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.)
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
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?
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 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)
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?
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
Implied in your question is the assumption that P2P takes money away from the labels. This is IMO untrue. I think I'm a fairly typical user and will try to explain to you why you are wrong.
To start with many times a download of a sone or two leads to a purchase. For a recent example about 6 months ago I downloaded some tunes from these fine young men and as a result bought their entire back catalog. I have done this on many occasions. The other things that I download are 1 or 2 songs that I may like but I would never buy the entire album because they may have at most one good song. No money lost because I would not have bought it had the download not been there. I think a lot of p2p downloads fall into one of these two situtaions and so they are either a good thing for the labels or at worst neutral. Make no mistake this is all about control and not about money.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
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?
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.
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
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.)
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
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?
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
You're 18-19 years old. You've played in your garage, a few local pubs, a some public performaces. You cut a demo and send it in. Next thing someone is waving more money than your father made in the last 5 years in front of your face. You see an exciting life, full of possibilities opening up before you. You don't even bother getting a lawyer to check the fine print, and sign up for the big life.
Heck, I'd have done it myself. The reality is young people are some of the worst judges of character, simply for lack of exposure to all the crap which words can put your through, particularly when you're bound to them.
I do recall some artists attempting to help new talent avoid pitfalls, but you know, if the big money says sign here or forget it, it's not too hard to imagine.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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
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?
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
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.
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!
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?