Janis Ian on the Internet Debacle

Datasage writes "Janis Ian, famous songwriter and artist, writes about her views of free music downloads, the music industry and the evils of the RIAA in this article." Yet another artist with substantial first-person experience speaking out, reminiscent of Courtney Love's speech.

Comments

Compassion for the artists?

[LeiraHoward]

I find it interesting that the artists are that badly mistreated (as far as low royalties, etc.) And this artist does have a point. I know I myself have bought CD's from artists that I had never heard of until a friend sent me an .mp3 of their song. I liked it so much, I wanted more, and went out and paid for it.

I think that the RIAA is just frightened that they are losing control. If they were really worried about the artists, they would be paying them more, and not resorting to some of the more unethical practices that have become standard in the music industry.

If they really wanted to help the consumer, they could lower CD prices everywhere, so that more people could purchase more songs.

If they really wanted to help the artist, they would funnel more money to the artist, rather than their own pockets.

The truth is, though, that they only want to help themselves, and as such, there isn't much we can do about it. We can let our voices be heard, and hope that one day, CD copying will be just as legal as taping something off the radio or television.

Great Article...

[2g3-598hX]

And David Bowie had some pretty good stuff to say, too.

Just a thought, but it would be great if more stars of the 60s spoke out against the record companies on this one. Those decrepit baby boomers owe it to us later generations...

Lobby your favorite aging rocker. I bet their back catalogues make up a sizeable portion of record company revenue, and the've already made a fortune so they have less to risk by speaking out. And once we get Ozzy Osbourne et al on the case...

I fear

[rhadamanthus]

That nothing will change though. There is simply TOO much money at stake here--but its the same old problem with the RIAA and friends...

Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off.

The opposing view: A study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD.

What is truly patheitc is how they rant and rave about how they want to "protect the artist", all the while doing just the opposite--and GETTING AWAY WITH IT. What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent.

Copyright is no longer a good thing. It is sad that such a good "idea" has become such a misused and abused facet of corporate ideology and overwhelming greed.

----rhad

Re:I fear

[5KVGhost]

I was watching some talking head on one of the tv money shows the other night. They were discussing, what else, corporate mismanagement. This guy was some kind of hot-shot investor, and he was all hot and bothered because company executives had forgotten their one true purpose: to serve the shareholders!.

WTF?!

Both of you are correct, actually, but I think you're a little bit more correct.

Shareholders have to get some return on their investment or they won't stay shareholders or attract new ones. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Of course, the proper way to give them a return on their investment is please the customers who buy their products, thereby keeping the company healthy, and ultimately delivering some profits that can be distributed back to the investors (and/or re-invested to fund the continued operation of the company.) So, yeah, make money for the shareholders by having lots of happy, paying customers.

But pleasing consumers and making competitive products can be hard work. So some CEOs, for their own immediate benefit and to satisfy impatient shareholders, have taken advantage of all sorts of short-cuts to make profits appear without the hard work of actually offering decent products or services. It might be massive "cost cutting" that fires the most competent employees or sells off strong but unglamourous assets, accounting tricks to hide poor sales and bad investments, or lots of other things. All of these get rich quick schemes tend to maximize short-term financial gain at the expense of the long-term health of the company. So it's not really matter of selfishness vs. pleasing the customer. It's more a matter of enlightened self-interest vs. immediate gain with no interest in the ultimate consequences.

Something I think is just as bad is the current demand for constant growth. It forces otherwise sane companies to overextend themselves with pointless acquisitions and other silly corporate strategies simply for the sake of keeping irrational market advisors happy. Corporate growth, like growth in living things, must be directed, purposeful, and carefully controlled or it weakens the body rather than strengthening it.

(I think obligatory MS-bashing there at the end is a bit off base, BTW. MS can do whatever it wants with its products, and they're really no worse than many other companies as far as rampant upgrades are concerned. MS has supported some bad legislation in the past, but they're boy scouts compared to really nasty companies like Monsanto, which can do way more real-world damage than any computer company ever dreamed of.)

Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors

[FatRatBastard]

Mettalica was in it for the prestige and decided to suck up to the record company who was promoting them and making them 'famous'.

No, Metallica was in it because, unlike 90%+ of the artists signed to the big five, they actually *own* their recording rights. Look at a Metallica CD. It doesn't say (C)(P) Electra (their lable).

Now, this is not to say I agree with Metallica's stance, but its understandable why theirs and Janis' view points are different.

Re:Famous songwriter and artist?

[eyegor]

That may be true. But her point about music downloads increasing sales (even for forgetable artists) is true.

Most music out there is utter crap. I've been burned badly so many times by buying discs by highly-hyped, but untalented "artists" that I'm almost afraid to buy anything.

Enter the Internet.

Now I can preview music and give it a test drive. Do I find a lot of crap? Yep. And I don't buy the discs, nor do I continue to listen to it.

BUT... I do find a fair amount of good stuff and do you know what? I actually BUY the disks. Really!!

I have 20 - 30 CDs full of MP3s that I've downloaded from the 'net and about 1200 CDs that I've purchased from the store (approx 250 since I've been "stealing" music from the Internet).

Are there people who just download the music and never buy a disc (effectivly stealing the music)?

Yes..

They need to pay for the music they listen to in order to reward the artist for producing it. Otherwise, why should the artists continue even trying?

Things need to change. The record companies need to lighten up and people who download and listen to the music need to get some ethics and pay for what they use.

My 2 cents.

Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors

[niola]

I think you have the wrong impression of Metallica. While they did ruffle a lot of feathers with the way they proceeded, their argument somehow got lost in all the hoopla. Their stance was do not share their studio albums, but share bootlegs etc. to your heart's content.

Anyone who has gone to a Metallica show knows that they ENCOURAGE recording of their shows fror your own enjoyment. In fact I have even heard instances of them letting people jack recording gear into their console at the show should you happen to be close enough.

Their argument, whether you agree with it or not, was that artists should have final say on what is shared and what is not. On this point I would have to agree with them. It shouldn't be the fan's or the label's decision. The decision should be the artists that created the work. If they want to selectively allow some works to be shared and others not, it should be their perogative.

--Jon

Re:Control

[swm]

it's all about control

This absolutely correct, and Ian seems to not quite get it

If you think about it, the music industry should be rejoicing at this new technological advance! Here's a fool-proof way to deliver music to millions who might otherwise would never purchase a CD in a store...It's instantaneous, costs are minimal, shipping non-existant...a staggering vehicle for higher earnings and lower costs.

All true, and if you think about it, you realize that this is why the music industry is terrified: if you have the internet, you don't need the record labels.

Further discussion at How The Internet Will Make The Record Labels Evaporate .

Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors

[Rogerborg]

• Their argument, whether you agree with it or not, was that artists should have final say on what is shared and what is not. On this point I would have to agree with them. It shouldn't be the fan's or the label's decision. The decision should be the artists that created the work. If they want to selectively allow some works to be shared and others not, it should be their perogative.

This is absolutely correct. It's the letter and spirit of copyright law.

Unfortunately, it's also largely irrelevant, because the vast majority of artists don't own the rights to their own work. They have chosen to sell them to big labels, and have no legal or moral rights to comment on how that work is used.

The only people that can comment on the work are the weasels in suits at the labels. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the law, and I suggest that it's also what's right, because artists are persuaded to sign away all rights not by being beaten with a stick, but by being shown a huge carrot.

You can argue that artists don't have a choice, that the only way to get wide distribution is to sign in blood to a label. Bullshit. If you want wide distribution, put your music on gnutella. Signing with a label is about greed, it's about gambling that you'll be in the 1% that actually makes money, and makes it big. Oh, delicious irony, that 99% of artists are wrong, and get screwed. Dumb, greedy fucks.

I was one of the few people that actually agreed with the substance of what Metallica were saying. But the trouble was that they should have stuck to just talking about themselves, rather than appearing on a platform with repulsive label weasels, and dribbling on about other artists' rights (most of whom have none). If they were being honest, they should have said "Screw everyone else. Just don't pirate our stuff, because we've been good to you in the past, you selfish fuckers." But they didn't, they toed the corporate line and tried to imply that the respect that they'd earned also applied to the hordes of talentless meat puppets that infest the airwaves and MTV-a-like channels. Bzzt, wrong, both legally and morally.

the point people keep missing

[alizard]

Shutting down P2P and Internet Radio isn't about protecting artist royalties or even record label royalties.

It is about control. The RIAA record labels want to close down any venue that is easily accessible to the public where the independent (as in unsigned by major record label) artist can upload her own music without having to go through a gatekeeper under record label control.

The ability of RIAA record label suits to make a living depends on their being able to say "You can't make a living without us."

With easily available CD on demand and band merchandise on demand, all a musician needs if his/her material is any good is exposure... a musician no longer needs record labels and record stores to sell CDs and T-shirts.

The last choke point that allows RIAA labels a chance to make money off artists and the public is exposure to masses of people. Internet Radio and P2P allowed an easy way for the independent artist to get to the people.

When people say "I bought CDs from bands I never heard of thanks to Napster, etc.", this doesn't make the RIAA want to keep P2P / Internet Radio open, their business is to make sure you only buy from RIAA artists... to find RIAA artists, turn on any Clear Channel radio station. Where an independent without a major promotion budget isn't going to be heard.