Courtney Love Sues for Her Share 272
yibyab writes "Isn't this just sweet? I'm not a Courtney Love music fan, but I love her moxie. Upside is reporting in this article that Ms. Love wants her share of Universal's windfall from the MP3.Com case." Its pretty funny actually: since universal supposedly sued mp3.com protect the rights of their artists. Ms. Love figures she should be entitled to a slice of hundred million dollar pie. Of course she won't get it, but at least this will prove who the record industry is really out there working for. And I like Hole. I think Celebrity Skin was clean, well produced rock album. There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" coming out any more either so thats saying something.
Re:Actually- (Score:1)
Oh for the love of fucking christ...do you people ever get it right?
Metallic is not against mp3s! They have nothing against the file format, nor does anyone else you idiots rail against day after fucking day.
What Metallica (and others) object to, and I'll say it slowly so you retards can understand, is people distributing their music without their permission.
Now, you can agreee, disagree or take a flying fucking leap for all I care, but get it right. Metallica is NOT against mp3s. I'll say it again for the mentally challenged here. Metallica is NOT against mp3s. They don't have a position on mp3s, they have a position on people distributing their music in violation of current copyright laws. They are NOT attacking mp3s!
Fucking feebs.
Actually- (Score:2)
As a result- they ended up instinctively attacking Napster like a rabid wolverine, too- it's apparently their usual approach to anything that seems threatening. If they become convinced that mp3s are truly necessary or helpful to them rather than harmful, they will quit attacking mp3s.
Dre is just a fool- I don't think _he_ owns his masters. I would guess that he begged for _lots_ of advance money from the record companies- so he's surrounded by luxury and owns none of it and is massively, insanely in debt to the record companies without a hope of recouping. It's not hard to understand why someone like that would end up being the labels' lapdog. He's their property.
Are you insane?? :/ (Score:2)
- granted, go on...
- 'of their own dollars'? What are you smoking? Read a real contract. It is _your_ dollars they spend- every penny right down to the dishes of mixed nuts in the lobby is 'recoupable', meaning that it comes out of your royalties. It is A LOAN, not a gift. Repeat, A LOAN. Is this so hard to understand? Have you ever taken out a loan? When you do, is the bank 'giving you its own dollars'? I'd say it was your future dollars they are giving you, betting that you'll be good for it. This is not even getting into the fact that you'll be damned lucky to get five grand- basically, to get this sort of loan against royalties you will need to spend about as much of your own money in building a buzz as you expect to be loaned. If you can't spend five grand looking good for the record label you're unlikely to even see five grand out of the record company. You are _very_ far from reality here, talk to some professionals and ask them how much an artist like you describe could expect to be advanced against royalties.
- Ha! I suggest talking to your bank manager. Build a relationship and build credit through taking small loans and paying them back responsibly to show that you can forecast cashflow effectively. Then when you need a million dollars you've done your homework, you're talking to the _right_ people and you'll get one _hell_ of a lot better terms than you'd get off the record labels. Think of record label advances as credit cards- except the rates are significantly worse, and the terms are a bear. Credit cards don't tend to forbid you to work- label contracts will tend to forbid you to record or perform for anybody else. If the label's refusing to fund you 'cause you didn't recoup, you not only owe them vast sums and won't get paid but you have to come up with your own money just to continue working as a musician, recording and promoting the albums you're not going to be paid for. Labels do not think long term these days- except that they'll happily sign you for a ten CD contract- give you 5-10K to make and promote the first one- then if you are a monster hit, they cash in, and if you stiff, you gotta pay for the other nine albums yourself, but they will take all the proceeds until the advance is recouped. Oh what a deal
:P
- Hope you know a damned good lawyer. Careful- if you let the record label find you a lawyer, this is what often happens- if ever you sue the record label, you are surprised to find that your lawyer declines to help you much- but shows up bright and early in court- on the OTHER side. Yes this is conflict of interest, your point? You expected _better_ ethics than the Mafia? This really happens, be careful. If you're not really well represented, forget it- you'll never see any money. You might be famous until the next sucker comes along without a good lawyer. Why do you think so many famous music superstars, now and in the past, are _children_?
- OK, now we are in pure fantasy territory. If you're really making a million you _are_ likely to want more, but that's because the kind of person capable of doing that isn't likely to stop at a million. Nobody capable of earning that much would be this dumb about the music industry- naivete does not earn a million dollars, unless you mean 'earning it for somebody else'.
- Actually the batting average is hugely worse than 9 out of 10- more like 9999 out of ten thousand. And again, you're talking 5K advances mostly- the figures here are waaaay out of whack. Courtney L's term of 'sharecropping' for the situation is a lot more accurate- what gives you the idea that these labels are so indispensable? (never mind the amusing notion that they 'give you a slice of the profits'! Were you listening about the recouping?) What is with this claim of 'you cannot function as a working musician without the record labels'? It's a business, not a system of royalty. It may be that the labels so tightly control all record stores and radio that you're substantially handicapped if you try to create your own network- it's true that where once new labels sprang up in a free-market sort of way, now they mostly don't exist, they are vanity imprints of the majors. Even so, other avenues for promotion and distribution open up. The closest you'll get to a label that 'made' its artists is the heyday of Motown- and even then, they were fortunate to stumble across the right artists to mold and control.
- Good: capitalism and a free market only work when there is decent information getting out. Though it took me way too long to realise that your 'you' is Courtney L. herself. Okay, so I am Courtney Love. Does that make you a fat, middle-aged record company executive? Or just a deluded fool?*
* The irony of this exchange would kill Alanis Morissette at twenty paces. I say 'it's a business, it's damn ruthless too, talk with some insiders, here are some common practices, protect yourself'. "FallLine" says, 'record labels will give you a million dollars just in case you are a star! Anyone who doubts this is an ungrateful pup being greedy and not settling for just a million dollars!'. And _I_ am supposed to be the 'sweet aroma of idealism'? This is the pot calling the _teacup_ 'black'. Do you think you could avoid talking total madness and false promises, in case there is still a musician out there somewhere in the world who might believe a word of it?Re:How do the record companies GET the copyright? (Score:2)
Re:Are you insane?? :/ (Score:2)
Okay: you say, "Yet the fact remains that at least some of the artists that do sign get both rich and famous."
Name one.
I went around and found plenty more multiplatinum artists who actually went _bankrupt_ (not just not-rich, filing Chapter 11). TLC, of course (massively multiplatinum. Toni Braxton- would you believe _two_ albums both over 7X platinum at the time she filed for bankruptcy? Remember 'U Can't Touch This'? MC Hammer filed for bankrupcty too. How many more do you need? Plus, you get artists like the Brit band James (platinum, debuted at #1 in brit charts and stayed in top 10 for over 8 weeks) who did commercials for a hotel TO AVOID bankruptcy. The next time you hear music you recognise on a commercial, think for a second- is that artist avoiding being bankrupted by their disgustingly bad contract by turning to the commercial sector? Is this now _expected_ of artists ('you can't earn squat from your quintuple platinum albums but you can do some commercials and _they_ will put food on the table and keep you in nice clothes!')? Why exactly shouldn't a million selling album be enough to keep an artist solvent? This stinks.
To add a bit of detail to the wildly ranging figures we're throwing around, it became fairly customary to spend upwards of a quarter million dollars on- not an artist- a _video_. In this case, sometimes the label only demands half the video expense be recouped! *yay* It's characteristic of the tendency to throw huge amounts of money at the technology of recording- and have the artist recoup most or all of it (in the case of a million-dollar video the artist might be forced to recoup half, rather than all).
The whole thing really does stink. Again- name one artist who's got rich and famous lately- we can then watch that artist's career, and see if they end up declaring bankruptcy, like Toni Braxton, at the peak of two separate septuple-platinum albums. I don't care if they _talk_ like Kid Rock: I'm telling you that very possibly _all_ of these guys are going to end up totally hosed. Name one that isn't- and Metallica doesn't count! They fought the labels every step of the way, and had none of the support you claim is customary!
makes sense (Score:2)
Re:Are you insane?? :/ (Score:2)
Re:yee-haw (Score:2)
...and at the end, she even quotes from Snow Crash!
Please follow the link, read the story, and either mod the parent post up two billion points, or demand that it be modded so.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Give it a rest... (Score:2)
We all know that the labels are just huge marketing machines. We know that that's the only reason people sign with them in the first place. I don't buy your "9 in 10 of those investments fail" line though. Got some proof? Where do you get your numbers? If they can turn a bunch of guys like N'Sync into stars, I'd hate to see what the failures are like. Then there's the fact that the labels don't seem to even have to promote you. Many artists get little or no promotion, and they still have to pay the label back for the production of the album.
Then you get the labels spouting off about how they're protecting the artists by suing Napster. They're doing no such thing. They have very little responsibility to do anything for the artists (except the bigger ones that have gotten better contracts). The industry made $15 billion last year! That's a helluva lot of money for an industry that you claim is making such a gamble on the artists. I think the reason behind that is that it isn't such a gamble. If things truly are as you say they are, then their profits shouldn't be anywhere near that big.
Re:Give it a rest... (Score:2)
I listen to quite a bit of music from mp3.com. Mostly from bands and people I've never heard of. There's more good talent and music out there than I would have imagined before hearing this stuff myself. I have started buying cds from mp3.com and from the bands themselves now. Would be nice if more people took the time to check out what's available there. We could move a lot faster towards getting rid of the huge marketing drain of the record labels. Sure, it will still cost something to present your work online, but it will be a hell of a lot cheaper than the current system and the artists could actually keep more of the profits.
An alternative marketing model (Score:2)
This is a very simple idea which hit me when I was walking down the street one day.
All the crappy musicians we here about these days are only heard about because the record industry promotes them. If there were an alternative channel to promote music, maybe I could begin to find some music which doesn't make me wretch. I mean I don't have cable, and I can't bear to listen to the radio... all the loud carpet-shop commercials, "zoom-zoom-zoom" tv-like ads, repeated songs and manipulated news... it just sucks.
What if somebody were to write a magazine which reviews small musicians, and sponsors them to produce MP3s. With a large enough startup capital, they could pay for producers and the like.
The magazine could have two sections... one for musicians which showed remarkable talent and were sponsored. Another section for musicians who are willing to pay to promote themselves. Self-promoting musicians would be clearly indicated... a condition of this could be that the musician has an MP3 file available, and that the musician themselves own their own name and music.
So you sit back, read your magazine, download the MP3s of some bands you've read about etcetera. Maybe it could form a niche. Maybe you don't need radio stations and record labels to popularize music... you could use night clubs, live bands, print and MP3s
This way, the slew of crappy MP3s are filtered out, people have to read to get a sense of which musicians are worthwhile... musicians get some publicity and could potentially earn cash for selling downloads of MP3s...
You could scrap the meatspace printed matter when flat panels become as durable, cheap, high resolution, low power consumption and establish as wide a circulation.
Then it occurred to me that if I've thought of it, somebody else is probably already doing it.
Where can I get this magazine?
Re:Good for her!, Copyrite Editorial (Score:2)
There is a reason I speak so harshly here.
I said, ""Most people are unaware of this or think it is OK. It is not.""
You said,
"Actually, if most people think it is OK, it is OK. In a democracy, what is OK is decided by the people, not by the author of poltical texts such as this."
You hit the nail on the head, this is a "poltical text", and has a very specific purpose. In previous discussions here some have mentioned the lack of understanding of how to lobby, or how to work the legal system on the part of readers here.
This is my attempt to mend this lack of solidarity. When a party decides to push some legislation through Congress, do you think they propose the law they would like to see passed, or do they create an extreme law and prepare to bargin down. Democrats, Republicans, the MPAA, the RIAA, even the AARP hit the ground running on one platform one view and one extreme draft of how the law should be. Most lobbiest groups overstep their bounds and then perform a backstep or two in the name of `comprimise'. It's time we did the same.
It's true that a republic is all about what people think is OK. That's why it is IMPORTANT we change their minds. But if we are even the slightest bit wishy-washy even five minutes to midnight, when we finally do bargan, the bill will be passed with 10 rider bills and no teeth.
Folks we need teeth and we need to bite them where it hurts! Only when the internet community rips some aggressors antique business model to shreads for trying to cage it, will the status quo leave the internet alone.
Re:Go Offspring Go! (Score:2)
(looks like theregister's broken now
Life is indeed getting interesting...
Your Working Boy,
Another flaw in the RIAA arguement... (Score:2)
The artists aren't going to see a dime from ANY of these lawsuits and legal agreements between RIAA members and web music distributors. Not one. "Artists rights" be damned.
I took a look at the "legal" page of live365.com, a shoutcast/icecast compatable multi-caster. They claim that they are paying the publishing companies (well, specifically ASCAP) royalties.
Yet they don't ask or require you to log what songs you play (RIAA & ASCAP/BMI do require it of am/fm broadcast, plus tv/movies). And they don't say anything about the RIAA and their $5000 they want (plus the royalties for the recording itself).
So my attitude is -- how does the ASCAP know how to distribute the money they receive, if they aren't being given a log of what music is actually being played over live365's systems?
My Theory: They Don't.
ASCAP itself keeps the money. You can't distribute money equitably if you don't know who all is properly entitled to it. Or at least, that's my theory. Additionally, that covers ASCAP, but not BMI (and a lot of stuff on the 'net is British).
I raised that question to the legal department address @ live365, and received no reply. Because of this, I'm inclined to think i'm right on this. Evading a logical question on a legal issue by non-answer seems to be a common technique of most of the soul-suckers of the entertainment + legal industry.
Re:Taco loves music (Score:2)
Cheers,
~ Signal 11
--
Re:The RIAA Police... (Score:2)
Thank you.
:)
Re:How do the record companies GET the copyright? (Score:2)
Universal will probably be sending someone over to Courtney Love to be repossessing those Prada pants of hers any time now.
Re:Are you insane?? :/ (Score:2)
Chalk up one more celebrity on slashdot
... actually I would be surprised if she didn't peruse any of the commentary on at least SOME discussion sites
Re:Taco loves music (Score:2)
Yeah but most of us are unix geeks. That means C. Who is number zero?
Re:An alternative marketing model (Score:2)
I bet it'd start with "www"
duh.
Re:How do the record companies GET the copyright? (Score:2)
Getting Courtney out of her pants isn't exactly difficult.
(Sorry, Courtney; couldn't resist.)
-
Re:Good for her.. (Score:2)
<CONSPIRACY THEORY>
I think Metallica, Dre, et al. may just be pretending to hate MP3s. That way they can give MP3s a whole bunch of publicity and hasten the fall of the greedy RIAA, without actually supporting MP3s (which would draw the ire of The Ones Who Sign The Checks).
</CONSPIRACY THEORY>
Or maybe they're just clueless. *shrug*
It makes sense to me too (Score:2)
1) You're a starving artist who has spent the past 5 years going no where because you can't promote yourself, not even online.
2) A label, or "The Man" (take your pick), offers to spend millions of their own dollars promoting your music. The only condition is that not only do they own that album, but they own your future works too, under such and such conditions.
3) You sign, realizing the alternative is worse.
4) You get famous, and then rich.
5) A year or two later you realize that a million dollars really isn't so much money, you want more.
6) You get greedy, because it doesn't occur to you that the labels MADE you. You ignore that you could have just have easily failed, and the label would have been short millions. You ignore the fact that, indeed, 9 in 10 of those million dollar investments fail. You ignore the fact that the labels need to maximize their profits on those few success stories. That means they NEED to own all of your professional efforts and just give you a slice of the profits. You ignore the fact that if you were allowed to walk today, you, the starving artist of yesterday, would've NEVER had the option to sign in the first place. So despite the fact that fact that you can promote yourself today and theoretically enjoy a fatter slice of the profits, the you of today is contingent on the signing and fulfilment of those documents yesterday. You can't have one without the other, but that doesn't matter. you're bitter*
7) You, the disgruntled artist, tell the world about just how little artists get. You use your notoriety to post your diatribes with the intention of compelling your label to cut you in on a bigger piece of the action. Or maybe you're just plain bitter, but it doesn't matter, reason has failed you.
* Now maybe the labels are assholes, but I believe in the function of the markets. If things were as easy as people made them out to be, there would be other options--you certainly wouldn't sign a document that only gives you a slice of the profits if there were better alternatives available. But there aren't. Those are your options, you can take them or leave them. By destroying the labels methods of profit, you risk the popular artist, whether or not the current iterations of them realize it. If you want to destroy the labels, do it through competition, not through destruction of contract. **
** Caution: Flamebait. Anything that lacks the sweet aroma of idealism gets toasted by the wee ragdotties.
Yes, moderate me down (Score:2)
Life is tough all over. (Score:2)
Before you trump out numerous failures, let me also remind you that I also couldn't name the latest Lottery winners, yet I have no doubt that all of them are [or would be] recieving their annuities [were it not for their own failures]. Yet it's also well known that something like 9 in 10 of them go bankrupt within 2 or 3 years; not because the state fails to pay them, but because of their own stupidity.
I propose to you that 95% artists' problems are due to the very nature of the beast, marketing. In order to become a popular artist, you need millions of dollars in marketing expenditures. Human eyes are scarce because they tend to cluster to tightly, I doubt the net will have a significant impact--almost by definition. Today the radio and television is the primary marketing vehicle. Tomorrow it may be some internet sites, but as those eyes grow there, so will the competition for those few spots, and we'll be back in much the same situation. The players may change, but the positions will remain the same.
What we are really talking about here is business, not art. Anyone can produce art; but business is tough. The vast majority of restraunts, for instance, go out of business, not necessarily for want to culinary ability, but for lack of resources, cash flows, poor location, etc. There are a thousand woes in every industry. The only difference, in my mind, is that the odds are tougher, but the stakes are correspondingly higher too.
Though you may have had an argument 20, 30, 40 years ago, that the labels merely had a lock on distribution, this simply is no longer the case. With the growth of the internet, getting access to the customer is no longer a question per se. Any artist with a couple dollars in his pocket can deliver his songs to any consumer with access to the internet, so long as the customer is willing. It's a question of eyes, not of hands. Despite claims to the contrary, the labels don't have a lock on those eyes. They gain access to consumers' eyes by shelling out cash. You should view the labels more as financiers/investors, albeit highly specialized ones, than as producers or distributors.
You ask what the labels do to deserve their share of the money? Well you should also ask what any banker does to deserve their share of the money. Money is scarce, that's simply a reality of this world. It's something that everyone who has ever operated a successfull business understands, it may not be fair, but it's hardly the labels fault, any more than it is the bankers fault. Now maybe the labels are assholes sometimes. Maybe their invest poorly. But so do bankers and other investors.
Artists compete for scarce resources like everyone in this world. The only difference is that they are vastly more visible to consumers, especially young impressionable ones. So we hear their woes amplified many times over, but that doesn't mean they're "right". They complain about the labels, when what they really should be complaining about is life itself.
Re:Are you insane?? :/ (Score:2)
Re:Are you insane?? :/ (Score:2)
Bull, bankers are some of the most risk averse people you can find. I assure you, no bank will ever loan a starving artist that is working part time as a dishwasher (or what have you) a million+ dollars because they like the sound of their music. If bankers are such a great alternative, why don't you see the popular artists flocking to them? Gee, maybe because all the artists that are popular need lots of cash to get that way.
Though there is no excuse for that kind of behavior, I demand proof that all of them are wilfully guilty before I paint them all with a broadbrush. That being said, this really doesn't change the core aspects here.
Ah bull. There are plenty of naive millionares, artists and not alike. In any event, this isn't really naivety as much as it is greed and tunnelvission. I've known plenty of very smart people who lack the common sense when it comes to issues that don't serve themselves. People can convince themselves of almost anything, especially when it serves them well.
Well I'd say the promotional resources are scaled in proportion to the artists believed potential. In certain areas, it may well be 9 in 10. I don't really know the exact odds here. But I do know well enough that they're slim. So slim that the risk is very real.
Oh please. Every would-be artist knows this, and has heard these complaints since day 0. Yet the fact remains that at least some of the artists that do sign get both rich and famous. Those which don't, don't see either (well damn rarely). So the would-be popular artists sign. Those that don't, those that choose to believe in the mythical power of mp3.com and the like, simply don't see diddly squat. Sure there might be a few flickers of hope, but I'll believe it when I see it.
And the semiconductor industry made even more! (Score:2)
In any event, can you prove that 15b dollar figure? Or is that just conjecture? Pull out their balance sheets and show me, and make sure how you label "they". There are a lot of different agents in the game, they're not all the same party.
I, also, ask you to explain away how the labels still exist if they do nothing? I've yet to hear a credible reason. Why do artists still sign with the labels today, with the nominal distribution costs of the internet? Marketing is the reason.
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2)
Nothing. Who the fuck said it did?
Anyway, she's sueing for money won from MP3, so indirectly, she's taking this money from MP3.com.
That's a heck of a stretch. The amount of money coming out of MP3's pocket will be unaffected by whether she wins or loses, but Universal may end up with less of its heist. What part of this simple bit of math do you not understand?
Re:Taco (Score:2)
There is good 'current' music, but either they don't play it on the radio at all, or it gets played very rarely.
Kr0n and Soggy Bizkit are not rock bands.
Whatever. I'm still annoyed they dropped the sunday night ska show.
--K
MODERATORS: This is NOT offtopic. However, I did insult Kr0n and Bizkit, so flamebait or troll may be appropriate.
Just helping you out - I know moderating is tough after smoking a huge rock.
---
Re:There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" (Score:2)
Rush. No great songs that you'll still be listening to in 30 years. Now, what're you going to do
about it?
Please. This is just another manifestation of the "things were better back in the day" syndrome.
There are great songs made by artists in the last 10-15 years that people will be listening to in 30.
I'm not saying most of it makes it onto mainstream radio. THAT might be the difference. And I'll grant that Britney and the Boys suck. But no mistake about it. The good music is being made.
On an encouraging note, about 10 years ago, we all had to suffer through MC Hammer and New Kids On the Block and similar bad pop ilk. 2-3 years later, things got better. Sarah McLachlan. Pearl Jam. Nirvana. Mary Chapin Carpenter. Toad the Wet Sprocket. Etc. I won't claim that these are the people folks will listen two in 30 years. But I'd bet at least some of them will make it 10 or longer.
And none of this includes the stuff that just doesn't get played. You know few of these...
Re:The REAL story (Score:2)
<a href="http://99x.com/mp3/">here's</a> the link.
Re:How do the record companies GET the copyright? (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. I think I just quit buying CDs.
--
Re:Courtney Love - MP3 Investor? (Score:2)
They might have some big equipment/drive arrays.
They might have a fat pipe (but are still and end-user of that pipe, so ongoing large costs)
They have how many employees?
And what do they have, other than the domain mp3.com, that someone else couldn't come out and do?
Re:Love Courtney (Score:2)
The artist owns the 'song' as a creative work. THey can perform it, whatever, wherever. THey retain this right.
The record company owns the RECORDING. They do what THEY want with that recording. This may go along with not allowing the artist to produce anther recording (Exclusive rights) of somethign already done, for a period of time (ie: live albums later, etc... or under a different label)
Re:Courtney Love - MP3 Investor? (Score:2)
I don't debate that.
Re:There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" (Score:2)
Oh yeah, that's something I forgot to change - I really like Eminem too. He's really innovative and has real talent, unlike most of the new bands these days.
I'm disappointed now though - I bought the new Cypress Hill CD today (turned out to be a 2-CD set, too
--
Re:There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" (Score:2)
Heh heh... beats me
--
Re:There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" (Score:2)
Anybody ever heard The Spooks? That's some really nice, chill rap - especially when you're stoned. And there isn't a bad song on the whole CD.
--
Re:you must be an american (Score:2)
I would Napster them, but our DSL got cut off (we didn't pay the bill for 4 months and owe our ISP $1200. 1.1 Mbit SDSL is expensive.)
Maybe I'll order a few though - which ones would you suggest most? (I prefer chilled our music [I smoke a lot of pot
--
Re: rap and hip-hop (Score:2)
Wow - DJ Shadow rules. "What Does Your Soul Look Like?" (all parts) is one of my favorite songs. I don't like most drum and bass stuff, though.
--
show her the money (Score:2)
Besides, if we reward outspokenness in a tangible, financial way, who else might follow suit? I don't want the internet to be a reasonable alternative only as a hypothetical.
.02
My
Quux26
Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
It's like the cops who have to wait for the shoplifter to exit the building before stopping them. If you stop them inside, they're not guilty of anything. So you have to be patient.
Re:yee-haw (Score:2)
Steve Albini knows what he's talking about, having been an Artist, Producer and Engineer in the record label equation.
-nme!
Re:It's Nice To See (Score:2)
perhaps now is the time for all hole fans to join my.mp3.
but it doesn't matter so much what she gets, if other artists follow suite.
except of course that their percentage would have been pretty small anyway so universal will still get the majorly chunk.
except except that a lot of costs should be excepted, as they didn't have to print the CDs and they didn't have to distribute, there is no cut for the stores, they didn't have to do any extra promotion (the people using my.mp3 already had the albums, they knew what they were like, they didn't need selling to).
So...
What did universal do? Maybe almost all that bounty should be going to the artists.
Re:I hate courtney I love courtney (Score:2)
So don't, there are plenty of bands out there giving thier music away for free, and they aren't bad.
The record companies just pick 1 or 2, not just based on the quality of the music (lack of legal knowledge is a big factor) out of thousands.
Hunt around for something you like, there is a lot out there, and I'm sure courtney would prefer that, after all she probably gets bugger all if you buy her CDs)
The greatest trick the record companies ever pulled was convincing the world that the bands they signed are the best.
Re:The RIAA Police... (Score:2)
And if that happened, the world would cease to exist.
Every code you break, I'll be spamming you
Re:There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" (Score:2)
IMO, rap has been in a coma for the last few years. Goddamn, I am so f*cking bored of stupid puff-daddy resampling and grunting. SO BORING. However, lately, Eminem is bringing a fresh, original (albiet sick and twisted
I'll grant alternative/rock has been in a sort of slump since it's ~94 peak. But I think the standard bearers, REM, Pearl Jam, RHCP, STP, have kept it alive. I'm glad to see one of my favorite bands, Radiohead, influencing the scene. I think their music is especially applicable to this new computer/telecommunications age and the counter-intuitive revelation that we are ending up alienating ourselves more and more. Their post-modern warholish art is priceless and should be in museums IMHO. These days I'm getting a bit more electronic/ambient with Portishead, etc.
A lot of what is considered "alternative" today is really just retreaded pop shit. Blink82, Eve6, blah blah boring juvenile crap.
Re:why susan sarandon is a political activist (Score:2)
"If Courtney Love regurgitating someone else's good ideas..."
I think the orginal poster should of said was :
This article was written 10 years ago, when every punk rock band and their brother were getting courted by major labels. Right after Nirvana...
(Also Steve recorded one of Nirvana's albums.)
I think most punk bands that signed with a major label are now wondering why they did it in the first place. Maybe not, only they know.
Re:Courtney Love - MP3 Investor? (Score:2)
(the answer to both of our questions is "A community")
I'm trolling myself, but who cares (Score:2)
M_0 = MP3.com's pre-trial money
U_0 = Universal's pre-trial money
C_0 = Courtney Love's pre-trial money
Universal wins over MP3:
M_1 = M_0 - 100M
U_1 = U_0 + 100M
C_1 = C_0
Courtney Love theoretically wins $10M over Universal:
M_2 = M1 = M_0 - 100M
U_2 = U_1 - 10M = U_0 + 90M
C_2 = C_1 + 10M = C_0 + 10M
And thus, we see clearly that Courtney Love's money comes directly from MP3.com's pockets, whether it went through Universal's pockets first.
Conclusion 1: Stealing from a thief only means a different thief gets the victim's money
Conclusion 2: Take your condescending attitude, and your "simple math", and stick them far up your ass.
Re:Courtney Spungen is a dirty butthole (Score:2)
I am sorry you were offended. Welcome to free speach.
"Offended" is not one of the choices listed in moderation.
Re:Courtney Spungen is a dirty butthole (Score:2)
If you disagree, thats fine, but it doesn't make it flambait.
Meta-moderation will stike its revenge on you!
Re:"Her Share" / Royalties vs Profits (Score:2)
It's not only theoretically possible for the artist to owe the studio money after a profitable album, it happens all the time. Records go platinum, and the artist goes bankrupt. So, yeah, Universal ought to owe all their artists a proportional chunk of that money...
Actually when Universal loses this suit their various slave-artists will get a computer printed letter in the mail informing them of the good news that that they owe the record company somewhat less than they did the previous day. Sort of a "win-win" situation.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Taco loves music (Score:2)
CmdrTaco has a slashdot uid of 1
That ruins it. The Prisoner was so great because you kept on asking Who is Number One!? and they kept on saying You are number Six! so you kept on hanging on hoping to find out but now you've told and the secret's out and there's no need to wonder anymore.
Disappointed, WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:How do the record companies GET the copyright? (Score:2)
From the site:
The business aims of Discipline Global Mobile are....
to help music come into the world which would otherwise be unlikely to do so, or under conditions prejudicial to the music and/or musicians.
to operate in the market place, while being free of the values of the market place.
to help the artists and staff of DGM achieve what they wish for themselves.
to find its audience.
to be a model of ethical business in an industry founded on exploitation, oiled by deceit, riven with theft and fuelled by greed.
All of DGM's artists retain the rights to their work, as they rightfully should.
What we really need is more labels like this, and for artists to stop buying into the bullshit of the big label distribution deal.
Good For Her! (Score:2)
There are similar issues with tobacco settlements. How can states not give compensation to the victims of the large tobacco settlements? They didn't even consider the victims in these cases and instead put the money into lump protection programs. It is completely unfair, IMO.
-- Moondog
Re:Good For Her! (Score:2)
She says that most of their parents are VERY attentive about their kids, put lots of time both in & out of school to take care of them, but w/o the Ritalin, those kids just can't keep a coherent thought in their heads for longer than a second or two.
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2)
What she is out to prove is that the record industry is only out for themselves. She is probably well aware that she will never see a dime of the money. But, I highly doubt that is the true issue here. Since the record companies sued on behalf of the artists, she thinks that money should belong to, just that, the artists. Hence, she wants a peice. If the record companies deny here... nd go to court on this, all the better. It just proves the fact that the record companies were not suing for the artists. And other cases can use this as proof. Not only that, the states that are currently looking at suing the record companies can use it as information to backup their claim as well.
Re:"Her Share" / Royalties vs Profits (Score:2)
Assuming that the album or albums in question sold enough that Hole is entitled to more royalties, yes, you're wrong.
In other words, artists are entitled to royalties beyond the advance, if there are any royalties to be had, just as they are liable to the record company for any deficit between the advance and the actual royalties.
By RIAA logic, any copied song or album is equal to one lost sale (never mind that that's in no way true). One lost sale means a few cents that the artist doesn't get, and a few dollars that the company doesn't get. So yeah, it seems logical that Universal's artists should have a share in the settlement, either reducing their deficit or increasing their profit.
Re:Go Offspring Go! (Score:2)
Re:Good For Her! (Score:2)
They've been using it on Hyperactive kids for years. Don't blame the laziness of parents on the drug industry. Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.
Re:Taco loves music (Score:2)
kwsNI
Re:Uhm She's a Hypocrite (Score:2)
I still think MP3.Com was arrogant to think it could build a commercial mechanism that required copying copyright material for redistribution without obtaining licenses. Imagine a portable music player that came preloaded with all music, and all you needed to unlock it was a CD to prove ownership. That'd be pretty neat, but the maker would still require a license to install all the prerecorded music (according to current US copyright law anyway). MyMP3 essentially did just that. Neat concept, but flawed in the laws eyes.
Personally, if I'd been the judge...I'd have determined MP3.Com willfully violated copyrights too. But I would have awarded the minimum allowable punative damages. $25,000 per phonorecord is ludicrous. I wonder how much of that Rakoff is getting?
Re:Good for her!, Copyrite Editorial (Score:2)
It always niggles me when people use historical precedent ("this is the reason we had copyright in the first place") to argue against the current status of something. Times change.
But on the subject of the UCITA and your proposed amendment to the constitution I am 100% behind you. No-one should be able to argue against those 3 simple principles.
Re:Good for her!, Copyrite Editorial (Score:2)
Re:Good for her!, Copyrite Editorial (Score:2)
Actually, if most people think it is OK, it is OK. In a democracy, what is OK is decided by the people, not by the author of poltical texts such as this.
Re:Good for her!, Copyrite Editorial (Score:2)
Andover can fix the problem (Score:2)
Andover should create a site like sourceforge, but dedicated to independant artists, so that they can post their songs and mass distribute it that way. use slashcode to moderate the songs and voila.
I'm pretty sure there are other sites that do something similar, but with Andover's sites recognition and popularitiy, they might very well be near critical mass.
and where's the business plan? ah, share profits from banner advertising on the site with the artists based on a per download share. the more you songs are downloaded, bigger your share in profits.
think about the possibilities!
Re:I'm trolling myself, but who cares (Score:2)
M0 = MP3.com's money before the lawsuit.
U0 = Universal's money before the lawsuit (against MP3.com).
C0 = Courtney Love's money before either lawsuit.
M1 = MP3.com's money after lawsuit against universal.
U1 = Universal's money after lawsuit against MP3.com.
M1 = M0 - $100 mil.
U1 = U0 + $100 mil.
M2 = MP3.com's money if Courtney Love wins suit against Universal.
U2 = Universal's money if Courtney Love wins suit against Universal.
C2 = Courtney Love's money if she wins suit against Universal:
M2 = M1
U2 = U1 - $settlement
C2 = C0 + $settlement
M3 = MP3.com's money if Courtney Love loses suit against Universal
U3 = Universal's money if Courtney Love loses suit against Universal
C3 = Courtney Love's money if Courtney Love loses suit against Universal.
M3 = M1
U3 = U1
C3 = C0
Now, regardless of what C is, M1 = M2 = M3, which means that the event of the lawsuit against MP3.com IS INDEPENDENT of the result of the lawsuit from Courtney Love against Universal.
Granted, the EVENT of the lawsuit against Universal by Courtney Love comes as a result of the EVENT of the lawsuit against MP3.com, the OUTCOMES are independent. You're trying to apply syllogism to events in unrelated systems.
Yes, on the books, money does flow from MP3 to Universal to Courtney Love, the fact that Courtney Love getting money in the end has no effect on the fact that money is flowing from MP3.com to Universal.
Support Courtney's Fight. (Score:2)
Matt.
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2)
Her career in three names: Kurt Cobain. Michael Stipe. Billy Corgan.
Kurt and his subsequent death allowed her to form a band, capture national attention, and allow the misconception that she had something "deep" to write lyrics about.
Michael Stipe has a *lot* of pull in the music industry, and it's no secret that Courtney and Michael's relationship was very... close.
Billy Corgan essentially wrote Courtney's last album; after her band failed repeatedly to commit even a single track to tape in several major cities, she hooked up with Billy and had it completed in weeks. Hmm.
Courtney Love is essentially a celebrity for celebrity's sake, and it's obvious to me that she wants to use her celebrity to grandstand about issues that piss her off, not to create art. It's a common American misconception that anyone who's name appears on a CD is an artist. This is untrue. Tori Amos is an artist. Britney Spears is a performer. Courtney Love is a politician.
There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but keep it straight, for fuck's sake.
Plagarizing Albini is no different than riding Kurt, Michael, and Billy's coattails to the top.
Re:hmm. (Score:2)
He changed the way he spelled his name half a dozen times. I'm using the spelling from Bleach.
I used that spelling intentionally, to troll for people like you who think they know everything.
wishus
Vote for freedom! [harrybrowne2000.org]
---
Re:Good for her!, Copyrite Editorial (Score:2)
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. If most people think it's OK to lynch people because of their religion or the color of their skin, it's still not OK to do so, at least not without a major revision of the Constitution (which requires significantly more than a majority doing significantly more than thinking it's OK).
Good thing, too.
-
Star Bellied Sneeches (Score:2)
The one where the sneeches with and without stars both paid the monkey to be a middle man between the two sides (converting star-bellies to non-star-bellies and back again). In the end, the monkey drove away with all of the money, and both types of sneeches were left high and dry with a blurring of the lines between the two types.
I just picture the SUV full of lawyers driving away with all of the money smiling and laughing and pumping their Dr. Dre mp3s through their brand new Bose system. Damn, this is a messed up world.
Re:Good For Her! (Score:2)
The tyranny of the majority was a legitimate fear of the founders of the U.S., which is one reason that freedom of speech is so zealously guarded. We should apply those same general principals across the board.
Re:Good For Her! (Score:2)
Well, the states will tell you it's cuz the settlement is for costs already incurred or projected for things like health care for the afflicted smokers. But the real answer is, BECAUSE THEY WANT THE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES. Is that a surprise? The tobacco settlements are a horrible precedent. The Government/plaintiff bar sharks have now sensed blood in the water and will go after any industry that appears to be weak enough to cave to this sort of extortion. No one is safe from this point on. (Did you hear today that class action suits have now been filed against the manufacturer of Ritalin and also the American Psychiatric Association? Whoever you are, wherever you work, your turn is coming.)
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:2)
It's Nice To See (Score:2)
I might see mp3.com getting hurt in all this because in order for Courtney Love to get her $$$ she would have to justify the amount she deserves (right?). In order to do that she'd could probably file a motion of discovery and have mp3.com disseminate its records as to how many Hole/Courtney Love songs they've ever hosted. I could see the admins/dba's at mp3.com quitting before they'd have to dig up that kind of info.
Of course, I'm closer to being a crack smoker then a lawyer so I could be completly wrong.
Re:The problem here (Score:3)
Love has a really nice position here, because if she wins, Universal loses the entire hundred million when thousands of other musicians join the dogpile and sue for their piece. If she loses, the entire premise for the suit against MP3 falls apart, and Universal will be revealed (to the accompaniment of lots of press) as the greedy, scum-sucking bastards they really are.
Either way, Universal loses, and Courtney Love increases her heap of cred.
-Mars
why? (Score:3)
Class action? (Score:3)
Heh, yep. This has all the makings of a class action lawsuit by various recording artists.
Of course in the end the lawyers will end up with all the money, that's the downside.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
Re:There isn't a lot of what I think of as "Rock" (Score:3)
Not to start a flamewar here, but I think most of the innovative music today is coming out in the Rap/Hiphop scene - groups like Outkast who have a completely original sound. I still listen to their first CD constantly, which came out in the early 90's and still sounds as good and original today as it did the day it was released. I'm normally not a huge rap fan (although I do love Cypress Hill
The rock scene is pretty much hurting right now. With the exceptions of Rage Against The Machine and (in my opinion, which nobody else seems to share
--
They Eat Their Own (Score:3)
Re:How do the record companies GET the copyright? (Score:3)
"When a record label gives a band an advance, part of the contract says that the record label owns all the music, etc. associated with the album. By not taking this advance and raising the money over the internet and mail-order, Marillion will retain FULL OWNERSHIP of the music for the first time in the career."
Dear Kel; You may have misinterpreted the email, so I thought I'd write to you to explain the deal. Marillion have signed a *distribution* deal with EMI, not a *record* deal. What this means is that Marillion are raising the money that would normally be provided by the record company themselves by pre-selling the next album. When a record label gives a band an advance, part of the contract says that the record label owns all the music, etc. associated with the album. By not taking this advance and raising the money over the internet and mail-order, Marillion will retain FULL OWNERSHIP of the music for the first time in the career. This means that we can do whatever we want with it, without being tied down. EMI is simply licensing the music FROM Marillion to distribute it world-wide. This could have been done with ANY record label or distributor, but Marillion chose EMI because of its large world-wide distribution network. In addition, Lucy Jordache, Marillion's Marketing and Communications Manager, used to work for EMI, and as such knows the staff we are dealing with, and how to get results! All promotion will be handled together, and will be approved directly by the band - in short, Marillion are in complete control. This is the first time a band has ever done this with a major label, and we hope it will break new ground and encourage other artists to take control (and ownership!) of their music. The Album 12 2CD Special Edition available for pre-order is completely independent of EMI, and will be sold, manufactured, and distributed solely by Racket Records. THIS is the way we are raising the money to record the album, and are trying to make it something special for the fans who want to help us out! This version will NOT be available in the shops, and will NOT be handled by EMI. I hope this explains things a little more, and please feel free to contact me should you have any other questions. Yes, a major label is involved, but not in the traditional way. We're changing the way the music business works, and encourage you to spread the news! Regards, Erik Nielsen Director of Operations Racket Records -------------------------------------------------- --
Marillion and Racket Records
http://www.marillion.com
racket@marillion.com
PO Box 252, Aylesbury, BUCKS, HP18 0YS, UK
Fax +44 (0)1296 770 839
An interesting start (Score:3)
This all goes to the point that I think musicians need a trade organization that is representative of the musician's desires. Since many musicians have come down on both sides of the whole MP3 issue, I honestly believe a trade group representing the artists would approach the whole thing with a much more balanced point-of-view.
Good for her.. (Score:3)
Well.. (Score:4)
STOP saying 'We're protecting our artists'
and START saying 'We're protecting our business model'
Courtney Love - MP3 Investor? (Score:4)
Plus, it would be amusing to see Universal suing one of its artists while trying to "protect" its artists' best interests.
Re:Gotta ask... (Score:4)
ta-da:
http://salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ [salon.com]
Damn, that's funny. (Score:5)
1) You're an artist; the record company (henceforth referred to as "The Man") already screwed you over.
2) The Man is "protecting" your interests, and gets a lot of money; will you ever see that money? No.
3) Since The Man publicly states this "protecting the interests of the artists" bullshit, you call them on it, and ask for your fair share. After all, if this had been a class-action suit, you would have gotten your fair share; they're just representing you.
4) Either The Man realizes what's going on, and pays you off, or they suffer the negative press as everyone realizes that they don't give a FUCK* about the artists.
5) All hell breaks lose; everyone (who hasn't already) loses faith in The Man. I laugh my ass off.
* Although I consider this post to be informative, I understand that profanity is an alternative way to get modded up, and I want to be Enoch Root when I grow up. It's cool, daddi-o.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Good for her!, Copyrite Editorial (Score:5)
Sorry to do this but I wrote an editorial a week ago and I think it got lost in the shuffle when I submited it to the commander. It's on copyright and shrink wrap licences.
Oh..and yes I read the article, she is in the right, but she isn't reading this to the core.
In a few days this paper will live at www.warcloud.net/~odinson/14-years-and-your-quill. html ...but not yet.
Many Linux and open source advocates are upset about verdict on the MPAA vs 2600 DeCSS criminal case. Many people blame this exclusively on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This law was passed in congress in 1998 and gives copyright holders previously unmatched rights. I believe that if there is anything holy and fair in this country, that this slanted law will rejected by the copyright office, struck down by the supreme court, and protested into oblivion by anyone who takes five minutes to understand the numerous loopholes and the agenda represented by those loopholes.
But this isn't just about the DMCA.
The DMCA could have never been poised to do so much damage if it weren't for the other regular abuses of the American people, abuses that should have never been tolerated. The post purchase contract or license, and the extension to the time a party is allowed an exclusive control otherwise known as copyright are the real problem.
Copyright
Laws like the "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" have been extending copyright, (20 years in this case) in a fashion destructive to consumer and the artist. The original lifespan of copyright was 14 years, now it is life of the author plus seventy. Most people are unaware of this or think it is OK. It is not.
When copyright was created the idea was compromise. A reasonable amount of time to make enough money to offset printing costs and to make a fair profit. It was targeted specifically at books and maps. The idea was extended to provide a good living for artists and eventually song writers and movie makers and even computer programmers. This is all good. copyright is a moral idea, if you create something you get a government granted monopoly on that thing for period of time. It allows a person to dedicate their time to developing their skills of expression with out the risk of someone walking away with their creation and selling it as their own.
Copyright works do not compete during their monopoly period. If you do not want to break the law you adhere to the terms the author sets, or you don't view/use/listen to it. This is OK so long as information is not vital to the health of the society at large and someone else offers it. Over time, we have extended the monopoly period, and some companies began collecting Intellectual Property as a revenue source. It has gotten to the point that frighteningly few ideas in our society is not owned by some company. Some refer to this as pop culture.
Ideas go stale and die. Few complain about the communists anymore, most people publicly abhor drugs and wild sex, and I don't see much about the trickle down theory either `;), but copyrights don't fade away they just sit, accumulating more money with every movie remake and sometimes without one. Information needs to compete with the prospect that it will go stale. Only novel ideas contribute in a big way, but then why are we paying big bucks for the same old shows on cable?
Most people think artists benefit from the copyright extensions. Did you know the typical musician gets only a few cents a Compact Disc, and they only cost a few cents to make? Sure, Billy Joel or Madonna get a few dollars per CD, they are held up as examples of success. Such examples are rare. If copyright were reduced back down to 14 years, Record companies, Movie studios, publishers and every other kind of distributor would have to compete with the prospect that in 14 years anyone could compete with them, selling the exact same thing. Not so novel ideas look a lot less appealing, and unfair contracts not so binding.
Copyright's purpose used to be to protect the time and money of writers and the owners of the printing presses. Inevitably middlemen and distributors did get involved, but had to work against the clock. Now those same middlemen name whatever terms they want because they know that they will be dead before you can get their product through anyone else. The power that companies wield over artists seeking distribution and consumers who want to hear what the artist has to say is absolute. What better way to silence voices than to own the microphone wire through which they speak.
In a world of the 14 year copyright the MPAA would be far less likely to try to force you to adhere to their latest copyright license money grab. Policies like "You can't fast forward through the commercials", and "charge them as much as they can afford according to where they live." Would result in boycotts rather than complacency. This is what they are trying to do with DVDs, and any group of consumers could protest until they died and see no end to it. What recourse does a consumer have but civil disobedience? Perhaps if humans were immortal there would be no such dilemma.
Contract law
Are shrink wrap licenses legal? The question of the legal status remains unanswered. That unanswered question seems to have inspired to use contract lawyers and copyright lawyers to attempt unprecedented control not only over how copyrighted work is distributed but viewed. Some clear legal defense is needed here, the bad guys are getting meaner and the "Accepted Practice" for license and contract law just don't cut it.
The typically unviewed licenses that accompanies DVDs and DVD Players are setting an terrible precedent.
As an example, shrink wrap licenses are the cause of much pain to the typical computer professional. The business that uses software with such a license may actually have to adhere to it's absurd terms or face prosicution. In contrast, most consumers are rarely prosecuted, unless they are a political target like 2600. Isn't that one of the constitutions main themes, protecting potential political targets against things like torture, high bail or soldiers in their house?? A new article to Uniform Commercial Code could do the job, but if UTICA continues on the path to acceptance we may need constitutional power to threaten those who would strip us of our right examine a contract before entering into it.
Here's what an amendment might look like.
----------------
Article XXVII
Section 1.
A contract or license can not be binding until after the full text of said contract or license has been made available to all parties prior to any otherwise binding agreement. The availability of the contract or license text is the full responsibility any and all who are offering a good or service that are part of the exchange in the contract or license.
Section 2.
Failure to make the full text of a contract or license available prior to agreement of all parties on it's terms will void all terms of said license or contract.
Section 3.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
-----------
Sorry if the legalize isn't thick enough, I wanted it to be clear. Comments are welcome.
It's to bad they didn't think of adding this in amendment XIII (Ending slavery.)
We should remember the DMCA is not our only source of trouble. You might even find like I did that the evils we have long known are far more dangerous and a firm foundation for the DMCA and UTICA. Without the legs of absurd copyright stay and the post purchase contract/license agreement, this insidious empire would not have the strength to declare war on the American people. We need to acknowledge what laws gave these middlemen strength and attack them there. We will regain choice back only after we change our legal landscape. When we return copyright to its original state, the artists and world will thank us for it.
If you understand this, and you understand why the cost of digital data transfer and storage is growing neglegable, you understand why they look at the Internet and it's spawn Linux with mortal fear.
Matthew Newhall
Artist's rights? Bullsh*t! (Score:5)
While I agree that individual artists should always have the right to decide how their music is distributed, I'm very leery of someone who is "acting for the good" of someone else.
Universal is in the business of making money. The way that they make money is to promote certain musical artists, and then take a percentage of the sales from their recordings. Obvious. But this $100M suit, IMNSHO, was for 2 reasons.
1) To attempt to reduce the distribution of their artists' recordings by means that pay no royalties. In other words, to protect their meal ticket.
2) To attack an organization that promotes something that might endanger their meal ticket. They could just as easily file suit against Maxell or TDK, because they make cassette tapes that people can record copyrighted music onto. MP3.com simply suffers from the disadvantage of being a new, and not widely understood, way of doing the same thing.
Universal couldn't care less about their artists. If an artist does something that causes their sales to drop, and continue to underperform, Universal would chuck him/her/them out on the street without so much as a "By your leave."
I know I'm preaching to the choir, here, but I figured I'd say my piece anyway.
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Missing the point (Score:5)
Go Offspring Go! (Score:5)
Gotta love anarchy!
Vote Nader [votenader.org]
The problem here (Score:5)
I think the way the record industry works needs to be adjusted. Prince had to change his name because his record company thought it owned it. One way to limit the power record companies have is to reform the system so that artists have the copyright. That's how I've seen it with most - say - shareware marketing companies -- the artists lisenses the work to the distribution company.
Down that road, if records didn't have exclusionary contracts, several record companies could release the same record from the same artist with the same royalties. Therefor, there could actually be a price way. Like what happened to the movie industry.
Re:How do the record companies GET the copyright? (Score:5)
Things like Napster could shut down BMI and Sony and Universal and Time Warner forever, because Napster cuts them out of the artist/fan loop altogether. So they use their jointly-owned non-profit front organization, the RIAA, to file a lawsuit "on behalf of artists", to shut down Napster and Gnutella because they can be used to violate copyright, kind of like how Reynolds knives can be used to stab people.
If any other industry tried this sort of collusion, their executives would be locked away on racketeering charges and spend about a decade per count turning big rocks into little rocks. But the music industry has a lobby that would make the gun industry cream its pants, and so you get things like the Copyright Act of 1978.
Take a look at Salon [salon.com]'s remarkable article Courtney Love does the math [salon.com] for further insight into what a record company contract is really like, and how there's no way around them if you want to be rewarded for your work.
--
The RIAA Police... (Score:5)
Every scan you make,
Every net you quake,
Every song you play, I'll be watching you.
Every single day,
Every word you say,
Every game you play,
Every night you stay, I'll be watching you.
Oh, can't you see?
Those songs ain't free,
How can poor artists
Give every song you play?
Every scan you make,
Every sound you take,
Every phile you fake,
Every claim you stake, I'll be watching you.
Since you logged, I ping hosts without a trace
I query all night, bootlegged 'threes and WAVs
I look out for warez, hoping to make a case
Don't feel so sold out, a song you can't replace
Don't crack Ess Dee, Emm I, please...
Oh, can't you see?
Those songs ain't free,
How can poor artists
Give every song you play?
Every scan you make,
Every sound you play,
Every trial you stake,
Every LAME you break,
Every player you fake,
Every song you take,
I'll be watching you.
--(with apologies to the Police)
Re:"Her Share" / Royalties vs Profits (Score:5)
You are wrong in your assumption.
The record company cuts her a check as an "advance on royalties"
Against this they charge her:
If, after all their creative accounting, there is any further "debt", they charge that against the next album as well. If the record makes money, the studio ends up not actually paying anything toward the production and distribution--it all comes out of the artist's share.
It's not only theoretically possible for the artist to owe the studio money after a profitable album, it happens all the time. Records go platinum, and the artist goes bankrupt.
So, yeah, Universal ought to owe all their artists a proportional chunk of that money, to show up on their royalty statements.
The REAL story (Score:5)
They aren't worried about losing sales.
They aren't worried about copyright infringement.
They ARE worried about their gravytrain, i.e. the artists that they make such a bundle off of, leaving town and going solo to promote themselves.
The mp3.com lawsuit was a convenient excuse to punish mp3.com for attempting to re-write the rules of artist promotion.
With the technology before us, artists like Courtney Love can give the record industry the big old "FUCK YOU!" and still distribute thier music.
Smashing Pumpkins just released their final album as a vinyl only release w/o record company involvement. They encouraged those few that got copies to record them, compress them into
The real risk to the RIAA isn't the copying of copyrighted material, Napster, mp3.com, and the like. It's that the artists can promote themselves, distrubute their own music, and collect the profits without a record label being involved. The game's over.
-S