Last Wednesday one of Holland’s most famous and disputed anti-copyright defendants, Joost Smiers, presented his new book (or essay) co-written with partner-in-crime Marieke van Schijndel, at cultural hot-spot De Balie (a former courthouse in Amsterdam). Surrounding the presentation a debate evening was organized based on the utopian notion of ‘imagining a world without copyright’. The essay, entitled Adieu auteursrecht, vaarwel culturele conglomeraten (Goodbye copyright, farewell cultural conglomerates) was presented to economist Arjo Klamer.  Klamer gave a sparkling speech – setting the tone for the following discussion – by claiming that Smiers and Van Schijndel’s essay was just not radical enough. By referring to well known numbers (10% of the cultural producers claim 90% of the remits) and hopelessly cumbersome and complicated processes of IPR regulations, upholdings and claimings, Klamer wondered why we even have such a system. He went on to systematically explain how property right is closely intermingled with a product, an object one can trade. This proprietary right is the basis of our market thinking. This market can only function through the merits of a state that enforces this proprietary right. Klamer calls this a conspiracy between the market and the state. He explains that in the utopian thinking of Smiers and Van Schijndel, the abolition of copyright serves mainly to break down the power of the large cultural conglomerates that control the cultural market in order to encourage a fairer system of competition. They claim this would be more democratic, will encourage free communication and will be beneficial for our cultural life.

Klamer wants to go even further. He claims that the authors still grasp too much to the idea of music and art as products. Klamer questions the whole idea of cultural products and product oriented thinking. He claims the way we look at these cultural artifacts or expressions as products is a simple metaphor for our ability to buy them. But artistic expressions are no products, they are ‘words’, they only get their ‘meaning’ when they are uttered, they function in a larger context and in this way are dependent on us, the ‘utterers’, the consumers, the potential readers. His starting point is not the product but the metaphor of the conversation [the term discourse to me sounds even better]. Art is a conversation, music is a conversation, science is a conversation. Nobody owns a conversation; it can be compared with friendship [also an inalienable, tangible good]. A conversation is a good people share together in a community, you cannot enforce it (not even the state), you cannot steel it and you cannot free-ride on it; and it is based on the principle of reciprocity [think of the gift economy about which I will write some more in the future].

But money comes into this system too. Klamer calls this the third sphere, the ‘in-between sphere’. Science still functions like this to a large extent. The scientific community works from the common understanding that knowledge is something we all share, science is the conversation we all build upon. Who owns an idea? Even Nobel Prize winners base their ideas on endless conversations with others. IPR does not do right to this conversation and to the quality of the conversation. In science this problem is solved by the providing of services (Klamer gives the example how in the US many artists have a position at the university were they teach and work. There art work is seen as a kind of service to the community in which art is ‘less commercialized’). Klamer’s final statement: leave the state and the market for what they are and let’s acknowledge cultural expressions for their true value, which is much better realized or finalized in the social space, the ‘third space’ in which communal goods reign. This is the sphere we want to contribute to, from which we can get acknowledgement and establish reputation. For the real and true scarce good is attention. This is what distinguishes the one from the other nine, both in science and in art. This is not a fair system and it will never be a fair system. And this unfairness lies not in the power and the influence of the cultural conglomerates, Klamer states, attacking Smiers and Van Schijndel’s premise; the scarcity of attention is a social phenomenon. This scarcity is also exactly what can be liquidated (see for instance how Damien Hirst plays with this notion). This is not to say that the market and the state should rule this world, and in this sense Klamer states the presented essay is still of the utmost importance. Cultural life exists in the third sphere and is realized in (this) community with others, people who feel committed to a bigger interest instead of in the creation of a product for their own profit. Reciprocity, conversation and attention: that is what this sphere is all about. 

After Arjo Klamer finished his speech, Joost Smiers gave a short exposition of the book. He stated that with the abolishment of copyright the market will no longer function as radical around the numbers of one and ten: the public will be much more able to follow their own taste [ignoring the fact I think that the long tail maybe does not exist as recent research has contested]. Smiers does however throw away notions like Creative Commons, stating that they no longer merit the ownership of products and this is an issue he does not want to discuss. He does not believe we should do away with the ownership of cultural goods [on a side note, I feel Smiers is conflating Creative Commons licenses, which are alternative copyright license and thus still centre around the notion of ownership, with the more radical parts of the free culture and free information movement. They are interlinked but not the same!]. Smiers asked the question what will happen to the market once we abolish copyright, how will the market function? He strongly believes entrepreneurial people will be needed in such a new system and this will offer opportunities for those who are active. 

In the first debate Annelys de Vet (graphic designer at the Sandberg Institute) and Nirav Christophe (lector theatrical creation processes and open dramaturgy) engaged with each other and the public. De Vet argued that copyright is a closed manner of handling things; it is a standstill opposed to an open movement. Artists don’t design products, they create processes in a context of processual design in which they are part of a larger whole. Artists don’t quote; they are part of a dialogue or a conversation. Copyright is based on a world of fear where she wants to work and collaborate in a world based on trust. Christophe concurs that theater is foremost a dialogue and thus serves as a good metaphor for the evenings debate. For theatre is always a half-product: as a theater writer your play only comes into existence once it is finished by others. A theatre writer is used to people making adaptations to his texts, making their own interpretations; it makes the texts better. Theatre does not create products, it creates processes. Christophe states that copyright is foremost also a philosophical problem. What is the relationship of the author to his text? Is the text yours? Since Roland Barthes and the death of the author it is no longer maintainable that texts produced by an author are the possession of that author. Only the experience of them being read or uttered, the interaction, makes them come alive. A cultural experience is only created during a certain amount of time in a process that is often created together with others, even together with the public. 

De Vet thus concludes that art should be seen as a dialogue, as a process. The oeuvre of an artist consists of all kinds of different moments, in which the links between these moments create the meaning and this is not linkable back to a product. There is so much pressure on artists nowadays to be original, and so much fear to appropriate, to copy. Yet De Vet encourages this, it will still be different, it will always be used in a different context, it will follow another trajectory. Being unique and signing your work can go hand in hand with the above attitude, they are not each others opposites. Many people are involved in the creation of a design; design is about the creation of a dialogue. Copyright has no relevance in this process, claims De Vet. Christophe concurs and states this is a more realistic view of the modern artist than the romantic 19th century conception of the individual performer. De Vet and Christophe see the economic difficulties of their notions but are up to the challenge of thinking in different ways. 

Questions from the audience phrased the fear of plagiarism: what if one copies or steals my work? What if I get ‘screwed over’? As we know from the debate between Habermas and Foucault, conversations are not always open and honest. This is a way to idealist stance. De Vet  replied that no system is perfect, in a 1 to10 system people are ‘screwed over’ too. She wants to keep a positive stance based on trust.  Media sociologist Jaap van Ginneken replied by stating that under the current copyright system Walt Disney steals everything and then patents it again as its own. Even the Lion King is an adaptation of a Japanese story. So big business seems very efficient in screwing you over too. Joost Smiers remarked that for wrongful appropriation (for instance by a fascist regime) you have alternative laws, you do not need copyright for that. Next to that a system of shaming will probably develop. Other mechanisms will thus develop to maintain the system

In the second debate we met Hans Abbing, emeritus professor in art sociology and Jan-Willem Sligting, programmer at Paradiso and musician. Sligting remarked that copyright is such a different concept where it covers multiple domains, from law to philosophy and economy. Referring to Thomas More and Utopia, he states that a world without copyright will unfortunately just be that: an utopia. But Abbing dives into this make believe world, stating the time is ripe: copyright is increasingly contested online and the current economic crisis urges for the need of equal playing fields. First of all it will improve the situation of artists, where their incomes while become more equal. But most of all the consumer will benefit. There will be more space for diversity and niches. But Abbing also doubts this fantasy. Diversity is not inherently connected to copyright. A society can only handle a certain amount of diversity: you cannot know the details of everything. We need to trust on others, on selection, our attention span is always crooked. The consumer wants selection and we shouldn’t trust too much on the premise of ‘small is beautiful’. And what about that level playing field? How does this relate to different regions on a world scale? We also need big corporations. We should just as well fear social monopolies. Don’t underestimate the power of funders for instance.

Klamer still emphasizes the benefits of contributing to something that is bigger than you. In science and religion the financing is done by way of gifts (gift economy), which according to him is a very valuable system as we are reimbursed for our services. According to Abbing however, gifts only work in small societies on a personal level. Gifts on the Internet will never have a real shape, this will not work according to him. 

Sligting however mentions initiatives like Fabchannel and SellaBand which have business models which are centered on the community. Abbing states that there are a lot of experiments going on but that they need to be based on reciprocity, people will not just donate something, and they want to feel connected to a cause. Simple commercial artifacts (t-shirts, stickers) already help a lot.

Arjo Klamer remarks that science is also totally based on reciprocity: services for reputation. There is however a fierce strive for recognition in this field. This situation is very similar to the independent arts; Klamer claims that such a reciprocal model will be very well applicable to this sector too. Using copyright in this realm is abnormal, it does not work like that in other cultures and it should thus not be norm giving. We need to be more creative with how we establish value. Think about the potential of deluxe editions.

Comments from the crowd focused on the elitism of the debate: not all art is equal, the 1/10 rule is there for a reason, simply because not all works are good. We also need to discuss quality in this context. With a final statement Joost Smiers ended the debate, using the scientific metaphor of the paradigm shift: if a model no longer works we need another one. A world without copyright is not imaginary. We need to break through this dominance to establish a more normal and competitive market in which more people will earn more money. Smiers’ goal is to support this notion with hard figures. It is not an utopia. Smiers wants to create alternative business models and will keep developing them in the future. 

My feeling about the evening was that from a theoretical point of view it hopelessly complicated matters and on a practical level didn’t offer any solutions. Although the debate an sich was very interesting, I think the attack on the big conglomerates by Smiers and Van Schijndel should not be the primary goal of the abolishment of copyright. I feel the fierce attacks on the state and the market that were uttered during the evening (notwithstanding the fact that their powers and reach might actually be too large) unnecessarily complicated the issue, and made it more disputed than it already is. Compare the debate between Lawrence Lessig and Kevin Kelly in which Kelly compared Web 2.0 with socialism (I agree with Lessig in this matter).

Even if we accept the notion of art as a process and dialogue, this does not mean we have to do away with the big companies and commercialization. Making money with their work, in what way they deem fit is still a free choice of creative producers, and commercialization of an experience economy, more akin to the processual and fluxual nature of the current art procedure, is already well on its way. This is why I applaud initiatives like Fabchannel, SellaBand and also Creative Commons, who, on an alternative note, try to create new business models based on sharing, community and reciprocity. Without loosing the option to liquidize these created values. This criticism connects to that of the confused public, which during the evening continually begged for practical solutions and did not receive any. The debate remained too theoretical on many levels, without offering truly new potentials. And doing away with initiatives like Creative Commons, that in a very practical manner try to do something refreshing with the whole IPR problem, to me seems just stupid. The total lack of references to new business models by Smiers and Van Schijndel was also very disappointing. Maybe the practical solutions can be found in their book, however, it is not available Open Access on the net and unfortunately, after this evening, I felt neither compelled nor convinced to buy the book. Felt kind of like a lost chance….

El pasado viernes Pepe García, country manager de Fabchannel.com para España me pasó una nota de prensa que iba a lanzar posteriormente a los medios a los que solía informar de las novedades del proyecto. Añadía una escueta nota personal adelantandome el contenido de la nota y en la que ya se le notaba bastante afectado:Fabchannel se veía obligado a cerrar sus puertas después de 9 años de andadura:

“Amsterdam, 6 de Marzo de 2009

 

El canal de conciertos online Fabchannel.com cesa hoy su actividad
debido a la perspectiva negativa de futuro en la industria musical y
el mercado de la publicidad online.

Durante los últimos 9 años, Fabchannel ha cumplido satisfactoriamente
su papel como promotor de artistas nacionales e internacionales, así
como de la cultura de la música en vivo.

El modelo de negocio de Fabchannel se basa en dos elementos
esenciales: derechos para el streaming internacional de los contenidos
y los ingresos generados por la publicidad y sponsoring. Después de
una importante inversión en 2007, Fabchannel se ha centrado en
aumentar su audiencia a nivel internacional y en el desarrollo e
implementación de nuevos formatos de publicidad online y partnerships.

Tras un comienzo modélico en 2008 con la inclusión de vídeo
comerciales en Fabchannel.com, alianzas con importantes medios de
comunicación como Nu.nl y Spiegel.de, así como la firma de un acuerdo
internacional con Universal Music Group, en los últimos meses la tarea
de alcanzar las cuotas de audiencia prevista se ha convertido en una
labor más que complicada, en gran parte porque los grandes sellos
discográficos -majors- no han permitido que se grabe a sus artistas.
Al mismo tiempo, el mercado publicitario online se ha visto bajo una
gran presión debido al recorte en los presupuestos de marcas y sponsors.

Los directivos e inversores de Fabchannel no esperan cambios
sustanciales en cuanto a esta situación durante los próximos años.
Debido a esto, se ha tomado la decisión de poner fin a todas las
actividades del canal para evitar problemas financieros graves y la
pérdida total de la posibilidad de volver a dar salida al inmenso
archivo de conciertos creado durante años.

El catálogo de conciertos de Fabchannel quedará offline a partir del
próximo 13 de Marzo. Durante los próximos meses Fabchannel se
esforzará en llegar a un acuerdo apropiado para la plantilla de
trabajadores, clientes y proveedores."

Estas son algunas de las reacciones en blogs y prensa:

http://www.muzikalia.com/noticias_leer.php/10194/fabchannel-cesa-su-actividad

http://blogs.20minutos.es/entradagratuita/post/2009/03/06/fabchannel-echa-cierre

http://www.scannerfm.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4350&Itemid=8

http://www.clubbingspain.com/noticias.php?id=7376

http://www.ojointernet.com/noticias/fabchannel-cierra/

http://www.popmadrid.com/noticias/Fabchannel/fin-a-su-actividad
Y un largo etcetera..(Señal inequívoca de que Pepe ha realizado un excelente trabajo en Fabchannel)

En la nota de prensa oficial explicaban escuetamente los motivos del cierre: La pésima situación del mercado publicitario y las tremendas dificultades (por no decir zancadillas o puñaladas traperas) con las que diversas majors les han hecho pasar al negarse rotundamente a emitir conciertos previamente grabados.

Han tomado la dificil decisión de congelar el proyecto antes de tener que pasar a medidas más desagradables como impagos, quiebra, etc. Sólo esperemos que en un futuro cercano Fabchannel pueda renacer de sus cenizas.
A veces me pregunto quien es el verdadero enemigo del negocio de la música, si la piratería y el P2P o las propias majors, fagocitando cualquier negocio posible que no pase por sus manos.

Aquí podeis ver la explicación más extensa y el punto de vista del fundador, Justin:

http://www.fabchannel.com/blog/2009/03/the-reasons-why-we-stop.html

Hace incapié en el modo que actúan las majors hoy en día: No money, no content, y sobre todo en la diferencia de el trato a Internet (cobrar) frente a los medios tradicionales, como radio y televisión: Partnership. Indica que hay radios, que todos conocemos, que incluso participan en las ganancias de los artistas, y si no, no los promocionan.
Muchos quizás vean un caso similar al cierre de Mobuzz en España, pero el modelo de Fabchannel era ligeramente distinto: Sus contenidos tenían una atemporalidad que hacía que cada grabación se pudiera rentabilizar durante largo tiempo. Un concierto de Bloc Party grabado en 2006 puede ser rentabilizado todavía hoy en día, mientras que un magazine o videoblog diario es muy complicado que pueda ser de interés 2 años después.

Lo que si tenían en común era un alto coste en la producción y grabación de los diferentes conciertos. El estudio que tenían en la sala Paradiso en Amsterdam hace sentir vergüenza al estudio de grabación de los conciertos de Radio 3.

Por lo que si a la disminución de los ingresos publicitarios (su única fuente de ingresos) sumamos el aumento de costes sin posibilidad de monetizarse (conciertos vetados) y el imparable aumento de audiencia (con el consiguiente gasto en máquinas y en streaming), tenemos la paralización en seco de un proyecto prometedor.

Todo esto me hace reflexionar sobre si hoy en día es posible obtener altas rentabilidades de un proyecto basado en el video online. La formula ‘a mayor audiencia, mayor gasto‘ los hace muy vulnerables si su único modelo de negocio es la publicidad online. Si no hay un modelo de subscripción o de cobro bajo demanda veo realmente dificil que proyecto así puedan sobrevivir en el corto plazo. Sobre todo con la trayectoria en el desierto que nos espera.

Me vienen a la cabeza proyectos similares que ha desembarcado en España, comoyes.fm, rockola.fm o el reciente Spotify. Todos ellos comparten esa fatídica fórmula que dificulta su escalabilidad, pero al menos en el caso de yes.fm y de Spotify tienen claro que tienen que cobrar por algún aspecto de sus servicios. En mi opinión, Spotifyno es sostenible si pretenden monetizarlo sólamente con publicidad.

Espero de veras que ninguno de estos proyectos nos den malas noticias en el 2009, por el bien del sector en general y el de la música en particular.

Mein Fundstück des Monats, mindestens: Die amerikanische Non-Profit-Organisation “National Public Radio” bietet auf ihrer Website ein umfangreiches und äußerst geschmackvoll zusammengestelltes Angebot für den geneigten Musik-Liebhaber verschiedenster Stilrichtungen. Kernstück ist dabei die Liste an kostenlos verfügbaren Audio- & Video-Live-Aufnahmen, die das selige Angebot von “Fabchannel” mehr als lückenlos ersetzt. Letzteres ist übrigens auch als Podcast über iTunes ladbar. Mein erster Tipp: Eine komplette, zweistündige Live-Show von Tom Waits vom letzten Jahr!

After nine passionate and beautiful years of sharing the most amazing concert recordings, Fabchannel is stopping. A great number of record labels still won’t allow to record their artists. This prevents from offering what needed to keep Fabchannel alive.

Enjoy all concerts for 2 more days till 13.03.2009 [Reason why we stop...]

Después de que Fabchannel bajase la persiana para siempre por problemas  en aspectos financieros y con los grandes conglomerados musicales, tenemos la suerte de presentaros otra página que saciará la ansia de ver y escuchar música en directo. Se trata de la web Baeblemusic.

Entre los conciertos que podemos disfrutar, aunque por ahora no haya muchos, tenemos a Beirut, The Kills, Of Montreal o The Whip, entre otros. Además podemos disfrutar de fotos y muchos más videos musicales de los mejores grupos de hoy en día con las novedades y entrevistas de cada uno de ellos. A nosotros no nos queda otra que desear larga vida a Baeblemusic. ¡A disfrutar!

Baeble music

The closure of online concert streaming site Fabchannel heralds not only the loss of a long-running music platform, but also another story of the music industry’s reticence to embrace or support potentially beneficial online mediums.

For those not familiar with Fabchannel, the site started out as site that archived and streamed high quality, professionally recorded footage of bands and artists who appeared at the Paradiso venue in Amsterdam.

Everything from filming to performance royalties to site maintenance was paid for by the site, and was a great place for fans to see high quality videos of the shows they attended, or were unable to. While this is a great promotional tool for the labels at no cost to them, the labels were true to form with their fear of internet platforms.

While those responsible for the site attempted to fund it through a number of different revenue sources, including venture capital, subscription models and inline advertising, they fell each time when it came to working in conjunction with the labels themselves. Without the consent of the labels for the right to make the videos available to the public, the site was severely restricted by what money could be recouped for their recording costs, let alone allowing for the site to make a profit.

It seems only now that the major labels are becoming more open the idea of making up for decreasing CD sales with other online opportunities, but it seems that this may be too late for Fabchannel. With labels embracing the likes of Spotify for audio streaming, why not agree a deal with a site that has proven for ten years that they can successfully record, promote and archive high quality concert footage? Fabchannel admit that their service was only relatively low key, and so the labels may not see sufficient content to get involved with, but why not work with them to build the platform and expand it to bigger name artists, or to create subplatforms for each label to have a concert archive?

With Fabchannel being proactive with regards to their approach for their site, from it’s inception through to promoting and building the site (including much financial investment), and attempting to work with the labels for the good of both parties and audiences, they seem to be ideal media partners to work with for labels, who, short of granting permissions to the site, would potentially require little input or additional outlay, but would offer fantastic promotional opportunities and would have far more to gain than to lose.

Fabchannel warn that their experience is very likely to be shared by other new media start-ups hoping to work with the majors, with the labels being less than receptive to approaches, or even requiring big payments up front before deals will even be considered.

It is obvious that the line must be drawn somewhere, and that the majors can’t dedicate time to any or every start-up who wants to involve themselves in music online, but it is most definitely in the labels’ interests to be as open as possible with new online opportunities to maximise new online revenue streams.

Pues así es, como gran parte de geniales iniciativas en Internet relacionadas con la música, desaparecen, una verdadera lástima, ya que algunas desaparecieron por falta de dinero y otras, que me dan mucho más corage, es porque las discográficas no quieren que el mundo evolucione, sino que como ellos lo tienen bien montado pues que siga así.

Estas dos cosas son lo que le ha pasado a Fabchannel, lugar donde podías ver una gran cantidad de conciertos online de bastantes artistas, muchos de ellos no conocidos, pero que me gustaron mucho y que disfruté viéndolos. Siguiendo, que me voy por otro camino; que lo que le ha pasado es que las discográficas no le permitían que grabaran los conciertos porque, según ellos creaban un peligro, un peligro que yo no lo veo porque yo veo allí una gran oportunidad, oportunidad que ellos no ven, una verdadera lástima, pero bueno, aún tengo la esperanza de que cambie algún día.

De Fabchannel me quedo con estos dos grupos: Marcus Miller y New Cool Collective.

En el pasado festival de documentales musicales In-Edit 08 (cuya crónica pueden leer aquí y aquí), en una de las mesas redondas que se programan, vinieron a hablarnos de música, audiovisual e internet sendos representantes de la holandesa Fabchannel y la americana Pitchfork TV. Mientras que a estos las cosas parecen irles bien, lo cierto es que para aquellos se acabó lo que se daba. Para los no iniciados, Fabchannel es un portal donde se pueden ver conciertos de gran cantidad de bandas, con presencia en España y que ha colaborado con salas del calibre de la Apolo de Barcelona. En un comunicado en la home del portal, su máximo directivo Justin Kniest explica que “un gran número de discográficas”, las poseedoras de los derechos de los artistas, no les permiten grabar numerosos directos, lo que compromete seriamente la calidad de la oferta de Fabchannel.  De momento, el archivo de la página estará disponible hasta el próximo viernes 13 de marzo. Luego, se habrá acabado.

Eine wahrlich traurige Nachricht: Fabchannel zieht die Reißleine und stellt sein umfassendes Konzertarchiv am Freitag, den 13. März, offline. Die geschätzte Konzert-Videostream-Seite, kann die gesteckten wirtschaftlichen Ziele nicht erreichen und möchte mit diesem Schritt schlimmere Folgen vermeiden – z.B. dass das Musikarchiv “nicht wieder verwendet werden kann.”Der offiziellen Pressemeldung entnimmt man: “Die Besucherzahlen haben sich nicht im geplanten Maße erhöht, was hauptsächlich durch die mangelnde Unterstützung der ‘Major’ Plattenfirmen bezüglich der Zustimmung zu Konzertaufnahmen begründet ist.”

In der Shoutbox wird man da noch deutlicher: “It’s about time those bloody corporate bastard record companies like Warner and Sony BMG stop being greedy money grabbing idiots and look and listen to their customers, their stakeholders, the music lover!”

Share this:

Jammer! Het was een mooi concept.

In plaats dat die maatschappijen dit zien als een mooie reclameuiting voor hun producten…

Tråkigt men sant, Fabchannel lägger ner sin hemsida och tillgången till alla inspelade konserter på Paradiso. Tydligen har dem haft problem att mötas med skivbolagen och deras närliggande rättigheter. Sidan ligger dock uppe i en vecka till för den intresserade, kolla in spelningen med MGMT (länk). Eller en grym spelning med Arcade Fire (länk).

By Robin Wauters, Techcrunch.com

Amsterdam-based online concert destination site Fabchannel is calling it quits after 9 years of digital goodness, blaming the poor state of the economy as a whole and the crisis in the online music and advertising industries in particular.

This is the official press release:

FABCHANNEL STOPS ITS ACTIVITIES

Online concert channel Fabchannel.com ceases its activities as of today, due to bad economic prospects within the music and online advertising market.

During the last nine years, Fabchannel have been successfully promoting concert recordings of national and international artists online among a large international audience.

The Fabchannel business model bases itself on two essential ingredients: international streaming rights and international advertising/sponsoring revenue. After a substantial investment in 2007, Fabchannel has been focusing fully on increasing its reach among the international audience and the development and implementation of online advertising formats and partnerships.

After an energetic start in 2008 with the introduction of video commercials on Fabchannel.com, media partnerships with renowned news sites like nu.nl and Spiegel.de as well as signing a worldwide partnership with Universal Music Group, in the last few months it has been getting ever more difficult to reach the set targets. The audience has not increased as planned, mostly due to the majority of major record labels giving no consent to record their artists. At the same time, the online advertising and sponsoring market has been put under big pressure due to decreasing budgets of advertisers and sponsors.

The management and shareholders of Fabchannel expect that this situation is not going to change during the next years. Therefore, they have jointly taken the decision to stop all activities in order to avoid getting into financial problems and, for example, lose the possibility to use the archive they have been building in the future.

Fabchannel’s concert archive will go offline on Friday 13 March. During the upcoming months, Fabchannel will strive to make suitable arrangements with employees, customers and suppliers.

We’re very sad they won’t be around anymore soon and that we have to put this one in the deadpool, but that’s just the way it goes.

(Thank to Robbert van Geldrop for the tip)

Eigentlich war das eine sehr traurige Woche, obwohl der zweite Freitag der 13. in diesem Jahr erst noch kommt. Erst habe ich gelesen, dass die tolle Konzertseite Fabchannel.com seine Pforten schließen muss, was wohl besonders an der fehlenden Kooperation von und mit MajorLabels lag. Dann kam gleich die nächste traurige Botschaft, dass sich die Aachener/Münsteraner Band The Pale Four auflösen.

Eine Band die ich immer sehr gerne gehört habe, weil es für mich dir richtige Mischung aus Moneybrother und Beatsteaks war. Keine Ahnung wie ich mal darauf gekommen bin, aber damals hat es genau meinen Nerv getroffen. Nun sind sie wohl erstmal Vergangenheit, aber man kann sie noch auf vier Abschiedskonzerten erleben und ich verabschiede mich mit einem “Goodbye Trouble”, weil das damals der erste Song war, den ich von euch gehört habe und hier nun im Video, vielleicht einer der besten Songs von euch:

Nochmal Live sehen, dann hier:

27.Mai.2009    Gleiss 22 (Münster)
28.Mai.2009    Jakobshof (Aachen)
30.Mai.2009    Molotow (Hamburg)
30.Mai.2009    Special Festival Appearance

Sad email to receive from Fabchannel…you have until the 13th of March to watch any videos before they close up shop.

Dear Fabchannel viewer,

We want to sincerely thank you for all support through the years! It has been an amazing time, but unfortunately this is where it ends.

With a bleeding heart we’re pulling the plug of our online archive Friday 13th of March. Until that time, enjoy your favorite concerts and who knows… we’ll meet again.

Justin Kniest, CEO

Am 13.03.2009 ist das niederländische WWW-Portal fabchannel.com am Ende, nach insgesamt neun Jahren Internet-Präsenz!

Weltweit ist fabchannel.com die größte und meist besuchte Live-Konzert-Webseite. Über dieses Portal konnte sich der User mittlerweile kostenlos mehr als 1000 Konzerte ansehen.

Ursprünglich wurde fabchannel.com 1999 von der Pop-Location Paradiso in Amsterdam mit dem Ziel gegründet, unbekannten Künstlern des Landes eine Plattform bereitzustellen, auf der sie sich im WWW präsentieren können.

Der deutsche Ableger des Live-Konzert-Anbieters fabchannel.com/de ist erst seit November 2008 online gegangen. Jedoch hat auch das das jetzige Aus nicht verhindern können.

Die Begründung für das Ende von fabchannel.com ist klar und direkt: “Viele Plattenfirmen erlauben uns immer noch nicht ihre Künstler aufzuzeichnen, was uns daran hindert, das anzubieten, was Fabchannel braucht, um am Leben zu bleiben”, teilt Justin Kniest, CEO des Unternehmens, auf der Webseite mit.

Quelle: medien-mittweida.de

Siehe auch: fabchannel.com/deblog

Siehe auch: spiegel.de

Ik kreeg net onderstaand spijtig bericht binnen via e-mail. Nieuws is paar dagen oud. Helaas staat de bron er niet bij, waarvoor excuus. Maar via Google vind je genoeg bronnen als je nog meer wilt weten.

Online concertzender Fabchannel.com ziet zich vanwege de slechte economische vooruitzichten in de muziek en online reclamemarkt genoodzaakt zijn activiteiten per direct te staken. Gedurende zijn 9-jarig bestaan heeft Fabchannel d.m.v de vertoning van concertregistraties op het internet artiesten uit binnen- en buitenland succesvol gepromoot bij een breed internationaal publiek.
Het door Fabchannel ontwikkelde businessmodel steunt op twee pilaren: internationale uitzendrechten en internationale reclame- en sponsorinkomsten. Door een substantiële investering eind 2007 heeft Fabchannel zich sindsdien volledig kunnen richten op het vergroten van het internationale publieksbereik en het ontwikkelen en implementeren van online advertising formats en partnerships.

Na een voortvarende start in 2008 met de introductie van video commercials op Fabchannel.com, mediapartnerships met gerenommeerde nieuwssites als nu.nl en spiegel.de en de signing van een wereldwijde partnership met Universal Music Group, werd het de laatste maanden steeds moeilijker om de gestelde doelen te realiseren.

Het publieksbereik stijgt niet zoals voorspeld doordat het merendeel van de major platenlabels geen toestemming geeft voor opnames van haar artiesten. Tegelijkertijd is de online advertentie en sponsormarkt onder grote druk komen te staan door teruglopende budgetten van adverteerders en sponsors.

De directie en aandeelhouders van Fabchannel verwachten dat er de komende jaren geen verandering in deze situatie komt en hebben derhalve gezamenlijk besloten om alle activiteiten te stoppen om te voorkomen dat het bedrijf in financiële problemen komt en de rechten op bijvoorbeeld het opgebouwde archief voor toekomstig gebruik kwijtraakt.

Fabchannel zal op vrijdag 13 maart het concertarchief offline halen. Voor de medewerkers, klanten en leveranciers van Fabchannel zal de komende maanden een passende afbouwregeling gezocht worden.

Online concert channel Fabchannel.com ceases its activities as of today, due to bad economic prospects within the music and online advertising market. This means the concert Zita Swoon gave at Paradiso, Amsterdam (march 25th 2005) will be offline within a week. You can read the official press release here and here.

Click on the image to enjoy the concert.

He recibido un correo de fabchannel, la página de internet que recientemente estreno staff en España, y que se dedicaba a publicar en video cálidad “realización de Tv”, y con un sónido acojonante conciertos en directo de bandas indies de reconicidisimo prestigio internacional, diciendo que se va.
Varias salas de conciertos americanas, holandesas y alguna barcelonesa nutrian su catalogo con conciertos inconmensurables.
En principio, pense que era consecuencia de la crisis económica, de la falta de financiación para proyectos no estrictamente crematisticos y con un ésquema de ingresos un tanto nebulosos. Pero no. Una razón mucho más ilogica. Las discográficas pretenden defender los derechos de su catalogo, y no ceden su “propiedad” intelectual.
Yo creia que la “propiedad” intelectual era solo de sus autores, y que ellos, como es lógico solo pretenden su máxima difusión. Pero no.
Hacen falta más disqueras como Factory, con principios más honrados para con sus artistas, y no otras que pretenden apropiarse de su trábajo y nuestro entusiasmo, y reservarlo para sí. No se entonces que pretenden vender.
Fachanel quizá éste unos días más en la red, pero después desaparecerá para siempre. Quizás poco a poco consigan que haya menos espacios en la red para departir y disfrutar de la música, hablar de discos, animandonos a ir a conciertos y a comprar discos. En fin….ellos mismos. Yo me voy a dar una vuelta por fabchanel