Sony claims of Artist's Name URL For Life

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

How can the Artist sign it away?

If the artist in question hasn't registered that domain name (with InterNIC, or whomever) how does Sony actually expect to hold up that contract? The artist in question doesn't have rights to it, just by having the name. We've been through this here before, and I think most of us agree that just naming a band doesn't give rights to .com.

So, this contract asks the artist to say "Hey, this thing I don't own... you now have rights to it!!"

sounds like BS to me

Sony Suicide

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

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

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

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

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

What about the artist formerly known as Prince?

To me, this represents an Enigma. If Prince is legally no longer known as prince, I would think that domains such as:

prince.com
and
theartistformerlyknownasprince.com

should not be covered by this restriction.

However, since his name is not currently part of any ISO Standard character set, and thus can not be a part of a url, I would think that this means that any website devoted to prince would not be covered by this restriction.

Sony's view of the Internet

It amazes me how differently corporations (in this case Sony) view the internet. If they're not trying to patent banner ads (ala Doubleclick) then they're trying to wrest away our first Amendment right to freedom of speech. What does Sony think the difference is between a fan web site and a fan magazine? I think ultimately the problem is that "big business" sees the internet more like television than anything else. That's why we saw the channel paradigm a few years ago, and that's why we see portals today. Sony thinks that if it cuts off competition, it will get more viewers. What they don't get is that the internet is meant to be an active medium, and that active participation produces far more buzz than a passive medium does (witness /.). Ultimately, if Sony were to try to shut down fan website, they'd fail...but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Re:More than just the URL

When I was dealing with non-compete/non-disclosure issues at a previous job, my contract lawyer told me about Sony's non-compete.

Most of the non-competes that I've seen prevent the employee from working in the same geographic area (usually the city, possibly the state) for a period of time (I've seen 1-5 years).

The lawyer told me that Sony's non-compete goes far beyond that: they include the phrase "the solar system" quite often. Scary, eh?

IANAL, but I understand it's unreasonable, and probably unenforcable to put such wide geographic limitations on a person's career. I know that it's unenforcable to prevent somebody from working in the tech field for five years. The courts may permit up to one, but five will be laughed at by the judge. An intelligent judge anyway. :-)

WRT Sony's URL-grabbing, I would assume all stage names are Sony's, period. If the signee became famous with their real name, that /may/ be arguable in court.

I searched a bit, but can not find any Sony NDAs or non-competes on line. A lucky virtual nickel (5c) to the person that can reprint one!

Contract editions

A record deal isn't just about distribution. It's a lot more to do with the marketing than anything else. Anyone can press out thoushands of CD's for about 25c each, but you need to advertise to sell them.

In Australia we have 200 "chart" stores that are the record industries worst kept secret. All the major labels put ultra marketing dollars in to these stores (and very little in to any others) in order to pump up the album on the charts. Once they're in the top 20, the CD moves to the chart rack and will be carried by ALL the stores. The label will also release your singles to the radio stations for air play. Where else are the general public going to here your music?

The only saving grace is that once you've got a hit, people may actually look for your album (It took me a week to track down "The Living End" EP before their album release). If people look on the 'net, well, what more needs to be said.

I suppose if you use the net to advertise/market your album, you can bypass the misguidings of a record label, but... You absolutely have to have a fan-base/name/history/etc before you can go it alone. When you're that big, you can delete items you don't like from a contract. Just put a line through it on the contract, then it's legally deleted from the contract.

For this reason. I don't think we will see the death of the record label for a long, long time.

Microsoft's next move?

Think about it, Microsoft could create a band called "The Slashdot," get published by Sony and have /. wiped off the map. Heck, why stop there? Imagine the pack of new groups that Microsoft will be "encouraging" Sony to publish, The Linux, The FreeBSD, The RedHats, The Kernel.Org, the DepartmentOfJustice. And you thought Wintel was bad, wait until the Unholy Triumvirate Of Technology starts having all non-Microsoft promoting websites shot off the web!

"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."

The cost of Promotional Investment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vindication for MP3 advocates

This shows just how scared record companies are of the possibility of MP3. The whole idea of them losing fortunes through Internet piracy is complete nonsense. Go to just about any pirate MP3 site and you'll find low bandwidth, limited selection, broken links, and ratio servers. With these conditions it's impossible for the pirates to move anywhere near the amount of music as the major record stores.
A legitimate artist, however, can easily set up a high band-width web site to distribute MP3 files and sell CD's, cutting out the record company completely. By using this contract clause, Sony can prevent that possibility from ever occurring. Giving them complete control over the electronic medium of the artist, even if things fall out later on (i.e. the artist get angry, and decides to go independent). Expect other record companies to follow suit now that the precedent has been set.

Re:Tour income vs, Album income

Concerts make very little money compared to album sales. Especially for smaller name bands. Picture this: Big name band puts out new album, sells 500,000 copies with an income of about $1.00 each. That's half a million dollars, plus what the label paid them to record it in the first place - Probably about another $500,000 - Total, $1 million.

Sounds plausible, but not really accurate. Record companies give artists miniscule royalties from each CD sold, and they recoup the cost of recording/producing/etc from the artist's tiny fraction of the royalties. The overhead for live performances is not as high as you suggest above, and live concerts are indeed a major source of income for artists. Although they had it worse than the typical band, the Goo Goo Doll's plight with their record company, as recently aired on VH1, really illustrates how badly the labels will try to screw the artists. Their "A Boy Named Goo" CD was selling like mad, the cut "Name" was all over the airwaves, and they were on top of the world. When they got home from their tour, they got their first royaly statement in the mail. After sales of the CD (selling really well) and recording/production costs were considered, the band owed the label something like $100,000. Ridiculous. They sued and settled out of court to nondisclosed terms. They toured some more so that they could pay for the ongoing legal battle.

The point? Touring pays well, royalties from CD sales are usually quite unfair to the artist.

Artists will take more control of the process: Prices for quality digital recording workstations (PC based, or machines such as the Roland VS1680) are falling. Distribution, traditionally a stumbling block for artists who were able to get over the recording/production hurdle, is being solved by the internet with sites such as MP3.com and the like. Promotion & advertising? Well, in the "old days" it was word of mouth around town. Now it will be word of mouth around the world.

Artists will become "overnight sucesses" when a critical mass of people on the net who like their stuff spreads the word. There will be a lucky few whose mp3 archives will be slashdotted one day by a link or story in a highly visible forum, and their careers will be catapulted. We will need record companies about as much as we will need travel agents.

Unfortunately, this is typical.

I've worked for a major record company, and this doesn't surprise me in the least. A lot of newer bands will do just about anything to 'get the deal' since they're usually very young, eager and sometimes naive. They're so taken with being catered to and treated like stars that they don't realize the reality of having it all yanked away from them when their next CD fails to move enough units.

I'm really hoping that the whole MP3 thing (or whatever format is next) will serve to stick it to the major record companies in a big way.

~

How to run a record company:

1. make a cream pie.

2. take bookend from living room, place on kitchen table.

3. lean pie against bookend, at 45 degrees.

4. take 5 steps back.

5. run into pie, head first.

6. go to step one.

Typical of mass media

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

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

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

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

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

You're allowed to cross out sections from contract

Only replying to this to get it at the top but...

On every contract you ever sign, you can legally cross out anything that you don't agree with. That's why both parties sign it. You pick out what you don't want, and sign. They either agree and counter-sign, or disagree and write up a new contract.

Any artist considering signing with Sony would be advised to dlete this from their contract.

Just my 2 bob.

Re:Sony Suicide

In addition, Sony has the distinction of being one of the most anti-taping labels around, if only through their WORK nameprint, which services folks like Jamiroquai and Fiona Apple. They also control Ben Harper and Barenaked Ladies. Many of these artists treat fan not-for-profit/fair-use taping as free advertising. David Schools of Widespread Panic [widespreadpanic.com] was astonished when they first began to play Colorado after playing small clubs in the southeast as a "Dead Covers band" and people at the concerts would mouth/sing the lyrics to the songs.

Artists like Phish, Dave Matthews Band, and of course, the Grateful Dead, took the example of early bluegrass artists and allowed folks to bring in their own recording equipment and record concerts for their own archives. People like me [csoft.net] would take these recordings and trade them at no profit for either other recordings or blanks and postage to our friends or others who request them. It's a concept I've been involved in for several years, and what initially attracted me to Open Source.

At any rate, Sony fights all taping, and generally throws in language in artists' contracts forbidding even recording themselves for their own archival and study[never hurts for a band to be able to bone up on old material or see how they sounded x years ago.] We can only hope that other labels like RCA [ granted, they're a BMG label, but they have a clue on taping, with artists like Bruce Hornsby, DMB, Agents of Good Roots and Vertical Horizon, which are all pro-taping and have it in writing in their contacts from what I understand!] have some effect on the industry as a whole and discourage Sony from more restrictive ideas like no taping, SCMS [ bleah! ], or SDMI, not to mention the opposition of artists to control their own destinies with regard to their operations on the net.

"Who are you?What do you want?Why are you here?Where are you going?"-JMS