Bandcamp Editorial

For the most part, I try to avoid editorializing here on my blog (and just about everywhere else). I also try to avoid saying anything that hints at negativity or grousing. Hopefully, you come to my blog to find my music, recommendations, news, download links, etc.

But this is one of those rare occasions where I feel it necessary to step up and speak out.

For the past few months, I have been praising the music site Bandcamp and highly recommending it to my friends and other artists, many of whom have their music posted on the site. There’s no need for me to link to the site, because it’s a popular site and you know how to find it anyway.

As most people who listen to my music know, I make most of my music available for free through a Creative Commons license. Even when I do charge for it, it usually can still be found for free at the netlabels and through promos, etc.

Previously, Bandcamp made it quite easy for Creative Commons artists to provide free music on their site. They even offered nifty Creative Commons tags for doing so.

Now, all that has changed.

Bandcamp has arbitrarily decided that artists who give away their music must now pay Bandcamp for that privilege. That’s right. In order for me to provide my free Creative Commons music on Bandcamp, I must pay them a fee for a certain number of free downloads.

This flys in the face of the Creative Commons philosophy. Bandcamp is no longer Creative Commons friendly.

I understand that to store my highest bitrate music files anywhere on the internet (with the exception of Archive.org and other similar sites), I will pay what amounts to a hosting fee. I am not opposed to that at all. I suppose I could look at Bandcamp’s fee as a hosting fee.

But this new fee is in addition to the percentage fee (cut) they take from me when I do sell a track or a release on Bandcamp. They are taking their share from my sales (fair enough) and now they’re telling me that to share my non-pay CC releases, they want me to pay for that, too!

I am opposed to a site that calls itself a Creative Commons (sharing) venue, but then forces (yes, forces) the artists who provide their site with Creative Commons content to pay them. This is both ironic and inconsistent.

The romance with Bandcamp is over for me. I won’t be recommending Bandcamp to my friends or to other artists. In fact, I will have nothing positive to say about Bandcamp henceforth.

You have to wonder about their business acumen as well. Bandcamp has denied themselves an important way of generating site traffic and positive vibes and goodwill from the Creative Commons community. They have virtually spit in the face of the Creative Commons artists and netlabels who have freely given them content and driven traffic to their site.

In addition, I highly regret the positive (and free!) word-of-mouth advertising I have done for Bandcamp, without them paying me to do so.

Phil Wilkerson

---

Update (in response to comments below; I also posted this on the Bandcamp blog announcing the download fee) – I have no issues with Bandcamp generating revenue. What I take issue with is their use of viral marketing to attract the Creative Commons “crowd” by encouraging music sharing on their site in the first place with their touting Creative Commons licensing and tagging.

They’ve used a classic “bait-and-switch.” The CC content providers who did jump on their bandwagon and upload music and encourage other CC content providers to use the site now have an additional cost (agreed, free music does have a cost).

I take exception to Bandcamp claiming to be a Creative Commons venue, (i.e., a sharing community) but placing additional fees upon their CC content providers.

Bandcamp admits the “little guys” won’t be affected by this change–it’s only a couple of hundred artists (which probably includes netlabels) who will be impacted. And I would admit, netlabels don’t need to be using Bandcamp’s resources and bandwidth as a free alternative to paid hosting.

Perhaps Bandcamp should charge the netlabels a fee and leave the “little guys” alone.

My biggest regret is being a Bandcamp advocate to the Creative Commons community. That’s what I won’t be doing any longer.

---

Update – Well, Bandcamp didn’t approve or post my entry on their blog (which is mostly pro-statements about the new fees and denigrating comments about sharing music), but they did send me an email:

Hi, J– at Bandcamp here. I don’t understand why you’re conflating CC licensing with zero-cost distribution. Did Nina Paley expect/demand/require that her creative tools be free to her? That the cinemas that showed her film refuse to pay their heating and electric? I think it’s a logical mistake to promote CC (good) and insist that all distribution channels of CC content be zero-cost. Archive.org exists because others bear the cost, not because the distribution is free. I’ve donated money to archive.org, have you?

My response:

Thanks for writing back.

I haven’t made the logical mistake of insisting that Creative Commons (CC) distribution channels be zero-cost.

Quite the opposite, I’ve said clearly that free music does have a cost. Musicians have a cost to create; websites have a cost to distribute. I completely understand that.

What I said is that Bandcamp initially appeared to embrace the CC philosophy of being a “sharing” community. No fees involved! You intentionally opened your arms to the CC crowd to take advantage of the viral effects of that crowd (free advertising and free-to-you content). However, as you should have realized (I won’t accuse you of realizing it beforehand), the majority of the CC content providers don’t have the means to pay.

These aren’t artists who make already make a ton of cash and use free give-aways to attract more fans. These are artists who make music for the love of sharing it. Creative Commons is about sharing and sharing is about giving away the content.

You used a “bait and switch” after attracting the CC crowd and getting their content onto your website. Now you expect fees (rather than donations) for the right to share from your site. This is the inconsistency and the wrong you’ve perpetrated on the CC crowd who embraced you back. This is a slap in the face. You’ve made it about money and fees and revenue. That win-lose (on both sides).

You’re already taking a share of the sales. That’s fine and that’s fair. Good business.That’s win-win (on both sides).

Suggestion – how about setting up Bandcamp as *also* accepting donations if you want to be like Archive.org and win back the favor of the CC crowd and their content. But realize that not everyone who creates CC content can or will donate. They’re donating by providing content and attracting (advertising) people (traffic) to your website (business). That’s win-win, too!

I also said that the CC netlabels shouldn’t confuse Bandcamp with Archive.org and take advantage of Bandcamp by viewing your service as a free hosting site for their content.

I’ve suggested that Bandcamp set up a model for netlabels and leave the so-called little guys (your term) alone.

(For the record, no, I’ve never contributed $ to Archive.org, but I have contributed content.)