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.""
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.
PRS != RIAA
PRS is the Performing Rights Society; the UK equivalent of the RIAA is the BPI. The PRS is more like ASCAP.
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
lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.
Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the fucking capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom--(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
If sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:
Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326/870
The Truth Is Out There:
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
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
Consider the idea of boycotting all of SONY - by which I mean SONY Corporation - because SONY BMG screwed up.
That Bravia TV? Don't buy it. .. and so forth and so on.
That PS3? Don't buy it.
That Blu-Ray player from, say, JVC? Don't buy it - JVC pays SONY
That CD - any artist, even if it's you? Don't buy it - every CD and CD-R made at this point nets SONY a tiny amount of dosh.
Spiderman movie? Don't buy it.
Tom & Jerry on TV? Don't watch it (Tom & Jerry = MGM+Turner. MGM = 20% owned by SONY. Your watching it makes it more attractive for advertisers to put their ads around the show for good sums of money, a slice of which goes to.. voila).
That laptop you're buying? Double-check it doesn't use a SONY panel.
That digital camera you're buying? Make sure it doesn't use a SONY sensor (e.g. Nikon has SONY sensors in many models).
Let's face it - unless you want to be bordering on paranoia whenever you buy something, there's absolutely no good way to boycott a megacorp like SONY even if the idea that long-term boycotting SONY for the short-term actions of a - all things considered - tiny part of the conglomerate wasn't preposterous to begin with. Let me restate that.. I'm not saying that a boycott should be easy - of course it shouldn't, if we could all be lazy in boycotts then a boycott wouldn't work either. What I am saying is, it is nigh-on impossible to boycott a megacorp 100%. Even if -you- decide to no longer buy any product that has a SONY logo on it - a boycott that -is- quite doable, they'll still be getting money from you through the multitude of other channels they have, and through their main channels from the people who don't go along with your boycott.
SONY's bottom line, and that of any other truly big company (let alone the likes of Unilever, Procter & Gamble and the like), is hardly ever hurt by a (call for a) boycott (see e.g. the Nestlé boycott, going on since the 70's, and check out the financial charts for Nestlé.. could they have made an even bigger profit if it weren't for the boycott? sure. Are they in dire straits because of the boycott? Don't be silly.) They're typically more hurt by their own ineptitude and/or loss of appeal for their products/business in general (e.g. Circuit City, sadly), and bad press in specific.
Perhaps this is just a pessimistic view, but it's based on what I see around me. A small baker had to close shop because people boycotted him for selling factory-created pastries - simply because his two children buggered off and he had no time to do that in addition to the fresh breads, cakes, pies, etc. So now people have to buy factory-created breads at the local supermarket as well. The same supermarket (Albert Heijn) that has been 'boycotted' time and again for a multitude of things.. but is still going strong and opening up new stores left and right.
These days, a 'public outcry' is far more efficient than a boycott; the public outcry and subsequent bad press over the SONY BMG rootkit, from people who were still actively buying SONY products -and- people who had no intention of buying SONY products anyway alike, was enough to have them remove any plans to add it to any new CDs, and even lead to them pulling the existing CDs in some areas, while no formal boycott ever materialized and people are still buying SONY products; just like people are still buying Volgswagens and drool over Bugatti Veyrons.