Slashdot Mirror
Ask Singer Janis Ian About the RIAA and Online Music
Janis Ian has been a popular songwriter and performer since the 1960s, and has decided that Internet music downloads help her and many other recording artists. She wrote an article saying so, then wrote a followup piece, and now it's time for Janis to answer your questions about how the RIAA, the "major labels," and online filesharing affect artists like her. We'll send 10 of the highest moderated questions to Janis tomorrow and post her answers when we get them back. (Off-topic note: Alton Brown has not forgotten Slashdot. He had some show taping problems that messed up his schedule, and asks us to be patient, please.)
With who exactly? I have never heard of her.
No offense, never heard of you. What are you best known for?
What kind of response from the RIAA et al have
you received from your writings? Do they just
pretend like if they ignore your commentary, it'll
go away, or have you actually gotten some sort
of response from an actual industry exec?
We've all heard the dogmatic rantings about 'the record labels are bleeding the artists dry!' and 'those P2P users just want free music!' and whatnot. Considering the nature of the RIAA, and the politics of P2P software, how do you believe the average artist would feel about this topic?
I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
With the RIAA/Monster labels seemingly out of control, what do you think will be required to bring them under control?
for internet radio, and waive all CARP fees? Or would you, if your tunes are controlled by your label?
What percentage do you make of the sticker-price of your CDs?
Also, if you know, how much of that price is going to pay for advertising, studio time, et al., and how much is pure profit for the record companies?
Do you not find it strange that a 2-hour DVD, with commentary, subtitles, and extra scenes, can be sold for less than $10, while few audio CDs are that low priced?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
What's it like having to choose between the RIAA or P2P users? Either way you're screwed so which feels better?
Which would interest you more, receiving a very small royalty for every download, or, for example, knowing that while someone downloaded a song by you, or by an artist similar to you, they were treated to a stream of your new music? Would that mandatory, targeted exposure be enough for you? Do you think that type of exposure would be reflected in album sales?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Its obvious that CD's from a lesser known artist such as yourself (no offense intended) might have difficulties selling. Its also apparent that free downloads of your music would expose it to more people and potentially increase sales. However, what do you think the effect of peer to peer sharing is on more recognized artists and groups, particularly very popular artists and groups (Britney Spears and the like) who don't need peer to peer technology to gain recognition?
what would you say to RIAA executive to try to convince them that p2p helps the music industry, and they shouldn't be so concerned about money anyhow?
Runnin' On Empty
You've probably seen the people on top controlling the business, trying to protect the artists.... are these money grubbing people who are just trying to look good in front of the artists but really are afraid of an eventual pay cut or rebellion against themselves?
Kodos: We would've shown you feelings 1000 times that which you call happiness, and a million times that which you call love. You would've lived in paradise for enternity as gods. But because of your distrustful nature, that may never be.
Marge: For a superior species, they really rub it in.
Lisa: Their were monsters aboard that ship, and surely we were them.
Marge: Lisa, remember when I told you you were too smart for your own good?
Bart: Yeah, way to go Lis.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
When you entered the music business, radio stations were diverse. In the last few years, this diversity has disappeared. Do you have any comments on this?
In one of your interviews, you mentioned that contracts with the music industry should be likened to indentured servitude (must produce X albums, but the label has the final say on if what you produce was acceptable). Why do you think so many artists willingly accept these terms? What can be done to promote contracts that are more fair?
slashdot!=valid HTML
RIAA is evil. This is an established fact of life. What I'd like to know, from an artist's standpoint, is how SHOULD it be? Now you sign with a label that helps production and then calls you a hired hand and steals your music. How should it work, start to finish? What's currently broken that's stopping this? Do you have any ideas on how we can fix this for the artist, as a society? How can we get involved to help the artists?
What exactly does the RIAA do to help the individual artists, anyhow? To me, it appears that their business model is to protect the record companies at all costs, and do very little for the actual creators.
What do you propose as a long-term solution for the music industry? How does your proposed solution benefit each of the parties involved: the artist (songwriter, singer, musician), the consumer, the recording studio, the talent agent, and the producer?
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
As a vinyl-era performer, is it a safe bet that you're getting more distribution from your touring than from anything the music companies are doing for you? And is your older music affected by the recent changes in the copyright laws extending terms, or is there actually some chance rights may revert in your lifetime?
For the artists that enjoy having their songs on the internet for free sharing, I have to ask, have you considered what it would be like without the RIAA being so stubborn about the p2p sharing?
For example, my vision without the RIAA is that VERY VERY few people buy CDs, rip them, convert them to mp3, and share them. Now all the audio equipment companies (like sony, aiwa, etc...) sell nothing but mp3 players. Now, kids today do NOT buy CDs, but just buy MP3 players, and no (well, hardly) any CDs are sold at all. The profits shift from the recording industry to the music hardware industry (mp3 players with more ram, faster transfers, more features, etc...).
I don't mean to argue with you, but it seems like you haven't thought it all the way through.
1) is it the lack of control they have over the distribution?
2) is it the fear that someone will find out what the "filler" material on the album sounds like.
3) that P2P actually cuts into sales.
or is it a combination of the three?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I'm curious - you're an artist who's been in the business for a number of (ahem) years. How has the RIAA changed since you signed your first recording contract?
The battles between artists, listeners and the recording industry strike me as just a high profile version of what is happening in the larger society. We are seeing the centralization of power in the hands of the few to the immediate detriment of workers in a field and longer term harm to society as a whole.
What kind of efforts can those of with relatively little power make to reverse this centralization? Or should we just wait for the inevitable collapse and prepare to pick up the pieces?
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
Hello, Madam Ian. I'd like to point your attention to Scott McCloud's essays named "I Can't Stop Thinking!", especially #5 and #6, the Coins of the Realm. After reading those two, and the claim that 15 cents per song would be apropriate for the artist directly, what would your reaction and responce be?
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
When an artist signs on to a record label, exactly how much control do they lose over they type of music that they will put out?
We've all heard the stories or watched a movie about how an indy band decides to sign onto a record label, and the label then forces them to change their image / play crappy music written by some 2-bit composer / or do something else that the band doesn't really like, but their contract obligates them to do.
Are these views extreme in most cases?
Does the artist lose all control, allowing themselves to be remade into whatever the record company wants them to be? Or is some amount of control retained?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
What do you think would be a realistic business model which would respect both the rights of the artist and the consumer for the delivery of music via the Internet, including what you feel is a fair price per song or album? (I am purposefully excluding the recording labels/music mafia here).
"As flies to the wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for sport." - William Shakespeare, King Lear
j00r c0un71ng sk11z sux0r
Now that we are seeing more and more DIY record labels (enabled in part by cheaper digital studio techniques) what do you think the role of the Big Music Industry will be? Will they become irrelevent as more and more musicians realize they can record and market their own albums and make more money than if they sign a contract? Or is there some service that they will still be able to provide that will lure in new musicians? Does the near monopoly on distribution that companies like BMG have play into this?
I learned the Truth at seventeen,
That P2P is met with Lawyer Teams.
And High School file sharing friends,
destroyed by thought control bends.
We all play the game, but when we dare,
to download songs, is it unfair?
Inventing email accounts unknown,
causing profit losses to the bone,
that call and say "Don't download that!"
but we think that Napster was just phat.
It isn't all it seems, at seventeen...
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
While I must admit I really haven't heard much of your music, your stance with regards to the RIAA and Peer-to-Peer song swapping has ceratly drawn my attention both to you and your music. With bills in the US congress to allow entities such as the RIAA and MPAA to 'attack' p2p networks, specifically those allowing copyrighted works for download, do you think the RIAA and/or the MPAA has any concious understanding of the mistrust and Orwellian thoughts that their lobbying efforts are creating? Lastly, what do you think it would take to get them to realize the light at the end of the tunnel that they see is actually an oncomming train?
I don't think many can argue that the overall experience of downloading/ripping/burning music is still prohibitive to many. People will still buy CDs and whatnot because the current technology does not allow for immediate, complete, high-quality copies to be made. In that way, modern filesharing is very much like sharing tapes. This, in my opinion, does help artists.
However, let's take a look into the future. Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD (or whatever the current technology is) in even less time. One click allows me to fully reproduce Janis Ian's latest release - liner notes & all.
At that point, should artists be worried? Or, to put it more generally, should artists always permit the reproducing of their works?
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
What has been the RIAA's or label's attitude about your online pieces regarding the "biz" and have you received threats ( legal or otherwise ) for speaking so candidly about it?
I consider myself fairly well rounded in music, from the popular to the obscure, and even a little bit on the world music front. Growing up in New Orleans does that too you, thank god for that. The 80's would have been intolerable anywhere else!
Anyway, as most people will point out I had no idea who Ms. Ian is, went to her site and listened to a few of her tracks. Not bad, not something I would buy. Joan Baez, Marianne Faithful, folk chick angst.(almost a female john cougar, heartland muzak) Done well but again, not my type of music. I get my angst from Townes Van Zandt. Might be a guy thing.
I laud her for speaking out on this issue and while she does have 17 ablums to her credit. It almost smacks of an almost made it saw a way to revitalize a fading almost career.
I would look on this with a grain of salt.
She does have quite a good voice.
Then again music, art, is subjective, what you like you like, up to you.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
I personally believe that the big reason that the RIAA's up in arms about music sharing is that they're concerned that people will hear the music and realize they may not want it. They fear losing money from people buying an album without really knowing what's on it.
Do you think there's any truth to what I'm saying?
As the coauthor of a rapidly-becoming-obsolete technology book that's barely more than two years old, I can certainly sympathize regarding royalty checks in the red (I only received one, so far, that actually came with a check attached). Knowing that, how do you feel about significantly reduced copyright terms? Obviously, it would mean your former label would no longer be able to profit off of songs like "At Seventeen", but conversely, having that material in the public domain much more quickly might result in some of the collateral effects on your current material that, as you described in your first article, Baen is doing for authors.
This expiry issue is actually a more critical concern for many in technology, because unlike other, more tangible cultural elements like books or records, a lot of culturally significant digital content (e.g. old video games) has been produced in the technology arena that, by the time its copyrights expire under current law, no one will remember how to (or have the right hardware to) reproduce. Then again, how many people today (a mere decade later, really) still have working phonographs?
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Can you honestly say that you believe in human altruisticness? If I for one made an album, no way would I put it online for download. It's not a matter of greed, I just believe that the majority of people won't pay for what they can get for free. And not to troll, but this site reaffirms that opinion everyday.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
We know that the movie industry doesn't have the "problems" music does -- Macrovision can be easily circumvented, and copying from cable and satellite TV picks up where that leaves off. And yet people continue to buy and rent and watch movies at the box office, and the industry continues to do well despite piracy. Software isn't all that different: good programs and games continue to sell well despite the availability of "warez" and casual copying.
What then, in your opinion, are the significant differences between video and music or software? Why is digital piracy such a "problem" for them when the others have successfully made money despite it?
When I talk to RIAA lawyers they insist that they and their colleagues with the major labels are staunch defenders of the 1st Amendment. Has this been your experience? Why or why not?
Finding God in a Dog
File share, or use p2p in any way?
-Illegitimis nil carborundum
How much has ownership of lyrics, music and captured peformances shifted in favor of the artists? How much of a factor do you view the RIAA's alleged-piracey tactics are to avert risk of further erosion of these lucrative properties away from producers (i.e. big labels)?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
For instance, you might want to start by signing my band, Local Porn Star. Thanks.
Would you comment on supporting a company using the following system?
1) Distribution to music 'machines' in homes, kiosks, music stores via Internet, cable, and phone. 'Machines' allow for burning of CDs and download to portable players.
2) Subscriber service which maintains a catalog of music purchased for someone. Tracks/records can be purchased via Credit card, Interac, Music cards (like phone minute cards).
3) Optional PR model which can include some or all of the following: Web (with links to purchasing store, advertising, forums, chat rooms, etc), radio streaming (to users and radio station websites), advertising via print and television media. Costs would be based on a minimum / percentage system.
I really liked your idea about a proposal for the RIAA to "test the waters" with music that was out of print. But that got me thinking even more. Most of the music I downloaded from Napster was music that was either OOP altogether, or never released on CD in the states. Why would the RIAA be concerned if I just happen to like music that they deemed not important enough to even make available for me to purchase. I think your idea would go much further than just "testing the waters" for people in my niche.
My question is this: Why would they not go for something like this?? Have you heard any rational reason for the labels not getting together and giving this a go??
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
He makes a good point! I can't believe he got modded down.
Would the moderators please re-read his post and reevaluate it? I think he just got modded down for saying 'RIAA is evil.'
"Derp de derp."
I think it is interesting that the success or otherwise of musicians and music in general is now measured in CD sales, playlists and MTV airplay. I think this is a great shame considering what music can be, and indeed ought to be. These great custodians of the income of the record labels (who incidentally themselves make no music, they merely package and sell it) shows how crazy the whole discussion has gotten. Can we please remember the lowly musician?
Fundamentally musicans make music because they love music. They don't do it for the fame, for the limo or the huge paycheck (though I grant some do). Musicians make music because they are crazy about music.
I believe that the Internet has the potential for us to rediscover musicians who make music, music for themselves, their friends, their local community but most of all music for people to listen to and enjoy. Musicians with a passion for the music in itself. But this potential is being criminalised as the labels and their cronies see their massive revenues slipping away. Lets face facts record labels are the most conservative, non-innovative and staid organisations known to man. They *buy* talent in, and most of all they buy it cheaply, often through one-sided contracts, usually underpaying by substantial amounts - you only have to look at the countless court cases surrounding record contracts.
Musicans need to innovate and need people to listen to their music, and the normalising effects of the record industry merely serve to homogenise and standardise music into need easily digestable packages. This is the problem - the record labels have gotten bigger than the musicians and consequently they now try to mass-produce them. This is a pathetic attempt to continue to cash in on their cash-cows and suppress innovation and creativity.
I hope people will continue to experiment with downloading and trying out new music, and yeah hopefully some method will be developed to help musicians get paid when you want to buy it. But the record labels have grown fat and lazy and have become part of the problem.
I believe Open Music initiatives (like Creative Commons, EFF, LOCA public license etc) are the way forward to get exciting new sounds and musical movements underway. I look forward to seeing what musicians the world over can create in this new medium.
I would be very interested in hearing what Janis thinks of these Open Music licenses.
David
locarecords.com
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
I assume that you get a chance to talk to other artists at music festivals and the like. Have you received any feedback from them regarding your recent public comments? What about other music industry people (festival organizers, recording industry execs, radio DJ's, etc)?
(Seems to me that this organization can not only exist to deny P2Pers. It existed before Napster, et. al. and thus provided some service to artists, even if peripherally.)
Hi Janis,
How do you feel about the general policy of "CD's cannot be returned unopened."? Do you feel this is necessary to protect artists? The reason I ask is that it seems to fly right in the face of customer satisfaction.
Is there anything in your assorted contracts, past and present, that disallows you from organizing with other musicans to protest or strike against your label or the RIAA?
Has artists ever sucessfully orginized against the RIAA or one of it's member companies, to stop a practice that makes the industry money at the artists expense?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
As you may have already read, the RIAA's website was recently hacked. In addition to placing a pro-P2P statement on the RIAA's site, the hackers also made the entire contents of Linkin Park's newly released "Reanimation" album available for download in MP3 format. How would you feel if the same thing had happened to you?
the answer is obvious, because there is MONEY to be made by eliminating file-sharing, but they make no additional money by having listeners off drugs. they're a company, a ruthless company, but a company none the less, and companies are in the business of making money.
What do you think that the general music-buying public should do about the current situation? Should we boycott copy-protected CDs? Write letters to someone? Share our views artists after concerts?
An important question was asked here... It's in the 4th panel, you'll understand when you see it.
Now, the fictional Shawn Fanning refused to answer the question, would you care to take a shot at it?
[o]_O
I'm not sure where you're shopping for dvds son, but generally list price on those things goes around $20 to $30. Granted, you can find deals, but you can do the same for CDs. Comparing the standard overpriced CD to the bargain DVD isn't really fair.
That being said, I agree that CDs are overpriced for carrying 40-70 minutes of stereo audio, while a DVD carries 2-3 hours of video + 5.1 digital surround sound + bonus features, and doesn't cost substantially more.
From the little history I know, the RIAA was originally created to bring standards to record formats, and today has become a political tool for the big-wigs of the industry. We need to see how they changed, and learn from it..hopefully to prevent it from happening in the computer industry.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Why oh why do RIAA and music industry suck so much,,, and fear progress?
That and there is nothing wrong with drug use.
Michael Loves Me!
From her well thought out posts on the subject, Ms. Ian has already defined the players and their perspective roles. From what I have gleaned the two biggest "players" at the moment (due to their activity?) appear to be the RIAA and the P2P community.
While good suggestions have been made for experiments in change, let us suppose for a moment that neither of these entities takes a step towards the middle. With tensions mounting on both sides, how does the future of the industry appear if the situation continues as it has been? Is there anything that people who are sick of the actions of the RIAA, but who aren't comfortable with copyright violation can do to help brighten this future?
You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
How difficult would it be for an established artist to leave the RIAA and remain a success?
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
How practical or common is it for an artist to retain copyright to their own material? Is there a financial incentive to do that? Does a wish to retain copyright of recorded material have an impact on your chances of signing with a "mainstream" label?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Do you see a possibility of a return to subscription recordings, for currently relatively obscure artists that make a name for themselves by offering free samples of their music on-line, to establish their reputations, if the recording industry's lock on distribution were to be diminished?
You could've hired me.
Apple seems to have the most geek-friendly attitude towards digital music and fair use - they ask not to steal music and (as far as iTunes / iPods are concerned) obscure the methods to do so without completely preventing it. As a practicing musician myself I understand the necessity of copyright and all its baggage and am enthralled with Apple's stand - I also grew up writing / scoring all my stuff on a variety of macs. I'm therefore wholeheartedly biased and would like another professional opinion.
So I guess the question is: How do you feel about Apple's stance on fair use?
Triv
As the distribution avenues increase, shouldn't the price of a single album decrease? I would be more than happy to purchase albums if they were priced at $3 each. What are your thoughts on the price points of CDs, DVDs, and computer/console games? Ratios between these 3 main forms of entertainment seem to be very skewed.
Budgets for high profile games reach millions.
Budgets for high profile movies reach a hundred million+.
Budgets for high profile music reach a ??? At the most less than a million.
In fact, most all PCs have the ability to create a music cd of better than average quality with a few simple software tools.
It has been said that marketing costs drive the cost of the CD. I don't believe this, I believe the true cost of the CD is stuffing the pockets of the record industry. Homes in the Hollywood hills cost millions!
What are your thoughts on this?
and unlike the other has-beens that staff Slashdot, this one's had sex!
And with women, no less!
The Ultimate Home Theater
This 20-person home theater earned Escient Solutions an award for "Best Home Theatre Electronic System Design Over $150,000"
At over 150K with no upper limit, any home theater could be best.
Janis, How did it feel when you won the Artist of the Millinium award?
Hi Janis,
Your site has some material that implies you were the subject of FBI investigations. Could you tell us more about that? Was it related to your early work regarding interracial relationships ("Society's Child", 1966), or something else?
Thanks,
S.D.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Have you discussed your views on Internet downloads with other artists? If so, has the response been generally positive? Or do some artists still blindly stand by the RIAA?
They had one good tune on their otherwise suck-ass disk. Had I been able to buy just "No Rain" I never would have spent the bucks for the whole diskful of utter garbage. And that's what keeps the artists going - you have to pay them for a dozen or more bad songs to get one or two good songs. They'd never agree to a pay-per-download scheme, the "artists" would lose too much money, so would the RIAA. That's the joke on the consumers.
If ya wanna hear the really good music, go to the source - the "undiscovered" bands playing in bars. For real. If it's on the radio, it's either too old or too lame to listen to. The Clearchannel marketeers make sure of that.
Janis, which do you prefer: Bongo Java or Fido?
I'd really like to understand some economics here. In the last 5 years, the prices of cars, TVs, Sterios, telephone service, internet service.. the prices on everything drop. On the other hand, our local theatre now charges $3/ticket more than they did 5 years ago, and the price of CD's sure hasn't dropped. I listen to the radio. I don't steal music, and I don't buy CD's (Because I can't offord them). My actual question, why don't these companies lower their prices and see if they get a possitive reaction from it? I'd probably start buying cds again if they were cheap enough.
Can all fish swim?
Broader ethical question: Shouldn't an individual musician or songwriter get to decide, on a song-by-song basis, which ones she wants to give away as a free MP3 and which ones she reserves for sale? Where does a music listener get off copying and distributing something from a songwriter which the listener has received no permission to duplicate? Why does the mere fact that a listener CAN duplicate and pirate copyrighted music mean that a listener has a defensible democratic right to do so?
For example, the independent musician can now sit down in their basement with less than $1,000 in equipment and produce an okay sounding CD, then rip copies manually for ten cents each to either sell or give away at their shows. It seems that some of the laws being proposed will hurt that niche (i.e. can't make a copy of a CD at all, or CD technology is a patent of Sony)--do you also think this is a problem and what can we do to make sure the laws don't cause any collateral damage?
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
Do you think the "major label system" of investing huge amounts of money to make stars, and being able to recoup that investment to turn profits, can and should be preserved? If so, we've got to engineer a way for them to continue to make money. I don't think you would have the ability to earn the living as a musician that you enjoy today unless thirty years ago a major label had invested big bucks in promoting your songs "Society's Child" and "At Seventeen" until they became big hit records.
Recently the RIAA has blamed music piracy as the leading cause for the drop in music sales. I personally feel it is because of two other factors: a global recession; and a loss of interest in who the RIAA wants to be mainstream (ie Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, N'Sync, etc). How would you go about sitting down with the "important people" and showing them that their current business model is not working and that the people they are lashing out against are the biggest fans? More importantly, how would you go about trying to get the little people (ie the fans) involved to show that they are underestimating support from the fans?
My spoon is too big.
As an artist, do you ever have contact with the RIAA? Or do you only have a relationship with the record company (sony, rca, etc) with which you're in negotiations?
I'd like to hear her opinion on this.
--even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
It shouldn't be earth-shattering news to anyone that musicians in the limelight are actually better than the guy down the street. Grammy's, People's Choice, and other awards that place image above sound do nothing but show the world that the music industry has become, above all else about the visual and the video rather than the audible.
Darwin and open-source have both shown us that survival of the fittest is the best way to go if you want the cream of the crop. I believe that the sharing of music across the internet is the ultimate tool in levelling the playing field in music. I'm tired of having "music" shoved down my throat on TV, billboards, and everywhere else that the industry can find to hype the "beautiful people" that lip sync better than anyone else.
Do you believe that a revolution should/would hit the music industry if the distribution model were changed so that musicians would earn an average salary through performances and nobody would earn anything through the distribution of the media?
os.system("perl -e 'print \"My first Python Script.\"'")
As a long-time "amateur" musician who has made a lot of recordings and kept all the rights by not signing any contracts, my main worry about all this is: The RIAA are once again trying to prevent me from making my own recordings of my own music. They tried this when they tried blocking other recording media such as cassettes, and they lost. But in today's corporate-dominated world, I keep worrying that they might succeed the next time.
The "Digital Rights Management" software seems to me to be an attempt to do the same thing. If this succeeds, I'll have to get a license (probably from Microsoft) to record and listen to my own music on my own machines.
Is there anything we can do to prevent this? Or are we facing a world in which all music, even my own private music, will be owned by the corporations?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
You came up with a good way for the RIAA to get a reasonable benefit from online music and get what they are actually due when music is freely available. The RIAA hasn't gone for it, which is hardly surprising, considering that the RIAA are, so far as I can tell, the only people who don't like you.
So what can be done without the RIAA getting involved? Perhaps the RIAA would buy in if someone had gotten something working which was making money and didn't use RIAA-owned materials. I bet it would be possible to put together the music needed to have a site from people who just play for fun and aren't expecting to make money (but want to spend their free time but little money on it).
Ehh, you kids these days with your OnOffOffOff. In my day, we had to make do with OnOffOff! AND WE LIKED IT!
She is a no-talent that only whiny fucks like you listen to.
And, yes, I have heard of her.
First off, your two opinion pieces are very well written. Thank you for the insider's view.
Now the question. My local classic rock station's morning DJs seem to be on the same page as you. Do the majority of DJs agree with you? On air or off?
A follow-up question. Do you have any plans to do the "morning show circuit" to promote your stance?
Thank you again for your thought provoking work.
Miss Janis Ian,
Everybody seems to have a solution but nobody seems to be putting one into place. Will you lead from the front on this issue and start putting up your own website where people can pay for your songs to download and or buy your songs on a MP3 CD? Maybe if some hard evidence is shown to the record companys they will follow suit?
Thanks alot,
Mr.Winkey
Vote early. Vote often. Vote CowboyNeal.
First off, thanks to you and to Christine Lavin for eloquently voicing the artist and consumer side of this issue and puncturing the facade presented by the RIAA.
In the 1940's the musicians' union shut down the record industry for 2 years. In today's market, that would be next to impossible. Artists like you, Christine Lavin, and Ani DiFranco have proven that it's possible to survive and prosper away from the major labels. What do you envision as a fair balance between artist, label, radio, and consumer, especially for artists outside the mainstream? How can we as fans and consumers be effective in pushing the mass media towards that balance? Would it make sense for independent artists and smaller labels to form their own coalition, say as BMI was formed as an answer to ASCAP?
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
Your stance on the recording industry and the public is right on, but how can we convince other artists of our viewpoint?
- Serge Wroclawski
Is that if they are shown on TV, then that makes them popular? All that makes them is a media driven sales act. Although, I do know that hype and media attention means much more then substance in this society of ours. It's terrible, but the truth.
-.-
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
You've never heard of my band.
We are unsigned and produce all our material in a small, albeit sophisticated home studio. I've spent the last 15 years (off and on and in between tech jobs) playing with various bands. some of these bands were on major labels (none of them are anymore) some of them were on minors. This new band is totally independent.
(feel free to ignore the following shameless hyperlinked plugs)
We started off on mp3.com about 3 years ago and have since racked up a pretty impressive 100,000 or so downloads for which mp3.com has paid us a total of around 1300 bucks (yes, they actually paid). We produced our own CD and sell it at CD baby as well as amazon.com and we are almost at the break-even point.
for us, the unsigned masses of musicians - P2P is a godsend. It's an enormous window into the hard-drives and mp3 players of potential fans worldwide. If i sell a CD to a tiny tiny percentage of these downloaders, i'm doing great. To do this, I purposely stack my own band's mp3's in my shared folders of my P2P clients. It's amazing when i do a search for us on the networks and we pop up on someone elses machine. I have no idea why someone downloaded us - maybe they thought that someone who was sharing - (some band i downloaded for free) - must have other good selections - i have no idea.
P2P is massive advertising and distribution on an unprecedented scale. The record companies remind me of the russian oligarchs who grabbed everything they could during the soviet collapse amassing enormous monopolies. But, once in place they demanded new and strict laws to maintain the stats quo and keep their ill-gotten wealth.
The question of what musicians feel about P2P is misguided and assumes that 'musicians' are all the same. For countless thousands of bands and DJ's P2P is an integral part of their distribution strategy. Personally speaking, when someone decides to 'steal' my music to the tune of millions and millions of downloads - I have a very high-class problem.
The bar to entry to record and produce your own CD's is so low and the amount of new music that is being created is so astonishingly high it's no wonder the record companies are losing money. music is literally everywhere - it (especially dance music) has become a commodity that should be sold by the pound.
This flood of new music requires record companies to pay more money to keep above the madding crowd of 'amateurs' and, in turn, decreases their profits. Also, the radio and live venue monopoly has squeezed all the 'alternative' avenues of promotion out of the reach of mortal bands. P2P and mp3 sharing is all there is left.
musicians and record companies need to understand that music is now shareware whether they like it or not. when i download something i like - i often buy it. what we need now more than ever is not restrictions on music - it's editorial.
Go read some bible: nubible.com
I recall my grandfather telling me as a kid about the early 1970's CB radio problem. It turns out that the FCC initially required licenses to operate a CB radio. Truckers and the general public broke this rule in such numbers that the FCC dropped the requirement all together to aviod looking stupid. Obviously this situation can be applied to today's music "sharing" situation. Here the laws forbid the act of private citizens giving out thousands of copies of copyrighted music, but millions of people disregard those laws and most are better off for it (having more music for less money afterward). Do you believe this civil diobedience to be a legitimate expression of one's sentimate towards these regulations? If so, how far away can the "critcal mass" of file sharing be? Does this disregard for the current statutes help the cause or detract from it by branding music sharers as hacker/thieves.
Thanks, and mad props to artists that speak their mind!
James
MP3.com seems to have dropped out of the picture lately, but four out of the last five good bands that I've "found" were through this site. I really don't understand why more musicians haven't jumped on board over there. It seems to be working very well for Roger McGuinn. Why haven't more *established* artists tried this? Have you considered it? What there something unique about his timing, contract status, and/or fan base that that allows him to make better money on mp3.com than at the major labels?
Imagine a future where music bands only make a small percentage of money of what they earn now because of piracy, a future where the most popular band is not even close to being millionaire.
Do you think music would disappear? In other words, would musicians (both new and already well-known) compose, play, perform as good if money were not there? How important is money in all of this?
Today, distributing recorded music costs next-to-nothing. Yet the price of recorded music has never been higher.
What does a record company offer an artist today? What can a record company do for an artist that the artist can't do herself? Are artists beginning to realize this on their own?
Thanks / Jeff
Every morsel of an article that comes out that purports to support the notion that the blatant disregard for intellectual property rights that recent technologies have popularized is a moral, economic, business, or societal good is trumpeted. None of the many serious articles to the contrary are raised.
RIAA and other "suits" are demonized regularly while "free beer" folk heroes are interviewed. Come on now. A little balance, please.
I'm pretty sure it IS possible for an artist to distribute music to their fans, without dealing with such unfair deals that the RIAA companies seem to hand out.
The first thing that comes to mind is Dischord Records, who's most famous artist is Fugazi. They have always done it their own way, with many fan-friendly policies such as setting a $5 max admission for all shows, and $10 postage-paid for all of their CDs.
Recently, Aimee Mann made her entire new album available online before it was released (published under her own label I believe).
So, apparently, it CAN be done. Why isn't this route more attractive to more artists concerned with losing control of their work? I understand the big companies have much more resources for advertising, etc, but is it worth it? Do you think maybe the RIAA companies really ARE adding sufficient value to the product to merit the sort of control they have?
This is by far the most intersting question i've seen so far.
The RIAA might be getting 'better' or they may always have been this bad, so you can't really complain too much about them ripping you off. On the other hand they may just be turning on the axis of evil about to take over the whole world.
MoD parent UP++
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Clearly, there are several different camps in this new music/Intellectual Property debate/story.
This is a complicated story, in part because the RIAA is a power structure. So far, they have been enormously successful in framing the dialogue in such a way that anyone who doesn't agree with their objectives is a "pirate" or a "criminal." They have a very efficient (but parasitical) money-making machine in place; and as we all know modern technologies are making the "service" they offer less and less unique or valuable. So they are holding on for dear life to protect their money-making machine.
It seems clear to me that the oligopoly of the RIAA is doomed; it's just a matter of time.
My question is, how would you open a dialogue with the RIAA about the best way to proceed into the future? Does the RIAA even have a future?
Who do you believe that the RIAA primarily works for? The artists or the labels, and how do you think that this can be changed? (or should it even be changed?) Thank you.
It has always been my opinion that the RIAA cares not about selling a million different CDs, but rather sell a million identical CDs. The RIAA would be silly not to think that way. I believe the record industry isn't so concerned about "theift" of the music, but more about controlling what people listen to.
It's a little hard to justify the cost of buying a CD without hearing it first. So, to first hear it you have the option of radio and TV which are pretty much controlled by the RIAA or you can get a copy from a friend (extending to online "friends") which is frowned upon by the cartel.
Do you feel the RIAA's stance on music trading on the Internet and even outside of the Internet is entirely about lost sales, or is it more sinister?
That it should be the choice of the artist / copyright holder (as these two may not be the same) to decide how to release their music and not that of the general or downloading public?
Does not the artist / copyright holder have the right to decide how their music is accessed?
Since the establishment of the Major League Baseball Players Association salaries for baseball players have soared making it the most successful union in history. My question is why, with all that music artists have to go through, is the music industry one of the only large industries to have absolutely no union whatsoever?
I figured I'd post a couple of answers to questions not directly related to the RIAA. IANAL - but because I have released several independent records and stared down the barrel of a major label contract I thought I'd post my findings.
...
Artists are "advanced" a sum upon the signing of a recording contract. This a really a loan and the record company will recoup all costs and this "loan" before you are paid any royalty.
Typically artists recieve 11-14% of profit as additional royalty on a recording. ALL other expences are paid first (studio, promo, distribution, tour support, and advances ) The record companies keep the books and you must sue to see them. Artists have often complained that these costs are artificially inflated by the record companies to avoid paying royalty.
Consider also that your management will get 15-20% of everything you make , even royalty.
Most smaller bands playing small/medium clubs make thier cash touring. Venues get 25-35% of all merchandise sales (ever wonder why concert Ts cost $25-30?) And again management will take 15-20% of all thats left.
As you can see if you are in a 5 person band and split all the cash evenly (which is rare) the managers and record companies make all the money and you are left with a large bill called an "advance". If you cant recoup the cost of your advance then the record company has the right to dissolve your band. And they are never under any obligation to release anything, ever.
My question to Janis is
Obviously the major record companies have complete vertical control of the entire industry, from the studios and producers all the way down to the offerings in retail outlets.
How do we as independent musicians break thru this grip on wide distribution and make independently produced music available to the masses? How do we get the masses to even be aware they have a choice wheh the airplay is never there? Do the masses really want 18 dollar Britteny CDs?
thanks in advance
The 'Slide
"Corporate rock still sucks. What are you gonna do about it?"
Janis,
I've read recently that some bands are experimenting with a more indie approach, and effeective licensing their distribution rights to a distributor for a specific time period, while retaining full copyright themselves. (Marillion is one example of this, and they also pre-sold an album in order to fund the recording of it. Works for them, since they're a known entity at this point.)
This is almost a requirement for very low-level bands, without a large corporation there to write checks, but do you think this might work with a more established group, who required significant time in an expensive studio as well as larger marketing efforts?
As a musician and writer, this idea of retaining ownership of my work appeals to me, while finding a partner for distribution and marketing efforts. Would you consider this approach? Would larger companies possibly back it?
My questions is with major label companies conspiring to keep artists under theri thumb through creative missmanagement ( I have to define creative missmanagment. MIssmanagment at least my term means the act or failuree to act to correct a situation in which correcting the situation woudl have the artist relizing that they are being hoodwinked..okay I am trying tobe nice here..drug and drinking abuse is one and there are others as well); how do we get other artist more properly informed about theri rights to their Masters andother issues so that they start voting with their voice andm ind rather than trust a Label ot have their interests at heart?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
My fiancee and I are songwriters and we have a band, and of course we'd like to be able to make a living writing and playing our music, even if we never become zillionaires doing it. If you were getting your first recording deal today, but had your 30+ years knowledge of the music business, what things would you do, not do, do instead, etc. What sort of things would you do to protect yourself and your rights to your own music? In other words, what wisdom in dealing with record companies have you acquired can you pass on to other artists about the whole signing process, copyrights, publishing, etc.?
As an artist from the 60s...
How the fuck is an artist from the 60's going to be helpful in erasing drugs from the music industry!? You can be sure she's had more than her share back then!
Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
Your statement that mp3s actually help sales is intruiging, considering I've never heard of you. Is it possible there is a bi-polar effect; generating publicity for the relatively unknowns which results in more sales, and providing a source of free music for the already popular, thus decreasing their sales?
The people who can benifit most from music swapping are those musicians who don't have, or got turned down by the big record companies.
The people that it doesn't affect are scum like Metallica (don't flame, I was a huge met fan before thier napster crusade) who already have made thier fortune and any money they have lost by this means would be a drop in the bucket.
And what of the people who make music for a hobby? Not for profit. Anyways, If I really like a CD enough, i'll go buy it. Most MP3's burned to cd sound sub par; almost like a tape, so if it has more than 2 or 3 songs that won't get played out, then it's worth 15 dollars.
Go away and let us ask someone who really matters, like Blixa Bargeld or Robert Fripp.
Do you think that Hillary Rosen really likes to roll around naked in big piles of money?
Or does she do it just for effect?
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
need i say more
How do you feel about the pervceived value of music by fileshares and in soceity in general ?.
Many who support filesharing of music argue that the RIAA is reaping what it sowed in regards to how willing people are to download music with out paying for it. We live in a soceity where music is freely avaliable, mediums such as radio and TV already offer free music to consumers (or at least it seems free to them).
I remember reading a book about Paul Mcartney, in it he recalled the early part of their career where he and Lennon signed away the rights to their songs. They felt that the idea of "owning a song" was laugable and that music couldn't be controlled like that. Obvioulsy they got shafted, had they held on to the rights they would of made a lot more money that compartively small sums they were offered at the time. And seeing how powerful the RIAA is today it would be an understatement to say that they were naive.
But there is an argument that the lower perceived value of music would be a good thing. If people became casually comfortable with the idea of having any song they want whenever they like without paying for it, they may start to value live music more (which, at least in the UK, is in a bit of a decline).
How would most artists feel about their primary source of income coming from live performance and recording being a very small part of what they do ?.
Obviously in such a situation Britney Spears and the like would not be able to make money in the same way, but there is a market for that kind of music and suspect the public would just end up paying for it in a different way.
I think it would be a good situation and would allow people more access to talented musicians who can entertain people live.
What do you think ?.
About 10 years ago, I submitted tapes of my material through the Readers_Digest_Songwriters_Market : RequestToSubmit : SendTape : Never_Hear_Anything_Back_Except_For_Promotion_Sca
Having spent a considerable amount of time touring, do you see this as a viable approach for undiscovered songwriter / artists to get their message out; perhaps the only one? Do you know other signed artists personally who are still benefitting from the legacy A&R / Promotion-heavy approach who might be considering the recent turns of events in their current model of distribution? Are they planning to focus more on touring if the current CD sales slump doesn't turn around?
As a side note, I love where all this is going and look forward to the promise of a world where we can get access to creative content unfiltered by the RIAA. With cheap / useful technology, artists should be able to finally get some real creative work done. I only hope our lobbyists don't legislate that potential away from us...
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Hi Janis,
Great article.
Have you really never made any money from your album sales through stores? What about your first albums?
At what level do you think artists actually make money?
Thanks
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
What is your opinion on the scenario that P2P will kill big record labels. Will this end music as a profession or will it still be possible for artists to make enough money to live comfortabley?
I know that a few recording artists who have sued their record companies over contract disputes (Michelle Shocked for one sued under the 'serivtude for 7+ years theory'- I went to see her band *only* because she had won a lawsuit.) The Dixie Chicks also sued their company, claiming non-payment of royalties, but settled out of court for $20 mil (sellouts, I say, better to let it go to jury)
My question is, in those rare instances where an artist does sue and win (or at least not settle - forcing it before a judge or jury), are their contracts placed into public evidence that isn't later sealed by the court? To me, the situations we read (meaning armchair pundits on Slashdot - not people in the business) are rather circumstatial. We have all Courtney Love's manifesto, Albinni's piece, Don Henley's writing, et al, and have the general (and I believe mostly correct) idea that the record companies' practices are "really evil". But I'm a skeptical, scientific-minded guy, and until I *see* a record contract in the open, where I can see how much is going to the artist, how much to the manager, how much to the song-writers, how much to distrution, details of the tax-benefits of advances for the companies who grant them, etc - I'm less likely to believe it.
Moreover, I don't think the great unwashed (John Q. Public) is going to believe it at all until we can provide some hard numbers. Courtney Love does provide numbers, but as others have pointed out, her argument is not watertight. And she has an axe to grind. Emotional speeches and eloquent arguments are one thing to get the message out (I've written about this before here), but until people are shown cold, hard numbers, I'm afraid they'll just think it's another "anti-capialist, liberal, pinko plot."
So, show me the contracts!
No one seems to say it. Ill say it. I just dont care.
Am I hurt the recording companies? Am I hurting the Artists? I dont care.
This is America. America lives by one rule. Screw unto others before they screw you.
We'll. They are trying to screw everyone. Its nice that like you anti piracy nutcases like anal sex without lube. But me, Ill buy an album when Ive decided there are enough worthwhile songs to justify the cost.
Till then, I really dont care who im hurting. Its the american way.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
Thinking like this got us the DMCA, and maybe the Berman Bill and the Hollings bill. Keep up the good work.....
Seems to me that you and your fellow artists and the open source community have at least one thing in common - a strong dislike for the RIAA.
Given that, perhaps the two communities could get together and take on the recording industry by developing a replacement for it.
Today, the industry supplies the artist with:
1) Funding - supply up front funding to artist to create music
(i.e venture capital).
2) Recording - they provide a studio,(optional) other musicians
to record with, technicians to record the music, mixing, editing, etc.
3) Manufacture - create physical CD's, art-work, etc.
4) Distribution - distribute the CD's to record stores.
5) Accounting - Track sales, send payments to artists, songwriters, etc.
6) Promotion - promote your music to the fans. Get air play on radio, TV. Arrange for concerts, etc.
Unless the artist has recent "megahits" much of the above is done poorly or not at all. What software would you like to see the open source community develop, to enable artists to become more independent of the recording industry?
[Insert pithy quote here]
I have just finished reading "Our Band Could Be Your Life" by Michael Azerrad which details the creation of the American independent music scene from 1981 to 1991 (when Nirvana "Nevermind" went #1 on the Billboard charts). In it there are many examples of independent artists (those not affiliated with the Big Six) trying to move up to a major label.
However there is also a strong segement of the underground that is vehemently independent: Steve Albini for one and his diatribe against the majors (The Problem With Music) or Ian MacKaye and Fugazi who assure all their products cost at most ten dollars and who have concerts for five. It seems that there has been a long standing (at least twenty years) of a "shadow industry" that stands for all the virtues of music making.
My question is this: what do you think causes the majority of the music buying public to only purchase from the Big Six (99% of all music I believe)? And what would the underground have to do to bite into that? Or should they even bother (the idea being someone who buys music from the mainstream isn't worth the effort)?
What is music when you despise all sound?
What would your opinion be on time-terminated audio/video formats. That is to say, files that would download play fine on a user's PC until the termination point, in which case the file would then become unusable.
Would this be of benefit to artists, allowing them to proliferate work while not leaving public copies that users could download and listen to/watch forever without paying for?
Moreover, do you think the RIAA would support such a technology, as it would technically violate the "copyright", but with a lesser impact than current Mp3's?
C'mon. Janis Ian? WTF is that?
Just because she writes a little article that disses the RIAA, she becomes a "Slashdot flashdot"?
Man, what has this site come to. So sad, so sad.
Or will they make a living by, you know, working for it? ie. concerts, memorabilia/merchandise.
OK I get the impression that many don't have a clue who Janis Ian is, but she's "been there done that" on Major Labels has double digit Grammy Nominations, and is a writer for Performing Songwriter magazine. She's known to the music community quite well, and had two huge hits in the late sixtys early 70's. How many hits have you had? Pay attention, She's on your side. (SMACK)
What do you think about unitedmusicians.com? Will the idea work? What would you recommend as the best course of action for an independent musician who wants to maintain ownership of the publishing portion of their songs' mechanical and performance royalties? Should singer/songwriters start their own publishing companies in order to maintain control of their work?
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Hollywood and the RIAA have the likes of Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen speaking before Congress all the time. Other than Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia, consumers have no voice there. Is there any way Janis Ian could speak before Congress on behalf of musicians and music consumers? I would hate for the likes of Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti to be the only voices they hear.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Janis - haven't ever heard any of your music, but I'm extremely impressed with your insightful commentaries.
Given how the content providers and sellers are gaining so much backing with legislations to force their control over end users, and given that the American public couldn't politically group together support for something important if their lives depended on it: do you see a time when fair use is allowed regarding digital content? If so, how much more freedom are we going to loose before it happens, and what do you think it's going to take for fair use to be "allowed"?
She better get a few BIG servers for the slashdotting!
I hope hers holds out better than the RIAA's did when the story about the RIAA DOS ran.
Low cost software is making home recording very reasonable:
:)
I spent last weekend playing studio engineer as a couple of my friends were laying down tracks. After the music sounds the way we want it to, we'll send it to XM and see if they'll play it on their "unsigned" channel. Presto, a chance at national exposure without any middle men involved.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
With all of the money being thrown at congressmen, what can we all do to help change their minds about downloading music? It would seem that the music industry is wasting money to keep from changing their business plan. There's an awful lot of pride going to waste.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Janis,
How do you feel about the Palladium and the so-called "trusted computing" initiatives that are being pushed by industry leaders as a way of protecting content providers and copyright owners? Do you see this as something that might benefit artists, songwriters and musicians, or more as an attempt to cede total control in the hands of the RIAA membership? By placing the onus of protecting digital content on the consumer rather than on the entity claiming ownership, will we be helping the struggling musician or will it give the record companies an unassailable lock on the entire industry? In short, if the promoters of trusted computing succeed in their plans, do you think this will move the balance irretrievably in favor of the Big Three?
Have you considered providing a specific license for those downloads? If so, would you use your own license, or would you use an existing "open music" license such as the Open Audio License published by the EFF? If you didn't use an existing license, what would your primary reason(s) be for using your own?
No Laughing Allowed!
Advertising.
Marketing.
Airtime on radio play lists.
Concert organization and promotion.
As well as the things you mentioned, like:
Recording studios.
Qualified engineers.
All the back office stuff for running a music business.
Distribution channels. (Janis doesn't make money fom MP3s)
etc.....
Bottom line, a better chance at a steady paycheck. Doubt it? Name one garage band that is distributing over the internet that has global mind share and is making the big bucks that even burned out stars are making, much less Brittney or Backstreet or any other pop group.
I don't have quite as much stake in copyright as you do, nor am I an expert, but I would say there is a lot of middle ground between the current extremely long copyright and a short copyright where Janis would have already lost the rights to At Seventeen. Like maybe "life of artist plus 10 years" or something like that. Though there are many people that would argue even life+10 is too short. I suppose Yoko Ono and Courtney Love would probably prefer life+50 or something.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The AFM has never represented singers, and has had very little influence in pop, rock, R&B, hip-hop, etc. This is probably because classical and jazz musicians stick together and work together, whereas pop singers (of all genres) and rock band members are very independent sorts with little formal musical schooling. Pop musicians would rather fend for themselves, and are, as a group, actually resistant to joining a union!
All major-label records in most markets are recorded under AFM-union rules, and the record labels file with the union. But this is just to make sure that the session players get paid union scale wages.
If "artists" and singers wanted to form a union, or join the AFM, or give the AFM the authority to represent them in contract negotiations, they would have done this decades ago. But they don't wanna.
She doesn't have to believe, she has personally observed empirical data.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
II. My conclusions thus far: "So why are the record labels taking such a hard line? My guess is that it's all about protecting their internet-challenged business model. Their profit comes from blockbuster artists. If the industry moved to a more varied ecology, independent labels and artists would thrive - to the detriment of the labels... The smoking gun comes from testimony of an RIAA-backed economist who told the government fee panel that a dramatic shakeout in Webcasting is 'inevitable and desirable because it will bring about market consolidation'." ("Labels to Net Radio: Die Now", Steven Levy in Newsweek, July 15, 2002.)
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
It is clear that you believe that artists should be free to share their creations with the public, without the music industry as intermediary.
Do you also believe that artists should be free to NOT share? If an artist (of whatever caliber or popularity) feels that noone should get their product with paying, should that wish be respected? Should violators of that wish be subject to penalty/prosecution?
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
I just came back from DragonCon, so this is fresh in my mind, but I saw a band called the Brobdingnagian Bards. They have one of the most popular songs on Mp3.com, and are somewhere in the top 20 most popular bands, I think 14th... They do sell CDs, they have one produced by Mp3.com, and 2 produced by some other folks. The mp3.com CD that I got from them for 15$, contains 17 songs PLUS all 17 songs in mp3 format. The other two cds cost me about 10$ apiece, maybe a bit more. They don't contain the Mp3s. As far as I can tell these guys just go to RenFairs, Cons, etc... play their music, sell their CDs, put stuff on Mp3.com, etc... They make pretty decent money from what I can tell.
So what entitles Musicians to 'Make it big' ? Why can't they make it 'big enough' and be happy? Why sign with a record label at all if you don't have to?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
That's the trouble. A lot of bands today churn out one good track and a bunch of Kwality muzik.
To me, one good track plus a bunch of random bits called "music" isn't worth $17.99. Get three or four good ones on that disc and then I'll buy it.
Prime example, back in the day, I thought Backstreet Boys "Millenium" was a good deal, it had several good tracks and sold in the mid-teens price range. The next album, "Back in Black" had one decent track ("Shape of My Heart") plus a bunch of crap. It, too, was priced in the mid-teens and I felt it was a waste of money. Not that I listen to either now; my tastes have changed.
Way too many one-hit-wonders these days in popular music. Not many outfits anymore that can produce a 4 disc boxed set of greatest hits.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
You seem to have many loosely related issues tied together to me. Seems like your true calling might be politician or lawyer. To me, the most basic,purest form of the issue is copyright law. It seems to me that the copyright symbol can be a simple concept of intellectual property rights. I agree that the "music industry" does all sorts of things that may in the end, help nobody. But I respectfully submit that you and others have abuses by corporations confused with basic intellectual property ideas. I propose that copying copyrighted material is wrong in and of itself. Why is copyright infringement ok when the copyright holder is (insert-your-favorite-big-mean-corporation-that-go uges-represses-or-whatever-else-they-may-have-done .) Thank you.
I thought once you signed a contract with the RIAA it covered multiple records over many years.
When you buy a CD, you're not just paying for the production of that one CD. You're paying for the production of that CD and the 9 others that flopped and didn't recoup their expenses at all.
When the artist is already a success it certainly looks like the record company is getting a great deal. But if some no-name came up to you and wanted you to invest $10,000 in his new record, what kind of return would you want?
God made Adam and Eve, not Suzanne and Eve. And to those perverts among you men who prefer the latter, may you too burn in hell.
Frankly, I'd be perfectly content with any solution that benefitted the artists and the listeners. If it leaves the studio twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, that's a plus. When you talk above piracy, remember who is best situated to cheat the artist. It's not the listener.
How much crap do you get from the RIAA? With your decidedly pro-filesharing views, it would seem to me that it would be a rather large amount.
[insert witty comment here]
Throughout human history, musicians made their living through their live performances. There was no such thing as a "definitive" version of a song since each and every performance was an individual work in and of itself. It is only in this past century when recorded sound became "property". This "property" depends upon artificially imposed scarcity to thrive, but in the digital age this is a dead concept since such scarcity cannot be enforced in a real and meaningful way (excepting fascistic laws and their enforcers.)
Why do the record companies think they can stop the progress of the technological society? How are artists reconciled to the fact that the days of fat cheques from recordings are essentially over since, as David Bowie himself said, "intellectual property" is in for such a beating in the coming years? Are you and other successful professional musicians ok with the idea of making your money solely from performing on the stage?
What's your biggest gripe about the RIAA?
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
A great deal of the debate over the RIAA/MPAA copyright crackdowns and new technology such as P2P focuses on the monolithic marketing models of the big labels/studios. You yourself have pointed out that their models are based upon a world where music (or movies) are expensive to produce and share.
What alternative model you look foreward to (or fear) arising? Do you want to see artist/promoters working with radio stations (like the old days) or do you beleive that there will always be a place for middle-man labels such as BMG?
The one positive thing I can say about that idea is that at least it wouldn't have any pretense of equal protection under the law. No siree, its right up front about screwing the poor people. Unless you can afford to buy it, you can't own it. But what is the advantage of getting "crap" into the public domain sooner?
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
As an intellectual property attorney in training, I work regularly with entertainment issues. My current view overall is that the balances struck in American Intellectual Property are off in some areas. (I suspect, however, that the current state of the law may look more reasonable to me after I graduate - I mean, the field affords good salaries.)
In thinking about the RIAA and its goals, I feel frustration - under the present administration and the current trend of most courts, there seems overwhelming support for backing the establishment over the multitudes, even to the rather obvious violation of established law.
For myself, I have found that perusing mp3.com for new bands often yields good results. I find quite a few songs available for free download by new bands looking to generate a following, and It appears there are a few which were created by music lovers in their homes which I found quite good.
My question is whether you think the masses could ever get the attention of the likes of the RIAA if we approached music in an open source / no copyright way? There are music programs which generate music based on fractals and such and computer-based synthesizers, sequencers, and so on which are freeware, etc. There was even an idea expressed on Slashdot to use genetic programming with feedback from Slashdot users to compose music.
If we could generate a culture in which enough people produced a song or two every so often in exchange for the availability of music from others in return, could this ever grow to a level to honestly get the attention of the RIAA? If we could, maybe they would realize they are not as indispensable as they think. My fear is that just too many people wouldn't bother to make this work.
Ever read the short story Melancholy Elephants [baen.com]?
I have. It's especially terrifying when taken along with the fact that a fellow can get sued for copying a four note melody from an existing song, and that there exist fewer than 50,000 such melodies.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Hello. Just a few points/questions. What does the copyright law say? Who owns your copyrighted music? Who signed the contract indicating ownership of the copyrighted music? I love downloadable music, I love being able to search for whatever I can possibly think of and finding it, free for download. I miss napster like you wouldn't believe. When I drive 77 mph in a 60 mph zone, guess what, I'm breaking the law. It doesn't feel like I'm doing anything bad, but nonetheless, I'm speeding and deserve a ticket. If you don't like RIAA, don't sign your life over. If you want your music freely available to the general public, God bless you for your generosity and free spirit. Just abide by the law of the country. Record the music yourself, distribute the music yourself. Be happy.
of course they could. perhaps the re-license fee could be a percentage of actual revenue, but that would be extremely shady as well.
Not shady at all. Consider it a tax on net profits derived from a government-granted monopoly.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There are only three groups of musicians who have copyright to their own material:
The real "gotcha", as Steve Albini pointed out, is not the contract, but the deal memo that obligates the band or artist to sign the contract the label eventually offers.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Fame is fame. Are you trying to say that Janis Ian is more famous than Britney Spears?
janis,
if it weren't for kazaa, i would have never heard this song. and i would have forever forgotten your music . i haven't really heard your new stuff but i can say one thing in those days u were profoundly meaningful. i'm glad i've been reminded.
ht
King Crimson retains copyright to their works. The way they did it is to found their own record company. I don't see anything specific on the site, but the back of their CDs has a blurb on how it's wrong to take copyright from artists...
Given that you consider the free sharing of music a good thing, why do it so shadily through the P2P networks? Do you distribute your music freely through your website, or through other, more official, means? If not, why not?
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
àéïôñ
yo yo yo homies
Janis, was that a Dan Bernshirt you were wearing on your TechTV appearance? If so, you must decidedly rock and I shall DL an mp3 or two at once.
It seems that most of the discussion I see regarding the sad current state of the music industry has to do with the problems with major labels. From what I've read, I get the picture that a band must sell 1.5 million records to ever see any money if they are on a major label. How does this differ for a band on an independent label? For instance, Bad Religion recently moved back to their founded independent label, Epitaph, from a major. What benefits would such a band reap when making said move, and what amenities must they give up? Also, where do the DMCA and RIAA come into play with concern to independent labels and their artists?
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
There is a fourth group, larger than the three you mentioned combined. Any artist who has not signed away their rights automatically has the copyright on their work. This includes virtually all unsigned artists.
I have been wondering how many downloads of MP3's have occured, since you put them up on the website after your first article? Also how many actual people do you estimate have downloaded these MP3's?
:>>--
Sincerely,
Martin Lebl
How about a group of performers/writers putting a report of Income vs. Royalties to make the case
to the public and Lawmakers that the laws on
performance contracts needs changing ??
We create our society every time we interact with each other. What kind of society did you create today?
Just when you thought it was safe, the next big thing in the UK is Pop Stars: The Rivals.
Instead of one band like last year, they are creating two bands. A girl band and a boy band, and the two bands are duking it out for the coveted Christmas number 1.
My initial reaction was "how presumptious!" Who's to say that a relatively unknown won't get the top spot like last year.
Janis - I'd love to hear you vent your splean about the current state of manufactured pop, and how you feel that us music lovers can build a rich creative commons that the controllers of such garbage can't hijack in the name of defeating piracy.
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
Hi Ms Ian,
I appreciate your taking a stand, particularly a controversial one, which has helped bring more attention to the issue of music distribution.
My question is about the relationship of the "superstar" or the "big hit", to the whole music industry. The RIAA seem to claim that it's the big stars and/or mega-hits which "subsidize" the cost of discovering, producing and distributing less popular artists. (I am more convinced that the RIAA aims to make the most cash from the least possible number of acts, hence the creation of pop superstars)
You've been on both sides I believe - you've been a good artist with a big single ("seventeen")... and now you're... a good artist... without a current hit. Can you envision a feasible music industry without Britneys and N'Syncs? Would the music industry still be viable with alot more "small" acts and the Celine's only selling 30 to 50% of the CDs they currently may sell?
(Unlike the RIAA, I believe the music industry is broader than just the retailing of polycarbonate discs, but a viable alternative hasn't been totally explored yet)
Thanks,