Universal Music Working Hard To Alienate Its Biggest Stars
from the no-mashups-allowed dept
The recording industry loves to trot out musicians in its fight for ever-more-draconian copyright laws. We're repeatedly told that fans who create mash-ups with their favorite songs and post them back to YouTube are not only infringing copyright, but are hurting the very artists who created that music in the first place. The funny thing is, a lot of musicians don't seem to have gotten the memo. A couple of years ago, OK Go front man Damian Kulash took to the pages of the New York Times to tell of his battle to keep DRM off of his band's latest CD, which he knew would turn off a lot of fans. Now Nine Inch Nails founder Trent Reznor, who just a few weeks ago parted ways with Universal, has a statement on the group's website about his own struggles with his former label. Reznor has actually encouraged fans to share and re-mix his music, and has even released a new CD featuring user-created mash-ups of Nine Inch Nails music.He was planning to create a YouTube-style website to host and promote the best mash-ups, but he found out at the last moment that Universal wasn't willing to participate in the site, for fear it would undermine their legal arguments against YouTube and its competitors. It's a little bit unclear about what the exact controversy is about. To its credit, Universal apparently hasn't tried to stop Reznor from setting up his own mash-up site. Since Reznor has been released from his Universal contract, it's not surprising that Universal would be reluctant to help him promote his music -- even though it still owns the rights to his earlier songs. So in some sense, it seems a little unfair to blame Universal for not wanting to be involved in setting up a website to promote the music of one of its former acts. But this kind of friction also makes it pretty clear that the labels' claims to represent the interests of artists are rather hollow. Reznor wants to experiment with new ways of promoting his music, while Universal seems to be myopically focused on the next quarter's CD revenues. Instead of looking for ways to turn YouTube into a new promotional vehicle or revenue stream, they've been busy threatening to sue YouTube and its competitors. That's probably not a good strategy for Universal; it certainly isn't a good strategy for Reznor or musicians who are still on Universal's labels. Reznor, it seems, was smart to get out when he did, and I'm sure he's encouraging his musician friends to follow his lead.
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
Filed Under: copyright, mashups, nine inch nails, record labels, trent reznor
Companies: universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
it works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it works
*Fixed*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyhow, as I've said time and again, why attorneys are considered part of the "noble" professions (ie doctors, architects, scholars, etc) I'll never know. 90% produce absolutely NOTHING of benefit to society. The rest who interpret the law and defend against true abuses are the only ones that are worth noting.
I may be over-generalizing but prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps a bit of an overstatement...?
Besides, mash-ups never struck me as particularly creative. "Clever", maybe. Or "creative" in the same sort of limited way that a performing horse that can count by stamping his hoof is "intelligent".
We have a society today that places too much value on re-using the work of others, and not enough on creating new works. Almost none of the mash-ups or re-tellings (or whatever) of truly original works are any good. Except for Battlestar Galactica. The current re-telling of that story is way better than the original. Everything else that I can think of along those lines either sucks or is merely "clever" - not really "creative".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps a bit of an overstatement...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps a bit of an overstatement...?
It's alienating artists because the message is clear. Univeral don't care about the artists' opinions of knowledge of their fanbase. They care more about their attempts to sue YouTube than any attempt to use the technology to add value to their music.
The message is simple: Universal don't care about anything other than protecting a business model proven to be unworkable in the modern age. Why would any intelligent artist not be alienated by behaviour like that?
By the way, your last paragraphy is a strawman. You seem to be talking about remakes (or, in music parlance, cover versions), not mashups. They're completely different concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perhaps a bit of an overstatement...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whose rights?
So Universal wants to protect artists' rights through stronger protection and more DRM even though it still owns the rights to his earlier songs. IT STILL OWNS THE RIGHTS!
That alone tells us this isn't about artists' rights. We have a system where the right of first sale (artists selling their rights) is in conflict with the purchaser of those rights. They will never release them. If it's about artists rights, copyright should NOT be for sale nor ownable by anyone other than the artist/author.
How about we start naming it what it is (from the perspective of the production company). It's PRODUCTION rights. It's the right to produce an artefact (eg book, cd etc) based on the creative output of another entity. Perhaps we should rename this latter aspect creative rights ... lines up nicely with creative commons. This would nicely split production and creativity which seem to be lumped together into one broad but overly restrictive category.
It's common sense, people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]