Slashdot Mirror


Music Industry Attacks Free Prince CD

Mike writes "You might not like Prince, but he's planning on giving away a free CD in a national British newspaper. Harmless publicity, right? The music industry disagrees. Executives are practically going insane over the idea and are threatening to 'retaliate'. 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behavior like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores. And I say that to all the other artists who may be tempted to dally with the Mail on Sunday,' said Entertainment Retailers Association spokesman Paul Quirk, who also said it would be 'an insult' to record stores. Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?"

8 of 667 comments (clear)

  1. Music is worthless by spyrochaete · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have very strong feelings on this issue and I'm very impressed with Prince's intentions here.

    The day music started becoming easily traded online was the day music became monetarily worthless. The cat is out of the bag and will never go back in. Whether this is immoral is irrelevant because the morals have been rewritten for the 21st century. The music industry's only hope is to embrace this fact and make their money from "NOT music" - albums with nice art, books, t-shirts, concerts, and other services and widgets that are related to music and cannot be duplicated.

    I highly respect artists like Prince who give their music away for free and allow people to purchase it after the fact. I also highly respect artists like Nine Inch Nails who release their songs and samples under a Creative Commons license to allow fans to remix their works. It's going to happen whether the industry likes it or not, so why not embrace it today and show the world you're a pioneer full of good will?

    If anyone is interested I blogged on this topic last week. I spoke primarily about DJ Amber from San Francisco who sells CDs for cheap but also gives the same music away for free in MP3 format. For $10 she sent me a beautiful CD, autographed, within a week of sending her the money via PayPal. I had the pleasure of dealing with the artist personally and all my money went directly to her.

    The internet empowers everyone but those who fight it. RIP music industry.

  2. Re:Formerly known as? by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Informative
  3. Re:Please retaliate. by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know people are falling all over themselves to attack the recording industry, but I believe everybody quoted in the article are *record stores*, not the recording industry. Carry on. You believe, but you are wrong.
    FTFA: The singer had signed a global deal for the promotion and distribution of Planet Earth in partnership with Columbia Records, a division of music company Sony BMG. A spokesman for the group said last night that the UK arm of Sony BMG had withdrawn from Prince's global deal and would not distribute the album to UK stores.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  4. Re:No correction needed by QRDeNameland · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think he meant "all true Scotsmen"...I mean "Slashdotters".

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  5. Re:Prince should say screw you by Pendersempai · · Score: 3, Informative

    Brush up on your copyright law. Free does not mean public domain, and copyright is the default -- no shrink-wrap license is necessary to forbid copying.

  6. Let's play - respond to the corporate shill! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's easy, and fun! Here we go:

    It ain't SoundExchange that's deciding they should collect those royalties, it's the *government* deciding they should, and it's actually not a bad idea.

    Of course it's not a bad idea - if you're the one collecting the checks. And just because the government says it should, that doesn't mean it represents what the people want. Let me introduce you to a concept called a Lobbying Group. Just because you can lay down big bucks and effect a change in the legal system does NOT mean it's what the people want. It's what the industry wants, and they are radically different things.

    They can simply sign some forms and demand their cheque.

    It's as simple as that! No...actually it's more like this. You must join to collect your money. Resistance...is useless.

    It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play.It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play.

    Provided of course that the band in question actually wanted to get paid. Some of us make music just because we like it, you know. It was art before it was a business. Some folks think of it still as art. Not everything amounts to a "cash flow opportunity".

    Without compulsory licensing, I'd bet the vast bulk of college, independant, and web-based radio stations would shut down completely, thanks to the overhead of negotiating licensing deals.

    And yet, these are the exact same groups compulsory licensing are shutting down. Wow, what a surprise! The people who promote indie music are the ones being nailed, all the while the shill says that these are the people he's trying to help.

    Sure, pal. Sure.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  7. Re:Please retaliate. by sh00z · · Score: 5, Informative

    This gives me an excuse to go out and buy a CD I can expect to be decent, supporting a good artist AND tweaking the RIAA's nose simultaneously.
    It's not the RIAA (or the UK equivalent) that's protesting. It's the Entertainment Retailers Association, which stands to lose their "cut" of the profits arising from the sale of the CD's. I know the article saya "music industry," but it's not the usual part of the music industry that we all hate so much. It's the middle-men, whining.
  8. Re:where to start? by Thundersnatch · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems that in the past 10 years or so, many corporations have decided to treat anything that denies them revenue as if it's identical to actually taking something they already had. Personally, I think it's an effect of the type of cash-flow accounting and projection that's now overwhelmingly popular, where the entire worth of your business (read: stock price) is based on how much money you think you're going to make. When it turns out that, oops, you didn't actually make that much money, they go absolutely berzerk and start looking for anyone to pin the blame on. Because, to them, they've already made that money, in some weird way, as soon as they started projecting it.

    I really hope you don't work in the financial industy. The valuation of a company is actually a fairly stnadardized concrete thing. It is based on the analysis of a rational outsider, not the "projections" of an insider.

    As for people being upset and looking for scpegoats when they don't meet budgets or forecasts, well, that's been happening for hundreds of years. Brunswick, the bowling company, was in the 1950s valued very highly by some stock speculators because "bowling was exploding in popularity". Then things collapsed on them as the true, limited market for bowling equipment was saturated. Executives were fired, stock price tanked, etc. There really is nothing new or different about what's happening in some areas of business today.