Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Musicians Defy Sony by Joining iTunes
Homework Help writes "Japanese musicians under contract by Sony are defying their contracts by using Apple's iTunes service to deliver songs. Rock Musician Hotoharu Sano points out: 'It is an individual's freedom where that person chooses to listen to music. I want to deliver my music wherever my listeners are.' Sony Music Entertainment and Apple are still locked in talks and no agreement has been reached so far. Apple's offering of its iTunes service at lower cost in Japan is greatly attributed to their success." From the article: " Before iTunes' arrival, Japan's top music download service, which is backed by Sony and includes Sony recording artists, averaged about 450,000 downloads a month. By offering its service for lower prices, Apple is undercutting such online music services. Japanese are accustomed to paying twice as much as Apple is charging in Japan, which are still higher than the 99 cents charged in the U.S."
You:
;)
Are the artists that are doing this in violation of their contract with Sony?
The summary:
Japanese musicians under contract by Sony are defying their contracts by using Apple's iTunes service to deliver songs.
I'll let you connect the dots
Everything is more expensive in Japan, even Videos and Cds, but it's nice to see Apple realizes it doesn't have to be that much more, and is showing it by undercutting the cost of the service.
It's the freaking internet, all they pay for is bandwidth and the music. Good to see that some companies remember that and are trying to avoid gouging. I just hope apple continues that path.
But you sold away that right in exchange from a large advance from Sony. You can't have it both ways. You can have your freedom or you can take the corporate dollar.
When you sup with the devil, use a long spoon.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Most likely, yes. It would be a bit like taking the master recordings that Sony owns the rights to distribute and going out on the street corner selling CDs. While it might common sense that the artist has a right to sell their music how they want to, but that's not the way things are done in "the industry" and not the way contracts work. Although there might be some little loophole in their contracts, I'm sure big expensive teams of lawyers are working through the details as we speak.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
We've been through all this, as has George Michael and The Artist Formerly Known As Ponce. If you sign an exclusivity deal, then you can't generally distribute your music elsewhere. That's sort of the point, otherwise why would Sony sign someone up? People are free to not sign to Sony etc, but then they won't make very much money. You can't have it both ways - it's artistic integrity or money.
Good for them! They should be able to put their music everywhere and anywhere - isn't that why they signed on with a label in the first place?
Of course, doing so in violation of their contract could put them in a sticky situation. I wonder what the contract actually says.
-Daniel
What is it these days??
People sign things like NDAs, record deals, and professional sports contracts, and then expect us to be sympathetic when they decide not to honor their agreements?
Want your music to be free (speech)? Great! Then don't sign a contract with a major label! It's that simple!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
is it japanese for iTunes?
No. It must be your font or something.. Slashdot submitter's don't make mistakes.
*bursts out laughing*
But seriously, was it really necessary to point out?
It would depend on each individual contract as well as the songs that they are putting up on iTunes. One article I read seemed to imply that the Sony artists were putting up songs on iTunes that were not from Sony records, but some may be, and that Sony was planning on breaking off their relations with artists who put songs on iTunes. It seemed to imply that what the artists are doing is not technically in violation of their contracts, but Sony sure as hell wasn't happy about it. Ultimately it'll probably come down to a case by case basis for each artist.
The laws of probability forbid it!
iTuning Japanese, iTuning Japanese, I really think so.
The fellow's name is Motoharu Sano, and his band is called the Hobo King Band. Apparently, their music is not currently available on the American version of iTMS.
I agree that they may not have the legal ground to take these actions, but I acknowledge this as a sign that artists aren't going to sit by the side and be docile. Artists need to take back some of their power.
It would be best through legal means, but its still a great sign.
How long before the record companies realize they've just lost to Apple their most important asset: the direct relationship with the customer? They've monopolized that position, between artist and audience, for a century, which is where they get all their power and money. Now that Apple has judoed (judone?) them to the mat, will they start to fight really dirty? Probably against the only thing they still have control over: us, the people in the audience.
--
make install -not war
There are some basic human rights that you can't just sign away, atleast a sensible court will overturn them, but this right is definitely not one of them.
When you sign that multi-million dollar deal with the recording company for them to push and market your talentless crap, you can't then just turn around and say "I have rights".
Sony should sew this person for gazillions of dollars. Look at the brighter side, may be this will make future wannabe musicians think twice before they sign such deals, and then maybe just maybe the recording industry will give us a break from shitty tasteless crap called (pop/rap/punk/rock) music.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
They should be able to put their music everywhere and anywhere - isn't that why they signed on with a label in the first place?
No, they signed with Sony so their music could go anywhere and everywhere Sony decides it should go. If they wanted to retain that right, they shouldn't have signed with them. I'm always amazed that so many people can't seem to make this connection.
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Give it a month or so and they will probably be going through 450,000 songs a day. I'm guessing that the reduced price has more to do with it than the Apple Brand. It looks like Apple is going to sell a lot of iPods to Japanese consumers.
I wonder if these latest developments will be enough to bring Sony around to reaching an agreement with Apple.
Good idea. Sign contract, but when you don't like contract, breach contract.
I wonder if any of them tried resolving this legally/civily/maturely before blowing up? Would be very nice to know what kind of dialog went on between the band and the label before they jumped off the cliff (if any). Did Sony know the band was concerned about this, or is this whole affair gonna look like some 1960's hippie revolt?
Presumably, if the artist didn't hold the copyright on the music, they would be unable to grant Apple a license to sell the music on iTMS, and Apple wouldn't start selling the music in the first place. The implication is that Apple is selling their music, which means that while Sony has some sort of exclusivity agreement with the artist, they don't hold the copyright on the music itself.
In the US, this wouldn't fly. Apple would be opening themselves up to a slam-dunk lawsuit for contract interference. Maybe contract law is different in Japan, though.
But you sold away that right in exchange from a large advance from Sony
Are you sure? That would depend on the details of their contract and the details of Japanese contract law, wouldn't it? Depending on those details they may well have sold away the right to Sony to distribute their work on CD while retaining some sort of right to independently negotiate sales through other entities on new mediums.
We don't have copies of their contracts, so we don't know. But something of this sort is clearly the case with Mr. Motoharu Sano who said the thing you quote; otherwise Apple certainly would not have allowed his music onto their store in the first place, as doing so would have been illegal.
You can't have it both ways. You can have your freedom or you can take the corporate dollar.
This seems to be the case right now, but only in a practical or logistics sense. Aside from purely practical matters, there seems to be no good reason why this is the case, and so there is no good reason to shrug things off and accept the way things are. Not all evils are necessary.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
These days there is very little need for the majors. Everything that musicians need to produce, promote and distribute music is cheap. But the majors have a stranglehold on the media - it's far harder to get mainstream exposure when you aren't playing the payola game (e.g. Sony).
Still unless musicians stand up to the majors and say no to crap contracts, and unless fans start supporting musicians that go the tougher indy route (by not stealing their music when they should be buying), things will move slowly, if at all.
Yeah! They are really making a great point by defying the corporate tools they willingly and knowledgeably entered into a business agreement with, by selling out to other corporate tools!
This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
Wow that's harsh. I mean, sewing someone for violating a contract? Hopefully this person likes needles.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
How long before places like iTMS become the main source for distribution? The record companies should be getting nervous... once upon a time both artists and listeners needed them for distribution. Now they're useless.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
It's not illegal to do what they're doing - they're just opening themselves up to Sony taking advantage of possibly punitive breach of contract remedies. It would have been better for the artistes to have read their contracts before signing them. You don't get a job somewhere then spend all your time in an internet chat room, and claim that `it's not fair that you don't have any time during the day to do what you want` and `it's time we took a stand against companies who think they can tell you what to do on company time`.
Precursor: I'm not defending talentless garbage, and I'm not about to bolster the labels either, but...
As the industry stands, there is no such 'right' to go with any ol' online distributor that you please and otherwise do anything you want. As it has already been pointed out enough to wear out the pointer: that's called Breach of Contract. You can, and most likely, will be sued for it.
However, if an artist (I'll use this term quite loosely for safety precautions) finds the benefit of actions that would breach the contract to outweigh that those of their current overlords; so be it. Stick it to The Man.
On the level of Intellectual Property and distribution, though, I think it's about time that artists get a little more savvy about the contracts they sign and labels should gain some flexability in those that they offer. I'm not a business expert, but if enough artists under the Sony label wish to distribute under iTunes (because that's where the fans are), then it would be in Sony's best interest to attempt some sort of deal with Apple on sales and such. I understand that Sony may have it's own service, but if the majority of Japan is using iTunes, then Sony will only suffer if they choose to ignore it instead of cooperate with Apple, thus gaining a larger audience and more sales for both parties.
I could be wrong (I'm not an expert on this), but it's an idea that I think record labels would be wise to consider.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
I doubt it adds up to much right now, but I see the day when places like iTunes are the music distribution channels of the very near future.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Does anyone know who is violating their contracts to get onto iTMS? Since I'm guessing each contract is unique, it will be interesting to see how Sony handles the inevitable lawsuits against popular bands vs. non-name ones. And whether the ones who are breaching their contract will ever be able to get signed by a major label again.
I wonder what the contract actually says.
Bla bla bla... First born child... Bla bla bla... Eternal soul... Bla bla bla... Look, are you gonna sign or not?
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
I am flatly flabbergasted at the number of people in these article comments who are expressing the observation that if you want to sell your music commercially you must give up your "rights"/"free speech"/whatever, and don't seem to see anything wrong with this situation.
Just because this is the system the Good Lord Capitalism has handed down to us doesn't mean that it is a good system. These people didn't sign these contracts by choice, they signed it because cartels are by and large holding the world's music industries hostage and these cartels use their influence to force people to choose between giving up their artistic work to others and not being able to make artistic work at all. Not much of a choice at all, that.
If we lived in an actually free market artists (or artists less rich than David Bowie anyway) would have choices, they'd be able to negotiate terms or obtain a distribution contract acceptable to them, rather than dictated by a record label. We don't. We live in a market dictated by the wielders of monopoly power.
And don't try to claim they could go to independent record labels. I listen to practically nothing but independent music, I've done work in/with self-published music, and I know some independently-signed musicians. Independent music is a ghetto. It is something you do because you love the art and you love what you are doing. It is not really something you can turn into a career.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Hell, they're so noble they probably just told Sony "We'll sign with you. But you can keep your money, man. With us, it's all about the music!"
God bless those noble, selfless rock stars and their world-renown integrity!
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Music CDs are typically $20-$30 in Japan, so I can see why iTunes would be popular there.
-- Hot Wasabi over & out --
1. Sign a contract with Company A to create products
2. Take money from Company A to create products
3. Sell products through Company B for more money
This is no different than whiny athletes who sign with a sports team and refuse to play until their contract is renegotiated. The amount of gross funds you generate, the fans you gain, and disparity in how profits are distributed are all irrelevant. Everyone was happy when the contract was signed and the only thing that changes are the attitudes of people who incorrectly (and quite arrogantly) see themselves as the sole source of that profit. Take a step back, see who the true money-grubbing whores are, and stop glorifying thieves.
Choose one or more:
I'm sure that if I had more than 5 minutes to post, I could easily have come up with twice that many items, but it should at least give you an idea.
Notice that other game developers have used internet distribution and overcome these obstacles, but they also realized that digital only content has less intrinsic value and more difficulty for the end user than real content that one can purchase from a brick and mortar store, thus they charged less for their digital only games.
Basically Valve said to their customers: "We would like for you, the customer, to take the burdens of distribution on yourself, have a lower quality gameplay experience, have a lower quality distribution medium, and we would like for you to do it with no tangible benefit for yourself. Ohh btw, thanks for saving us all kinds of cash in distribution, we think u r so h0t!" The customers replied: "Uhh WTF?!" I'm a pathetic lefty liberal hippy that doesn't believe in the crazy Libertarian/Republican propaganda that the "free market" always triumphs, but this is a clear case where the free market kicked Valve's ass, and rightfully so..
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
And this is how it should be. Musicians promoting revolution. Clearly the record companies are not looking out for anyone except their own fat bottom lines, and it's about time they take the hit for that. Go for it!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
My wife's Japanese, and I like J-Pop. But, iTunes Japan won't be getting my money, since we live in the U.S. and you have to have a Japanese credit card to download from their site.
It's actually easier for us to buy a CD from Japan and get it shipped to us, than try and send money to her Japanese bank account, etc.
You can buy a money card from http://amazon.co.jp/ (it's on the front page) ONLY IF you are in Japan. They think of everything...
I suppose eventually some stores are going to set up so you can purchase iTunes money cards overseas, but until then, iTunes Japan can kiss my ass.
The industry cannot compete on the internet effectively, and artists are awakening to the fact that in such a venue, they don't need to become the indentured servants of record companies just to see global distribution. The fact is, if they sell so much as one album on their own, they've made more money than 85 percent of the recording artists signed to major labels alone--who do not sell enough albums to recoup their recording advance.
Using the royalty computation model explained in "All You Need to Know About the Music Business" by Don Passman, an industry lawyer and professor, the average mid-level artist has to sell a quarter-million albums just to start seeing a dime of royalties.
This luring of artists away from their record companies, into direct distribution, and cutting out about 9 or 10 middle-entities along the way, is basically "phase two" of the emergence of internet distribution as the dominant model.
To make matters more interesting... Think about the implications here... In a world where even an artist selling 500 copies can make a better profit than a Britney Spears should her latest album sell less than enough to cover whatever six or seven figure advance she's been paid, there's going to be a much bigger selection of talented artistry out there... available for mass consumption. One won't have to resort to ridiculous marketing and promotions to make a buck... and that will make it harder for Britney Spears and the like to dominate the scene because they essentially bring nothing to the table
Record companies with their moronic A&R departments so myopically focused on putting every last ounce of energy into pushing only the biggest international artists stand to lose everything... and their employees along with it (especially the overpaid, underimaginative executives).
So, if you're still wondering why RIAA spends so much time, effort and money ice-skating uphill... It's because they have everything to lose, anyway. All they can do now is try to postpone the inevitable... and they're failing to do even that. But if they let down, it means they're going to have to get off their asses and find real jobs.
Oh quit needling him about his spelling. No need for such knit-picking.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
I agree. If it is legal for a citizen of Japan to fly to America, buy a CD at American prices that is also available in Japan, and fly back with it to play at home, then they darn well ought to be able to buy that same track off of the American iTunes site at the American price.
In a truly honest world this would already be the case.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
An obvious flaw in your argument is that Britney keeps the seven figure advance too. You won't make that much profit on 500 Internet sales.
But for those of you who aren't Britney (thank God there aren't more of her running around) and will never see such advances, it's a good deal.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Therefore, anything that weakens them is not a bad thing for the world at large.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
More importantly, it's a loan from which the costs of recording are paid. In other words... Out of that advance, Britney has to pay:
1. The studio
2. The producer
3. The musicians
4. The songwriters
5. The backup singers
6. The business agent
7. The manager
8. Security
9. Staff
10. Personal assistants
11. Music techs
12. Sound engineers (yes, they cost extra)
13. Transportation
Usually, the entire advance gets spent on all of the above... the artist is now sitting with zero in the bank or even a negative balance after all is said and done.
Now here's where it gets scary...
The entire advance is a loan... That's right... it's owed back to the record company.
Recoupment works like this...
If Warner Bros. pays you a $500,000 advance for album 1, and has you optioned for three more...
First you have to recoup the $500,000... but you don't recoup it at the gross MSRP of the albums sold. You recoup it at your royalty rate.
The royalty rate an artist gets is not based on the MSRP. In other words, if an album retails for $15.98, the artist's cut... probably around 14% for Britney... is not 14% of $15.98. It's 14% of the royalty base less gross margin, i.e. about $7.98 ... after deducting marketing, distribution, packaging, promotions, and related costs.
So now, that's about $1.12... pretty high actually for a Britney, believe it or not. But let's be generous and say that her royalty is $1.12.
She has to recoup the $500,000 at that rate... $1.12 per album. So, she has to sell 446,428 albums just to pay back her advance.
Now... UNTIL she pays back her advance, she does not get to keep a DIME of royalties. So, given that with a $500,000 advance she's probably spent every last dime of it, she's going to be broke if her album doesn't go gold. What's worse, she's still tied to her contract until she delivers the other optioned albums.
But wait, it gets worse...
If she gets a larger advance, she now has to sell even more albums to pay back the advance, meaning it takes even longer before she gets paid a dime... and usually when artists get a larger advance, they still blow every dime of it on all the aforementioned expenses.
But here's what's more... If she has any contracts with band members or producers to get paid royalties... their percentage take comes OUT OF that $1.12... Then the business agent and managers take their cut... 15% of what's left? No, 15% of $1.12 per album.
It still gets worse... the artist is the last person to get paid. The business manager handles all disbursements (just like a lawyer on retainer)... everybody else gets paid, then the artist takes what's left.
It gets worse, still... If any tracks on the demo submitted to the A&R department are rejected, Britney has to go back to the studio and record some more...but if she's blown her advance already, then the additional recording costs come out of her pocket.
It gets even worse, even now...
If Britney's album is a failure and lets say $200,000 has not been recouped... When her next album is due, the $200,000 unrecouped balance gets pooled with the advance for the new album. Now she has to still recoup both... but there's more. Until she has paid off all her debts, she cannot get out of her contract... she still owes the record company material.
But there's still more...
The record company may incur additional expenses related to the promotion of the album... whenever an A&R agent wines & dines a program director at a radio station, whenever someone uses a jet to fly from LA to New York and meet with program directors there, whenever transportation costs and other overhead expenditures are incurred in relation to the promotion of her album, etc.... all these expenses are deducted from her advance and/or royalty checks first.
Britney doesn't get to keep the advance... it's a loan. See my response to the other guy for a more detailed explanation.
Personally, I would have gone with:
iThink iTuning Japanese, iThink iTuning Japanese, I really think so.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
This is like that Motorola iTunes-capable phone that none of the cellphone carriers want to support; these are the same carriers that charge $3 for a _ringtone_ and a $1 iTunes song just messes up their business model. Same here for Sony. Apple gets a lot more pennies with their smaller margin than the gougers who think their monopoly justifies the price.. slashdotters may be aware of this already, but your common consumer doesn't.. Out of mind, out of money, as it were. Glad to see Apple subverting the infrastructure. being in the 10% or less market share and surviving the computing world has taught them a few tricks.. now if they only had iFuel for 99c a gallon..
Any parties she throws, her mortgage, car payments, phone bills, shopping for $5000 purses, trips to Ibiza... whatever's remaining, if anything, from the advance... is pretty much her earnings for the time being.
Then, on top of it all, let's not forget the income taxes on the royalties. Of course, since a recording artist is an independent contractor and not an employee of the record label, they (or rather the accountant... yet another expenditure) are responsible for setting aside the money to pay for income taxes, insurance, etc.
...finally get my hands on all that Japanese Country music I've been hearing about:
"The Corner Automat Stopped Selling Your Panties Today"
"My Ecchi Breaky Heart"
"You Took My Heart, My Dog And My Battlesuit"
"She Said I Was Her First, But The Tentacle Marks Don't Lie"
"I've Been Drowning In Sake Since Your Webcast Bukkake"
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
My comments should have read:
Because the record label has Right of First Refusal in their contract with the artist, the label has the first opportunity to review and accept or reject the material. Unless and until the material is rejected, the material in question cannot be shopped to other record labels. Furthermore, if it is shopped to other record labels, there may be a clause that requires Label B to pay Label A either a flat fee or a percentage of gross receipts for the distribution rights... and on top of it, the artist still owes Label A the advance unless Label B purchases the loan from Label A, in which case the artist now owes Label B the advance.