Slashdot Log In
Artists Strive To Wrest Rights From Music Industry
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 06, 2008 04:58 PM
from the industry-jenga dept.
from the industry-jenga dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Death to labels, long live music (Score:5, Informative)
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.
So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right that most people probably won't stop. However, I doubt most people are using that phrase anyway. The only people you hear using that phrase are the staunch supporters of the artists who are heavily into the whole RIAA debacle in the first place.
However if you're just strictly taking that group into consideration and ignoring the rest, well, I have no fucking clue. Some assuredly will, and some definitely won't (they'll just find other reasons).
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it means there's a web site I can go to and donate directly to artists I like then, yes, they'll get more money from me.
If I'm "pirating" now it's because:
a) The RIAA's various shenanigans over the last few years has earned my contempt.
b) I don't believe the artist would get any of the money from a CD sale. The RIAA will keep it all.
The only CDs I've bought in the last few years have been from places like CDBaby which state clearly how much the artist will receive from the sale. Buying from any other distribution model is worse than any amount of piracy IMHO.
Parent
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is my rationale too - If an artist only gets 25% of my money currently, I'll happily pay them that amount directly (or a little more) as it is cutting out a huge swathe of arseholes all taking a cut and contributing nothing of value.
With the current system, buying music legitimately is a bit like funding terrorism - the vast majority of your money goes to the people who are responsible for all the stuff that's wrong with the industry.
Parent
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:4, Informative)
This is my rationale too - If an artist only gets 25% of my money currently, I'll happily pay them that amount directly (or a little more) as it is cutting out a huge swathe of arseholes all taking a cut and contributing nothing of value.
Having auditioned for an amateur band and listened to their recorded music, I can tell you that good production quality is very important for the resulting listening experience. So some of the assholes are actually of value ;)
That being said, if we donated directly to musicians, and a bit more than they make from sales right now, we could pay for the production indirectly by giving the musicians enough money to buy/hire/loan good production staff and facilities themselves.
There's also marketing: if you don't know the song exists, you're not going to pay for it. That can be fixed on the cheap by teaching everybody to go to $WEBSITE for new music (for some value(s) of website), if possible. That also solves distribution on the cheap.
(maybe the musicians would be overwhelmed by the choices of production staff/facilities and marketing platforms; perhaps they could hire someone dedicated to manage those choices; maybe those kind people could form a company offering their services, including in-house production staff :D)
Parent
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that citizen piracy won't stop, but the artist's still stand to gain from stopping the institutionalized kind.
Parent
pirates sing happy birthday without paying (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, first of all: STOP calling it piracy! Piracy is stealing shit on the seas and murdering people. And unless you want me to do that to you... ;)
Second: People will of course continue to copy music, as they have done since they were able to do so.
But does it matter? NO. Not in your way. Because freely copied music would still not be bought, if it could not be copied. Some people think it's not worth the money, and some just don't have it.
So what's left, is free promotion, which could very well replace the promotion offered by the industry.
In fact, that's why small labels are more successful since the beginning of MP3 and P2P.
Oh, and for me personally, knowing that the money goes straight to the artist, does completely change the game. I like some artists, and this is a personal thing. So I support them by an here and there, or telling friends about them, even when I'm not buying their music. It's just cool and feel really good, to know that partially, a band got big because of you! :)
Parent
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:4, Insightful)
> without copyright reform, the new association will become as corrupt as the first.
Remove the root cause or see the disease coming back.
Parent
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:4, Insightful)
...except the RIAA was never about being a cabal of artists.
The labor union analogy breaks down because the RIAA
was never such a thing. It has always been a cabal of
corporations. These corporations thrive on sticking it
to the artists.
So yeah, perhaps the artists finally need something
that a least roughly approximates an musicians union.
The RIAA certainly was never it. They make noise to
that effect but it's pretty much like Henry Ford
trying to make himself to be a spokesperson for
the average UAW member.
If this new Union isn't a bunch of assholes, I would
gladly start buying music again.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
what we really need is the technology for hairless pussy.
Indeed, your wish has been met. [wikipedia.org]
Stop saying RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the companies that need to be vilified.
- Sony
- EMI
- Universal
- Warner Brothers
Re:Stop saying RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
Warner Brothers
Yakko, Wakko (and Dot) would never have anything to do with THOSE people!
Parent
Proper reverse collation... (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So basically whenever "I'm looking for freedom" runs on some station in Germany there's a
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Platinum (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
I fervently hope that I'm wrong, but we've been hearing the "This is it! The death of the RIAA!" announcements for YEARS.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that's obvious.
The RIAA will NOT die overnight. They wont die tomorrow, nor will they die 5 years from now (unless disbanded via RICO). Ling Chi comes to mind as the form of death.
If no or few artists sign on, they will end up with fewer talented artists while the rest of them create their own music guilds and trade unions in which they giants will have to deal with. With fewer One-Hit-Wonders to milk profits, they will be forced to lower overall advertising. Those musicians who are in the guilds not
Re:Well. (Score:5, Interesting)
See, here's the thing. Stuff like this takes time. Things don't just collapse like Lehman or AIG. Actually, not even Lehman or AIG fell overnight, despite all appearances. They've been in trouble for at least a year now.
The timeframe for social change is typically on the order of 10 years, about a half-generation or a decade. Outright revolutions take even longer, about 20 years or twice as long. The American Revolution began in the 1760's and ended in the 1780's. The unrest that brought about the American Civil War began in the 1840's and finally ended in the 1860's.
The RIAA doesn't just represent a bunch of companies, it's an industry, a business model. TThe fall of the RIAA began with Napster, but only because the genie had been let out of the bottle. Things didn't really start rolling until they began suing normal people, because people don't much care about what goes on around them until it hits their pocketbooks, or threatens to.
Then, it was just bad PR for musicians to be associated with companies that sued their fans, and it was all a matter of time. But even then, it takes time for artists and fans alike to realize that they can cut out the middleman and do better. They're not going to necessarily be superstars, but how many artists get to become superstars, and at the expense of how many others?
Had the RIAA not started suing people, it might've taken longer for them to be rendered antiquated, perhaps another 10 years. But that was an eventuality. The world changes, regardless of anybody's desires. It is an inevitability. The RIAA decided to put their resources into fighting the change rather than working with it. For that reason alone, they are destined to fall. It's like swimming against the current. Eventually, they will tire, and when they do, they will drown.
Parent
Re:Well. (Score:5, Interesting)
Thats precisely it: "Pirates" are also some of the biggest spenders. They buy collections just to have them, they download them when the works are 'not released yet', they buy concert tickets, they buy auxiliary materials like DVDs and tshirts.
When some faceless, emotionless company "Owns" a band, and the people know that damn near no money goes back to the artists, downloading and sharing doesnt matter. Who does it hurt? Who gives a shit, its some corporation.
Instead, now you're "pirating" from the artists directly. Wouldn't that be sad if your help got the group disbanded because they couldn't afford it? I mean, they then are getting direct money from selling product. Then again... isn't pirating another form of advertisement, and one that specifically Adobe and MS used at one time?
Perhaps one could encourage purchasing via addons and other perks, rather than "sue-happy hours in court". Something about Honey and Vinegar...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing from labels is illegal. Stealing from artists is immoral.
Is the RIAA truly stealing from artists when musicians willfully sign with a member of the organization? I have little sympathy for artists who knowingly endorse litigation against their fans by earning money for the RIAA.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good for Them (Score:3, Interesting)
But will it simply turn into a gambling chip against the RIAA to get a marginally better deal?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> But will it simply turn into a gambling chip against the RIAA to get a marginally better deal?
What do you mean "turn into"? It already _is_. You quit your job if you're fed up with it; you threaten to quit if you want something. The only real question here is how long the RIAA takes to meet their demands. Too slow and they'll quit for real.
Remember that there's a love-hate relationship between artists and the RIAA. Working in entertainment usually means giving up making good money (doing something
Sorry if this is offtopic but... (Score:5, Funny)
... 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?'
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is to differentiate them from the non-news sections of Slashdot which are appearing more frequently and are instead tagged as "crap".
Will they become the new RIAA? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ?
Re:Will they become the new RIAA? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you have it completely wrong here.
think less in terms of your own cleverness, and more in terms of publishing.
Classical publishing is the model we're seeing here. Though, I understand the parallels are not perfect.
The RIAA represents publishers. The web says, "we don't need no stinking publishers". Authors and 'artistes' are wondering why they're sticking to the old school publishing method when it provides so little return. They are going to try the new method. Self publishing is now possible and cost effective. The artists know this. The artists have the product. They have the name. Without artists, the RIAA and its member companies make a big 'whooshing' sound. i.e. vacuum.
We will see labels and publishers suing artists for not renewing contracts. We will also see some artists re-invent themselves due to not owning their 'image'. The only thing that the RIAA's member companies bring to the table now is capital. The market isn't loyal to the publishers. The people are fans of artists, not labels. What we are seeing is the birth of a new industry from the ashes of an old one. The recording industry is at its knees and this, my friends, is its death knell. Long live music and the interminable spirit of human culture.
Parent
RIAA mebers ARE NOT PUBLISHERS! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Donation link (Score:3, Interesting)
damn publishers! (Score:5, Informative)
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!
We need market to decide the price of any album (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Minimizing the middleperson (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Established artists (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
And I am tired of the 'artists' (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [bitmunk.com]
Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Someone else who thinks that way (Score:3, Informative)
Here's someone else who is also sick of the RIAA and decided to go rogue. Mike Patton with Ipecac Recordings. [ipecac.com]
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. [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Distribution isn't the problem. Is hasn't been for nearly a decade.
The problem is promotion. You can put up your music for purchase just about anywhere, but "who's gonna buy it, kid - you?".
That's where the labels hold power. They control how much exposure (advertising, radio time, etc) your music gets. I suppose you could try and promote your own music, but spamming is generally frowned upon.