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."

Comments

Death to labels, long live music

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

damn publishers!

[LingNoi]

The rights for performers should be improved to bring them more into line with those granted to authors (songwriters, lyricists and composers). Authorâ(TM)s rights are much stronger because their rights model was developed 100 years before performers' rights. Some key differences:
- if an artist's recording is used in a TV advertisement in the UK, the author gets paid (via PRS) every time it is broadcast but the performers do not
- if an artist's record is played on free-to-air radio in the US the author gets paid public performance income (via ASCAP or BMI) but the performers do not
- if an artist's recording is used in a feature film, the author but not the performer gets paid public performance income every time the film is shown in a UK cinema.

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!

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating?

[jonaskoelker]

This is my rationale too - If an artist only gets 25% of my money currently, I'll happily pay them that amount directly (or a little more) as it is cutting out a huge swathe of arseholes all taking a cut and contributing nothing of value.

Having auditioned for an amateur band and listened to their recorded music, I can tell you that good production quality is very important for the resulting listening experience. So some of the assholes are actually of value ;)

That being said, if we donated directly to musicians, and a bit more than they make from sales right now, we could pay for the production indirectly by giving the musicians enough money to buy/hire/loan good production staff and facilities themselves.

There's also marketing: if you don't know the song exists, you're not going to pay for it. That can be fixed on the cheap by teaching everybody to go to $WEBSITE for new music (for some value(s) of website), if possible. That also solves distribution on the cheap.

(maybe the musicians would be overwhelmed by the choices of production staff/facilities and marketing platforms; perhaps they could hire someone dedicated to manage those choices; maybe those kind people could form a company offering their services, including in-house production staff :D)