Slashdot Mirror
Courtney Love Sues for Her Share
yibyab writes "Isn't this just sweet? I'm not a Courtney Love music fan, but I love her moxie. Upside is reporting in this article that Ms. Love wants her share of Universal's windfall from the MP3.Com case." Its pretty funny actually: since universal supposedly sued mp3.com protect the rights of their artists. Ms. Love figures she should be entitled to a slice of hundred million dollar pie. Of course she won't get it, but at least this will prove who the record industry is really out there working for. And I like Hole. I think Celebrity Skin was clean, well produced rock album. There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" coming out any more either so thats saying something.
Oh for the love of fucking christ...do you people ever get it right?
Metallic is not against mp3s! They have nothing against the file format, nor does anyone else you idiots rail against day after fucking day.
What Metallica (and others) object to, and I'll say it slowly so you retards can understand, is people distributing their music without their permission.
Now, you can agreee, disagree or take a flying fucking leap for all I care, but get it right. Metallica is NOT against mp3s. I'll say it again for the mentally challenged here. Metallica is NOT against mp3s. They don't have a position on mp3s, they have a position on people distributing their music in violation of current copyright laws. They are NOT attacking mp3s!
Fucking feebs.
You would think that fate would give you success, but it didn't now, did it. What did it get you? It must gall you to no end that it sucks to miss out on a first posting.
This artcile at Salon gives a good explanation of how it works.
But M_2 = M_1, doesn't it?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
That's not quite how it works...
But you don't have to take it from me, take it from her!
Read this post instead, and follow the link, because pegiron deserves the credit for finding this gem...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
"It's pretty funny actually, since Universal supposedly sued mp3.com to protect the rights of their artists. Ms. Love figures she should be entitled to a slice of the hundred million dollar pie. Of course she won't get it, but at least this will prove who the record industry is really out there working for. I like Hole. I think Celebrity Skin was a clean, well produced rock album. There isn't a lot of what I think of as "rock" coming out any more either, so that's saying something."
I've taken the liberty of providing corrections in bold.
Yeah, what the FUCK does it have to do with anything? Why the FUCK are you bringing it up if you don't care about it?
Or did she suddenly transform from a squealing pig into a talented signer because she's indirectly supporting MP3?
Or did the poster of the article just happen to actually like her music? Exactly why do you find it so necessary to badmouth her just because you don't happen to like her?
Anyway, she's sueing for money won from MP3, so indirectly, she's taking this money from MP3.com. She's just sueing the middle-man.
I think you're somewhat missing the point.
She is not suing mp3.com, she is suing the people who sued them "on the artists behalf" -- She is making it clear that Universal did this lawsuit out of pure greed, and NOT out of "trying to protect the artists' rights" like they say.
Besides, if Universal has already taken the money from mp3.com, how can you equate suing them to suing mp3.com yourself?
Damn trolls.
And uninformed.
While *you* may not like her (and that's your *opinion*) she's trying to do for the music industry what RMS tries to do for the software industry: she's trying to help protect the rights of the artists.
Universal sued MP3.com due to lost revenue. Universal should be doing this to represent its artists. If Universal refuses to help her regain lost revenue despite the fact that they've just gotten $100 million out of MP3.com, it proves the incencerity of Universal...and proves her point.
And frankly, no, she's not taking money from MP3.com. The money's been taken. She's just trying to get some of the money taken from MP3.com. There's an important difference...unless you choose not to see it.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Hmm... I just looked at a bunch of my Floyd CDs to check. Division Bell and Animals they own; Final Cut, Meddle; earlier stuff is owned by other companies. Looks like the trends on owning your own music (what a concept) is applying to lots of old bands... j-tull.com is owned by the Ian Anderson Group of Companies while his old stuff is mostly owned by Chrysalis.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
the amazing thing about Metallica is that apparently they own their copyrights and master recordings. God knows how
i was not aware of this, but it does make sense if you know the bands backgound. there first album (kill 'em all) was originally titled 'metal up your ass' (or some variation of that, i forget exactly) but none of the recording studios were interested. then 'some guy' (i forget his name, but he was very closely involved with the band early on, and i believe still is) heard their stuff, and was so impressed by it that he essentially started up his own record label with metallica as his first artist. the album was eventaully released, the new title 'kill em all', a reference to the record company execs that were not willing to sign them.
anyway, if it is true that metallica does own their copyrights and master recordings, it's because they essentially started up their own record label to distribute their music.
(it is possible that some of this is not entirely accurate, im going off the top of my head from what i was told by my old roommate.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
He didn't confuse anything. He replied to yibyab's statement that he was not a Courtney Love fan, saying that he (CmdrTaco) was and saying why, and he commented on her lawsuit as a separate issue.
Two completely separate issues. I had no trouble reading the post as such.
You mean when she plagiarized Steve Albini see Some of your friends are already this fucked!. By the way this article had been posted on Slashdot, with proper citation, repeated before Courtney Love ripped it off.
This is superbly argued.
I'm being offtopic here (so what), but your understanding of RSA (or public key encryption in general) to be flawed. A short RSA key would be 512 bits, which is considered insecure. A medium length somewhere around 768 bits, with keys considered secure at around at least 1024 bits.
Asymmetric keys tend to have that length (with elliptic curve based algorithms having somewhat shorter keys). A medium length of 56 to 64 bits would apply to symmetric encryption. 40 bits is actually rather short.
It's not flamebait if it's true.
Though the MPAA kept shouting "piracy" it was really about access control -- do you have the right to decrypt a DVD by non-approved means? I say YES, and the MPAA (and their lacky, Judge Kaplan) says no. Of course, DeCSS does allow you to create a compressed version of the movie that will fit on a single CD, but then you're not doing a bit-for-bit copy of the original work. Think of it as the difference between an MP3 and a full uncompressed WAV file.
Even without DeCSS, it's certainly possible to 'pirate' DVDs: just take the audio/video out signals from the DVD player and pipe it into the recorder of your choice (VCR, video capture card, etc.) No, its not a perfect copy, but then neither was CSS stopping you from making a perfect copy.
I've personally grown rather fond of Eminem. I never thought I'd like rap. Turns out I do. Amazing how tastes change.
It would be cool if she won -- it would be even cooler if she won and then gave the money *back* to mp3.com.
I'd like to see more artists get in on this -- make it a class action suit.
Just so long as Universal doesn't use this as an excuse to ask for more damages.
--
perl -e '$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00";
s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72,
$_="06fde129ae54c1b4c8152374c00"; s/(.)/printf "%c",(10,32,65,67,69,72, (74..76),(78..80),(82..85))[hex $1]/eg;
Almost all major music artists receive royalties as well as advances.
Very true. The only reason some artists make TONS (i.e. Madonna, Rolling Stones, etc...) is that their contracts expire and they get to re-negotiate their royalty rate to something MUCH higher.
-Hunter
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
Bite the hand.
I read slashdot. What's that got to do with it? Slashdot is hardly "news", rather, it's an opinionated site. The only news here that you read is extremely one sided and biased. I believe nothing i read here until i find out the other side of the story as well... Maybe you should try that too?
Well, she's just making a stink for the sake of it, i'm thinking. The RIAA hasn't even gotten a dime from MP3.com... They're supposedly owed "up to" half a billion dollars in damages, but the actual amount isn't determined, yet. Either which way, MP3.com has $150 million set aside for court costs... But to my knowledge, they haven't cut a check to Universal yet... So Courtney's suing for something that they don't even have, settlement money... Way to go Courtney.
Why couldn't she wait til they actually had received the money and then made the determination that they weren't going to pay her... And besides which, how many albums does Hole have? I'm thinking 4 or 5... So she's entitled to her cut of $100,000 to $125,000. Minus court costs and legal feees. And probably at her current royalty rate... which gives her something like $3,000 or so...
Of course, according to her recent tirade, she doesn't even own the rights to her music - she signed them away to the labels, so by her logic, they owe her nothing...
Not to everyone: when you sign a contract, read it first. If you don't like it's terms, don't sign it, or try to negotiate better terms.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Computer Geek by day, religious Icon by night.
Also, check out the Roots and DJ Shadow. The Roots is a group from Philadelphia with some big names (e.g., Rahzel, Godfather of Noise) who have incredible diversity in their music. I saw Rahzel in Houston a year ago, and it was amazing - the range of his vocal percussion is incredible. I also saw DJ Shadow (who is from the Bay Area) last year. He does turntable/mixing/scratching stuff - a great show, and Shadow stayed afterwards to sign stuff and talk with the fans indefinitely, which is something few artists do. Also from the Bay Area is Latyrx who do some good stuff.
> Mike
"There is no culture in computer science, only cults." - M. Felleisen
You said it yourself. And so here we see Ms. Love is trying to recover her slice of the profits.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
And perhaps the most pertinent note: Courtney Love's speech was a broad evaluation of the recording industry, only one small part of which was a summary of how the math works against artist, which summary might or might not be originally derived from Albini's publication. Note that Albini's article is NOT about MP3, digital rights, or how technology might break the vicious circle that artists find themselves in -- it was about being f*cked over by the recording industry. For Love, that was simply a brief rationale for why artists should be interested in the technologies she discussed before Digital Hollywood.
You owe me 35 karma points in royalty now for use of my name.
True karma can only be dispensed by the universe.
--Shoeboy
If they own the copyright this means she did it as "work for hire" it sucks but thats normal for the music industry..
Now it depends on her accual contract.. If they pay her a flat ammount then she is screwed... however that is just plain wrong. It makes the music artist into a factory worker producing bulk units (this works out for prolific artists but not for artists who like to produce one title every 2 to 5 years but extreamly prolific artists who like to publish everything also get shafted when they are told "No more" becouse the value of each title drops when you have to many titles).
Anyway... if her contract is by roialtys not by titles then she gets a cut.. part of this money comes from her titles...
Artists are usually paid by roialtys unless they are just hired for a one time deal (to fill in for someone else who may be out sick).
It's also bad for the recording company to do busness this way. The more titles an artist produces the less value each title has. There there is only one CD from a really good group containning basicly only the best recordings they ever made then it is more valuable to fans than the artist who puts out a new CD each month.
By roialtys each artist is encuraged to produce the best quality by title the artist is encuraged to throw out as much garbage as posable.
Side note.. many programmers are paid by salery not by roialtys....
How would Windows change if the programmers were paid by roialtys and not by salery?
[And you know Microsoft could afford to do that...]
In the past programmers were paid by roialtys... when comertal software could compeate with free software....
I don't actually exist.
The record companies owe them the money. It was the artist's "intellectual property" that was taken, not the company's. The company just owns exclusive rights to distribute, right?
I'm on a chair.
and anybody else having difficulty finding good rock music these days, check out The Weakerthans. excellent post-punk rock from Winnepeg, Manitoba, Canada. i can see the flurry of canuck jokes now...
oh, BTW, kudos to courtney.
First of all, I like Hole and since Ms. Love started fighting against the label I've started to like her even more...
After all Courtney's doing, it makes me kinda imagine her as that girl that wore thick glasses, was kinda bad dressed (not that she isn't now), had a funny snorting laugh, played Nethack hidden in the corner of the computer lab and watched anime... Damn, the more I think about it the more of a crush I have on her - look at her now, a grown woman, widow to the great Kurt Corbain and a major, 100% pure, b*tch!
I have soft spot for these girls. Courtney, if you end up reading this - call me up if you're ever in Brazil...
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Man you took the words out of my mouth. It's very easy to see that if napster doing something to the record companies is helping them to sell, just see the cd selling figures they released. Napster when used with copyrighted is pure free marketing.
What worries the record companies is not being able to choose witch "Britney" or "n'sinc" you will listen. They are not afraid of losing money, they are afraid of losing POWER.
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
> This is an honest question: Do the record companies own the copyright to any works they
> produce automatically?
Briefly, this was (almost?) the case. a little tax bill got a thing tacked on at the end saying that music contracts meant that songs were work for hire(ie, owned by the contractee, not the contracted). Lots of ppl complained and it got switched back
that was extrememely well written! bravo good chap, bravo!
Not to mention extremely useful.
Articles like this, sent to the right people in state and media at the right time could actually make a difference.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
This is very cool as well. The offspring will be giving away there whole album on their page before it is released to stores. They think mp3 has helped them if anything and of corse sony is trying to stop them from doing it. http://www.latimes.com/business/reports/musicweb/l at_offspring000915.htm
Wrong. Universal doesn't use cassette tape companies because at the heart of the argument is QUALITY. MP3 allows for extremely high-quality copies of music. A cassette tape has noticable degredation in sound and tape hiss.
Thus, the cassette tape has less inherent value that the CD, protecting the original medium. MP3 is too close to the original in quality for comfort.
This is the same reason why the Movie companies are pissed about DeCSS. The ability to make a bit-for-bit perfect copy of a DVD is too much for pirates to pass up, and way too high in quality for a Movie studio exec to be able to sleep at night about.
Yes, the companies are going to put way in to avoid having you make ANY sort of illicit copy to a tape (because if you don't protect a copyright, you lose it), but even if you do, you get what? A shitty tape copy. They know this, and is why they don't pursue it as much.
And before anyone mentioned about backup copies, and personal use rights being the reason they don't pursue tape companies ... I left that out intentionally. I figure us /.'ers are smart enough to factor that in as well.
Here's what to do.
Use the same technique as Metallica and count the number of mp3's downloads via MP3 (and maybe Napster etc for a wider sample of the online community) but this time count the number of Universal artist mp3's downloaded then calculate Courtney Love's share.
Present the data in court, as Courtney Love is entitled to a (No of Courtney Love downloads/No of Universal artist downloads) % share of the proceeds of the Universal Vs MP3.Com court case. We can help Courtney Love by downloading as many of her MP3 files as possible to increase her share of the pie.
Maybe Courtney would like to donate some of this "lost income" back to the mp3 community via support to software developers or by releasing some mp3 only music.
CmdrTaco has a slashdot uid of 1 (whereas you have #98098).
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Congrats, Eudora 5 sez 3 Chillis!
~ppppppppö
she would have to justify the amount she deserves (right?)
If the RIAA doesn't have to justify getting a blanket $25K/album, why should she have to justify getting her cut of that? In fact, if the labels really don't intend to distribute the awarded amount to the artists in question, I think she should get it all, since she is currently the only artist making any claims to it. Once we have all the other artists suing their labels, then we'll worry about splitting it up. :-)
Kurt and his subsequent death allowed her to form a band, capture national attention, and allow the misconception that she had something "deep" to write lyrics about.
Actually, Hole was around before Kurt died. I don't know when the two got together, but I have a Hole CD here copyright 1991, titled Pretty On The Inside. One could say that Celebrity Skin, which I like a lot better, is their "Pretty On The Outside" disc.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
steve ablini is an overrated suckass producer.
big black sucked big black cock.
so do you.
fuckhead.
Brainchild: He is a recording engineer that makes records some people enjoy the sound of. He also charges a reasonable price for recording pretty much anyone's band who wants his services. Every other "producer" working for the majors is much more overrated than he, since they charge so much more and they all basically sound the same. If you didn't like Big Black, I'm sorry for you, but yours is hardly a post worth the 17 words you typed to say nothing at all.
Chris
rambling loon who has half an idea of what he is saying, but Kirk plays a mean guitar solo and James Hetfield has this resonating melodic baritone that leaves a lot missing when you hear heavy metal without it.
Even if Hetfield could sing he wouldn't be a baritone. And yes, they do suck. Despite the name they no longer play metal. It is pop.
Chris
... she should file an amicus brief in the Napster suit. This would be a wise move even if just to say that the artists should be awarded damages directly. Personaly, I would rather she support Napster to get back at the RIAA but Im not sure how likely that is.
Heh. Point taken. I should of said "alternative" *smirk*
But I disagree with you went Punk died. If your time line is correct then the Dead Kennedys weren't a punk rock band.
< flamebait>
Hmm didn't Crass say Punk died in '77, oh what Wattie said "Punk's not Dead!" in '80.
</flamebait>
Not that I ever liked their music much, but Hootie and the Blowfish had a great idea: They incorporated. So they got to deal with record companies on a b2b level, rather than as individuals. I'd imagine that this gave them much more leverage at the bargaining table than three guys in ripped T's would get.
They also get tax benefits; I know their company got them health insurance...
Can you blame them?
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Unfortunately Metallica knows all too well how the music industry works, and they made their choice. Mislead innocents they're not.
Best thing to do, is shun Metallica in all its forms. No discs, tapes, merchandise, or concert tickets.
--
What do you get for the judge who has everything? A copy of the Constitution... it's the only thing he's never read.
Er, if she only wanted the money. Yes, she can settle out of court. Read the Salon Article, she's trying to make a point. She won't settle out of court, she will sue, and as someone else already pointed out, no matter what the outcome is, she wins. :-)
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Anyway, she's sueing for money won from MP3, so indirectly, she's taking this money from MP3.com. She's just sueing the middle-man.
In the light of this, does this mean she's suddenly a very crappy artist? Say, like Metallica and Dr. Dre?
Don't confuse political position with talent. That's a dangerous equation. Artists can still be assholes, and lamers can still have valid political opinions.
It's not 95% of the market, it's closer to %90, and somebody else can better describe the exact way major labels enforce their distribution channels.
--
This is not my sandwich.
There is no question that labels manipulate musicians' egos to their own financial gain. "I'm gonna make you a star!" is a potent Siren call when you want to be admired. The whole thing is Faustian. I can think of no other human organization so bent on owning souls.
BTW, good point about the labels backing bankruptcy "reform." I always figured it was just the banks...
--
This is not my sandwich.
Hi there,
Of course, you're right, but if you add the assumption (which she may or may not be making) that she has 0 chance of getting her money, the action takes on an entirely different tenor.
In fact, as you point out, she's really shot herself in the foot if Universal cuts her a check -- they'll have made the artists complicit.
god is just pretend.
As several others have pointed out, Courtney Love has a hair up her ass in the form of record labels. See Salon's article for a speech she made about how the labels fsck the artists. She's protesting the "we're defending the artists" crap the labels use.
What it really does is put Universal at risk for having every artist with a disk on my.mp3.com sue them. It means that all of a sudden the prospect of a few thousand lawsuits, all asking for different amounts of money. And what that means is a whole lot of noise, all showing the public that the RIAA doesn't give a damn about the artists it "represents". Yeah, mp3.com is screwed either way, but this way, RIAA is a lot worse off in the PR war.
The cake is a pie
FWIW all Universal artists are due a piece of this by their own logic: they sued mp3.com with the premise that use of mp3.com robbed them of sales/royalties. Damages awarded are compensation for that very theoretical loss. Therefore, because that money represents sales that should have occurred, the artists are entitled to their royalty *per (theoretical) abuse*.
All depends on the year you're talking about, my friend. When "'tis" was accepted as the contraction of "it is", "it's" was the possessive of "it".
Either way, I don't think he was trolling too badly. With regards to grammar, this post was one of the worst. And to suggest coping with it and not complaining, it's an insult the five intelligent Slashdot readers out there.
-bugg
Universal was only in for the money. They weren't doing it for the artists. It's all about the Benjamin's baby! If Courtney gets her share, I wonder how many other artists will hop on and demand their share also. Maybe Ms. Love had more of an influence with the Universal folks to get the lawsuit through??
Pink Floyd is the only act I know of that actually owns their own copyright.
...now how did they pull that off?
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
There's also the case of The The and the decision to make MP3s available, 1 track a week, available for download from the official website. Try THE THE VERSUS THE CORPORATE MONSTER for all the details of why he did it, and what he hopes to gain from it. (Hint: The old Napster argument of "let people hear the stuff and they'll buy the CD") Oh, and NakedSelf, the CD in question, is amazingly good, as far as I'm concerned.
How about MP3.com?
---
I wear pants.
Wow. That was a great speech. I have gained A LOT of respect for Courtney Love from reading that. She's very articulate despite all the profanity... :)
I loved the reference to Neal Stephenson
---
I wear pants.
Name one.
Billy Joel. That the person managing his money screwed him over is a completely different story.
Remember 'U Can't Touch This'? MC Hammer filed for bankrupcty too.
MC gave his money away frivilously to his "friends" because he thought he was helping them. Turned out they weren't his friends when he needed help...
Anyway, what it comes down to is that most bands probably waste more money than they have to. They live the big life and spend the money required to do that. Whether it is trashing hotel rooms, drugs, cars or whatever, they aren't managing their money.
Ty Cobb, one of the best baseball players ever, said he couldn't understand why so many ballplayers were crying poverty (avg paycheck circa 1915 was probably less than $3000 a season). He invested his money (primarily in coca cola) and was rich (remember, this was back when there was no free agency and players couldn't really demand a salary).
Even today, people who manage their money effectively will come out ahead. My brother's father-in-law makes a lot of money, but he also shops at discount stores and doesn't buy high-falutin' cars and houses.
"Baseball is a red-blooded sport for red-blooded men. It's no pink tea, and mollycoddles had better stay out. It's a struggle for supremacy, survival of the fittest." - Cobb
"The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
wow, that was extrememely well written! bravo good chap, bravo! That's the truth summed up in a page or two.
-motardo
This is also most likely an easy way to get out of your contract ;)
I wonder if courtney reads slashdot...most likely not, oh well
-motardo
Companies own the copyrights. They didn't actually breach any agreements with her, and since it's not
her copyright, she could loose.
That all depends on the details of her contract. While most artists today have contracts that classify their music as "works for hire" owned by the label, this is not true of everyone.
Under current law, even if the record company owns your music, the artist can still regain the rights to their music after 35 years
When the RIAA tried to sneak in an amendment to the Copyright Act last year that would have automatically classified all music as "works for hire" and eliminated the 35 year loophole, it got a lot of people pissed off - you can read all about it in this recent article from Salon
Yeah, it says that you're getting old...My father doesn't like "current" music either.
I gotta hand it to Courtney, she really knows how to make a point. The has got to be THE funniest thing I have seen happen in a long time. The best part of it all is that if she wins, all the other artists will join in, and if she loses, she makes the record companies look like even BIGGER assholes.
I know this is redundant, and everyone else is also posting this, but I just had too. This is just too funny.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/09/06/19142 45&cid=409
Can I sue her once she gets her share?
I remember when the Metallica suit was first made public. Some people interviewed other musicians. i distinctly remember courtny love saying Metallica was greedy amd she would be honored if people wanted to download her music
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
Cool. When do I get mine?
-Pete
anyway, i should have mentioned this in my article: Love does indeed own *a* copyright associated with her music: the copyright on the composition and lyrics. this copyright is administered for performances (on the Net this means webcasts and possibly downloads, depending on what lawyer you talk to) by one of the three performance-rights agencies: ASCAP, BMI, SESAC.
interestingly -- and again this should have been in my story -- ASCAP and BMI have already cut deals with MP3.com (see http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1839488.html? tag=st.ne.1002.srchres.ni , so Courntey has earned *some* MP3.com money, if not from the settlements/judgement concerning My.MP3.com.
there is another copyright, of course, on the sound recording itself, and this is indeed owned wholly by Universal. this is the copyright in question in the case over My.MP3.com. but artist contracts are built above and beyond copyright law, and ms. Love would likely sue for breach of contract rather than copyright violation.
cheers -r
Werd up bitches I got UID one
the wild slasdot-cruiser is what I just won
Y'all may snicker 'bout my dual boot
But deep down ya know I'm motherfuckin root
uhh... isn't root uid zero?
"Records go platinum, and the artist goes bankrupt." That's what happened to TLC.
Not only that, but the record companies are/was in the process of buying new laws, to deny artists their rights to bankrupt themselves.
They want to keep'em as personal slaves I guess..
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I thought people were posting to get heard, not to get modded up a few points.
Disclaimer: I know my karma will just plummet by posting this. Alas, I just wanted to get heard..
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Do you somehow think kids and parents were unable to deal with the issues of growing up before this "miracle" drug was introduced?
Is it a coincidence that a scary new disease (Attention Deficit Disorder) was "discovered" that this new drug (Ritalin) was ready and waiting to "cure"?
It was common in the 50's and 60's to have adults on a constant dose of Librium or Valium to help them deal with "stress". It's a great way to sell drugs, but I don't think it benefits the patient in the long run.
I don't know if Ritalin is a scam, but I don't like the way the whole thing smells. And the American Psychiatric Association hardly has a blameless past. One might even say they have been guilty of a few excesses, if one looks at history.
Your wallet stays open. Our source remains closed. We are MSFT
Courtney's playing this one smart. The industry is about to change. She know this. She also knows that it's only going to do so kicking and screaming. As an artist with a high profile, she had the visibility to turn up the heat and bring the issue to a head.
She's also smart enough to go after the real pricks in the supply chain... the record industry. She's not pissing off her fans by whining about Napster, she's not even bitching about MP3.com, she'e going after every damn nickel her label owes her.
Mark my words, in a few years when a new model evolves, the histroy books will look at Love and highlight her role in the process. She may not be crying from the rooftops to protect the fan's right to free music, but she is doing a damn good job of bringing artist rights into the discussion.
Besides that, she's friggen hot. I feel like a geezer at 32 when I go to see her live, but the woman puts on a good show.
Also, I think it's pretty damn cool to see a woman at the front lines of this fight. Not only is she fighting the good fight, she's doing it with intelligence and more understanding of the industry than most any other player in the game.
Republic != democracy! ARG! Nobody recognises any sort of difference, and this is where people like you go wrong. Jefferson was a very rich man that had teams of scientists of men working under him. He made the first great Intellectual Property company :-) And he got insanely rich and famous.
Now.. back to the subject at hand. "Democracy" is one of the lies told to Americans. We are a democracy in so few ways it's not even funny. The only laws that people directly vote on are perhaps some local laws. The rest are made by officials which people(sometimes...) vote for(ie electoral votes). We are somewhat a democratic republic. But most certainly we are even more of a _communist_ country than we are a democracy(we implemnt all of Lenin's 9 planks of communism...)
May seem a bit pedantic, but whatever. Small things matter. But sometimes they don't. Just ask any girl.
"Hex, Bugs, and Rockn'Roll"
Don't say that... people will now start auctioning karma points at ebay!
--
This space left intentionally blank.
Our current society is ruled by a lot of implicit and unstated contracts, such as the Uniform Commercial Code. This would not only prevent misuse of licenses and contracts by corporations, but by the government itself.
On the contrary, this generation has some excellent artists and bands. You're just not likely to hear them on the radio or find their CDs hawked at McDonalds.
I registered at Hole's Website to show some support.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the true challenge of a democracy is not to protect the majority, but rather, to protect the minority.
Jordan Bettis
``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''IIRC, the damages awarded were based on lost royalties, so she's entitled to those "lost royalties" if they would've been otherwise paid to her. So, despite the basis of the suit arguments (copyright), part of the damages are theoretically hers. Since she's got good lawyers, I'm sure she'll get a percentage or at least make a big enough stink about it to make Universal look greedy and like they're not acting in the artists' best interests.
Wow!
Courtney just made a fan out of me.
I will be "buying" whatever she does next.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
A trade organization or a full fledged union. Get a union of musicians going on strike and there wouldn't be very many new albums coming out for the record industries.
If they form a union better start talking about contract renegotiations too, some of those contracts are such crap and I don't know why anyone signs (I guess its the easiest way to get the music "out there") any of these restrictive contracts with the record companies.
Oh well thats just my little rant.
Sure, Courtney Love doesn't actually own the copyright to her own music, but she does have a contract to make a certain monetary amount for every copy of her songs which is distributed. Since copies of her songs were distributed via mp3.com, and Universal was compensated for that distribution, she has a right to those additional royalties. She probably won't lose or win, but will settle out of court for some miniscule amount.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
my wife actually knew Il Duce through an old boyfriend who was in the band Dr. Know and from her descriptions of him and footage I have seen, he was a very scary raving lunatic. I would not put it past him to pass out drunk on a railroad track. Probably a good thing too.
Someone has been watching that lame tabloid "documentary" 'Kurt & Courtney' recently eh? Im not a fan of Hole, but don't slander her based on second or ten thousandth hand information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only in that most artists don't get squat. Don't you ever watch VH1 Behind the Music? ;)
Seriously, I forget what year it was but TLC sold like a bazillion albums and made about $50K apiece -- they ended up in bankruptcy court.
--john
While I agree that the statement of her suit is amusing / entertaining, is she really entitled to part of the profits that Universal has "lossed" as a result of MP3.com's misuse?
I thought the entertainment publishing model worked as follows: Universal cuts her a check for a gazillion dollars in advanced based on how they think the album would sell. She goes out and lives it up while they market and mass produce the album.
Therefore, lost revenues only hurt Universal and not Courtney Love (in the short term, anyway)... she's already got her "slice of the pie."
Am I wrong in this assumption?
(Note: There are no x's in my email address.)
This is a smart publicity stunt by Courtney Love, and it's keeping in style with the rest of her stunts. There's no way Universal could say no to all their artists who want a cut of the money, this would be a mass exodus of all the artists, terribly damaging Universal.
:-)
What I see is that Universal only asseses royalty fees twice a year (read the article). It makes sense that they don't comment on who gets what until the've worked the math out for themselves. And it would be irresponsible to promise artists money that has not been awarded to them yet. The lawsuit isn't even finished yet!
It's shameful that Courtney is screaming bloody murder because she hasn't been allocated money that Universal hasn't even had the chance to account for.
What universal did say is that she is getting what will amount to the rate for discount CD clubs. No number was given yet. This is very fair, I would consider mp3.com a "discount reseller".
I honestly think that the recording industry is an illegal price fixing cartel. It does abuse it's artists. But crying that you've been shafted before even the preliminary accounting has been done is very childish.
A very good initial bargaining position though....
4) Either The Man realizes what's going on, and pays you off, or they suffer the negative press as everyone realizes that they don't give a FUCK* about the artists.
Is there anyone left who doesn't realize that already? Also, since The Man is The Man, why should he give a rat's about negative press, anyway?
-Forager.
student of animation and the fine arts
Courtney Love perpetuates the idea of vaginal orgasm. This has been discredited. The female orgasm take place in the clitoris. It is a "penis like" growth just above the vulva. Indirect stimulation of this organ is usually pleasurable to females. Lubricating and fondling the area of the hood of the clitoris will usually provoke intense orgasm in your female partner. A good source of lubrication for stimulating the clitoris is the female vagina itself. During sexual arousal the female vagina produces an excess of lubricating fluid which may be called into service in an effort to stimulate the clitoris. But do not be too heavy handed. It is often better to stimulate the tissue adjacent to the clitoris than to direct you efforts to the clitoris itself. Tease and please.
No, what he means is that the power of a symbol is diluted and weakened when it's turned into a mainstream fashion statement. Back in the 50's ONLY bikers wore leather jackets. It was a very powerful symbol, and wearing one would get you ostracized from any "respectable" social circles. Has anybody experienced the stigma of wearing a leather jacket recently? You can see the same thing happening with baggy pants, body piercings, and colored hair. What was hardcore is now a fashion statement.
reversing the work for hire does not reverse the prior standard in which artists dont get back their copywrites for 35 years.
---
Everyone who has an opinion on Courtney Love should first check out the doc on Kurt Cobain, "Kurt and Courtney," generally available in Blockbuster. Very eye opening, and if nothing else, it will demonstrate Love's genius at manipulating the media attention and hype. This is just a stunt, she is smart enough to key in on hot issues and figure a way to promote herself with them. Still, it might be a good thing for her to do this anyway, as it is a funny and ironic, highly public, twist on the MP3 debate.
She's got a big mouth, and she seems to not have her head that far up her ass. Salon has a great speech of hers here that everyone should read. I'll love watching Universal deal with her.
realizing it and having demonstrated proof are different things. No, they probably don't care about bas press all that much, but maybe, kjust maybe, the judges and legislators will finally see them for what they are.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
kudos to you sir
and kudos again
Slashdot wants to be trolled
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
Umm, no offense, but your "math" doesn't contradict anything bearpaw said.
"That's a heck of a stretch. The amount of money coming out of MP3's pocket will be unaffected by whether she wins or loses, but Universal may end up with less of its heist. What part of this simple bit of math do you not understand? "
This is still a valid statement. Using variables to show the obvious doesn't make your point sound any more intelligent. If you'll notice in your own argument, mp3.com still loses $10,000,000 in all cases, no more, no less.
Obviously, Courtney Love's case against Universal does not affect mp3.com (financially) in any way. Besides, as has been mentioned you're missing the whole point. I think it's pretty damn funny myself, and I'm glad she's doing it.
By your logic, however, if Microsoft has pursued and won its lawsuit against Slashdot, then I were to win a lawsuit against Microsoft (over something unrelated), then I would be taking money straight out of Slashdot's pocket. Now exactly how fucking stupid do you need to be to believe that?
And I disagree with those that think you're a troll. You've just been smoking a little too much crack.
That shit'll kill ya.
Source code is a lot like a parachute; it needs to be open in order to function properly.
That's right, all you teenage music fans. Your generations music is really the product of some fat, bald old fart sitting behind a desk. Thats why your generation has no Led Zeppelin, no Who, no Rush. No great songs that you'll still be listening to in 30 years. Now, what're you going to do about it?
:)
Nirvana is one of those bands like the doors or hendrix.. i always listen to their stuff, it never gets boring. Most of the music today is crap. Lately i've gotten into the electronica scene and its amazing. There may be no timeless artist (other than norman cook, moby, and a few choice others..) but the creative flow of talent is amazing. Beware, though, there is a _lot_ of crappy music out there.. I can usually tell the good stuff.. if it doesnt annoy me and make me want to turn it off, its good
when you're this sexy, do you really need a witty signature?
Smashing Pumpkins put their last album on the web to.
I can't wait until IP6 and most people will have cable or DSL modems. Just wait. Music and Movies will then be free.
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Ever wonder why that is? Its because the recording industry could care less about art. They want a product that sells. So what we have is that 95% of all radio stations are owned by a handful of media companies. We have Britney Spears and boy bands, entirely conceived and executed by middle-aged recording execs.
That's right, all you teenage music fans. Your generations music is really the product of some fat, bald old fart sitting behind a desk. Thats why your generation has no Led Zeppelin, no Who, no Rush. No great songs that you'll still be listening to in 30 years. Now, what're you going to do about it?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Yeah. But the more record sales she has the more saying power she has. She would have more say in the big picture if she had 10 million records sold as opposed to 10 million dollars.
:)
But the $16 direct is still probably better
Here is a better idea - buy her CD's. Though Universal would then get money... maybe this is a better idea :)
Send her the $16 directly.
Matt.
A precedent would be good because in other cases regarding RIAA/Big Bad Record Company (TM), when they say (under oath noless) that they are looking after the artists interests, the defendents have a case to refer to which shows that this is obviously a complete load of bullshit.
Hey musicians: here's an idea. Stop signing shitty contracts! If the bloated RIAA (sic) chums can't sign any new acts, they'll very quickly be fucked. Which would be nice, IMO. They may be evil, but they are not a necessary evil, as Courtney so clearly stated.
Of course, I will make exceptions for some of the smaller indie record companies (such as 4AD, who seem to be a bit more focussed on creativity rather than the lucre. I know that with them, if they have an artist I like, they are likely to have others. This is a good thing.
"The greatest trick the record companies ever pulled was convincing the world that the bands they signed are the best."
In-your-face advertising. Completely sensory immersion for a generally sedentary society. For some, advertising could be the only exciting thing that ever happens. Promoters know this.
Wouldn't it be nice to have digital music recorded 32 bits per channel, 500kHz sample rate? A lot of classical music would sound a hell of a lot better.
--
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
Love often complains about the music industry and stages weird actions to show it. This looks like another one of her complaints.
She's just saying, "If the suit is to give us, the artists, our money back--why don't we get any of it?"
Call me crazy, but at what point in the process of artists putting out their music on the web, in any given format, do they make a so called profit. I'll grant you the fact that the 'net allows artists to promote and distribute their music easily, in digital format, but how many people do you know that send the artist any money when they download and listen to a mp3? Perhaps there are some few artists out there burning their own cds and getting orders directly from consumers AND making anything like a living from this, but I'm unaware of any of them. In all honesty, I think that most folks here are lauding Ms. Love's actions because it lets them ignore that fact that they aren't doing a damn'd thing for the actual artists. Support independent music labels and independent music stores online and off, instead of just trading mp3 files like kids in a candy store.
The link says the article expired. (What's that about? Not enough disk space to keep an article?) Bummer. After the Napster gag (brilliant in my mind), I would have liked to read this. They've gained new respect in my eyes.
Not necessarily... maybe if the lawyers take everything, people will stop trying to sue each other, and actually try and work things out in a more reasonable manner.
On the other hand...nah, probably not.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
to be the girl with the most cake!
Cheers,
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
But do they have an oral contract since they stated in multiple places that this action was "for the artists"? (the usual IANAL applies)
Leave English to those for whom it is a native tounge-- your grammar nazi school only prepared you for german. Please note that in English: The possessive it has no apostraphe (There's a newsgroup about that). You can have a slice of cherry pie, or a slice of a cherry pie. Rock can be a proper noun.
so i can use the social security number obtained off of Kurt Cobain's death certificate to skip the country with the money
William D. Freeman http://members.xoom.com/EvilGNU -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s+:++ a---
[Shrug]
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Think about it this way:
Ms. Love has a contract with the record company. This contract specifies that the record company gives a certain cut of the profit from the distribution of a recording to the artist.
Ms. Love's record company initiated a suit against mp3.com claiming damages due to the unauthorized distribution of Ms. Love's (among other artists') recordings. They were granted a judgement because they convinced a judge that mp3.com's actions cost them lost sales and that because of that, they are due money.
Legal weaseling aside, the record company has collected money for the distribution of Ms. Love's recordings. In this case from a lawsuit instead of a direct sale. In my mind, Ms. Love is due the proper royalty from the damages collected from the unauthorized distribution of her recordings - no different from the record company collecting money from a regular sale.
Disclaimer: IANACLF (I am not a Courtney Love fan).
xjoshCudos to the Lady. Universal definitely has to respond to her suit and what I assume is that they might shell out a million or two at the most, but the major share would remain with them. Atleast the judge who ruled in their favour would regret the fact that he took money from one wrong party and gave it another one. Kind of like milking the drug dealers to pay to the mob scenario. Ultimately its the artists who are screwed and atleast now they should realise that the record companies are out to screw them and napster and mp3 are out to screw them too. Someone has to soon come up with a viable business model to take advantage of this situation.
It would have been better if mp3 while admitting to pay damages to Universal had some say in how much money should go to the artists. Or it would have been better if the Court had a say on the matter. I dont mind the artists getting paid for what they create, but I dont see the point in Universal pocketing its profits leaving the artists and the public screwing each other.
Like it or not, Digital content is here to stay. Well, now atleast all those self professed "Copy rights enthusiasts" who vouched for the major Content firms and the poor artists might tuck their tail and shut up.
Rapid Nirvana
This ought to be fun. They'll have to pay her something or they just committed perjury.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
oops, sorry. i missed the albini-nirvana connection; since i only liked nirvana for about four months back in '93 i don't really know all the "six degrees of kurt cobain" info. (now tori amos OTOH...) :->
---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
for the same reason Magic Johnson was an HIV-spokesperson,
which is the same reason Michael J. Fox promotes Parkinson's Disease issues,
which is the same reason Lance Armstrong and Bob Dole speak about cancer...
let's suppose Courtney Love read slashdot, saw the original posting about Steve's article, went and read it, agreed with its position, and now repeats the ideas to the press who lap up her every word.
What's the problem??
Joe America doesn't give a shit about Steve Albini's opinion because he doesn't know who Albini is. And he doesn't care to know. All he cares about is Must See TV and I Want My MTV and which superstar is making the rounds of the magazine covers this month.
If Courtney Love regurgitating someone else's good ideas is the only way to get those ideas across to Joe Sixpack America, then I'm all for it.
I've never listened to her music, and still think of her as "that media-created persona who was lucky enough to have her husband blow his brains out, thus assuring her an eternal place in our pop culture pantheon" -- but even if I don't care about her one way or another, I'm more than happy to accept anything she may do that advances causes I support.
---
the problem with teens is they're looking for certainties
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
The way I see it, if I'm a Universal customer, I must have lost money - We all know piracy raises prices to end customers! If anyone from Universal is listening, $10,000 should be enough. Send it off to me at:
Michael Tandy
South Wales
United Kingdom
Thanks,
Michael
...another comment from Michael Tandy.
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
It is simply absurd. So in one corner, we have a sleazy whore, in the other, a sleazy company. :) Have one give the other money, and what do you get?
:) )
Now, perhaps if Courtney Love was actually making an active stance in the whole Mp3 thing (ie. Actually making/releasing new material on the web, releasing albums, ect) she could be entitled to some money somewhere. But, she looks to me like she is leeching onto something to get her self more drug money. (Flamebait
What about the hardworking groups that distribute all of their music via Mp3's? What are they getting? I've seen some indie talent that should be getting a lot more than they are.. Why don't some of them stand up? It seems to me, that they are still in for the MUSIC not the money. Bleh on her.
-TimmyC, Tech Guru
Can we please have a filter that rejects any post that includes the spelling "copyrite" or "copywrite?"
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
it's not called the karma mafia for nothing, you know.
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
I forsee a class action lawsuit going like this:
Musicians: "We're suing them because they sued someone else."
Judge: "Hmm, no entitlement to anything like that is in your contract. So no breach of contract. So no case. Court rules for the defendant. Case dismissed."
RIAA: "Whoo-hoo!"
Musicians: "Doh!"
Although it is good to see Mrs. Cobain taking a stand. I see her as a Dennis Rodman-type. She can't stand not being in the spotlight even though she has no musical or acting talent. So she gets naked a lot.
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
I speak for the poor and oppressed rock stars of this world, because somebody needs to stand up for them, to stop and say, "You can stamp out the family farm, you can destroy public education, you can screw up baseball with phony and senseless post-season wild-card games, but by GOD there's a limit to how much evil I will tolerate. When you start fucking with millionaire musicians, then you've got a fight on your hands, mister!"
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
They don't "make stars" -- they don't have a fucking clue what's going to be hot next year. For all they know we're all going to be screaming for Mongolian techno-jazz. All they really know is what was hot last year, so they sign more of that and hope to Christ they didn't wait too long, that they can sell SameAsNSync or Almost-Oasis or NaugaNirvana for a little longer before the market turns again and they're all standing around looking at their shoes and hoping the boss doesn't see them.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
So I take that you'd be willing to pony up Metallica royalties for a year?
It may be a small percentage, but a little slice of a big pie can still come out to quite a bit of money.
Personally I'd happily accept a penny for every Metallica album sold.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
sue ...mp3....free publicity...hang on to my 15 minutes of a fame a little longer...
whatever. The only way she could possibly impress me is if she dug up the self respect to join her brains with Kurts...scattered all over rock & roll's perverbial floor of fame.
--
either way, it at least raises the flag against the record companies and makes people wonder who they are really trying to protect. the way i see it, computers have eliminated a lot of jobs over the years. the digital music revolution is the first time that computers threatened to eliminate jobs of high-priced/money-laden/not-that-smart people like the record execs. in my opinion, if the record industry put as much effort into figuring out how to make the internet music distibution model work for to their advantage, they'd be a lot farther ahead.
Do some quick math with me here...
250-20=230, right?
So, what's 20 divided by n, n being the number of artists signed to a record label? Something tells me that we're talking fractions here. Pretty small fractions.
That leaves $230mil to pay for the legal bills of the suit and for new cushy leather chairs for all the VPs.
"Yes, ma'am, Ms. Love, ma'am. Here's your check for $3.26; your share of the MP3.com money!"
-- ~Can money pay for all the days I've lived awake, but half asleep?~
Other bands that are going this route include Primus, who post tons of live shows on their site (mostly from tapes that fans send in). Prince is getting into the act. They Might Be Giants has songs at their site, as well as plenty of downloads at Emusic.com. They must be doing well with it since they keep releasing new stuff there (and their the number one act on the site... I guess the technology and their fanbase is a good mix).
Yes, record companies are just starting to feel the hurt. And it isn't because of anything illegal going on.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I was under the impression that artists own the copyright (and therefore have the right to control distribution) originally, and that in most cases they sign over this right to the record companies in their exclusive contracts.
If that's the case, maybe artisits should not sign these contracts!
Once again she suprises me, Courtney Loves battle with the record industry heartens me. It also reminds me that those of us who love mp3, for playing copyrighted songs which we have not payed for (there I came out and said it which of you lilly livered scapegoats is gonna bitch) are not entirely the bad guys, one of these days I'll figure out a way to honestly justify my mp3 habit. till then, mp3 IS a crime and I am a criminal *8@)
Guttermouth is a really good band.
Let's see: The RIAA gets a lot of money from a "client" for protecting their employee's "occupation". Sounds like the RIAA is pimpin' those hos.
Quotes appear for lack of better words...
-----------
end communication
She's not against mp3s at all. read Salon's article if you don't believe that. Her suit is most like a counter suit to Universal. Her Salon article discusses the evils of the recording industry and how she doesn't want the industry making money by citing her work as what is infringed upon with regard to mp3.com. She wants to be able to decide the fate of her music. It appears that she doesn't want the industry to try to crush the non-RIAA distributers, since she wants the current establishment will go the way of the dinosaur and not make money. The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend is what this suit looks like it is about...
I don't really like her music especially, but I liked her argument. It makes sense. Especially her views on the suckage of "Mambo Number 5"...<grin>
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
I think it's a win/win situation for the artists with her action. If they cut her a share they had better be prepared to cut a share for the rest of the artists on the 4,700-10,000 albums that were "pirated" as well. If they don't, well then, all that igneous polenta about "protecting the artists" is just that, hot grits.
only the people that make money off the musicians do. Ask the Smashing Pumpkins why they had the final album on their contract with Virgin ripped into MP3 and distributed on Napster!
--
"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire
Napster CEO: "Artists suing labels...argghghggh "
BOSTON SUCKS!
I totally agree with her that they have no intentions of sharing the cash. Even if they do, it will be at those piss-poor rates that musicians get stuck with when they are nobody and have to sign a record deal
You know why Metallica is one of the few bands to sue Napster? Because they're one of the few that actually own their music and master tracks... Not that it means they are right to sue, but that's another /.
Spooon!
-N
That check they are cutting her is an advance. Her contract gives her a certain amount per album. If she doesn't sell enough albums to make up for the advance, she ends up owing the record company money. Not only that, they charge her part of the cost of advertising, probably the whole cost for the recording studio, etc. Of course, if you're not an idiot, you won't end up bankrupt like so many musicians do.
Spooon!
-N
I'm thinking Dr Dre and Metallica were paid by the RIAA to pretend like they don't like MP3 stuff.
I'm not sure about Dr Dre, but Metallica doesn't need to be directly influenced (paid off) by the RIAA in order to share the RIAA's opinion -- unlike other musicians, Metallica's interests are identical to that of the RIAA to begin with. Metallica actually owns the copyrights to their songs (though it took a court battle to win those rights), and Lars "Napster Bad" Ulrich runs a record label of his own. This is why all of Metallica's pissing and moaning under the guise of the 'persecuted artists' is so misleading and frustrating. They are in the priviledged position of enjoying record company rights and profits - that is to say that they actually make money from their own record sales instead of having it scooped up by the majors - and are not at all in the same boat as the other artists out there.
I'm not suggesting that you should feel sorry for anyone. I was simply pointing out that they are actually representing interests far different from (in fact, directly opposed to) the ones they would have the newsmedia believe they are championing.
Note also that following the Metallica case, there was a lot of scrambling around on the corporate side of the music industry to make sure it couldn't happen again. (*ahem* work-for-hire *ahem*)
The problem here is that nobody 'throws away' the rights to their songs when dealing with the major labels as you suggest -- they have no option but to hand them over from the beginning. It simply isn't the case that anyone chooses to fork over their ownership rights in exchange for a bit of extra cash; unlike in most other publishing industries, that choice doesn't exist, and under the current model, the big-five have had such a chokehold over distribution that there simply hasn't been much anyone could do about it. But now there is something that can be done about it, and that is to explore the new distribution methods that are opening up, which many artists are beginning to do and many are coming out in support of online distribution and peer-to-peer trading precisely because it can benefit both the artists and the consumers, both of whom have been bullied and abused by the traditional recording industry cartel. Metallica on the other hand has a vested interest in upholding convention, and therefore their efforts can not be construed as being representative of musicians as a whole.
Oh, and regarding the musician/coke thing -- I wasn't aware that we were suddenly living inside an 80s rock video. Silly me.
As a result- they ended up instinctively attacking Napster like a rabid wolverine, too- it's apparently their usual approach to anything that seems threatening. If they become convinced that mp3s are truly necessary or helpful to them rather than harmful, they will quit attacking mp3s.
Dre is just a fool- I don't think _he_ owns his masters. I would guess that he begged for _lots_ of advance money from the record companies- so he's surrounded by luxury and owns none of it and is massively, insanely in debt to the record companies without a hope of recouping. It's not hard to understand why someone like that would end up being the labels' lapdog. He's their property.
- granted, go on...
- 'of their own dollars'? What are you smoking? Read a real contract. It is _your_ dollars they spend- every penny right down to the dishes of mixed nuts in the lobby is 'recoupable', meaning that it comes out of your royalties. It is A LOAN, not a gift. Repeat, A LOAN. Is this so hard to understand? Have you ever taken out a loan? When you do, is the bank 'giving you its own dollars'? I'd say it was your future dollars they are giving you, betting that you'll be good for it. This is not even getting into the fact that you'll be damned lucky to get five grand- basically, to get this sort of loan against royalties you will need to spend about as much of your own money in building a buzz as you expect to be loaned. If you can't spend five grand looking good for the record label you're unlikely to even see five grand out of the record company. You are _very_ far from reality here, talk to some professionals and ask them how much an artist like you describe could expect to be advanced against royalties.
- Ha! I suggest talking to your bank manager. Build a relationship and build credit through taking small loans and paying them back responsibly to show that you can forecast cashflow effectively. Then when you need a million dollars you've done your homework, you're talking to the _right_ people and you'll get one _hell_ of a lot better terms than you'd get off the record labels. Think of record label advances as credit cards- except the rates are significantly worse, and the terms are a bear. Credit cards don't tend to forbid you to work- label contracts will tend to forbid you to record or perform for anybody else. If the label's refusing to fund you 'cause you didn't recoup, you not only owe them vast sums and won't get paid but you have to come up with your own money just to continue working as a musician, recording and promoting the albums you're not going to be paid for. Labels do not think long term these days- except that they'll happily sign you for a ten CD contract- give you 5-10K to make and promote the first one- then if you are a monster hit, they cash in, and if you stiff, you gotta pay for the other nine albums yourself, but they will take all the proceeds until the advance is recouped. Oh what a deal
:P
- Hope you know a damned good lawyer. Careful- if you let the record label find you a lawyer, this is what often happens- if ever you sue the record label, you are surprised to find that your lawyer declines to help you much- but shows up bright and early in court- on the OTHER side. Yes this is conflict of interest, your point? You expected _better_ ethics than the Mafia? This really happens, be careful. If you're not really well represented, forget it- you'll never see any money. You might be famous until the next sucker comes along without a good lawyer. Why do you think so many famous music superstars, now and in the past, are _children_?
- OK, now we are in pure fantasy territory. If you're really making a million you _are_ likely to want more, but that's because the kind of person capable of doing that isn't likely to stop at a million. Nobody capable of earning that much would be this dumb about the music industry- naivete does not earn a million dollars, unless you mean 'earning it for somebody else'.
- Actually the batting average is hugely worse than 9 out of 10- more like 9999 out of ten thousand. And again, you're talking 5K advances mostly- the figures here are waaaay out of whack. Courtney L's term of 'sharecropping' for the situation is a lot more accurate- what gives you the idea that these labels are so indispensable? (never mind the amusing notion that they 'give you a slice of the profits'! Were you listening about the recouping?) What is with this claim of 'you cannot function as a working musician without the record labels'? It's a business, not a system of royalty. It may be that the labels so tightly control all record stores and radio that you're substantially handicapped if you try to create your own network- it's true that where once new labels sprang up in a free-market sort of way, now they mostly don't exist, they are vanity imprints of the majors. Even so, other avenues for promotion and distribution open up. The closest you'll get to a label that 'made' its artists is the heyday of Motown- and even then, they were fortunate to stumble across the right artists to mold and control.
- Good: capitalism and a free market only work when there is decent information getting out. Though it took me way too long to realise that your 'you' is Courtney L. herself. Okay, so I am Courtney Love. Does that make you a fat, middle-aged record company executive? Or just a deluded fool?*
* The irony of this exchange would kill Alanis Morissette at twenty paces. I say 'it's a business, it's damn ruthless too, talk with some insiders, here are some common practices, protect yourself'. "FallLine" says, 'record labels will give you a million dollars just in case you are a star! Anyone who doubts this is an ungrateful pup being greedy and not settling for just a million dollars!'. And _I_ am supposed to be the 'sweet aroma of idealism'? This is the pot calling the _teacup_ 'black'. Do you think you could avoid talking total madness and false promises, in case there is still a musician out there somewhere in the world who might believe a word of it?it seems to make sense to me. the record industry is arguing that mp3.com cost them sales - the judgement was to make up for lost sales. some of the profits from those sales (though of course not much) would have gone to the artists as royalty payments, so therefore it should hold that the artists get reimbursed for "lost royalty payments" from the money the record companies were reimbursed for "lost sales."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
We all know that the labels are just huge marketing machines. We know that that's the only reason people sign with them in the first place. I don't buy your "9 in 10 of those investments fail" line though. Got some proof? Where do you get your numbers? If they can turn a bunch of guys like N'Sync into stars, I'd hate to see what the failures are like. Then there's the fact that the labels don't seem to even have to promote you. Many artists get little or no promotion, and they still have to pay the label back for the production of the album.
Then you get the labels spouting off about how they're protecting the artists by suing Napster. They're doing no such thing. They have very little responsibility to do anything for the artists (except the bigger ones that have gotten better contracts). The industry made $15 billion last year! That's a helluva lot of money for an industry that you claim is making such a gamble on the artists. I think the reason behind that is that it isn't such a gamble. If things truly are as you say they are, then their profits shouldn't be anywhere near that big.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is a very simple idea which hit me when I was walking down the street one day.
All the crappy musicians we here about these days are only heard about because the record industry promotes them. If there were an alternative channel to promote music, maybe I could begin to find some music which doesn't make me wretch. I mean I don't have cable, and I can't bear to listen to the radio... all the loud carpet-shop commercials, "zoom-zoom-zoom" tv-like ads, repeated songs and manipulated news... it just sucks.
What if somebody were to write a magazine which reviews small musicians, and sponsors them to produce MP3s. With a large enough startup capital, they could pay for producers and the like.
The magazine could have two sections... one for musicians which showed remarkable talent and were sponsored. Another section for musicians who are willing to pay to promote themselves. Self-promoting musicians would be clearly indicated... a condition of this could be that the musician has an MP3 file available, and that the musician themselves own their own name and music.
So you sit back, read your magazine, download the MP3s of some bands you've read about etcetera. Maybe it could form a niche. Maybe you don't need radio stations and record labels to popularize music... you could use night clubs, live bands, print and MP3s
This way, the slew of crappy MP3s are filtered out, people have to read to get a sense of which musicians are worthwhile... musicians get some publicity and could potentially earn cash for selling downloads of MP3s...
You could scrap the meatspace printed matter when flat panels become as durable, cheap, high resolution, low power consumption and establish as wide a circulation.
Then it occurred to me that if I've thought of it, somebody else is probably already doing it.
Where can I get this magazine?
There is a reason I speak so harshly here.
I said, ""Most people are unaware of this or think it is OK. It is not.""
You said,
"Actually, if most people think it is OK, it is OK. In a democracy, what is OK is decided by the people, not by the author of poltical texts such as this."
You hit the nail on the head, this is a "poltical text", and has a very specific purpose. In previous discussions here some have mentioned the lack of understanding of how to lobby, or how to work the legal system on the part of readers here.
This is my attempt to mend this lack of solidarity. When a party decides to push some legislation through Congress, do you think they propose the law they would like to see passed, or do they create an extreme law and prepare to bargin down. Democrats, Republicans, the MPAA, the RIAA, even the AARP hit the ground running on one platform one view and one extreme draft of how the law should be. Most lobbiest groups overstep their bounds and then perform a backstep or two in the name of `comprimise'. It's time we did the same.
It's true that a republic is all about what people think is OK. That's why it is IMPORTANT we change their minds. But if we are even the slightest bit wishy-washy even five minutes to midnight, when we finally do bargan, the bill will be passed with 10 rider bills and no teeth.
Folks we need teeth and we need to bite them where it hurts! Only when the internet community rips some aggressors antique business model to shreads for trying to cage it, will the status quo leave the internet alone.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
A story I posted (and /. rejected, suh-prize suh-prize) related Marillion's decision to produce its next record exclusively thru fan support.. Preorders (and fan donations) paying for the recording, pressing, sleeve printing, etc..
:p do a search on Marillion at some point..)
(looks like theregister's broken now
Life is indeed getting interesting...
Your Working Boy,
The artists aren't going to see a dime from ANY of these lawsuits and legal agreements between RIAA members and web music distributors. Not one. "Artists rights" be damned.
I took a look at the "legal" page of live365.com, a shoutcast/icecast compatable multi-caster. They claim that they are paying the publishing companies (well, specifically ASCAP) royalties.
Yet they don't ask or require you to log what songs you play (RIAA & ASCAP/BMI do require it of am/fm broadcast, plus tv/movies). And they don't say anything about the RIAA and their $5000 they want (plus the royalties for the recording itself).
So my attitude is -- how does the ASCAP know how to distribute the money they receive, if they aren't being given a log of what music is actually being played over live365's systems?
My Theory: They Don't.
ASCAP itself keeps the money. You can't distribute money equitably if you don't know who all is properly entitled to it. Or at least, that's my theory. Additionally, that covers ASCAP, but not BMI (and a lot of stuff on the 'net is British).
I raised that question to the legal department address @ live365, and received no reply. Because of this, I'm inclined to think i'm right on this. Evading a logical question on a legal issue by non-answer seems to be a common technique of most of the soul-suckers of the entertainment + legal industry.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Cheers,
~ Signal 11
--
Can we please make an exception in the moderation system to give this one a 6?
Thank you.
:)
> That ruins it. The Prisoner was so great because you kept on asking Who is Number One!?
Yeah but most of us are unix geeks. That means C. Who is number zero?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
<CONSPIRACY THEORY>
I think Metallica, Dre, et al. may just be pretending to hate MP3s. That way they can give MP3s a whole bunch of publicity and hasten the fall of the greedy RIAA, without actually supporting MP3s (which would draw the ire of The Ones Who Sign The Checks).
</CONSPIRACY THEORY>
Or maybe they're just clueless. *shrug*
Ok so maybe this isn't always the case, but here is an alternative:
1) You're a starving artist who has spent the past 5 years going no where because you can't promote yourself, not even online.
2) A label, or "The Man" (take your pick), offers to spend millions of their own dollars promoting your music. The only condition is that not only do they own that album, but they own your future works too, under such and such conditions.
3) You sign, realizing the alternative is worse.
4) You get famous, and then rich.
5) A year or two later you realize that a million dollars really isn't so much money, you want more.
6) You get greedy, because it doesn't occur to you that the labels MADE you. You ignore that you could have just have easily failed, and the label would have been short millions. You ignore the fact that, indeed, 9 in 10 of those million dollar investments fail. You ignore the fact that the labels need to maximize their profits on those few success stories. That means they NEED to own all of your professional efforts and just give you a slice of the profits. You ignore the fact that if you were allowed to walk today, you, the starving artist of yesterday, would've NEVER had the option to sign in the first place. So despite the fact that fact that you can promote yourself today and theoretically enjoy a fatter slice of the profits, the you of today is contingent on the signing and fulfilment of those documents yesterday. You can't have one without the other, but that doesn't matter. you're bitter*
7) You, the disgruntled artist, tell the world about just how little artists get. You use your notoriety to post your diatribes with the intention of compelling your label to cut you in on a bigger piece of the action. Or maybe you're just plain bitter, but it doesn't matter, reason has failed you.
* Now maybe the labels are assholes, but I believe in the function of the markets. If things were as easy as people made them out to be, there would be other options--you certainly wouldn't sign a document that only gives you a slice of the profits if there were better alternatives available. But there aren't. Those are your options, you can take them or leave them. By destroying the labels methods of profit, you risk the popular artist, whether or not the current iterations of them realize it. If you want to destroy the labels, do it through competition, not through destruction of contract. **
** Caution: Flamebait. Anything that lacks the sweet aroma of idealism gets toasted by the wee ragdotties.
that'll make your world brighter.
Before you trump out numerous failures, let me also remind you that I also couldn't name the latest Lottery winners, yet I have no doubt that all of them are [or would be] recieving their annuities [were it not for their own failures]. Yet it's also well known that something like 9 in 10 of them go bankrupt within 2 or 3 years; not because the state fails to pay them, but because of their own stupidity.
I propose to you that 95% artists' problems are due to the very nature of the beast, marketing. In order to become a popular artist, you need millions of dollars in marketing expenditures. Human eyes are scarce because they tend to cluster to tightly, I doubt the net will have a significant impact--almost by definition. Today the radio and television is the primary marketing vehicle. Tomorrow it may be some internet sites, but as those eyes grow there, so will the competition for those few spots, and we'll be back in much the same situation. The players may change, but the positions will remain the same.
What we are really talking about here is business, not art. Anyone can produce art; but business is tough. The vast majority of restraunts, for instance, go out of business, not necessarily for want to culinary ability, but for lack of resources, cash flows, poor location, etc. There are a thousand woes in every industry. The only difference, in my mind, is that the odds are tougher, but the stakes are correspondingly higher too.
Though you may have had an argument 20, 30, 40 years ago, that the labels merely had a lock on distribution, this simply is no longer the case. With the growth of the internet, getting access to the customer is no longer a question per se. Any artist with a couple dollars in his pocket can deliver his songs to any consumer with access to the internet, so long as the customer is willing. It's a question of eyes, not of hands. Despite claims to the contrary, the labels don't have a lock on those eyes. They gain access to consumers' eyes by shelling out cash. You should view the labels more as financiers/investors, albeit highly specialized ones, than as producers or distributors.
You ask what the labels do to deserve their share of the money? Well you should also ask what any banker does to deserve their share of the money. Money is scarce, that's simply a reality of this world. It's something that everyone who has ever operated a successfull business understands, it may not be fair, but it's hardly the labels fault, any more than it is the bankers fault. Now maybe the labels are assholes sometimes. Maybe their invest poorly. But so do bankers and other investors.
Artists compete for scarce resources like everyone in this world. The only difference is that they are vastly more visible to consumers, especially young impressionable ones. So we hear their woes amplified many times over, but that doesn't mean they're "right". They complain about the labels, when what they really should be complaining about is life itself.
It is as risky as I put it, even more so. They win on the aggregate because they take such a large share from the few bread winners.
In any event, can you prove that 15b dollar figure? Or is that just conjecture? Pull out their balance sheets and show me, and make sure how you label "they". There are a lot of different agents in the game, they're not all the same party.
I, also, ask you to explain away how the labels still exist if they do nothing? I've yet to hear a credible reason. Why do artists still sign with the labels today, with the nominal distribution costs of the internet? Marketing is the reason.
Actually they released on mp3 themselves as well. Our local radio station is hosting the mp3s as well. Lots of redone versions of songs from Machina and some new stuff:
<a href="http://99x.com/mp3/">here's</a> the link.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
$5.50/share cheap? how do you valuate mp3.com? What do they have?
They might have some big equipment/drive arrays.
They might have a fat pipe (but are still and end-user of that pipe, so ongoing large costs)
They have how many employees?
And what do they have, other than the domain mp3.com, that someone else couldn't come out and do?
The readers... just like any other publication.
I don't debate that.
pster these, then if you like them, order the albums online (you'll never find them anywhere)
:-) ], either Pink Floyd/Alice in Chains style or rap like Outkast or Cypress Hill).
I would Napster them, but our DSL got cut off (we didn't pay the bill for 4 months and owe our ISP $1200. 1.1 Mbit SDSL is expensive.)
Maybe I'll order a few though - which ones would you suggest most? (I prefer chilled our music [I smoke a lot of pot
--
I also saw DJ Shadow (who is from the Bay Area) last year. He does turntable/mixing/scratching stuff - a great show, and Shadow stayed afterwards to sign stuff and talk with the fans indefinitely, which is something few artists do.
Wow - DJ Shadow rules. "What Does Your Soul Look Like?" (all parts) is one of my favorite songs. I don't like most drum and bass stuff, though.
--
Besides, if we reward outspokenness in a tangible, financial way, who else might follow suit? I don't want the internet to be a reasonable alternative only as a hypothetical.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
she doesn't have a case. She's just jumping the gun a little to quickly here. Universal has to actually be awarded damages before she can sue for her share. Hopefully, her grandkids will benefit.
It's like the cops who have to wait for the shoplifter to exit the building before stopping them. If you stop them inside, they're not guilty of anything. So you have to be patient.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
perhaps now is the time for all hole fans to join my.mp3.
but it doesn't matter so much what she gets, if other artists follow suite.
except of course that their percentage would have been pretty small anyway so universal will still get the majorly chunk.
except except that a lot of costs should be excepted, as they didn't have to print the CDs and they didn't have to distribute, there is no cut for the stores, they didn't have to do any extra promotion (the people using my.mp3 already had the albums, they knew what they were like, they didn't need selling to).
So...
What did universal do? Maybe almost all that bounty should be going to the artists.
~ppppppppö
So don't, there are plenty of bands out there giving thier music away for free, and they aren't bad.
The record companies just pick 1 or 2, not just based on the quality of the music (lack of legal knowledge is a big factor) out of thousands.
Hunt around for something you like, there is a lot out there, and I'm sure courtney would prefer that, after all she probably gets bugger all if you buy her CDs)
The greatest trick the record companies ever pulled was convincing the world that the bands they signed are the best.
~ppppppppö
I we start modding up posts just because they're funny, we'd have to admit that moderation works.
...
And if that happened, the world would cease to exist.
Every code you break, I'll be spamming you
Will in Seattle
Under that same logic, what makes slashdot what it is?
(the answer to both of our questions is "A community")
M_0 = MP3.com's pre-trial money
U_0 = Universal's pre-trial money
C_0 = Courtney Love's pre-trial money
Universal wins over MP3:
M_1 = M_0 - 100M
U_1 = U_0 + 100M
C_1 = C_0
Courtney Love theoretically wins $10M over Universal:
M_2 = M1 = M_0 - 100M
U_2 = U_1 - 10M = U_0 + 90M
C_2 = C_1 + 10M = C_0 + 10M
And thus, we see clearly that Courtney Love's money comes directly from MP3.com's pockets, whether it went through Universal's pockets first.
Conclusion 1: Stealing from a thief only means a different thief gets the victim's money
Conclusion 2: Take your condescending attitude, and your "simple math", and stick them far up your ass.
Hi Coward. Sure it does. If I believe it, it is the opposite of flamebait. Flamebait means it was written for the purpose of stirring people up for the sake of causing an argument. An example would be those that frequently post "Linux is shitty and MS rules!" The writer doesn't believe these statements at all, they just want to start a fight.
I am sorry you were offended. Welcome to free speach.
"Offended" is not one of the choices listed in moderation.
- I like pudding.
Bullshit, that was flamebait. I was giving my opinion. I consider her part of the problem even though she disguises herself at helping it.
If you disagree, thats fine, but it doesn't make it flambait.
Meta-moderation will stike its revenge on you!
- I like pudding.
It's not only theoretically possible for the artist to owe the studio money after a profitable album, it happens all the time. Records go platinum, and the artist goes bankrupt. So, yeah, Universal ought to owe all their artists a proportional chunk of that money...
Actually when Universal loses this suit their various slave-artists will get a computer printed letter in the mail informing them of the good news that that they owe the record company somewhat less than they did the previous day. Sort of a "win-win" situation.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
CmdrTaco has a slashdot uid of 1
That ruins it. The Prisoner was so great because you kept on asking Who is Number One!? and they kept on saying You are number Six! so you kept on hanging on hoping to find out but now you've told and the secret's out and there's no need to wonder anymore.
Disappointed, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
I hope she gets it. She is totally correct. It is systematically unfair that she be not given her lost royalties.
There are similar issues with tobacco settlements. How can states not give compensation to the victims of the large tobacco settlements? They didn't even consider the victims in these cases and instead put the money into lump protection programs. It is completely unfair, IMO.
-- Moondog
Assuming that the album or albums in question sold enough that Hole is entitled to more royalties, yes, you're wrong.
In other words, artists are entitled to royalties beyond the advance, if there are any royalties to be had, just as they are liable to the record company for any deficit between the advance and the actual royalties.
By RIAA logic, any copied song or album is equal to one lost sale (never mind that that's in no way true). One lost sale means a few cents that the artist doesn't get, and a few dollars that the company doesn't get. So yeah, it seems logical that Universal's artists should have a share in the settlement, either reducing their deficit or increasing their profit.
Try here instead.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Sorry buddy, you've whore'd all the karma and Taco had to put a freeze on giving it to us. Your karma only going down - even if he wanted to give it to you, you can't get any more karma.
kwsNI
It always niggles me when people use historical precedent ("this is the reason we had copyright in the first place") to argue against the current status of something. Times change.
But on the subject of the UCITA and your proposed amendment to the constitution I am 100% behind you. No-one should be able to argue against those 3 simple principles.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Yeah, yeah, very pedantic. I think you know what I mean, and I hope you realize that racially-oriented lynchings are a slightly different kettle of fish than copyright extension. But in the latter case, if the public don't give a fuck, nothing's going to happen. This is practical reality, my friend, which has little to do with your constitutional rights, as I think the last few governments have demonstrated.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Actually, if most people think it is OK, it is OK. In a democracy, what is OK is decided by the people, not by the author of poltical texts such as this.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Good answer.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Here's a solution to the RIAA problem (they ARE a pest):
Andover should create a site like sourceforge, but dedicated to independant artists, so that they can post their songs and mass distribute it that way. use slashcode to moderate the songs and voila.
I'm pretty sure there are other sites that do something similar, but with Andover's sites recognition and popularitiy, they might very well be near critical mass.
and where's the business plan? ah, share profits from banner advertising on the site with the artists based on a per download share. the more you songs are downloaded, bigger your share in profits.
think about the possibilities!
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Matt.
He changed the way he spelled his name half a dozen times. I'm using the spelling from Bleach.
I used that spelling intentionally, to troll for people like you who think they know everything.
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. If most people think it's OK to lynch people because of their religion or the color of their skin, it's still not OK to do so, at least not without a major revision of the Constitution (which requires significantly more than a majority doing significantly more than thinking it's OK).
Good thing, too.
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
The one where the sneeches with and without stars both paid the monkey to be a middle man between the two sides (converting star-bellies to non-star-bellies and back again). In the end, the monkey drove away with all of the money, and both types of sneeches were left high and dry with a blurring of the lines between the two types.
I just picture the SUV full of lawyers driving away with all of the money smiling and laughing and pumping their Dr. Dre mp3s through their brand new Bose system. Damn, this is a messed up world.
Because you can't, you won't, and you don't stop...
... someone who is more or less a celebrity standing up for the little people.
I might see mp3.com getting hurt in all this because in order for Courtney Love to get her $$$ she would have to justify the amount she deserves (right?). In order to do that she'd could probably file a motion of discovery and have mp3.com disseminate its records as to how many Hole/Courtney Love songs they've ever hosted. I could see the admins/dba's at mp3.com quitting before they'd have to dig up that kind of info.
Of course, I'm closer to being a crack smoker then a lawyer so I could be completly wrong.
BOSTON SUCKS!
Of course she's going to lose. That's the point. When the record company fights her suit, all their rhetoric about "protecting the artists" will fall apart, because it will become obvious that it's the record company's profits they're protecting.
Love has a really nice position here, because if she wins, Universal loses the entire hundred million when thousands of other musicians join the dogpile and sue for their piece. If she loses, the entire premise for the suit against MP3 falls apart, and Universal will be revealed (to the accompaniment of lots of press) as the greedy, scum-sucking bastards they really are.
Either way, Universal loses, and Courtney Love increases her heap of cred.
-Mars
Ok guys I don't uderstand this one. Dr. Dre and Metallica are protesting MP3s all togeather. They are having a hissie fit. Then along comes Courtney Love, you may not like her music, but stop and look at what she's doing... She's being a dick to the record industry. And most of you out there are raggin on her for no good reason. Sure she's going about it in a different way then other people are, but maybe that is what needs to happen. She is trying to stop this stuff from happening in the furure, or at lease get the record companies to do what they said they were going to do, pay the artist.
I'd like to see more artists jump on that bandwagon.
Heh, yep. This has all the makings of a class action lawsuit by various recording artists.
Of course in the end the lawyers will end up with all the money, that's the downside.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
-- Alastair
It'd be most amusing if a bunch of artists sued Universal over this and they all ended up getting awarded a slice of the $100M pie and costing Universal another $500M in legal bills.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This all goes to the point that I think musicians need a trade organization that is representative of the musician's desires. Since many musicians have come down on both sides of the whole MP3 issue, I honestly believe a trade group representing the artists would approach the whole thing with a much more balanced point-of-view.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Good for her that she has a clue about how the music industry works (unlike some people from Metallia.) I've never understood how bands could support the RIAA knowing how much money the RIAA gets and how little the bands get. I'm thinking Dr Dre and Metallica were paid by the RIAA to pretend like they don't like MP3 stuff.
It would be nice if the Record companies were somewhat forced to
STOP saying 'We're protecting our artists'
and START saying 'We're protecting our business model'
Actually, one of the best things she could do would be to buy up all the MP3 stock she could get her hands on. Right now, it's selling cheap (as of this writing, $5.50/share), and as a huge stockholder she could be in a position to influence TPTB to turn MP3.com into the artist's portal that she wants it to be. She'd leverage her cred into MP3.com, and in return she'd have more control over internet-based music distribution. Lawsuits aside, MP3.com is in a great position now for digital music distribution.
Plus, it would be amusing to see Universal suing one of its artists while trying to "protect" its artists' best interests.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
Well, it makes sense to me...
1) You're an artist; the record company (henceforth referred to as "The Man") already screwed you over.
2) The Man is "protecting" your interests, and gets a lot of money; will you ever see that money? No.
3) Since The Man publicly states this "protecting the interests of the artists" bullshit, you call them on it, and ask for your fair share. After all, if this had been a class-action suit, you would have gotten your fair share; they're just representing you.
4) Either The Man realizes what's going on, and pays you off, or they suffer the negative press as everyone realizes that they don't give a FUCK* about the artists.
5) All hell breaks lose; everyone (who hasn't already) loses faith in The Man. I laugh my ass off.
* Although I consider this post to be informative, I understand that profanity is an alternative way to get modded up, and I want to be Enoch Root when I grow up. It's cool, daddi-o.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Sorry to do this but I wrote an editorial a week ago and I think it got lost in the shuffle when I submited it to the commander. It's on copyright and shrink wrap licences.
Oh..and yes I read the article, she is in the right, but she isn't reading this to the core.
In a few days this paper will live at www.warcloud.net/~odinson/14-years-and-your-quill. html ...but not yet.
Many Linux and open source advocates are upset about verdict on the MPAA vs 2600 DeCSS criminal case. Many people blame this exclusively on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This law was passed in congress in 1998 and gives copyright holders previously unmatched rights. I believe that if there is anything holy and fair in this country, that this slanted law will rejected by the copyright office, struck down by the supreme court, and protested into oblivion by anyone who takes five minutes to understand the numerous loopholes and the agenda represented by those loopholes.
But this isn't just about the DMCA.
The DMCA could have never been poised to do so much damage if it weren't for the other regular abuses of the American people, abuses that should have never been tolerated. The post purchase contract or license, and the extension to the time a party is allowed an exclusive control otherwise known as copyright are the real problem.
Copyright
Laws like the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" have been extending copyright, (20 years in this case) in a fashion destructive to consumer and the artist. The original lifespan of copyright was 14 years, now it is life of the author plus seventy. Most people are unaware of this or think it is OK. It is not.
When copyright was created the idea was compromise. A reasonable amount of time to make enough money to offset printing costs and to make a fair profit. It was targeted specifically at books and maps. The idea was extended to provide a good living for artists and eventually song writers and movie makers and even computer programmers. This is all good. copyright is a moral idea, if you create something you get a government granted monopoly on that thing for period of time. It allows a person to dedicate their time to developing their skills of expression with out the risk of someone walking away with their creation and selling it as their own.
Copyright works do not compete during their monopoly period. If you do not want to break the law you adhere to the terms the author sets, or you don't view/use/listen to it. This is OK so long as information is not vital to the health of the society at large and someone else offers it. Over time, we have extended the monopoly period, and some companies began collecting Intellectual Property as a revenue source. It has gotten to the point that frighteningly few ideas in our society is not owned by some company. Some refer to this as pop culture.
Ideas go stale and die. Few complain about the communists anymore, most people publicly abhor drugs and wild sex, and I don't see much about the trickle down theory either `;), but copyrights don't fade away they just sit, accumulating more money with every movie remake and sometimes without one. Information needs to compete with the prospect that it will go stale. Only novel ideas contribute in a big way, but then why are we paying big bucks for the same old shows on cable?
Most people think artists benefit from the copyright extensions. Did you know the typical musician gets only a few cents a Compact Disc, and they only cost a few cents to make? Sure, Billy Joel or Madonna get a few dollars per CD, they are held up as examples of success. Such examples are rare. If copyright were reduced back down to 14 years, Record companies, Movie studios, publishers and every other kind of distributor would have to compete with the prospect that in 14 years anyone could compete with them, selling the exact same thing. Not so novel ideas look a lot less appealing, and unfair contracts not so binding.
Copyright's purpose used to be to protect the time and money of writers and the owners of the printing presses. Inevitably middlemen and distributors did get involved, but had to work against the clock. Now those same middlemen name whatever terms they want because they know that they will be dead before you can get their product through anyone else. The power that companies wield over artists seeking distribution and consumers who want to hear what the artist has to say is absolute. What better way to silence voices than to own the microphone wire through which they speak.
In a world of the 14 year copyright the MPAA would be far less likely to try to force you to adhere to their latest copyright license money grab. Policies like "You can't fast forward through the commercials", and "charge them as much as they can afford according to where they live." Would result in boycotts rather than complacency. This is what they are trying to do with DVDs, and any group of consumers could protest until they died and see no end to it. What recourse does a consumer have but civil disobedience? Perhaps if humans were immortal there would be no such dilemma.
Contract law
Are shrink wrap licenses legal? The question of the legal status remains unanswered. That unanswered question seems to have inspired to use contract lawyers and copyright lawyers to attempt unprecedented control not only over how copyrighted work is distributed but viewed. Some clear legal defense is needed here, the bad guys are getting meaner and the "Accepted Practice" for license and contract law just don't cut it.
The typically unviewed licenses that accompanies DVDs and DVD Players are setting an terrible precedent.
As an example, shrink wrap licenses are the cause of much pain to the typical computer professional. The business that uses software with such a license may actually have to adhere to it's absurd terms or face prosicution. In contrast, most consumers are rarely prosecuted, unless they are a political target like 2600. Isn't that one of the constitutions main themes, protecting potential political targets against things like torture, high bail or soldiers in their house?? A new article to Uniform Commercial Code could do the job, but if UTICA continues on the path to acceptance we may need constitutional power to threaten those who would strip us of our right examine a contract before entering into it.
Here's what an amendment might look like.
----------------
Article XXVII
Section 1.
A contract or license can not be binding until after the full text of said contract or license has been made available to all parties prior to any otherwise binding agreement. The availability of the contract or license text is the full responsibility any and all who are offering a good or service that are part of the exchange in the contract or license.
Section 2.
Failure to make the full text of a contract or license available prior to agreement of all parties on it's terms will void all terms of said license or contract.
Section 3.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
-----------
Sorry if the legalize isn't thick enough, I wanted it to be clear. Comments are welcome.
It's to bad they didn't think of adding this in amendment XIII (Ending slavery.)
We should remember the DMCA is not our only source of trouble. You might even find like I did that the evils we have long known are far more dangerous and a firm foundation for the DMCA and UTICA. Without the legs of absurd copyright stay and the post purchase contract/license agreement, this insidious empire would not have the strength to declare war on the American people. We need to acknowledge what laws gave these middlemen strength and attack them there. We will regain choice back only after we change our legal landscape. When we return copyright to its original state, the artists and world will thank us for it.
If you understand this, and you understand why the cost of digital data transfer and storage is growing neglegable, you understand why they look at the Internet and it's spawn Linux with mortal fear.
Matthew Newhall
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
While I agree that individual artists should always have the right to decide how their music is distributed, I'm very leery of someone who is "acting for the good" of someone else.
Universal is in the business of making money. The way that they make money is to promote certain musical artists, and then take a percentage of the sales from their recordings. Obvious. But this $100M suit, IMNSHO, was for 2 reasons.
1) To attempt to reduce the distribution of their artists' recordings by means that pay no royalties. In other words, to protect their meal ticket.
2) To attack an organization that promotes something that might endanger their meal ticket. They could just as easily file suit against Maxell or TDK, because they make cassette tapes that people can record copyrighted music onto. MP3.com simply suffers from the disadvantage of being a new, and not widely understood, way of doing the same thing.
Universal couldn't care less about their artists. If an artist does something that causes their sales to drop, and continue to underperform, Universal would chuck him/her/them out on the street without so much as a "By your leave."
I know I'm preaching to the choir, here, but I figured I'd say my piece anyway.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Computer Geek by day, religious Icon by night.
You're all missing the point. Courtney is calling the RIAA's bluff. If they are suing on behalf of the artists, it would only be logical for the artists to recover "lost" money. We should all be glad that we've got her on our side. She is an extreamly outspoken person (imho on the level of Chuck D). Rip the fucking system courtney.
Speaking of MP3s, The Offspring just royally pissed off Sony today. Here is the story about them putting their next album on the web.
Gotta love anarchy!
Vote Nader
I think the way the record industry works needs to be adjusted. Prince had to change his name because his record company thought it owned it. One way to limit the power record companies have is to reform the system so that artists have the copyright. That's how I've seen it with most - say - shareware marketing companies -- the artists lisenses the work to the distribution company.
Down that road, if records didn't have exclusionary contracts, several record companies could release the same record from the same artist with the same royalties. Therefor, there could actually be a price way. Like what happened to the movie industry.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Every file you take,
Every scan you make,
Every net you quake,
Every song you play, I'll be watching you.
Every single day,
Every word you say,
Every game you play,
Every night you stay, I'll be watching you.
Oh, can't you see?
Those songs ain't free,
How can poor artists
Give every song you play?
Every scan you make,
Every sound you take,
Every phile you fake,
Every claim you stake, I'll be watching you.
Since you logged, I ping hosts without a trace
I query all night, bootlegged 'threes and WAVs
I look out for warez, hoping to make a case
Don't feel so sold out, a song you can't replace
Don't crack Ess Dee, Emm I, please...
Oh, can't you see?
Those songs ain't free,
How can poor artists
Give every song you play?
Every scan you make,
Every sound you play,
Every trial you stake,
Every LAME you break,
Every player you fake,
Every song you take,
I'll be watching you.
--(with apologies to the Police)
[
You are wrong in your assumption.
The record company cuts her a check as an "advance on royalties"
Against this they charge her:
If, after all their creative accounting, there is any further "debt", they charge that against the next album as well. If the record makes money, the studio ends up not actually paying anything toward the production and distribution--it all comes out of the artist's share.
It's not only theoretically possible for the artist to owe the studio money after a profitable album, it happens all the time. Records go platinum, and the artist goes bankrupt.
So, yeah, Universal ought to owe all their artists a proportional chunk of that money, to show up on their royalty statements.
The RIAA and member lablels aren't worried about priacy.
.mp3's, and spread them around. More and more artists are doing similar.
They aren't worried about losing sales.
They aren't worried about copyright infringement.
They ARE worried about their gravytrain, i.e. the artists that they make such a bundle off of, leaving town and going solo to promote themselves.
The mp3.com lawsuit was a convenient excuse to punish mp3.com for attempting to re-write the rules of artist promotion.
With the technology before us, artists like Courtney Love can give the record industry the big old "FUCK YOU!" and still distribute thier music.
Smashing Pumpkins just released their final album as a vinyl only release w/o record company involvement. They encouraged those few that got copies to record them, compress them into
The real risk to the RIAA isn't the copying of copyrighted material, Napster, mp3.com, and the like. It's that the artists can promote themselves, distrubute their own music, and collect the profits without a record label being involved. The game's over.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?