CreativeCommons.org ran a story last week on their blog about an artist named John Wood who is doing something interesting with his music:

“Beginning this past March, John Wood has written, recorded, mixed, and mastered an album a month. Distributed under the moniker Learning Music Monthly, the music arrives on the first of the month as CDs in subscribers’ mailboxes and MP3s in their digital lockers, all released under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license.”

“Offering a tiered subscription service (amenities include stickers, bonus albums, a song written for you on your birthday, and much more depending on price), Learning Music Monthly is a great case study in figuring out how independent artists and labels (LMM is released through CC-friendly label vosotros) are approaching distribution in today’s current music climate.”

As the Creative Commons folks mention, Wood’s distribution model is subscription based, with subscribers choosing the amount they would like to pay. Everything that has to do with the album has been released under a CC license, including the music, cover art, sheet-music, lyrics and mix-stems.

The subscription model dates back to the days of Motown (probably further) when labels offered subscriptions that let fans receive new singles and records from each of the bands on the label’s roster when as soon as it was released. More recently this model has been getting a lot of attention, with several well-known acts like Beck and Billy Corgan experimenting with this type of distribution.

Subscriptions make particular sense for this project – 12 albums in 12 months would be a lot for even the most die-hard fan to keep track of. Having each new album arrive at the subscriber’s door (or email) as soon as it’s released simplifies things considerably.

photo by cameronparkins

Pay-what-you-want seems to be working out pretty well, too. If  a fan chooses not to pay one of the predetermined tiered prices they are able to simply give a donation of whatever amount they are able/willing to pay. “I’m sure we have a handful of subscribers who wouldn’t have signed up had it not been for the donation option,” Wood acknowledges, “The majority of subscribers have paid by donation, and some of those very generously.” About six months into the year long project, Woods says that he still feels good about the way they’ve chosen to set the project up.

Creative Commons was also the natural choice for Wood:

“CC seems to fit the project well. I feel like this license can inspire new creative opportunities. Also, it just makes sense with the current state of technology. I’d rather people have the music than not; so if someone burns a CD for their friend, that’s great. We’ve gotten a lot of positive nods from people just for being aligned with CC.”

I think Woods is right on in his thinking here. If you want to get your music heard by as many people as possible you need to remove the barriers. Restrictive copyright may (or, more realistically may not) prevent unwanted sharing, but remember that it also prevents the kind of sharing you want from your fans. To take it a step further and release the mix-stems is also a smart move, especially when some of his tracks are actually remixes of tracks originally recorded by other artists.

It will be interesting to see where Learning Music Monthly takes Woods once it runs its course. Regardless of the result, it’s great to see an artist trying something new and attempting to respond to the new possibilities presenting themselves to the music industry today. You can listen to Wood’s work here.

What makes music valuable? And who is it valuable to?

I recently had a discussion with a musician who is convinced that new business models – specifically those involving free or open licenses, such as Creative Commons – “devalue music.” The spirit behind his position is simple: the less control he has over the tracks he releases the less revenue he will be able to extract from them.

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning is backwards for a variety of reasons. The biggest issue – aside from its cynical, borderline anti-fan sentiment – is that it’s based on the idea that profitability creates value, rather than the other way around. When a product becomes less profitable it has therefore become less valuable.

Yet, that’s not how it works. A product becomes less profitable because it has lost value. To over simplify it a bit – value determines profitability, and profitability is the result of value.

Of course, backwards logic inevitably produces backwards business models. In an effort to squeeze every last penny out of each track they release the lock it down with restrictions – stringent copyright laws, DRM, etc. They do whatever they can to ensure that no one is able to engage with the tracks in any way without the industry being compensated for it. This leads consumers to look for other ways of getting their music – ways that will allow them to use it how they want. Isn’t that why you bother to own something in the first place?

So is my musician friend accurate in his assertion that open licenses such as Creative Commons really “devalue music?” No – in fact, for many fans the freedom to share, remix, mash-up and engage with music only makes that music more valuable to them. Restrictions are what drains music of its worth. As a music lover, which would you rather own – tracks hindered by DRM, or open for you to use as you please? Pretty clear choice, right? Yet the record companies – as well as many artists – continue to ignore this reality.

Obviously, there is a big disparity between what is valuable to listeners and what’s perceived as valuable to the industry. It has gotten so bad that the industry actually believes that if they give the consumers what they want it will destroy their profitability. This is not a sustainable way to do business. It’s the consumer who ultimately determines value. Until the industry can learn to reconcile listener value and commercial value we’ll continue to be stuck right where we are today – battered by declining sales, declining consumer interest, and unwilling to walk the paths that will lead us back to stability.

Artists and the record companies need to make money – no one is suggesting otherwise. Yet, attempting to drive profits by decreasing value is nothing but a great way to ensure that even those profits you do find will eventually dry up. On the other hand, if you offer listeners something that they actually want, they will pay for it.

New business models are risky. Giving up control to the consumer is hard to do. Yet, some risk is necessary for real progress to be made. A changing marketplace should fuel innovation, not self-preservationism.

Here’s a recap of what went on in the music industry this week. Make sure to check out anything you might have missed and leave your comments. Know something we don’t? Submit a story.

Most Popular:

5 Reasons Why the Performance Rights Act is a Bad Idea – Is this bill really for the artists?

Why the Music Industry Still Needs Tastemakers – Sometimes ‘recommendation engines’ just don’t cut it.

Last Week

Creative Culture and the Growing Copyright Extremism – How the industry is criminalizing a generation, what they could have done instead, and how music fans can respond.

How Creative Commons can Enhance Your Business Model – Demystifying the various Creative Commons licenses.

Big New Album Releases – Several highly anticipated albums dropped last week – Check out a full list here.

How to Create a Release Strategy for the New Music Marketplace – Capitalize on the new ways fans are consuming music.

Music Video Picks:

No new videos last week, but check out out the archives.

This Week in Music History:

1975 – American singer songwriter Tim Buckley completed the last show of a tour in Dallas, Texas, playing to a sold-out crowd of 1,800 people. This was Buckley’s last ever show, he died the following day of a heroin and morphine overdose aged 28. (This Day in Music)

Recorded music – aside from being a powerful art form – can be an incredible promotional tool. Now that recorded music as a product is declining in value, its role has transitioned even more toward the promotion of other revenue such as live performances, merchandise, licensing, etc.

Unfortunately, traditional copyright law has not quite caught up with the way music is used today. I certainly don’t recommend abandoning copyright outright, but there are other options that can make a lot more sense for bands attempting to adopt innovative business models. Creative Commons licensing is perhaps the most significant of those options, supplementing traditional copyright and providing more flexibility in how the work can be engaged with and distributed. The question is how can Creative Commons fit into your business model?

I’ve tried to create a basic guide should help bands and musicians decide which of the six Creative Commons license works best with their business model. It’s not a one-size-fits-all thing, and a lot of thought needs to go into what you want to sell and how you plan to create revenue.

1. Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives

Here’s the description found on the Creative Commons website:

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, allowing redistribution. This license is often called the “free advertising” license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

This is the closest thing to conventional copyright licensing that Creative Commons offers. Under this license, your fans will be able to share and download your music freely, but that’s where the ‘free’ stops. Fans are not able to create remixes, fan videos, mash-ups, covers, etc. without your permission.

In the above excerpt from the CC website you’ll see that this option has been dubbed the ‘free advertising’ license, but I think that in licensing your music this way you are actually limiting its potential promotional value. Don’t underestimate the power of fan created content. A good remix or mash-up can expose your work to listeners that might not be familiar with your work, or who would not normally be interested in your genre or style. For example, if your track is combined with another artist’s their fans will likely want to check out the original and you have potential to gain a new fan.

Remember: greater control over the licensing of your music does not translate directly into more revenue. Derivative works themselves may not earn licensing revenue, but if permission and a fee are required many fans will simply not bother working with your content in the first place, and the promotion potential will be diminished. It’s up to the individual artist to determine whether this is a trade off that makes sense for their model.

2. Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature.

If I had to weigh in with my personal favorite this would be my pick. This form of licensing factors easily into a larger business strategy in that it provides for both high promotional potential (fans are allowed to create and distribute derivative works) as well as direct revenue sources. The ‘Non-Commercial’ provision requires permission to be obtained if your music is to be used commercially, which means that you have the opportunity to earn fees or royalties. ‘Share Alike’ requires that all derivative works must be licensed the same way which perpetuates the free use of your music and at the same time ensures that no one will use it to get paid without you getting a piece of the action.

3. Attribution Non-Commercial

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

This is similar to the last option, minus ‘Share Alike.’ This means that those who remix your material are able to attach a more restrictive license to that content, and may therefore restrict how widely your content and its derivative works are distributed (and therefore promoted.) 

4. Attribution No Derivatives

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

Before considering this option or the two that follow, you had better have a strong revenue plan that does not rely on generating any profit from your music itself. No licensing fees, no royalties, no record sales, etc. You are giving film, TV, radio, blogs, and whoever else the liberty to share your music wherever they want and even to charge for it – and you wouldn’t be entitled to a dime. That isn’t to say that you couldn’t try to any of these types of payment, just that no one is likely to give it to you because they wouldn’t have to!

Re-mixes, mash-ups, fan videos, etc. would not be allowed, however. You might choose this option if you have plenty of revenue potential from other aspects of your business, but are concerned with keeping the integrity of your work intact. If someone is uploading your song, you can be confident it will be the entire song. This limits others’ ability to misrepresent you or your music, which may be important to some.

5. Attribution Share Alike

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.

Under this license others are able to do just about whatever they want with your music, except restrict it. This is basically a safeguard that no matter what is created by modifying your original content it will be completely free and available to all.

6. Attribution

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.

Not much to add here. No restrictions, other than making sure that you are credited for the original content.

Your Model

Creative Commons can be a great alternative to conventional copyright, provided that you have a clear strategy in place. Hopefully this guide will be helpful as you try to figure that out. Let me know your feedback. What are your thoughts on the different licensing options? Are you already utilizing CC for your music? What has your experience been?

Creative culture is on the rise, thanks largely to recent technology. Anybody can shoot a video or record a song and upload it to YouTube and millions of people might see it. Digital technology has put the arts back into the hands of the people.

Copyright lawyer and chairman of Creative Commons Larry Lessig gave a presentation about a year and a half ago in which he talks about the way that the younger generation’s perception of creativity and copyright has changed since their parents’. This generation has the tools and the desire to remix, mash-up and recreate the music they hear and the videos they watch and turn them into something new. The way they appreciate art is by engaging with it and making it their own.

Lessig suggests that the law has not greeted “this new use of culture using digital technologies” with much common sense. Common sense would have been to realize that times have changed, that digital technology has fundamentally altered the way that consumers and creators alike are able to produce, enjoy and interact with art. Common sense would have been for entities like the RIAA to acknowledge that fact and adapt business practices to be remain competitive in the emerging market.

Of course, that’s not what happened. Instead, “the architecture of copyright law and the architecture digital technologies as they interact have produced the presumptionthat these activities are illegal.” Lessig continues, “because if copyright law at it’s core regulates something called ‘copies’ than in the digital world the one fact we can’t escape is that every single use of digital technology produces a copy. Every single use therefore requires permission. Without permission you are a trespasser.”

So this presumption that remixes, mash-ups, videos or any other fan created content that uses copyrighted material are illegal has made nearly an entire generation guilty of breaking the law. I love it that he uses the word presumption – this is one of the foremost lawyers on copyright saying that what the RIAA believes about copyright law is not correct.

The RIAA has seen the internet and digital technology as a threat to their business, and responded by taking an extreme position regarding copyright law. This exaggerated version of copyright all but ignores the concept of fair-use and considers – wrongly – that every use of copyrighted material is illegal.

So they crack down, launching a huge legal offensive against just about everybody, including individual consumers suspected of violating their interpretation of copyright law. This in turn creates a growing backlash – both among those whose genuinely illegal activities were thwarted, and those whose legitimate fair-use was wrongly lumped together with piracy. Now the world is experiencing a “growing copyright abolitionism” says Lessig, “a generation that rejects the very notion of what copyright is supposed to do … and believes that the law is nothing more than an ass to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible. The extremism on one side begets extremism on the other – a fact we should have learned many, many times over.”

You and I can’t control the RIAA. They have proven that they are out of touch with today’s digital culture and determined to snuff out any innovation that smells like it might disrupt the traditional models. We can influence the other side of the table, though.

Artists don’t have to get in bed with the RIAA. The new independent, DIY approach to a career in music is not just a pipe dream anymore – there are plenty of success stories to look to now. In this new marketplace the artists who recognize the value of openness will be the ones who succeed. The ones who see the benefit of allowing their fans to remix their tracks, or to produce amateur videos for their songs and spread them across the Internet.

Regardless of what we have been taught to believe recently, there is such a thing as fair use, and it’s in the artist’s best interests to allow it. Release your music under a more open license such as Creative Commons and see what happens. Let your fans do the promoting – if you give them a quality product and the freedom to use it the way they want use it they’ll do a surprisingly good job. Better than you could ever do, maybe even with a big-label marketing budget that only the top acts see anyway.

Thanks to Eugenia for the video.