This week I've read file sharing blogs by Lilly Allen, Pixie Lott and even Elton John threw his hat in the ring too. Firstly I'd like to say that although this is a worthy subject it has all started because Lord Mandelson has outlaid some plans for what Labour will do if they win the next election. This ultimately is benign as I think we all know that they're never going to win the next election. It's also worth mentioning that no one especially an artist is gonna solve this problem in a 500 word blog on myspace....not even me!
The fundamental issue here is that people no longer think they have to pay for music. Anyone who knows economics knows that supply in the music industry far out-weighs demand and as a result the price has been driven right down. Combine this with the consumers desire to have thousands of songs in their pockets and with piracy now as simple as it is, how are artists like me going to earn a living?
I've been on all sides of the fence on this one, when I grew up I worked in HMV and then when I became a student and file sharing was taking off I downloaded with the best of them. Now here I am signed to a major label having released Raygun's debut single. Last week I received a message on Twitter from a fan asking where they could get our single 'Just Because' for free. I had to smile because this person obviously didn't even know they were doing anything wrong. They had no idea that we had spent 6 months recording our album and spent thousands of recoupable pounds on the video, that we'd already given away one song for free on our myspace and that by asking for another song for free they were essentially getting a fifth of our album for free. Their perception is that music is free and there is nothing wrong in asking for it for free. The question is what, if anything, can we do about that?
Lilly Allen and Elton John are backing Lord Mandelson's calls for ISP's to terminate known file sharers net connections. I fundamentally disagree with this point. It suggests that the music industry has it's house in order and that ISPs need to deal with the music industry's problems. This is the sort of thinking that led to the file sharing boom that started at the end of the 90s. It will primarily punish music lovers for following music. We've all been young and downloaded music without paying or copied a mate's CD. Surely music will suffer if up and coming artists are cut off from the internet for illegally downloading? That said just because we're musicians or music lovers doesn't mean we're above the law. It is un-necessary to copy the music to check it out. In today's world you can go to Myspace or YouTube to do that.
I think the industry needs to get real and accept that MP3s are going to be free within 10 years. This leaves 3 options for generating finance:
1. Subscription: Where the consumer pays a monthly fee to have as much music as they want, alla Spotify or Nokia's 'Comes With Music' package. With the invention of Spotify the idea of owning music is now something of the past. But such is the people's desire for free music that the average rating for Spotify's iPhone App was 2/5 stars because they made iPhone users pay the £10 subscription to use an app which essentially lets you listen to as much music as you like wherever you are. That's not just paying for music its paying for a service too. Clearly paying for music is not what the public wants and as Paul Weller said 'The public gets what the public wants'.
2. Sponsorship: Where for example Groove Armada became the official band of Bacardi and were comissioned to write around an albums worth of music that Bacardi gave away with their promotions. This is a great idea but it only works for established artists as no brand wants to launch a new band. They've got their hands full marketing their own products.
3. Royalty rates charged by the PRS and other collection agencies are increased. This means that sites like YouTube and Myspace pay more to host music. In a world where the uses of music have increased unfathomably in the last 10 years and are at the highest they've ever been (ringtones/Social Networking Websites/YouTube/Spotify/Internet Radio Stations etc) why aren't royalty rates at their highest ever?
What needs to happen is the royalty collection agencies need to get their act together and come up with some fresh ways of generating revenue that reaches the artist. Last month saw the PRS and Youtube sort out their differences and come to an agreement on royalties for music videos viewed in the UK. This is good news but more needs to be done. Some young artists that aren't in the public eye are getting thousands of plays a day on myspace. Where is the royalty that's being generated from these plays going? Myspace are hosting advertising on these artists pages so the revenue is there but why is it not making its way down to the artist? As I understand it this is where the Featured Artists Coalition comes in. They are working to get these royalties back to the artist and I applaud their efforts.
As an artist it has become apparent that the only collateral I have is my band's brand image. It's clear that big brands will do anything to get as close as they can to what they think is 'cool'. As artists we must realize that this is where our biggest strength is.
I'll finish by saying great music is not made by part-timers. Creating and delivering great music is a full time job. As a result musicians have to pay the bills and put food on the table and so need to get paid for creating the music that people use when they're at parties or listening to the radio or on Myspace or YouTube etc. Trying to reverse the publics opinion on the value of music is idealistic. Raising royalty rates is realistic and achievable and the PRS, in their deal with YouTube, proved it. It is up to musicians to remember that they are the creators and therefore they have the power. It begins and ends with them.
Adj