Slashdot Mirror

Until last year, it was the record labels that were widely viewed as the stumbling blocks to taking the music industry into the digital age...

...the focus on digital licensing has switched to scattered music publishers and songwriters, which typically receive between 7 and 8 cents for each physical copy of a song sold. Ordinarily wielding far less power, and commanding far fewer financial resources than the record labels, this scattered group of individuals and associations now is proving a more potent force in the digital transformation.

The music industry has been saying over and over again that piracy hurts the artists . Their crackdown on p2p filesharing, their use of DRM schemes (such as the copy-protected CD's in question), and their public relations FUD are all supposedly motivated by their uncompromising zeal to protect the livelihood of artists.

Really? No foolin'? Well, this is a golden opportunity to show us all that you really meant it. If all of these efforts are about protecting artists, then you would never think to violate a publishing contract over it. Right?

[Silence... A leaf blows by...]

Oh. Well, that's what we all suspected, I guess.

So it doesn't matter that an elected representative, most of whose constituents are either employed by, or run, an entertainment company might have an opinion? I'll grant you that what amounts to a trade-union of interested companies providing the "Vote for Me" cash for advertisements smells to high-heaven of "buy-out", but what does the Screen Actors' Guild think? That group, and it's contituent members, might have opinions that disagree with ours. If, after all, the *AA is correct, and p2p makes problems making money for an individual record label, won't the individual artists feel it too?

By the way. I didn't see any notice of the Screen Actors' Guild's position on this topic. They and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists have already been thrilled that the Senate as told the FCC to submit a review of media consolidation, the likes of which goes to Clear Channel.

(As an aside, I recommend browsing Aerosmith's
website for their thoughts on their record contract.)

So it doesn't matter that an elected representative, most of whose constituents are either employed by, or run, an entertainment company might have an opinion? I'll grant you that what amounts to a trade-union of interested companies providing the "Vote for Me" cash for advertisements smells to high-heaven of "buy-out", but what does the Screen Actors' Guild think? That group, and it's contituent members, might have opinions that disagree with ours. If, after all, the *AA is correct, and p2p makes problems making money for an individual record label, won't the individual artists feel it too?

By the way. I didn't see any notice of the Screen Actors' Guild's position on this topic. They and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists have already been thrilled that the Senate as told the FCC to submit a review of media consolidation, the likes of which goes to Clear Channel.

(As an aside, I recommend browsing Aerosmith's
website for their thoughts on their record contract.)

Gee, aren't these guys supposed to be looking out for the artists? Why are they so strangely silent about all this?

But it doesn't stop there. Some creative jobs are organized. Hollywood is very unionized; actors belong to the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG) or the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), musicians belong to the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) directors belong to the Director's Guild of America (DGA), drivers belong to the Teamsters, and most of the support people belong to the International Association of Theatrical and Stage Workers (IATSE). Lucasfilm's animators and CGI techs in Northern California belong to IATSE, which is trying to organize online entertainment shops. If you're doing web design or involved in running a web site, it might be worth talking to an IATSE organizer. They send people to ACM SIGGRAPH meetings in SF, so they're not hard to find.

A union shop is a great advantage in an industry with heavy time pressures. It gives the employees an effective way to push back. Anybody in those unions who works a 12-hour day gets paid major overtime. Get called in for a weekend emergency, and big bonuses apply. This discourages employeers from understaffing and overworking their employees. If a job needs to be done 24/7, it takes four full-time employees.

Organizing in the US is very tough. Over 90% of employees who try to organize a union are fired, even though this is illegal. Canada, for example, has stronger labor laws, and it's much easier to organize there. This is the main reason for declining union membership in the US.

Despite the obstacles, temps at Microsoft have successfully organized a union, and won a lawsuit against Microsoft.