Indie Artists Support Peer To Peer

dpilgrim writes "Alex Veiga at the Associated Press has a good story on indie artists voicing support for file sharing networks. While not a new topic on Slashdot, it's great to see musicians speaking out about the value of p2p as an alternative channel for reaching audiences. Choice quote from Veiga's article, on what it's like to pass muster before a mainstream media company: "For Sananda Maitreya... online music distribution gives him the freedom he says he lacked when he was signed with a major label in the 1980s under his former name, Terence Trent D'Arby. Back then, Maitreya recalled, committees had to sign off on any music released. 'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.""

Comments

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

btw, there's a RealAudio clip of band member Colin Greenwood defending P2P right here.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[cliffy2000]

I seem to recall that Radiohead released Pablo Honey (with the huge single "Creep"), The Bends (with the huge single "High and Dry") and OK Computer, one of the most successful albums of all time PRIOR to Kid A being released.
But that's not what made that (IMHO, disappointing) album sell, it was the P2P leak. Correlation != causation, foo'.

This time, it's not just indie artists

[EvilStein]

That quote was seen on another article talking about the Grokster case. I read it the other day.

There are a few label artists that have filed amicus briefs with the court as well, the rock band Heart being one of them. They've been using p2p (the "weed" application) to distribute new material. Heart may not have any chart topping hits right now, but they've been around since the 1970's and have been a consistant solid touring act. Howard Leese (guitarist) still owns the "Bad Animals" recording studio up in Seattle.

Another 70's artist, Janis Ian, has also thrown her support behind p2p. After seeing older tracks winding up on p2p networks, they noticed that her older albums had in increase in sales.

p2p is great for indie artists, true, but it's also nice to see some longtime "major label" artists throwing their names behind it as well.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[sahonen]

You have absolutely nothing to worry about. You own the copyright on your own film, and therefore have the exclusive right to say how it may be distributed. The MPAA has zero right to tell you how you may distribute your own film.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[AnonymousJackass]

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

It helped the record industry make money from you, and many others that do the same as you, but honest people such as yourself are in short supply. That's the problem. If everyone used P2P just to get free samples with the intention of going out and buying the full product later, the record industry would have no reason for being upset.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

(I actually bought Pablo Honey and it's the worst album I've ever heard in the entirety of my lifetime, my love of Radiohead notwithstanding, but anyway...)

The point is that the band did NO advertising for the album besides it being leaked on P2P. There were no singles, no music videos, no posters, no TV ads, nothing besides maybe a few displays in record stores. Precisely dick.

I also point you to this quote from Wikipedia:

The record industry assumed the album was now doomed to failure since fans already had the music for free. Instead the opposite happened and the band, which had never hit the US top 20 before, captured the number one spot in Kid A's debut week. With the record's absence of radio airplay, big time marketing, and any other factor that may have explained this stunning success, [a journalist] declared this was proof of the promotional powers of file trading and of word-of-mouth generated by the Net.

There you have it.

Whatever...

[AsnFkr]

While not opposed to P2P, indie musicians have the chance to put themselves out there without relying on virus/spyware/legally-scarry loaded p2p systems. You can get webhosting CHA_CHA_CHEAP (500 gigs transfer for $50 a month ain't hard to find..and 500 gigs is a SHITTON of mp3's) to distribute your songs on a website. The hot part is you have the chance to actually track how many hits you get and control what songs are available, not to mention create more traffic for your site giving you the chance to promote tours/shows/t-shirt sales all in the same swing. In fact, in a shameless plug....I'm *IN* a underground band that records and puts out our albums all DIY with full album distribution on our website.

This is our new album
And this is our "main" website.

In fact, within a couple of weeks we will have a music video on the site as well, with not only the ability to stream the video but actually download it in high quality to your hard drive. I don't get bands that don't offer these types of features. It's insane!

Re:You're an EXCEPTION

[Anonymous Custard]

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

Please. Do you really think the majority of people who have 250GB worth of MP3s are doing it to go out and buy the CD afterwards?

There's a difference:

250GBP

250GB

$500/250GBP = about 40 CD's; a reasonably sized collection.

250GB = about 62,500 songs. Wow.