David Emery OnlineInherent Value
24 March 2008
I’m going to be frank: I’m getting pretty fed up with the – seemingly – widely held view that recorded music doesn’t have an inherent value:
TechCrunch: These Crazy Musicians Still Think They Should Get Paid For Recorded Music
The main thrust of his argument in this case is sadly un-arguable; Billy Bragg is – as ever, it seems – barking up the wrong tree. Bebo quite obviously have not founded their business on music streams – in fact, they’re far more ‘social networking’ biased then a lot of other places (like MySpace and iMeem). It’s also true in a lot of cases that record labels and artists upload the music themselves, secure in the knowledge that they’re not going to receive a dime in return – although this is either outweighed by the publicity gained or (and don’t forget this one, folks) the artistic value in sharing your music.
However, the key argument is utterly flawed: why should websites that generate revenue from other peoples music not give a proportion of that back to the artist? Recorded music does have a value, there’s no two ways about it – it costs money to create, and costs money to distribute (although this is obviously reduced – not eliminated – by digital distribution).
The whole situation is exactly the same as with music being played on the radio. Obviously there is a huge benefit in promotion by being played on the radio – so much so that labels have entire department devoted to the task. However, being played on the radio is tantamount to giving the song away – sure, the listener can’t play the track when they like or listen to it on the move but their pretty much exactly the same restrictions you have by having a streaming song on MySpace or Facebook. And – of course – artists get paid by having their song on the radio.
However, this is where the practicalities – and impracticalities – of the internet step in. Granting some form of license to people like Bebo, MySpace et al so they pay royalties is completely doable, but what about Joe Sixpack MP3 blogger?
In fact, MP3 blogging is a far more interesting angle on this whole thing. Streaming audio is, as stated above, very much like radio plays and can probably be monetised in a similar fashion (artists getting a tiny cut of advertising revenues in both cases) but MP3 blogs are something altogether different. In a lot of ways you get the same publicity value – if not more – from a MP3 being posted on a blog, but you lose the restrictions inherent in radio and streams – they are exactly the same as the final product that you try and sell.
So then, it only makes sense that someone posting up a promo MP3 should pay royalties back to the artist – right? Certainly, if they’re making money from adverts placed next to an MP3 link it would only seem fair, but this is obviously not practical (in the slightest, to be honest).
Maybe the answer is to set up a system so it can happen; so if someone that hosts and posts MP3s or streams and makes money they can enrol in a program where they pay royalties on what they post.
At the moment there’s no way that you – as an MP3 blogger – would even know where to start if you wanted to go ‘legit’. Obviously these royalties would have to be pretty low, as ad revenues would be as well, and there would have to be some semi-automated online way of the system working (kind of like a reverse Google AdWords, maybe using javascript embeds to track page views?) but I can’t help but think that if there was a way of rewarding artists, plenty of people would do it.
Music, and recorded music, has an inherent value. If that value disappears or reduces to zero, recorded music will practically disappear and surly everyone doesn’t want that to happen? We just need to find a new way to make sure that the people that should get paid (the artist) still get paid.
More reading:
A VC: Moving The Goalposts
Rough Type: Meanwhile, back at the plantation
IndieHQ: It’s Been A While…
Billy Bragg in the NYT: The Royalty Scam
The Stalwart: Online Music: How I Almost Feel
Thomas Hawk: Billy Bragg is Wrong