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.
"The executive with an attitude like this should know that his outlets will soon be The Buildings That Used To Be Record Stores"
Fixed that for ya.
A-Bomb
Should make for utterly gripping testimony in the antitrust lawsuit under Sherman Act Part One.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
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.
We could of our own free will send Prince $1 for each free CD he gives us!
Do RIAA execs throw chairs?
Disclaimer: I love Prince's work, have seen him live many times, and his guitar is amazing and every bit as good as Eddie Van Halen or Eric Clapton, who yes, I've also seen live.
We're going to party like it's on sale for $19.99 !! Thank you, come again!
... 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...
Might The Artist Formerly Known as Prince then become, in response, The Artist Formerly Giving A Flying Fuck?
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
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.
Here's the full story:m e_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)#Na
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.
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!
How dare you link to my website as your own? You jerk.
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.