The seemingly insurmountable challenges facing independent labels was made all the more clearer to me this week after a conversation with a techno label owner. The manager, who shall remain nameless at his own request, is a well-known figure in electronic music and, after some deliberation, recently set up a label. The first release was by an upcoming techno producer and was originally released on vinyl only. While the first pressing of 500 copies sold out, the label owner decided to make the release available digitally on all the major platforms. Within a day or two, the problems started. During a cursory net search to make sure that the record had been released digitally on the agreed date (it was), he decided to Google the release using the terms "artist name, release name, download". Let's hand over to the label owner himself to explain what happened next...
"Up sprang over 6,500 results, so I was surprised! But soon after that I got very angry because after searching the first 10 result pages, it was clear that the release was available to download for free, in high quality formats. What pissed me off the most was that nearly all of the places where you could get the release for free were dressed up as fan blogs. Some of them had nice designs, techno-style names, and a few of them even had posted the blurb from places like Boomkat to make it look like they had included some editorial..."
On the other hand, the more garish sites, according to our label man, were looking for donations from users and were full of ads. However, all of the sites, both the credible blogs and the dodgier looking ones, claimed that the music should be downloaded for 'evaluation' purposes only, and, rather ridiculously, given that they were engaged in a wholesale scam, urged users to support the artists by buying a copy of the release. The fact that this request was made right beside a free, illegal download link to a high-quality digital format didn't seem to worry them at all. Indeed, the problem our label owner faced was that countless blogs had linked to downloads provided by third-party upload/download services (I'm not going to mention which ones), meaning that the availability of the release wasn't confined to a few sites, but had widened, within a day of the legal digital release, to hundreds of sites. Of course, the argument could go that the music is of a specialist nature and that as a result of illegal downloading, the label will only miss out on a handful of digital sales. Back to the label owner, who clearly disagrees with this sentiment.
"The release had already been downloaded over 200 times by the time I discovered one of the links and on some of the sites, close to a thousand users had looked at the download. It doesn't mean that they all downloaded the files, but it gave me an idea that the release had been downloaded a lot. I have never been a big downloader myself, so this really shocked me."
Thankfully, our label man acted quickly and decisively; he sent out warning emails to sites that had email addresses or contact forms and within a few hours, half the illegal links had disappeared. While he has now contacted services like Blogger to get rid of the other links - as many of them are still available on blogs - he was amazed by the lack of realisation among site owners that what they were doing was illegal, morally wrong and financially damaging for a small label...
"The crazy thing was, when I emailed some of the fan sites to take down the links, some of them emailed back to apologise and then one or two said 'hey man, that's a great release by the way'. So I replied with, 'well thanks very much, but if you think it's so good, maybe you could go and buy a copy of the release and support the artist and my label so it doesn't go out of business'. There was no reply after this..."
The net effect of this incident is that the label is now considering only releasing music on vinyl from now on - apparently a Google search at the time of the vinyl release yielded only links to news, reviews, notifications and online stores - because it's more complicated to rip MP3s from vinyl to buy a digital copy and disperse it. I hope that this is not the outcome because it's a promising label and it would be great for the most amount of people possible to hear/play it. Of course, the incident also raises questions as to whether the electronic music community, which would include sites like Beatport, Junodownload, Bleep, Boomkat - who are also losing out from this behaviour - should set up a 'digital police force' to clamp down on digital piracy. Or maybe we'll just see more labels releasing on vinyl only from now on?