On Hot Press and My Place In The Real Economy

The business between IMRO and music blogs like this one has ramped up a little in time for the weekend. Following the sending out of notices, there's been an article on the Guardian, a hive of discussion over at On The Record, a veritable frenzy on Twitter (including a comment by that great and distressingly tall Irishman Graham Linehan), a petition, a Facebook group, and tonight an article on Hot Press.
IMRO have delayed in answering some of our questions, and have promised to unveil an FAQ shortly which will clear up any confusion to everyone's general satisfaction, I'm sure. In the meantime, they've offered to meet with us next week, with the same aim in mind. This is a good thing.
Before I turn to the Hot Press article, let me dwell on another development from today, one concerning the fine new Dublin band, The Cast of Cheers. That's the cover of their new album you see above, made available as a free download on Bandcamp. It's a very good album, and the band, being the people responsible for it, have been praised accordingly, winning countless new fans and supporters.
The band were due to play an IMRO showcase tomorrow night, but have cancelled. In a way, this is because of another group of Irish music do-gooders, Dublin label The Richter Collective. I have yet to mention them much here, a lamentable oversight on my part, and one I intend to correct. They've helped bring much fine Irish music to many fine Irish ears, and they too deserve the praise they've gotten. So it comes as a surprise that IMRO, who consider themselves "synonymous with helping to showcase emerging talent in Ireland", have informed the label that they don't have the right to upload songs recorded by their artists to their own website - at least not without the same licence they recommend we buy.
This, I'm sure I don't need to tell you, is ridiculous. This is why The Cast of Cheers pulled out of the IMRO show: "in a show of support for us", as the Richter Collective tweeted.
Anyway, let's put an end to the digression and turn to Hot Press and their article.
It's a bad article.
It's unfair and inaccurate. There are a few classic hallmarks of bad journalism in there: the fact that it's written about people who weren't once contacted for comment, the scathing, unfounded and unchallenged remarks from anonymous contributors, the opening assertation that the piece presents both sides of the story.
It opens with the line: "Hot Press has been talking to people on both sides of the online music payment divide." Yet curiously, none of them were the three bloggers contacted by IMRO. Presumably they're referring to Michael Roe of The Richter Collective, who in fairness, is given space to put his point across quite well. But he's not speaking as a blogger.
IMRO CEO Victor Finn is quoted, restating that people need permission to make songs available, but not revealing whether or not he agrees that band's have to the right to give that permission - one of the key issues at the heart of this debate. Musician Declan De Barra makes a fine defence of this right.
There are a few odd comments inserted throughout the piece. They mention that some sites are ad-free, and essentially run on enthusiasm, but they don't mention that two of the three concerned sites fall into this category, preferring instead to list the ads recently seen on Nialler9. Most notably, two anonymous sources are quoted, making rather contentious comments about blogs and advertising. Firstly, a nameless advertising industry insider describes these ads as "a handy little earner," though they go on to note that "[o]ne of the weaknesses of blogs is that they tend to be frequented by a small number of people who create a disproportionate number of page impressions, so for obvious reasons no one is willing to pay much to be on those kind of sites."
Instead of a quote from me, or one of the other concerned bloggers, who were deemed uninteresting and unessential to the task at hand, we are given this conjecture, which adds nothing to the debate, and is not based on any knowledge of any of our sites. I'm not sure what relevance it has, but it certainly sounds bad. I imagine a lot of readers would like to know what our reservations about the licence are, but I guess the anonymous source was more reliable.
The second anonymous contributor is the one with the best lines, though. Named only as an IMRO songwriter, he declares:
Look, it isn’t exactly a popular thing to say, but the fact is that bloggers are part of the real economy. In lots of cases they're looking for and accepting payment for advertising. And to generate the traffic which attracts advertising they're indiscriminately using other people's music – often international music and often by big name artists.
I’m all for people being able to waive any royalties they might be due, if they want to. I might do it myself. But that’s different from someone deciding they’ll take whatever music they want, and do whatever they feel like with it with no permission from anybody.
This blog does not look for payment for advertising. Neither does Asleep on the Compost Heap. That's two of the three concerned blogs. Any regular reader will have surely noticed that I frequently fall behind on posting, conduct ill-suited to a blogger trying to generate traffic - and when it comes to the "international music" (what? Is foreign music especially popular or something?) and Big Name Artists, well, I may as well not be trying at all.
None of the concerned blogs are known for being the kind to "take whatever music [we] want and do whatever [we] feel like with it with no permission from anybody." The quotation is superfluous, and that unrelated assertation should have been challenged.
One thing I will agree with, however. Some of us do have a place in The Real Economy. Not because of the streams of euro flowing from my laptop to my bank account, though that surely helps. Not because of the protection money I beat out of poor Irish musicians while they carry me home from a day's carousing. It's because of the promotion the bands get. It's not everything, and it's not a lot compared to what the likes of Hot Press could do. But it's the difference between The Ambience Affair being heard on U.S. television, and not. It's the difference between The Richter Collective eschewing an advertising budget for free online promotion, and not.
I've already made it clear I'm in favour of artist's getting royalties, and I'm open to getting a licence. But there are problems with the system IMRO are trying to enforce, and we need to talk about them, instead of getting distracted by whether or not blog traffic is disproportionate, or other blogs use Big Name Artists. We need to focus on the important things.













