Cheers
Michael
–
You find it here: http://www.micknye.com

I liked the post, because you clearly set out your assumptions and the derivation of your conclusions, and then provided good graphics to show what you determined.

I like very much also that the folks in Jamendo took an open constructive approach in response, adding to your ideas rather than being defensive or less than candid.
I’d like to talk about what I see as a false dichotomy between a “more open source” release system and a “pay the old fashioned way” release system.

As a co-owner of a netlabel, Negative Sound Institute, it’s important to us that our music be available for entirely free download–no charges, no donationware, and no advertising. I see our work as an outgrowth of earlier trends in a “sharing culture”, a descendant of mail art and the tape exchange and the open source softwae movements, regularized under satisfying Creative Commons licensing.

Yet I become concerned that donationware and free releaes and self-determined pricing become “debate points” about what artists should or should not do. I see these debates points as in the main beside the point.

If someone wishes not to release product on a free or non-commercial license basis, then I’m perfectly happy for them to choose to do so. I am not trying to insist that my way of releasing music–for free–is the “only right way” or “the quickest way to make money”. I believe that the traditional record company way of funding, releasing and controlling intellectual property is pretty much over–a casualty of improved recording technology and the internet’s advantage over traditional hegemonies over product distribution. I am not sure that traditional music sales, as opposed to licensing and ad-revenue-based models, will work any longer. But time will tell us that–it’s not really a debate point.

It would, to me, be unfortunate to argue that all intellectual property “must” be open source and public domain. I don’t mean to use the freedoms provided by new technology and listener-friendly licensing to take away the notion that a reasonable copyright term to protect an artist’s interest for a finite time period is an acceptable way to encourage artistic creation. I opposed the copyright extensions in the US because to me the social contract of copyright is that work must eventually reach the public domain.
Yet the idea of copyright does not trouble me, and I have little sympathy with those who feel a moral right to download copyrighted material.

Still, many of us in netlabel culture, and some days I feel as though it’s actually “almost all of us in netlabel culture”, release music without any plan for profit, licensing or donations. We do it because we believe in creating a vast body of music which may be obtained for non-commercial purposes on a free basis. A lot of us post to jamendo or archive.org. When we do so, getting any donations is the furthest thing from our mind.

I’d love to post an album at jamendo, but my goal would not be to make money or become an ad-revenue-receiving mogul. My goal would be to be heard by the wonderful jamendo community, who download, review, rate and spread the word about the popular artists there. I plan to post a jamendo album this year, and I may activate the donation buttons. But in the unlikely event that my weirdbient music got me a small check in the mail, I’d donate it to animal adoption. To me, the music is about sharing.

Still, I support folks like Issa (’nee jane siberry), Radiohead and Kristin Hersh. I’d like to note that Kristin Hersh is taking the concept further into a Creative Commons read/write approach with her CASH music, which uses not only self-determined pricing, but also makes available the original files for free download for easy remxing (she’s even posted her a capellas of her two most recent songs on ccmixter).

A Kristin Hersh or an Issa could not get a conventional record deal, and even if they could, would be unlikely given industry accounting to get much more than a smallish advance and few royalties barring a major hit. Issa’s self-determined pricing, coupled with touring, has supported her for some years now. Is this a model for everyone? I’m not sure. But I suspect that Kristin Hersh and Issa will make this model work, because they share a small, devoted fan base that will pay to keep the artist recording.

Thank you for such a great post, and for the points you make here. My intention is not to take away from the display you provide, but to instead point out that jamendo artists I enjoy hearing (such as the wonderful Henri Petterson) have been releasing music for free for years in the netlabel scene. My belief is that they don’t see jamendo as a piggy bank, but as a way to share in a community. But it’s okay, too, for those who want to sell outside Jamendo, to do so. It’s user’s choice, and that’s a good thing.

Robert Nunnally,
who records as gurdonark

Congratulations for this analysis. But I’m wondering if the first diagram isn’t a bit misleading: doesn’t the upward trend (at least in recent months) reflect the drop of the USD compared to the euro?
Also, it would be interesting to plot the evolution of the average donation amount in time. I think two opposite forces are in action here: one (that should push towards a decrease) is the growing acceptance that “music is free”, the other (pushing up) being the growing desire of music listeners to find other ways to support artists than buying their records. I have no clue how to distinguish these two, but I think it will be interesting to watch how the numbers evolve in coming months/years.

Cheers,
François

Radiohead’s revenue numbers will not be, I suspect, the norm. They have a worldwide base of rabid fans (such as myself) who feel honor bound to give them a fair price. The music critic Sasha-Frere Jones wrote in his blog that the average donation was in the $5-$10 range.

We’ll see!