Download Only Song to Crack the Top 40

nagora writes "The BBC is reporting that next week's UK music chart may have the first sign of the end of the recording industry as we know it. From this week (7th Jan, 2006), all downloaded music sales are counted in the official UK chart, not just tracks which have had a physical media release. Now, an unsigned band called Koopa is poised to enter the top 40 without any old-world recording, distribution, or production deals. Band member Joe Murphy says "If someone comes along and gives us an offer, we'll talk to them." before continuing on to add the words the recording industry has been having nightmares about since the introduction of the mp3 format: "If we can get enough exposure and get in the top 40 by the end of the week, do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't." Is this finally the crack in the dam we've all been waiting for to wash away the entrenched monopolies of 20th century music production? Or just a sell-out waiting to happen?"

Don't stop at just the labels...

...keep moving forward by working to repeal laws that instill any form of anti-market monopoly, such as copyright. I promote and produce for a few bands in the Chicago area, and I've worked hard to get them to repudiate monopoly. The bands that do make more money! Why?

Small bands want their music out their -- the CD sales aren't where the cash cow is. Live venues can be very lucrative for even a small band -- getting 300 people to a show can net you $1 a beer or $2-$4 per head. Also, you can upsell your new fans on items they can't easily copy, such as T-shirts, autographed posters, etc. My brother's band Maps & Atlases [maps-atlases.com] just received a major article in Guitar Player, and they're moving forward with picking up sold-out shows, all without any representation. They do just fine on cover charges, new T-shirts every month or so, and autographed screen-printed show posters. If they can do 50 shows a year (1 a week), there's no reason that each of them can't make a very respectable 5 figures a year, after expenses.

Sure, CD sales account for some profit, especially on tour, but there is little reason to think that a band needs a label just for radio exposure or MTV. Both are great for the rare groups that can break 50,000 albums a year or sell out to 3000+ crowds -- and the chance of being one of those bands is so rare that it is almost impossible. Even worse, the labels utilize the force of copyright against even the bands that "succeed" by wrapping up all their future income in the form of residuals and management fees.

If you're a small band that wants to make it big -- tour. If you're a medium-sized band that is starting to form an audience -- get a street team. If you're a large band, make more products for your consumers to buy that isn't easily copied. Sometimes that 5 minutes you spend with a fan is worth a lifetime of them wanting your products, even if they get the easily-copied products for free.

The best form of marketing is piracy -- if you're part of the 99% of the artists out there who can't get into the big industry because you have no clout or nepotism pull.

Is it easy either way? NO. Simple laws of supply and demand will show you that most artists won't cut it -- it is very easy to get into the market (financially). The skills can mostly be learned. The production tools are getting cheaper and cheaper. There is a near limitless supply of people who want to get into the market. Surely, few are talented, but the simple fact that there is SO MUCH SUPPLY and so little demand means that most bands will make nothing (or worse, lose a ton of time and money trying). Still, the web will surpass the radio and MTV as the prime networking engine, and I do believe that collaborative filtering engines such a CRITEO [criteo.com] will really take off when more small sites start utilizing them to get their microcosm of users to collaborate on what they like and don't like.

Sidenote: If any bands are out here that are interested in trying this theory, and have any touring experience beyond a few local shows, hit me up with an e-mail, we have some money to invest in those who repudiate copyright in exchange for the free promotion that torrents and fileshare offers.

Congrats to KOOPA for proving that you don't need might -- or force -- to be more than a starving artist.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

The GNU Public License rests solidly on copyright law. Take away copyrights, and anybody can take GPL software and release it as closed source.

The right answer is to limit copyrights. I think that 30 years from creation, plus another 30 years IF the copyright holder explicitly renews his rights is fair. When the copyright expires, after either 30 or 60 years, it goes directly and permanently into the public domain. The Library of Congress should hold the official registry of copyrighted works in the USA. Corporations should not have terms that exceed or are different from the rights given to individuals.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Don't remove those, because those are contractual restrictions, and therefore voluntary. People have the right to enter into contracts if they want to. I don't think outlawing non-disclosure agreements is very smart at all.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Copyrights protect creative works once they are released into the public

No, they protect works upon creation. Further, there is some desirability in them doing so, or else we might have people stealing manuscripts in order to get around copyright. This has happened in the past, more or less, and should be dealt with.

I can put a circle-C (©) on a piece of original work and it is protected by law from that point forward.

Actually it's protected once you fix the work in a tangible medium of expression. But I would agree that strict notice formalities are a good thing and should be brought back.

Now, copyrights can be contested if prior art existed before you released your work and made your claim to copyright on it.

I think that you're confusing copyrights and patents. Copyrightable works have to be original, but they don't have to be novel (i.e. never done before). Patents have to be novel. It's entirely possible for Alice to create a copyrightable work, and for Bob to independently create and identical work and for Bob's work to also be copyrightable. So long as Bob doesn't copy from Alice, it's fine. That the works are identical doesn't matter.

free speech as they are not restricting original oration or free thinking

Free speech has nothing to do with originality. If I recite Hamlet, I use my right of free speech just as much as if I recite something I wrote myself. Both original and unoriginal speech are the same for first amendment purposes.

then an NDA is a good way to protect the rights of ownership

No, not really.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

In some other discussion here about copyright I said why not have copyright last as long as the artist lives, or 30 years, whichever is longest? (In case the artist dies shortly after creating a work, their family should benefit from profits).

Why shouldn't an artist continue to reap the rewards of a creation of theirs for the entire lives?

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

So would it be true to say that the purpose of copyright is to mimic depreciation in real-world goods?

No. The purpose of copyright is to provide the greatest benefit to the comunity by providing an incentive to create in the form of an artificial monopoly for a limited duration.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Artists don't have a natural right to control how their work is used after they distribute it. Copyright is a contract between creators and society, where we give them a short term monopoly on distributor to encourage them to contribute to the public domain. Setting copyright lengths to life defeats the purpose.

Honestly, I'd say 5 to 10 years is more than fair. If you haven't made money off of your stuff by then, then you're not likely to.

Point being that copyright is supposed to benefit us by benefiting them.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

I guess I still just don't get how someone else can make profit from something that I created just because X years have gone by. If the thing I created 10 years ago is no longer making money because no-one wants to buy it, then that'll make me create something else. But if I've created something that is desirable to people for decades after I first made it, and there continues to be people who want to buy it... why shouldn't I be making money from it, rather than someone else?

The whole 'It will make you do more work' point seems a little off to me... A creative person will create based on the desire to create more so than to make money... those who do it purely to make more money probably aren't really making worthwhile contributions anyway.

I dunno... I suppose my measure for it being a good argument is that I can agree with the reason and convince someone else... and I just can't see the point of it being forced into the public domain while the original creator could still be making a living from it. Being able to extend indefinitely past the creator's death is a load of bull, and does nothing to benefit the creators of the works... but during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

But if I've created something that is desirable to people for decades after I first made it, and there continues to be people who want to buy it... why shouldn't I be making money from it, rather than someone else?

Because you live in a society that makes it possible for you to create that thing. As in incentive to make society better, you're given a monopoly over said thing for a brief period. Then the thing should be made available to everyone in society so new, better things can be built without having to start from scratch. To argue for infinte copyrights is to argue that you should be able to use stuff that came before you, but no one after you should have the same opportunity.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

And when that creator is a corporation and immortal?

In any case 28 years from first commercial publication (otherwise the life of the creator) is plenty.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

I guess I still just don't get how someone else can make profit from something that I created just because X years have gone by.

Your problem is that you are looking at it backwards.

The real question is, why should everyone in the world give a creator a monopoly over his work, merely because he created it? The natural state of a work is the public domain, where everyone can enjoy it. And the natural state of man is to have freedom of speech, which copyright is an infringement on.

The answer is that if people think that giving a creator a monopoly will help the people more than it harms them, then it is in their own best interest to grant it.

Think about a municipal cable tv company. They get a monopoly from the municipality to operate cable tv services for a period of time. No one thinks that they should just get one -- it's because the municipality is exploiting the tv company, getting them to install and maintain expensive infrastructure that they have to have in order to supply (and charge for) cable tv. Once the monopoly runs out, the municipality gets the infrastructure and can open it to competition (which is ideal, free markets, and all) or put it on the block for another time-limited monopoly, if it's worthwhile to do so. This is the deal, and both sides know it, and both find it to their advantage, so it works.

In copyright, the public wants works to be created and published and in the public domain. Giving up a little of the latter temporarily results in a lot more of the former, so it is worth it to the public -- so long as it's limited in time and scope. The author wants as much of a monopoly as he can get, so he'll be happy with anything, but will also push for more, even when it's against the public interest, since it is in his interest to do so. This is where the false idea of 'I should get it forever merely because I created it' comes from. It's never actually been like that, you know.

But during their life? Hmmm... not an easy sell to me.

They should get the absolute minimum copyright that would still have caused them to create and publish the work. That's what the public wants from them. Giving them more is wasteful. It's like the city paying a billion dollars to have a contractor build a parking lot when a ten thousand dollars would've sufficed. Admittedly it is impossible to read the minds of authors, so we can't go case-by-case, but it's still possible to set things up so that it's better than a wasteful one-size-fits-all kind of thing.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Correct GPL is based on copyright. But you are only half right about the "taking open code and closing it". It is true that under a non copyright regime (which I support) such taking and closing is possible. But even where there is no copyright there is the _fact_ of authorship. That is the closing can only legally be done with the correct attribution ie, "derived from project X" or based on code from "Jo Public". Take away those attributions and the closing author is committing fraud, claiming something that is their work independent of the true author. This damages the reputation (or rather fails to enhance it adequately) of the original source of the code. Which is a very simple wrong. And easy to fix. Much good flows on from this situation.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Take away copyrights, and anybody can take GPL software and release it as closed source.

Oh come on. Without copyright there IS no closed source. There would be no law to keep me from using it.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Art's expensive. Paint, canvas, pianos, harpsicords, guitars, theatres, lights, studios, tour buses, dancers in cages, and hand-sorted m&ms all cost money.

Gone are the days when it took hundreds of thousands of dollars--if not millions--to publish a book, release an album or make a film. F*ck the "artists" who don't like the way the world is changing. I'd much rather toss a 20 to a brilliant performer on open mic night than a shrink-wrapped CD any day.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Hate to burst your bubble but bar bands don't make money as a rule. I have a lot of friends that do it and what little they make comes from CD and tshirt sales and it ain't much. Generally doesn't pay expenses. Back in the day some groups used to make money at it. I used to know one of the Flying Burrito Brothers, they were a hot bar band in the 70s. They stopped playing in the 80s because there just wasn't any money in it. Too many garage bands willing to play for free to get exposure. The problem is exposure for what? If everyone wants free downloads and small venues don't pay then it's no longer a profession.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

That's completely false. I've produced 3 bands in 2006 (basically, fronted them the money for marketing, promotion and equipment) that have done fairly well doing relatively small-club tours. Many of them saw significant profits from selling their $3 t-shirts for $15, their $0.50 posters (signed) for $10, and other dookie. Art isn't necessarily a profit center -- getting a job and meeting regular needs is.

A musician can get a job making music for industrial purposes (movies, TV shows, even local productions such as local TV commercials, etc). A musician can get a job teaching others how to play music. A musician can get a job working on soundtracks for video games or other goods. That's where the consistent money is. Otherwise, it is risk/reward: you're out there competing against thousands or tens of thousands of bands, the risk is huge for a very slim chance of a huge reward. Why is this? Because the content is controlled by copyright -- any one band invests 200 hours total in making an album. 1000 bands do this. 1 band succeeds and never has to work again. 999 bands fail and continue to try. Why is the first band any better than the others? Usually because they're colluding with the distribution monopolies (designed this way by the FCC, mind you) who control copyright.

If you're a tiny band and I bootleg your music, you have NO chance of suing me and winning -- I probably have more money than you, if I was a pirate. Copyright only helps the distribution cartels -- and cartels are generally formed by government force.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

bar bands don't make money as a rule.

True, as a rule, but not because there isn't a market capable of supporting bar bands. Most bar bands don't make money for the same reason most new business fail, poor management. I've been playing in bar bands for 25 years, 10 of those years playing bars provided my sole income. I only backed off due to a temporary medical problem. A bar musician can make $50,000+ per. year if they treat it like a 'REAL' job. They can't forget the business in "music BUSINESS." Be flexible, find your target market(s), play to those markets, keep your expenses to a minimum, and work at it 40+ hours per. week. Those are the kinds of things that one does when they run any kind of business.

Re:Don't stop at just the labels...

Are you kidding? Business? You are aware that musicians create art? They don't do this "business" thing. Create the art, and the money should appear. If not, it's the pirates fault.

MAFIAA

If we can get enough exposure and get in the top 40 by the end of the week, do we necessarily need a large label? Probably nowadays, no you don't.

I'm sure some burly men in suits from the RIAA would have something to say about that. You wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, would you?

The answer

Is this finally the crack in the dam we've all been waiting for to wash away the entrenched monopolies of 20th century music production? Or just a sell-out waiting to happen?

Yes.

Re:The answer

Before you mod this guy down note that he isn't being a tool. He is just parsing the GP's comment using boolean logic, and is therefore correct.

Observer affecting the experiement

Unfortunately, now that they've gotten this extra publicity due to not being part of a big label, the results are largely meaningless. Much as I'd like to say that this signals the end of the big labels, this almost proves that you do still need them for the halo of hype that surrounds the industry. When a song or album is hugely successful for no reason other than the quality of music, then we will finally have moved on from the artificial reality created by the big music labels.

A sensible way to measure popularity

I had no idea the Brits were so forward-thinking in this area.

Of course, the RIAA would never agree to legitimizing downloads like that...at least not until several more management changes happen and they get someone in their leadership who's actually owned an iPod.

Half of the record labels' power comes from...

...making artists *believe* that they (the record labels) are the only way to make it big. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Grammar police

The header should be 'Download-Only Song to Crack the Top 40'. When I first read it, I thought it was a request to download the only song ever to get into the Top 40. Which doesn't make sense for several reasons. :)

I told them this.

Well, at least I told a young BMW-driving yuppie from a major label. It was back in the mid 90's. "Adapt or die" I said. "Hah! You don't know what you're talking about," he repied. "We filter out all the crap music you don't want to hear!"

Yeah, right. I now repeat: Adapt or Die!

SLM

In Polish, the band name means...

poop.

Having sampled some of the music, I must applaud them on truth in advertising.

Here the song

The song is Blag, Steal, and Borrow and they have a Video [youtube.com], if you wish to hear the song.

Likelihood of selling out?

Probably slim, considering the lyrics of the music being anti-sellout...

Unless they're REALLY hypocritical, which is always possible I suppose.

This must be last years news.

From this week (7th Jan, 2006), all downloaded music sales are counted in the official UK chart.

2006!

arctic monkeys

From my understanding, the arctic monkeys played a bunch of shows, and got a cult following of sorts. Some of their fans started bootlegging the shows and sharing them so successfully that there would be sing alongs to the choruses of "yet-to-be-released" songs.

If you believe the hype, they didn't set up their myspace page, people posted it on their behalf.

If you believe all of this, then the grassroots movement is alive and well in the UK.

Or else it could just be a form of "guerilla marketing". Either way, the band, and their manager(s) get paid.

Already a sell out?

I'm suspicious, this seems like it could be a manufactured media phenomenon. Their song includes lyrics about getting into the charts. Their logo is a parody of the UK's age-rating logo. Their site is really slick, it's all a bit too knowing for their "underground" image.

Their whois points to a local web design/media branding firm, maybe they just laid it on a bit thick. From their myspace:

"Listen to KOOPA and you realise that this is not that watered- down, manufactured sound designed to impress your younger brother, little sister and please your parents."

Hint: it's not cool to say you're cool.

On they other hand they supposedly come from my home town (Colchester, UK), and are gigging here tomorrow. Might as well check them out for real...