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?"
The more bad press you give us, the more ammunition bands have to never sign with you in the first place. Keep it up, you're doing a better job at killing yourselves than we music lovers could ever do!
Prince should just open his own online store. Publicly announce he is no longer a member of the RIAA, and start selling his music online via his own channels. I'm sure he is rich enough to give them the finger.
So an artist decides to share his music and give it away. Where to start with the ensuing anguish by the industry?
If the RIAA and music industry could be anthropomorphized, they'd be that crazy uncle anybody would keep up in the attic.
"Perception of value"... that just about says it all, doesn't it?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
In the public mind, digital music already is rapidly approaching zero economic value, and this scares the crap out of the Music Industry.
Of course they are pissed at Prince - his action reaffirms the value of digital music in the public mind.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Let the "industry" expose themselves for the idiots that they are. They're well on the way to irrelevance. Why would anyone want to slow them down?
Most people don't even think inside the box.
But, if that is the case, you are insane. Seriously. Okay, the current stuff isn't that good, but if you don't like Prince, you probably don't actually know much about him. If you learn about this musical genius, who, unfortunately gets lumped in with a lot of talentless 80s hitmakers (I hope you read this, Madonna), you will, at least, respect him.
I'm just sayin'.
Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?
It depends. If he signed a legally-binding contract specifically saying he would allow some company to distribute his music, then he can't give away his music. The company poured their resources into making him a famous artist. Having made their investment, it's reasonable for them to expect Prince to honor his half of the contract.
To actually answer the last question, "Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?". No.
Just as Prince can do what he wishes with his business, so can they. They might just be shooting their own foot, but it is their right to do so.
... Paul Quirk, who also said it would be 'an insult' to record stores. Record stores? If the recording industry is genuinely interested in record stores (as opposed to on-line sellers of bit-streams or supermarkets selling just the top 20), why has yet another chain of decent record shops closed today in the UK? Perhaps he really means "a danger to my company's profits".Everybody know him, he doesn't need record labels. He really doesn't. He understands that.
I would imagine that the record labels are actually more fearful of other artists like him coming to this realization.
Do you have ESP?
From TFA:
>The eagerly awaited new album by Prince is being launched as a free CD with a national Sunday
>newspaper in a move that has drawn widespread criticism from music retailers.
>.
>.
>.
>Prince, whose Purple Rain sold more than 11m copies, also plans to give away a free copy
>of his latest album with tickets for his forthcoming concerts in London
Clearly, Prince gets it. Digital Content is no longer an object to sell itself, as it has no value anymore, but is merely an attraction to attract consumers to purchase other things.
I think this is the mainstream start of the beginning of the end for people who have traditionally sold digital content to consumers. Those days are rapidly drawing to a close. With content so easily copyable, it's economic value is virtually zero. So there is no place for selling digital content to consumers anymore.
BUT, you CAN sell your digital content to an advertising firm, who will use it as flypaper to attract consumers to buy physical things.
This is precisely what Prince is doing. He isn't giving away his content for free. he's sold it to a newspaper company that will give it away to get people to buy (physical) newspapers, and he's giving them away to people who buy physical tickets to his concert.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behavior like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores.
Sure. Feel free to stop selling one of the more successful artists in the business. I'm sure that will encourage customers to come running to your store when they're looking to make a music purchase.
Also, in case you haven't figured it out, Mr Quirk, Prince has figured out the dirty little secret of the music industry - he doesn't need you any more. In fact, he's been doing quite well ever since he told the music industry as a whole to get bent. In case you haven't been paying attention for the last few years...
So you mean to say that it's morally reprehensible to give away that which you own? Can you comprehend how nonsensical your position is? Prince giving away his music has NOTHING to do with P2P networks. This is about one artist choosing to give away his music and that scares the music industry for some reason. If you decided to give your mother $20 for a cab ride somewhere and I threw you in prison because you didn't demand repayment or charge your mother interest, wouldn't you be pissed off? Of course you'd be pissed off -- because that $20 was your to do with as you damn well pleased. The same principle is at work here.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Should these guys really be calling attention to the illegal actions an illegal monopoly may be taking in the future?
Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?
If you're asking this question, then you don't understand who you are really dealing with.
The music industry thinks they own ALL music. Not just the RIAA affiliated bands - all music, EVERYWHERE. My proof? SoundExchange. They are demanding royalty fees for all music streamed over the net from net radio - and get this - from EVERYONE. Doesn't matter if you're a member or not, they will collect on your behalf in preparation for the glorious day you elect to join the Borg. Until then they're happy to bill people for all music, everywhere.
The music industry thinks it owns all music. Everywhere. If there was a way to drill a tap into your head and bill you every time you think of a song, they'd do it.
So yeah, Prince, having the audacity to make a song and give it away clearly goes against everything these morons believe. I wouldn't be surprised to see them ban him completely.
In response - we, the public - should buy every single thing Prince makes. After he releases it over the net independently. Money straight to the artist with no insane middlemen. This could be where it starts.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I think that The Purple One knows that he is/can be a slave to a record company.
Remember a few years back when he changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol?
How about writing "slave" on his head?
Ringing any bells?
He has the luxury of not needing the RIAA's or Warner's or whoevers money any more. That's as close as any recording artist can hope to get to beeing "free"
If the strongest threat that these companies can come up with is "stop it or we'll stop making money off selling your old records in our stores" than they are well and truely fscked.
good for him.
-- Sig under construction...
Seriously, if he's giving his music away for free anyway, what the hell does he care if you can buy it in a record store?
Almost. There is one final bit of value that people will be willing to pay for: finding what you want. Most people won't want to spend hours sifting through all the rubbish to find the one MP3 copy that doesn't sound like crud. Most people won't want to go through the work of discovering unknown musicians. They'll pay for someone else to filter the content and recommend certain musicians and certain digital recordings as being superior.
What the equilibrium price is for this service, I don't know. I suspect it is lower than the current price, in general, but potentially much higher for especially good "editors" whose for-you tailored recommendations are outstanding. As far as I can see, this is the only remaining way anyone can hope to charge money for digital copies of music.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Many many years ago, the president of the Solo Cup Company (they make paper cups and plates) had a wife who had aspirations as a singer. She wasn't very good, but he tried to jump start her career by including copies of her records in packages of his paper cups. I think I still have some of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they were collector's items now.
Somewhat fewer years ago, Wordperfect gave away a demo CD with a demo version of Wordperfect 6.0, and the rest of the CD filled with original music.
Musicians give music away all the time. Did the music industry scream over either of these? No. Then why over this? Because Prince's music sells, and the others really didn't.
Real musicians see music as an expression of art. They make it for their own purposes, and they'd do it even if they didn't get paid (as long as they can eat). I know plenty of indie bands that are happy to "cover their expenses". The music INDUSTRY, OTOH, sees music as a commodity to be sold, like soap. If someone gives away free soap, then real soap makers sell less, and they lose money.
This perception is wrong-headed, but everyone is listening to the wrong people, with the wrong point of view. The sooner we give music back to real musicians, the better.
You can't take the sky from me...
People that get called on stealing GPLed code typically are making money off it by doing so eg. bundling it with some piece of hardware, or sticking it into their proprietary software that they sell.
Most pirates don't sell the music they pirate.
1. There are enough Slashdotters who don't like the GPL for exactly that reason: You can't just copy the code and build something new out of it, and then distribute it without disclosing not only the code you took, but also all the code you wrote solely by yourself (and which according to normal copyright you won't have to distribute). (Yes I know, there is always LGPL and also the "interface code" trick.) Those people tend to be in favor of the BSD License.
2. People who defend the GPL normally argue that copying someone else's work, earning money either with it or a derivative work of it and not giving something back is unethical. That's a different type of fish.
I guess you missed the word "ethically" in my signature. I know you're attempting the tried-and-true "it's not theft because you're not physically taking anything" canard, but then why do all Slashdotters refer to "stolen GPL code" all the time?
Equivocation. Likely because the people who talk about "Stolen GPL Code" aren't the same people who talk about piracy. If you're going to argue with someone, argue on the merits of their arguments, not the arguments of others.
And he obviously didn't miss the word "ethically". His point was that ethically, piracy is not like stealing, since piracy is not like stealing in its essential character. Indeed, he came up with an analogy to piracy, and showed that stealing and piracy are ethically very different.
You'll probably feign
After all, I am strangely colored.
However they see fit. They can sell music, sell themselves, sell out, maybe quit and go into marketing, do whatever they can think of to live.
My point is simply that there's this absurd expectation that music-as-product should somehow generate mountains of profits. IMO It's absurd to expect any profits at all. Don't get me wrong--I *want* musicians to live on music. I would love to live on my several music projects--who wouldn't? But when anyone starts demanding money--by litigation, lobbying congress, general whining, whatever--they seem to have completely forgotten that there's no magical guarantee for anyone to make money doing anything. This is what upsets me. Record stores bitching about a famous artist giving something away for free, when THEY could have been making money off of it? Boo-hoo! The gall just astounds me! If they want to go into the business of exploitation, why not be pros and start a child-labor camp?
What is interesting to me is the European tendency toward goverment-artist subsidies (grants, etc) for bands and musicians. Have you ever toured in Italy? I HIGHLY recommend it--they're actually interested in maintaining and nourishing culture. As far as I can tell the idea of granting the talented to pursue and generate their talent benefits everyone except people whose sole existence in life is to generate money. And when an artist of any medium has the ability to execute their work without the pressure of their work as a commodity, I will cheerfully guarantee you nothing but good results.
Limina.Log
Just because he is giving away CDs for free doesn't mean he is giving away his copyrights, so it doesn't automatically make it legal for anyone else to distribute the contents of the CD via, lets says P2P or streaming.
If the copyright notice on this free CD says that anyone can copy and distribute, that is a different matter alltogether.
I wonder if anyone would question that "shrink wrap" agreement?
Here's the difference:
Stolen music becomes more free.
Stolen code becomes less free.
What we care about is the freedom of information. The law is just an expedient to secure that freedom. When the law becomes injurious to that freedom we must break it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls.. but consider that he's on stage 5 while you are stuck somewhere between 3 and 4.
Copyright holders have long ago broken their social contract with the people, nothing produced today will ever become public domain during your (or your children's, or possibly not even their children's) lifetime as per the original social contract that gave birth to copyright.
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
that person went through the work of designing and creating those items so that they were unique to him/her and planned to sell them for a living
The vast majority of artists would not be upset in the slightest to know there are infinite digital copies of their work floating around the world. In fact, they would be quite flattered, and would look forward to the increased demand for paid live performances and other product sales that would be sure to follow. The small minority who would be upset about it are already rich enough to live out the rest of their life in comfort. I don't think they have been deprived of anything that could be considered ethically significant.
Stolen code becomes less free.
What we care about is the freedom of information. The law is just an expedient to secure that freedom. When the law becomes injurious to that freedom we must break it. The GPL equivalent for music would be giving it away with the sheet music, and allowing others to redistribute it or modify it as they pleased, so long as they also distributed the modified sheet music with it. Would you be happy with a "music license" like that? (Also note the parallel here, what if you only modify the binary/mp3 and not the code/sheet? Do you have to create code/sheet to match your modified binary/mp3 and distribute that, too?)
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I'm from the first camp, but let me take this discussion one step further into the "Off topic" area and argue the second camp's point of view back.
:P), you don't sink to their level and break the rules as well.
Not so long ago (it's still in my RSS feed) Marcus and Theo of the OpenBSD project were accused (mainly Marcus) of "stealing" GPL'ed code and porting it into the OpenBSD project. Regardless of how you feel about the whole fiasco, I'm pretty sure they weren't planning on making money off of the GPL'ed driver code.
Sure, people can argue all they want about the possibility of BSD code being close sourced by an entity that will make money off of it, but I bet you a $1000 dollars that if I were to close source a GPL project and give it away for FREE (without even an ads supported site), I'll have the author knocking on my door the next day demanding the enhanced (or not) source code.
Heck, some people (Referencing an AC.. brilliant!) argue that Google is unethical because they [allegedly] didn't distribute the GPL license (which any kid in kindergarten can find online in under 10 seconds) with their GSAs despite the fact that the source code is available on code.google.com.
Copying music is (in my opinion) exactly like copying GPL code and not adhering to the license. You may not like the rules but you have to play by them.
The music guys want money to allow you to obtain copies of their songs, the GPL guys want credit and source code enhancements back.
Rules are rules, and no matter how low your "enemy" is (not GPL in this sentence, spare my Karma
GBTW.. GBTW... GBTW...
If you can't mod them join them.
Ah yes. It's evil only when you are making money doing it. By the way, try taking GPL'd code, bundling it into your application and distributing it as freeware but in binary form, but refusing to provide the source code. I don't think that GPL crowd would take to it kindly.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
I have a hunch that Prince owns his own masters, so if he wants to flush them down the toilet, there's not a damn thing a distributor can do. I can't believe that after the rather messy war he had with his old record company that he would sign any kind of truly and infinitely binding exclusivity deals.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yet another example of Why the Recording Industry Doesn't Get It.
Music as music has been around for thousands and thousands of years, but music as a bunch of salable mass-produced physical artifacts is less than a century old. If your business model is failing, it doesn't mean the Big Bad Pirates are stealing from you. It's not an attack on Music Itself. Make no mistake: they are not defending artists, which they treat as indentured servants. They're defending their threatened business model.