Slashdot Mirror
Artists Strive To Wrest Rights From Music Industry
eldavojohn writes "The funny thing about the RIAA & BPI is that the artists are just as tired as the fans with how online music is being handled. So they're trying something new called the Featured Artists' Coalition. FAC's site states in their charter: 'We believe that all music artistes should control their destiny because ultimately it is their art and endeavors that create the pleasure and emotion enjoyed by so many.' As digital releases are increasing, the artists aren't seeing any more money. With the advent of online distribution, are the traditional music industry functions of promotion, samples, radio, and marketing now nothing but costly overhead for the artists? From Iron Maiden to Kate Nash to Radiohead, some big names are backing this new organization."
If there is any way that you can help (adding a banner to link to their website, putting flyers up where appropriate, etc), please do.
To stop the RIAA, everyone needs to hurt those that fund the RIAA.
These are the companies that need to be vilified.
- Sony
- EMI
- Universal
- Warner Brothers
Shocked indeed.
Unfortunately, there are far too many (largely former) artists, who would prefer to sit back and let the record labels pull in the money for them.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Here it is. The start of the final fall of the RIAA and its ilk.
The musicians and songwriters are revolting and refusing to be put in their place.
The only question remains: Will they re-do what the RIAA has done? Will they seek an iron-fist of control?
But will it simply turn into a gambling chip against the RIAA to get a marginally better deal?
That, and the fact that label lawyers are far more numerous and skilled than whatever an individual artist can possibly muster. I have the feeling this effort will die fairly fast, leaving small new musicians still working in indentured servitude.
Keep your signature off their damn contract, and you can have all this right now. (That's assuming that you are, in addition to a musician, a marketing expert.)
The question is not "Are they costly overhead?" the question is "Are they JUST costly overhead?"
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Really? Who are the former artists that are having their money "pulled in for them" by the record labels, and how much money?
... actually it's not offtopic since it refers to a tag on this story - but why are all the stories now being tagged 'story?' What's it going to be next? Tagging them with 'words?'
Drill baby drill - on Mars
From the "Our Campaign" page...
Copyright owners to be obliged to follow a "use it or lose it" approach to the copyrights they control. Despite new technology, many copyright owners fail to release recordings to the public. As a result many artists lose out and fans can only access such material illegally. A "use it or lose it" contractual provision should automatically apply so that an artists' work is always available for legal purchase by the public, digitally and physically.
That's an interesting sign that this could really be different from the RIAA, and not just artists searching for a larger slice of the pie.
I must be new here...
It seems to me that for the FAC to serve the interests of the artists, there will need to be a legal arm for them. Furthermore, to even become famous, there needs to be some form of marketing and promotions for artists. Marketing and promotions is what the labels provide... in exchange for the souls of the artists.
Is the FAC prepared to provide this to its members? If so, then great... but is it really so different from what the Labels and RIAA provide? I suppose it remains to be seen... clearly, at least from the outside, it seems to favor artists more... for now.
FAC : RIAA == Manager : Pimp ?
Any artist that has Platinum level sales. You know the U2s, old fart bands from the 60s & 70s (Rolling Stones, Paul McArtney, The Who), the bubble gum pop idiots, etc
Money? ten of millions. U2, hundreds of millions. Bono could just buy Africa and save it. Same goes for the Stones.
If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.
Who is Sarah Palin?
U. S. Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin was born in Wasilla, Alaska, to Charles R. Sheath, a white (not French) CANADIAN from Vancouver, British Columbia and Sarah Sheath, an American from Wasilla. Palin's parents met at the University of Alaska.
When Palin was two years old, her parents divorced. Her father returned to Canada . Her mother then married Roy Martin, a RADICAL Canadian from Manitoba. When Palin was 6 years old, the family relocated to Ottawa. Palin attended a CANADIAN school in Ottawa. She also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Palin takes great care to conceal the fact that she is a Canadian. She is quick to point out that, "She was once a Canadian, but that she also attended Catholic school." Palin's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that she is not Canadian.
Palin's introduction to ice hockey came via her father, and this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Palin returned to Vancouver soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his daughter's education.
Roy Martin, the second husband of Palin's mother, Sarah Sheath, introduced his stepdaughter to Molson Golden and moose hunting. Palin was enrolled in a Canuck school in Ottawa. Canuckism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Canadian terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the US. Since it is politically expedient to be an AMERICAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Sarah Palin has maintained her US citizenship in an attempt to downplay her Canadian background. ALSO, keep in mind that when she was sworn into office she DID NOT use the Alaskan Constitution, but instead the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sarah Palin will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will she show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Palin turns her back to the flag and slouches.
Let us all remain alert concerning Palin's possible place in the chain of Presidential succession.
The Canadians have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!
give it.
Read radical news here
if it worked, it would have worked for riaa.
all it did was to alienate listeners.
Read radical news here
and there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The recording industries bullshit lies. Piracy be damned. The reason artists make squat is because the publishes have stolen all the money!
I dont want MBA types deciding what price should an album from a particular artist should be sold. they naturally decide on how much they can get out of the pockets of the consumer.
and since, artist is bound by contract to the label, it is another form of monopoly - you wont be able to get records of that artist from any other label.
lets not fool ourselves. this is no competition. just like in the fields of patenting, it hurts our society.
we need market decide what they want to pay for any music piece. or, the artist even.
Read radical news here
Really? Who are the former artists that are having their money "pulled in for them" by the record labels, and how much money?
Britney Spears comes to mind. It isn't long since her last album. Do you really think she is in any shape to make music or that it is really her voice on the CDs? However, she has a big brand (created by labels), a lot of advertising (by labels) behind her and as such people keep buying CDs with her name on them. Same goes for numerous other artists.
I'm pretty sure that plenty of artists benefit a lot from the companies. As much as they could? nah. As much as they should? Arguable. I don't know if you really should become multimillionaire just because you can sing well and work a lot for it (I work a lot too. ;)) as long as you earn your living... But saying that labels are bad for all artists would be very wrong.
STOP SIGNING RECORD CONTRACTS!
There is no reason to do that anymore, at least there shouldn't be. Make the music, record it, and put it on iTunes or some other media.
Burn it to CD-R and sell it on eBay or Amazon. CD-Rs cost less than $0.25 now.
I don't know much about the structure of the IRAA, but its local puppet Gema collects royalties for playing a song in public in Germany (at least if there's a business behind it). They even collect fees from businesses which have a radio running in public areas of their venues (restaurants, stores, hotels ...). It's a stupid system and I wouldn't mention it if Germany wasn't the 2nd largest music market in the world.
:)
So basically whenever "I'm looking for freedom" runs on some station in Germany there's a big check traveling to the US or wherever David Hasselhoff currently lies on the ground trying to eat a burger
Like I said I don't have a clue how the RIAA deals with such issues, but the Gema alone should provide enough incentive to keep the current status.
I don't read replies by ACs.
The labels were a convenient one-stop shop for artists and composers, where they can get a production, publication, and distribution package all in one, and get paid in big enticing chunks. This works great... until you deviate from the contract. Then their label demonstrates that they own them, as wealthy colonists owned the indentured servants of old.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Most of the labels (ie RCA, EMI, Sony,etc.) are the middleperson (gender neutral) issue here. Most labels are unfair to the artist so I think that the artist should be like Prince the revolt against all of the unfair labels. However not all labels are this bad. Independent and smaller labels are more fair in their distribution of royalties and doesn't have "Wall Street" pressure to "perform".
Right now Wall Street is only good for learning what a fraud it is and prevention of this fraud.
As idealistic as these announcements are, it's almost always established acts who do this--acts that have already benefited and made money from being distributed by a record company.
That's why I wasn't impressed when Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead released music for free, because they sure weren't doing that 10 years ago when they needed the money.
One of the justifications I often hear for piracy is that you're revolting against record labels. Are people now saying that they will in fact stop pirating music if the RIAA isn't a factor?
Why do I have a hard time believing that?
There is nothing wrong with making money, but be honest. Whether a label gets the money, or performer, or the drug dealer, ultimately gets the money makes no difference. They are all after the same thing, maximizing profits. The label deserves significant profit because they are the ones promoting the performer and providing the upfront capital. The sell out performer, or 'artist', deserves some profit because they provide the raw material. The drug dealer deserves some profit because they provide a necessary product.
In any case, once yo sell yourself I don't see much room for moral arguments about art. I respect honest people, like the late Robert Heinlein, who provided excellent entertainment, but never pretended his work was anything else than it was. He wrote to make money, he wrote for a market, and if one publisher would not buy his work, he would move to another. He did not cry like a whiny child that he had to work to make his money. No one is putting a gun to these 'artists' heads making the accept the offers from the labels. They could just go out and be artists, if they would give up the money. I buy all sorts of music like that, for instance if that's entertainment
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
This sounds just like a labor union, except for artists. Those guys should have unionized decades ago- look what it did for SAG.
Power for the people- down with Fascism!
They're promoters.
You don't need the record company to get your CDs made or your music distributed. You need the record company to get your song on the radio, to get your band on Leno or SNL, to get critics to listen to your stuff....
Being able to distribute your own music cheaply doesn't replace the record label - you still have to get anyone to want to listen to your music at all.
paintball
The thing is, there is a HUGE oversupply of "artists". There are way, way, way more people who want to be stars than there is a need for stars.
By comparison, there is much, much, much less money sitting around to turn one of the many people who want to be a star into an actual star.
The "artists" don't get much from the record company because if the "artist" isn't willing to take what the record company will give them, there is a long line of other people who will take it just to be famous.
The actual music is only one small part of the final product, and it's the most readily available.
paintball
Well, one should certainly expect repercussions for deviating from a contract, and one should consider not signing a contract they plan to deviate from. Just saying. Comparing the voluntary signature on an entertainment contract to slavery is pretty absurd.
In the US, those functions are handled by ASCAP and BMI.
While its entirely unreasonable to compare an RIAA contract to slavery, I do think you're overstating the amount of voluntary choice that one has when signing these contracts. Simply put, many artists see a choice between giving in to the RIAA or languishing in obscurity forever. And, it is in the RIAA's interest to let such a situation continue. This is why these sorts of organizations (by the artists, for the artists) are to be welcomed.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
"If you don't sign here, there's a hundred bands who would kill for the opportunity - I'll just go find someone to replace you" My guess at what the quote would be, but it'd definitely something like that.
You have rights by virtue of being the creator of an original work that is in a form that lasts more than a short duration of time.
You may give these rights away, or you may assign some of all of them for consideration.
The suggestion is that they are taken away unfairly or by force, but the fact of the matter is, they are assigned by contract.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Instead, now you're "pirating" from the artists directly. [..] Then again... isn't pirating another form of advertisement, and one that specifically Adobe and MS used at one time?
Adobe's last album sucked ass, and as for MS, Bill Gates never could sing. It's even worse now that they've got Steve Ballmer on lead vocals, he's already burned out four auto-tuners trying to get his "singing" into shape.
The videos are even more horrific, featuring as they do Ballmer performing highly-synchronised dance routines in an open shirt for an intended audience of 10 to 14 year old girls. Upon seeing this, many such girls have been permanently scarred at a sensitive time in their emotional development.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The discussion is about REAL artists, not the Disney and Nickelodeon created/marketed/forced down our kids throats 'artists'.
When bands like the Foo Fighters, or even Radiohead chime in, their opinion is important because they actually have spent considerable time developing their talents and 'making it'. They were not hand-picked by Disney because they are popular with the age 9-13 female viewers of the Disney channel. They had to perform and record for next to nothing, for years. In the end it was their talent, and musicianship that made them famous.
Hanah Montana.... not so much.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Bah! They should have called themselves the Featured Artists Guild! Everyone would then quake in their boots at the thought of the FAG coming down hard on the RIAA's arse.
In reality, that "big check" goes to the many people that handle the licensing. The artist gets, at most, a few pennies per play.
That's part of the problem: the system exists primarily to support itself, compensating the artists is a secondary objective.
I think radio stations are largely responsible for the great divide between those who collect royalties, and those who want/expect free music wherever they go. If you tune your car radio to WFKU-FM, you don't pay a penny (though the ads are obnoxious). If a restaurant plays music for its patrons, they're expected to pay licensing fees and/or subscribe to a commercial muzak service. Like many things in the music industry, the distinction was fabricated decades ago, and the business model is pretty much an exercise in hypocrisy.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
How am I overstating it? There's no duress here. A person doesn't have a right or need to be famous, and if they don't want to be involved with a record company, they shouldn't sign with one. If the alternative is obscurity, that's just life.
An organization like the one in this article is "after the fact." It's made up of mostly established artists who already got their wealth and fame from record companies and only now want to leave them when they have the money to fund their own distribution. I'm just not as impressed.
Holy shit, great wall of text, was all that really needed, I mean you post basically broke down to; Anyone who downloads music is a pirate, pirates are scoundrels and have no morals. Ninja's are better.
Go home, nobody loves you. .
- The Blog
Here's someone else who is also sick of the RIAA and decided to go rogue. Mike Patton with Ipecac Recordings.
Total freedom to release anything you want, no multi album contracts so you're not locked in, and royalty checks that favor the artist.
Ipecac is distinguished from most labels (independent labels included) by their policy of signing bands to only one album contracts. "Lawyers or businesspeople call us morons for only doing one-record deals," Werckman scoffs. "They say, 'You're not really anything, then.' Well, we like our catalogue. We like the records we put out. Our bands aren't rushing away. Our job isn't to own any artist. We're here to put out the art that people create."[2]
Ipecac also presses no more than twenty thousand units at a time.[2]
Low overhead and no video or promotional cost partnered with very little distribution costs allow for hearty royalties "Every six months I send those guys the fattest royalty checks," Werckman says. "It's great. It's the way it should be. Even bands that are very successful â" when they get royalty checks from us, they're stunned."
Source.
I'm pleased other people are getting fed up with the RIAA. And I'm *very* pleased they're starting to demonstrate that they are unnecessary.
It won't be long now, I'm thinking.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
As a musician and music fan, I think it's great. If they are talented, they will succeed. The ASCAP was started by musicians.
The numbers I find most interesting, CD/physical music sales, 7 billion last year, down ~1 billion; Internet non-DRM Mp3, ~1 Billon, up... ~1 Billion...
Lots of money is being given to musicians, even with P2P vs. Itunes, but if songs can be had for free, Pandora, Last.fm, Amiestreet, etc. people tend to go for free, unless they have a non-always on Internet connection...
I don't believe most people's support, having talked to musicians locally, and looked into it elsewhere, is enough to keep them fed--- if they are not a big name, unless they play gigs. That part of the game needs the structure of a label--more staff to book things, etc. they will likely, as some of you have written, become a new label.... the only thing that would make them outstanding is if they adopted the Radiohead/Amiestreet model--price your own download.
The Featured Artists are all successful, likely all available on P2P sites -- so as many have written, will they be successful on their own? Because the old system... now, for someone like myself, learning to get started in it is problematic at best...
Still, do you want free music? I'd love the feedback. www.clousfamily.com
Disclosure :) I don't work for Amiestreet, just have music hosted there -- but they are going to take a very, very long time to generate me any money... but I like their model.
if the riaa were wiped off of the face of the earth tomorrow, another such organization would rise from obscurity to fulfill their role
why?
because while plenty of people talk about their love of their niche music, of being independent in tastes, about being anti-establishment, the truth is, 90% of music consumers want to be told what to listen to, and pay large sums for a little bit of convenience
for every dude really into gogol bordello or some college chick caterwauling about some bullshit teenage angst in a dank club, most people will swallow britney spears, and like it
music is not some pretty flower that will be freed from the clutches of petty commercialism. the truth is, art and commerce have always been attached at the hip. money matters. aways did, always will
all the internet does is change the game, and riaa simply doesn't know it yet. it will adapt. it has to, or some obscure organization will rise to fill the void: giving the casual uninterested unmotivated pop listener what they want. and that's 90% of the audience
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That would exclude 99.999% of all people that create art to entertain and/or make money. The Foo Fighters and Radiohead are in it for the money and admiration too. Is there a cabal that makes a talent checklist?
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
This is all well and good, in that there is now opposition to the RIAA in a form and function that will have a more positive (and visible) impact than pirating and flamed message boards. Despite that goodness, however, there is the problem of money to push this new model forward.
... modern times call for modern propulsion).
People have spoken about how Radiohead can do it. Yes, they certainly could. Of course, having large stacks of cash and/or resources to create an album and distribute it certainly helped. They got to where they were largely because of the early support from their label. Had they never been launched into the spotlight it is quite possible that they would have remained a very talented, very moderately compensated band instead of international celebrities.
For every Radiohead there are countless small bands. And each of these small bands will, even with great self-publishing, most likely stay small.
So, while I am happy that the RIAA may be getting it stuck to them with this new organization, I do not anticipate that this is going to suddenly make it possible for 'the little guy' to succeed any more than they could before, and may in fact keep some of the truly talented little folk from being catapulted into the mainstream (and no, I am not advising that midgets should ever be launched from such archaic devices
And the evil company acronym is WUSE. Pronounce as you wish.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I don't care if it's a pot or a kettle, they're both black.
FAC-chairman Lars Ulrich, now there's a picture for ya...
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
dude, I hope stallman hasn't started singing the free software song again because of your post...
* people i've actually heard of
" With the advent of online distribution, are the traditional music industry functions of promotion, samples, radio, and marketing now nothing but costly overhead for the artists?"
Good question. Are all your customers online?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Simply put, many artists see a choice between giving in to the RIAA or languishing in obscurity forever
To play devil's advocate, it seems the RIAA is providing a legitimate service then, doesn't it? Sign here and you will no longer languish in obscurity.
If this new artists coalition thingy can provide the same services, all the power to them. The industry needs competition, and if they can offer a better deal on the sign here to not languish part of the business, it's better for everyone.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Comparing the voluntary signature on an entertainment contract to slavery is pretty absurd.
Pst. I don't know much about entertainment contracts, but the parent was referring to indentured servants, who were contractually bound to their work.
Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room. The RIAA isn't as "obsolete" as many of the internet fan-boys would like to think. Surprise! the RIAA does more than sue people, they actually help produce music in a lot of ways. I'm so tired of hearing about how the internet is KILLING record company, how it's KILLING news papers, and listening to them rag on what is actually one minor aspect of what these companies do.
All the internet is doing is killing their preferred method of distribution, all the while ignoring the fact that these companies operate extensive networks of actual resources like pooled advertising, promotion, concert tours, recording studios, ect. Basically the record companies need to became music-companies, and newspapers need to become news-companies, It's a shift in the distribution system, not a new digital paradigm. People talking about how blogs will take over news and record-companies are obsolete ignore the basics of economies of scale and pooled resources. Sure some of the companies will tank, just like A&P tanked when they weren't able to shift to the new car based groceries system of the 50's, but many others will probably succeed with only a slightly modified business plan.
I'm tired of constantly hearing about the "impeding shift to completely distributed music production" that will come when the evil record companies topple. I'm sure that will happen in the same year as the linux desktop and citizen journalism takes over.
Will you stop illegally singing "happy birthday to you" without paying royalties if we redirect all royalty funds to the descendants of the original author of the "Good morning to you" song?
First, using "pirate" to refer to something other than robbery at sea is marketing.
Second, without copyright reform, the new association will become as corrupt as the first.
If there is money and power associated with keeping an extending a publishing monopoly. Even if an association tries to be the a monopoly that is "good", is bound to fall into the same trap.
The only real solution is copyright reform.
Buy your music. For FAC's sake.
Oh yeah, the RIAA does provide a legitimate service in that regard, and I have no problem with them providing the service. The issue I have is with their monopolization of said service, which is why I'm applauding this new organization. A competitive market for the music promotion business would benefit artists and consumers.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Instead of posting AC I'll post as me. It is a lot like that which you described. This was in the early 1990's though so I'm not sure if it has changed. If anything I expect it to have gotten worse. We failed having refused to sign a contract with Geffen which included signing one with the RIAA.
At MOST we'd have made about $0.17 per album sold and, for the record, like $0.0003 for each time our songs got played on the radio.
I admit that I was the ignorant fucker at the time and the one who wanted to sign. There were some good perks.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Nice. If I had mod points I'd throw one your way for correcting your mistake at personal cost (it sucks to lose 15 mod points over a wireless mouse that jumps from time to time, no?). At any rate, kudos and thanks.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Mmmm, kinda feelin' sorry for Pauk Oakenfold...
Well, the band "Me First and the Gimme Gimmes" are the exception that prove the rule.
If you're not familiar with them...
They only do punk covers of old songs, sometimes better than the originals. The members call it a 'vacation band'... they're all in other punk bands and do the Gimmes records between tours. The whole thing is basically a bunch of very talented punks trying to be obnoxious and their talent got in the way of the joke. It's like an open joke where you either get it or you don't. But they've made a dozen or so records from not writing a single note and never practicing before a show (check out "Ruin Johnny's Barmitzvah" on youtube - they recorded a live album, drunk, without ever bothering to practice, for one of their corp. execs. sons' barmitzvah...) and they're legends. Seriously, they had one of the guys from Bad Religion fill in for one of the guys when he was touring with his other band. Oblig. wiki link
The point is, great musicians are great whether they're writing or performing. But there are also a lot of one trick ponies out there.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I guess this is important for artists already on record contracts, but for those of us who never intend to be on one we need to experiment with alternative distribution methods. My music is available free to download and name-your-own-price on CD. http://www.politicsapocalypse.com/
I don't see how your response makes any sense. Having actual talent and being 'in it for the money' are not mutually exclusive.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
It was my understanding that radio stations have to pay for playing songs too. If they don't pay as much as your restauranteur, well, I pay more for my drinks in a restaurant than the supermarket.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
People who commit copyright violation are for the most part people who won't pay any price whatsoever for digital goods of any type. No matter what you offer them they're not ever going to be a sale. So why care?
It's better to focus on things you can change that will help the artist, help the music scene overall, and get more music to the paying fans. Like for instance getting rid of an expensive and unnecessary middleman. Namely the RIAA.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Call labels "the recording industry". They manufacture a commodity: Plastic discs. Artists make music. RIAA stands for Recording Industry Association of America. Neither "A" stands for artists.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
What language does "artistes" come from?
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
Britney Spears is not an artist. She is an entertainer.
To stop the RIAA, everyone needs to hurt those that fund the RIAA.
These are the companies that need to be vilified.
- Sony
- EMI
- Universal
- Warner Brothers
Be careful. In 2004, Vivendi sold 80% of Universal to General Electric but left Universal Music Group out of the deal. So to boycott Universal Music Group, you really should be boycotting Activision and its joint venture with Vivendi Games. Likewise, Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group in 2005. These two companies might still be worthy of vilification due to their MPAA affiliation, but don't associate them with the RIAA's practice of suing its customers.
Piracy existed before the RIAA, et al started adding DRM and calling fair use piracy, etc. RIAA reacted with extremism to the rampant global copying that was going on. I have doubts that if the RIAA and gang were removed from the picture, that the Artists would fair much better. Those who are making excuses now for their bad behavior will find new excuses later. Not all of course, but a significant number.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm not.
I don't know much about the structure of the IRAA, but its local puppet Gema collects royalties for playing a song in public in Germany (at least if there's a business behind it).
Nit: Record labels and their RIAA deal in recordings. Licensing public broadcasts of music is not their job; it's the job of the music publishers and their BMI and ASSCR^H^H^H^H^H ASCAP.
To play devil's advocate, it seems the RIAA is providing a legitimate service then, doesn't it? Sign here and you will no longer languish in obscurity.
"But if you don't sign here, we'll make SURE you do."
That's the unspoken alternative and why the RIAA chokes up and controls distribution so only what THEY want to be advertised gets any real screen time.
the artists don't own the radiowaves and the music video networks like the RIAA does
I'm not sure how it is where you are but in the US the people own the airwaves. The FCC just licenses them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Artists, just like anyone else, shouldn't be forced to bend to your will. Period. They have rights. Why is it their rights are taken as an aside to your desire to be entertained?
However despite it's name it's not a right. Copyrights are privileges not rights. At least here in the US.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
the system exists primarily to support itself, compensating the artists is a secondary objective
And that's not just conjecture. Have a look at this study.
"In the Pew study "Artists, musicians and the Internet" (2004), 78 percent of 2,755 responding musicians had a second job, while 41 percent earned less than twenty percent of their income from musicâ"related activities. According to a GEMA (German collecting society) insider, only about 1,200 German composers can live from their creative output."
Now, how many people working in the German music industry in 1992 who were *not* composers could live from their work in 2004?
Nuff said.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
if you dont write your own damn songs, you dont deserve as much as an artist who does.
It's easy to turn that around, if you can't perform your own songs you don't deserve as much as the artist who can perform. Fact is is both writers and performers are needed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Piracy existed before the RIAA, et al started adding DRM and calling fair use piracy, etc
Define piracy. The Romans did it too, they called it "imitatio et aemulatio" (copy and improve), and it was a valued profession. Giving something a bad name does not make it bad by definition.
RIAA reacted with extremism to the rampant global copying that was going on. I have doubts that if the RIAA and gang were removed from the picture, that the Artists would fare much better.
That depends. If you mean "piracy won't decrease", then you may be right. Time will tell (I hope). But at least the artists will get more revenue for each album sold.
Those who are making excuses now for their bad behavior will find new excuses later. Not all of course, but a significant number.
Then let's discuss availability. How many local groups/bands do you know? Do you think you'd know more of them if there were less el-cheapo global icons being pushed into the world? Do you think you'd know more of them if some of your friends gave you some of their songs for free? Would you attend more concerts if you knew of more good local groups?
Answering yes to any of those questions would probably mean that starting artists are better off in the new situation, even when piracy doesn't decrease. It might be harder to reach global dominance, but a band will anyway if their music is really that good.
And on a personal note, I know of only two bands that are really that good: Porcupine Tree and Dream Theater.
That was beautiful, I agree entirely. Kudos.
(Yes, I did read the whole thing.)
I write bullshit
Call me any names you want, but I pirate for those reasons (honest):
1. It's free (as beer). Yeah, why should I give money to anyone if I can get it for free? On the other hand, I clearly aknowledge the fact that I will not pay if I don't have free alternative.
2. I'm lazy. Seriously, I don't want to go to some megamall to get even my favouritest music, involving all that cars, traffic jams and crowds. I can just download. And no, iTunes and such is not an option. Making payment online today is still too complicated.
3. I really like my freedom (as freedom). Yeah, guys, it had to be here. But I just don't want some other people tell me what can I do, and what I can not, with my own files on my own disks no matter where they come from. And if my friend asks for some music, it's him who I will try to please, not some guys somewhere.
And about that FAC people. Looks like it is another big fat organization to "protect" artists and they just gonna screw the customer some more. After all, piracy does hurt artists, doesn't it? So there. Meanwhile, enjoy your relative security while big guys fight among themselves.
Sure you can, that's what happens with FOOS.
iTuens is offering convenience and a brand to people, but even still is making basically zero money.
"The company has never revealed how much money it makes on each song or video it delivers; it claims to run the iTunes store at 'just above break even.' Independent estimates put its profit margin on music sales at 10% to 30% percent."
You're right if you go by Apple but not if you go by the analysts. Then again if you wen by the analysts while investing you're probably hurting now, but you may recover in a few years. According to TFA iTunes has sold more than 5 billion songs since opening. If there's a 10% margin then the profit is more than $500 million.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Right, 'cos the RIAA doesn't compress the hell out of every single thing they record to make it stand out on car radios/mp3 players...
(except that it doesn't stand out because everybody else is equally badly recorded)
No sig today...
Like it or not, the only truly "correct" usage of a word is the common usage.
No sig today...
The industry spokesman:
"The UK music business is a complex community that binds performers, songwriters, promoters, managers, agents, record labels, publishers, distributors, manufactures and retailers. No one part of the business can function without the other."
Now that is hilarious!
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
Each word is chosen based on very static definitions.
"I don't believe most people's support, having talked to musicians locally, and looked into it elsewhere, is enough to keep them fed--- if they are not a big name, unless they play gigs."
It's pretty hard to make any sort of living playing gigs unless an act is well known enough to fill reasonably sized venues and get some sort of sponsorship to at least cover their costs. Even big internationally known artists largely rely on sponsorship and selling memorabilia to make any actual money from touring, because audience expectations, and therefore costs tend to increase drastically as one's fame grows.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
No. The difficulty of being independent is having to call venues, sell yourself, plan tours, design and put up posters, make websites, plan and budget recordings, do your own accounting and taxes, etc etc etc. Believe it or not, The Internet will not do all the work for you.
All of this leaves less time for writing music, practicing, and recording - the stuff you really want to do. Not to mention working your regular job and having a family life.
I think musicians should be in charge of their own business, but if they're successful enough, most of them would gladly pay to hire someone to do these "traditional music industry functions."
Its just music. I read these threads on slashdot all the time. If you don't like the system don't partake. Its not like any of the major issues today. Heck if people cared half as much about their state of being as they seem to about their rad tunes then we might all get along.
and I am to young to know what it means but "get off my lawn" (when I get one)!!!!
F
Simply put, many artists see a choice between giving in to the RIAA or languishing in obscurity forever
Yes. Exactly. Either you get a large company with big marketing dollars to spend on you, or you languish in obscurity. And they want a return on those dollars, as anyone would.
I notice that everyone involved in this latest venture is already famous thanks to the RIAA's marketing dollars.
Since the internet began, how many recording artists have become famous without the RIAA's marketing dollars? I mean, you can record you own material at home for a few $K outlay, and self-publish. No need for the RIAA, right? So how many recording artists have become famous without them? Can you name one?
An organization like the one in this article is "after the fact." It's made up of mostly established artists who already got their wealth and fame from record companies and only now want to leave them when they have the money to fund their own distribution.
Well:
A) What's wrong with that? You completed your contract with an organization you felt was screwing you and now you want to form your own organization which you hope will screw you less. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me. Let's ignore, for the moment, any evidence that the RIAA is evil or designed to screw artists. Let's just look at the fact that some artist, "Bob", having signed with the RIAA and either by gaming the system or pure talent has gathered enough of a fan base and enough money to help fund this "artist's collective" version of a record company. Currently Bob makes $0.50 a record, his label has offered him $0.75 a record for a new contract, this new group hopefully expects that he can make $1.50 a record, though he may sell a few less records without the label backing him. What's wrong with him deciding to take his chances? (The fact that he's screwing the RIAA out of his theoretically considerable talents and making a bunch of slashdotters happy not withstanding)
B) Even if it's started "after the fact" this type of organization could be very useful to new up and coming artists. The fact is that as things stand now the big four record labels has a oligopoly on professional music making above the level of street buskers. You are right that no one has a right to be famous, or the right to make money by playing music, but it is also true that the RIAA and its member companies set up a "barrier to entry" that prevents people who don't want to "play the game" from making any kind of living off of music. There are limited exceptions (like there are to any monopoly or oligopoly), but by and large if you want to live by playing and creating music you need to at least start off signed to one of the big four or one of their "independent" feeder labels. Even if this new organization never gets more than 10% market share, that's a big bite of the RIAAs current (near to 100% share) market. It would give new artists somewhere to turn to.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
AnchondO. Great local band in Omaha. They tour the entire midwest pretty constantly, have a great following, I believe make a living playing the music they love, and have never had a record contract.
http://www.myspace.com/anchondo
My Babylon
It'd only be legitimate if they weren't the ones working to keep artits in obscurity.
Rethinking email
To play devil's advocate, it seems the RIAA is providing a legitimate service then, doesn't it? Sign here and you will no longer languish in obscurity.
The problem is, 99 out of 100 languish in obscurity even after signing. A BMG contract doesn't gurarantee success.
Free Martian Whores!
Janis Ian, who us folkies know, and the rest of you don't, and who's been a well-known musician since the sixties, wrote about the RIAA and the music industry when the RIAA came up. Among other things, she noted that many artists make a lot of their income by selling CDs at their own concerts... and are *screwed* by the record companies. "BMG has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per CD"!!!
So, yeah, if the RIAA did *anything* for the artists, that would be nice. Instead, it *only* does it for the recording industry... and how many times have you read that a poor musician, who (of course) has no health insurance) had to sue the record company for their money? Arlo Guthrie has said that it only took him ->THIRTY YEARS- to "make money" for his record company, so that they'd give him money.
mark
The beurocracy has expanded to sustain the expanding beurocracy
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
where do i find about new european trance i might like?
pandora.com
i have placed my trust in pandora. pnadora tells me what i like
how does ANYONE find out about something they might like to listen to?
they blind fold themselves, go into itunes and click randomly?
and what the hell does my assertion have to do with a sense of superiority?!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
uh, dude? based on what you just said?
you want to be told what to listen to
by wqna
durrrrrr.....
(rolls eyes)
it helps to not undermine your own assertions by being the poster child for the proof of the opposite of what you say
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Are you suggesting that Britney Spears is lip syncing to some 7 year old Chinese girl?
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
I don't see why an artist shouldn't benefit from their work for their entire life to be honest.
So you believe a one hit wonder should never have to work again?
If Ford build a car you like (let's say a Ford GT) and they still have some in stock in a few years, should it be free to you or should you still have to pay for it?
Car cost money to reproduce so the owner should be able to get paid for it, if someone is willing to pay. Once gone, it's gone. Now if someone wants to, and can afford it, they should be able to build their own. To reproduce music the cost is negligible. So while artists should enjoy a monopoly, that monopoly should be limited. Say 7 years at most, not this life plus 50, or 70 years. Copyrights are granted to encourage creation, once you're dead you can't create anymore. Since creation is the reason copyrights are granted, and rights are not granted, copyrights should be short, people should constantly create something new. If they don't then they don't deserve to be paid in perpetuity.
just because it's 10 years old if it didn't sell well on first release (perhaps down to poor marketing or distribution knowledge) they may never have recouped their costs let alone made any money from it
If they didn't get paid then they should have created something people were willing to pay for. All anybody owes another is opportunity. They don't owe anyone an outcome, equal or not. That's what communists and socialists refuse to acknowledge, people are owed opportunities not outcomes.
If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights
Once again, copyrights are not rights, they are privileges. Whereas rights are unalienable, privileges are government granted, and copyrights and patents are granted not unalienable. If you don't want others to have your music then keep it to yourself. Just because you come up with single hit doesn't mean you shouldn't have to work anymore. I'm a photographer, and if I want to continue to make money from photography I need to keep shooting. I'm also a programmer and I should have to keep programming, or sell services, if I want to keep making money from programming.
If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights, it opens the door for other people to commercially exploit their work - such as using the music in an advert which goes on to profit an organisation hugely with no benefit to the recording artist.
The recording artist gets exposure which is a benefit. If others like they can pay for more. People should work to make money.
Why is it that BOTH the RIAA and the 'copyright reformers' seem to want to shaft the musicians?
Why do musicians seem to want to shaft the public? Perhaps you didn't read my post, but if you did then you ignored what I said about the Grateful Dead. And Redhat as well as other businesses make money from open source software, anybody can take that source code to make money themselves, if they can find people willing to pay.
It should be left to us, the musicians to determine the rights to each of our works.
As a photographer I am not owed a life without working for it. I used to write and I don't deserve perpetual income for that either.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I would defiantly return to some of my old favorite artists if they went independent. I've been boycotting the majors for over a year, and only buy from CDBaby artists who DON'T have a label (even a small one). I don't pirate, but I don't agree with how the majors handled piracy. There are a few artists for whom I would provide long term support even if they weren't releasing.
The discussion is about REAL artists, not the Disney and Nickelodeon created/marketed/forced down our kids throats 'artists'. When bands like the Foo Fighters, or even Radiohead chime in, their opinion is important because they actually have spent considerable time developing their talents and 'making it'.
I was responding to that statement. I do not see how making it defines a person an artist and I an not sure what real artist means. I would like to infer that the parent was talking about people that create art for themselves without the need for third party approval (or compensation). Rather, I believe the author is saying, "I hate her music and the marketing of her music." In that case, Spears is an artist in the same context as the Foo Fighters. Techincal talent and artistic talent are two vastly different things. Artistic talent cannot be measured because it is subjective.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
My psychic friend once ventured into the nether realm, where time became fluid and dynamic giving him the knowledge of everything past, future, and present. He once told me the tale of mankinds destiny, the fate of humanity in the end. And it begins strangely similar to this.
In eons that will have been the human history, we will be called Homo presingularitum (before the technological singularity) as mankind continually carries the name Homo sapiens with its progression through the constraints of flesh and physical form. At the end of the epoch known in the future as Mortal Man, Al Gore forever altered humanities destiny when he invented the internet.
For the first time ever, the total information of humanity was accessible by computer to anybody and everybody. This also meant that anybody could add their own materials into the conglomeration of human information. Suddenly all known economic models were rendered useless as every individual had access to everything and no longer needed traditional middlemen like stores, recording labels (anybody could record themselves for next to nothing in overhead costs, eliminating the niche the labels had occupied for the history of recorded music) and Microsoft.
This caused the Great Depression of 2008, which led to WW III, where Germany finally wins, ushering in a progressive era of collective societal pursuit towards the technological singularity. Upon the conception of A.I. humanity combines itself with the internet to match the intelligence of A.I. The advancements in medicine and science make it possible for populace to live forever. Then humanity solves the answer to the universe and becomes one with it.
And so my friend tells me. Perhaps he really is psychic. Im convinced.
One man with a gun can control 100 without one
So according to your logic, it's ok for someone to spend say 200 hours of their time to create music to hopefully sell and make a living, and then it's ok for you to take that music and give it away free to 3000 of your closest "friends" for free and for those 3000 to do the same thing and for those 9,000,000 to do the same thing also? And you see nothing wrong with this?
I'm curious would you be this generous if every time someone downloaded a copy of a song from your shared folder it cost you $0.15?
I used the word piracy because that is what most people call it today, I'll call it foobar if you like, but then most people would probably be confused by my word usage.
Lastly, tell me when is the last time you copied and improved a song from known artist and redistributed it on a filesharing site? How many filesharers do this? This is news to me. I thought the point in filesharing was to share original works.