BANDCAMP PROTOCOL

[THE RITA HN]

Forgive me if I've totally missed the topic elsewhere, but what is the protocol with labels releasing hard copies of releases and then also featuring the same recordings on their Bandcamp account for indefinite sales.  Personally, I'm starting to realize I only ever see my artist hard copies.
Some questions:
- Do some of the labels here keep track of the Bandcamp sales and offer the artist something like quarterly 20% payments of the money they've made as a royalty?
- Do some artists here refuse to let the labels feature the hard copy releases online?
- Do some artists simply post the same release from another label on their own personal Bandcamp page?
I'm not trying to start anything to show up at someone's house like the other industry I work in, but simply wanted to see what most people do about Bandcamp royalties, etc.

[Peterson]

I've noticed cases of the latter two scenarios - leaving Bandcamp for digital-only and relegating physical copies to email-based mailorder just for the sake of simplicity, and I've known of plenty of releases featured on label BC profiles which were also on the artist's personal BC, often times with different artwork etc. And there are of course instances I've noticed where a label will sell both downloads and physical copies off BC, as well as the artist doing the same with their copies.

I can't speak to the royalty factor but I would imagine there are cases of profit going to artists and likely some artists who simply want the profits to go the label's future efforts.

Edit: I should add I plan to release some stuff by a few projects other than mine in the near future and I will probably leave it up to the individual artists as to whether or not their stuff is featured on my BC page.

Hope that kinda helps.

[Andrew McIntosh]

- Do some of the labels here keep track of the Bandcamp sales and offer the artist something like quarterly 20% payments of the money they've made as a royalty?

They'd bloody well want to. Sound is sound and sales are sales, hard copy or download. It's something I've thought about as well.

[FallOfNature]

I don't use bandcamp, nor will I ever - but I have looked into it in the past. Running a label account rather than an artist account costs, and I can't see it being a profitable venture if you're promoting art with a very fringe audience ie the small noise/industrial label. For someone like Cryo Chamber, Cold Spring or Tesco it may be different story though.

I do encourage anyone I work with to maintain their own page though if they so wish to.

[tiny_tove]

I authorized only two labels to use my stuff on bandcamp, at least for paid copies.
I upload some stuff on my own releases, because it would be difficult to trace and split costs with other units, other labels, etc.

I think it is criminal to sell digital copies without sharing the even scarce revenues with labels.
Sam I suggest you to contact every label and ask for either what they owe you or remove the records.
I think you can easily understand by checking who supported each release.

I am not against digital albums, and considering uploading more stuff in future, but this should never be done on the work of other people.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I personally think that artists should have all money of digital sales. Not only "royalty". Unless there is some unusual effort put into whole project behalf of label. Lets say, label spends XXX USD to pay studio, mastering, artwork or such. Rather uncommon in noise. But in such case, one would think label gets something from digital sale of material it enabled to be done.

In typical case, where artists does basically everything, and label is the one who's job is just to manufacture and ship items - if there is no manufacturing, shipping and promotion at all, just "bandcamp page" where people pay - I'd say there is no label involvement to such degree it would justify even cut of money. Rules of the mainstream business is totally different, as labels pay the bills and make investments and recoup vast amounts of money spent in advance. Digital noise sales would be entirely different thing.

But after all, when you really look at it, then how big could be digital sale income of noise? I recall great story of one higher profile noise artist getting paid for the royalties of iTunes sales and after time consuming calculations of what items sold and who gets what and the change thrown into envelope wasn't worth of stamp to deliver him cash. For reason or another, couldn't take transfers at the time.

I, as label, don't care. Every band is free to use their album at their own bandscamp or throw into youtube as full album if they feel like it. I don't have time or energy for such. Not for calculating who gets what and not even uploading things. Even uploading any of my own works seems bigger task than "releasing cd".

[WCN]

if there is no manufacturing, shipping and promotion at all, just "bandcamp page" where people pay - I'd say there is no label involvement to such degree it would justify even cut of money.

Absolutely, and unless the artist has signed anything over, the music still belongs to the artist, not the label. Trust and ethics allow the "20% artist copies as royalties" system to work most of the time, but I see uploading an artists work to sell without even discussing the terms with the artist a clear violation of these ethics. And as if the artist is stuck in the caveman era and won't notice?

[Leatherface]

No Bandcamp for Death Continues Records, hard copies only.

[Duncan]

If you think a significant amount of purchases might have been made then there's no harm in writing to the labels and posing this very question directly. Up until now it might not have been something anyone thought about and hopefully all sides will be amenable to finding a fair outcome. I have always checked with labels uploading to bandcamp whether they mind me doing the same on mine and the answer is always 'it's your music, you're in charge'. That said, I usually make this stuff available for free.

This is going to be an increasingly important thing for people to get ironed out prior to submitting work to labels. Bandcamp has moved quickly from being a convenient way to digitally represent music to a primary means of music listening for many. I suspect we have a fair few digital agnostics on this board but I know of many, many experimental music 'consumers' who love bandcamp both for its ease of use and as a way to directly support artists.

[Theodore]

Nice topic. I am not an artist neither have a label but my opinion is that a label shouldn't sell on Bandcamp other's people music unless arrangements have been made and permission is given. Also, artists shouldn't sell on Bandcamp or giving files for free till the physical release sold out from the label -at least-. It's matter of mutual respect, to other's work, time and money.

[urall]

When i put releases online from my old label i always explicitly asked the artists for their permission. Bandcamp digital sales are to the extend that the amount is fewer than the paypal fee you'd pay when giving artist royalties. Of course this was a small diy hc/punk/metal label. I can see the matter being more relevant when selling a lot.

[totalblack]

I've noticed cases of the latter two scenarios - leaving Bandcamp for digital-only and relegating physical copies to email-based mailorder just for the sake of simplicity, and I've known of plenty of releases featured on label BC profiles which were also on the artist's personal BC, often times with different artwork etc. And there are of course instances I've noticed where a label will sell both downloads and physical copies off BC, as well as the artist doing the same with their copies.

I can't speak to the royalty factor but I would imagine there are cases of profit going to artists and likely some artists who simply want the profits to go the label's future efforts.

This is the way that I have been doing things the last few years, after getting a constantly escalating number of emails everytime something would be released requesting emails with digital versions, or having people YouTube uploading tape rips of things anyway. Free digital versions included in most releases, and I give an even split to the artists, and also don't care if they have their own digital sales as well. This is actually much less of a relevant topic for noise releases, and applies more to post-Techno industrial artists, people who are friends of mine that ask me to release their music on tape format but also require me to pay for it to be mastered so the digital versions can be played in clubs. Amount of people willing to pay for a digital of noise releases is super small in my experience. For example highest payout I've done for something like this is about 35€ to Puce Mary \ Sewer Election for 2 years of digital sales

[tiny_tove]

I personally think that artists should have all money of digital sales. Not only "royalty". Unless there is some unusual effort put into whole project behalf of label. Lets say, label spends XXX USD to pay studio, mastering, artwork or such. Rather uncommon in noise. But in such case, one would think label gets something from digital sale of material it enabled to be done.

agree on this fully
if label is involved in the release itself somehow (for example wrath on my c031 tape or iops on c031 bachelorette), I think it is even the label supports can share this.

[Euro Trash Bazooka]

It is also possible for labels to upload music on Bandcamp and prevent it from being downloadable. Labels could do that. I don't know if a label ALWAYS has to cater to every specific need of a potential customer. A label puts out records. That's what they should focus on. Digital sales amount to such a small amount of money in the noise/industrial/yaddayadda scenes that the music should either be shared for free by the artist if they want to (after an agreement with the label, or once the physical release is sold out), or only through the physical media chosen by the artist and label in my humble opinion.

I refuse to accommodate lazy consumers who don't want to appreciate the efforts I make to put out something good and that is meant to be a full-package "product" (music + art + medium.) Whatever I put out isn't meant to be stored in a 2 tera hard drive and forgotten 5 days later. I mean, considering the time we invest in those things we do, I actually find those demands insulting. But then, to each their own...

[magnus]

This is a genuine question, maybe someone with a bandcamp-page can answer - does anyone actually pay for downloading stuff from these sites? I have never done it, i recently did download a "digital only" release that was free (but have yet to figure out how to put it on a cd so i can listen to it - yes, stuck in the caveman age for sure). Even if it´s not for me personally it seems like a good idea, no expensive shippingcost, no waiting for weeks for stuff to arrive etc - but does it work?