OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Science Microsoft Technology Intel The Almighty Buck
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Sep 13

apple
Sep 15
(2 recent)

articles
Sep 16
(34 recent)

askslashdot
Sep 15
(5 recent)

books
Sep 13

bsd
Sep 14
(2 recent)

developers
Sep 16
(1 recent)

features
Jul 18

interviews
Sep 12

radio
Jun 29

science
Sep 16
(7 recent)

yro
Sep 16
(3 recent)

Musicians vs. RIAA At USA Today
The Almighty BuckPosted by Hemos on Monday September 16, @10:13AM
from the the-battle-lines-grow-deeper dept.
An anonymous reader writes "USA Today has an article about the growing friction between recording artists and the 5 major labels which make up the RIAA. Many issues are covered, including copyright reform, fraudulent accounting on the part of record labels, and how selling a quarter million albums can leave you owing your label $14,000."

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· USA Today
· article
· More on The Almighty Buck
· Also by Hemos

<  Red Hat Explains Stance on KDE/Gnome Desktop Changes | Analog & Digital Chips On The Same Silicon  >
Musicians vs. RIAA At USA Today | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 390 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Levine (levine@goatse.cx) on Monday September 16, @10:15AM (#4265457)
(User #22596 Info | http://thirtyfour.org/)
So, if the musicians don't like them, and we don't like them... why do they still exist?

levine
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Because... (Score:5, Funny)
    by gfxguy on Monday September 16, @10:21AM (#4265500)
    (User #98788 Info)
    Non-musicians, like Brittany Spears, are the ones selling millions of records to people NOT like us.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Because... by Bubba-T (Score:1) Monday September 16, @11:28AM
    • Re:Because... by SerpentMage (Score:2) Monday September 16, @11:58AM
    • Re:Because... by psycht (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:00PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Mashiki (`moc.sregor' `ta' `ikihsam') on Monday September 16, @10:23AM (#4265521)
    (User #184564 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
    That's a wildly stuipid question. It's because they have unfair control of the market. Come on now, I would figure that most people that read slashdot can understand monopoly.

    And since they also control and finance their own bands, and control the content, and distribution and sales, and on and on. I'm sure you get the picture, they exist because yes they do control it. And they will continue controling it until the average consumer(not us) realize that this isn't good. Or we can convince the goverment that these guy are out to hurt us.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
    by Rader on Monday September 16, @10:25AM (#4265536)
    (User #40041 Info)
    Maybe it's just taking the artists longer to figure out what's going on. And definately a while to figure out what to do about it.

    It's like being screwed by your landlord. You know you don't like it. You should leave. But where will you live?

    It should be interesting as these multi-year contracts start to run out, and artists start to look for other solutions. (Unfortunately there aren't any other great solutions. Most of the good ones lack any real marketing) With sales not increasing, and artists speaking up, the Big-5 might actually have to do something.

    Or maybe not. I'm sure there's always another "Korn" willing to sign their lives away for fame.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:Wait a minute... by SirSlud (Score:3) Monday September 16, @10:30AM
        Re:Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
        by aronc on Monday September 16, @11:12AM (#4265901)
        (User #258501 Info)
        I believe one of the problems in the industry is that multi-year deals are actually kind of out of flavour. Labels used to look for career musicians. Now they rent you for an album; if you sell, you might get one more album. Rince, lather, repeat.

        Read the article.. it's actually much worse than 'multi-year' right now. It's multi-[b]album[/b]. You sign to do say, 6 albums. If you don't sell well they can shelve you. No studio time, no advertising, nada. And you can't go anywhere else until you give them 5 more "releasable" albums. The company, of course, is the sole arbiter of what is "releasable" or not. Joan Osborn, after her first hit "What if God Was One of US", turned in two complete and finished albums both of which were rejected by the labels. That means she spent nearly 3 years working, owes them money on it, and of course the label still owns those songs even though they don't want them.

        Yeah, they might not release any more albums after the first. They might just "rent" you for an album. But they make damn sure the contract keeps you out of anyone elses hands for the duration just in case.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Re:Wait a minute... by Batou (Score:2) Monday September 16, @12:21PM
    • Re:Wait a minute... by fishbowl (Score:2) Monday September 16, @12:16PM
    • Re:Wait a minute... by grumpygrodyguy (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:21PM
    Fear the Parrot! (Score:5, Interesting)
    by gunnk (gunnk@mail.fpg.unc. e d u) on Monday September 16, @10:33AM (#4265605)
    (User #463227 Info | http://www.unc.edu/~quasar/)
    If Jimmy Buffett has his way (and looks like he is attracting some takers), the RIAA has more to fear from J.B. than from P2P. Check out this article [sfgate.com] on Buffett leading the charge against the big labels. With CD's cheap and easy to make, the RIAA and the big labels that make it up are going to have a harder and harder time justifying their existence. They can keep blaming P2P, but they'd better wake up to the fact that they can't keep treating their artists and customers like dirt -- the artists and customers CAN and WILL get together with or without them. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore -- from Fruitcakes by J.B.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • somebody just defined the RIAA in a sentence by hype7 (Score:1) Monday September 16, @10:38AM
  • Re:Wait a minute... by pwtrash (Score:1) Monday September 16, @10:39AM
  • Re:Wait a minute... by tmark (Score:3) Monday September 16, @10:42AM
  • It's the record LABELS by cornice (Score:3) Monday September 16, @10:48AM
  • Re:Wait a minute... by Bubba-T (Score:1) Monday September 16, @11:26AM
  • Re:Wait a minute... by Kwil (Score:1) Monday September 16, @11:30AM
  • Re:Wait a minute... by Patik (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:43PM
  • Re:Wait a minute... by AntiNorm (Score:2) Monday September 16, @01:54PM
  • Re:Just power, oligopoly and distribution control by RazzleFrog (Score:1) Monday September 16, @10:54AM
  • Re:Labor unions and the mob. by Kr1ll1n (Score:1) Monday September 16, @10:55AM
  • Re:Labor unions and the mob. by hebertpa (Score:2) Monday September 16, @11:00AM
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
by Quasar1999 on Monday September 16, @10:17AM (#4265477)
(User #520073 Info | http://www.customsoftwareshop.com/)
Take a look at P.Diddy (or whatever the hell he calls himself), he's sold millions upon millions of CDs, and yet he was dropped by his label for spending more money than he was making. Lavish demands... I agree the RIAA is evil, but these artists aren't that much less evil themselves... Especially the POP/RAP superstars... they are insane when it comes to their spending habits...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Easy by zenasprime (Score:2) Monday September 16, @10:22AM
      Re:Easy (Score:4, Interesting)
      by pyite on Monday September 16, @10:28AM (#4265561)
      (User #140350 Info)
      Short anecdote: This June, I'm driving to Connecticut from Jersey in ridiculous rain. I stop at a Mobil gas station and go inside to get a coffee. It's dark, rainy, etc. I walk up to the door and look at the guy leaving as I'm going in. I go, "Mike?" He says, "Yup" and walks away. It happened to be Mike Gordon (coincidently look at my sig) from Phish, driving himself somewhere in a ragged T-Shirt and jeans. Now, here's a band that has untold gobs of money and yet still drive themselves around and don't really care what they look like. Here's also a band that gives away its music to any who would want to hear it. This is the kind of band the RIAA is scared of because they don't act greedy like the RIAA themselves.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Easy by josh crawley (Score:1) Monday September 16, @10:22AM
      Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
      by SirSlud on Monday September 16, @10:27AM (#4265556)
      (User #67381 Info | http://www.besonic.com/nufunq | Last Journal: Tuesday June 04, @10:21PM)
      Yeah but you can thank suburban white CD buying 18 year olds for demanding the image and lifestyle you describe.

      They don't do this stuff in a vacuum - the image sells, so blame your kids for wanting a Puff Daddy instead of a De La Soul, or wanting a Wu Tang instead of a Del tha Funky Homosapien.

      There are plenty of positive, concious rappers out there who do not condone the "thug life". But the CD buying public drives the demand for the thug life .. thank the protected coddled white masses in the 'burbs and the execs who market the image.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
        by Daniel Dvorkin on Monday September 16, @10:38AM (#4265641)
        (User #106857 Info | http://www.sff.net/people/Daniel.Dvorkin)
        Yeah. Nothing like walking by a yuppie bar and seeing a bunch of rich white guys standing around outside and saying things like, "Whazzat? Watchoo sayin?" "Yo, I said, Wassup, bitch?" "Mofo, I'm gonna bust a cap in yo ass!" Makes we want to drag them down to the nearest ER (where I used to work) and shove their faces in a convenient pool of blood. "That's 'wazzup,' you idiot."
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Yeah I hate that shit by MemeRot (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:17PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Mofo-Speak by duck_prime (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:33PM
        • Re:Easy by flynn23 (Score:1) Monday September 16, @02:14PM
        • Re:Easy by schon (Score:3) Monday September 16, @12:23PM
          • Re:Easy by JudgeFurious (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:28PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Easy by josh crawley (Score:1) Monday September 16, @10:56AM
        • Re:Easy by ProppaT (Score:1) Monday September 16, @11:23AM
          • Re:Easy (Score:4, Insightful)
          by SirSlud on Monday September 16, @11:25AM (#4266006)
          (User #67381 Info | http://www.besonic.com/nufunq | Last Journal: Tuesday June 04, @10:21PM)
          Major Label rappers who promote positve messages (and can be found in the stores you list):

          De La Soul
          Tribe Called Quest
          Black Eyed Peas
          Common
          Mos Def
          Talib Kwali
          The Roots

          The list goes on. That was my point. There are lots of positive rappers, but blame the marketers for not trying to sell it to you and the kids for not being interested in searching for a truth outside of the allure of gansta rap.

          As a slight aside, something that irks me about the dismissal of Gangsta Rap as having no redeeming value .. anyone who watches The Sopranos has no right to diss Gangsta Rap. Thats not to say that you value the Sopranos, but I want to make it perfectly clear that ALL cultures glamoize the criminal underworld. Both portray a glamorized, clean-cut interpretation of seedy underworlds; the only difference is that The Mafia seems to have some sort of romance that people identify with, where as most folks cant identify with the romance in the gangsta life. Thats not to say that there is any, since I cant find the romance in The Mafia culture, but hey, thats just my take. Selling and glamorizing the criminal element is not something the rap culture came up with - hell, the roots of rap are in positive social change (read up on HipHop Culture if you have time on your hands), but as usual, the commercialization of something tends to support the perversion of any positive message.

          There's plenty of good rap out there like there is plenty of good Nu Metal bands out there. But like food, the better it is, the less people will like it, and thus the less it will be promoted into the public conciousness.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          • Re:Easy by Crossplatform (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:01PM
          • Re:Easy by the way, what're you (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:12PM
          • Re:Easy by jejones (Score:2) Monday September 16, @12:30PM
          • Re:Easy by PainKilleR-CE (Score:1) Monday September 16, @02:01PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Easy by SirSlud (Score:1) Monday September 16, @11:41AM
          • Re:Easy by josh crawley (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:24PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • easier said than done by EZmagz (Score:1) Monday September 16, @11:33AM
      • Re:Easy by FallLine (Score:3) Monday September 16, @11:46AM
      • Re:Easy by jejones (Score:2) Monday September 16, @12:18PM
        • Re:Easy by TKinias (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:48PM
  • Re:Easy by jellomizer (Score:2) Monday September 16, @10:29AM
  • Re:Easy by Kourino (Score:1) Monday September 16, @10:53AM
  • Facades by Reziac (Score:2) Monday September 16, @12:03PM
    • Re:Facades by fishbowl (Score:2) Monday September 16, @12:31PM
      • Re:Facades by boskone (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:57PM
      • Re:Facades by Jordy (Score:2) Monday September 16, @01:34PM
  • Re:Easy by AntiNorm (Score:2) Monday September 16, @02:02PM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
RIAA = obsolete (Score:2, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16, @10:22AM (#4265504)
Its a shame the RIAA won't accept its fate. Just like the typewriter gave way to the computer, they are steadily becomming obsolete. Artists will find ways to distribute their music cheaper and to a larger audience through the internet.

I hope that legislation doesn't allow a big dying industry to survive longer than it should.. it impedes both artists and consumers from moving forward and finding the best way for musicians (not the associated industry) to succeed.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Time to seek alternatives. (Score:5, Interesting)
by OrangeSpyderMan on Monday September 16, @10:22AM (#4265509)
(User #589635 Info)
An interesting article by all means. Perhaps the time has come for all artists, new upcomers or old timers, to seek an alternative distribution model. I have often thought, considering the very slim royalties most performers receive from CD sales, that simply selling tunes direct to the customer on a website could put the power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people who have the talent.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
by GearheadX (foo@bar.baz) on Monday September 16, @10:22AM (#4265512)
(User #414240 Info)
In the modern business environment, with folks looking for corporations to decapitate and place heads on pikes so that they look busy, the RIAA's games just *might* get them into trouble...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
by Lothar+0 (lothar@take-off-for-great-email.uga.edu) on Monday September 16, @10:23AM (#4265519)
(User #444996 Info | http://www.goodwebsites.com/)
Though accused of conniving tactics behind the scenes, Rosen publicly extends an olive branch to detractors. "I'm glad the artists are organizing," she says. "It's good for the industry. We want to resolve our disagreements and move on to other critical matters, especially piracy. We're on the same side in 99% of the issues.

But isn't your piracy of their talent 99% of the problem?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Clear Channel / Payola (Score:5, Informative)
by floppy ears on Monday September 16, @10:24AM (#4265528)
(User #470810 Info | http://handinsocket.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 14, @06:58PM)
Labels sidestep payola laws by hiring independent promoters to lobby and compensate radio stations for playing certain records. Opponents say this quasi-legal system stifles creativity and limits diversity.

The Clear Channel / Payola problem is one of the most serious issues in the music industry today. It is one of the primary causes of the crap that's coming out of the major labels.

If you haven't read it, you should check out Salon's great series [salon.com] on this issue.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Michael Jackson (Score:5, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16, @10:26AM (#4265541)

Michael Jackson's recent high-profile leap onto the bandwagon was met with skepticism. In rallying support for his financial grievances against Sony Music, he asserted, "If you fight for me, you're fighting for all black people."



Sorry, I may have missed something. Why the link between Michael Jackson and black people?



[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Harm or revolutionize? (Score:3, Insightful)
by AtariKee on Monday September 16, @10:29AM (#4265570)
(User #455870 Info)
"Miles Copeland, chairman of Ark 21 Records, predicts that passage could significantly harm 'the entire music business because of the very visible complaining by a few successful recording artists. If the mega artists succeed with this effort, I feel strongly that it would be at the expense of those artists who have not made it yet.'"

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it might be bad to an executive like Copeland, who relies on sub-talented "artists" like Britney Spears to generate income for that new yacht. But this actually be the wakeup call needed to actually *develop* new artists, rather than toss them out there like so many Big Macs for huge immediate profits.

The whole industry needs an enema, and I am very happy to see some *real* artists starting to voice their concerns. There may be hope after all :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Original Steve Albini article (Score:4, Informative)
by Herbmaster on Monday September 16, @10:30AM (#4265577)
(User #1486 Info)

You can read the original piece by the brilliant Steve Albini here [negativland.com], and probably lots of other places [google.com]. Thanks to some slashdot comment I read last week but have since lost.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Hmm, never thought of it like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
by daoine (lizzie@acmAUDEN.org minus poet) on Monday September 16, @10:31AM (#4265583)
(User #123140 Info | Last Journal: Wednesday September 11, @12:00PM)
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid.

I never thought of it like this before, but that's really what happens. What's worse - there's nothing more frustrating than a band changing labels -- the old label still owns all the band's old music, which unfortunately means that they take some pretty good stuff and stick it in a basement somewhere. This is where Janis Ian's suggestion of letting artist re-release their out-of-print stuff would really be of use. Of course, that would require the RIAA to give up some control...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Leann Rimes (Score:4, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16, @10:31AM (#4265586)
Boy, did she get screwed.

First, her parents signed her up with Curb Records for TEN albums when she was 12. She grossed over $300,000,000 for Curb Records. That's right, a third of a billion dollars.

When her parents got divorced, her mom got to ride horses with the WalMart heirs, her dad lives in luxury, and Leann has enough to buy herself a used car.

There are laws that are supposed to protect child stars from getting fucked like this. There isn't a single honest judge to enforce them, though. Leann is suing her dad, her label, and probably her mother, agents, and promoters. It's the judges that will do her in.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
source of bad music? (Score:2, Interesting)
by jeffy124 on Monday September 16, @10:33AM (#4265607)
(User #453342 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday September 16, @11:09AM)
the article says that labels tend to contract 6-8 albums for an artist to produce. I wonder if this is a source of the poor music that has been coming out in recent years. Some artists may simply have one or two hits at the start of their career, getting the attention the labels, thus signing the artist. Then it turns out that the artist, having to roll out that many albums, does not have the talent in them to come up with enough good tunes that people want, leading to a decline in CD sales. All the one-hit-wonders are the ones getting signed by the big labels before the realization that they are one-hit-wonders.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Pay back Bo Diddley! (Score:5, Informative)
by Rader on Monday September 16, @10:36AM (#4265630)
(User #40041 Info)
...Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore's music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits.....

I wonder if this includes the artists who died penniless. (Back pension to the widowed families)

What would be nice is if they could reverse the law that lets the Big-5 keep the copyrights forever. Retrieval of copyrights back to the family of deseased artists could be a form of income for them.

Although it's possible the Big-5 think of these as revenue for themselves, the fact is, they sit on them without re-releasing songs because it's not "profitable" to them. These families have smaller overhead, and it could be profitable for THEM.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Preserving career structures (Score:1, Insightful)
by panurge on Monday September 16, @10:38AM (#4265644)
(User #573432 Info)
Deep coal mining (unions)
Hot metal composited printing (print unions)
State controlled television and radio
Sauropod dinosaurs

Of course the RIAA will fight for its privileges. If you were a talentless hack with a big salary and no other legal way of earning a living, what would you do?
However, based on the examples above, this probably only has a few years to run.
And then, perhaps, back to the golden age of music when people like Wagner, Strauss and Beethoven managed to make a good living throughout long careers without needing the RIAA, a swarm of hangers on, or piles of coke in the dressing room.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Ahh, Hilary - always good for a laugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
by schon on Monday September 16, @10:39AM (#4265653)
(User #31600 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
OK, accepting the old razor about ascribing actions to ignorance instead of malice, I have to wonder why Hilary Rosen is head of the RIAA, when she's so woefully clueless about the business.

In particular, is this gem:

"While the record company could keep an artist under the old contract, they never do," RIAA chief Hilary Rosen says.

Uhm, yeah.

Tell that to Tom Petty.

Or John Fogerty.

Or Prince.

Or many others.

I'm sure they'll get a good bellylaugh out of it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
NOW is the time (Score:2)
by erroneus on Monday September 16, @10:40AM (#4265657)
(User #253617 Info | http://www.d-n-a.cc/)
Now is the time to start up a new company that fosters digital distribution.

I think there would be enough prominant artists getting involved (investing and performing) that a large popularity could be created rather quickly without even trying very hard.

I'm sure a lot of the digital distribution means would require some sane consideration that really hasn't been considered deeply, however, as most of our thought is simply "get away from RIAA." So while we're thinking of running away from RIAA, we're forgetting to think about where we run to.

Now is the time to consider that and make a move.

People will jump on the opportunity to download a 56k quality version for free and probably will buy the 128k version if they like it. Selling digital music might turn a pretty penny without much of the publishing costs.

*I* haven't thought this through but I'm sure there are many who have some really good ideas right off they top of their more experienced and thoughtful heads. But if the strength, numbers and influence of the artists protesting the RIAA's tactics, then it's high-time that competition to the RIAA is formed. Anyone else a little weary of hearing complaints without solutions?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
riaa/freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
by jukal on Monday September 16, @10:42AM (#4265671)
(User #523582 Info | http://www.openchallenge.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 01, @04:08PM)
have you ever read the "freedom of speech [riaa.org]" page at RIAA [riaa.org].

I find this rather sarcastic:

In difficult times, it is easier and quicker to look for handy scapegoats than to search for viable solutions. Banning certain kinds of music is not the answer. RIAA continues to fight hard on both federal and state levels to block well intentioned, but seriously misguided, efforts.

But banning certain kinds of delivery mechanisms is the answer? That seems like a well intentioned, but seriously misguided effort. Instead, they should maybe search for a more viable solution.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The greater evil (Score:2, Interesting)
by Rader on Monday September 16, @10:44AM (#4265682)
(User #40041 Info)
.....Though accused of conniving tactics behind the scenes, Rosen publicly extends an olive branch to detractors. "I'm glad the artists are organizing," she says. "It's good for the industry. We want to resolve our disagreements and move on to other critical matters, especially piracy. We're on the same side in 99% of the issues....

Oh great. That will be the solution. Blame the pirates for all their problems. Yet another act of misdirection.

I feel that this will all get settled over one small addition to the contracts (like limiting their indentured servant status to "only" 7 years) and then it'll be business as usual. (Basically buying more legislation so that in a few years we're at a pay-per-play market)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Copyright reform (Score:4, Insightful)
by tmark on Monday September 16, @10:46AM (#4265697)
(User #230091 Info)
Interesting how 'copyright reform' gets thrown into the excerpt of the original post, when the real issue of copyright reform referenced in the source article has NOTHING to do with the kind of copyright/IP issues that are normally argued about here. A regular reader might assume that these artists share more with the P2P/IP sympathies that characterize much of the opinion on this site than they actually do.

Yes, they're arguing with the RIAA about copyrights, but these artists are striving to reassert their OWN ownership over copyright, and you can bet that the majority of them will seek to protect their copyrights as vociferously and aggressively as they can.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Life, Fairness, and the dollar (Score:4, Insightful)
by Vodak on Monday September 16, @10:46AM (#4265700)
(User #119225 Info | http://www.pewp.net/ | Last Journal: Monday September 09, @10:22AM)
"It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight."

Welcome to capitalism.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Most shocking part of article (Score:5, Funny)
by stratjakt on Monday September 16, @10:47AM (#4265703)
(User #596332 Info)
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system," says Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. "The time where accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots."

Someone UNDERSTOOD something Richards SAID!?

He talks like Prince writes.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Financing Bands Through IPOs/stocks (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16, @10:47AM (#4265707)

And today on NYSE, NOFX is going public...

but seriously, why not? Just like you buy stocks if you feel a corporation will strike gold, would it not make sense to do the same with music ?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Keith Richards (Score:4, Funny)
by tmark on Monday September 16, @10:48AM (#4265711)
(User #230091 Info)
I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots.

Anyone else get a laugh out of the fact that Keith Richards is derisively calling anyone a dinosaur ??
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
An idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
by aerojad on Monday September 16, @10:48AM (#4265713)
(User #594561 Info)
The price of CDs themselves is way too outrageous. In many cases, the cd isn't worth the 20 dollars you have to fork over to buy it with. Somewhere, some place down the line, someone is making a fat profit on these cds. Does it really cost that much money to get a plastic case, a little booklet, and maybe a bit of paint on a cd? In this mass-producing-touch-of-a-button world? Say the most expensive CDs would only cost 9 or 10 dollars. Sales would surge since you could buy double as many disks. I for one would love to buy more cds, espically if they cost less. Sure you can find cds that are that price already online, or maybe in the bargin bin of your local Best Buy, but I mean major new releases. Don't you think more copies would fly off the shelf if the new pop hit cd came out at $9.99 instead of $18.99 in your local mall? Sell 10,000 copies at a lower price, and make more than you would if you sold 5,000 copies at a higher price. Of course from the industry's point of view, if you can sell 10,000 copies... sell 10,000 copies at the highest price possible. Got to get that gold plated Lexus, after all.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:An idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
    by paulbd (p b d a t o p d o t n e t) on Monday September 16, @11:16AM (#4265933)
    (User #118132 Info | http://www.op.net/~pbd/)

    whatever the record company is making from the sale of a CD, you can be sure that only a very small fraction of its costs are related to producing the CD itself. marketing, office staff, physical distribution, office costs, studio time, lost money on flops, ... the list goes on.

    i'm not justifying any particular price for a CD, but demanding that because a CD is cheap to make means that recorded music sold in CD format should be sold for very little is incredibly naive. the price of the product is not just the price of making the final disc.

    i'm also curious at the level of complaint about this particular consumer item, when exactly the same concerns and cost/price relationship exists for most other things that we buy, particularly clothes. i don't hear many people (especially on slashdot) talking this way about t-shirts and shoes, which cost very, very little to make but sell for at least as much as a CD.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:An idea... by Fizzlewhiff (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:57PM
    • Re:An idea... by Janus Daniels (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:31PM
    • Re:An idea... by Blahbbs (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:37PM
    • Re:An idea... by Cinematique (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:45PM
    • Another idea by MemeRot (Score:1) Monday September 16, @02:23PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:An idea... by MoneyT (Score:2) Monday September 16, @01:27PM
  • Re:An idea... by sealawyer (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:38PM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Stricter laws will not solve the problem. (Score:1)
by oval_pants on Monday September 16, @10:48AM (#4265715)
(User #602266 Info)
What is going to finally solve the dillema though? I mean, if you enact tougher laws in the United States against certain practices of the RIAA, what is stopping them from moving offshore to a more "business" favorable country?

In my opinion, the artists themselves are the only ones able to remove this threat, as they are the bread and butter at issue. If the top stars pseudo-unionized, there would probably be a better control over the Cartel^H^H^H^H^H^H RIAA.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
RIAA GRRRRRRR (Score:1)
by Anonym1ty on Monday September 16, @10:48AM (#4265717)
(User #534715 Info)

Why don't we just get all our music on Kazaa, or Gnutella or what not... freely trade it and if you like the some song, mail money directly to the artist?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
support the artist not the label(if you like them) (Score:2, Interesting)
by intermodal (`moc.liamwocsom' `ta' `ayanreves') on Monday September 16, @10:48AM (#4265718)
(User #534361 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Many issues are covered, including copyright reform, fraudulent accounting on the part of record labels, and how selling a quarter million albums can leave you owing your label $14,000."

Meanwhile, at the bottom of the article page, it says "Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed. -- Alexander Pope"

very fitting.

See, this is why i don't buy anything from the RIAA anymore, aside from the fact that I don't want my money going to fund copyright laws that I don't want. If i want to hear them bad enough, I'll go see them when they come to town, if I hear about it, since I don't listen to the radio...but thats what band websites are for.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Tactful wording. (Score:3, Insightful)
by altgrr on Monday September 16, @10:50AM (#4265732)
(User #593057 Info)
"And these renegotiated deals don't tend to tack on a lot of extra albums or dramatically increase the artist's obligation"

Which is to say that they could tend to tack on a few extra albums or moderately increase the artist's obligation, in addition to tacking on a lot of extra albums and/or dramatically increasing the artist's obligation in a smaller proportion of cases.

What it comes down to is this: If they're conning the artists who have been in the business a long time, they're hardly going to tell it to USA Today straight, are they?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Whose Fault Is This? (Score:4, Insightful)
by goldspider on Monday September 16, @10:51AM (#4265733)
(User #445116 Info | http://members.tripod.com/adam_r_drake/)
"Industry studies point out that for every hit the business scores, it loses $6.3 million on albums that tank. Fewer than 5% of signed artists deliver a hit."

That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.

Perhaps they'd lose less money (and maybe make some?) if their tastes and qualifications were a little more discriminating.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What ever will they think of next? (Score:2, Funny)
by AndroidCat on Monday September 16, @10:51AM (#4265736)
(User #229562 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
"They face challenges from increasingly vocal performers.."

Well duh! Hello! They're performers, they're supposed to be vocal, or instrumental or something. I bet the writer was saving that one up for years.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Problem is of consumer's making (Score:2, Interesting)
by ndvaughan on Monday September 16, @10:51AM (#4265740)
(User #576319 Info)
I feel for the artists--especially the ones who have a steady following and are great musicians but get dropped because they don't appeal to the "MTV generation". But it's our own fault. We rely too much on radio and TV to influence our tastes and who we listen to. I once thought there was a big, untapped resource of music-lovers who really want to hear the stuff that's not on the radio--people who want only quality musicianship and a unique sound, but things like jazz (the only truly American music form) and classical have never been big sellers, even with the older demographic.

Face it, most people want to hear the stuff that's on the radio-- over-produced, simplistic, commercialized goo, and we can't stand if it's not a singable tune. That's why only 5% of the artists have a hit-- because the record companies know they can't make money unless they find a musician who happens to fit that (very rare) formula. Even if they do sign an innovative group or individual, they know hardly anyone will buy the record, because they know we have horrible taste, or that we, for whatever reason, are less likely to buy it.

I work at a music store, and 99% of the requests I get are for musicians who they heard on the radio or TV. People want to be hand-fed good music, then complain when it's not good. The record companies are only trying to feed the customer what they seem to want, which is not necessarily good music.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How about this for a ridiculous contract term? (Score:5, Interesting)
by droopus on Monday September 16, @10:58AM (#4265792)
(User #33472 Info)
I was a record producer for fifteen years and got out of the business because it simply sickened me. Here's an example:

Artists are paid a points royalty on sale of master recordings (while songwriters are paid publishing royalties on the sales of songs). 15% (15 points) is quite a good royalty for a new band, or even one with a hit under their belt.

But does that mean 15 points off all sales? Nope.

It means 15% of 90% of the worldwide gross. Why 90%?

Because in the 1940's (when the label business models we hate so much were established) lacquer records were still sold and many of them broke in shipment. A 10% "breakage allowance" was standard.

It still is. CDs don't break. But the labels, almost without exception, skim 10% off the top for "breakage" before even getting to recoupment. If IBM skimmed 10% off their earnings before issuing dividends the Board would be crucified. But music labels? No problem!

As for recoupment, the example given in the USA Today article is tame. I won't mention the name, but there is a band who has sold millions, for each of their more than five albums. But each time, video costs, recording costs, marketing/promotion costs, plane fares (for huge label entourages), hotel bills (for these same label execs) were all paid for by the band.

Sum total? They sold 35 million records and still OWE the label over 2 million dollars.

The system was devised in the 40's and has no place in the 21st Century. Hilary Rosen can whine all she wants, but the labels are truly in serious trouble due to their religious adherence to these ancient business models.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Hmmm (Score:1)
by Kourino on Monday September 16, @11:00AM (#4265805)
(User #206616 Info | http://slashdot.org/)

A state law exempting record labels from maximum contract lengths? Ewww.

Heh. Tom Petty making an album slamming the industry. I think I may have to keep an eye out for this one. XD I bet he'll stand his ground ... won't be turned around! :3 Didn't hear about Michael Jackson.

I really hope this makes a difference. It's disgusting to have really neat artists like Tori and Björk that I feel guilty buying albums from because they're on major labels. A world where entertainment is tainted because of its distributor is a world gone wrong. (Well, aside from all the other, more screwed up stuff ^^;)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Maybe your business stinks (Score:2)
by Rader on Monday September 16, @11:01AM (#4265814)
(User #40041 Info)
...Wayne Kramer, founder of punk's seminal MC5, felt some empathy for embattled record execs after he established his label, MuscleTone, last year.

"I have a new respect for how hard it is to run a label, and I know record companies lose money on most bands," Kramer says....

What the hell? True, I'm not an ex-punk band leader or label maker, but not being able to sell bad music in a 10 block radius shouldn't be a gauge.

Maybe some type of co-op is needed. A huge number of artists get together, and with power in numbers (and dollars) able to procure the cheapest marketing, distribution, and processing they can get for their dollars. Figure out the costs, and that's what you charge the artist to put out a new record. Profits can go to the artist, with maybe a small percentage going to the investment of the co-op. Merchandise, touring/concerts, part of the working equation. Make rMTv channel (r=real) to play their own videos. Crack into the radio stations market to play their own music only.

*sigh* Probably impossible to do with the monopoly in place.

But then again, maybe it has been done, and the RIAA = the co-op.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Fraudulent accounting... (Score:5, Interesting)
by vsavatar on Monday September 16, @11:02AM (#4265823)
(User #196370 Info)
While intentionally not paying royalties is obviously fraudulent accounting. The traditional system of applying overhead to jobs also needs to be eliminated because they're charging artists for idle time that's not the artists' fault, but the fault of the Labels. Take recording for instance. If a recording studio applies overhead based on the estimated number of studio hours they think they'll incur throughout the year, the overhead cost will be more per studio hour than if the studio applied overhead based on capacity of recording hours available which is the way it should be done. Artists should only have to pay for the time, labor, and materials it takes to produce their own albums, not the studio's idle time because they can't get enough business. While this will result in underapplied overhead for the studio and an increase in cost of sales, that's not the artists' fault and it shouldn't be their problem. The Labels and the studios need to find a way to bring their actual recording hours closer to capacity to get their profit margin back rather than overcharging the artists for it which is, unfortunately, still legal in the USA. This is why an album can sell 250,000 copies and still leave an artist owing money, because they're sticking it to them by overapplying overhead.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Steve Alibini article (Score:2, Informative)
by NearlyHeadless (kenhirsch@myself.com) on Monday September 16, @11:02AM (#4265824)
(User #110901 Info)
The Baffler article by Stevel Albini that was referenced in USA Today is available here [arancidamoeba.com]. The $-14,000 is not really relevant, it's the difference from a $250,000 advance.


The income statement is a little hard to follow. For one thing, it doesn't have proper indenting for sub-items, so it's hard to tell which things should really be added up.


For those who think it's okay for bands to make nothing on recordings since they make all their money on tours--this band lost money on tours, which is typical, from what I understand.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This is why I only listen to indie labels (Score:1)
by fatwreckfan on Monday September 16, @11:04AM (#4265844)
(User #322865 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
From the article:

"The record companies are like cartels, like countries, for God's sake," singer/songwriter Tom Waits says. "It's a nightmare to be trapped in one. I'm on a good label (Epitaph) now that's not part of the plantation system.


You can buy mp3s of every Epitaph release (even the out of print ones I believe) from Emusic, then do what ever you want with them, like make your own mixed cds.

I hope the 5 crash and burn.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Do you know what Hilary gets paid? (Score:2, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 16, @11:09AM (#4265883)
Here's a shocker: Hilary is on a salary of $1.4 million a year, with all travel, clothing, food and personal incidentals added as expenses, plus three "business" residences.Total comp package: about 2.7 million a year. Jack Valenti gets at least 1.5 million more. A YEAR.

And you wonder why she is so tencious about ideas which any sane person would laugh at?

Because she only cares about what most people care about: their own asses. If the music industry no longer has a need for the RIAA, what else could she possibly be qualified for?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Industry Led By Visionaries (Score:4, Funny)
by e2d2 on Monday September 16, @11:12AM (#4265907)
(User #115622 Info)
"In the past 20 years, an industry that was led by visionaries and music lovers has become dominated by accountants, financial analysts and people who can't think ahead more than 90 days."

Sounds a lot like the software industry
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Time for change! (Score:2)
by Jeppe Salvesen on Monday September 16, @11:12AM (#4265909)
(User #101622 Info | http://jeppe.ioslo.net/)
It is clearly time for change. When artists have such slave-like contracts - low pay and few rights - there is no wonder talented, smart people stay out of the recording industry.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Just so little Johnnie can make a record... (Score:2, Funny)
by geemon on Monday September 16, @11:16AM (#4265940)
(User #513231 Info)
"Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."

Hillary Rosen was just tugging at my heart strings with this quote. I mean, who knew that the record publishing houses were really just there to work for the artist and to pour millions of dollars into making records just so one poor little musician could recognize their dream!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This shows the reality (Score:2)
by famazza (mazza@NoSpAM.altern.org) on Monday September 16, @11:18AM (#4265953)
(User #398147 Info | http://slashdot.org/~famazza/journal | Last Journal: Monday April 15, @01:17PM)

This shows the reality for most musicians. Of course there are few that are paid correctly, the most famous ones, of course, like Metallica. These musicians think that everybody else receives their payments the way they receive.

It's a shame, but by paying right for some, they create a small legion of artists that try to convince people that everything is ok the way it is (and of course fight for RIAAs interests)

Now we all have proofs that Metallica fought against Napster because they really believe that every other musicians receive their payments.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Surprising insight from an unlikely source (Score:1)
by Speed Racer on Monday September 16, @11:27AM (#4266020)
(User #9074 Info)
Was anybody else surprised to see this quote at the end of the article?
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system," says Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. "The time where accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots."
Can't say I expected such vision and clarity of thought from a man that can't be killed by conventional weapons.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Required reading (Score:1)
by porter8 on Monday September 16, @11:38AM (#4266096)
(User #513870 Info)
For an insiders look at how the record industry works check out "Hit Men" by Frederic Dannen (a nom de plume) No one is completely certain who wrote it though no one has ever questioned the facts it contains.
The book came out in 1990 most of the players have remained the same.

If that doesn't completely scare you read "All You Need to Know About The Music Business" by Donald S. Passman. This book is written mostly for working musicians, but his dissection of a standard record contract is well worth the read.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How to avoid the RIAA? (Score:1)
by mt-biker on Monday September 16, @11:39AM (#4266104)
(User #514724 Info)
In the article, Tom Waits is quoted as saying:

It's a nightmare to be trapped in one. I'm on a good label (Epitaph) now that's not part of the plantation system. But all the old records I did for Island have been swallowed up and spit out in whatever form they choose.

But Epitaph is a member of the RIAA:

http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm [riaa.org]

Over the last few months I've wanted to buy a few new CDs, but each time I look up the label and find that they're in the RIAA, so I've refused to buy it.

What to do? Is there a way to avoid the label? To buy the music without supporting the label?

Or are labels like "Epitaph" good-guys, without any power to avoid RIAA's politics?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Record Labels == VCs (Score:1)
by kmahan on Monday September 16, @11:47AM (#4266144)
(User #80459 Info)
It's nice to see that Record Labels are just as good at screwing the people "they invest in" as a lot of the Venture Capitalists that finance startups. Invest in 'em and then own 'em forever and make all the money, while the real talent (musicians, engineers) get the royal shaft. Nice and fair. Uh huh..
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
best part of the article.. (Score:1)
by fandelem (fandelem@hotmail.com) on Monday September 16, @11:49AM (#4266159)
(User #559908 Info | http://www.fandelem.com/)

This has got to be the best quote of the article, from Hilary Rosen, "Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."

k.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
All the 'bad' stuff in this article is true! (Score:2, Insightful)
by Lysol on Monday September 16, @11:54AM (#4266188)
(User #11150 Info)
For the better part of my 20's, I was in 'the industry'. Either in a band trying to crack it or livin the poor musician lifestyle with most of my friends being either musicians or in 'the industry'.

The Stevel Albini blurb is an excellent read. If you're not a Hootie or Britney or Korn type (even korn being huge is weird) they you're either 100% screwed or you're never gonna make it or you're gonn land on an indie or start your own label.

Me, I tried the start your own label after 'not making it'. 'The industry' is not anything remotely to do with bringin artistic capabilities to the listening public. It is 100% about 'product', how to get that 'product' into the hands of as many people as possible and what the next 'hit' is gonna be. When 'the industry' says it loses $6mil on most acts, big fucking deal, it's your own fault. Because:
- they've completely run all the mom and pop record stores outta biz = no loyal fanbase at a word of mouth price = $3mil for radio (ugh, clear channel) & mtv promotions = Accountant: 'shit, we couldn't clear out the other 10mil units of Susie Johnson cuz people are sick of her already.' CEO: 'scerew her then. alright, dump the cd's in some poor country and jack up the fees 10% on the next 10 new acts'.
- recording an album in a pro studio is horrendiously expensive ($5k for a guy to come in a tune the room is pretty fucked up)
- they sign shitty cookie cutter bands! any orginality, forget it.
- Jim Lawer charges $500/hr. John CEO makes 10x more than Jim.

This being said, I would vomit profusely like a posessed demon and kill myself if it wasn't for many of the real musicians and labels. Look at Fugazi and Dischord. That is it!. They live the music, they do well and they don't fuck eveyone ever and drive away at the end of the day to their mansion on the hill and preach all this rhetoric shit like Rosen does.

Once you get back to the real deal about music, which is (and I don't give one rats ass what Kid Rock says - yah, lets see what he thinks in 10 years when he's been milked dry and tossed aside) that it's art and expression. Period!

Sure, you can make money at it, but 'the industry' is soooo lopsided right now that the RIAA/Rosen claims make me laugh. This stuff all ties in also with the MPAA and p2p (duh!) and DRM. These groups have been stifling artists rights for some time and now their only recourse, after 'the people' as in we, have spoken, is to go after us. Threatening to pass legislation to get 'copyrighted' material off our computers if need be!

What you can do:
1. Don't buy trash crap from Britney and the like
2. Smash your MTV (they're literally nothing but a delivery vehicle for the big 5, period!)
3. Get into your local scene. This is where the best stuff always is. And if there isn't one, make one!
4. If you find you have a p2p song that's been 'doctored' remove it. This will keep the good stuff flowin and the rage against the machine growin.

So, there is stuff we can do. We just have to get off our asses and do it. Or, lay down with the wolves...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Put your money where your mouth is (Score:1, Troll)
by anthony_dipierro (five.plus.five@inbox.org) on Monday September 16, @12:02PM (#4266232)
(User #543308 Info | http://slashdotsucks.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 07, @03:48PM)
I really don't get this holier than thou attitude from people against the RIAA. If you have $200K to invest in an unknown artist to produce and market his/her album, by all means, put your money where your mouth is. If you think AOL is making so much money, go ahead and invest in it. But that's not what's happening. For every superstar that makes the record company a million dollars there's five failures that lose the record company a couple hundred thousand. Yes, in the end the record company usually makes a profit, but on average that profit is generally only a few percent a year of the amount of money that had to be invested to earn that profit. That's the way capitalism works. If you can't afford the capital, you work for someone else. If you've got a better solution, I'd like to hear it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 16 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  Amoebit: Amoeba/rabbit cross; it can multiply and divide at the same time.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]