Posts Tagged ‘publisher’
On facebook they have a group saying that digital music is oil free. response:
facebook group link are they going to delete the post?
one thing that is not oil free is all the money spent on promotion of music via publishers and labels. the best thing you can do for the environment is not pay for content owned by any label or publisher and buy content put out by self publishers, that is not joined to rights organizations. so really its not true that digital music is oil free. if you don’t buy it its less oil free. yet even then maybe having that music helps that published artist sell product via use of that content. its all a scam and you label people know it in your heart. go plant a tree and be real.
In Europe most art is culturally funded in some way. Even commercial labels/publishers might be dependent on the income that they get via performance in culturally funded venues. Some small business possibly don’t provide live entertainment because they are unable to compete with the nonprofit venues. Culturally funded venues also could be seen to create conditions that encourage artists to join rights organizations, when possibly they shouldn’t. This means venues have the view that they have to pay the rights organizations for all use of content. Artists have little incentive not to join the rights organizations as media/venues/festivals (not myspace though) pay blanket licenses for the use of content. An artist (outside the US) not with a rights organization is able to license her or his content as they choose, however as the rights organizations issue blanket licenses to media for the use of content, commercial media almost always is going to choose well published content over that of “self published” content. An end to the blanket license system and an adaptation of a system similar to that of the US, would create a better flow of art. The problem seems to be that people from both sides of the political fence benefit from the system being the way it is. What organizations benefits when art is “self published” ? how to be punk when no-matter what way you look you have to fill in forms or give up rights for any exposure.
It was great news.. when i found out that how far and walk the streets were used to make some cool independent films about life in Bangladesh and also life after the cyclone, thanks Shawn. The tracks were able to be used in these films because of the Creative Commons licenses attached to tracks. No publisher or lawyer had to participate in the use of this work. I reckon CC licenses are changing things radically for use of content.
Its great to be able to help.
“I bought a camera, grabbed my computer, and flew to Bangladesh to see if I could make a difference. ” what a dude.
view youtube link
view website link
Now if an artist, label or publisher tags their song with the words Creative Commons, the song goes into the Creative Commons charts. Read this thread for more information. For now artists or net labels are not able to upload using any type of Creative Commons licenses; a Creative Commons chart within last.FM’s system is a good step forward.
How last FM works ?
Type in the name of your favorite artist… into the last FM search engine. You are then taken to a page that says “Now playing:… Similar Artists”. The first track you listen to is the artist you choose, then to similar artists, example. The user has the option of clicking on a heart button to say weather they like the track playing or not, by doing this you create your own play list. The next artists playing is a different artist and so on. Each band or artist playing has a buy link that the listener can visit. Last FM has no advertising brakes, this sets last.fm apart from all other forms of music radio media.
Last Fm’s revenue comes from banners and preferences given to content played.
Information from last.fm’s website.
* 100 impressions for $20.00
* 500 impressions for $100.00
* 1,000 impressions for $200.00
* 2,000 impressions for $400.00
Book a Powerplay campaign to target a set amount of radio plays for a track to a specific group of users. After you’ve run your Powerplay campaign, you will be able to access statistics of how your track has been received.
Pay and be heard.
Artist’s label’s and publisher’s are able to “pay and be heard” on last FM. In Australia it is illegal to “pay and be heard” on radio. Its the responsibility of a programmer to decide what is played and what is not. A publisher, artist or label is able to bring content to the station. Its upto the radio network to pay the programmer to do her or his job. Last FM may be just a little closer to the reality of the music business.
Rights for use of content?
Last.fm have to pay the rights organizations for use of content, last.fm does not ask the artist when they become a member of their service, if they are a member of a rights organization or not. This means last.fm most likely pay a blanket license fee for the use of content. When an artist not with a rights organization is being played on last.fm, last.fm still pay for use of that content. Its possible that a fair chunk of last.fm’s revenue goes towards paying rights organizations. How are the rights organizations going to react when Creative Commons content is played via last.fm in non-profit spaces. If these organization only play content from the CC last.FM charts they be in a situation where they would not have to pay for use of this content.
A self publishing artist using last FM, why?
The last.fm system looks to support the established publishing/label industry. The system gives the opportunity for un-known artists to tap into the fan bass of a well-known established artists with a similar style and possibly sell music through i-tunes, paypal, cdbaby, amazon…. For an artist to be heard beyond the community of people that she or he comes in direct contact with, seems to be an expensive process. Creative Commons charts could change this.
Free culture & rights organizations?
People like music without hearing advertisements. With wifi moving everywhere is last.fm going to last? As the last.fm system gets more and more popular, the cost for the use of content might go up. Listening to radio without having commercial brakes gives last.fm a competitive edge in the market place, this might be seen as un-fair. Are publishers, artists & labels (companies that use banners) going to bring in enough revenue to pay for the use of this content? Could last.fm be shut down by the right organizations?
The music business looks to have turned from the exploitation of the public for revenue to that of the “self publishing” artist. The explosion in artistic content created, fueled by the net and an explosion in technology, makes the exploitation of unrealistic dreams a good business. Its good business for the music business to maintain low standards of content within the market. “Pay and be heard”, pay this and our festival might consider you for a performance. Pay 20 dollars for your song to be reviewed. Put three songs on an album written by famous artists so public might find your content on i-tunes. Where does free-culture fit into all this?
I reckon Tono are much the same as any other rights organization, the difference with Tono is that in order to “vote” you have to collect the equivalent to over 400 Euros each year. 800 members and 15500 half members. The board is moving to change regulations so that 2/3 of the organization is run by the collectors of income, the other third might be run by publishers. Tono shall contact members and ask if they shall adopt a NC creative commons license to their system, yet it would work against most full members to change what a commercial use is. Most labels and bands are culturally funded through non-profit organizations.
my view: In order to maintain a one member one vote system (this is law here), Tono have created regulations that push the artists that might regulate the system for art rather than commerce out of the system.