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!
Aren't music videos supposed to be promotional material? Kind of like adverts for the albums/singles? Why would anyone NOT want people to see them?
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
So these artists are saying that now the stick is far larger than the carrot. What carrot? When have we ever been giving an incentive to pay for the music rather than download it, other than guilt?
I think at this point the stick is just getting larger and pointier and this carrot they may have used at one point has just rotted in the corner.
Blame Mandelson - he swans off on holiday to Corfu, meets with various people including someone involved in organisations not unlike the MPAA, then suggests this legislation which both artists and the ISPs are strongly opposed to. It seems obvious that if he suceeds it will only please the higher-up executives, and not the people who provide the products involved.
I can see the Today Programme interview with the PRS (UK RIAA) now
John Humphries (you have NOTHING like him in the US): So you want people kicked off the internet for downloading copyrighted material. Why?
PRS: Because copyright theft is simply theft and its illegal and people should be punished accordingly
JH: But the government says that broadband access is becoming an essential tool in modern society, aren't your punishments a bit draconian?
PRS: John, These people are stealing literally billions from artists, its a massive industry in the UK that makes a lot of money for this country and these people are ruining it
JH: So this is about the artists? Not the publishing companies?
PRS: Absolutely John, these downloaders are just stealing from artists and if this continues there will be no more artists
JH: If that is the case why do three of the most successful artists in this country's history oppose your plans?
PRS: Errrr
JH: I mean if it really was about the artists then surely these people would be all for it. Or is it just about publishing companies that can't be bothered to handle a changing world and just want to dig their heels in and get fat from the restrictive contracts and stifling processes that have got them into this mess?
PRS: Errrr
JH: Lets face it you don't care about the artists, you just care about the money and more importantly you care about making money without having to change the way you work. Lots of companies have led the way in legal digital music but the publishing companies have not been amongst them. Isn't this just about old fashioned companies who can't change moaning about new technology and asking the government to bail them out
PRS: Errrr
JH: And now for the weather
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Forgive me but some of the richest artists are putting up token opposition just doesn't impress me. Fo rall I know behind closed doors they're patting the record execs on the back for pushing this legislation through. These are after all people who make their living as much by promoting themselves as celebrities as by making music. Forgive me if I am therefore skeptical.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Blame Mandelson
That's Sith Lord Mandelson to you, peasant!
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.