Slashdot Mirror
Recording Artists File Brief Against RIAA
Matthew Skala writes: "The Recording Artists' Coalition, which includes such luminaries as Bruce Springsteen, Don Henley, and Sheryl Crow, is still annoyed about the "Work for Hire" legislation we heard about in August 2000. They've filed a brief in the Napster cases, urging the court not to accept the RIAA's copyright registration documents as proof of ownership, because accepting the documents would allow the music cartel to sneakily destroy artists' claims to the music they recorded. They don't take a stand on other issues we might be interested in, but it's still worth thinking about. If the artists are against the RIAA, then whom exactly does the RIAA represent? Some quotes and info are on Siliconvalley.com."
At the time when artists were not so well-payed as they are today, you could be quite certain that the artist either truly loved what (s)he was doing or was exceptionally talented, thus ensuring large commisions. If you're willing to pay more, you increase the overall number of artists, but you typically also lower the standard of 'exceptional talent.' Is there an ideal level at which this rather arbitrary standard should be set? Probably. I happen to believe that at present it is far too low, since even a striking appearance and a decent voice can be mistaken for 'exceptional talent' (ala Britney Spears or 'NSync.)
This disturbingly low opinion of talent conversely indicates that musicians are being paid disturbingly well. Those of us who recognize this (most Slashdotters, it seems, and many others in intellectual circles) are unwilling to pay for what is, to us, a decided lack of talent. Unfortunately, we don't comprise a large enough portion of the market to sufficiently dent demand. So long as the media influences popular judgement of 'exceptional talent' and encourages conformity, we cannot expect this trend to change anytime soon. The recording industry will continue to churn out music of whatever quality so long as it is demanded by their market - those very people who rush to the malls every time a new CD is released, because they think that 'NSync represents 'exceptional talent' when in fact, 'NSync represents nothing more than the ability to sing lyrics written by somebody else to a tune composed by somebody else and to look pretty in the process.
In conclusion, I must say that I disagree with your assessment that the phenomenon of large royalties and licensing fees is unlikely to stand the test of time. I certainly agree that to an intellectual crowd such as Slashdot, such a change seems inevitable, but I do not foresee the drastic cultural changes necessary to affect such a collapse of the present system.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Actually, the story of what happened here is worse than you think. What happened is that, after he gained popularity, he decided to leave the recording contract he was in because it was draconian. However, the label pursued (and won) the rights to the stage name "Prince", so he couldn't record under that name for anyone else. Hence, he changed his name to a symbol (to get around legal issues as much as any other reason), wrote the word "slave" on his forehead and finished out his contract. When it was done he started his own label and became The Artist Formerly Known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.
The worst part about this is that when he said he wanted out of his contract, his label actually decided that the best course of action was to take away his right to his own stage name, which I found to serve no purpose except spite. I must admit that after hearing this I have a lot more respect for him than when I thought he did it just to be eccentric (which I found out was just the way the recording industry spun it to keep them from looking bad).
Virg