Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Musicians Get Together For Anti-RIAA Concerts 288

Posted by chrisd from the cannibalism-is-the-answer dept.
DarkZero writes "The Sacramento Bee is currently running an article about several different bands getting together for five concerts to raise money for the Recording Artists Coalition with the express purpose of fighting the RIAA and the unfair treatment of its musicians. The acts lined up include Elton John, Billy Joel, Ozzy Osbourne, Stevie Nick s, The Offspring, The Eagles, Weezer, and plenty of other bands. Good for them. (And for those that are wonderi ng, the RAC's site, ArtistsAgainstPiracy.com, is actually an anti-RIAA and somewhat pro-Napster site, not what you would immediately expect it to be.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Musicians Get Together For Anti-RIAA Concerts More

Musicians Get Together For Anti-RIAA Concerts

Comments Filter:

  • Where is Prince? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hougaard ( 163563 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @05:32AM (#2731044) Homepage Journal
    He has been a very active "Anti RIAA" soldier.

    • No Prince, but Courtney Love Speaks out: (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jhestyr ( 190398 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @10:10AM (#2731679) Homepage
      This is an older article from May 16th when Courtney Love gave a speech on Napster and Recording Labels and such. Good speech too bad she killed Kurt Cobain

      =] anyway here's the first page:
      http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lov e/

      Courtney Love does the math
      The controversial singer takes on record label profits, Napster and "sucka VCs."

      Editor's note: This is an unedited transcript of Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16.

      By Courtney Love

      June 14, 2000 | Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software.

      I'm talking about major label recording contracts.

      I want to start with a story about rock bands and record companies, and do some recording-contract math:

      This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.

      What happens to that million dollars?

      They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.

      That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.

      That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.

      The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)

      So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.

      The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.

      The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.

      All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.

      Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.

      If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.

      Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!

      How much does the record company make?

      They grossed $11 million.

      It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.

      The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.

      They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.

      Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.

      So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
      • I have an idea for a better arrangement of the whole deal. I could be wrong; I don't have much experience with this sort of thing.

        First, this band makes some cool music. Then they make a few advertisements, perhaps using other people's money (Venture capitalist's money, that is), and put MP3 versions of their music on file sharing services and online, and see if any radio stations are interested. They find someone willing to sell CDs and sell a bunch. After various people sre finished taking their cut of the booty, the actual musicians will have more left over.

        This would require better organizations than RIAA and such, but if these existed, it shouldn't be too hard for a lot of good music to be created. People will create cool music anyway, and this sets them up for money as well, and not just super-successful ones.

        • Then they make a few advertisements, perhaps using other people's money (Venture capitalist's money, that is),

          How brilliant! But maybe, enjoying economies of scale, these venture capitalists should also provide the production facilities to press the CDs. They could coordinate the marketing too! I even have a name for these "venture capitalists" who put up the money behind bands ... we could call them "record labels"!



          Seriously, why do you think that venture capitalists will want less money than record companies. Take a look at the books of EMI some day. Sure, on one superstar band, they make out like bandits. But that's ignoring all the flop acts, on which the musicians haven't paid them back a cent. Across the whole portfolio, they are substantially less profitable than many other industries. This mythical surplus profit which "could go to the musicians" just doesn't exist.

          • The idea here is that there would be a lot of competition between a lot of venture capitalists, they would do less, and they wouldn't be so eager to snatch all the money because you can get a contract with better conditions from a competitor. As it is, the record labels are pretty secure in the knowledge that by offering slightly better conditions they can get a lot of good bands.

            Throw them a little insecurity!

            • Re:venture capitalists (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Golias ( 176380 )
              The problem is, if Shakira wants to be the Next Britney Spears, she needs a label to push MTV airplay, push all the local radio stations, get her on Pepsi commercials, get "entertainment news" shows to talk about her as a "hot, rising star", get the magazines teens read to put her pictures everywhere, etc.

              Without the vast sphere of corporate influence wielded by record labels, it is impossible to become a pop star. Always has been. For every charismatic singer, there are thousands more just as good who will never make a cent, because they don't have somebody like Sony or Disney cramming their music into everybody's ears.

              A VC firm simply isn't big enough to compete with that.

      • TMBG's answer to this: (Score:4, Interesting)

        by BurntHombre ( 68174 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @01:28PM (#2732658)
        Remember the Slashdot interview with They Might Be Giants [slashdot.org]? They had some interesting remarks on this subject, specifically referring to Courtney Love:

        3) Professional musicians
        by yamla

        These days, it seems that virtually no professional musicians actually make a decent living. Courtney Love has said that she is pretty much playing for free already. TLC declared bankruptcy. And these are just two examples. Yet during this time, the record industry is reporting record sales, record profits.

        What do you think the answer is? Is the day of the professional artist over? Is it still possible to make the music you love and make enough to pay the bills? If so, how? How do you see the record industry changing over the next ten years?

        John:

        Being broke is not being poor, and one should be skeptical of such complaints, as they often reveal poor judgement more than poverty. In both of your examples, you are talking about people who generate huge amounts of revenue and conspicuously purchased very expensive things.

        I don't think the era of the professional musical artist ever really existed. Through the course of the 20th Century from the birth of publishing to the explosion of rock as a mass market business, the business terrain has changed for the better, but long term professional employment remains an elusive reality. Musicians are always at the end of the food chain in the music business. It has never been easy making money.

    • Re:Where is Prince? (Score:2, Informative)

      by RAVasquez ( 318309 )
      He's written quite a bit about the RIAA on his site. Here's one:
      http://www.npgmusicclub.com/npgmc/freedom/commen ta ries/20000321work4hire.html
    • Where is Prince? He has been a very active "Anti RIAA" soldier.

      The RIAA probably snuffed him.
    • Prince hasn't toured or been seen much in public any more, since he converted to a Jehovah's Witness. There's a story [citypages.com] about it in one of the weekly papers here in Minneapolis.

  • Most artists don't support the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tao ( 10867 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @05:36AM (#2731053) Homepage

    As most bands/artists know that a good relation with the fans is the key to success, and that their record-companies takes most of the profit anyway,they don't really see MP3's as a threat, but rather as a momentum to spread their music and gain popularity, hence creating the opportunity for more sales. I'd guess the only larger band to actually support the RIAA would be Metallica...

    • Re:Most artists don't support the RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "they don't really see MP3's as a threat, but rather as a momentum to spread their music and gain popularity, "

      That is bullshit! They don't like RIAA because they take to much of the income but that certainly doesn't mean that they like free-loaders that don't pay.

      Two different issues, it's no excause for beeing a free-loader.
    • I hate to admitt it, but on this one I'd have to "toe the party line". I think that metallica has a very valid point with the concern of control. If you've done something nifty and you'd like to see that it's release (if any) to the public is done in a manner you'd like then all the more power to ya

      Of course metallica is in a different sort of situation then five nines of the artistic community in that they're very established, & have the power (read $ and hence no need to pander to a fickle public) to do what they want, rather then what's expected of them.

  • And don't forget... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @05:41AM (#2731061) Journal
    You can also fight majors'monopoles by endorsing Free Art distribution policies.

    There is, for example GNUArt [gnuart.org] (soon to be translated in English, I swear) which promotes the application of the GNU General Public License to Art.

    BTW...

    Wasn't a Weezer video clip on the Windows 95 CD ? (an excellent Video Clip made after the "Happy Days" series)
    • You can also fight majors'monopoles by endorsing Free Art distribution policies

      Velvet Elvis wants to be free!

  • We've arrived! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by x136 ( 513282 )
    Ah, Sacramento is a real city now that it's gonna get Slashdotted. :) Now if only it had been spelled right. Now some city called "Sacremento" is going to get all the credit.

    More on topic, this is the coolest thing I've seen in a while. Go artists! Tell the damn RIAA to shove it up their money holes!

  • These concerts prove another thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @05:45AM (#2731065)
    "Elton John, Billy Joel, Ozzy Osbourne, Stevie Nick s, The Offspring, The Eagles, Weezer, and plenty of other bands"

    so basically all the old farts : what does that tell us ? that the older artists get, the more they realize how much the RIAA shafted them (and don't even tell Elton John about that !). Of course, that comment only applies to *real* artists, not fake teen bands that are direct products of the RIAA : if Britney Spear lasts beyond her first wrinkles as an "artist", she'll probably miss her RIAA-generated glory days dearly, when she finds out she actually needs talent to make it without them.

    • Re:These concerts prove another thing (Score:5, Funny)

      by TrevorB ( 57780 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @06:20AM (#2731119) Homepage
      The Offspring are "old farts"?

      Hey.. I listen to the Offspring, and they're about the same age as...

      OH MY GOD!!! I'm almost 30!!!

      /me hides his head in shame, knowing it's all true.

      ;)
    • Yep, Britney Spears, et al are still riding on their relatively new-found fame and fortune, considering themselves lucky and haven't had their accountants tell them exactly how much more money has gone to the label.

      Artists who have been around the block a few times have had more opportunity to get screwed repeatedly by the RIAA.

      The RIAA (and recording labels in general) have been living on the same scheme since the 40's: Keep the artists working for new contracts, constantly touring and promoting themselves while the labels cash in on the recordings. That doesn't work so well if the artist is allowed to collect the full amount of royalties that they really deserve on past recordings.

    • True (Score:5, Interesting)

      by King Of Chat ( 469438 ) <fecking_address@hotmail.com> on Thursday December 20, 2001 @06:42AM (#2731164) Homepage Journal
      With stuff like TV's Popstars, the record labels aren't even bothering to hide the fact that "bands" these days are made-up. Do you think that these mime & dance combos can afford to complain to their record labels? No way. They'll dump you and then just phone up the model agency and ask for 5 more people who look OK and can sort-of dance. No singing ability required. If you can read music (much less, write it), then you're probably too clever and might make trouble later. Much as I can't stand the guy, but at least Elton can actually play an instrument.

      I bet the labels can't wait until the CG stuff can be done cheaply enough to replace humans altogether.

      Sad times indeed.

      • Re:True (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Masem ( 1171 )
        I heard recently that currently on the UK's version of Popstars, the crowd favorite (and thus most likely to continue to the end and the guarenteed recording contract) is an unattractive, rather overweight person, who is a talented singer with a good sense of humor. This is worrying the producers of the show, because they're afraid to give this guy the contract because of his looks, so they are trying to find ways to either get this guy out of the audience's favorites list, or to get him to leave the show voluntarily. I very much doubt this will happen

        When I listen to music, the *last* thing I care about is how the band looks; heck, even at concerts, if a band plays well and puts on a good show while their hypothetical flabs of blubber are dancing around on stage, I'd have no problem with that. I'm their for the music and overall visual effects, and not just the appearence of the band.

        • Re:True (Score:3, Insightful)

          by King Of Chat ( 469438 )
          That's Pop Idol (I think - don't really watch these things myself). I think that there is an element of the Great British Public which knows that it will annoy the people behind the show so they are voting in droves. They know that the record company doesn't want anything new or original which might be difficult to sell. To paraphrase Pirsig:
          The whole system cautions against originality. Doing the same thing will get you an 'A', originality will get you anything between an A and an F.

          There's a lot of artists over the years who have lasted and haven't been that attractive: Buddy Holly (OK - he didn't last but the work did), Mick Jagger, Iggy Pop, Shane MacGowan, The Pixies. The record company behind stuff like Popstars clearly do not want anyone with talent or anyone who will last. The reason that the artists behind this protest are mostly the older ones is because they can survive without their record label. A1, Hear'Say, Backdoor Boys etc. cannot.
        • No, NO! BEFORE she did her own stuff.

          Think Yaz's (Yazoo in the U.K.) "Upstairs at Eric's" (recorded in E.C. Radcliffe's studio), and "You and Me Both". These combined Alyson "Alf" Moyet's voice with Vince Clarke's (from Depeche Mode) synth-pop sound (rumour has it that she was a club act looking to sing lead for a "rootsy blues outfit" and he said, "I can be that").

          For it's time, it was dance-able club music, but with meaningful lyrics, and a lead that could actually sing, despite her, what?, 300 pound bulk?

          Sadly, Ms. Moyet considers it the worst stuff she's done. Me, I think the exact opposite.

      • Not everybody realizes it, but it's not just the videos that are animated... the band doesn't actually exist. It's the brainchild of Tank Girl creator Jamie Hewlett and Blur's Damon Alburn, plus a lot of other people. The whole idea is that if you can accept Marilyn Manson or Eminem or Michael Jackson as stars, you can accept anything. Why not? Virtual pop stars have already been thought up (Sharon Apple) and tried (Kyoko Date), it's just a matter of time before they become accurate enough to be a significant force. Hell, I think an animated band has a better chance than a CG one - more style, less fussing over detail.
    • only applies to *real* artists, not fake teen bands that are direct products of the RIAA

      Christina Aguilera is a member [artistsagainstpiracy.com].

      I'm as shocked as you, man!

      There's a pretty diverse list of people there. Something for everyone to love (Mos Def, Q-Tip, The Roots, Aimee Mann & Michael Penn, Taj Mahal) and hate (Lords of Acid, Offspring, Sisqo, Dixie Chicks). Adjust lists for your taste.

      I'm kinda surprised to see Fred Durst [skylab.org] as a member, considering he's on the board of directors at Interscope. Who knows.
    • And what's wrong with waking up and smelling the coffee?

      At some point, you're beholden to others: you have to earn a living, insure against tragic loss, etc. But, you save a little for retirement, reach the point of not needing insurance (estate tax issues aside), and generally become independent of those to whom you were beholden in the past (employers, insurers, etc.)

      You now have time to reflect: did they treat you fairly? Did the relationship over time appear equitable, or was one side ("them") excessively leveraging your vulnerabilities against you? Do other people in the same situation think so as well?

      If the answer is yes, now that the "ties that bind" are broken, as it were, maybe it is time to voice your opinions of the injustice that was perpetuated, and try to end it for people now in the same position as you were.

      I keep reading and hearing of absurd recording contracts, with no chance for legal review, and I can't help but think, "who would bend over so far for a recording contract?" Someone naive, vulnerable, and desperate, that's who.

      As much as I am a libertarian, and think that whatever the market will bear is fair, I do not particularly like participants in a free market that (a) leverage their counterpart's vulnerabilities to their advantage, and more importantly (b) fight tooth and nail to prevent their counterparts from seeking alternatives. It's like the baker saying, "Oh, you're hungry? Well, the bread costs twice as much today as yesterday." Accepting it might be fair, but it certainly isn't nice, and I, for one, prefer to do business with nice people.

    • Look at it this way

      Elton John, Billy Joel, The Eagles

      Those are some pretty serious names. Weezer, Agularia, Offspring - those are some current bands as well, and not exactly nobodies either.

      I was surprised to see some big names...I was expecting like Nickelback, Left Front Tire, and a ton of stuff noone has heard of.

      I was surprised to see Ozzy there. I wonder if he knows what is going on :) Poor guy...every time I see them he just looks more out of it.

      Stevie Nicks? Trying to get some publicity?

      As for the Britney Spears comment, I suppose she can always use her body to make it without the RIAA. At least for a quick million or two from Playboy.

  • "works for hire" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by javilon ( 99157 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @06:02AM (#2731080) Homepage


    If anything, the Napster case has prompted artists to fight for a better arrangement whith their record companies.

    Maybe changing the balance toward artists, so they can decide how do they distribute their work, and not destroying the whole copyright concept, would be enough for many people.

    As things stand right now, I feel ethically correct to copy RIAA's protected stuff. Maybe this and other legislative changes would change it.

    If I know that 90% of the money I pay goes to productive people like musicians, sound tehcnicians, etc... (and this is possible with internet distribution and without spending money in pushing marketroid manufactured culture) I wouldn't mind to pay for my music.

    Also I would like a free market where people can charge different amounts for different products. Maybe a start up band shouldn't charge as much as a reputed musician.

    • Re:"works for hire" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "If I know that 90% of the money I pay goes to productive people like musicians, sound tehcnicians, etc... (and this is possible with internet distribution and without spending money in pushing marketroid manufactured culture) I wouldn't mind to pay for my music."

      Every time I hear this argument I can't believe anyone can possibly say it with a straight face. In modern society, there's a common understanding of payment for services or goods. If I offer a service or product you like, at a price you believe is fair, then you purchase it. You do not set the price (except by market demand) and your unwillingness to meet my price does not give you the right to steal. If you don't agree to the price, then don't buy.

      Based upon your philosophy, who sets the price for goods and services? Is it when you're satisfied all others must pay? If someone else doesn't like the price or workers compensation, does that mean both of you still won't pay, or does that mean they must pay because you're now satisfied? Where on your birth certificate does it clearly state "Not required to pay for any goods or services I feel don't meet my moral and financial standards for cost and worker satisfaction?" What do your 'feelings' say about the cost of cars, medicines and gold coins? Do those also become fair game when you don't believe in the selling price or production methods ($1US a day to work hundreds of feet down in a gold mine sure doesn't sound fair to me but I'm not out stealing, instead of buying, jewelry since I don't feel the workers are being treated unfairly).

      I won't argue the point of the RIAA, CD costs or artist compensation, that's a subject where we probably both agree. But, in my humble opinion, refusing to buy their products is a better solution instead of trying to mentally justify my theft of all compensation from the artists and workers (meager as it may be).

  • Just an innocent question.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @06:14AM (#2731103) Homepage
    Are Lars Ulrich and Metallica going to attend?

    -

  • An alternative... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joebp ( 528430 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @06:21AM (#2731125) Homepage
    Elton John: Universal Records
    Billy Joel: Sony/Columbia
    Ozzy Osbourne: Sony/Epic
    Stevie Nicks: WEA/Warner Brothers
    The Offspring: Sony/Columbia
    Eagles: WEA/Elektra Entertainment
    Weezer: UNI/Geffen

    Why don't they all just leave their major labels and take their 'business' elsewhere?

    And yes, contracts can be broken if you have enough money and/or an inkling of complaint (see: George Michael) -- and it does seem there's complaint. After all, they are planning a series of concerts.

    • Re:An alternative... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Adam.Steinbaugh ( 540388 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {dnerever_doog}> on Thursday December 20, 2001 @06:43AM (#2731166) Journal
      Let's say you live in a town where the biggest employer is a local factory. Hell, they're so big that you can't even open a store in town without having to go through them. Now, let's say that said factory treats its employees like crap, pays them as little as possible and treats the execs with large salaries and a company car. Are you suggesting that the employees shouldn't complain? The fact that the major label artists are getting together (almost like a union) is great. They're going to try and publicize the fact that labels aren't exactly in an honest business and fight to make sure that all artists have control over their work.

      (Note: my analogy was thought up very quickly and it's nearly 4 in the morning, so please pretend that its obvious flaws do not exist, such as the fact that you could get up and move to another city in our fictional town analogy ;))

      Anyway, Elton John has recorded his last album, he says, because he doesn't like it and he doesn't like the labels' bull. The Offspring battled with their label after trying to make "Conspiracy of One" available on their official site in MP3 format. Weezer also had troubles with Geffen to a point where last year they were shopping demos around trying to find a new label, IIRC. (Not only that, but they frequently play small SoCal venues under the pseudonymn "Goat Punishment", just so the hardcore/old fans get to see them in a more 'intimate' setting or whatnot).

      Hell, I'm going to this thing, for sure. I'll show up at the =w=/offspring/no doubt show and pass out anti-RIAA literature and stuff about how labels are fucking with "anti-piracy" CD protection. And IF (that's a big 'if') I can get the hookup, I'll pass out anti-RIAA stickers, too. If anyone wants to, er, sponsor me, feel free to drop a line. ;) good_reverend@fuckspam.hotmail.com
      • they're so big that you can't even open a store in town without having to go through them.

        Your analogy just broke.

        These artists had every opportunity to sign with an independent label. But they wanted the big bucks. New artists? Same thing. They see the first advance check with all the zeroes, quickly sign every paper thrust in front of them, ride the big ticket publicity machine to the top, buy a big house and a Ferrari, and then bitch a few years later about how much money the labels are "stealing" from them.

        It's bullshit. They knew what the contract was when they signed it. They took the money. Nobody forced anyone to do anything.

        Big labels don't have a monopoly. They do have all the money. If you want a piece of that money, then shut the hell up and take it like a man when the contract serves them more than you. Or find your own gigs, eat Kraft Dinner, sign independent, and have freedom to express yourself artistically. But for God's sake, don't take the blood money and then whine about how the contract YOU AGREED TO isn't nice any more.

        • How many of them are there out there? Name a few truly independent labels that are on store shelves.

          Not a lot of them is there?

          Tell me again that they had much of a choice- no, nobody forced them to do anything. Neither did the sweatshop workers of the past- they could have not worked effective slave labor hours, etc. for a pittance.

          And, BTW, the big labels DO have an effective monopoly- they have over 90% of a given market between them. The smaller players don't matter for the most part and don't really have an impact on things.
          • no, nobody forced them to do anything. Neither did the sweatshop workers of the past

            Oh PLEASE. Sweatshop workers? Get your head out of your ass. We're talking about people that have chosen to pursue an artistic endeavour instead of a 9-5 paycheck. They're not struggling to keep their kids from starving to death. What a pathetic analogy.

            the big labels DO have an effective monopoly- they have over 90% of a given market between them

            Over 50% market share != monopoly. Small labels are just as good at producing albums as big labels. They just don't have as much distribution and can't give the artists as much money.

            I repeat: if your greed leads you to choose bucks over art and sign a deal with a big label, then keep your trap shut about "artists rights", because you're not an artist, you're a whore.

    • Elton John: Universal Records

      Actually, only on paper. There was a big brouha in the UK press recently about Elton being so pissed about the money grubbing bastards in the music industry that he has decided never to record again. I guess this concert is the next stage in the fight.

      I don't much like his style of music, but kudos to the guy for standing up to the biz. Go Elton!

    • George Michael lost his lawsuit against Sony.

    • The reason Prince changed his name to a symbol and became "the artist formerly known as Prince," was to screw the record companies.

      I'm not a huge fan of his music but I respect him more than most any 'big name' star. His heart is in the right place [go.com].

      • Actually, this is a mis-report of what happened. The reason he stopped using "Prince" was because his contract with Time/Warner was so draconian that when he broke it, they claimed (successfully) that the very stage name "Prince" was their creation, so he wasn't allowed to perform or record under that name without TW's involvement. So, instead of bending over, he dumped his name in favor of the symbol until the contract expired. The press went with "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince" because there was no way to pronounce the symbol. In one fairly entertaining vignette, he was being interviewed by Rosie O'Donnell, and it was hilarious to watch as he got visibly annoyed with her because she kept calling him "TAFKAP".

        So anyway, even more kudos to him for not caving in.

        Virg

  • Damn (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @06:31AM (#2731143)
    I had a really great fucking post but a stray keyclick nuked it. I don't feel like typing it all again so anyone interested please use ESP and I will send you a mind bullet. I'll also point to a handy website. Here [harvard.edu] is a really good page not because it contains much info but because it has two very good papers written about the recording industry and does a good job summing up what my mind bullets contain. It's good to see artists telling the RIAA to fuck off, the only problem I see is these artists have already made their money and have their fame, the recording companies could drop them like a bad habit and they could still make money on their own. There's thousands of bands that don't have that ability and probably never will. The recording industry likes it that way but then again, so do most people who really like listening to music (or just want to be cool for owning some new popular album). That blows.
    • The problem of exposure is technical, not financial.

      Again and again, I see the argument that if it weren't for RIAA, artists would remain unknown.

      This is bullshit.

      Multi-million dollar television advertising campaigns, MTV videos, and store promos are not necessary to create a successful artists.

      Easy access to music is necessary.

      Through my explorations with music-sharing technologies, I've been exposed to dozens of artists that are new to me, and I've discovered genres that I'd never known about before.

      India Aria: she's neo-R&B, I've never heard of her before stumbling across one of her songs, and I wouldn't hesitate to purchase her works now. RIAA did fuck-all for her, as far as I'm concerned.

      Doc Watson: he's old bluegrass. I found out I like (some) bluegrass because I was given a Grateful Dead album ages ago. I love the Dead, so I'm doing searches for Garcia's name. Find him linked with Doc. Download a track -- wowsa! Next thing you know, I'm listening to dueling banjos. RIAA had fuck-all to do with this discovery.

      Cajun/Zydeco: RIAA hasn't done fuck-all to promote it. I have a Gumby (!) CD, came across it in a used CD bin and just had to buy it out of curiousity. There's a Zydeco track. So I search for Zydeco, see what else is out there. Yowsa! And once again, RIAA has fuck-all to contribute to this.

      And on and on.

      Do artists need RIAA in order to become popular? NO.

      What artists need is a way to make their music available to the Internet-browsing public, in such a way as to encourage exploration of music (ie. "if you like X, try Y"), and with a micro-payment system that ensures they get paid on a per-song download basis.

      The end result would be a lot more artists making a good living wage, instead of the current asinine system in which a handful of artists make millions and everyone else starves.

      Fuck RIAA.
  • The RIAA has been screwing the artist for years, its about time they fought back. Haha... I mean how long did the RIAA think all this could last? Lets see what exactly do they do? They write the music right? No wait. They play it? Again no. So then... they record it? Nope. Basically they get rich, I think thats all they really do. Now they're going to get what they deserve due to the fact that at least in the US the govt and people are easily influenced by famous people with money. This along with the bill proposing to allow online music distribution to break the RIAA's choke hold (seen last week or so on slashdot), should be enough. When the shit hits the fan, I wish it'll be on pay-per-view, I'd love to watch the RIAA's lawyers try to weasel up some good reasons justifying their actions.
    • "I mean how long did the RIAA think all this could last? Lets see what exactly do they do? They write the music right? No wait. They play it? Again no. So then... they record it? Nope."

      Amen! I think we should apply this standard to other industries, as well. How long does my employer think he can last? Let's see what exactly does he do? Does he design the part? No wait, he hires an engineer for that. Does he build the prototype? Again no, that's the guys in the toolroom. So then... he mass produces it? Nope, it's a bunch of factory workers.

      I mean seriously, all he's supplying is money, management, and the physical resources necessary for manufacture. Oh, and he pays for ads in industry magazines, in an effort to artificially inflate our market share. Everything else is done by employees that see little more than an hourly wage.

      • Your employer puts in money, the RIAA doesn't even do that. The bands owe back the record label for anything the label spends out of their royalties.
      • Your post is a great effort, and I thought it was a good analogy to the recording industry, but there's a difference that time has introduced. Unlike your employer, musicians are finding it easier and easier to put together very high quality music by themselves than ever before. Thirty years ago, recording studios were the only way you could hope to put together a decend recording, and they were very expensive (and rightly so). So, the record label would sponsor a band's entry into the field by giving them money to record, with the stipulation that they pay back the investment (and a percentage of the profits) out of the money made from selling the record. As time passed, however, the labels got more and more profit-hungry and as technology gets cheaper, less and less relevant. Now, there's very little interms of investment standing in the way of producing very high quality music.

        So, now I ask, if it's so cheap to produce good music, how come anyone signs a recording contract anymore? The reason is that they are now so large that they control the production channel, and so you can make your music on the cheap, but you can't afford to publish it yourself because:

        1.) Most record stores are national chains, and few national chains will buy from indie labels, for the most part.
        2.) Most radio stations get kickbacks from their playlist (this isn't an accusation of criminal activity; it's perfectly legal to pay for play) so if you aren't backed by a label you can't afford to buy a slot to get your song broadcast.
        3.) Distribution centers (CD press facilities and such) charge a lot for small runs (again, rightly so, as it's more costly for them to do several small runs than one big one) so while making the music is cheap, making the CDs is expensive.

        So, to bring it all home, your example would only hold if you could design the part yourself at home (my guess is your design equipment is a tad more costly than your run-of-the-mill home PC) and didn't need to work for them to use their manufacturing facilities (even if it cost you more). More importantly, your employer would need to make you sign a contract where he gives you pay, but then if the part doesn't sell X units you must make up the difference by paying him back. Not so nice anymore, is it?

        Virg

    • > I mean how long did the RIAA think all this could last? Lets see what exactly do they do?

      I'm just speculating, but I suspect they actually served a purpose when the electronics industry was young and not every superstarwannabe had a digital recording studio in his bedroom and an internet to lead the world to his bedroom door.

      Nevertheless, dinosaurs will not go willingly into the night.

  • Sing it to them! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CordMeyer ( 452485 )
    This "shadow" of negativity over technology, which the recording industry has used Napster and other peer-to-peer systems to grow, now over shadows our new technological achievements as mankind, and demeans the ability for artists to understand the truth of the options available now to them.

    Because of the existence of the new system of distribution enabled by technologies progression into the new century, artists need to understand that a recording contract is not necessarily needed to become successful and reach the masses with their artistic impressions. This I wish to seriously stress unto everyone. Now is the time for the options for the artists be removed from these shadows of negativity, and that we enable the true digital music revolution to shine unto the world. Giving back to the artist the very art which they create to make the this industry, and allowing them to reclaim the control.
    • You make a good point, but could you try to find a more confusing way to say it? Sheez, who uses "unto" anymore except televangelists?

      Summary: Advances in technology (for making music) and the Internet (for advertising and distributing the music) have made recording contracts much less important. Artists should note that it's no longer necessary to sign a record contract to find success, and should avoid being fooled into thinking these technologies are bad for them.

      There now, that's better.

      Virg
  • Thanks to big companies we have today in TV only stupid, primitive, commercial music. They check what could sell and what not, then promote stuff like Britney Spears or Marlyn Manson. In early 90s I could watch MTV for many hours and wasn't bored, now I can see only stupid commercial stuff.
    It's nice to know that Ozzy is on our side. What's about Dio, Tony and rest of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc...? ;-)
    • I think within 3-4 years we may see many famous artists rise up and do a major class-action lawsuit against the RIAA and its member record companies that could run into the many billions of dollars.

      There are three reasons for this: 1) the artists feel that the record companies are taking WAY much percentage of record sales, 2) record company demands are stifling artist creativity, and 3) retail pricing is discouraging legitimate sales of audio CD's.

      The third point is a particularly serious one; the very fact that CD's go for between US$14 to US$18 per disc at both online and mortar and brick record stores is essentially cartel pricing, if anyone who's studied economics understands. This provides the very economic incentive for sites like Napster and other music sharing sites in order to circumvent this cartel. Now, if the record companies had been quite a bit smarter and sell CD's at a cost of between US$8 to US$9 per disc, there would be much less incentive to pirate music, since customers are far more likely to buy a CD a the lower price.

    • Thanks to big companies we have today in TV only stupid, primitive, commercial music. They check what could sell and what not, then promote stuff like Britney Spears or Marlyn Manson. In early 90s I could watch MTV for many hours and wasn't bored, now I can see only stupid commercial stuff.

      ?!?!

      MTV has always been stupid commercial stuff. There has never been a single year in its history when it wasn't. Even Headbangers Ball was distorted and commercialized.

      Reminiscing about early 1990s MTV is like a Windows ME user reminiscing about how fast and stable Windows 98 was.

  • Umm (Score:2, Troll)

    by underpaidISPtech ( 409395 )
    >Money raised from the concerts will help fund an offensive against the major record labels for allegedly denying musicians a share of royalty earnings.

    Not to downplay the fact that alot of artists *do* get the shaft by the record companies, but considering the -- erm, financial success -- of these artists, wouldn't it be more fitting to hold some benefit concerts to

    -feed the homeless
    -make a wish for a terminally ill child
    -donate gifts to a low-income family
    -donations to Amnesty International to keep the newly founded Afghan regime under control. One warlord for another right? Just give it 10 years, you'll be hearing from them again soon.

    It *is* nearly Christams after all.

    Now, I'm not a big xmas fan at all, and I've actually lived in some seriously shitty areas, so I have my criticisms of the poor and needy. However, I really don't think it's appropriate to be tossing money at Music Artists to help offset their court costs so they can fight the big bad RIAA. Let them foot the bill themselves, with funds from their own industry group. If $ARTIST wants to take his/her cut from my concert ticket to buy some coke, or put in for their court fees, that's their business. Just don't masquerade it as a "benefit".

    <crotchety Old Man voice>
    And another thing! Like hell am I'm going to go see that aging, worn-out fucking cokehead Elton John dance around with some homophobic little angst-ridden punk sonafabitch (like you have it so hard, go work in a sweat shop in China you fucken LA Burb refugee), all so they can whore their asses a little more to get me to buy their silly-ass brand name shoes.

    In my day, we had to actually do WORK. You know the kind; shitty, unpleasant, unfulfilling jobs 8 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year, no vacation, no benefits, the kind of job you dread so much you don't wanna wake up it's so fucking soul-destroying, just so we could get sold to a larger comapany and get layed off.

    I only wish I got paid to dance around and curse like a MOFO next to jigglies, calling my mom a fucken biatch. And get paid to do it to! If you got fucked by your record deal, deal with it and join the club pal, because we are ALL getting fucked by the system.
    <crotchety Old Man has stroke and shuts up>

    Update: I just re-read the article and realised that the concerts are to be held the night before the Grammys. I have no idea when the Grammys are held, I never watch them. But my original point still stands.
    Elton, if you're reading this, take those Lion King royalties (your $$ not mine) and sue the ass off the RIAA, that way you can make everything you've done since 1983 dissapear ;)
    • Bah. People always trot out homeless sick kids when there's a competing cause.

      News flash: homeless sick kids are not the only important thing on the planet.
  • ... this whole thing would have never happend.
    At first we had napster, the CD sales increased. Somehow the RIAA didn't like this, nobody knows why.
    Now they try to copy-protect CDs (which is not going to work anyways). What is the simple consequence? People won't buy such "defective" CDs, instead download the songs they like.
    But it comes even better, some sickminded consulting people think that a pay-for-download-AND-listen system would work.
    Now some bands have to jump in and tell the RIAA that they are going the wrong way.

    And what's the outcome:
    The RIAA spent more money on copy protection and lawsuits than they will ever get back from it.
    Guess who they think has to pay for this... and guess who is not going to pay but download instead, and it goes on like that...

    Can anyone tell me where this stuff is going to end?
    I'm sick of it.

  • Holliday shopping made easy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cosyne ( 324176 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @08:07AM (#2731277) Homepage
    Cool, now i can just print out the list of member artists [artistsagainstpiracy.com], cross-reference it to my list of people to buy presents for, and figure out what to buy in a matter of minutes without the guilt of blindly supporting the RIAA. True, depending on the label some money may make its way to their hired thu^M^M^M^M^M legal dept, but at least some other fraction of my money is going to fight said legal dept.

    And while i'm at the record store, i can buy some scratched up used CDs which still, in theory, include liscence to enjoy the content originally pressed into those disks, so i can go home and download songs without pirating anything, while not paying full price ;-)

  • They will have to adjust their retoric now. In the past, they have blasted ripping and file sharing as acttivities which deprive musicians of payment for their work. With so many major acts coming forward to differ , the RIAA's sanctimony is exposed as phony, self serving propaganda. Now they will need a new marketing strategy to sell their heads-we-win, tails-you-lose agenda.

  • Musicians need to be free agents (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20, 2001 @08:24AM (#2731296)
    The fundamental problem is that musicians sign their lives away for multi-album contracts at an early stage in their careers. These contracts are signed with the artist at a huge disadvantage (for instance the artist often signs away their right to negotiate with any other studio without realizing that it was legally binding, let alone what they are now in for). And studios are under all incentives to take full advantage of this.

    But as actors realized decades ago in movies and as professional sport after professional sport has found out, if you give talent the ability to renegotiate contracts early and often (ie make them free agents) then the top talent gets an absurdly better deal, and the average talent gets something much closer to a decent shake. Make musicians free agents and studios will have incentives to treat artists better, not worse.

    Oh, people talk about having a studio founded by the artists, for the artists. But such a studio will have all of the same incentives as the existing ones, and in the end will turn out the same. Therefore until musicians wake up and start demanding to be free agents, I confidently predict that their treatment will continue to suck.

  • They aren't trying to kill the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @08:27AM (#2731301) Homepage
    To clarify, the artists in this case want

    Their music to no longer be classified as a "work for hire," aka a pointless industrial design owned by the system... such as the look of a car, the shape of a replica statue of liberty, or N' Sync. There isn't much money to be made creating "works for hire," nor is there many legislated rights associated with them.

    Compulsory licencing for online music content with compulsory compensation for artists. Much in the same way that radio was working up until Clear Channel, compulsory licencing would mean increased online distribution and competition and with a per-song fee paid to artists. Artists would also like to have the option of licencing "their" music to free services like limewire and napster, in the hopes of making more on concert sales and merchandising.

    An end to long-term contracts. This makes sense, as artists don't have much barganing power with their labels when they first sign that 10 year piece of paper. At the time it looks like a much better prospect than returning to Mc Donalds.

    All of these things are aimed at making more money for the existing, successful (and unsuccessful but signed) artist, but with little real attempt to reduce the grip of the Recording Industry from the musical world.

    I know a dozen musicians, all of whom have in-house recording studios capable of producing some truly professional quality audio and burning it to disk. And I know dozens of people who run sites, some of which involve payment authentication systems. Add a buck for postage, a few downloadable sample MP3's, and make the artists do all the legwork and you have a replacement for the traditional music distribution system. Why, then, do we not have benefit concerts to startup alternatives like this? (Hint - look at the dinner tables of the artists throwing this concert... )

    While the tweaks to the system advocated by these artists are by and large good ideas (lord knows we could use a compulsory licencing scheme for online music), they are not in reality as revolutionary as some people here seem to think.
    • Their music to no longer be classified as a "work for hire," aka a pointless industrial design owned by the system...

      A "work for hire" example the average Slashdotter will understand: if you're a code or web monkey, everything you write while on company time is a "work for hire." (Some will even try to screw you out of stuff you work on in your own time, too.)

      As such, you have no control. The company owns everything, automatically. There was no transfer of copyrights at all, and thus no power in your hands over any of it. That's fine if you're coding for someone, but it doesn't make much sense if you're a musician.

      Did it occur to anybody that Elton John is just an empolyee? That's basically the deal they get.

      Anyway, if these works were licensed to the record company, or certain rights were assigned, instead of everything being "work for hire" (a concept which was invented not for music, but for things like blueprints and diagrams), the artists themselves would get to decide what people can and can't legally do with their music.
  • Part of the beauty of this is that these recording artists will be in LA at their record labels expense for the Grammys, not to mention the fact that the LA area fans will have a chance to see acts together on the same show that would never happen otherwise.

    It costs a lot of money to fight the RIAA in congress, and the RAC has recently hired two professional lobbyists to educate the congress to their situation. Many half-truths have been spoonfed to congress (along with campaign donations), as well as the court filings (such as in the Napster case) where the RIAA presents a document, that if accepted, basically acknowledges that the RIAA is the copyright owner, thus making music recordings work for hire. Even if they lose the case, they win. This is why the RAC filed an amicus brief on the behalf of Napster recently. The RIAA tried this same trick in the MP3.com case, but then settled with MP3.com to avoid having to prove "ownership" of the recording they said they "owned". The artists have yet to see a penny of the $125 million or so that was collected in the MP3.com case.

    If they are screwing the big name acts, who actually make a lot of money for the label, what chance the newly signed bands have. This is going to be a major coup for the artists, as they are gaining support from the fans and in the public eye, by attacking the actual problem, rather than attacking the fans who support the bands.
    • Here's an idea: don't fight RIAA in Congress. Don't invest the money in making an already corrupt government even more corrupt. And don't play RIAA's game.

      If you're pissed with RIAA, quit making music. Pull a Prince: make yourself such a pain in the ass that they're glad to get rid of you.

      Elton can leave RIAA and set up an alternative organization that isn't corrupt, stupid, and lazy. He's got hundreds of millions of dollars: put a tenth of that to use, and it'd revolutionize the music industry.

      All that's *really* needed is a micropayment system that ensures artists get paid for music downloads, and a database that makes it dead easy to explore genres and artists. "If you like X, try Y."

      Yes, yes, it's expensive to record. But anyone that's serious about making their music can drum up the money to do it. Hell, we have people making independent *movies* on their credit cards, second mortgage, and friends' money. Surely anyone who's a decent musician can do much the same.

      The only significant obstacle at this point is technical: the micropayment system and database that will enable the revolution.
  • A nice article [salon.com] detailing the coming demise of the RIAA!

    Short summary - its about how the music industry is starting to collapse. Like a rat backed into a corner, the RIAA is trying to impose some "strongarm" tatics. Mostly this article deals with music encryption on their CD's, but does do a bang up job discussing its flaws.

    What I really don't understand is why the RIAA wants to treat US the consumers, as bad guys? What ever happened to trying to PLEASE the customer, not piss them off even more? Haven't any of these folks taken economics classes in school (that is if they even WENT), its called supply and demand. You f@ck up the supply chain more by flooding the country who BUYS most of their crap with non-working, encrypted coasters, and the demand for said crap drops - thus inciting further financial ruin to them.

    Finally - don't play the "piracy" card for the kiddies of the USA, just LOOK at Asia! Piracy is by far more rampant there than anywhere in the world! If you are going to try and claim that MP3's and Napster have taken a "gouge" out of your music sales think again. Just take a walk down the streets of Bejiing during the open market and see how many illegal software and music titles you can find amongst the rats.......

    To the RIAA - I say F@CK you, you're day will come when your empire will topple......
    • What happened to pleasing the customer?

      Let me help you understand it: the RIAA is the mafia. There are no customers: there are only dupes, who are going to damn well do what they're fucking told to do, or Guido is gonna come down and bust kneecaps. Yagaddaproblemwitat?
  • i'm a musician and i definitely want to get paid for the work that i do, but i don't think that the so-called 'music-industry' does anything but shove canned crap down the throats of our nation's youth while trying to make a decent return for themselves. the entire market is saturated with complete garbage.
    programs like napster allow bands that really don't have the resources to get their music heard. in addition to this, i'd like to restate what countless others have said. I'VE PURCHASED ALBUMS BECAUSE OF NAPSTER, MORPHEUS AND PROGRAMS LIKE THEM!!!
    although i really don't care for the bands that are playing in this rally, hats off to them!!!
    hats off for having the balls to tell this 'industry' to shove off and leave music to the people who know it best-- MUSICIANS!

    end of rant...
  • You load 16 tons, what do you get?
    Another day older, and deeper in debt.
    Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go,
    I owe my soul to the Company Store."

  • The major labels cross-license their catalogs to record clubs, such as Columbia House and BMG Direct. The labels take enormous advances that they do not share with recording artists and pay artists based upon a 50% royalty rate.

    Wow...I've been part of the problem all along, thinking "what a good deal" by being able to buy CD's dirt-cheap from the big mail-order houses. This is news to me...I've always been miffed by the way the mail-order houses stamp their name and contact info all over the CD jackets, as if they owned the rights or something.


    Maybe those of us who claim to be anti-RIAA need to put money where piehole is and stop buying from Columbia House, BMG, etc...

  • The tentative lineup is Billy Joel, Sheryl Crow, the Eagles, Dixie Chicks and Stevie Nicks at the Forum in Inglewood; Offspring, No Doubt, Weezer at the Long Beach Convention Center; Ozzy Osborne at the Los Angeles Sports Arena;

    That's a great lineup! I like and respect all those bands. Especially The Eagles, Dixie Chicks, Offspring, and Weezer. Throw in Guns and Roses and it would be perfect. They all play their own insturnments, write their own songs, and apparently they can see Hillary Rosen and her mates at the RIAA as the evil greedy people they are.

  • Let's make sure that for every click on the RAC site, we are all clicking at least 10 times on the RIAA site.

  • Not to be an asshole... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nettdata ( 88196 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @12:07PM (#2732276) Homepage
    ...but I really don't see much of a need and I don't have much of a desire to support an artist in their struggles against their personal or individual contracts/etc with their employers, the record companies. RIAA as it affects my rights to fair use of stuff I BUY? Nuke em from orbit, as far as I'm concerned.

    But let's face it... nobody ever (well, maybe not EVER) put a gun to the head of a no-name, starving artist and forced them to sign away their rights in order to allow them to get a shot at being rich and famous; they made that choice themselves. I'm sick of the "woe is me" and "but that's unfair" attitudes of these people. Big Lou made N Sync what they are, and now that they're famous and seeing just how much money their band is making, they're whining about how they should be getting a bigger cut. Srew that. He put his industry contacts, know-how and money on the line, took most of the risk, and they agreed to it, so they should have to live with it. Do you think they'd pony up the huge bucks if it tanked? Yeah, and Brittany's tits are real, too.

    The real problem is that there are WAY too many rock-star wannabes that are willing to sign away everything for life in order to take a shot at being on the cover of Rolling Stone, so there's not much forcing the record companies to offer something other than a "we take everything forever" contract. That'll only happen when there is someone with enough talent (and potential revenue generation) to make the record companies fight over them. Sarah Mclachlan [srahmclachlan.com] is a case in point. She's got a great deal with Nettwerk Records [nettwerk.com] in that she owns all of her own publishing. That's because she was smart in (a) hooking up with an excellent manager, Terry McBride, and (b) she was smart in assessing her options and making her choices.

    In a way this is similar to what I'm going through right now in taking a software product public. We're getting LOTS of offers for VC funding, and most of it is Pirate money... "give us 80% of the company, and we'll give you a bit of cash". Lucky for us we've got investors that are willing to take a more reasonable stance with us. But if those "more reasonable" investors weren't there, and the only deal we had was a bad one, and we took it, should we be able to whine and complain about how we were taken advantage of and abused? Absolutely not. We were presented with an offer, and WE ACCEPTED IT. If we were stupid enough or desperate enough to accept a bad deal, then we'd have to live with the consequences.
    • The real problem is that there are WAY too many rock-star wannabes that are willing to sign away everything for life in order to take a shot at being on the cover of Rolling Stone, so there's not much forcing the record companies to offer something other than a "we take everything forever" contract.

      Exactly, you are completely correct. There's too much of a supply of musicians to ever make a dent in the business end of things. Sound familiar? Think pre-union United States. Just because there are people who are desperate to make a living as musicians doesn't necessarily mean that the current market and standard contracts are deserved punishments.

      Yes, some have had the opportunity to get decent deals, but only after they've been informed of their rights. Many bands, and I'm not focusing on the multi-millionaires of this article, are ignorant of their rights and the fact that their contract is little more than a very bad loan. A loan that in all respects should be illegal to hand-out if it wasn't for the massive lobbying power of these labels.

      Yeah, there is shared liability here, but in the end the more empowered musicians are the better off consumers are.

  • Lousy hypocrites. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xmutex ( 191032 )
    Anyone else think this is largely hypocritical of the majority of the artists involved?

    Stage a "protest" on one hand, accept a Grammy on the other. E.g. Elton John, perhaps others, certainly all of them given the chance.

    The Grammies are more or less a way of rewarding the artists who help the RIAA the most by largest sales. Call me cynical, but no worthwhile music is rewarded with anything these, but certainly large profits are.

    This whole thing is only skin deep, but what shoudl we expect anyway from "major recording artists"?

    • Re:Lousy hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Legion303 ( 97901 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @01:18PM (#2732611) Homepage
      Skin deep or not, money-grubbing assholes or not, the point is these people will bring the RIAA's abuses to light. Slashdot certainly hasn't. Is Joe Sixpack more likely to get his news from Slashdot or from the Eagles?

      So even though it's one group of rich bastards against another, "fuck the RIAA" is about to become a household phrase.

      -Legion

  • Somewhat futile (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @12:29PM (#2732404)
    I don't see the fun in opposing as association of labels instead of attacking each label individually. The RIAA can dissolve tomorrow and nothing will have changed. What artists need is a class-action suit against their label for arguably decieving them with the "work for hire" clause in the Satellite of Love act of 1991 or whatever it was called.

    Secondly, consumers must gripe and stop buying the artists' music. If Elton John fans go pissed enough he would be forced to file a suit to get a more respectable label (or perhaps form his own indie label) to sell his music. As long as you keep buying it doesn't matter, the label will have the upper hand.
  • I notice a lot of people are complaining about mass marketed music like NSync and Britney Spears. The problem is that, the RIAA isnt responsible for this watered down content manufacturing - people in general are. Take a tally of how many people listen to Linkin Park or the Offspring or something, then square it against the number of adolescents who buy BS and NSync. Sorry folks, but cheese pop seems to be where all the money's at, and if you're like Katz and think that people shouldnt follow simple market forces then go back to writing for Pravda :P

    If you and others like you like music by these bands and buy it, fine. If there's money in it someone will service that niche, be it the RIAA or autonomous artists. However, until more people buy 'proper' music as one might refer to it, that's all it's gonna be, a niche.

  • Good luck (Score:3, Informative)

    by snarfer ( 168723 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @12:48PM (#2732488) Homepage
    Good luck. Did you know that the new Chairman of the Republican Party is a lobbyist for the RIAA? I mean, at the same time he is the Chairman and a paid lobbyist. (Of course, his lobbying fees went up when he got the other job.)

    This is a breathtaking new level of corruption - from the party that promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Surpassing even the time that Republican Tom Delay delivered envelopes full of cash from tobacco companies to members of Congress who had just voted for a pro-tobacco bill. he did this on the floor of the House of Representatives just after the vote.

    The reason these guys get into office is because this cash buys thousands of campaign commercials telling us how honest they are and how corrupt the Democrats are. Yes, the same Democrats who are trying to make this sort of bribery illegal.

  • Ticketmaster (Score:2, Funny)

    by ocie ( 6659 )
    I wonder if they are going to have TicketMaster sell the tickets. They are almost as evil as the RIAA.

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close