Sony claims of Artist's Name URL For Life

Effugas writes "Apparently displeased that individual artists might try to contact their fanbase All By Themselves(TM), Sony has been inserting clauses in their contracts that assign eternal ownership of any URL that even slightly references the artist's name to The Company. " Sent some shivers down my spine.

Comments

Sony Suicide

[KuRL]

It's amazing how backwards a company like Sony is thinking. Record labels will soon lose their grasp on being "the only way for an artist to get distribution," especially with major artists like Bowie and the Beastie Boys embracing the net.

Record companies, in addition to taking the vast majority of profits (getting $0.70 per CD sold is very difficult to do for a major artist), nevermind the fact that the label handles distribution and virtually nothing else.

If trucking companies charged 85% of the value of the goods to ship, there'd be no way that one would use them, yet labels do the same thing, acting as a cartel, stifling artistic talents, while looking to cash in on the next big thing.

But I digress, the last thing labels need to do is place more restrictions on artists, in any form. With advancing technology, soon it won't be so difficult for artists to handle their own distribution, and the labels need all of the leverage they can get.

In summary, I forsee the death of labels within the next 15 years, and that's pretty damn conservative.

The cost of Promotional Investment

[Skevin]

Hmm, you have a few good points, but consider that most musicians don't have the kind of funding to back themselves the way a megacorp does. I see it more of a loanshark mentality - "We'll pay for all your promotions, and we'll give you a very small cut of what we make off of you..." Strange, but that's the mentality I grew up with... and I subconciously accept it as being equitable!
The actual cost of promoting oneself is surprisingly little... For a little more than $20k you can actually get your own music up on the listening stations at Tower Records (back in 1996). I never went through with it because when I was writing music prolifically, I was still a poor student who never even knew what 20k looked like.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE ON
I don't think you can compare a record company to a trucking company: an artist has indeterminate outcome value - his/her ultimate dollar sum is reliant on the popularity of his/her music (or image, in the case of Artists That Suck). From the record companies' point of view, they are making an investment which they hope will turn out well for them. I'm sure that for every Brittany Spears, a record company has lost money on dozens of no-name people who labels never made it to the record store.
In a nutshell, the general outlook on money here is, "I put up most of the capital, so I should reap most of the profits." IMHO, that's a very healthy capitalistic mentality. "If you, the Artist, don't want my funding, find it elsewhere, or do it yourself."
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE OFF

Admittedly, most artists don't have money, and along those lines, the Web is a wonderful way to distribute one's own music without much starting capital, provided you have a product that stands up. In my experience, I have noticed that if there is anything bad about putting one's music online, it's trying to get noticed above everyone else who's trying to do exactly the same thing, which is why I'm now going to go into...

PLUG MODE ON
What better place to plug my music! I write a lot of symphonic/orchestral stuff, and have full MP3s of some of my works here, all of it for free! (assuming you don't try to use it for commercial stuff, for which I'll want a royalty.:) ) Unlike a lot of artists, I don't expect to make income off of this, since I prefer not to sell my soul (SMS) to record companies, and believe you me, I have some... interesting, contracts on file that I never got around to signing.
PLUG MODE OFF

Okay, I'm going to pray I didn't just start a /. effect on my server...

S. Kevin Chang
DBA / Programmer / Composer
[Insert Large Evil LA-based Entertainment Company here]
[Hint #2: it's in Burbank]
malusdei@pacMAUSHWITZbell.net
[to email, rem all caps from address]

Typical of mass media

[Wanker]

This is not a particularly surprising inclusion. Media companies put all kinds of language in their standard contracts assigning ownership to The Company.

For example, cartoon companies routinely have the creator sign away rights to the characters and style, allowing The Company to continue to publish the strip even if the creator quits. I'm sure some of us remember how bitter Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes was...

Unfortunately, people go ahead and sign these contracts since their only other alternative is to be forever consigned to oblivion. Without a publisher, these artists would never have been noticed.

With the advent of cheap (or even free) web publishing, this is all changing. Anyone can make their art readily available-- witness the popularity (for both consumer and supplier) of mp3.com, User Friendly, and others.

The Internet is starting to force media publishers back into the role of promoters rather than controllers, and they are understandably upset and/or scared. Consumers will still need publishers to help pick out what is good, but they no longer need be restricted to only what the publishers wish to promote, so the publisher will no longer have the same power over the artists they once had.