peer-to-peer (P2P) file distribution network, thanks to Digital Bazaar, Inc., which launched Bitmunk, launched. The innovative distribution model allows fans to purchase digital music and then re-sell it to other fans. Royalties from any sale go to the artist, regardless of who makes the sale. Digital Bazaar’s creation combines word-of-mouth marketing, affiliate marketing, and street team marketing into a single, artist-friendly service. Interesting, no? CD Baby thought so, and partnered with Digital Bazaar earlier this month to distribute CD Baby artists through the P2P network. The site has a long way to go before competing with an iTunes. According to Jordan Running from theP2Pweblog, “[The] site is fairly dismal when it comes to finding good music, with an absence of user ratings, Top 10 lists, or even a search button, and the process to get started buying and selling music looks pretty convoluted.” A more favorable comment was made by Monoman: “The notion of a distributed content marketplace is what Kendra has been trying to achieve for some time; now it looks like Bitmunk has done it, albeit over P2P.” Todd at Billboard compared the business model to Shared Media Licensing’s WEEDSHARE, which compensates people ‘to do the right thing’.” It will be very interesting to see how the new service performs. ]]>
Bitmunk Empowers Bands With P2P File Distribution
3 responses to “Bitmunk Empowers Bands With P2P File Distribution”
Sorry I don’t have anything to say about Bitnunk, though it does sound cool. Instead I want to abuse this space by first expressing support for GarageSpin and my sincere hope that you keep up the unique combination of optimistic attitude and relevant focus regarding topics that matter in the rapidly changing music industry today. I’m not just blowing smoke up your ass with that comment either, in today’s culture of concentrated cynicism I’m forced to point out that really, I mean this.
But back on that cynicism riff (I can never leave it alone for long), something about GarageSpin bothers me. Why does it have to use the word “indie” all the time? I realize that the hip lexicographers at dictionary.com and elsewhere technically legitimize the word but frankly, to Hell with them. Beyond finding it distracting on a personal level, and being of the opinion that in the case of GarageSpin it’s a needless affectation of your otherwise good writing, I want to just point out that from a logical standpoint it’s really not necessary at all:
1. One, such as a studio or producer, that is unaffiliated with a larger or more commercial organization.
Of, relating to, or being an indie: an album of indie rock; an indie film company.
Yes, we get it. GarageSpin is not trying to reach Avril Lavigne or Beck. You are trying to talk to us, normal people struggling in the music business. And on that note of struggling maybe being “indie” as in “independent” actually *isn’t* what it’s all about these days. Maybe we should be finding new ways to *depend* on each other so we can stop being bitches (In the prison inmate sense) and start being an actual economic force (Bitmunk?).
Please drop the “indie” pretension and by “drop” I mean from everywhere on the site. It really is a waste of space, it insults us. And by “us” I mean me at least, your loyal audience. It’s not that I want to pick on GrageSpin either, in fact I want to elevate it. I sense you are better than resorting to cheesy marketing terms. It’s everywhere: indie, indie, indie. We’re all indie like we’re all middle class, there’s no need to point it out.
Can we please just work on and write about making good music and being relevant artists?
Thank you for you excellent feedback, it’s some of the best and most useful I’ve received.
You hit some big issues right on the money. I started to post a long reply, then decided it was worth dedicating an individual post to your comment:
Thanks for the feedback, it’s much appreciated!