Musician's POV on intellectual "property"

[-Jrabbit]

David Lowery is unique -- a singer/songwriter (Cracker, Camper Von Beethoven) and a mathematician (quant guy, worked as derivatives trader and financial analyst).

He has written pretty prolifically on the problem of how artists might find a way to get paid for their work, but instead of the usual "I wrote it, you guys stole it" whining, he actually provides a pretty solid backdrop in terms of historical and legal perspective. It should come as no surprise that he blames the interwebs for the decline of the music industry, but at least he's doing it from an analytical perspective.

This is TL/DR material, but those who are interested might want to check it out.

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post/?blogsub=confirming#blog_subscription-2

[C0ckney]

i read the first few paragraphs, will read the rest when i get home work from. it looks very interesting, thanks for posting jrabbit.

[Tuberski]

I will read anything by the writer of "Take the Skinheads Bowling"

ACK!

[OzzyKP]

I read it.

[MikeH]

It's a shame he didn't address Spotify in that because I think that is the next phase of the "new model".

(I am a subscriber)

[Jon Miller]

I know that there are pro-gamers that make a good living (100k a year) by streaming/youtubing their work.

Yes, this is generally one person, and things are cheaper. But each hour of streaming is viewed by 6k (for the ones who make a lot), and youtube might get a bit more but generally not huge numbers. Gamers can make enough to be pro-gamers with streams of ~1k.

Musicians should be able to get more from youtube, at least per video/song.

Now it is a lot harder to make a new song than it is to play a game 6 hours a day. But the artist also has itunes/spotify/etc.

JM

[Jon Miller]

What about using kickstarter to get recording money if you are an independent artist?

JM

[Jon Miller]

Finally, yes it is difficult to make up a great song.

But shouldn't that mean that you spend most of your time doing something else? I mean, most people do sports/music/art/games/etc for enjoyment.

Only the very best can make money on it, or lot's of money.

That is OK.

Take even great geniuses like Mozart. Yes, it was in the past, but he had to do all sorts of other jobs... not just 'create music'.

Why don't these artists spend time doing lessons+teaching courses+making video game/advertisement music+working some other profession+and so on?

JM

[Jon Miller]

I can understand how the old system was better for some people.

But it doesn't mean the old system was better for society or for artists in general (which are not only professional artists who make a good living on art) or whatever.

I would argue that having the government support art in some fashion would also be acceptable.

JM

[-Jrabbit]

It's a shame he didn't address Spotify in that because I think that is the next phase of the "new model".

(I am a subscriber)

He addresses Spotify specifically in another piece.

Spotify is, of course, a licensed service and it is encouraging to see investment pouring in to its coffers. Make no mistake–we’re happy it exists. The unfortunate thing is that Spotify is another example of reacting to massive piracy with a business model that in the long-term is nearly–although not quite–as unsupportable as the piracy it promised to help fix.

Spotify”s model is essentially a variation on Web 2.0, or as we say around the Trichordist, The Man 2.0. With the usual Web 2.0 company the users provide all the content and the tech oligarchs (or wannabe oligarchs) get all the money. (Like with Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Google, Wikipedia, Instagram in no particular order.)

Except with Spotify it is the artists (and not the users) who create all the value and get none of the profits. Like other Web 2.0 darlings, the tech oligarchs build the platform, create none of the content and will get the lion’s share of the profits on Liquidity Day. Spotify is just a couple compass points away from oligarch status—call them mini oligarchs. In the meantime, Spotify profits from the artists and pay a laughable royalty in return.
...
So who makes money? First and foremost—Spotify employees starting with Daniel Ek. These guys get a steady paycheck and have equity in a dark future for artists.

Next, venture capitalists who are the 1% of the 1% don’t forget. These VCs, especially Silicon Valley VCs, are some of the richest people in America who nearly single handedly brought you the stock market crash of 2000 when the last tech bubble popped in a frenzy of irrational exuberance.

And of course, another group of Spotify stockholders are the major labels who extracted equity ownership in the company in return for licensing catalog at ridiculously low royalty rates. The fairly consistent rumor is that the labels own 18% of Spotify, which at its most recent valuation of $4 billion is worth $720,000,000.

Here’s the twist—because the deal with Spotify is for the entire catalog of each label and not of any particular artist, it is doubtful that any artist will ever participate in that 18% equity.

[Jon Miller]

But Spotify being pro major record label does mean that the record labels will still exist and want to do things like acquire artists/promote/etc.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

One thing he forgets IMHO (and which definitely also attributes to make life for musicians harder) is the emergence of casting shows.
Every year dozens of new casting stars are creeated in most western countries (with many countries having multiple casting shows competing for the viewer).
While the careers of most of these casting stars are rather short lived, most of them not bringing out more than 1-2 albums, before returning to obscurity, these 1-2 albums still are aggressively promoted by the TV companies who created the "stars" (and therefore generate sales, in which people spend money, which they, probably, would have spend on established musicians instead)

Or, to say it in more general terms ... the new world order of music has a greater number of musicians who compete for the money of the people, while the amount of money available to the people hasn´t grown in the same way, meaning, that there is less money per musician, than there was before (in the 80s/90s)

[MikeH]

Spotify royalties are higher than radio royalties.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/digital-and-mobile/business-matters-why-spotify-royalties-are-1005742352.story

Artists also don't own equity in commercial radio stations.

Focussing on who owns Spotify is as irrelevant as who owns the record labels I think. Totally doesn't matter as long as the artist is earning a reasonable amount.


A counter argument:

http://www.spotidj.com/spotifyroyalties.htm

I listen to stuff on Spotify where I already own the CD thus earning the artist further royalties for something I've already paid for because it's so convenient.

[MikeH]

Finally, yes it is difficult to make up a great song.

But shouldn't that mean that you spend most of your time doing something else? I mean, most people do sports/music/art/games/etc for enjoyment.

Only the very best can make money on it, or lot's of money.

That is OK.

Take even great geniuses like Mozart. Yes, it was in the past, but he had to do all sorts of other jobs... not just 'create music'.

Why don't these artists spend time doing lessons+teaching courses+making video game/advertisement music+working some other profession+and so on?

JM

Yes, I know a lot of them. That is what happens.

[Guynemer]

I will read anything by the writer of "Take the Skinheads Bowling"

ACK!