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?"

Comments

Please retaliate.

[daeg]

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!

Re:Please retaliate.

[Stamen]

Yeah, I agree. I don't particularly like his music, but I'm inclined to buy a CD just to support him. If an artist with Prince's power, can't create some art, and give it away (or do whatever else they darn well please), then what hope is there for "lesser" artists to be able to enjoy their freedoms.

I wasn't a fan before, but I am now.

Re:Please retaliate.

[Mistlefoot]

I don't buy a lot of music from local retailers anymore either. Why bother when I can find much more of what I'm interested in online then I can locally. Part of that may be from be older and not as up to date on new releases or new bands as others are.

I still buy though. Basically the way I see locals stores is this:
They essentially 'ban' anything not very popular - hey, I realize you can't stock everything but when they don't carry music that I want I do look elsewhere. Local retailers in the UK ban Prince and do they really think that Prince fans will stop looking for Prince music? Prince fans will simply find another source for their music (iTunes or Amazon maybe) and quite possibly continue with that source in the future.

Prince should say screw you

[FictionPimp]

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.

Key line

[FuzzyDaddy]

which is destroying any perception of value around recorded music

"Perception of value"... that just about says it all, doesn't it?

Re:Key line

[virgil_disgr4ce]

I want to scream in these executive's faces: "The value of music is not monetary."

That's all there is to it. Music obviously can be bought and sold, and I don't care if you buy it or sell it. But the fact that these labels and businessmen cannot fathom a world in which it is not bought or sold is just disgusting.

Markets change, douchebags. Everybody lives with it. But the real value of music isn't going to change as long as humans have ears.

So what?

[sasdrtx]

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?

An Insult?

[alanw]

... 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".

Whoda thunk? Prince "gets" the revolution!

[maillemaker]

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.

Its the same reason he changed his name...

[Tmack]

Anyone that knows Prince and the reason for his name change, knows he changed his name was because of the record labels. He did it in protest of their ability to control him and his music and his name. He wanted to free himself from that control so he could do what he wanted as an artist rather than as the label's shill. He has always been against the record labels after originally signing with one and finding out the hard way what they are all about. He changed his name back after his contract with them ended, but has continued as an independent and always fighting against the labels. This is just another example of his battle, and seems to have already accomplished part of its goal: expose the labels for what they truly are, greedy self-proclaimed overlords of all music.

Tm

Re:No

[ceoyoyo]

It's fine if they want to not invite him to the RIAA BBQ or something. Even tear up his membership card. It is not okay if they use their cartel to put pressure on other businesses, like retail stores and radio stations. That's pretty much exactly the behaviour that antitrust laws are designed to prevent.

In a word, no.

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:No correction needed

[Hatta]

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.