Slashdot Mirror
Musicians Get Together For Anti-RIAA Concerts
DarkZero writes "The Sacramento Bee is currently running an article
about several different bands getting together for five concerts to raise money for the Recording Artists Coalition with the express purpose of fighting the RIAA and the
unfair treatment of its musicians. The acts lined up include Elton John, Billy Joel, Ozzy Osbourne, Stevie Nick
s, The Offspring, The Eagles, Weezer, and plenty of other bands. Good for them. (And for those that are wonderi
ng, the RAC's site, ArtistsAgainstPiracy.com, is actually an anti-RIAA and somewhat pro-Napster site, not what you would immediately expect it
to be.)"
He has been a very active "Anti RIAA" soldier.
As most bands/artists know that a good relation with the fans is the key to success, and that their record-companies takes most of the profit anyway,they don't really see MP3's as a threat, but rather as a momentum to spread their music and gain popularity, hence creating the opportunity for more sales. I'd guess the only larger band to actually support the RIAA would be Metallica...
Most of these artists have been around for awhile, they've paid their dues, and probably aren't bound by restrictive contracts anymore. Even if they are, they have the money now to be able to thumb their noses. Good for them, I'm glad to see them standing up.
Elton John made a big deal last week about how his most recent album will be his last, and that he "hates" (his word) the recording industry.
You can also fight majors'monopoles by endorsing Free Art distribution policies.
There is, for example GNUArt (soon to be translated in English, I swear) which promotes the application of the GNU General Public License to Art.
BTW...
Wasn't a Weezer video clip on the Windows 95 CD ? (an excellent Video Clip made after the "Happy Days" series)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Ah, Sacramento is a real city now that it's gonna get Slashdotted. :) Now if only it had been spelled right. Now some city called "Sacremento" is going to get all the credit.
More on topic, this is the coolest thing I've seen in a while. Go artists! Tell the damn RIAA to shove it up their money holes!
SIGFEH
but the best way to sneer at the RIAA would be to press "copy protected" recordings of the concert(s)! Yeah! Go freedom!
so basically all the old farts : what does that tell us ? that the older artists get, the more they realize how much the RIAA shafted them (and don't even tell Elton John about that !). Of course, that comment only applies to *real* artists, not fake teen bands that are direct products of the RIAA : if Britney Spear lasts beyond her first wrinkles as an "artist", she'll probably miss her RIAA-generated glory days dearly, when she finds out she actually needs talent to make it without them.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If anything, the Napster case has prompted artists to fight for a better arrangement whith their record companies.
Maybe changing the balance toward artists, so they can decide how do they distribute their work, and not destroying the whole copyright concept, would be enough for many people.
As things stand right now, I feel ethically correct to copy RIAA's protected stuff. Maybe this and other legislative changes would change it.
If I know that 90% of the money I pay goes to productive people like musicians, sound tehcnicians, etc... (and this is possible with internet distribution and without spending money in pushing marketroid manufactured culture) I wouldn't mind to pay for my music.
Also I would like a free market where people can charge different amounts for different products. Maybe a start up band shouldn't charge as much as a reputed musician.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Billy Joel: Sony/Columbia
Ozzy Osbourne: Sony/Epic
Stevie Nicks: WEA/Warner Brothers
The Offspring: Sony/Columbia
Eagles: WEA/Elektra Entertainment
Weezer: UNI/Geffen
Why don't they all just leave their major labels and take their 'business' elsewhere?
And yes, contracts can be broken if you have enough money and/or an inkling of complaint (see: George Michael) -- and it does seem there's complaint. After all, they are planning a series of concerts.
I had a really great fucking post but a stray keyclick nuked it. I don't feel like typing it all again so anyone interested please use ESP and I will send you a mind bullet. I'll also point to a handy website. Here is a really good page not because it contains much info but because it has two very good papers written about the recording industry and does a good job summing up what my mind bullets contain. It's good to see artists telling the RIAA to fuck off, the only problem I see is these artists have already made their money and have their fame, the recording companies could drop them like a bad habit and they could still make money on their own. There's thousands of bands that don't have that ability and probably never will. The recording industry likes it that way but then again, so do most people who really like listening to music (or just want to be cool for owning some new popular album). That blows.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
With stuff like TV's Popstars, the record labels aren't even bothering to hide the fact that "bands" these days are made-up. Do you think that these mime & dance combos can afford to complain to their record labels? No way. They'll dump you and then just phone up the model agency and ask for 5 more people who look OK and can sort-of dance. No singing ability required. If you can read music (much less, write it), then you're probably too clever and might make trouble later. Much as I can't stand the guy, but at least Elton can actually play an instrument.
I bet the labels can't wait until the CG stuff can be done cheaply enough to replace humans altogether.
Sad times indeed.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Cool, now i can just print out the list of member artists, cross-reference it to my list of people to buy presents for, and figure out what to buy in a matter of minutes without the guilt of blindly supporting the RIAA. True, depending on the label some money may make its way to their hired thu^M^M^M^M^M legal dept, but at least some other fraction of my money is going to fight said legal dept.
;-)
And while i'm at the record store, i can buy some scratched up used CDs which still, in theory, include liscence to enjoy the content originally pressed into those disks, so i can go home and download songs without pirating anything, while not paying full price
I wonder if some of them may decide to start their own artist run label.
You mean like Ani DiFranco's Righteous Babe Records? I'm not too sure about the background but as far as i know she didn't feel like getting screwed by a major record label and, being one of those pro-active folk singer types, started her own. Someone posted a letter she wrote to Ms. Magazine complaining about people looking at is a financial success rather than just not wanting to deal with a record company.
Part of the beauty of this is that these recording artists will be in LA at their record labels expense for the Grammys, not to mention the fact that the LA area fans will have a chance to see acts together on the same show that would never happen otherwise.
It costs a lot of money to fight the RIAA in congress, and the RAC has recently hired two professional lobbyists to educate the congress to their situation. Many half-truths have been spoonfed to congress (along with campaign donations), as well as the court filings (such as in the Napster case) where the RIAA presents a document, that if accepted, basically acknowledges that the RIAA is the copyright owner, thus making music recordings work for hire. Even if they lose the case, they win. This is why the RAC filed an amicus brief on the behalf of Napster recently. The RIAA tried this same trick in the MP3.com case, but then settled with MP3.com to avoid having to prove "ownership" of the recording they said they "owned". The artists have yet to see a penny of the $125 million or so that was collected in the MP3.com case.
If they are screwing the big name acts, who actually make a lot of money for the label, what chance the newly signed bands have. This is going to be a major coup for the artists, as they are gaining support from the fans and in the public eye, by attacking the actual problem, rather than attacking the fans who support the bands.
Wow, Jack Valenti is on Slashdot...."The Sky is falling, the sky is falling."
The stats that you quote are misleading to say the least. That was based on a survey of stores close (within a mile)of the campuses of the colleges and universities, it took place over a 3 year period, two of which of which were BEFORE Napster even existed, In addition it did not include stores such as Walmarts and Best Buy (chain stores,unless they were within a mile of the campus). In those stores sales were actually up over the three year period. This would be like surveying Slashdotters about MS Windows purchases. At best the figures were skewed, and quite frankly, highly misleading.
In 2001 during the first quarter of the year, CD Sales were up 12% when it looked like Napster would be shut down in March. In March after Napster was court ordered by Judge Patel to start filtering material, sales started to drop, and eventually shut down in July, sales have been down. Even "the Hilary" admits a big part of this is due in part to the economy going south.
This is an older article from May 16th when Courtney Love gave a speech on Napster and Recording Labels and such. Good speech too bad she killed Kurt Cobain
v e/
... zero!
=] anyway here's the first page:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
Courtney Love does the math
The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."
Editor's note: This is an unedited transcript of Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16.
By Courtney Love
June 14, 2000 | Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.
I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math:
This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.
What happens to that million dollars?
They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.
The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.
Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.
If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million.
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
...but I really don't see much of a need and I don't have much of a desire to support an artist in their struggles against their personal or individual contracts/etc with their employers, the record companies. RIAA as it affects my rights to fair use of stuff I BUY? Nuke em from orbit, as far as I'm concerned.
But let's face it... nobody ever (well, maybe not EVER) put a gun to the head of a no-name, starving artist and forced them to sign away their rights in order to allow them to get a shot at being rich and famous; they made that choice themselves. I'm sick of the "woe is me" and "but that's unfair" attitudes of these people. Big Lou made N Sync what they are, and now that they're famous and seeing just how much money their band is making, they're whining about how they should be getting a bigger cut. Srew that. He put his industry contacts, know-how and money on the line, took most of the risk, and they agreed to it, so they should have to live with it. Do you think they'd pony up the huge bucks if it tanked? Yeah, and Brittany's tits are real, too.
The real problem is that there are WAY too many rock-star wannabes that are willing to sign away everything for life in order to take a shot at being on the cover of Rolling Stone, so there's not much forcing the record companies to offer something other than a "we take everything forever" contract. That'll only happen when there is someone with enough talent (and potential revenue generation) to make the record companies fight over them. Sarah Mclachlan is a case in point. She's got a great deal with Nettwerk Records in that she owns all of her own publishing. That's because she was smart in (a) hooking up with an excellent manager, Terry McBride, and (b) she was smart in assessing her options and making her choices.
In a way this is similar to what I'm going through right now in taking a software product public. We're getting LOTS of offers for VC funding, and most of it is Pirate money... "give us 80% of the company, and we'll give you a bit of cash". Lucky for us we've got investors that are willing to take a more reasonable stance with us. But if those "more reasonable" investors weren't there, and the only deal we had was a bad one, and we took it, should we be able to whine and complain about how we were taken advantage of and abused? Absolutely not. We were presented with an offer, and WE ACCEPTED IT. If we were stupid enough or desperate enough to accept a bad deal, then we'd have to live with the consequences.
$0.02 (CDN)
Anyone else think this is largely hypocritical of the majority of the artists involved?
Stage a "protest" on one hand, accept a Grammy on the other. E.g. Elton John, perhaps others, certainly all of them given the chance.
The Grammies are more or less a way of rewarding the artists who help the RIAA the most by largest sales. Call me cynical, but no worthwhile music is rewarded with anything these, but certainly large profits are.
This whole thing is only skin deep, but what shoudl we expect anyway from "major recording artists"?
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
I don't see the fun in opposing as association of labels instead of attacking each label individually. The RIAA can dissolve tomorrow and nothing will have changed. What artists need is a class-action suit against their label for arguably decieving them with the "work for hire" clause in the Satellite of Love act of 1991 or whatever it was called.
Secondly, consumers must gripe and stop buying the artists' music. If Elton John fans go pissed enough he would be forced to file a suit to get a more respectable label (or perhaps form his own indie label) to sell his music. As long as you keep buying it doesn't matter, the label will have the upper hand.
3) Professional musicians
by yamla
These days, it seems that virtually no professional musicians actually make a decent living. Courtney Love has said that she is pretty much playing for free already. TLC declared bankruptcy. And these are just two examples. Yet during this time, the record industry is reporting record sales, record profits.
What do you think the answer is? Is the day of the professional artist over? Is it still possible to make the music you love and make enough to pay the bills? If so, how? How do you see the record industry changing over the next ten years?
John:
Being broke is not being poor, and one should be skeptical of such complaints, as they often reveal poor judgement more than poverty. In both of your examples, you are talking about people who generate huge amounts of revenue and conspicuously purchased very expensive things.
I don't think the era of the professional musical artist ever really existed. Through the course of the 20th Century from the birth of publishing to the explosion of rock as a mass market business, the business terrain has changed for the better, but long term professional employment remains an elusive reality. Musicians are always at the end of the food chain in the music business. It has never been easy making money.
Something else people need to consider is the fact that these artists realise that they sold the right to make records, cds, and cassettes to the RIAA labels. They never sold the right to sell MP3s.
:), but that is another issue for another day.
The artsists realise that if they could directly get royalties due for their work, they would make far more that what the labels are paying them.... and they could do it with nearly no production cost.
Imagine for example that every mp3 you dowloaded, you paid just a few cents (say a nickel) directly to the artist... no image say 4-6 GB of mp3s you have and that is around 1000 titles, that cost you like $50, not too shabby, I would pay it... well the artists get a few cents everytime their stuff is traded, without the labels/RIAA grabbing a cent.... they make tons of cash, with no overhead.
Fact of the matter is, it is more than questionable that the RIAA represented labels have NO ACTUAL RIGHT to MP3 based music, BUT the ARTISTS DO.
A great example is all the bootlegs from acoustic performances (a fav of mine) and concert shows... the RIAA clearly has no right to stop those, as they didn't pay for those (in many cases at least), so technically the artist is the ONLY one who deserves a royalty off that.
Read the RAC stuff, you will see their alterior (though good.. I would pay small as I said a few cent each) royalties directly to artists for their works. I would be unlikely to pay more than that as, the overhead is virtually non-existant, and the quality of an MP3 is lacking... I mean it is far worse than CD, and CD is crap in the audiophile world (I am not yet an audiophile.. but when I have enough $$$ perhaps