When Last.fm announced late last month that for certain parts of the world, access to Last.fm radio would soon cost 3 Euros a month, many people were outraged that something which was free was no longer, as if it was their perpetual entitlement.
I have news for them: it was never free. Last.fm pays artists and labels per individual song play and there has always been a choice for listeners - pay a subscription or put up with advertisements. While advertisements do not directly suck money from listeners, they distract and subconsciously persuade them to part with it. That’s why we have them - they work. The move to a subscription-only model is for regions where Last.fm cannot suitably organise and support advertising, and hence they have to find an alternative source of funding.
On the flipside, labels and artists shouldn’t have a problem either. However, charging a subscription is clearly incompatible with the idea of free music. Those who willingly release music without requiring payment are either forced to receive monies, or to have their music heard but payment going to others. For example, netlabel Rawmatroid has decided to withdraw their music from Last.fm because they have no desire to earn money from it.
I can understand that decision, but it’s not one that I would take, because it implies that the cost (or free-ness) of music is ultimately more important than the music itself. Music is too valuable to the richness of our lives to be restricted due to financial issues or principals. Furthermore, exposure (through whatever outlet) gains listeners who can then be directed back to its source. Musicians and independent labels should exploit these services in order to grow their visibility and gain fans. Because once you have fans, you can do anything.
