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.)"
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.
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."
Are Lars Ulrich and Metallica going to attend?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
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
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.
To clarify, the artists in this case want
Their music to no longer be classified as a "work for hire," aka a pointless industrial design owned by the system... such as the look of a car, the shape of a replica statue of liberty, or N' Sync. There isn't much money to be made creating "works for hire," nor is there many legislated rights associated with them.
Compulsory licencing for online music content with compulsory compensation for artists. Much in the same way that radio was working up until Clear Channel, compulsory licencing would mean increased online distribution and competition and with a per-song fee paid to artists. Artists would also like to have the option of licencing "their" music to free services like limewire and napster, in the hopes of making more on concert sales and merchandising.
An end to long-term contracts. This makes sense, as artists don't have much barganing power with their labels when they first sign that 10 year piece of paper. At the time it looks like a much better prospect than returning to Mc Donalds.
All of these things are aimed at making more money for the existing, successful (and unsuccessful but signed) artist, but with little real attempt to reduce the grip of the Recording Industry from the musical world.
I know a dozen musicians, all of whom have in-house recording studios capable of producing some truly professional quality audio and burning it to disk. And I know dozens of people who run sites, some of which involve payment authentication systems. Add a buck for postage, a few downloadable sample MP3's, and make the artists do all the legwork and you have a replacement for the traditional music distribution system. Why, then, do we not have benefit concerts to startup alternatives like this? (Hint - look at the dinner tables of the artists throwing this concert... )
While the tweaks to the system advocated by these artists are by and large good ideas (lord knows we could use a compulsory licencing scheme for online music), they are not in reality as revolutionary as some people here seem to think.
The ______ Agenda
above post moderated (-1, depressing).
Oh well, on to the christmas "cheer"...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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.
So even though it's one group of rich bastards against another, "fuck the RIAA" is about to become a household phrase.
-Legion