Slashdot Mirror
Musicians Oppose Anti-Piracy Measures In the UK
BluePeppers writes "The Guardian has a story, primarily about a deal that allows YouTube to broadcast music videos again, but also covering a coalition of artist unions that are opposing new legislation in the UK that would punish file sharers more severely. From the article: 'A coalition of bodies representing a range of stars including Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, and Damon Albarn attacks the proposals as expensive, illogical and "extraordinarily negative." The Featured Artists Coalition, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, and the Music Producers Guild have joined forces to oppose the proposals to reintroduce the threat of disconnection for persistent file sharers, which was ruled out in the government's Digital Britain report in June.""
Perhaps if more big names come out in opposition of measures like this the PRS in Britain and the RIAA in the US won't be able to hide behind excuses like "we're doing this for the artists".
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
Oh, there's been an incentive to buy music instead of just downloading it. First, you got a good looking CD, with cover, maybe an artbook, lyrics and some other nifty things. People like putting a printed CD into the player and know that it's the "real stuff" instead of slipping a bland, white (or bland shiny) CD in, knowing that it's just one of many thousands they have. There's also that it is/used to be hassle free. Take the CD out of the case, place it in the player, play. No downloading, checking whether the song is ok or whether it's the right one altogether, burn it, check that burning worked out and the cheap CDR didn't crap out on you halfway... And finally the alleged better CD quality, though my dumb ears can't hear any difference anyway.
What's the incentive today when you get basically the same MP3s? Or CDs that may or may not contain crap that make them unusable in the player of your choice? Not to mention that artbooks or other goodies virtually vanished, replaced by a single sheet of paper so you at least know what CD you actually have in your hands. Which contains maybe 30 minutes of music, if that. All that and less for only 15 bucks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Of course, I believe that it's the PRS's job to collect those royalties
The PRS only represents the songwriter/composer. Performing Rights Society == managing the rights to perform a composition.
Someone else represents the performers (Equity? The Musicians' Union?) and someone else again represents the technicians. I strongly suspect that most of the technicians etc. for on a for-hire basis (a one-off payment for their services), but I'm only guessing.
I've made quite a few tracks for fun... And lately, I've been looking at the possibility to get them on on iTunes, Spotify, etc.
Here comes the great part: I don't need a label on anything these days. There are already several services that will publish independent music direct to major stores and streaming services without going through a bunch of extra layers.
So if I ever decide to publish my stuff I can just ignore the (Finnish equivalent of the) RIAA. I'd rather miss out on any money I could get that route than help rob everyone of any more rights.
Gotta love progress.
.: Max Romantschuk
Dinosaurs didn't want to die either, but nature doesn't like obsolete designs. And neither does free market, at least usually. Unless such obsolete designs are artificially propped up by legal means.
The studios were a necessity until about 15 or maybe 20 years ago. First, they were the only ones that could afford the insanely expensive studio equipment. Until the 80s, no "garage band" could afford equipment that allowed them to create even a sensible demo tape. The advance in computers made this no problem anymore. Anyone can today get affordable equipment that allows him to enjoy the same or at least nearly the same level of quality any big studio could offer, provided he has the skill to use it. So what was left after that was their function as the distribution way. No single artist could afford the distribution system a large music corporation can offer. In came the internet, with instant distribution and an easy way to collect payment.
So, what's currently left is the music studio's edge in PR and marketing. Every other aspect they ever had has been stripped from them and superseded by cheaper means. They may offer it to artists and some artists may opt for it, simply because the studios still have the expertise and often also the better trained personnell, simply by experience, but an artist now has the option to record and publish himselves without having to resort to studios.
Once marketing is somehow taken from their grasp, they have become utterly useless to the music business.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, see ... if you WANT to see video again or listen to song again, your option should not be to 'download it and freely listen it forever for free', it should be 'buy it or wait till we toss you another freebie'
It is attempt to create both artificial rarity and cash on the fact that people actually might be pressed to buy their products if they like it.
It is not about control - that is just tool. It is about ensuring consumer demand.
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
Two men who have been given the countries highest honour ( and Damon Albarn, meh ) speak out against their governments plans and use their position and reputation to ensures that this side of the argument is communicated to the same general public barraged with copyright infringement = theft propaganda and you interpret this action as being indicative of them secretly being in collusion and believing the opposite of what they say ?
Critical > Skeptical > Paranoid.
If that is so, why not turn it around and beat them at their own game ?
If you want to play your commercial on the TV or radio you have to pay for the air time. Let all radio stations and TV channels stop broadcasting music from RIAA artists and then charge the RIAA for every time they want to have one of their songs played on the radio at the same rate other companies have to pay for advertising time. Maybe give them a wholesale discount if they buy in bulk.
The biggest problem is getting every station to cooperate, which would be nearly impossible.
You are right that pirating copyrighted material weakens organizations like the RIAA, the problem is that it does not promote the growth of alternatives. As a matter of fact, it inhibits the growth of alternatives. As long as the RIAA model is the strongest model for the distribution of copyrighted material they will maintain their control of the music industry.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison