Article on how the blockchain is revolutionizing the music industry

[First.Bitcoins]

Here is an excellent article on how Bitcoin, PeerTracks, ArtByte and other blockchain companies are revolutionizing how musicians are paid.

Blockchain technology's potential making waves in music industry

[1714685529]

1714685529

[alani123]

Interesting article. Many of the ventures featured in it sound very innovative, I'd be interested to see where such startups will go.

[Paashaas]

I enjoyed reading it, thx for sharing.

[Carlton Banks]

Massively ironic IMO

This idea may work to establish new artists and help them promote themselves. But the rights management aspect isn't built for the 21st century, it is 100% unfeasible to "sell" digital goods that derive their value from being converted to analogue (so all forms of media). Technology enable the selling of recorded music for a tiny, brief period of history. Technology has quickly made that business impractical.


The real benefit of cryptocurrency to musicians is not adding even more layers of middlemen, it's about removing them. Record labels, distributors, rights owners/publishers; all these parasites will be banished to the annals by musicians (and other artists) using cryptocurrency to gain complete independence to do business on their own. Along with the producers, studio owners, mastering engineers etc that technology has already helped to replace.

[First.Bitcoins]

The real benefit of cryptocurrency to musicians is not adding even more layers of middlemen, it's about removing them. Record labels, distributors, rights owners/publishers; all these parasites will be banished to the annals by musicians (and other artists) using cryptocurrency to gain complete independence to do business on their own. Along with the producers, studio owners, mastering engineers etc that technology has already helped to replace.

The article discussed several companies in this space. ArtByte Music Store does exactly what you are talking about. Removing the middlemen and letting artists sell their music for the digital currency direct. Musicians keep 100% of the proceeds. It is free to list, and never are never any fees.

Another article on ArtByte:
http://www.forexminute.com/bitcoin/artbyte-brings-brand-new-website-for-music-downloading-62010


-------
Announce Thread: ArtByte Announce Thread
Website: ArtByte.me

ArtByte (ABY) is traded on Poloniex and Bittrex

[Carlton Banks]

The article discussed several companies in this space. ArtByte Music Store does exactly what you are talking about. Removing the middlemen and letting artists sell their music for the digital currency direct. Musicians keep 100% of the proceeds. It is free to list, and never are never any fees.

I agree that ArtBytes resembles my ideas most closely, it seems to be an altruistic project. But it also resembles other services that I am a little dubious about; people like Storj and Maidsafe. Artists that use it are taking a risk on the exchange rate of the tokens in the system. I hope it works out for them though, appealing to all types of artists is a sensible strategy. Still can't help thinking that it's not quite the ideal model yet, but they're all pioneers at this stage, somehow a winner will emerge.

I feel like musicians have become overexcited about this technology, they're forgetting that selling recordings isn't viable anymore whether they own blockchain title or traditional publishing rights.

If you sell digital goods that are to be consumed in analogue, there is only 1 copy. Get the best price for that 1 copy that you can, because once you've sold it, it's as good as everybody's. Alot of work goes into recording music, I know that, but you can't fight reality.

[Dire]

If you sell digital goods that are to be consumed in analogue, there is only 1 copy. Get the best price for that 1 copy that you can, because once you've sold it, it's as good as everybody's. Alot of work goes into recording music, I know that, but you can't fight reality.

Hmm. In fact most people's issues was based on convenience. I can't remember where the survey was I read, but essentially the statistical conclusion found that  the main reason for Napster et all, was simply that at that time people couldn't download (and pay for) music easily. Which was true, I remember it being a nightmare. You couldn't pay for it even when you wanted to. Yet when iTunes kicked in, that all changed.

There will always be piracy, but I think you'd be surprised at how many people are willing to pay as long as it's an easy process. Digital actually gave more avenues for earning. The world versus one country's record stores.... not that those really exist anymore.  

[Carlton Banks]

There will always be piracy, but I think you'd be surprised at how many people are willing to pay as long as it's an easy process.

Piracy of intellectual property as a concept has only existed for a short period of time, less than a couple of hundred years. Are you totally sure the concept will remain legitimate in future?

[Dire]

There will always be piracy, but I think you'd be surprised at how many people are willing to pay as long as it's an easy process.

Piracy of intellectual property as a concept has only existed for a short period of time, less than a couple of hundred years. Are you totally sure the concept will remain legitimate in future?

I can't be sure of anything Carlton. As you know. But regardless, a lot of people earn money from selling digital products right now, which is my point, I'm one of those people too and have been for a few years now.

Will there be a drive to the bottom? There is, that's true. Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, but they are also receiving push back from artists. It's not the consumers who are unwilling to pay a decent price, it's the corps that are trying to undercut each other for a better bottom line.

[Carlton Banks]

There will always be piracy, but I think you'd be surprised at how many people are willing to pay as long as it's an easy process.

Piracy of intellectual property as a concept has only existed for a short period of time, less than a couple of hundred years. Are you totally sure the concept will remain legitimate in future?

I can't be sure of anything Carlton. As you know. But regardless, a lot of people earn money from selling digital products right now, which is my point, I'm one of those people too and have been for a few years now.

Will there be a drive to the bottom? There is, that's true. Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, but they are also receiving push back from artists. It's not the consumers who are unwilling to pay a decent price, it's the corps that are trying to undercut each other for a better bottom line.

Ok, so you sell digital products, you have a dog in this fight. That's good.

What do you think might happen if people followed the logic I am presenting? New digital goods producers/artists would not be able charge anything, no-one will buy/fund a product blindly. But once they are established, what do you think they could get as a single "release fund/bounty" for each product they produce? Could it be a similar total figure to what they might achieve selling it as individual copies, or perhaps more?

I say all this because I believe it fits reality best. Artists funding their work like that cannot have their hard work undermined, because it's impossible to reproduce something that no-one else has a copy of.

It's somewhat reminiscent of this ridiculous "right to be forgotten" stuff. It's next to impossible to force information to be forgotten or destroyed, especially if the information is valuable. This follows a fundamental aspect of information theory: information wants to be free. Because it is free, intrinsically.

[Dire]

What do you think might happen if people followed the logic I am presenting? New digital goods producers/artists would not be able charge anything, no-one will buy/fund a product blindly.

Why would any artist follow the logic you are presenting if there are people willing to pay for it? I know I wouldn't. I'm not sure if I'm entirely understanding what you are suggesting though Carlton, are you suggesting we all go back to hard analog products or simply allow all digital work to be completely free and never charge for it?

But once they are established, what do you think they could get as a single "release fund" for each product they produce? Could it be a similar total figure to what they might achieve selling it as individual copies, or perhaps more?

How long is a piece of string Carlton? It would depend on the popularity of the artist and the potential/actual popularity of the product. If you're suggesting crowdfunding as a better model, then there are artists in various fields already doing that, but then they also charge for their product from the general public when they release it afterward.

I say all this because I believe it fits reality best. Artists funding their work like that cannot have their hard work undermined, because it's impossible to reproduce something that no-one else has a copy of.

Well, there's the curve ball right there Carlton. It's never been proven that piracy actually harms an artist in the long run. There is in fact some weight to the argument that exposure wins more fans/customers.

The arbitrary figure of billions of dollars of loss from large corps due to piracy is based on the false assumption that everyone would pay to download if they couldn't get it free, which has never really been proven to be true. You can hear Rihanna on the radio, or on Youtube for free, yet people keep buying.

[Carlton Banks]

What do you think might happen if people followed the logic I am presenting? New digital goods producers/artists would not be able charge anything, no-one will buy/fund a product blindly.

are you suggesting we all go back to hard analog products or simply allow all digital work to be completely free and never charge for it?

No, I would say that if that was what I meant  

But once they are established, what do you think they could get as a single "release fund" for each product they produce? Could it be a similar total figure to what they might achieve selling it as individual copies, or perhaps more?

How long is a piece of string Carlton? It would depend on the popularity of the artist and the potential/actual popularity of the product. If you're suggesting crowdfunding as a better model, then there are artists in various fields already doing that, but then they also charge for their product from the general public when they release it afterward.

And that is exactly what I meant. The difference being that the corwdfunding platforms that exist now are businesses in their own right that take a cut, plus those payment processors too. Cryptocurrency lets the artist set up their own website, and crowdfund completely independently. The whole show can be independent, for the first time in the history of the recording industry. The ability to take the money yourself was the last obstacle.

I say all this because I believe it fits reality best. Artists funding their work like that cannot have their hard work undermined, because it's impossible to reproduce something that no-one else has a copy of.

Well, there's the curve ball right there Carlton. It's never been proven that piracy actually harms an artist in the long run. There is in fact some weight to the argument that exposure wins more fans/customers.

The arbitrary figure of billions of dollars of loss from large corps due to piracy is based on the false assumption that everyone would pay to download if they couldn't get it free, which has never really been proven to be true. You can hear Rihanna on the radio, or on Youtube for free, yet people keep buying.

Indeed. "Give everything away, it will be returned to you in kind". Can't remember where that quote comes from, the Buddha probably

[Dire]

And that is exactly what I meant. The difference being that the corwdfunding platforms that exist now are businesses in their own right that take a cut, plus those payment processors too. Cryptocurrency lets the artist set up their own website, and crowdfund completely independently. The whole show can be independent, for the first time in the history of the recording industry. Taking the money was the last obstacle.

I don't disagree that cryptocurrency crowdfunding is a good thing that gives autonomy to artists. But that wasn't the point I was speaking to in my initial reply. It was the whole analog/digital/piracy angle you mentioned.

[Mickeyb]

Here is an excellent article on how Bitcoin, PeerTracks, ArtByte and other blockchain companies are revolutionizing how musicians are paid.

Blockchain technology's potential making waves in music industry

Very nice article and yet another use case for the blockchain technology.

Bitcoin and the blockchain will revolutionize many industries and many business aspects known to us so far. This is unavoidable. Everyone that fight this and tries to prevent it will be left behind.

[Denker]

Here is an excellent article on how Bitcoin, PeerTracks, ArtByte and other blockchain companies are revolutionizing how musicians are paid.

Blockchain technology's potential making waves in music industry

Very nice article and yet another use case for the blockchain technology.

Bitcoin and the blockchain will revolutionize many industries and many business aspects known to us so far. This is unavoidable. Everyone that fight this and tries to prevent it will be left behind.

It's funny to see that article because just a few days ago I was watching a panel discussion about how can blockchain, Bitcoin apply to music.
It's 50 minutes video and really interesting. Check it out if you guys have time.

"Can the Decentralised Ledger of Bitcoin Apply to Music?" - Midem 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggK95uVZnKs

[Carlton Banks]

And that is exactly what I meant. The difference being that the corwdfunding platforms that exist now are businesses in their own right that take a cut, plus those payment processors too. Cryptocurrency lets the artist set up their own website, and crowdfund completely independently. The whole show can be independent, for the first time in the history of the recording industry. Taking the money was the last obstacle.

I don't disagree that cryptocurrency crowdfunding is a good thing that gives autonomy to artists. But that wasn't the point I was speaking to in my initial reply. It was the whole analog/digital/piracy angle you mentioned.

Let me put it another way.

Would your own audience, as a digital goods producer, provide you with better revenues through crowd funding than through selling individual copies? You could find out by offering some products that way, and others the 20th century way.

[Carlton Banks]

Something else just occurred to me on this topic; individually popular tracks can benefit from having a crowd funded target (or maybe auctions...) for their stems/parts. Same model works for better mixes or masters, but there's not much money in that really these days (makes most sense for analogue originals etc).

So yeah, stems. You could auction off or crowd fund stems for popular tracks for a nice sum, and using Bitcoin with any kind of decentralised funding platform (i.e. a website with Bitcoin payment address...), that money's all yours.