risk on an artist. If the artist doesn't make any money for them, then the artist gets nothing and the label takes a loss. On the other hand, if the artist makes money, they only make it after their label debt is repaid, generally in full and sometimes with interest.

In short, the artist you just mentioned is going to have to make back 150,000 instead of 20,000 before they start to make money, + the cost to engineer the album and market it, etc.

It's a really bad deal. Read this for more info:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusi c. html

Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would we need sony music at ALL if bands can sell their albums directly to you?

Who's going to front the money to produce your music? Who's going to pay for the studio time? Not everyone has a DAW [suse.com] in their house, let alone the acoustical environment necessary for quality production.

I am a huge proponent of leveling the media playing field with appropriate use [legaltorrents.com] of P2P technologies, business models like Magnatune [magnatune.com] and tools such as the Creative Commons Licensing [creativecommons.org]. Still, recording ain't cheap [slashdot.org].

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[gobbo]

I will never buy a copy-protected CD

That's true no matter what: if it has copy protection, it won't have the Compact Disc logo on it, because it isn't a true CD [wired.com], merely a shiny disc that pretends.

Re:Income break-down

[Farmer Tim]

"What about concerts?"

It depends what level you're talking about. For indies who earn a couple of hundred dollars for a show, what money isn't eaten by costs is usually put towards recording (the musicians don't take any; musicians have been funding independent recordings this way for as long as recording has existed, it isn't a startling new invention that nobody thought of before P2P came along, it just isn't very efficient, profitable or visible).

But mostly the record companies don't touch concert revenue, and there is a good reason for this: it's so acts whose recordings aren't instantly profitable (5/6 of them, contrary to popular belief) can offset the costs of touring to promote the album. Simply, if a band can pay it's way to other cities, and do some interviews while they're there, that's one less item for the record company's accountant and one less item the band is paying back from their share of sales.

"Videos?"

Music videos only earn a few dollars per playing for the composer, if that's what you mean; never enough to make back costs from that alone. But as for concert/live videos, well they can be ripped and downloaded too, so I don't see how this business model is any less "broken" than asking people to pay for CDs (there's no point asking the RIAA to adopt the MPAA's business model). Besides, some people listen to music because it's music, and see no added value in paying for video content; does Kiss sound any better because you can SEE how ugly they are? I suppose in a relative way...

"Interviews?"

You mistakenly believe musicians get paid by music rags to do interviews, not the other way around. People are only paid for interviews when it's exclusive, no cash for media whores! That's why indies don't get interviews: in order to get an interview or a front page photo you have to spend a certain amount on advertising. If you don't believe me just call any publication, from your local pulp weekly to Rolling Stone, and ask for their advertising rates; they usually won't specify a price on paper (some do), but they will verbally offer an interview if they think it will secure some extra revenue. Again, don't take my word for it, pose as a PR hack and try it for yourself.

"Advertising?"

Either you have to worm your way into the business side to get the composition work (and many musicians would rather stick a fork into their eyeballs, with good reason), or you have to be well known enough for a culturally vaccuous advertising executive to have heard of you (consider how many times you've heard the William Tell overture in commercials if you want a rough guide to how probable this is). And as for sponsorships...put it this way, most companies aren't prepared to put in real money, especially considering music's reputation for drug-fuelled psychotic mayhem and anti-establishment politics ("Nirvana's 'Nevermind' brought to you by Pfizer"; "This Marilyn Manson CD is proudly presented by Cosmopolitan"; "U2 is sponsored by General Dynamics"... no, not good PR). Even endorsements from musical instrument makers are just heavy discounts and the odd free T-shirt unless you're already famous enough for your signature to add 30% to the list price of a product (but then I've only talked to Shure, Fender, Yamaha, Zildjian and JBL, other companies may be more generous but I couldn't say from personal experience). Put simply: if you're worth something to advertisers, you're probably already wealthy enough to fund your own recordings; Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, David Bowie and Shakira have all advertised Pepsi, but only AFTER charting hits, and you can't guarantee what will be a hit in advance...think about order of operations, that's the key...

"Soundtracks?"

Where pop music is used for soundtracks it's usually from established artists (look for Randy Newman in the music credits of just about any recent comedy, he's probably there), and often the fee is nominal because it sells the recordings (think "The Big Chill", which from the record indus