David Byrne: 'The internet will suck all creative content out of the world'

[xocet]

David Byrne: 'The internet will suck all creative content out of the world'
The boom in digital streaming may generate profits for record labels and free content for consumers, but it spells disaster for today's artists across the creative industries

David Byrne
The Guardian, Friday 11 October 2013 10.53 EDT

Awhile ago Thom Yorke and the rest of Radiohead got some attention when they pulled their recent record from Spotify. A number of other artists have also been in the news, publicly complaining about streaming music services (Black Keys, Aimee Mann and David Lowery of Camper van Beethoven and Cracker). Bob Dylan, Metallica and Pink Floyd were longtime Spotify holdouts – until recently. I've pulled as much of my catalogue from Spotify as I can. AC/DC, Garth Brooks and Led Zeppelin have never agreed to be on these services in the first place.

So, what's the deal? What are these services, what do they do and why are these musicians complaining?

There are a number of ways to stream music online: Pandora is like a radio station that plays stuff you like but doesn't take requests; YouTube plays individual songs that folks and corporations have uploaded and Spotify is a music library that plays whatever you want (if they have it), whenever you want it. Some of these services only work when you're online, but some, like Spotify, allow you to download your playlist songs and carry them around. For many music listeners, the choice is obvious – why would you ever buy a CD or pay for a download when you can stream your favourite albums and artists either for free, or for a nominal monthly charge?

Not surprisingly, streaming looks to be the future of music consumption – it already is the future in Scandinavia, where Spotify (the largest streaming service) started, and in Spain. Other countries are following close behind. Spotify is the second largest source of digital music revenue for labels in Europe, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). Significantly, that's income for labels, not artists. There are other streaming services, too – Deezer, Google Play, Apple and Jimmy Iovine of Interscope has one coming called Daisy – though my guess is that, as with most web-based businesses, only one will be left standing in the end. There aren't two Facebooks or Amazons. Domination and monopoly is the name of the game in the web marketplace.

...

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world

Here is an interesting blog post that is referenced by Byrne's article: it illustrates how little internet services actually pay the content creators:

June 24, 2013
My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!

As a songwriter Pandora paid me $16.89* for 1,159,000 play of “Low” last quarter. Less than I make from a single T-shirt sale. Okay that’s a slight exaggeration. That’s only the premium multi-color long sleeve shirts and that’s only at venues that don’t take commission. But still.

Soon you will be hearing from Pandora how they need Congress to change the way royalties are calculated so that they can pay much much less to songwriters and performers. For you civilians webcasting rates are “compulsory” rates. They are set by the government (crazy, right?). Further since they are compulsory royalties, artists can not “opt out” of a service like Pandora even if they think Pandora doesn’t pay them enough. The majority of songwriters have their rates set by the government, too, in the form of the ASCAP and BMI rate courts–a single judge gets to decide the fate of songwriters (technically not a “compulsory” but may as well be). This is already a government mandated subsidy from songwriters and artists to Silicon Valley. Pandora wants to make it even worse. (Yet another reason the government needs to get out of the business of setting webcasting rates and let the market sort it out.)

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Pandora get off the couch and get an actual business model instead of asking for a handout from congress and artists? For instance: Right now Pandora plays one minute of commercials an hour on their free service. Here’s an idea! Play two minutes of commercials and double your revenue! (Sirius XM often plays 13 minutes and charges a subscription).

I urge all songwriters to post their royalty statements and show the world just how terrible webcasting rates are for songwriters.

...

Posted by davidclowery

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/06/24/my-song-got-played-on-pandora-1-million-times-and-all-i-got-was-16-89-less-than-what-i-make-from-a-single-t-shirt-sale/

In case, the song mentioned in the above blog post is unknown to you:

[MADem]

1. How much money did artists lose to tape cassettes?

How much to reel-to-reel?

I come from an era where people used to hook up their reel-to-reel player to the FM radio, and record late night music that the DJ would play for an hour or more, commercial free, in order to not "ruin" your listening--and recording--experience.

I know a few geezers who still have those tapes, and who have transferred them to CDs...!

Later, people did the same thing with cassette tapes.

You want stolen music? Go to Hong Kong. It's everywhere, and you can buy it, beautifully packaged, professional looking, you would swear it was the 'real deal'-just like you can buy stolen software, movies, TV shows, etc. That's been going on forever.

I think the paradigm is shifting once again back to LIVE performances. In the fifties, artists didn't make shit from their records. The records were an 'ad' so that people would go to the live shows. Even at that, the managers were thieves.

Is it "fair?" Probably not. But "Megaupload" isn't "fair" either, and plenty of people--many on this website--will defend the "right" of Kim Dotcom to allow people to steal content from HBO, put it on his server and distribute it for a fee that goes directly to him.

[arcane1]

2. He raises some very good points.

Thanks for posting!

[okwmember]

3. While I don't understand all the ins and outs of music industry pay streams,

I think there was a difference for those of us who made a few mix tapes. One, we understood the quality of our recordings compared to the actual recording was lacking and eventually most of our tapes started to break and we'd just pony up for the album. Our friends who taped from our tapes also understood that each recording meant another generation loss in quality. Today with the digital streams, there is no loss in quality or that irritating sound that came with missing your edit point. And as mentioned in this article today you don't even have to download the music, the services just stream what you want to here.

We were amateurs compared to kids today given their access to technology. Would we have done the same as they do now if given opportunity? Perhaps, but for me their really is no comparison between our copies of analog music and today's digital downloads and streaming.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. .

.

[frazzled]

5. Thank you, David Byrne

You're one of the smartest artists out there, and I know you're speaking not for yourself but for the future of all music, literature, visual arts, moving-image arts, etc.

In the end, though, I think that real artists will find another venue, another means to sustain their creative endeavors. The Internet, in the meantime, will become the QVC of the arts.

[melody]

6. No, it's exactly the opposite

The artists finally have control of their product.

[AverageJoe90]

7. Other than the title, Byrne actually makes some valid points.

While the Internet has indeed made it possible for many a budding artist to find success, there does remain a problem with poor-quality business practices towards songwriters, as exemplified by Spotify's record. However, though, it still does not change the fact that the 'Net has brought far more positive than negative changes, so let's not give up on it, OK?

[GReedDiamond]

8. If many of the people who complain about the Big Corporate...

...Music Industry would put as much money into supporting the "indie" artists they claim to be fans of, by actually buying the Artists' Products, loss of revenue by streaming services such as Spotify would be less of an issue for the Artists. I suppose that's a no-brainer.

My last release is on Spotify, I expect that very few here would go there to listen to it, or even one song from it - in fact, I double-dog dare yas to - just search for Green Sparkle Frog.

Without a large promotional war chest and campaign, I don't expect to be paid much, if anything, from Spotify, which is, as David Byrne suggests, a bad thing, but I do like that anyone can go there and hear our record. So for now, I won't be pulling it off of Spotify.

Ultimately, though, it would be nice if people still liked buying CDs. After all, the audio quality is superior to mp3s/streaming, and you get the artwork of the packaging.

You'll find a link to my band's web site in my sig line, in case anyone's interested.

[musiclawyer]

10. Spot on

The internet gives indie artists or those who self publish a fighting chance. I will never make money from streaming unless some big movie uses my songs. We don't tour. If you are good enough and you tour you have a fighting chance. But overall I would never have found a hundred artists love without spotify. Now I can support them by downloading or paying to see a show

Byrne IS the corporate model and the corporate model is full of shit

[bemildred]

9. It will suck the big money out of the entertainment business.

Which will probably open it up in many respects, you won't get as big a megaphone, but a lot more people will have a megaphone, so to speak. You won't get rich, but more people might make a good living, esp. with a vibrant, diverse artistic culture going on fostered by the greater connectivity we have now.