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.
"Perception of value"... that just about says it all, doesn't it?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
"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.
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".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.
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
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.
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.
(BTW, I believe he is once again the artist known as Prince... it'd be nice for the industry to keep better tabs on their talent)
Yes, he is now The Artist Fomerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. He's now called "Prince" for short.
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!
disrespectful to record stores? Hwah? How? Because they don't get to sell the CDs Prince decided to give away? I recently gave a camera to a friend... should the local camera shop be angry? I dinged their sales!
Replace "camera" with "music," and "local camera shop" with "giant media conglomerate," and the answer, I think, is yes.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How dare you link to my website as your own? You jerk.