News

Indie Labels and the Importance of Webcasting

Jon Healey of the LA Times points to some research from Live365 that confirms what many have long suspected – webcasting and the Internet is far more important to independent labels than it is to the majors.  The company reports that 55 percent of music played on webcasting stations comes from independent artists, a significant variation from the CD and commercial radio market where the major labels control an overwhelming percentage of the market.  This not only means that staying online is more important to the indie labels (who don't get the same exposure elsewhere), but has huge implications from a Canadian perspective assuming the market is similar here. 

First, given that independent labels are responsible for nearly 90 percent of new Canadian music, the importance of creating a legal environment that supports webcasting is magnified in Canada.  Second, in light of questions about the fairness of copyright collective distribution models for the private copying levy (which may be similarly disporportionately skewed toward the majors and a select few Canadian artists), the reliance on conventional radio sampling and sales may be a very poor proxy for identifying the music that Canadians are listening to and copying.  Third, it reinforces the need for policy makers and politicians to reach out beyond CRIA, which represents the majors, and instead pay far more attention to the independent labels (CIRPA) and the artists (CMCC).

4 Comments

  1. Crosbie Fitch says:

    Control
    It is therefore important to ensure that CRIA cannot use enforcement of compulsory licensing fees to control the independent broadcasters/webcasters/promoters favoured by independent musicians/songwriters/composers. No doubt CRIA would prefer to control all channels without allowing upstart independents to start making inroads into their territory – despite a business model that doesn’t rely upon copyright (or even levies).

  2. James Bourne says:

    SoundExchange
    It may be possible that this could loosen the grip of SoundExchange in the US. They collect for recording companies and artists from Internet based radio stations, but in the case of independent artists it may be possible that they are collecting fees on music to which fees are not due.

    There could (at some point) be an internet based streaming radio station which plays only music to which fees are not collectible, perhaps this is already the case…

    If this is the case, SoundExchange (and at some point another service like it in Canada) would not be able to enforce collection of fees on the music streamed, making this model (Independent artist and streaming internet radio station dedicated to free music play) an attractive alternative for artists, broadcasters, and listeners.

  3. I can count my recent purchases of major releases on one hand:

    Tegan & Sara : The Con
    Suzanne Vega : Beauty & Crime
    Laurie Anderson : Big Science (remastered 2007)
    Sonic Youth : Daydream Nation (remastered 2007)
    Holly McNarland : Chin Up Buttercup
    Arctic Monkeys : Favourite Worst Nightmare *

    * does this count? It’s Domino, distributed by Warner.

    What is listed above is music fitting the indie world and the majors don’t know how to “deal” with releases like this anyways.

    The rest, and it’s A LOT, is all indie.

  4. Brent Hannah says:

    What right does sound exchange have
    What right does sound exchange have over independent music? It was my understanding that they will be responsible for collecting revenue for all streamed music, even if no money is due. So even if a station only played indie music by labels that agree not to seek revenue, that Sound exchange could sue for payment. It would then be up to the station to prove that it is exempt, thereby forcing a costly lawsuit and driving the station out of existence. Doesn’t that sound like a familiar tactic?