Artists Strive To Wrest Rights From Music Industry

eldavojohn writes "The funny thing about the RIAA & BPI is that the artists are just as tired as the fans with how online music is being handled. So they're trying something new called the Featured Artists' Coalition. FAC's site states in their charter: 'We believe that all music artistes should control their destiny because ultimately it is their art and endeavors that create the pleasure and emotion enjoyed by so many.' As digital releases are increasing, the artists aren't seeing any more money. With the advent of online distribution, are the traditional music industry functions of promotion, samples, radio, and marketing now nothing but costly overhead for the artists? From Iron Maiden to Kate Nash to Radiohead, some big names are backing this new organization."

Death to labels, long live music

If there is any way that you can help (adding a banner to link to their website, putting flyers up where appropriate, etc), please do.

So does this mean people will stop pirating?

One of the justifications I often hear for piracy is that you're revolting against record labels. Are people now saying that they will in fact stop pirating music if the RIAA isn't a factor?

Why do I have a hard time believing that?

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating?

If it means there's a web site I can go to and donate directly to artists I like then, yes, they'll get more money from me.

If I'm "pirating" now it's because:

a) The RIAA's various shenanigans over the last few years has earned my contempt.
b) I don't believe the artist would get any of the money from a CD sale. The RIAA will keep it all.

The only CDs I've bought in the last few years have been from places like CDBaby which state clearly how much the artist will receive from the sale. Buying from any other distribution model is worse than any amount of piracy IMHO.

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating?

This is my rationale too - If an artist only gets 25% of my money currently, I'll happily pay them that amount directly (or a little more) as it is cutting out a huge swathe of arseholes all taking a cut and contributing nothing of value.

With the current system, buying music legitimately is a bit like funding terrorism - the vast majority of your money goes to the people who are responsible for all the stuff that's wrong with the industry.

pirates sing happy birthday without paying

Will you stop illegally singing "happy birthday to you" without paying royalties if we redirect all royalty funds to the descendants of the original author of the "Good morning to you" song?

First, using "pirate" to refer to something other than robbery at sea is marketing.

Second, without copyright reform, the new association will become as corrupt as the first.

If there is money and power associated with keeping an extending a publishing monopoly. Even if an association tries to be the a monopoly that is "good", is bound to fall into the same trap.

The only real solution is copyright reform.

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating?

To an extent, I'd have to agree. It's not like piracy didn't exist before the RIAA came into being. If they actually fixed the issues (such as claiming that fair use is piracy, charging $30 for an album and giving the artist $0.50, adding DRM, rootkits and copy protection), they'd be far more likely to curb piracy as it exists now.

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating?

Ok, first of all: STOP calling it piracy! Piracy is stealing shit on the seas and murdering people. And unless you want me to do that to you... ;)

Second: People will of course continue to copy music, as they have done since they were able to do so.
But does it matter? NO. Not in your way. Because freely copied music would still not be bought, if it could not be copied. Some people think it's not worth the money, and some just don't have it.
So what's left, is free promotion, which could very well replace the promotion offered by the industry.

In fact, that's why small labels are more successful since the beginning of MP3 and P2P.

Oh, and for me personally, knowing that the money goes straight to the artist, does completely change the game. I like some artists, and this is a personal thing. So I support them by an here and there, or telling friends about them, even when I'm not buying their music. It's just cool and feel really good, to know that partially, a band got big because of you! :)

Stop saying RIAA

To stop the RIAA, everyone needs to hurt those that fund the RIAA.
These are the companies that need to be vilified.
- Sony
- EMI
- Universal
- Warner Brothers

Re:Stop saying RIAA

Warner Brothers

Yakko, Wakko (and Dot) would never have anything to do with THOSE people!

The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked!

Shocked indeed.

Unfortunately, there are far too many (largely former) artists, who would prefer to sit back and let the record labels pull in the money for them.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked

The labels were a convenient one-stop shop for artists and composers, where they can get a production, publication, and distribution package all in one, and get paid in big enticing chunks. This works great... until you deviate from the contract. Then their label demonstrates that they own them, as wealthy colonists owned the indentured servants of old.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked

While its entirely unreasonable to compare an RIAA contract to slavery, I do think you're overstating the amount of voluntary choice that one has when signing these contracts. Simply put, many artists see a choice between giving in to the RIAA or languishing in obscurity forever. And, it is in the RIAA's interest to let such a situation continue. This is why these sorts of organizations (by the artists, for the artists) are to be welcomed.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked

Really? Who are the former artists that are having their money "pulled in for them" by the record labels, and how much money?

Britney Spears comes to mind. It isn't long since her last album. Do you really think she is in any shape to make music or that it is really her voice on the CDs? However, she has a big brand (created by labels), a lot of advertising (by labels) behind her and as such people keep buying CDs with her name on them. Same goes for numerous other artists.

I'm pretty sure that plenty of artists benefit a lot from the companies. As much as they could? nah. As much as they should? Arguable. I don't know if you really should become multimillionaire just because you can sing well and work a lot for it (I work a lot too. ;)) as long as you earn your living... But saying that labels are bad for all artists would be very wrong.

Re:Platinum

You mean the ones that have incorporated their own record labels in order to keep control over their life's work ?

Yeah, I'm sure they're soooo dependent on the two dozen middlemen that stand between their studios and their fans.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked

In reality, that "big check" goes to the many people that handle the licensing. The artist gets, at most, a few pennies per play.

That's part of the problem: the system exists primarily to support itself, compensating the artists is a secondary objective.

I think radio stations are largely responsible for the great divide between those who collect royalties, and those who want/expect free music wherever they go. If you tune your car radio to WFKU-FM, you don't pay a penny (though the ads are obnoxious). If a restaurant plays music for its patrons, they're expected to pay licensing fees and/or subscribe to a commercial muzak service. Like many things in the music industry, the distinction was fabricated decades ago, and the business model is pretty much an exercise in hypocrisy.

Well.

Here it is. The start of the final fall of the RIAA and its ilk.

The musicians and songwriters are revolting and refusing to be put in their place.

The only question remains: Will they re-do what the RIAA has done? Will they seek an iron-fist of control?

Re:Well.

I do firmly believe that the RIAA (and, by extension, the MPAA) are FAR from out of tricks. They didn't get to the positions they are by being stupid, just greedy.

I fervently hope that I'm wrong, but we've been hearing the "This is it! The death of the RIAA!" announcements for YEARS.

Re:Well.

See, here's the thing. Stuff like this takes time. Things don't just collapse like Lehman or AIG. Actually, not even Lehman or AIG fell overnight, despite all appearances. They've been in trouble for at least a year now.

The timeframe for social change is typically on the order of 10 years, about a half-generation or a decade. Outright revolutions take even longer, about 20 years or twice as long. The American Revolution began in the 1760's and ended in the 1780's. The unrest that brought about the American Civil War began in the 1840's and finally ended in the 1860's.

The RIAA doesn't just represent a bunch of companies, it's an industry, a business model. TThe fall of the RIAA began with Napster, but only because the genie had been let out of the bottle. Things didn't really start rolling until they began suing normal people, because people don't much care about what goes on around them until it hits their pocketbooks, or threatens to.

Then, it was just bad PR for musicians to be associated with companies that sued their fans, and it was all a matter of time. But even then, it takes time for artists and fans alike to realize that they can cut out the middleman and do better. They're not going to necessarily be superstars, but how many artists get to become superstars, and at the expense of how many others?

Had the RIAA not started suing people, it might've taken longer for them to be rendered antiquated, perhaps another 10 years. But that was an eventuality. The world changes, regardless of anybody's desires. It is an inevitability. The RIAA decided to put their resources into fighting the change rather than working with it. For that reason alone, they are destined to fall. It's like swimming against the current. Eventually, they will tire, and when they do, they will drown.

Re:Well.

Thats precisely it: "Pirates" are also some of the biggest spenders. They buy collections just to have them, they download them when the works are 'not released yet', they buy concert tickets, they buy auxiliary materials like DVDs and tshirts.

When some faceless, emotionless company "Owns" a band, and the people know that damn near no money goes back to the artists, downloading and sharing doesnt matter. Who does it hurt? Who gives a shit, its some corporation.

Instead, now you're "pirating" from the artists directly. Wouldn't that be sad if your help got the group disbanded because they couldn't afford it? I mean, they then are getting direct money from selling product. Then again... isn't pirating another form of advertisement, and one that specifically Adobe and MS used at one time?

Perhaps one could encourage purchasing via addons and other perks, rather than "sue-happy hours in court". Something about Honey and Vinegar...

Re:Well.

Congrats, you have taken the first steps along a far greater path. May your moderations be moderate in their moderation of other moderations.

Sorry if this is offtopic but...

... actually it's not offtopic since it refers to a tag on this story - but why are all the stories now being tagged 'story?' What's it going to be next? Tagging them with 'words?'

damn publishers!

The rights for performers should be improved to bring them more into line with those granted to authors (songwriters, lyricists and composers). Authorâ(TM)s rights are much stronger because their rights model was developed 100 years before performers' rights. Some key differences:
- if an artist's recording is used in a TV advertisement in the UK, the author gets paid (via PRS) every time it is broadcast but the performers do not
- if an artist's record is played on free-to-air radio in the US the author gets paid public performance income (via ASCAP or BMI) but the performers do not
- if an artist's recording is used in a feature film, the author but not the performer gets paid public performance income every time the film is shown in a UK cinema.

and there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The recording industries bullshit lies. Piracy be damned. The reason artists make squat is because the publishes have stolen all the money!

We need market to decide the price of any album

I dont want MBA types deciding what price should an album from a particular artist should be sold. they naturally decide on how much they can get out of the pockets of the consumer.

and since, artist is bound by contract to the label, it is another form of monopoly - you wont be able to get records of that artist from any other label.

lets not fool ourselves. this is no competition. just like in the fields of patenting, it hurts our society.

we need market decide what they want to pay for any music piece. or, the artist even.

Re:Will they become the new RIAA?

I think you have it completely wrong here.

think less in terms of your own cleverness, and more in terms of publishing.

Classical publishing is the model we're seeing here. Though, I understand the parallels are not perfect.

The RIAA represents publishers. The web says, "we don't need no stinking publishers". Authors and 'artistes' are wondering why they're sticking to the old school publishing method when it provides so little return. They are going to try the new method. Self publishing is now possible and cost effective. The artists know this. The artists have the product. They have the name. Without artists, the RIAA and its member companies make a big 'whooshing' sound. i.e. vacuum.

We will see labels and publishers suing artists for not renewing contracts. We will also see some artists re-invent themselves due to not owning their 'image'. The only thing that the RIAA's member companies bring to the table now is capital. The market isn't loyal to the publishers. The people are fans of artists, not labels. What we are seeing is the birth of a new industry from the ashes of an old one. The recording industry is at its knees and this, my friends, is its death knell. Long live music and the interminable spirit of human culture.

RIAA mebers ARE NOT PUBLISHERS!

They're promoters.

You don't need the record company to get your CDs made or your music distributed. You need the record company to get your song on the radio, to get your band on Leno or SNL, to get critics to listen to your stuff....

Being able to distribute your own music cheaply doesn't replace the record label - you still have to get anyone to want to listen to your music at all.