In debates over the ethics of unpaid P2P file-sharing, an oft-heard argument is that new artists like it because they can expose their work to the world, and that evil record labels take all the money anyway so that the unauthorized downloader is only engaged in Robin Hood-like taking from them and not from the artists.

Check out Digital Onramp, which bills itself as:

[T]he easiest, most cost-effective way for independent artists and labels worldwide to distribute their music online.

By distributing music through established DMI digital distribution channels, independent artists and labels immediately gain improved worldwide exposure and increased sales opportunities.

The charge is 15% of the artist's take, plus a per-load fee (unspecified).

Other such services may exist -- this one was advertised on the Digital Music News e-letter (signup required), which provides some certification of reputability.

Such a service cuts the ground out from under those who insist that free distribution is good for artists, because it allows the artists themselves to vote on the proposition.

It also provides a test for both the labels and their slanderers; in the digital age, do labels perform services that are worth their cut of the take? I suspect that the answer will be "yes": that labels will remain important talent scouts, certifiers, and marketers.

I also suspect that artists will find that they must sign up with labels because only the labels will be able to protect the artists' IP (there are economies of scale here); independents will be mercilessly ravaged by their "fans."

But that's why we have markets -- to find out the answers to such questions.

posted by James DeLong @ 8:48 AM | Internet: P2P, Search Engines...

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)