Swedish Record Labels See Filesharing as Virtue
While the RIAA sues its customers, and blames filesharing for the decrease in record sales, a coalition of seven independent Swedish record labels explores alternatives that make use of the Internet and filesharing technology.
The increase in music piracy is a signal that customers want something that is simply not available. High quality, DRM-free music that they can buy online for a reasonable price. Filesharing is a virtue, and the coalition of Swedish record labels understands this, as they introduce The Swedish Model. They write:
We in the music industry have shown ourselves unable to follow in this change. Some of us have even waged war against those the music is recorded for – the listeners. The rift between producers and consumers has never been bigger. “The truth is that Internet has provided us with a fantastic grey scale of possibilities! Instead of fighting back we ought to obtain learning from the daily newspaper and the computer game industries. They early realized the superiority of the internet and developed new services there.
This sounds like music to our ears. We’ve said it over and over again here at TorrentFreak, The Internet has changed the way people interact with music. Music is more accessible, more popular and cheaper to distribute. Record labels should embrace filesharing and compete with piracy instead of fighting it, and it seems like that these Swedish labels understand that.
TorrentFreak spoke with Henrik von Euler of Flora & Fauna, one of the labels participating in the initiative. We asked him what he thinks the greatest benefits of filesharing are: “Well the first thing is pretty obvious, that you can reach much larger audiences more quickly,” he said. “You bypass many of the existing power-structures and communicate directly with the listeners. It is also a very direct medium where the step from production to consumption is extremely short which is good for creativity I think. In the old days you could have an album ready and have to wait like a year or so to have it released and now you can have your music up online the same day you get the master.”
Henrik told us that he has “no beef” with The Pirate Bay, but he admits that filesharing also has its downsides. “On a personal note I find it hard to choose what to listen to”, he told us “The vast number of sites, bands etc makes me feel stressed out, like I’m always missing something. Speed and accessibility is good because it is fast and accessible but also bad because everything turns more superficial and volatile.”
Henrik was also quite clear about the lawsuits that the RIAA has started agianst music fans: “It’s insane. It can only have bad consequences. I don’t see how they can think antagonizing the listeners will help them secure any of their much desired income.”
“This is great”, says Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party Piratpartiet. “There are creative people who think ahead. These are labels constructing a new business model. The old dinosaurs lobby politicians, sue to the left and to the right and try to control the internet. There is room for the services of a label, few musicians want to do everything themselves. But the labels must serve their musicians and their fans, not the other way around. These new labels have understood that. The future belongs to them.”
The role of the record labels will change in the future, but not entirely according to Henrik von Euler, “I think the role of the label has started to change long ago. It moves towards a more creative role much more like the art curator or such like. And also, just because artists CAN do everything themselves from production to promotion, administration etc doesn’t mean that they actually want to.”
“On another note,” says Henrik “I must add that this is hopefully the last time I will answer questions about filesharing, good or bad. It is there! Live with it. Love it, hate it, I don’t care. But please don’t for a second think that it will go away or that you can solve it like it is a problem.
Previously: MediaDefender Parent Company Facing Liquidation
Next: RIAA Keeps Settlement Money, Artists May Sue
113 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 » Show All
I make my living, rent and expenses on gigs alone, i work hard and get some session work and gigs. i’ll release an album within the next year and I will personally upload it to torrent sites, why? because a bigger fan base means more money ay gigs. P2P helps musicians, i can get my music to lots of people, if they like the music and can afford to they can donate or buy the album with the artwork.
As for famous rich groups fuck them, they make million from tours and sell enough albums to have $100m homes anyway, so what do they need the extra sales from less fortunate people who rent? to pay for their 26th butler???
@22/17
“Your friends and your fans _HELP_ you distribute you music for free, no cost to you. They want you to get more fans. So that you can sell the fans _WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY_ from you.
Ohh… and it’s also up to you to actually make music that is good enough to get you fans.”
well, _NO ONE WANTS TO BUY_ because it can all be free with a few clicks. it’s not HELPING me when it’s “hey check out this band” and proceeds to send the albums. those people then have no incentive to buy my work because they… have it already. target demographics often talk to each other, which then makes it even less of a chance that it will actually be bought. the only advantage is that it’s getting heard which is comforting for like.. a second. because music is free, they value it like it’s a starbucks drink or something. enjoy it/throw it out.
added value? …?
and how would you know what ‘most musicians’ are motivated by.. lol. I’ve yet to meet people who call themselves ‘musicians’ who aren’t motivated by money. otherwise it’s a hobby. even in small local shows, you’re playing to at least break even. there has to be the money involved or else no one would do it.
burgandy, you are confused. The recorded music IS the advertizing. We can stop this war real quick. Musicians get rid of the taliban^WRIAA regime. Tell us who we can donate to you on your website. Not just PayPal, please, there are better options free of charge in Europe. The best way to make ship loads of cash is playing on CONCERTS. THIS is how all musicians make most of their money, not the pathetic fee they get for sold CDs. There are, by the way, very few book authors who can live just from writing books and that’s perfectly normal. I really don’t see how anyone can expect to make a living from selling recorded music. The pop music hype is over. This isn’t the 1980s or 1990s anymore. Even if file-sharing would stop this moment, things would never get back as they were, also because the average person in first world has less and less money to burn. The internet however will not disappear and that’s a good thing for musicians and other artists because the distribution industry has lost its purpose. File-sharers do not even use any of the distributors’ services. If 90% of the price of a CD goes to the distributors’, how is it possible to calculate the net loss by just looking at file-sharing? Do you have to buy a bus ticket if ride your bicycle because you could have used the bus? I don’t think so.
[quote comment="299492"]@16: a fair idea
[...]just because more people hear your music doesn’t mean they’re going to become a ‘fan’ or even consider buying it. think realistically.[/quote]
If the “old” model was built on the fact that you sold copies to people who wouldn’t have considered buying the music after actually hearing it, then I’d say the “new” model is more fair, wouldn’t you?
I’m not sure that a future where people only buy what they really like is such a horrible thing, especially considering that the amount of money spent on entertainment is actually pretty constant.
It’s more like the money available for the entertainment industries to make is distributed in an more fair way than before in the “new” model.
@26
you’re a fucking idiot! if i wanted to be rich i wouldn’t be a professional musician, i would get a city job in an office!
28: the old model is just like- create, find someone(label) who likes what you created, use their money to record, let them promote/distribute. hope to break even/profit or you’re in debt.
not sure what the ‘new model’ is.
29: who said anything about rich? it’s for the passion. but you obviously have to earn enough to live which is getting harder for an increasing number of people.
[quote comment="299460"]People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”.[/quote]
No they don’t, you just made that up.
Great article, I am extremely happy with what looks like is going to happen.
[quote comment="299520"]@22/17
[...]
added value? …?
[...][/quote]
If that’s what you got, even after I gave you more than one hint. I’d guess your response speaks for itself. Sigh.
12 (lol), you only need a mic when recording music but not during practicing. You could just add
Townhall: 1 million
but you only need it for gigs and you can rent it. You can even get sponsors to pay such events. Also I highly doubt your made up prices because nobody who starts making music pays that much for instruments unless they’re rich in the first place which is their problem. There’s also a second hand market - not just eBay - where you get things for a fraction of the original price in good condition. People nowadays are just not very good in managing their money because they are too used to buying everything 1st class (on credit), food from expensive supermarkets (seemingly cheap but actually poor quality -> expensive) although they cannot really afford such a life style in the long run. That’s not just artists of course except that some of them really believe you can get rich by having fun instead of doing mind-numbing daily work like the rest of us.
guarenteed it takes at least another decade for the riaa to recognize this which would be extremely bad
[quote=article]
“On another note,” says Henrik “I must add that this is hopefully the last time I will answer questions about filesharing, good or bad. It is there! Live with it. Love it, hate it, I don’t care. But please don’t for a second think that it will go away or that you can solve it like it is a problem.
[/quote]
Words of truth
[quote comment="299453"]music can’t be compared to carpentry. the process is 100% different unless it’s some kid making ‘phat beats’ with fruity loops trying to get his music out there.
artists need to work with studios (which is a business in itself) along with buying their own gear, etc.
being a musician is a huge investment and if you aren’t getting paid for your work, which no one is, then why would anyone continue on?
someone propose a model.[/quote]
Holy antiquated dinosaur no-changey attitude.
Artists can record themselves. They just need a small amount of education. You’d be surprised at the freedom that education provides. If they don’t want to educate themselves, and in turn actually contribute to lower production costs so as to bring down the artificiality of the price of their product, then screw ‘em when they get d/l’d and not purchased.
Many people who have dreams in the music industry are really trying to perpetuate the romantic notion of the business. The world has moved on and can get along just fine with out their record companies. Funny, it seems the artists are the only ones beholden to the whims of the lying titans. Boo frickin’ hoo.
[quote comment="299545"]Also I highly doubt your made up prices because nobody who starts making music pays that much for instruments unless they’re rich in the first place which is their problem.
People nowadays are just not very good in managing their money because they are too used to buying everything 1st class (on credit), food from expensive supermarkets (seemingly cheap but actually poor quality -> expensive) although they cannot really afford such a life style in the long run. That’s not just artists of course except that some of them really believe you can get rich by having fun instead of doing mind-numbing daily work like the rest of us.[/quote]
lol! I shop at like walmart and family grocery stores. it’s just… the gibson SG is called one of the best studio guitars for a reason, and I believe it’s circa 1k. a crappy bass=hum and hiss in recordings, muddy low end. good bass=clarity overall. balance.
what I’m getting at is you get what you pay for in music, generally speaking. making music IS fun! why is it mind-numbing?? my ‘made up’ prices were MINIMUMS.
[quote comment="299471"]okay try living as a musician with the state of the industry
a guitar that will sound good: at least 1k
microphone that will sound good: at least 1k
drums: multiple Ks
bass: at least 1k
a lot of pop artists don’t write their own music (no that’s not a bad thing.) but they have to get paid.
ONLY assistant engineers are $35/hour. at least. that’s the ASSISTANT. you also have the main engineer, the producer, studio manager, receptionist, and interns to pay.
you also have to pay for use of the million dollar consoles and hifi monitors.
I’m not downgrading the carpenter. if you make a chair, people aren’t going to copy it and then give them away for free.
if you make a song (which will prob take a week or so), it will get copied and distributed for free
so why continue?[/quote]
Quit living the rock star life, get a job, save some money and buy your shit. You sound like a kid who doesn’t want to do what is required to get where they want to be. If you can’t get those four things, you are going to be at the mercy of the industry’s raping and roaming hands.
If you were to learn the actual stuff of recording, you’d realize that you don’t HAVE to pay for a million dollar studio and crew to record. Unless that was your dream. In which case I can’t really help you.
my friend is a hobby musician and i can tell no fucking difference between his music and the music of those trying to make a living from it.
a commercial service will never be able to compete with p2p, for various reasons, and there is no such thing as a “reasonable price” that EVERYONE would agree with. Let people set it themselves by donating.
quote #6
I have often wondered when most of us have to work (that is get our hands dirty so to speak) in return for cash, and musicians can record an album then sit back and collect royalties.
When a carpenter makes a chair, he (or she) doesn’t get paid every time someone sits on it!
Sorry this is a little out of context here, but it needs saying!
——————-
this is the wrong way to think about the idea.
To use your analogy of a carpenters chair: No the carpenter doesn’t get reimbursed every time you use the chair, but you don’t pay the musician every time you listen to a song. The carpenter gets paid for every INSTANCE of the chair produced (ie: each person buys one, and uses it for an indefinite amount of time) just as the artist should get paid for every INSTANCE of the music sold (ie: each person buys an album and uses/listens to it for an indefinite amount of time).
It isn’t any different, and while the “production” of multiple instances of music is entirely automated (so to speak), a carpenter can have his chair mass produced. Similarly, you pay a premium for a high quality hand made item, you pay a premium for a live show.
Your analogy was fine, but the usage was misguided.
To anyone who says that there won’t be any musicians making music if it was all free are wrong. There a lot of people who would happily give away there music. Thet make it because it’s what they want to do and they love doing it, not because of the pay check. They would have regular jobs and do the odd event here and there. If an artist became popular on the sharing scene he would be able to hold bigger and more concerts. Simple as. The people still choose their popular artists and there is the recognition and satisfaction (along with a nice sum of money for some) for the artists to go home with.
Yeah, lots of musicians who aren’t extraordinarily successful. that may essentially boil down to meaning those bands don’t cater to any kind of large audience. that’s who the industry is setup to please.
yeah, I’m a kid. I’m in a recording arts degree program. my dad distributes records at an executive level. had 6 or so years of music lessons and played in bands for 4 or so. met several players in the industry.
I just don’t get how you all think free could = okay? music is a living for a lot of people. not just a hobby. from the poor jazz player to the heads of the majors.
obviously there would be music created if there was no industry. it would be entirely localized and a vast majority of it would be garbage. there would be a lot more inconvenience along with all that freedom. the industry exists for a reason. it just needs to change.
I am fully aware of the possibilities of home recording as I’ve been doing it for years and years at this point. there’s a reason why the things that come out of studios sound amazing and are produced by people in their 40s/50s. it’s a lifetime investment to be involved in music professionally. it’s the same reason labels aren’t (generally speaking) paying individual amateurs to record their own music. it’s the vast minority of cases that that happens.
free isn’t sustainable imo until I hear something real that proves it.
Living in Stockholm Sweden!
This kind of makes up for the shitty tax laws and present crappy government! LOL!
#43 is right, if there wasn’t a music industry, most music would be garbage. There wouldn’t be meaningful stuff like Britney Spears and the Pussycat Dolls for us all to enjoy.
[quote comment="299460"]People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”. Well for something that’s so damn shitty, people must like something about it or else they wouldn’t download it in the first place.
[/quote]
Agreed, if you don’t find a decent percentage of good material by downloading via filesharing, you should really think about what you are doing. I always try to download things with the best quality.
What I am not willing to do is pay big sums of money for replicating and distributing information and supporting a distribution monopoly.
[quote comment="299460"]
Secondly, I don’t care how cheap something is, if there’s a free alternative then the free alternative will always win.
[/quote]
Not if the non free product includes everything the free product does plus something the free product doesn’t. (such as an efficent way to compensate the creators of the product)
[quote comment="299460"]
People need to get their heads out of their asses. Piracy is stealing and there’s no way to justify it.
[/quote]
No, piracy is bypassing a distribution monopoly which while intended to support artists, also causes huge inefficencies in the distribution of culture.
[quote comment="299460"]
I’m not like most people that sit around and make petty excuses for why I download games, movies, music, etc. I download it because I don’t want to pay for it. And yes I am stealing what I’m downloading.
Do I care? Not at all. Fuck em. Get it while the gettin is good is what I say.
[/quote]
Ok, not 100% sure about this. I could be wrong, but it reeks of the worst kind of attitude. You think it is immoral (stealing) and still do it. There are few things I like less than hypocrites.
Personally, I am fully aware that filesharing makes it tougher for some (the majority?) of artists to make money, but I don’t feel guilty about the for a single reason. I understand the economics behind it.
Unlikes stealing (ctrl+x), copying (ctrl+v) is not a zero sum game. Copyright is simply there to create a system to funnel money into the IP creting industries. I would probably support it if it was decently efficent, but it isn’t. The cost on a society for implementing copyright is simple enormous.
[quote comment="299460"]
Yes I realize that in the long run that lower profits mean less of a reason for game/music/and movie publishers to produce a large quantiy of quality material, but again I don’t care. Live for today baby. Nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.
[/quote]
Yup. Minor note. While the total number of works of art will be reduced, the total quantity of copies distributed does increase. Simply because copyright is an inefficency (monopoly) in the econmic system.
This is of course only true up until a point where there are so few good works of art that people can’t find something they want. We are however far far from that point as more material than ever is being produced, even with the huge amount of filesharing going on.
[quote comment="299460"]
And finally, with the exception of a few albums and a few games, 99% of the shit I download I wouldn’t have paid for anyway so I don’t feel as though I’m hurting the industry by downloading.
It’s nice to have all my favorite hit’s from the 80’s in my music collection but there’s no way in a million years that I would have bought all those songs/albums. Had P2P not been there to make them available to me then I guess I’d just live without it.
[/quote]
You are hurting it a little as you yourself admit. That isn’t a bad thing though.
As you say, having better access to culture old and new via free downloading is very good for you. As well as the millions and millions of people that have access to the internet.
[quote comment="299460"]
The moral of this story is that people need to quit justifying P2P use. It is what it is. Stealing. And all your excuses and rhetoric will never change that fact. At least admit it and quit playing games.[/quote]
I do admit that IP creators are hurt by my copying. I will however never call it stealing, because it simply isn’t.
It isn’t playing a game. As I have said a few time throughout my post. Stealing and copying are fundamentally different. One is a zero sum transaction, while the other isn’t.
[quote comment="299471
so why continue?[/quote]
If you don’t make a profit, don’t. There is more than enough music produced as it is. Very likely more than we as a society really need, so using an inefficent system such as copyright to boost the number of works of art produced is simply a bad idea.
Ok, someone is probably going to say, “We can’t have enough culture.”
That isn’t true. If the cost of producing the extra culture creates to high of an expense, it simply isn’t worth it. This is of course dependent on the base amount of culture produced, as well as the cost of creating the extra works of arts.
[quote comment="299524"]If 90% of the price of a CD goes to the distributors’, how is it possible to calculate the net loss by just looking at file-sharing?[/quote]
This just goes to show how inefficent the current copyright is. Those 90% could just as easily be counted as a societal win as we don’t have to waste resources on an inefficent distributor.
[quote comment="299535"][quote comment="299460"]People who download music are always saying “that the music is crap and not worth paying for”.[/quote]
No they don’t, you just made that up.[/quote]
you just made my day, and its 8 30 am :)
thank you
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 » Show All
Add your response