Artists Strive To Wrest Rights From Music Industry 287
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."
Stop saying RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the companies that need to be vilified.
- Sony
- EMI
- Universal
- Warner Brothers
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.
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?
So don't sign (Score:1, Insightful)
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: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.
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.
Re:Well. (Score:1, Insightful)
Define "artist". A lot of so-called artists are really just mouthpieces for RIAA labels. They have no talent and if it weren't for the sheer number of other professionals making sure they are always looking and sounding better than they really do and getting way more airplay than is justified, they'd be complete failures.
I'm all for real artists having control, but face it, a lot of the folks claiming to be artists are a lot better off with the RIAA labels.
Re:Well. (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.
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?
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.
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 is only one small part of the final product, and it's the most readily available.
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, one should certainly expect repercussions for deviating from a contract, and one should consider not signing a contract they plan to deviate from. Just saying. Comparing the voluntary signature on an entertainment contract to slavery is pretty absurd.
Re:Website looks interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok, how about this - if you ever release a work for public sale, then it must ALWAYS be available for public sale - no putting the genie back in the bottle.
If you want full control of your work, keep it to yourself.
What really irritates me is some corporate entity (or person, I suppose) who holds the rights to some body of work. I want it. Fred has an old original, and he wants a gazillion dollars for it on ebay. Martha has one in her attic, but forgot she has it. The corporation feels it is not worth their while to sell it to me, because it's only worth about five bucks, and it would cost them fifty to get it to me, so they just refuse to part with it.
Why should I not be able to get it at a reasonable cost? Fred is just unreasonable. Martha is just an unknown to me, I could never find her. The creator has long since given up the work, or lost interest. Why is this lost to ME? My only real option is to try to pirate it somewhere. I think once something (Intelectual Property, actually)is put up for sale, it should then forever be available - and if the copyright holder chooses to not make it available to me, then it should automatically fall into the public domain. Which it should do after a reasonable - REASONABLE (NOT practically-forever) amount of time anyway.
Just my 0.02
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.
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:2, Insightful)
It certainly wasn't intended to be a troll. It was half devil's advocate, half genuine belief. A lot of the piracy arguments on Slashdot rely on the RIAA for justification. If that justification didn't exist, I strongly suspect piracy would continue anyway. It's just something to keep in mind whenever somebody tries to absolve themselves of guilty feelings by criticizing the RIAA.
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.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe some people will. But many people are simply motivated by profit opportunity, and you're right, they will keep pirating.
I always maintained that it was for profit opportunity though. I don't care who I'm fucking over. So don't paint us all out to be hypocrites here. Some of us are honestly evil. The people trying to "justify" it are just a vocal minority.
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.
Re:Missing Mass. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, for some pretty thin markets, I think 100% of the customers are online. Techno Trance, for example.
For more mainstream music, no, I don't believe anywhere near 100% are online, willing to spend money for music, or are able to download music quickly. When the CD section at WalMart closes down, then I will beileve that the music promotion business is no longer needed or useful. I have no idea what their demongraphics are, but I can guess that they are dial-up Internet users that are currently still spending money for music.
Most of the people I know haven't spent a dime on music in the last five years, will never spend a dime on it again and have high speed Internet connections. There is no possibility of selling them music ever again because they know how to download and where to download from.
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! :)
Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Legalese is not dynamic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 ;)
But you can hire good sound engineers and a good production studio. The issue we run into is that we have essentially loan sharks who front the money for the recording on the proviso that they get virtually everything that comes in.
OK, a lot of musicians get sucked into the whole "I'm going to strike it rich" scam. I feel sorry for them. But I feel sorrier for the musicians who understand that they have to work a little bit at a time to raise the capital for a quality recording, only to find that they can't sell it because the distributors own everybody. These days we can walk around the distributors and cut them out of the deal. Musicians don't have to sign ridiculous deals just to sell their music.
The top bands will always want to have quality sound engineering. Sound engineers will have jobs. But people are going to have to work their way to the top and build a business rather than be vaulted there by some thug who takes 95% off the top.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:2, Insightful)
--
JimFive
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.