Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Musicians Oppose Anti-Piracy Measures In the UK

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the let-it-be dept.

Music 150

BluePeppers writes "The Guardian has a story, primarily about a deal that allows YouTube to broadcast music videos again, but also covering a coalition of artist unions that are opposing new legislation in the UK that would punish file sharers more severely. From the article: 'A coalition of bodies representing a range of stars including Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, and Damon Albarn attacks the proposals as expensive, illogical and "extraordinarily negative." The Featured Artists Coalition, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, and the Music Producers Guild have joined forces to oppose the proposals to reintroduce the threat of disconnection for persistent file sharers, which was ruled out in the government's Digital Britain report in June.""

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good stuff... (4, Interesting)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308937)

Perhaps if more big names come out in opposition of measures like this the PRS in Britain and the RIAA in the US won't be able to hide behind excuses like "we're doing this for the artists".

Re:Good stuff... (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309021)

PRS != RIAA

PRS is the Performing Rights Society; the UK equivalent of the RIAA is the BPI. The PRS is more like ASCAP.

Re:Good stuff... (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309057)

Thanks for the correction. Nonetheless I think you get the point I was trying to make.

Re:Good stuff... (4, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309427)

PRS is the Performing Rights Society; the UK equivalent of the RIAA is the BPI. The PRS is more like ASCAP.

Score: 5, Acronym Overload

Re:Good stuff... (1)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309995)

They're all groups dominated by [different branches of] the same big names: Sony, Warner, EMI, etc ..

It appears at least that BPI and PRS (who changed their name to "PRS for Music" recently, which shows how much bullshit they're trying to fling) are both fronts for different parts of the interests of the same stakeholders/shareholders. They also have some artists/songwriters involved to various extents that they use to buy good PR.

Re:Good stuff... (5, Informative)

im just cannonfodder (1089055) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309027)


lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.

Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the fucking capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.


RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI

MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:

# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom--(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)


If sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:

Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.

RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml [slashdot.org]

"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326/870 [dailykos.com]

Re:Good stuff... (3, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309203)

Not sure why this is marked troll, without a rebuttal?

Personally i look at free [jamendo.com] music [libre.fm] for my paid downloads, I don't mind buying actual CDs from indies either (but it is a bit tricky to know your buying from an indie and not a front, of a front, of a major record label)

I'm confused by magnatune [magnatune.com] they advertise that they give 50% to artists, but taking a 50% cut for hosting & selling music seams excessive (AFAIK they don't do brick and mortar sales)

Re:Good stuff... (4, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309267)

www.riaaradar.com will help you in finding real indie acts.

Re:Good stuff... (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309533)

Magnatune is OK, in my opinion. First, their terms are simple and clearly stated, you know where the money goes and the artist knows that, too - that's really important. Second, as far as I know, 50% of the reatil price going directly to the artist is something unheard of in the "regular" recording industry - I did not bookmark them, but there were several quite informative Slashdot comments about this in the past, presumably written by people who know the matter first-hand, stating that the artist royalties are normally in the single-digit percentage range, due to "creative" accounting pracitcess and agreements worded strongly in favor of the labels.

Besides, it just feels nice to spend $10 and know for sure that $5 went to the artist, $5 to the guy who had this nice idea and exactly $0 to the marketoids, pointy-haired bosses and lawyers.

Re:Good stuff... (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309815)

Not sure why this is marked troll

Sony has a lot of employees, and a lot of them come here, and some get mod points. Any time I mention Sony's XCP rootkit I get modded troll or flamebait. But notice the system worked -- the Sony shill was out modded by better mods, and it's a 5 informative now.

I'm confused by magnatune they advertise that they give 50% to artists, but taking a 50% cut for hosting & selling music seams excessive

Everybody and their dog rips musicians off, and it's a damned shame. The record lables rip of their artists, the bars rip off your local guys who play live, etc. It's disgusting. "But Harry doesn't mind if he doesn't make the scene; he's got a full time job, he's doin' all right." (Sultans of Swing). Most musicians, no matter how talented, are either poor or working at some other job. I know a lot of musicians here in Springfield, and only a few are doing OK without a non-musical job. Many of them majored in music in college.

Re:Good stuff... (0, Offtopic)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310061)

Yeah, I see the same thing with any criticism of Apple.

How are mod points distributed these days, I wonder? I used to get them occasionally, but now I haven't had any in years. Meanwhile another poster commented to me that he continually received large numbers of mod points, more than he knew what to do with.

If points really are distributed in such an uneven fashion, it would explain why the moderation has gone downhill lately, with all the "troll" abuse and so on. (If you have lots of mod points, you're more likely to abuse them for simply people you disagree with rather than reserving them for genuinely good or bad posts; and if only some people are allowed to mod, whilst others never do, you introduce bias into the system.)

Re:Good stuff... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310663)

How are mod points distributed these days, I wonder?

I don't know how they are generated, but I seem to get about a dose or two of mod points a week, 5-10 (rarely 15) at a go, but mainly use them to mod people up. Occasionally, if I hit a thread early I try to troll off the "(jews/obama/something) (killed/hurt/owns) all the (topic of story)" type posts that seem to bubble up early generally by Anons.

Honestly, i have no idea why people bother spouting that rubbish. I mean, there isn't even really a point to it.

Re:Good stuff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310205)

Spooky. Was listening to Sultans of Swing exactly while reading your comment. o.O

Re:Good stuff... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310763)

Not sure why this is marked troll, without a rebuttal?

Welcome to slashdot2009!

There are a lot of activist groups with multiple slashdot accounts running around these days.

When they find a user posting something they dislike, they will spend the next couple weeks going through their comment history, and using their other accounts to mod every post as troll by that user.

You can see this by viewing the users history, and seeing all their past 10 posts modded as troll, but not a single trollish comment to be found.

Typically if the article subject is copyright, apple, microsoft, or any government related subject, any facts posted that don't align with the lies in the summary are flagged as troll.
Even quoting the very article linked to from slashdot will gain troll mods, unless by the rare chance the summary quotes that part of the article. Generally quotes are either made as partial (only took the first 4 of 25 words of the persons sentence), or are 100% fabricated. Pointing such out is an instant troll mod.

Hell, my accounts last two posts had NO comments by me what so ever.
Someone asked for a citation to a point, and I simply pasted a couple URLs with those points (and in one URL case, quoted the section in the page, to search for since there was no direct #link)

3 urls, one quote from the page, zero words of my own. I must be really talented to troll with zero words!

Posting anon because this post is pure pissed off flamebait, combined with fact.
Of course it will be modded incorrectly as troll too, instead of correctly as flamebait, but that has become normal too and will just go to prove my point.
Way too many mods have out right posted and SAID they purposely ignore all moderation rules slashdot lays down, and make up their own rules to mod by. With fairness like that, you can't expect much else.

Re:Good stuff... (-1, Troll)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309255)

Who's the piece of shit shill that marked this troll?

Re:Good stuff... (2, Interesting)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309283)

do not purchase anything branded sony

Why haven't RIAA lawsuits triggered a major boycott campaign, outside of music?

Re:Good stuff... (2, Insightful)

im just cannonfodder (1089055) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309507)

because the companies hide behind their trade body names & are very active at promoting themselves to be just and right.

Re:Good stuff... (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309821)

Consider the idea of boycotting all of SONY - by which I mean SONY Corporation - because SONY BMG screwed up.

That Bravia TV? Don't buy it.
That PS3? Don't buy it.
That Blu-Ray player from, say, JVC? Don't buy it - JVC pays SONY
That CD - any artist, even if it's you? Don't buy it - every CD and CD-R made at this point nets SONY a tiny amount of dosh.
Spiderman movie? Don't buy it.
Tom & Jerry on TV? Don't watch it (Tom & Jerry = MGM+Turner. MGM = 20% owned by SONY. Your watching it makes it more attractive for advertisers to put their ads around the show for good sums of money, a slice of which goes to.. voila).
That laptop you're buying? Double-check it doesn't use a SONY panel.
That digital camera you're buying? Make sure it doesn't use a SONY sensor (e.g. Nikon has SONY sensors in many models). .. and so forth and so on.

Let's face it - unless you want to be bordering on paranoia whenever you buy something, there's absolutely no good way to boycott a megacorp like SONY even if the idea that long-term boycotting SONY for the short-term actions of a - all things considered - tiny part of the conglomerate wasn't preposterous to begin with. Let me restate that.. I'm not saying that a boycott should be easy - of course it shouldn't, if we could all be lazy in boycotts then a boycott wouldn't work either. What I am saying is, it is nigh-on impossible to boycott a megacorp 100%. Even if -you- decide to no longer buy any product that has a SONY logo on it - a boycott that -is- quite doable, they'll still be getting money from you through the multitude of other channels they have, and through their main channels from the people who don't go along with your boycott.

SONY's bottom line, and that of any other truly big company (let alone the likes of Unilever, Procter & Gamble and the like), is hardly ever hurt by a (call for a) boycott (see e.g. the Nestlé boycott, going on since the 70's, and check out the financial charts for Nestlé.. could they have made an even bigger profit if it weren't for the boycott? sure. Are they in dire straits because of the boycott? Don't be silly.) They're typically more hurt by their own ineptitude and/or loss of appeal for their products/business in general (e.g. Circuit City, sadly), and bad press in specific.

Perhaps this is just a pessimistic view, but it's based on what I see around me. A small baker had to close shop because people boycotted him for selling factory-created pastries - simply because his two children buggered off and he had no time to do that in addition to the fresh breads, cakes, pies, etc. So now people have to buy factory-created breads at the local supermarket as well. The same supermarket (Albert Heijn) that has been 'boycotted' time and again for a multitude of things.. but is still going strong and opening up new stores left and right.

These days, a 'public outcry' is far more efficient than a boycott; the public outcry and subsequent bad press over the SONY BMG rootkit, from people who were still actively buying SONY products -and- people who had no intention of buying SONY products anyway alike, was enough to have them remove any plans to add it to any new CDs, and even lead to them pulling the existing CDs in some areas, while no formal boycott ever materialized and people are still buying SONY products; just like people are still buying Volgswagens and drool over Bugatti Veyrons.

I love British humor (0, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308965)

Unlike American humor which smashes you over your watermelon-like head like Gallagher's Sledge-o-matic, British humor relies on subtlety and odd juxtaposition to tell a joke.

FTS: Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, and Damon Albarn

A Fab, a Fag, and now for something completely different.

HILARIOUS! <insert laughtrack>

What is the reasoning behind this kind of tough law? It's one thing to punish filesharers for violating copyrights, but to put them in the poorhouse for it is just reprehensible. Sure, fine them a couple thousand pounds, but it's not a crime worth destroying someone's whole life for.

Re:I love British humor (5, Informative)

Aradiel (1631073) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309023)

Blame Mandelson - he swans off on holiday to Corfu, meets with various people including someone involved in organisations not unlike the MPAA, then suggests this legislation which both artists and the ISPs are strongly opposed to. It seems obvious that if he suceeds it will only please the higher-up executives, and not the people who provide the products involved.

Re:I love British humor (3, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309185)

Blame Mandelson - he swans off on holiday to Corfu, meets with various people including someone involved in organisations not unlike the MPAA

That someone was David Geffen [wikipedia.org] , of Geffen Records and Dreamworks SKG.

Re:I love British humor (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309205)

Blame Mandelson

That's Sith Lord Mandelson to you, peasant!

Re:I love British humor (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309961)

That's Sith Lord Mandelson to you, peasant!

Is he related to Darth Mall (whose first name I discovered is Paul)

Re:I love British humor (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310171)

>Is he related to Darth Mall (whose first name I discovered is Paul)
No, he's just a friend - Pal Mall.

Re:I love British humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310069)

Darth Scandal.

Re:I love British humor (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310135)

That's Sith Lord Mandelson to you, peasant!

Also known as the eminence noir.

Re:I love British humor (3, Informative)

segedunum (883035) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309253)

Not only that, but he's unelected and has been kicked out of government several times before because of his slimy ways.

Re:I love British humor (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309523)

Here's more info about how crooked this guy is [wikipedia.org] ... he's had to resign twice now.

Re:I love British humor (2, Funny)

palmersperry (242842) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310497)

The joys of NuLabour - Darling get promoted for being incompetant, Mandelson gets promoted for being corrupt.

Re:I love British humor (3, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309387)

organisations almost, but not quite, entirely unlike the MPAA

Fixed that for you.

Re:I love British humor (1)

Aradiel (1631073) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309413)

Thanks for that, and the laugh that came with it.

Re:I love British humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309663)

That wasn't very funny, you know. And also not very British either.

Advertising (5, Insightful)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308985)

Aren't music videos supposed to be promotional material? Kind of like adverts for the albums/singles? Why would anyone NOT want people to see them?

Re:Advertising (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309015)

It's about control. They want you to see them alongside *their* adverts, they want MTV to pay them for the rights to broadcast them, etc.

Re:Advertising (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309051)

You forgot to mention all of the product placements they want you to see in their videos also.

Re:Advertising (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309225)

Didn't realize MTV was still airing music videos. I thought it was all BS reality shows and "parents trying to set their kids up with other kids" shows. I must be missing something BIG.

Re:Advertising (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309031)

They want you to see them, but only when *they* say so, not whenever you feel like it.

It's the same reason they'll (illegally) pay broadcast radio stations to play their new songs, but charge money for on-demand streaming services to do the same thing - Control.

Re:Advertising (4, Interesting)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309289)

Yes, see ... if you WANT to see video again or listen to song again, your option should not be to 'download it and freely listen it forever for free', it should be 'buy it or wait till we toss you another freebie'

It is attempt to create both artificial rarity and cash on the fact that people actually might be pressed to buy their products if they like it.

It is not about control - that is just tool. It is about ensuring consumer demand.

Re:Advertising (2, Informative)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309373)

Yess....forcing consumers to listen to their music their way, and purchasing music their way.

One might even say they are trying to control things.

Re:Advertising (1)

MistrX (1566617) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309053)

Music is something of the old days, today it's money and control.

The day a form of art will be available under the sum of culture instead of the sum of property and rights, will be the day companies like the RIAA start to have commonsense and really do it for the artists and their consumers.

Too bad it will also be the advent of hell freezing over, I'm afraid. :(

Re:Advertising (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309127)

Aren't music videos supposed to be promotional material? Kind of like adverts for the albums/singles? Why would anyone NOT want people to see them?

Not quite, not any more.

There are dozens of video jukebox channels on the TV, supported by ads and premium rate phone calls (for making requests). Many people leave a channel like that on all day, rather than buy music or listen to the radio. Here, the music video is the consumer product, not a promotional item for some other product.

Having access to any video for free online, undermines that business model.

Re:Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309181)

Also, the artists and technicians working on that video are meant to be compensated for broadcast/distribution... I'm not really talking about the main attraction artist (although really, the same should apply to them too) but the folks in the background, those skaters flip-kicking in slow motion, the video director, lighting guy, the dancing hip-hop-honey's all have some sort of royalties agreement set up which has to be honoured.

It could technically get out of control and cost the record companies more than they recoup if they're not cagey about controlling that aspect of it.

Seems highly unlikely to me, but the possibility is certainly there, and remote as it might be I guess it is likely to be a factor in there somewhere.

Of course, I believe that it's the PRS's job to collect those royalties, so it may not be the most valid concern they might ever have...

Re:Advertising (2, Interesting)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309201)

Of course, I believe that it's the PRS's job to collect those royalties

The PRS only represents the songwriter/composer. Performing Rights Society == managing the rights to perform a composition.

Someone else represents the performers (Equity? The Musicians' Union?) and someone else again represents the technicians. I strongly suspect that most of the technicians etc. for on a for-hire basis (a one-off payment for their services), but I'm only guessing.

Re:Advertising (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310247)

Having access to any video for free online, undermines that business model.

The problem with that is the business model itself. No artist ever went broke from piracy, but many have gone broke from obscurity. You can't compete with free, but you can use free to sell. Cory Doctorow realizes this (and explains it well in the intro to Little Brother better than I can). You can check his books out for free at the public library, download them for free from his website, or buy them at a bookstore. He didn't make the NYT best seller list despite "free", he made the list in part because of free.

Trying to sell bits is like trying to sell air. If you want to sell air, you have to put a baloon or a scuba tank around it and sell that. The same goes for bits.

Re:Advertising (3, Interesting)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309543)

If that is so, why not turn it around and beat them at their own game ?

If you want to play your commercial on the TV or radio you have to pay for the air time. Let all radio stations and TV channels stop broadcasting music from RIAA artists and then charge the RIAA for every time they want to have one of their songs played on the radio at the same rate other companies have to pay for advertising time. Maybe give them a wholesale discount if they buy in bulk.

The biggest problem is getting every station to cooperate, which would be nearly impossible.

Stick and Carrot (5, Insightful)

Hasney (980180) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308993)

So these artists are saying that now the stick is far larger than the carrot. What carrot? When have we ever been giving an incentive to pay for the music rather than download it, other than guilt?

I think at this point the stick is just getting larger and pointier and this carrot they may have used at one point has just rotted in the corner.

Re:Stick and Carrot (1)

fraggleyid (134125) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309013)

Stick to Carrot ratio tending towards infinity

Re:Stick and Carrot (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309141)

Oh, there's been an incentive to buy music instead of just downloading it. First, you got a good looking CD, with cover, maybe an artbook, lyrics and some other nifty things. People like putting a printed CD into the player and know that it's the "real stuff" instead of slipping a bland, white (or bland shiny) CD in, knowing that it's just one of many thousands they have. There's also that it is/used to be hassle free. Take the CD out of the case, place it in the player, play. No downloading, checking whether the song is ok or whether it's the right one altogether, burn it, check that burning worked out and the cheap CDR didn't crap out on you halfway... And finally the alleged better CD quality, though my dumb ears can't hear any difference anyway.

What's the incentive today when you get basically the same MP3s? Or CDs that may or may not contain crap that make them unusable in the player of your choice? Not to mention that artbooks or other goodies virtually vanished, replaced by a single sheet of paper so you at least know what CD you actually have in your hands. Which contains maybe 30 minutes of music, if that. All that and less for only 15 bucks.

Re:Stick and Carrot (3, Informative)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309171)

> ...First, you got a good looking CD,...

Lots of good points, and here is an additional one: (at least in theory) a bought (i.e. pressed) CD should last much longer than a home made (i.e. burnt) one.

Re:Stick and Carrot (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309391)

Well, considering that you have the data stored in other ways as well in the case of burned CDs, this may actually be a point in their favor, especially when you take into account that it's often not really an option to make copies of the pressed original, especially when we're talking about software.

Re:Stick and Carrot (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310287)

CDs are sooo last century. I have ripped all my CDs. My PC is my player and with Amarok I not only get the lyrics and the cover image. I get links to wiki from where I can get a ton of other information not available on the printed CD.

When I want to listen elsewhere I put them on a microSD that fits in my phone and am able to put the microSD in a SD adapter so I can put it in my car radio.

So why would I use CDs again? Selfmade or bought is the same. 46 CD set [amazon.com] or 1 SD card with plenty of room to add other things? The Hobbit and LOTR is a total of 1.8GB.

SD cards and mp3 players are much easier to transfer files to then placing them on CD first. I hardly use CDs anymore and the only reason I use DVDs is to burn Linux images and those will soon be replaced by USB disk images (where I use microSD with an USB adapter). DVDs I have ripped on my HD as well.

Sure, some people will like the physical part of it, just like some people like the physical part of lifting an arm with a needle to play an LP. The majority just wants to listen to the music.

Re:Stick and Carrot (3, Informative)

AdamInParadise (257888) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309395)

I bought only two "mainstream" CDs last year: in both cases the CD came in a flimsy paper case with a one-page booklet. I'm talking about a new album here, from a famous artist, not a single and not a re-re-re-release. So the "an album is a piece of art" argument is getting past its prime. Especially when the cover is not all that hot.

On the other hand, the price of the actual CD on Amazon is usually competitive with the price on iTunes (or even cheaper sometimes), so I will keep on buying actual CDs even if I only uses them once, when I rip them as FLAC files. My last "standalone" CD player broke at one point between 2002 and 2008 and I never replaced it. Between that and my favorite radio streaming at 128k, a computer and a decent pair of amplified speakers is all I will ever need.

Reselling those CDs is an option, but with the current prices spiralling down toward 7 or 8 euros per album, with shipping you're only going to make one or two euros on the sale. It is not always worth the shot.

We are doing it for the artists (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309025)

I can see the Today Programme interview with the PRS (UK RIAA) now

John Humphries (you have NOTHING like him in the US): So you want people kicked off the internet for downloading copyrighted material. Why?

PRS: Because copyright theft is simply theft and its illegal and people should be punished accordingly

JH: But the government says that broadband access is becoming an essential tool in modern society, aren't your punishments a bit draconian?

PRS: John, These people are stealing literally billions from artists, its a massive industry in the UK that makes a lot of money for this country and these people are ruining it

JH: So this is about the artists? Not the publishing companies?

PRS: Absolutely John, these downloaders are just stealing from artists and if this continues there will be no more artists

JH: If that is the case why do three of the most successful artists in this country's history oppose your plans?

PRS: Errrr

JH: I mean if it really was about the artists then surely these people would be all for it. Or is it just about publishing companies that can't be bothered to handle a changing world and just want to dig their heels in and get fat from the restrictive contracts and stifling processes that have got them into this mess?

PRS: Errrr

JH: Lets face it you don't care about the artists, you just care about the money and more importantly you care about making money without having to change the way you work. Lots of companies have led the way in legal digital music but the publishing companies have not been amongst them. Isn't this just about old fashioned companies who can't change moaning about new technology and asking the government to bail them out

PRS: Errrr

JH: And now for the weather

 

Re:We are doing it for the artists (2, Informative)

Hasney (980180) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309043)

No, PRS will probably say that they are already successful artists with lots of money and they are looking out for the small guy.

Utter bullshit, mind you, but that's the position they'll probably take.

Re:We are doing it for the artists (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309281)

So quote figures of how much small artists signed to big labels make.

My anecdote-ometer says that it's close to, if not absolutely, zero.

Re:close to zero (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309855)

Hmm.

carrot to stick function

((SmallArtistCost+Profit)-(SmallArtistCost))
                                                  ------------
                                (SmallArtistCost)

As SmallArtistCost Approaches Zero

Sounds suspiciously like Calculus.

(Misc text to get rid of filter error. Are they going to enlist Metallica to support them?)

Re:We are doing it for the artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309951)

I believe your numbers are too high. Including the zero.

How was it again? The artist "borrows" money from the record company for promotion, renting studios, etc, and any money from the sale of the first several records will be used to pay back those loans. If those records are successful, that is.

Re:We are doing it for the artists (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310157)

They'll just blame that on the downloading though :/

Re:We are doing it for the artists (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309167)

A pretty good impersonation of JH's style, for what it's worth. Are you sure you're not him?

Re:We are doing it for the artists (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309273)

I can see the Today Programme interview with the PRS (UK RIAA) now

The PRS are closer to ASCAP. The closest UK analogy to the RIAA is the BPI.

Re:We are doing it for the artists (1)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310483)

I can see the Today Programme interview with the PRS (UK RIAA) now

I really can't see the PRS agreeing to be quizzed by a real journalist. That's part of what is so annoying, the lies are told and repeated and nobody really asks questions or holds them to account.

ps. the PRS is more like ASCAP, the BPI would then be the RIAA. RPS does take the lion's share of the hate though, because of the youtube thing and because every shop basically has to pay the PRS their protection money if they so much as have a radio in the employee break room.

RIAA is the PRS. trade body name to protect sales (-1, Redundant)

im just cannonfodder (1089055) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309045)


lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM anymore.

Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the fucking capitalist corporate globalist wankers from bad press.


RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, PRS, Ect:

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI

MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:

# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom--(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)



If sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:

Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.



RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml [slashdot.org]

"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326/870 [dailykos.com]

Re:RIAA is the PRS. trade body name to protect sal (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309377)

How are you going to organise a sufficient boycott that they'll notice? I can't be bothered joining and I'm aware of the issues.

Re:RIAA is the PRS. trade body name to protect sal (1)

im just cannonfodder (1089055) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309515)

That's the problem, ppl just don't give a dam any-more, we have all been demoralised into mindless consumers while corporations & government do what they like.

FTFA: Change "The industry continues to look"... (2, Insightful)

tacarat (696339) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309059)

... to "The soon-to-be-ousted-middlemen continue to look for new ways to make money in the digital age" and the article is put in it's proper perspective.

Re:FTFA: Change "The industry continues to look".. (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309223)

Dinosaurs didn't want to die either, but nature doesn't like obsolete designs. And neither does free market, at least usually. Unless such obsolete designs are artificially propped up by legal means.

The studios were a necessity until about 15 or maybe 20 years ago. First, they were the only ones that could afford the insanely expensive studio equipment. Until the 80s, no "garage band" could afford equipment that allowed them to create even a sensible demo tape. The advance in computers made this no problem anymore. Anyone can today get affordable equipment that allows him to enjoy the same or at least nearly the same level of quality any big studio could offer, provided he has the skill to use it. So what was left after that was their function as the distribution way. No single artist could afford the distribution system a large music corporation can offer. In came the internet, with instant distribution and an easy way to collect payment.

So, what's currently left is the music studio's edge in PR and marketing. Every other aspect they ever had has been stripped from them and superseded by cheaper means. They may offer it to artists and some artists may opt for it, simply because the studios still have the expertise and often also the better trained personnell, simply by experience, but an artist now has the option to record and publish himselves without having to resort to studios.

Once marketing is somehow taken from their grasp, they have become utterly useless to the music business.

Re:FTFA: Change "The industry continues to look".. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309673)

"Dinosaurs didn't want to die either, but nature doesn't like obsolete designs."

Dinosaurs were an enormously successful group. It's not so much that their anatomy was obsolete, as it wasn't tuned to handle an out-of-the-blue catastrophe like the biggest asteroid impact in the last 250 million years -- same as innumerable other creatures that died out at about the same time. They don't call the end of the Cretaceous Period a "mass extinction" for nothing. It's kind of like saying a business must not have been well-managed if it didn't survive the 1930s Great Depression. No, it could just be a lot of bad luck and a really stressful time that took down many of the good and the bad businesses alike.

Furthermore, dinosaurs did survive. Some of them had already transformed into something new before the end-Cretaceous mass extinction hit: birds. And they've been very successful subsequently.

You're right that there is a message there for the record companies, though.

[captcha: "mutates"]

Re:FTFA: Change "The industry continues to look".. (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309733)

You mean like how social networking has changed the whole marketing game? They are in their death bed screaming. The trouble is they have stockpiles of cash that they can use to purchase government. Government doesn't exist in a land of market failure, so they just tax more, punish more, and insist that it isn't the broken laws, it is that people just refuse to behave.

Re:FTFA: Change "The industry continues to look".. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309793)

erm... excuse me, but i owned and operated a TASCAM 80-8 in the 70s and several TASCAM 4-tracks with sync cables; all of which i could afford on a meager cook's salary (just took some saving.)

And please take a look at the actual machines used to record the Beatles, up to and including The White Album - 4-tracks.

My machines had a clean +17dB signal and enough track separation to produce not only a demo but a pressable Master, as many thousands of small studios in the 70s and 80s can attest.

Now get off my Ampex 440.

"Once marketing is somehow taken from their grasp" (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309835)

that's actually their future

there's money to be made in hyping and packaging and promoting the hell out of a pop act, and reaping financial rewards from that in terms of ancillary revenue flows like concerts, endorsements, etc (no $ from recorded tracks, not anymore)

think about the career of someone like tiger woods: he is fabulously rich, but think about how he makes his money. there isn't some army of lawyers preventing you from getting the next tiger woods video. they watch him for free on tv. the golf video market is not exactly a huge industry, and thats the analogy to recorded music products. tiger woods makes millions modeling nike golf apparel. all of those other revenue streams available to tiger woods are still available to your average u2-type band. the u2 of the future will have a multimillion dollar contract to model puma sneakers

the difference is, its a voluntary career path for a lucky band or two, not a mandatory arrangement for everyone, including the one hit wonders who never benefited from past arrangements and never will. at least their star wattage, as dim as it gets, is still worth something if they monetize their dwindling fame in clever ways (think "the long tail" and all that). the lie is that the death of the recorded music for $ model will suddenly impoverish artists. no: the superstars will still be superstars, the one hit wonders will still be one hit wonders, the permanently obscure will still be permanently obscure

there will still be elton johns and jay zs in the music industry future, they just will be decimillionaires instead of centimillionaires. and the suits behind them will snort coke off of a hooker's ass once a week, instead of every day

oh boohoo, won't someone think of the industry. zzz

Public facade? (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309147)

Forgive me but some of the richest artists are putting up token opposition just doesn't impress me. Fo rall I know behind closed doors they're patting the record execs on the back for pushing this legislation through. These are after all people who make their living as much by promoting themselves as celebrities as by making music. Forgive me if I am therefore skeptical.

Re:Public facade? (3, Interesting)

mrrudge (1120279) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309327)

Two men who have been given the countries highest honour ( and Damon Albarn, meh ) speak out against their governments plans and use their position and reputation to ensures that this side of the argument is communicated to the same general public barraged with copyright infringement = theft propaganda and you interpret this action as being indicative of them secretly being in collusion and believing the opposite of what they say ?

Critical > Skeptical > Paranoid.

Mod Parent Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309653)

This is important to note

Re:Public facade? (2, Insightful)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309579)

I came here to say this.

Wake me up when one of these guys puts up their personal money to fund a campaign against these laws, or to defend someone who is being prosecuted, or to quit record companies who will do these things

Re:Public facade? (1)

mrrudge (1120279) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309783)

Funny. They're openly spending time ( which is money ) and effort to publicly make a statement it seems you agree with and your problem with them is that they're not doing enough. If they contribute money are you going to next ask them to self-immolate ?

Wake me up when you've publicly put your career, reputation and social standing in a place directly opposite your governments intentions.

And I'll find a way to berate you for not doing enough.

Re:Public facade? (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309967)

The time they spent is tiny and gets their names in the papers, makes them look like they're not in bed with "the man".

Bono likes to rail against governments not spending money on Africa. Then what do U2 do with their tax affairs? Move them to the Netherlands where they get better tax breaks.

All those rock stars who played at Live 8? How do you think they got there? By ship, or by private jet?

I'm not saying there aren't people who don't practise what they preach. There are the likes of Billy Bragg who played benefit gig after benefit gig to support striking miners, who went and taught at a local college to help people, who chose less lucrative album deals in order to set lower prices to fans.

Re:Public facade? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310209)

And what does any of that have to do with TFA?

If you have evidence that these artists are lying or are being hypocritical, then please, let's hear it?

Re:Public facade? (1)

mrrudge (1120279) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310375)

Billy Bragg's career is based around protesting, my now ex girlfriend is a BBC music journalist and he's known to be outraged on demand about any cause you care to put in front of him. My father was one of those striking miners and I survived for a year as a child on the generosity and charity of others, none of whom used it for self promotion.

Billy Bragg is an emotional tourist selling my ( now destroyed ) heritage and history for personal gain.

See, hate is easy. Money donated to an establishment set up to oppose these laws ( is there one ? ) would likely, given that we're heading towards an election, be spent on a public awareness campaign. They would likely try to get the support of a well respected celebrity, someone universally respected by the country. One of The Beatles would be a perfect fit in encouraging the general public that artists are not well represented by these laws.

I'm not disputing that there is a PR element to this announcement, but as in your example, one airplane flight versus the massive amount of press generated by the event ? If you were in charge of such an event, your intention to publicise as fully as possible would you consider this a satisfactory compromise ? Awareness which could realistically cause millions of people to make a small positive change vs. a drop in the ocean plane flight ?

Doing good is hard, especially so when people use hypocritical standards to judge you.

Who'll win this one? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309157)

The rights of thousands of artists vs. more profit for a handfull of record companies. Guess who's going to win this one. (hint; one of these two is rich)

Re:Who'll win this one? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309207)

Unfortunately, one depends exclusively on the other in order to *be* rich. Whereas the other can make money just by slapping a few MP3's on a website and adding a Paypal donate button (there are some *BIG* name examples of this happening). One side also has knighted-persons who gained their knighthood through services to the music industry. One side also has the popular opinion and public vote. One side also will get on the news / Slashdot just by *saying* something like this and will encourage other people in their industry to follow suit.

There is only one winner - but it'll take *YEARS* to get there still. That winner *won't* be the consumer until the very last minute.

Re:Who'll win this one? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309303)

Yeah, but the other holds popular opinion. If Sir Elton, Sir Paul, and that other guy all state publicly, very publicly, that they oppose these measures, highlight the reasons why, and tell people to stop buying music until this proposed legislation is dead and gone, the music industry will cry like little girls to Sith Lord Mandy to shut-the-merry-hell up.

Imagine if MJ's last wish had been "Screw the record companies." MILLIONS of fans, of all ages, would just stop going to the record stores.

Now multiply that by the fans of the artists in this Featured Artists Coalition.

Fascism of RIAA (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309189)

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.- Benito Mussolini Maybe I'm being sensationlist, and mod me down if I am, but to me the RIAA and the PRS's influence on their respective government's policies seems to reflect Mussolini's statement.

A musicians perspective (5, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309219)

I've made quite a few tracks for fun... And lately, I've been looking at the possibility to get them on on iTunes, Spotify, etc.

Here comes the great part: I don't need a label on anything these days. There are already several services that will publish independent music direct to major stores and streaming services without going through a bunch of extra layers.

So if I ever decide to publish my stuff I can just ignore the (Finnish equivalent of the) RIAA. I'd rather miss out on any money I could get that route than help rob everyone of any more rights.

Gotta love progress.

Re:A musicians perspective (1)

will3477 (705414) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309617)

Has anyone used any of the services that let you put your music into the online distribution channels without a label? Can anyone recommend one? I can google just like anyone else, so I'm not looking for a list so much as recommendations. Thanks, Bill

Re:A musicians perspective (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309697)

Can't recommend anything, but I seem to have put this one in my delicious bookmarks: http://www.dittomusic.com/ [dittomusic.com]

I'm sure I looked at more than one, not sure why I only bookmarked these guys. I did do some reviewing (comparing terms, prices, store coverage) on the different options as opposed to blind googling, so I guess it's better than nothing... ;)

Re:A musicians perspective (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309901)

The problem is there are lots of artists that want the money. Until they decide to stop feeding the trolls (to use an internet-ism), the big labels will continue to hold a lot of power. Hopefully, as time passes, the financial difference between "signed to a label" and "released independently using the various tools available to indie artists" will shrink sufficiently that more and more artists will decide it's not worth selling their souls to make some music exec rich. Once that happens, I believe we'll enter a new era of music and it will be very, very, very good.

Re:A musicians perspective (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310251)

But you still have to become a member of SoundExchange if you want to make any money via Internet Radio play.

Re:A musicians perspective (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310617)

From one Finn to the other: what do you suggest as the most practical service/independent "labels" (or whatever shall we call them) for a small time, no-lawyer musician?

FiRsLt (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309285)

are just way over And help us! dem1s%e. You don't

Piracy is good. Debate? (2, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309343)

Thinking it over, it seems that given a long struggle against copyrights and patents, piracy will benefit that struggle, but only to the extent it is openly recognized, looked at, reviewed, accepted, and of course practiced. If for example many influential people would start preaching 'piracy is ok', 'piracy is good', establishing that as a moral guideline first, that becomes a building point for proposing and approving new laws. New economic and legal models will follow what is being practiced already. It's too bad that decompiling doesn't work. My own guide is a humanist phrase I heard "nobody has ever created anything without using thousands of free, unpaid, uncontrolled, non-patented and non-copyrighted benefits from human history and nature" - such as language, the written word, tools, transportation, food, oxygen, electricity, copper, wires, chairs, cement, medicines, the list is endless. How can they claim to have individually created, own, and control a concept, an idea, a non-existing object, an inspiration, which stands to benefit all future mankind. An individual human being, isolated, with no contact with human beings, with no benefits of accumulated history, would be a primitive man, completely ignorant, the same as a man before human history, with no ability to invent much of anything new. To make contributions to society and human history is nothing more than a human being's purpose for being in the world, our place in time, in society. And not to one's exclusive benefit, financial or otherwise.

Re:Piracy is good. Debate? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309655)

Why don't you sing a few verses of Kumbaya while you're at it?

I'm sooooo confused (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309415)

It used to be simple:
Record companies want music offline, want more money, want no sharing.
Nerds and geeks want music online, all for free, share with everybody.

And there were no other parties. Now there are geeks in 10 different categories (ranging from small groups of geeks at the pirate bay to huge companies such as Google that owns youtube).
And it seems that the music industry are now themselves hijacked by the lawyers, media, ISP's, electronics manufacturers and whatever else there is in all the posts here on /.
And then there's the RIAA who sue everybody, but I'm not sure if they're still being controlled by anyone, or if they now make their own agenda like a Frankenstein's Monster.

And nobody ever seems to ask the artists anything (except Metallica, who didn't realize that 50% of their fans are geeks).

So... I've come to realize that for every euro I spend on music... at least 99.999% should go to all those organizations and industries. And the percentage is still growing. Parasites.

Anyway, I'll just copy my music using my USB stick from friends. Quality and quantity are guaranteed. All offline.

mod Do3n (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309729)

arounD 8eturn it [goat.cx]

Featured Artists Guild, surely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309819)

Durka durka.

Mandelson fights back Internet pirate hordes (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309975)

Seven million Britons face having their internet connection cut off and fines of up to GBP50,000 [today.com] as Digital Britain is implemented.

Lord Carter, the report's author, has now left the Government for consultancies unknown. Lord Mandelson, who has taken over responsibility for digital policy, has been persuaded of the need for a tougher approach after entreaties from starving music mogul David Geffen, who was introduced to him by the Rothschild family. "He warned me in 2001 that these 'MP3 players' would lead to the downfall of civilisation. I understand iPods were popular in the City just before the Great Recession, you know."

Internet piracy is estimated by the movie and music industries to cost them around GBP1.4 billion squillion zillion a year, ripped untimely from their generous artist-supporting pockets.

Critics have compared the proposals to King Canute, failing to turn back the tide. "So it's up to the Government to supply the sandbags. We have an industry to defend!"

Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, will require Internet providers to record users downloading illegal content. The magical copyright detector, which the music industry just knows the ISPs are being obstructive in not enabling immediately, will be used to send a massive voltage up through serious repeat offenders' Internet connections and into their chairs.

Labour backbencher Tom Watson said the sanctions would attach an "unbearable burden" on an emerging technology with the power to transform society. "Sounds just fine to me," said Lord Mandelson.

Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, will be in charge of the party's Internet campaigning ahead of the general election. "Voters will increasingly be searching the web to find out what we think about the issues. If we haven't cut them off."

In other news, membership of the Pirate Party UK, launched earlier in the week, has been increasing at 100 new members per hour.

The labels are the promise of getting filthy rich (1)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309979)

The labels are always judged by their previous performances, they all have their hall of fame, with sales and profits from a different era, an era when they were the gate keepers of both access to publicity and distribution as well as high quality production facilities. Those times are will over but they are still living in that era. Sales wise the days of Queen, Elton John, The Beatles etc are long over, they will NEVER return.

No artist or band now will ever achieve those profit levels but the carrot the labels hold out for a HUGE share of a new artists profits and control over their careers is the possibility that it could be them. It's the same hook as the lottery, it could be you but it won't. In return for that control and percentage of the profits, the labels can often treat the artist like just another item in the in tray which will be dealt with after a round of golf. An album is held back if it's not commercial enough, after all, the labels are first and foremost a BUSINESS, music happens to be their product. They only invest money ticking all the usual promotional boxes if they believe the return is going to be worth it. From all the new artists and bands signing their lives away to the labels, most will fade into obscurity with their creative talents tied, and everything they do produce owned by someone else. Occasionally one or two will make it relatively big and become stars for a few years. I say "relatively" because they're still nothing (profitability wise) compared to the heady days of the 60's 70's and 80's "big" artists. The labels make sue to blind new artists so they only see the big stars, to tempt them in, knowing that in all likelyhood they'll be chewed up and spat out.

The internet has opened up an alternative world where the labels are excess to requirements. Artists and bands can buy or rent decent recording equipment cheap, they can create or mix the music on their home PC's, set up websites cheaply and joint the various social networking sites free of charge and promote themselves directly to their fans, cutting out the labels altogether. They then have complete control over their music which could be a good or bad thing. This means they're not reliant on some suit with an intray to deal with to get things moving, they set the pace. They're not at the mercy f someone telling them to "make it more poppy". They can be judged on their creativity, not a filtered version of it. More than all of this, they can make a decent living by embracing the internet and their fans. They will never be filthy rich this way, but in reality they would never be filthy rich signing to a label either, the difference is either buying into an illusion or reality.

Labels have long abused both ends of the chain, the artists and the fans. Before the internet they were in an unmovable position. Now the internet has given both ends of the chain an easy way to bypass the labels and they're increasingly desperate to protect their parasitic lifestyles. They know this, and the more they try to extort money from people, the more internet blogs, forums etc report and discuss it, the less their feeble arguments are accepted. They have very little to offer artists other than false hope. The more artists who speak out against them, the more it hurts their credibility reveals them for the parasites they are.

Re:The labels are the promise of getting filthy ri (1)

AnalPerfume (1356177) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310021)

Sorry, another point....

The only thing the labels have to offer is access to the mainstream TV and radio stations to get airplay, which is not a guaranteed way to sales, as some have pointed out; a lot of people leave a channel like MTV on all day rather than listen to CDs.

For who's benefit ? (1)

DaveDerrick (1070132) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310169)

The disconnection of file sharers from the internet is just going to be another law misused by those in power to censor & silence their critics.

Star Trek Triple? (2, Funny)

boristdog (133725) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310565)

Why does that list of people sound like the old Star Trek Triple?

"Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, and Damon Albarn"

sounds like:

"Jefferson, Lincoln, Alzaroth of Seti Alpha 6"

Re:Star Trek Triple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310877)

Because you don't know who Damon Albarn is?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?