Here are some key points I get from Thing 19: Make it viral from The 20 Things You Must Know About Music Online:

Dubber states that, quite simply, the road to online success is paved with effective marketing. This task has become easier with the involvement of the internet. Digital media allows for things to spread fast if your marketing is done well.

The laws of marketing are the same online as they are anywhere else. It's about having a good story. Take some time to think about what is interesting about you, your business, or your band. How are you different? What is special about what you do? Are you unusual in any way?

Dubber puts forth that good marketing is not a secret (although there are secrets to good marketing), that it's a matter of connecting the dots between the right messages sent to the right people using the right channels at the right time.

Things like blog posts, e-books, podcasts, and video can all be leveraged for effective online marketing.

Remember what was said in an earlier blog post; a website in itself is not a promotional strategy. You need a marketing strategy for your website.

The thing that you want to be putting out there is what makes you different. It has to be compelling enough that people will tell and re-tell others about your story. Make it something that people want to send to other people.

Dubber's own example is his e-book (which I have been paraphrasing), which can be printed up, modified, and shared with others. The catch? Dubber has to be cited as the author, and you have to include a link back to New Music Strategies. That's it.

The 20 Things You Must Know About Music Online was written by Andrew Dubber, and all credit goes to him. I do not claim any ownership over the book, nor am I quoting any information verbatim. If you would like to download your free copy, please follow this link, and don't forget to visit New Music Strategies as well.

If you've been following my somewhat heated train of thought on the subject of "free", you might have assumed that I am against the idea completely. I'm not. The truth of the matter is that free music has always been available in some (usually authorized) form.

For example, think of record label compilation CDs that used to come with magazines. You could pop in the CD and listen to a bunch of different artists. If you found something you liked, you might be inclined to go out and buy an album, or spend a little bit of time researching that artist.

Think of the radio. Radio has never cost anyone anything to listen to, besides the equipment necessary to tune in. Radio certainly had its share of issues, overplaying a handful of songs and offering little or no airspace for alternative artists, but it was still a very hands-on approach to finding something you liked.

Think of free services like Groove Shark where you can stream any song you want from a huge catalogue of artists. I can't see a huge difference between a platform like this and illegally downloading music, other than the fact that artists still get compensated when you listen to them on a streaming site.

Think of YouTube. Best to my knowledge, no one has ever had to pay for the hundreds of thousands of hours of music, music videos, and live performances available on YouTube. If you're really unsure about an artist, you can usually find the other songs in their catalogue.

If, as Andrew Dubber suggests, the Hear / Like / Buy principle is true, then that would indicate that the only thing missing in this transaction is the Buy part. It's obvious to state that people are hearing music that they like. For some reason, despite having more access to more music than ever before, there are certain people who still refuse to actually take the final step and buy the music, clinging to silly arguments. I think it's fair to say that the ever-growing access to music hasn't actually contributed to more sales, so it's stupid to argue that music is too expensive.

Moreover, it's too late to complain about CDs and their cost. That does not justify downloading music illegally. You now have a variety of wonderful services at your fingertips, which will get your favorite artists compensated for their work (at least to a small degree) as opposed to the gaping hole they see when you pirate their music. You have virtually unlimited access to all the free music you want, without ever having to pirate it. So, why pirate it?

If you've been following along with the blog, you already know that I've been creating a series of posts on the subject of "free". Recently I have seen a number of new sites pop up encouraging artists to post their music for free (and get compensated via donations). While it is true that there are some thought leaders who believe in the benefits of offering free music, I do not believe that it is the only reasonable course of action as an artist. If you want to allow your fans to download your music for free, that is your choice. However, you should not be backed into that decision.

With all of that in mind, I wanted to take a closer look at a thought that many people seem to hold; in short, that CDs were too expensive. The argument usually goes something like this: "You use to pay $15 - 25 per CD, and they would only have one or two good songs on them. What a rip!"

In theory, this sounds like a good argument. CDs were sometimes $15 or more (which I still don't think is too high a price to pay, but more on this later) in the music stores, and, subjectively speaking, there were albums released that only contained one or two "hit" songs.

Firstly, the consumer was never forced into the purchase decision. If you didn't want to buy that album, nobody was holding you at gunpoint. That in itself renders this argument asunder. Oh, but there's so much more...

Secondly, there were many brick and mortar CD stores that allowed you to sample the CDs they were offering. Usually, if their headphone booths did not contain the CDs you wanted to sample, you could ask specifically to sample the CD you wanted to listen to. Huh. Now you don't have an excuse. But wait, there's more...

Thirdly, if you made a purchase decision based on one song you heard on the radio, then you were probably the type to make rash decisions based on hype and mass marketing. If you bought the album anyway, you are responsible. Don't place the blame on someone else.

Fourthly, there were CDs like Remy Shand's The Way I Feel that were only $9.99 and every song on the album was incredible. "But, I don't like Remy Shand" you might say. Well, that brings me to my next point.

It's entirely subjective! You may believe that a particular album only contains one or two good songs, but the bottom line is that is your opinion! Moreover, don't you think you should give your favorite bands and artists some grace? Don't you think that if you wrote 12 songs (more like 20 songs, which were then whittled down) that some would stand out over others?

Finally, I don't think $15 is too high a premium to pay if I'm looking to support an artist. The issue is not that $15 is expensive; the issue is that a good chunk of that money went to the retailer and record label. That is why CD stores had to up their price. They're a business. They have overhead. I'm excited at the prospect of being able to purchase directly from an artist and supporting them generously. That is a much better way of looking at this new season in the music industry.

I just began a series of posts involving the concept of "free" in the world of music. This was sparked by a discussion I've been watching on Facebook. This discussion began innocuously enough, by my co-host Anna who was talking about this article: All music should be free.

Now granted, Morris Lamont has some interesting points to make about the industry, not all of which are inaccurate. However, taking a closer look, the article is held together by loosely conceived arguments that are unlikely to hold up to closer scrutiny.

Argument #1 - Teens aging 15 to 18 see no problem with downloading music illegally, because their world is different from yours (huh?).

No, they inhabit exactly the same world as we do. They may be the first native online generation (in other words, they grew up with the internet and are more comfortable with digital mediums of communication), but the only people who are still reeling at the rate of change are those who have not embraced technological advancement and innovation.

Argument #2 - The music is not the product, the brand is the product.

Apparently the 15 to 18 demographic is more willing to spend money on concerts or merchandise (CDs are merchandise, are they not?) than they are on digital downloads, because they enjoy the tangible. In other words, they are still supporters of music. However, they have not wrapped their minds around the idea that it takes time, effort, and money (not to mention blood, sweat, and tears) to write and record songs.

For the moment, it is illegal to pirate music, until the laws change. Period. It doesn't matter what sort of comfort level one has with file sharing software. It's not difficult to master the operation of aforementioned software. It doesn't take a 15 to 18 year old to do it.

The intrinsic irony is when the issue of the iPod is brought up (it takes $20,000 to fill it up). People will still pay for music players, but they won't pay for music. Does that make any sense to you?

My point here is not that people should not download music; my point here is that, if we are moving towards free, we need to find other ways to compensate bands and artists for their work.

Argument #3 - The web is where you go to get discovered, not where you go to sell your wares.

Oh, really? Then why is online music a multi-billion dollar industry? Why does every band have a merch page on their website (you just said that teens ranging from 15 to 18 want something more tangible)?

Lamont goes on to explain that Rebecca Black has earned a six figure income on YouTube ads alone. I am not saying that musicians should not consider alternative sources of income. However, this example is also absurd in that Black's song spread like wildfire due to how bad it was, as opposed to its intrinsic merit (zero to none).

This is also a very relative thing. A six-figure income would amount to success for an independent artist, but would probably amount to financial disaster for the major label artist. How did Black bring in another big chunk of the pie? Through music sales, you idiot!

Finally, this point cannot be overstated: I am not clinging to the previous model of the industry. CD sales may not be what they used to be and is a moving target. This does not mean that an artist should not be paid for their work. If people are going to be downloading music illegally, great, but let's make it legal first before we begin arguing the semantics.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you already know that the music industry has seen a lot of change in the last decade or two. There seems to be an emerging trend of "free" in music these days. People are expecting free shows and have even demanded free albums, disregarding copyright and reproduction laws if the end justifies the means.

Firstly, let me clear up the issue of piracy. It is still illegal. This status has not changed, and as long as it hasn't changed, downloading an album without paying for it equates to stealing. This was a harsh reality that I had to realize myself, having once dabbled in peer-to-peer networks. My stance on this subject is that as an artist, I cannot justify downloading other people's copyrighted material, because that is not what I want other people to do with my album.

Certainly, an artist can make an album available for free. However, that should remain the choice of the artist, and not the "privilege" of the consumer.

Secondly, I'm going to address the issue of free shows. An artist should not be playing a show for free, unless he/she discerns that a) it is a chance to hone one's skills, b) they want to try something new, or c) there are benefits other than monetary (i.e. massive exposure).

An artist who needs to gain experience and wants to sharpen their craft should always be able to play free shows if he or she so chooses. Heck, I would do it if I wanted to shake things up. However, this should not place the expectation of "free" on every artist. There's a level of professionalism that should come along with experience.

Music venues need to realize that a) there's a great deal of preparation that goes into a show, b) an artist always has costs associated with performing, and c) what they're offering is worthwhile (if they are taking themselves at all seriously).

I could go on, but I'm going to get right to the point. I believe there are still options for artists. I don't believe that "free" is the answer, because it takes time, money, and effort for a musician to produce their product. Contrary to public belief, a musician's life is not the "fun life", it is not all glitz and glamour, and it is not the life of a slacker. A musician with any degree of professionalism is usually far more disciplined than your average Joe.

Music need not be devalued. There are still options available. It's time to start thinking outside the box. How can musicians, venues, and consumers benefit each other and create a more fulfilling relationship?