<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;incubus&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:32:55 PST</pubDate>
<title>Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks &amp; YouTube Despite Understanding Neither</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/03360022036/dead-kennedys-guitarist-joins-crusade-against-ad-networks-youtube-despite-understanding-neither.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/03360022036/dead-kennedys-guitarist-joins-crusade-against-ad-networks-youtube-despite-understanding-neither.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ At the always wonderful SF Music Tech conference yesterday, I went to what should have been a fascinating panel discussion about "artist revenue streams."  It had Kristin Thomson from the Future of Music Coalition, talking about their wonderful <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130116/09224321702/just-as-many-musicians-say-file-sharing-helps-them-as-those-who-say-it-hurts.shtml">artist revenue streams</a> project, as well as Steve Rennie, who manages the band Incubus, among others.  And then there was the third panelist, East Bay Ray, of the band The Dead Kennedys.  Despite that band once <a href="http://i.imgur.com/blhnH.jpg" target="_blank">mocking</a> the whole "home taping is killing music" argument, it appears that he's now turned into one of those grumpy old musicians who demands that everyone else figure out a way to pay him.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/blhnH.jpg" width=450/>
</center>
So, rather than an interesting discussion about artist revenue streams, the panel basically turned into a big rant from East Bay Ray complaining about all these internet sites that don't pay him.  His misunderstandings were legion.  He held up a screenshot of a file sharing site in Russia, showing Dead Kennedys songs on them, and noted that he doesn't get paid for those.  And, of course, those sites have ads.  This is the thing that gets me.  A group of music industry folks, led by Jon Taplin at USC, who don't seem to have the slightest clue about how online advertising actually works, keep insisting that when they see an ad from a big company on a site that has infringing materials, it means that "the pirates are getting rich and the artists are getting screwed."
<br /><br />
What I find amusing is that professional musicians so often insist that others are simply not qualified to speak about the music business. And yet, they have absolutely no problem pretending they know how internet advertising works.  Let's make this simple: internet display ads pay <i>next to nothing</i> -- especially on sites like the one that Ray was complaining about.  Those kinds of sites can <i>only</i> get deals with complete bottom of the barrel remnant ad providers, whose payout numbers are so small that most people would laugh.  Some -- like Google's AdSense -- only payout if people click, and these days no one clicks on banner ads.  They don't even see them.  These sites make next to nothing.  I'd be amazed if they can clear $0.05 CPMs.  That is, if they're lucky, they get five cents for every 1,000 views.  If they're lucky.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, folks like Ray are blaming the sites, which tend to be platforms or conduits for sharing, rather than the hosts or the actual people responsible for uploading the works.  Either they don't understand this or they don't care, but they really seem to want to blame the middleman for the actions of end users.
<br /><br />
Steve Rennie tried to talk Ray down a few times, with little luck.  Rennie, rightly, pointed out that whining about the pennies some Russian site might get is a really fruitless activity, when there's so much opportunity to make revenue elsewhere.  Why not focus on the actual revenue opportunities, instead of whining about the two and a half cents some Russian site got? 
<br /><br />
And, of course, Ray's anger isn't just at Russian file sharing sites, but basically every legitimate site as well.  Even if they pay, they don't pay him enough.  He, of course, singled out YouTube and further demonstrated his <a href="http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130219youtube?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">near total ignorance of the world</a> by insisting that YouTube has "forced 12,000 musicians out of work."  You might wonder how that's possible, and read the link for the full "math" and try to hold back the guffaws.  The short version, as far as I can figure it out, is that he argues that YouTube only pays artists 35% of the revenue they get, but they <i>should</i> be paying 70% "like Apple."  And then:
<blockquote><i>
So, if they had done the same percentage as say iTunes, 30/70 instead of 65/35, that's a difference of about $600 million.  Now if you take a middle class musician, say, $50,000 year, year in and year out, divide it into $600 million, that's 12,000 people that Google has siphoned the money off.  
<br /><br />
And that's 12,000 people that are now working in the salt mines of Walmart.
</i></blockquote>
There are so many things wrong with this that I'm afraid to even try to list them all.  First of all, YouTube revenue is <i>incremental</i> revenue on top of other revenue.  This is revenue <b>that did not exist at all</b> prior to YouTube setting up ContentID and monetizing those views.  This is not money that was somehow taken away from artists.  Second, the revenue is not evenly distributed as his simple "division" implies.  Bigger artists get more views, so even if his other nonsensical argument about how Google should fork over more of the money made sense, the "missing" money would still go disproportionately to bigger artists anyway.
<br /><br />
And, of course, there are so many other factors at play here, including a whole bunch of musicians who <i>only have careers because of YouTube</i>.  The fact that this "logic" is even considered seriously is so bizarre.
<br /><br />
Rennie pushed back on some of Ray's claims, and Ray just went on something of a rampage, comparing internet sites to companies that exploited child labor in the past.  When Rennie suggested that YouTube and other internet services were providing <i>new</i> and <i>incremental</i> revenue streams that simply didn't exist before, Ray referred to Rennie as <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Massa" target="_blank">"massa,"</a> which is incredibly obnoxious.  He later insisted that "pirate sites are on the payroll of multinational companies," and then said that the internet companies were "pimps" and that "iTunes pays their 'girls' 70%, but Google only pays 30%."  The fact that these companies created <i>brand new revenue streams</i> for him never seems to even enter his consciousness.
<br /><br />
Finally, when people pointed out that there are a growing number of artists who are successful primarily because of the internet and new business models and services, he mocked those success stories, arguing that they got lucky -- saying that it's "just like a casino."  Apparently, he's unfamiliar with the old recording industry which was <i>much more</i> of a pure lottery, where most people never were even allowed in the door, and ended up making nothing at all.
<br /><br />
Oh, and poor Kristin barely got to speak at all, despite actually being the one with lots of actual data to share, rather than angry, ill-informed, misguided rantings.  Later in the day I got to speak to Dave Allen, who we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091202/1845377172.shtml">written about before</a>, and who was a founding member of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four_(band)" target="_blank"><i>Gang of Four</i></a> -- a contemporary of the Dead Kennedys -- and he made a key point.  Whenever the conversation focuses on "but what do we do about piracy," it becomes a complete waste of time.  There are <i>so many</i> amazing new opportunities out there, with all sorts of fantastic ways to create, promote, connect, distribute, and monetize music.  Whining about "losses" is just time spent not seizing opportunities.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/03360022036/dead-kennedys-guitarist-joins-crusade-against-ad-networks-youtube-despite-understanding-neither.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/03360022036/dead-kennedys-guitarist-joins-crusade-against-ad-networks-youtube-despite-understanding-neither.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130220/03360022036/dead-kennedys-guitarist-joins-crusade-against-ad-networks-youtube-despite-understanding-neither.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>make-it-stop</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130220/03360022036</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Brandon Boyd Of Incubus On The Future Of Music And Life Without A Label: 'It's A Really Cool Thing Because It Keeps Everyone On Their Toes'</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/19162719948/brandon-boyd-incubus-future-music-life-without-label-its-really-cool-thing-because-it-keeps-everyone-their-toes.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/19162719948/brandon-boyd-incubus-future-music-life-without-label-its-really-cool-thing-because-it-keeps-everyone-their-toes.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Brandon Boyd has seen both ends of the music industry. With his band Incubus, Boyd rode possibly the last big wave (nu-metal) crafted by the labels. Now, faced with heading out label-less for the first time, Boyd has a <a href="http://www.noizenews.com/archives/10063" target="_blank">refreshingly realistic outlook on the challenges he and his band face in the future</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>We are, for the first time since 1996, we are free agents again. We're without a record label. So what we're kind of doing is trying to get our bearings as to what we should do next, just as a band but also as a band that is kind of off in new territory again.</i></blockquote>
Fortunately for Boyd, he's not completely unprepared for life without a label. During the shakeup at Epic Records and Sony's restructuring, Incubus sort of fell between the cracks and dealt with "a real lack of direction and leadership just when we needed it most." Surprisingly, Boyd isn't bitter about the experience and notes that it left the band free to start exploring other options, including put more effort towards connecting directly with their fans:
<blockquote>
<i>So it was hard and it was frustrating but it was also very telling for us and perhaps educational. Because what we were forced to do was we were forced into ingenuity. And so we came up with this idea to set up shop in this art gallery in Los Angeles and do the Incubus HQ and fly listeners in from different corners of the world and do these live broadcasts on the Internet. And so we started getting these ideas about subscription-based live concerts online and it ended up being a really scary and stressful project, but the fruits of it are still kind of revealing themselves. </i><br />
<br />
<i>We have this HQ box set that we're putting out and the DVD set comes out I think August 14 is the release date. There's like the superfan all six nights on DVD mixed in 5.1 with the CDs and pieces of canvases that people were drawing on in the room while we were playing music. Like I said, it's forced us to think outside of that normal music industry paradigm that we had gotten so accustomed to. And so in that sense the lack of attention from our record label and the end days of our record label relationship were really good and very beneficial for us as a band because it gave us a sense of what we might be doing in the coming years.</i></blockquote>
Living through massive disruption turns some artists into doomsayers who demand the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120220/00310917802/if-youre-going-to-compare-old-music-biz-model-with-new-music-biz-model-least-make-some-sense.shtml" target="_blank">world repent of its "sins"</a> and return to the "Old Way." Boyd lived through the so-called Napster years and came up with a completely different conclusion: adapt or be left behind. The upside of the old way was nice:
<blockquote>
<i>Linkin Park and Incubus were two of the very few bands who kind of like got a gust of wind out of the old paradigm of the music industry. But like survived out of it. There are so many bands that, bands in a traditional sense, bands who write their own music, and perform their music, that didn't survive that transition. That fell by the wayside with the industry. So it&rsquo;s been frightening to watch something that you for a very brief moment almost learned to rely on, because we learned the ins and outs of how the industry worked, you know you poured your heart out into making an album and then the label puts the record out and you go out on tour in support of the album, and we even started doing it in the van and trailer. We'd make a record and get in the van with our gear and the trailer and we'd drive ourselves around the country and sell albums and T-shirts out of the back of the trailer. That was sort of our education and then once things started going really well, thankfully, we got a sense of what it looks like when all of the, when the engine is nicely greased and things are working the way they're supposed to.</i></blockquote>
But when that way was no longer viable, Incubus moved on, rather than hold on to the way it used to be:
<blockquote>
<i>And then it's like the millennium turns and the technology changed. And all of that became old. It became an antiquated model. And it was frightening at first but I actually have come to appreciate it. I'm going to actually use the pun, a living thing. It's a living system. Our technologies are a living system just like we are and our communities as human beings, and for us to expect them to remain constant is really just quite foolish. I mean anybody that's going to come to rely on the way that our music consumption is looking now is going to have the same hard lesson in less time than you think. I think that the technology is going to shift probably sooner than any of us really realize. And that's a really cool thing, because it keeps everyone on their toes. It levels the playing field, too. It's allowing for a really wonderful democratization of the music writing process and the music presenting and performing process. So what it's doing is it's making us try harder and it's making us expect the best of ourselves and the people that we work with. You know, do more with less.</i></blockquote>
That's the way it works now if you're going to succeed. It's artists vs. limited attention and limited entertainment budgets. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111222/12435717172/louis-ck-over-1-million-sales-just-12-days-drm-free-download.shtml" target="_blank">A connection is vital</a> and a willingness to explore every option is nearly mandatory if you're going to get anywhere.<br />
<br />
What's more amazing about these statements is there is no mention of the music industry's favorite villain, piracy. Boyd sees what the real issue is: disruption. And rather than wait for someone to "fix" the "problem," he's moving as fast as he can to stay ahead of the curve. He's not letting his situation be dictated by others and because of that, he's got a good chance to keep his creative career going.
<blockquote>
<i>I personally, when all is said and done, I really welcome these changes. And they excite me. And they scare me at the same time, but I'm choosing to focus on the excitement.</i></blockquote>
It <i>is</i> a scary time to be an artist. <i>Nothing</i>'is guaranteed. But it's also a time when the field is wide open and the possibilities nearly unlimited. Focusing on the wrong aspect gets you nowhere, but being willing to look past everything that seems to be going <i>wrong</i> and make the most of what's going right.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/19162719948/brandon-boyd-incubus-future-music-life-without-label-its-really-cool-thing-because-it-keeps-everyone-their-toes.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/19162719948/brandon-boyd-incubus-future-music-life-without-label-its-really-cool-thing-because-it-keeps-everyone-their-toes.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/19162719948/brandon-boyd-incubus-future-music-life-without-label-its-really-cool-thing-because-it-keeps-everyone-their-toes.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-easier-to-move-forward-when-you're-already-looking-that-direction</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120806/19162719948</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Incubus Promotes New Album With Misguided Anti-Piracy 8-Bit Video Game?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The band Incubus has decided that a way to attract fans to its new album is to <a href="http://mashable.com/2011/07/14/incubattle/" target="_blank">release an 8-bit video game in which the point is to "fight music pirates,"</a> by literally punching them as they try to get and leak Incubus' new album.
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/2kEk2h.jpg" width=560>
</center>
However, as <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/117325987826570582942/posts/fyRuzuuT8LL" target="_blank">Rob Sheridan points out</a>, the new album has already actually leaked in real life, "so I guess the game can't be won."  I think Sheridan sums it up nicely:
<blockquote><i>
Seriously? How about fighting the record label dorks or manufacturing companies who let the album leak in the first place? Maybe the boss battle should be with the label exec who can't come up with a modern release plan that avoids leaks entirely?
</i></blockquote>
Oddly, Mashable claims that attacking fans who are interested in the band's music is part of the band's savvy "social-media flavored album release campaign."  Sorry, but calling your fans pirates, and showing how you want to beat them up doesn't seem particularly social.  The whole target of the campaign just seems weird and misguided.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/10052015091/incubus-promotes-new-album-with-misguided-anti-piracy-8-bit-video-game.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-that'll-win-fans</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110714/10052015091</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>