Would you buy a music-related NFT?

I don’t know, fleecing an idiot out of some actual money in exchange for 85% of nothing seems like a tangible consequence.

1 Like

Did you see a DAO (a collective of people using Web3) bought the Wu Tang album?

here we go…

Oh nothing, but I guess for artists the provable scarcity makes it worth creating in the first place - they know they can sell one copy (or maybe an edition) in the same way they would a painting (or print) and it have a similar appeal to collectors.

Okay I get that they could get a cut of resale, I’m asking again why they should. If I buy a car from Ford, should Ford get a cut when I sell it? And then every sale thereafter?

If I want to sell one of my records, why should I pay the band?

I guess in both circumstances, it’s similar.

If it meant Ford could benefit from resales, the initial car might be cheaper - and could potentially aim to make cars last longer, be able to service them to keep them in a better state for longer, build them so they could be easily modified as technology improves…?

When you resell a record, why shouldn’t the label who invested or the artist or songwriters or person who designed the cover get a cut? If you resold a gig ticket for a profit, why is it viewed different to records?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not fully sold on the current state of this technology, but the potential of it, especially if you have any awareness of the financial downward spiral and constraints of the creative industry, really intrigues me. Especially as a next iteration of the fan-funding.

Back in 2008. I had a lot of meetings about continuing the DiS label with Bandstocks, who had funded a Patrick Wolf album, and the proceeds then community-funded a Fryars album.

https://gigaom.com/2008/08/27/419-bandstocks-another-fan-funding-music-site-backed-by-friends-reunited-fo/

I think there are too many other implications if we say that artists should get a cut of resales. Should charity shops have to pay primark a cut every time they resell one of their garments? What about the architect who designed your home? What if the artist can’t be identified/traced easily? How would it be implemented if you’re reselling something on ebay? How do you determine how much the artist gets when they’re not involved in the sale?

Because I paid them for it

8 Likes

The whole point of this tech is that it’s all interconnected - just like your car ownership history sits on a government ledger somewhere and “they” know when the MOT is due.

Is this what it’s like getting old and not understanding things? Because this all just seems laughably shit and embarrassing but old people probably thought that the internet etc

11 Likes

Technically, the record label paid them for the rights to make the record (or make it available on streaming), and then you consumed one of their copies of it. Technically, you don’t have the right to copy or broadcast it (you’re meant to have a different Spotify account for pubs, etc) but it’s really hard for that to be enforced with the current technology, obvs.

Yeah but I mean, if we agree on the principle that creators are entitled to a cut of resales, then we’d have to apply that across the board, and how do you identify the creator of a jumper in a charity shop that’s had the tags cut off or find who the money should go to when you resell a record from the 50s on ebay?

2 Likes

There’s royalties in place for the songwriters and performers to get money from plays in pubs or radio or film or wherever else public. That’s an entirely separate issue.

I questioned why an artist should get a cut of resale of an NFT, if this is basically no different to me maybe buying a limited artwork or whatever, and I still don’t see any justification. You’re suggesting it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the record label to get a cut of record resales, I’m saying it absolutely would.

From what I know, the reason some places insist on artists getting a cut on resale is the prices that the often go up, astronomically in some cases when speculators/investors snap up the work and resale/flip not long after. i.e. the resellers and making a mint, whereas the original artists sees none of it.

1 Like

I buy less art than I used to, but some higher end galleries often have a clause saying if you want to sell a piece in the first year, you should offer back to the gallery first. To combat the flipping and profitting.

1 Like

Well there’s nothing stopping the artist selling at a higher price, or if it’s being auctioned then it goes for whatever it goes for, and the risk lies with the buyer if they want to flip it.

I suppose the root of what I’m asking is what makes a musician/record label/artist special in wanting to be paid again and again for selling one thing, as opposed to other examples given in this thread (car manufacturers, house builders, clothes designers).

2 Likes

I think it depends if you’re thinking about a Taylor Swift major label album or a new release on a label like Alcopop, which may be limited to 1000 copies due to the current size of the act, their marketing limitations etc. Imagine if that act does a Moldy Peaches with a big movie sync and suddenly loads of people want to buy a first edition of their record. Why shouldn’t Alcopop, who may have lost £100s on releasing the record, benefit from spotting and investing in talent if those now limited edition records are valuable? The artist then may recoup and get more money too. And Alcopop then spend any profits investing in another great new act and the cycle starts over again… what they add is their talent spotting, perhaps believing and investing in an artist that no one else would.

Or I dunno, if a modern day Tony Wilson and Peter Saville made an iconic cover to a record like Unknown Pleasures, they could potentially have envisaged a deal where they get a cut of every H&M t-shirt sale or Etsy poster… it might make people really invest in their album covers again. And write smart contracts which allows this to pay off in different ways.

We’re currently living in an era where it’s increasingly clear that those who once invested in creative individuals, especially musicians, is challenging. Corners are cut. Dodgy business practices are being exacerbated. Artists are increasingly choosing to self release to existing fanbases instead of having the means to grow their audience.

Anyway this is all complicated and theoretical and I think I’m in quite an unusual position of being in this soup for 15 years or more, and looking for solutions. Especially trying to find ways to fund quality journalism and to move beyond ad-supporter media (and music in the case of YouTube and free tier streaming)

Feels a bit like everyone thinking I was an idiot starting a website in 2000. Or doing my fanzine by email in 2018. Or being on Twitter 14 years ago. Not sure I’m right and there’s definitely a lot of the wrong people making a lot of noise about this tech, who are likely to create the same monopolies of scale… but the decentralised idea of this tech is meant to stop that.

I’m still not sure what “smart” contracts offer that are outside the scope of regular contracts, tbh.

They can benefit, assuming they still have the rights they can reissue the record, they can give it the fanciest new edition they want and charge £150 a go.

You’re asking why they shouldn’t get a cut of me reselling my copy of that record for £200, the answer is because it isn’t theirs.

7 Likes

I’ve seen the argument about people being disparaging about a “new medium” when criticisng NFTs, but is that really a comparison? Websites were genuinely something new - whereas NFTs seem to be about forcing old ideas of scarcity into the online culture that is defined, for better or worse, mass availability of music and art and what have you.

Like I may ultimately be proven to be an old man yelling at the impending mass of flood plains as far as the eye can see, but I can’t really see myself feeling like I missed something good

10 Likes