Recording Industry Bans Musician From Charts For Supporting Free Music

from the fair-and-balanced dept

Wed, Aug 16th 2006 6:23pm — Mike Masnick

One of the favorite lines out of the recording industry honchos when confronted about musicians who are against industry efforts to sue individuals who share files is that the industry execs support whatever choice the musicians make for themselves. If the musicians want to free their music, the execs say, that's their choice. Funny, then, that the industry execs are acting out against a young musician who wants her music to be free. BPI, the UK version of the RIAA, has banned a twelve year-old singer songwriter from a new music chart they were creating for schools. The reason, apparently, is that BPI doesn't want to promote young Amy Thomas' music, since she's signed to a music label that doesn't support BPI's stance on suing file sharers. Obviously, BPI is free to set up its charts however it wants -- but it really should stop claiming to the world that it represents whatever artists want.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

bailey, 16 Aug 2006 @ 6:30pm

amy thomas' music..
jeez.. it's nearly impossible to find Amy Thomas' website... "amy thomas" and "just smile" are way too generic to find.. but, I found it.. someone should build a site to search for websites and stuff, using keywords, that would be great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tnashin, 16 Aug 2006 @ 6:48pm

They promote the people that pay them
Doesn't the claim only mean that they represent whatever the artists that they represent want? Why should BPI promote a competitor's artist when others are paying them for promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPR, 16 Aug 2006 @ 8:24pm

If the musicians want to free their music, the execs say, that's their choice.

HUH? Since when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyros, 16 Aug 2006 @ 9:22pm

so wrong on so many levels...
wow, obviously, BPI does it for money, but they don't can't even respect their artists decision..even when they claim they do....morals and ethics aside, it shows they can't think ahead to immediate media response..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compwiz, 16 Aug 2006 @ 9:59pm

this is sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sean, 16 Aug 2006 @ 10:09pm

Streisand Effect
Streisand effect anyone? Because the BPI wants to be stupid, I'm now visiting the site of some artist I've never heard of before. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
So sure BPI, go ahead and ban the little girl. All you're really doing is giving her free publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 16 Aug 2006 @ 11:28pm

Another label, another label, another label...
I am pretty sure I read that "the industry" claims to support ITS artists. I can only infer that the author intended "the industry" to represent BPI. In any case, she is apparently signed under an unsupported label. BPI is a company, so why would they promote someone who offers them no return. People need to quit crying about big companies being whores or sell-outs. That is what they do. A busuniess who promotes everyone, reguardless of affiliation is doomed. They are simply following good business practice. Why so much fuss about the charts anyhow?? Does anyone even look at them outside of the industry?

TAKE AWAY THE CAPS LOCK KEY AND PEOPLE WILL STILL DO THIS - another story, but I just had to mention it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MadJo (profile), 17 Aug 2006 @ 12:13am
  
  Re: Another label, another label, another label...
  Why then have charts?
  Charts shouldn't be a commodity for those companies, they should show what's popular and what's not.
  Not what label under BPI care has the 'best' music.
  
  If they can't be arsed to include other labels on that list, then that list is phony and has no real value to add... Because it fails to show what's really, actually popular and what's not.
  
  Just my 2 cents.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - NRT, 18 Aug 2006 @ 1:39am
    
    Re: Re: Another label, another label, another labe
    What's the point of charts which only include BPI-affiliates? Well, not much, really, but that's the way it's always worked, so far as I'm aware. Charts are commercial commodities, used for marketing. With respect, it's a little naive to think they're truly independent and objective.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 17 Aug 2006 @ 5:26am

But if...
the BPI only includes the artists under their labels can you really say that their charts are accurate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incognito, 17 Aug 2006 @ 9:24am

O_o
People still pay attention to charts? I thought that was an 80's thing with that Casy Kasem fella...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 17 Aug 2006 @ 1:56pm

BPI is an acronym
...for Bite my Pissing Instrument!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah, 17 Aug 2006 @ 10:13pm

Things are not as they seem, eh?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33755
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 17 Aug 2006 @ 10:40pm
  
  Re:
  Things are not as they seem, eh?
  
  Actually, reading through that article, they still seem very much the same. The only difference is that the girl was rejected before she could possibly be on the chart. As BPI admits in the article, they refused her application (which seems like a ban to me) based on the views of the label she signed with. That's more or less what the original story said.
  
  The only difference is that she banned before she even had a chance to be on the list, not after she was supposed to be on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 18 Aug 2006 @ 1:30am

Wow, big surprise
Just confirms what we already new, the BPI are backwards thinking dinosaurs, who don't care about consumers or artists.
There's no problem having a company that wants to make money - it's the basis of a capitalist society. However a company that attempts to prevent people from actually using the product they purchase in a reasonable way and attempting to change copyright laws so that no one can have fun or be creative with the things they own just plain sucks. So I'll just carry o using iTunes until they fix it so Jhymn won't strip the DRM anymore and then'll have to find some place else.
I guess we're just lucky the're not quite as bad as the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim Wesson, 18 Aug 2006 @ 2:23am

Reply to those saying
This doesn't address Mike's point, which acknoledges the the BPI have the freedom and the right to do this; this entry is about hypocracy; the industry claim to support musicians' own choices, but don't in practice. Vis:
Obviously, BPI is free to set up its charts however it wants -- but it really should stop claiming to the world that it represents whatever artists want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rusty, 18 Aug 2006 @ 3:33am

I Plugged this
I agree with you guys, and I plugged this article on THE PLUGG go vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nephilim, 18 Aug 2006 @ 4:34am
  
  Re: I Plugged this
  Wow....could that site be any more of a Digg rip off?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick, 18 Aug 2006 @ 3:51am

How she can get to the top of the charts
These charts are worthless - it might as well be a Readers Digest CD of the month club if all they are going to allow in is 'labels we approve of'. We might as well all do the same thing: my chart counts world-wide sales of records by kids called Amy Thomas, and this week's number one is... Amy Thomas! She also becomes the top seller of the year, decade and century. Meaningless charts, but publicity for Amy so at least she gets her opportunity for fame (if she's any good - haven't listened!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
inventedeye, 18 Aug 2006 @ 4:47am

BPI is irlelvant
This just proves that the BPI is entirely unrepresentative of the real music industry in the UK - they simply have no idea. As Sean said, this is an own goal, because they are giving Amy free publicity and kudos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Hutchings, 18 Aug 2006 @ 6:33am

National corporate curriculum
I think a more important question would be why a government department (DFES) and schools are promoting the music industry in this way. Why is there a list of 10 tracks at all? Why no local bands? Why recorded and not live music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Thomas, 18 Aug 2006 @ 9:18am

media spin all around
This sounds as much like Flowerburger records trying to help sales of their albums and artists by making themselves out as the poor little underdog company as it does the mean old BPI keeping smaller artists down.

Flowerburger found the perfect spokesmodel for their cause in a 12 year old girl and are now working as hard as they can to get the press to make this into a fight between a young artist trying to make it and the big corporation keeping her down. I don't see a single quote from the girl saying that she is for p2p filesharing. Obviously no-one is looking to see if she chose fowerburger for it's ideology, or if they were the only one to offer her a contract. I feel sorry for the girl because she is going to get caught up in this fight and media in a way that she probably never intended.

I call bullshit on this whole thing. It all sounds fabricated for an agenda to me. Personally, I don't care if I agree with someone or not, but when they start manipulating the truth for their own agenda I tend to stop trusting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jsaltz, 18 Aug 2006 @ 4:52pm

This is an abomination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
giafly, 21 Aug 2006 @ 4:52am

BPI deny the accusation
"We didn't decide to ban the artist - not only is it untrue that we made a decision to ban her from the campaign - she was never in the running in the first place. We don't know what her views are on downloading, and even if we did, we don't condone censorship. Since we did not ban her, it's untrue to suggest we did so on the basis of her personal views."

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/17/uk_music_industry_bl.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 21 Aug 2006 @ 10:45am
  
  Re: BPI deny the accusation
  Read the details of the denial (which I posted further up this thread). The only part they deny is that they banned her specifically. They admit that they rejected her *application* based on her label. So, they didn't pull her off the chart, they just didn't let her even enter the competition. So, no they didn't ban her based on her "personal views," but they banned her based on her label's views.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flowerburger, 22 Aug 2006 @ 2:04am

Amy was put forward by Pinacle (one of the major distributors) for their one slot in the My Music top ten given to them by the BPI. All was going well Amy's school was told, she was getting her single done and other tracks that she wrote. Then the BPI banned her on the basis of Flowerburgers views when they found out she was on the Flowerburger label.

Flowerburger supports the proper payment of musicians but not by suing fans to scare them into buying . Flowerburger supports a levy like was done for radio that will give income to struggeling musicians as well as the famous ones. On the Flowerburger web site there is a petion against suing that has now been signed by thousands.The public will benefit and entertainment will flourish even more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loud Is Relative, 12 Sep 2006 @ 7:18pm

Amazing...
It still amazes me how the recording industry can be so detached from their core customer, then complain about a slump in music sales... GET A CLUE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an observer, 21 Oct 2006 @ 1:28pm

amy thomas
It seems to me that this schools top ten was a closed shop, there was no real competition and the BPI just controlled it. The BPI can really say what they want then...Amy has showed their true colors!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keen music buyer, 28 Nov 2006 @ 4:01am

Wasn't this schools top ten just the majors and the retailers trying to get to the school kids, or their parents, to part with more money. The education thing was ballshit. Kids get plenty of music education as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
L;JHB EKTOH, 15 Apr 2008 @ 4:32pm

HATE
DAT U DID NOT HELP ME AT ALL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]