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?
... 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
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 ?
give it.
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
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.
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 mean the ones that have incorporated their own record labels in order to keep control over their life's work ?
Yeah, I'm sure they're soooo dependent on the two dozen middlemen that stand between their studios and their fans.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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
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.
And the evil company acronym is WUSE. Pronounce as you wish.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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
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.
Right now, for some pretty thin markets, I think 100% of the customers are online. Techno Trance, for example.
For more mainstream music, no, I don't believe anywhere near 100% are online, willing to spend money for music, or are able to download music quickly. When the CD section at WalMart closes down, then I will beileve that the music promotion business is no longer needed or useful. I have no idea what their demongraphics are, but I can guess that they are dial-up Internet users that are currently still spending money for music.
Most of the people I know haven't spent a dime on music in the last five years, will never spend a dime on it again and have high speed Internet connections. There is no possibility of selling them music ever again because they know how to download and where to download from.
The point is there is no "business model" that will come after the labels and RIAA. You can't sell free stuff. If it is available for free and 100% of the people know it and can get it for free then there is nothing left to sell.
I don't know anyone that will buy music again. It is available for free and that is how people get it. Trying to build a new business that will get money for music is pointless. iTuens is offering convenience and a brand to people, but even still is making basically zero money. But it keeps iPod users fed and will exist for that purpose as long as possible. I suppose you might be able to sell a service something like that, but I doubt it. In a small number of years the people that equate piracy with theft and aren't willing to steal will be gone. At that point, free is the only game in town.
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."
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.
Each word is chosen based on very static definitions.
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