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.
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
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?
:-), but Outkast is just amazing.
:-) Pantera, (and a few others I can't remember right now), music these days just SUCKS. It's all commercial bullshit designed to sell records, not good stuff like Pink Floyd and old Metallica.
Not to start a flamewar here, but I think most of the innovative music today is coming out in the Rap/Hiphop scene - groups like Outkast who have a completely original sound. I still listen to their first CD constantly, which came out in the early 90's and still sounds as good and original today as it did the day it was released. I'm normally not a huge rap fan (although I do love Cypress Hill
The rock scene is pretty much hurting right now. With the exceptions of Rage Against The Machine and (in my opinion, which nobody else seems to share
--
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?
"When a record label gives a band an advance, part of the contract says that the record label owns all the music, etc. associated with the album. By not taking this advance and raising the money over the internet and mail-order, Marillion will retain FULL OWNERSHIP of the music for the first time in the career."
Dear Kel; You may have misinterpreted the email, so I thought I'd write to you to explain the deal. Marillion have signed a *distribution* deal with EMI, not a *record* deal. What this means is that Marillion are raising the money that would normally be provided by the record company themselves by pre-selling the next album. When a record label gives a band an advance, part of the contract says that the record label owns all the music, etc. associated with the album. By not taking this advance and raising the money over the internet and mail-order, Marillion will retain FULL OWNERSHIP of the music for the first time in the career. This means that we can do whatever we want with it, without being tied down. EMI is simply licensing the music FROM Marillion to distribute it world-wide. This could have been done with ANY record label or distributor, but Marillion chose EMI because of its large world-wide distribution network. In addition, Lucy Jordache, Marillion's Marketing and Communications Manager, used to work for EMI, and as such knows the staff we are dealing with, and how to get results! All promotion will be handled together, and will be approved directly by the band - in short, Marillion are in complete control. This is the first time a band has ever done this with a major label, and we hope it will break new ground and encourage other artists to take control (and ownership!) of their music. The Album 12 2CD Special Edition available for pre-order is completely independent of EMI, and will be sold, manufactured, and distributed solely by Racket Records. THIS is the way we are raising the money to record the album, and are trying to make it something special for the fans who want to help us out! This version will NOT be available in the shops, and will NOT be handled by EMI. I hope this explains things a little more, and please feel free to contact me should you have any other questions. Yes, a major label is involved, but not in the traditional way. We're changing the way the music business works, and encourage you to spread the news! Regards, Erik Nielsen Director of Operations Racket Records -------------------------------------------------- --
Marillion and Racket Records
http://www.marillion.com
racket@marillion.com
PO Box 252, Aylesbury, BUCKS, HP18 0YS, UK
Fax +44 (0)1296 770 839
---
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"
Nope. It has everything to do with her ability to speak about the issues. Perhaps you missed her "speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16"
ta-da:
http://salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
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/
Things like Napster could shut down BMI and Sony and Universal and Time Warner forever, because Napster cuts them out of the artist/fan loop altogether. So they use their jointly-owned non-profit front organization, the RIAA, to file a lawsuit "on behalf of artists", to shut down Napster and Gnutella because they can be used to violate copyright, kind of like how Reynolds knives can be used to stab people.
If any other industry tried this sort of collusion, their executives would be locked away on racketeering charges and spend about a decade per count turning big rocks into little rocks. But the music industry has a lobby that would make the gun industry cream its pants, and so you get things like the Copyright Act of 1978.
Take a look at Salon's remarkable article Courtney Love does the math for further insight into what a record company contract is really like, and how there's no way around them if you want to be rewarded for your work.
--
This is not my sandwich.
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?