A VC« Comment of the Day | Main | MacBook Pro Update »
My Updated MP3 Posting Policy
I've been posting mp3s on my blog for the past three years.
And I've had a policy that I follow on my left sidebar for the past two years explaining why I do it and how I do it in a way that I believe is artist friendly.
It's time to update the policy because mp3 posting has become so mainstream and so important to the discovery and enjoyment of music and I want to stay current with the best practices.
So here goes:
1 - I am going to encode the mp3s at 96kpbs, not 64kpbs. 96 is low enough bit rate that the mp3 is sufficiently impaired. 64 was too low.
2 - I will gladly take any mp3 down that any artist or anyone associated with them asks me to take down. This was always my policy, but it was not stated in the past. Now it is.
3 - If the mp3 has been posted elsewhere, I will just link to it. No need to post it twice.
4 - I am going to continue to post my mp3 of the week, but I am not going to limit the amount of mp3s I post anymore. I am going to try to include mp3s in every music post I write. No point in writing about music if you have to read in silence. I did that in my Richard Shindell post last night for example.
I wrote the following in my initial mp3 posting policy. It is the backbone of why I do this. So I'll end with it again:
I realize that people think its wrong to play music like this. I don't share that view obviously. I believe that I am introducing my readers to music that they'll like and the result will be more music sales. If I felt otherwise, I wouldn't be doing it.
The good news is that I now have data to substantiate that claim. I have sold over 200 skus at Amazon this year alone generating over $4000 in revenue to them. That was the result of almost 20,000 click-thrus to items at Amazon.com this year. And that's only the commerce that came directly from an Amazon Associates link. I am certain that the total commerce generated by my music blogging is much larger than that.
The bottom line is music/mp3 blogging promotes artists and their music in the same way that radio does. It sells music. Lot's of it.
Comments (13) | Posted August 10, 2006 in My Music , Venture Capital and Technology
Comments
fred -
it's admirable that you're trying to create a reasonable approach.
but it is a bit strange, isn't it, to think that each consumer (or blogger) should set an individual policy on copyrights?
after all, the basic definition of copyright is the right of the author to control the right to make, well, copies!
music rights on the internet are a very tricky subject, and as someone who spent years dealing with them, i'm happy to be out of that mess myself.
but there is something that strikes me as a bit funny here. not in this particular case, but on a more abstract level.
folks who do things that most people would consider full-tilt violations of copyright (sharing their entire music collections on the old Napster, sharing lots of movies on Bittorrent today), also tend to have what they consider to be justifications of their actions (the studios don't make the stuff available...i already paid for my movie ticket...i'm promoting artists to people who wouldn't hear it otherwise...the artist doesn't get the money anyway...)...
are your reasons different in kind?
forgive me for being a bit provocative...
Posted by: Nicholas | Aug 10, 2006 1:06:33 PM
Fred,
did you see this post by Jason on inline audio? Seems like an approach that ties the music even more tightly to the post.
http://www.kottke.org/06/08/inline-audio
Posted by: rick gregory | Aug 10, 2006 2:00:03 PM
Nicholas
I feel like I am part of a movement, the mp3 blogger movement, that is using people power and social media to reinvent the way music is discovered and consumed.
We are creating our own version of radio, one that is driven by what we like, not what some radio programming guy thinks should be heard.
Fred
Posted by: fred Wilson | Aug 11, 2006 6:23:34 AM
i understand... but i think the notion that each individual consumer can set their own rules for copyright use is a funny one.
are you setting a good example for the kids out there? (tongue firmly in cheek, as we all know the kids are alright)
Posted by: Nicholas | Aug 11, 2006 9:07:53 AM
I'm with Nicholas.
I'd challenge you to go one further: promote the truly independent musician. The talented unknowns. They're the bands in need of promotion, not bands with big label support. And as you know, many of them now post their music to socialnet sites. Why not simply link to them? Truly give them control over their music, their image, their brand. Let *them* lead the movement and support them. The minute you start posting music from bands with recording contracts is the minute you lose me on this. I mean, does Tom Waits really need your promotion? I don't believe so. And I don't think you believe he needs your support either.
If you're going to lead a movement, then lead a movement. In my opinion you're doing little more than helping the labels maintain control of a different sort.
Posted by: csven | Aug 12, 2006 4:53:56 AM
csven,
Tom Waits doesn't need my promotion, but he's not going to lose anything either from me posting an impaired mp3 of this music.
I don't think blogging only about indie music and undiscovered artists is a good representation of my musical tastes.
if you look at my last four music posts, they were tv on the radio (very indie), tom waits (well known), richard shindell (i had never heard of him before last week), and matt worden (completely unknown).
I think that's a gerat balance.
Posted by: fred | Aug 12, 2006 9:14:29 AM
"but he's not going to lose anything either from me posting an impaired mp3 of this music"
The issue, and I think Nicholas clearly addresses it, is that it's the musician who decides this. Not you. Not me. And not the general public. And the reason is simple. Anyone can go back and dig up documentation justifying in their minds that *any* mp3 is impaired regardless of bitrate. Plenty of musicians went on record early on claiming that an mp3 couldn't approach the quality of a CD and thus fans would purchase the music. I don't believe that conclusion is correct. I'm old enough to remember when switching to FM was a big deal. People will live with substandard (and isn't the whole rise of Wal*Mart proof of that?). Consequently someone could put up an mp3 of the highest quality and use your words and that documentation in their defense. And people can and do collect those mp3's and use those instead of purchasing legitimate media.
Now, I'm sure you're not doing anything that you consider truly inappropriate. However, I do think that you should reconsider just why it is you post mp3's here and why you apparently feel it's inconvenient to simply provide links to the bands' websites or social networking pages where it might do much more good. It's not that I think people visit this page to listen to music, and I doubt you believe that. That leaves me thinking this is simply a personal thing. But it's not personal. Every person that visits this page sees a site under your control. And that includes the music. The problem afaic is that the people controlling distribution of the music should be the creators. Some give it away and that's great and makes sense to me in an unprotected world where I believe business models will have to change. But until they do I'll respect their rights. Whether I think they're making smart business decisions or not.
Posted by: csven | Aug 12, 2006 9:47:44 AM
The only issue I can see is that it'd be a lot nicer if the Streampad player actually said the name of the artist.
Ideally it would also link to an easy place to buy the album, but the artist name at least seems essential. Kind of hard for people to know what album to buy when credit isn't given.
Posted by: Brad | Aug 15, 2006 1:41:21 PM
It's pretty clear to me, if the artist wanted their music shared like this they'd put a Creative Commons license on it.
My policy is that if it doesn't allow sharing, I don't do it.
Check out IODA Promonet.
http://iodapromonet.com/
I've been usung their artists songs on my video blogs recently. Great stuff!
Posted by: Steve Garfield | Sep 19, 2006 2:42:57 PM
Uw online verzekeringsmakelaarEerst Europa Doelstellingen: De Ci2i Verzekering (Ci2i) zal het nummer een gebrandmerkte pan Europese commoditized online verzekeringsmakelaar door 2010 zijn.
Posted by: webmaster | Oct 24, 2006 11:47:01 PM
I have started to think about posting mp3 on my website as well and your policy is an encouragement
Posted by: Anuj | Aug 15, 2007 2:27:01 PM
I agree with your new policy, I prefer the higher bitrate...
--------------
[url=http://www.prepaid-mobiele-telefoon.nl]prepaid telefoons[/url]
Posted by: prepaid mobiel | Feb 15, 2008 11:12:15 AM
Online MP3 magazine with track reviews and downloads, latest MP3 news and commentary and hardware and software listings.
Posted by: jioloja17 | Apr 8, 2008 6:15:16 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
