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."
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:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (Score:1, Interesting)
That, and the fact that label lawyers are far more numerous and skilled than whatever an individual artist can possibly muster. I have the feeling this effort will die fairly fast, leaving small new musicians still working in indentured servitude.
Donation link (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
it's simple (Score:2, Interesting)
STOP SIGNING RECORD CONTRACTS!
There is no reason to do that anymore, at least there shouldn't be. Make the music, record it, and put it on iTunes or some other media.
Burn it to CD-R and sell it on eBay or Amazon. CD-Rs cost less than $0.25 now.
Re:Good for Them (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 else) to do something you love. The only time you make excellent money is when you become a superstar. If the RIAA didn't exist, that will almost never happen, while with it, you stand a pretty good chance (and basically no chance if you are against it). So artists put up with the RIAA because they'd otherwise probably be looking at flipping burgers and doing gigs on the weekends. The internet has made that not quite as true, but they'll still probably never be able to book a large venue.
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...
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.
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.
Re:it's simple (Score:1, Interesting)
To hell with recording. Play live and negotiate for a percentage of the bar. Don't even bother with ticket sales or cover. If you're good enough, people will come in and drink. If you suck, people will still come in and drink. You should be able to take home as much as the bartenders and waitresses did on the night you played.
Re:Well. (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 represented by the RIAA will be able to provide low or no cost media as teasers for self-advertising. The CC is already well used in this regard.
This is no fast swift death. This is death by a thousand cuts, each only nicking a small portion of flesh. Unfortunately, a corporation cannot take opium to allay the pain.
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]
Re:it's simple (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.
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.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (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:4, Interesting)
I agree that citizen piracy won't stop, but the artist's still stand to gain from stopping the institutionalized kind.
Re:Stop saying RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
You should have if you really wanted it. Sure, there is the giant "SONY" as a global conglomerate, but each branch of "SONY" does not always know or even approve of what the other branches are doing.
There is SONY Entertainment (SONY Pictures, etc) which covers music, movies and games. Then you have SONY the hardware company, which makes things like televisions, the PS3, computers etc.
My uncle used to deal with Sony, and he had some rather amusing stories of the entertainment division constantly fighting with the hardware division over features, suing each other, having fits about DRM support, etc.
The entertainment branch is what gets you things such as silly formats like ATRAC, SecuROM DRM and rootkits.
The hardware branch is what gets you things like the PS2, PS3, VAIO, Walkman, etc. You know, the stuff that is actually useful.
From what I understand, if there wasn't such an iron hand at the top running the place, SONY Entertainment and SONY the hardware company would have parted ways long ago.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Stop saying RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:pirates sing happy birthday without paying (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that song out of copyright now? There are vocal and musical tracts which can be still copyrighted but isn't the Happy Birthday song long out of copyright?
No, still in copyright [unhappybirthday.com].
Remember just how long copyright lasts. Just because something was written in the 19th century do not assume it is out of copyright in the 21st.
Universal and Warner (Score:3, Interesting)
To stop the RIAA, everyone needs to hurt those that fund the RIAA.
These are the companies that need to be vilified.
- Sony
- EMI
- Universal
- Warner Brothers
Be careful. In 2004, Vivendi sold 80% of Universal to General Electric but left Universal Music Group out of the deal. So to boycott Universal Music Group, you really should be boycotting Activision and its joint venture with Vivendi Games. Likewise, Time Warner spun off Warner Music Group in 2005. These two companies might still be worthy of vilification due to their MPAA affiliation, but don't associate them with the RIAA's practice of suing its customers.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've pirated music, normally simply to see if I like it before buying anything but yes I'd be more inclined to pay if I knew all my money was going to the artists rather than 0.02% of the money I handed over going to the artist.
But then I'm not a great example of a hardend pirate.
I've donated directly to the programmers of several games I've particularly liked and musicians I've been particularly impressed with.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:3, Interesting)
25% ??? Are you smoking crack while eating crack-berry ice-cream with crack flakes on top???
Ani DiFranco was at one point the highest paid musician in America per album earning (I can't remember exactly but something like) $1.50 on a $15.00 CD. She owns her own record label. Hootie and the Blowfish at the time were the second and earned something like $1.30. For $3.25 and album is probably more than 300% more than almost any signed band gets and more than enough for a band to pay for some quality studio time where the engineer works for them instead of making the recording AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE.
Re:As long as citizens exist, true pirates will ha (Score:1, Interesting)
Piracy existed before the RIAA, et al started adding DRM and calling fair use piracy, etc
Define piracy. The Romans did it too, they called it "imitatio et aemulatio" (copy and improve), and it was a valued profession. Giving something a bad name does not make it bad by definition.
RIAA reacted with extremism to the rampant global copying that was going on. I have doubts that if the RIAA and gang were removed from the picture, that the Artists would fare much better.
That depends. If you mean "piracy won't decrease", then you may be right. Time will tell (I hope). But at least the artists will get more revenue for each album sold.
Those who are making excuses now for their bad behavior will find new excuses later. Not all of course, but a significant number.
Then let's discuss availability. How many local groups/bands do you know? Do you think you'd know more of them if there were less el-cheapo global icons being pushed into the world? Do you think you'd know more of them if some of your friends gave you some of their songs for free? Would you attend more concerts if you knew of more good local groups?
Answering yes to any of those questions would probably mean that starting artists are better off in the new situation, even when piracy doesn't decrease. It might be harder to reach global dominance, but a band will anyway if their music is really that good.
And on a personal note, I know of only two bands that are really that good: Porcupine Tree and Dream Theater.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was using a made-up figure to illustrate a point, no crack was harmed in the making of that post. I know artists get half of f*** all. That's why I'd love to pay the artist direct - I could pay maybe 10% of the commercial price, yet the artist would be getting many times more money than they are used to.
I also know that you do need some guys in the studio - although you are much less reliant on expensive studios these days, a decent home-recording setup is within most people's means, if you can afford a guitar & amp you can afford a mixer and a laptop. Unless you're trying to record an entire orchestra you can either buy your own equipment or hire a small independent studio for peanuts - last one I hired cost £150 per day including the tech guy. OK the setup is not as impressive as the labels' studios, but the "low end" tech is as good as the professional stuff that was used to record stuff perfectly well only a few years ago.
I disagree that you need marketing arseholes or $WEBSITE, if a band is gigging (and good) then word will spread, these days with social networks and such like the word (and the MP3 to go with it) can spread very quickly. All you really need is to be able to sell your music through your own website direct - traditional media (without the reliance on marketing suits) could fall back to the ludicrously old-fashioned methods of going to gigs and reporting back to people who's hot and who's not.
Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (Score:2, Interesting)
In reality, the companies paying for those advertisements in turn use revenue from an increase in price of their services and products to fund them. You, as a consumer, in turn purchase those services and products.
Nothing is free.
I have no problem with paying a bit to support not only artists, but the production, promotion, and support of those artists done by record labels. However, I dislike the current methods of same labels.
I remember reading that when CDs were first promoted in the late 80s, promises were made that prices would drop, since the CD was so cheap to produce. Once publishers were able to cover start-up costs in purchasing new technologies, the actual disks would only cost pennies to press. Yet we still pay $15-25 for most CDs in stores.
I feel artists should receive the profits from the fruits of their labors. The labels give them loans to write and record an album, and once those loans are payed back (as well as the recuperation of production/publishing costs) then the album generates true profit, most of which should be returned to the artist.
I also feel that the artists should retain creative control and copyright to their work. As it seems to be now, they create beautiful works (well, the artists I choose to support do. IE: your favorite band sucks) but they cannot control it once it's in the hands of the labels. This situation makes me think of sweatshops: dirty, hungry children slaving away for pennies a day to create hundreds of thousands of pairs of your favorite $100+ sneakers.
Finally, I have no problem paying for music for these reasons: my favorite artists, unless they are mainstream like Slipknot or Opeth on Roadrunner Records, are usually distributed through European labels or American indie labels not associated with the RIAA. Therefore I usually don't support the labels that claim allegience to these thugs of the courtroom.
Whew! That got long-winded. TL;DR: stop calling it piracy, down with the RIAA, blah blah blah