

Hello Downloader - alainbryden
http://www.alphabasic.com/Please_read.html

======
babarock
Honestly, I don't think the 'donate' model is a viable one. Sure you can make
_some_ money off of it, but that cannot be the norm. I think. Maybe
(hopefully) I'm wrong.

Now don't get me wrong, I think that _selling_ music in the internet age is a
fundamentally broken model, so much more than the _donate_ one. At a time
where distributing media is as simple as one click, trying to make money off
of distribution is just wrong. Take into account how widespread internet
access is today, and do the most basic ecnomical analysis, take "Porter five
force" for instance and you'll quickly realize how non-viable this model is.
Labels who act as middle men between the artist and their audience might have
been needed 20 years ago, but today, what are their added values?

Now, if I do not believe that selling music is profitable, that doesn't mean
that musicians cannot make money. Here's a simple business model for you: Make
money off concerts and use your records as promotion units. Give your music
away for free, hope for success, give a concert, make money.

Labels want to scare you into thinking that their distribution model is the
only guarantee that music/art will survive. Let's not forget that musicians
existed and made money long, very long before technology allowed businessmen
in suits to make money off of them.

~~~
tedunangst
I find it really bizarre that in a forum which generally celebrates the
ability to sell and profit from unlimited copies (c.f all the app store
success stories), we have decided that such technology should not be available
to others. If musicians want to make money, they're gonna have to do it
sweating under the lights. Why is that?

Would people here be as enthusiastic if the only way to get paid for writing
an app was to sit down and type it out in front of each customer?

~~~
Baba_Chaghaloo
They can sell Mp3s but not for 99 cents a song... especially when Angry Birds
costs $1.99. An entire album should be 99 cents or less. 25 cents sounds good
to me.

EDIT: my point is don't complain that people aren't buying your product if
you're charging them a price that's waaay above market value

~~~
mikecane
>>>They can sell Mp3s but not for 99 cents a song... especially when Angry
Birds costs $1.99.

Now wait a minute there. What about an eBook? What about a movie or TV
episode?

If Angry Birds for $1.99 is the price standard for everything, you're setting
up a trap that most everything is going to fall into.

I've tried Angry Birds on demo tablets in stores -- and countless YouTube
videos demoing tablets -- and I don't see the appeal. Even free, I wouldn't
want it. Most games simply don't appeal to me. I'd rather read or listen to
music or watch video.

Angry Birds might be worth $1.99 to you, but to me it has negative value.

~~~
Baba_Chaghaloo
Angry Birds made over a hundred million _in profits_ so far, I'm saying maybe
the music business should examine it's pricing structure. Don't get me started
on Ebooks or TV shows.

~~~
mikecane
>>>Angry Birds made over a hundred million in profits so far

And added what to human productivity and betterment? Never use money as a
measure for anything except money.

------
kittxkat
This is why I love bandcamp (for example <http://ohdaughter.bandcamp.com/>).

The first couple of downloads (I don't know how many, maybe the first 100) of
a track/album are usually free, and after that you pay for the music. So when
you suddenly go all Lady Gaga as an Indie artist you get at least something
out of it, but when nobody knows you the can have a free listen.

If the free downloads are out, you have to buy the music. Some artists have a
steady price like 8-10$ per album or 3-4$ for an EP (which I find _very_
reasonable and am totally willing to pay if it goes directly to the artist,
and it mostly does!) and some let you choose the amount you want to pay for
the music. And if that wasn't enough, if you have paid for the download, you
get the audio files in almost every possible format existing.

Ah, bandcamp. Music distributing done right.

/edit:

Some more info: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandcamp>

\- Pricing model: _Set by artists_

\- Available audio formats are MP3, FLAC, AAA (aka .m4a), Vorbis and Apple
Lossless and even more

\- About 4 million songs online, including music from Sufjan Stevens, Amanda
Palmer (Dresden Dolls) and Coer de Pirate, and game soundtracks from
Minecraft, Machinarium and Plants vs Zombies

And last but not least: <http://bandcamp.com/faq> (yes, they do cover _all_
questions who could possible arise)

(And no, I don't work for them. I just love them, as do many others:
<http://bandcamp.com/testimonials>)

~~~
elektronaut
As an artist, Bandcamp is _fantastic_.

When someone buys an album, the money goes to our Paypal account immediately.
Not only is the sales stats updated in real time, you can even play Defender
on the graphs. Other digital retailers like iTunes take months just to get a
sales report, let alone get paid.

I'd say 90% of our digital revenue comes from Bandcamp, which is surprising.

------
tbundy
I once tried to buy a digital album from a local band, without using iTunes
(just don't like it).

After searching around (which, to Benn's point, probably took longer than
illegally downloading) I found it listed on Amazon. After I downloaded their
ridiculous download software (just give me a zip?), I got right up to paying,
when I was told that they were not licensed to sell to countries outside the
US. Great. I can't buy my country's own product on Amazon. Nice one music
industry.

At that point I gave up.

------
sdfjkl
This is exactly the way I want to buy media and other "soft" goods. I wish it
was widely adopted already.

I want to know what I'm buying and iTunes previews, shareware trials, demo
versions, movie trailers or what have you aren't nearly good enough to decide
if I like something or not. Or someone just drags an MP3 on my Skype icon:
"Hey, did you hear this song? It's really good!" -- "Wow, yes it is." (I'm a
naughty pirate now, but if it weren't for piracy I'd never have listened to
that song).

So when I do find something I really like, be that music, software or a TV
show, I often _want_ to give the creators some cash. And it's incredibly
frustrating to do that. Maybe the band is on iTunes, but that album with the
nice song isn't (and as they pointed out, you'd end up giving cash to people
who contributed nothing to the process of creating the stuff you like). Or the
movie isn't available as digital download and you're supposed to buy a little
plastic box with a disc in it that you have to dust off regularly and modern
computers don't even have a slot for anymore. Plus, you already have the damn
thing anyways, so all you really want to do is throw some money at people to
show that you appreciate their work and want them to be able to pay the rent
so they can keep making cool stuff. So why not make it as easy as possible to
give you money?

Speaking of easy, my only problem with the above page is that I have a beef
with PayPal and would greatly prefer them not profiting from anything I do
(well, actually I would prefer for gaping holes to simultaneously open
underneath their offices and suck them down straight to an equivalent number
of burning, spiked pits in hell, but that's another story). So maybe provide
some options here. Other than that, best of luck, and please let us know how
it works out.

~~~
rglullis
Out of curiosity, have you used/tried flattr?

~~~
sdfjkl
I like the idea of Flattr, but I think it lacked the ability to donate a
specific amount to a specific person/thing. So it seems to be more of a cash-
backed "Like" button, which is nice too, but different from "I feel this
Software is worth £40".

------
ginko
This reminds me of the game Darwinia by Introversion.

This happened years ago. After hearing about it and trying the demo, I
downloaded what I thought was the full copy over a P2P network.

The downloaded game behaved like the full copy and contained the first 2
levels as far as I remember. After that came a sequence spoken by the
scientist that went a bit like "Let's be honest. You and I know that this
isn't a legal copy and I don't blame you." and went on about how supporting
the developers was important. After that no further levels could be played.

Introversion seems to have leaked this version on P2P networks themselves. I
bought the full copy a short while later.

It's strange that I have yet to find any online sources or Youtube videos
about this on the web. I guess no one wants to admit having pirated Darwinia.

~~~
alainbryden
I had no need to pirate Darwinia when I got it for 5$ in the Humble
Introversion Bundle, along with 6 other games. (Could have gotten it for 1
cent).

~~~
ginko
My story was in 2005. 6 years before the humble bundle.

~~~
alainbryden
Ah, didn't know it was such an old game. Well in any event, thanks for
sharing. While plenty of people will admit to downloading music and videos,
not so many outside of the UG community admit to games. Maybe as developers,
we're more wary of resentment from our colleagues which are more likely to
feel harmed by our actions.

~~~
Tomis02
> thanks for sharing

Such a poor choice of words.

------
killercup
Very nice. This may be weird, but I totally enjoyed reading this.

However, I'm actually surprised they didn't mention their Bandcamp
presence[1], where I bought something a few month ago and was very pleased
with the experience. But then again, I don't know from when the "Hello
Downloader" document is.

[1]: <http://alphabasic.bandcamp.com/>

~~~
5vforest
It's worth noting that this album, (and thus, the page we're talking about)
was released in 2008.

~~~
microtherion
And it appears that the legal dispute with Apple that the page refers to was
also settled in some way in early 2008 (The details are unclear; all the
verbiage the author has produced about his dispute with various entities in
the music industry appears maddeningly incoherent and vague to me).

------
jlarocco
Can somebody explain how a donate button like the one on this page complies
with the PayPal TOS?

I looked into adding one to a site, but the PayPal terms seem to make it
pretty clear they're for non-profits or giving money for a specific cause. If
you get >$10k in "donations" they can/will even hold your money and require
"proof" it's going to the cause you tell people it's going to.

I've seen the buttons on a number of sites, and they rarely seem to match up
with the PayPal TOS for donations. Does PayPal not enforce that requirement?

In my case, I've decided to go with a small, one time signup fee, but I'm
still curious.

------
dmix
The album mentioned in the post "Soundtrack To A Vacant Life" came out a
couple of years ago. So this post might be old.

Also, that's an excellent electronic/idm album to work to.

~~~
zevyoura
Yeah, this text file was included with torrents that Benn Jordan (the guy
behind The Flashbulb and the founder of Alpha Basic Records) "leaked" himself
to trackers when the album was first released. I'm surprised to see it get so
much attention years later.

~~~
Skroob
That explains the complaint about DRM-ed downloads. I don't believe that's
true anymore for any of the major services.

~~~
Morg
What's the difference, they're all still trying to ask ten times what they'll
give the artists, for no reason and while taking 30% profit on a download
that's at most worth one ad showing.

------
pkteison
No company scores any points with me by starting out by greeting me as a
"pseudo-criminal".

~~~
coderdude
'Pirate' though, that one sounds cool so we'll accept it. Seriously? They are
implying by that greeting that it is not them who would label you as such a
thing. Moreover it sounds like they've had it up to here with the major labels
and distribution outlets who would call you an actual criminal and mean it.

Also, don't kid yourself. It is a crime (morally wrong, if not outright
encoded in law) to download someone else's work for free so that you can enjoy
it without paying a dime to _anyone_ (even the artist), unless they're giving
it away. You don't even see that page unless you tried to acquire their
artists' work for free.

~~~
tomp
> morally wrong, if not outright encoded in law

I'd say exactly the oposite. It's illegal (= prohibited by law), but might not
be morally wrong - I don't feel bad for downloading movies/music when any of
the following are met:

(i) the content is not readily available (e.g. movies right after release,
movies and music in non-G6 countries) (ii) the content is of shitty quality or
atmosphere (e.g. low bitrate, CDs, cinemas) (iii) I would not pay for content
(i.e. even if it were readily available in supreme quality, I would rather not
have it than buy it) (e.g. albums that I'm not sure are good).

~~~
coderdude
This is where most people really start to bicker about this issue. There is
the group that understands that it is morally wrong to steal, and then there
is the group that does mental gymnastics to get out of "feeling bad" about it
or to otherwise justify it somehow. You even end it with "I would not pay for
content [...]." If that isn't outright just saying "yeah I steal and I don't
care" then I don't know what is.

~~~
tomp
I guess the issue is elsewhere - there is a group of people that think that
copying is the same as stealing, and there is the group that can see the
difference.

I belong to the second group. Let me try to explain it to you... Would you
rather that I stole your car, or just copy it?

~~~
sritch
The comparison is flawed. The theft is not of the physical product, but of the
proceeds or profits.

~~~
sritch
@Falling3 - If you mean to tell me that the majority of people who download
copyrighted items, then go forward to buy the music, sure your argument is
fair.

@Tomp - Well it's hard to compare digital products to physical products since
you don't have to create the item more than once for a digital good. Just
because you didn't plan to pay anyway, doesn't make it any less "stealing" You
can't use the argument "I was never going to buy it anyway" as a valid reason
for stealing something.

~~~
Falling3
If the argument is "piracy is bad because it results in a loss of profits",
then the counterargument "that's ok I absolutely would not have bought it
anyway" is completely valid.

~~~
sritch
Why should you be entitled to something free because you never planned to buy
it? Please explain

~~~
Falling3
No one is talking about entitlement. Read what I said. If the above argument
is presented as reasoning against, then the counterargument is valid.

------
zobzu
Heh I know. Donate isn't a very good model. Etc. I don't even especially like
their music.

But I clicked the link. I read it. No fancy HTML. Strong points. So I clicked
donate anyway. It might not be much, it won't last, and I wont donate to them
every month, but hey, for me it's more of a way to say "I support your point
of view".

------
mjlyons
I'd be much more likely to donate money for a track/album if I had some
automatic way of tracking which I had donated to. One way to do this would be
a website that let you donate a suggested amount for a song or album. For each
song/album you donate towards, you get some signed key that says you supported
that song.

There's some interesting things that you could build off of this:

\- Media players could show a little badge whenever you're playing a song
you've donated to. They could also remind you (if you wanted) when you listen
to a song frequently but haven't supported it.

\- Hook into Facebook - when someone downloads a song, they can see which of
their friends have donated to it.

\- An additional metric for music suggestion services. What better way to show
you like a song than by putting your money where your mouth is?

------
bobsy
I am surprised more labels aren't doing this.

How much is a label spending combating piracy? How many labels have actually
prevented an album become available via bit-torrent?

Few albums actually flop because they can be pirated. I think a viable
strategy is for the label themselves to upload the album with a message like
this. Its going to be pirated anyway. These people aren't going to go to
iTunes or buy the CD. Why not just have a simple message which says something
like:

"If you enjoyed this album please consider making a donation to the artist.
The artist will receive 85% of your donation. The other 15% helps cover the
cost of production."

I mean, its worth a shot isn't it.

------
uptown
Before they determine who stole their music, they should figure out who stole
their stylesheet.

~~~
acuozzo
> Before they determine who stole their music, they should figure out who
> stole their stylesheet.

What's wrong with the current style?

------
zampano
I have no idea if what he's trying to do here will actually work out for him,
but I went ahead and donated $5 because I have to respect him for at least
trying.

------
cm-t
Framablog, a blog about free software, net neutrality and popularizy these
philosophie just published a french translated version
[http://www.framablog.org/index.php/post/2012/05/24/salut-
a-t...](http://www.framablog.org/index.php/post/2012/05/24/salut-a-toi-pirate)

------
tomash
Excuse the shameless plug, but pages like these ensure me that launching
musicrage.org was a good idea.

------
RivieraKid
Why don't musicians just decline to license their music if they get tiny
share? Can't they create some sort of union that would give them bigger
negotiating power? Or just sell the music on the internet? I wonder why market
mechanics don't work here.

~~~
tomp
Because they usually licence their music _before_ they become famous.

Contrary to popular belief, music labels are NOT (for the most part) middle-
men (i.e. content distributors). In reality, they are INVESTORS. They bet on a
number of artists (providing them with managers, tour opportunities, studios,
promotion), and only a small number succeed. It's actually quite reasonable
for them to expect a huge payoff (= a large cut of the profits) from the ones
who do.

~~~
netfire
The current model seems unnecessary with the internet though. Seems like
artists, if they are good, should be able to become famous selling their music
direct to consumer through some distribution service like iTunes without a
long term contract.

Once someone has made a name for themselves, it would seem perfectly
reasonable for a label or a venue to approach them about doing a concert or a
tour and taking a cut of the proceeds.

Perhaps the problem is that bands or artists want to fast-track their road to
fame. In signing with a label, it seems like they are giving up a lot to get
there faster. The question is, can artists who are willing to work their way
up more slowly or organically able to, or are certain doors closed because
they aren't signed with a label?

~~~
tomp
Distribution and getting listeners/fans is only a part of the problem...
Getting a studio and a professional to edit your music is the real cost that
new artists have to deal with. I have a friend that makes music _on a
computer_!!! and he's been wanting to produce a professional recording for
more than a year (needs $$$ for studio/editing/mixing/I-have-no-idea-what).

~~~
netfire
I guess it depends on what kind of music you are recording, but do the first
songs you release to potential listeners have to be professionally edited or
mixed? As long as its recorded using somewhat decent equipment, it seems like
that would be enough to get something together to release.

~~~
jlarocco
The problem is that professionally edited and mixed music is the norm.
Nobody's stopping bands from releasing poorly edited and mixed music, but it
adds another hurdle to overcome.

------
akie
I like it. I would be interested in seeing if this works for them.

~~~
alainbryden
It happened 4 years ago, and the guy's not rich, but this model supported him
enough to release 7 full length albums since, and do quite a few concerts.
Furthermore, his attitude towards the music industry (and fantastic creativity
in music and other things) gained him a bit of a cult following.

------
mindstab
YES

------
pwny
Doing it right!

