Project EquillibRIAA: Putting Joel Tenenbaum In Touch With The Musicians In Question
from the good-idea? dept
Not sure what I think of this, but Michael Scott points out a project being set up to try to put Joel Tenenbaum in touch with the musicians whose music he downloaded and shared. The idea is to find out what the musicians think of the RIAA's lawsuit and the $675,000 fine. After the Jammie Thomas ruling, for example, Richard Marx, one of the musicians whose music was involved, came out and condemned the RIAA's action. Considering that the RIAA is out there claiming this is all for the artists, it would be worthwhile to find out what those artists have to say.I have to admit that I hadn't looked at the actual list of 30 songs that were a part of the trial, but I'm pretty surprised to see some of the names on the list. For example, it includes Nine Inch Nails -- and we've already had plenty of blog posts about Trent Reznor's new business models which succeed by encouraging file sharing, recognizing that with more people listening to the music, there are many other creative ways to make more money. In fact, Reznor famously has told fans at concerts that they should download the music that was released under his (former) major record label. I'd love to see the RIAA let us know how much of the $675,000 will get to Reznor. The spreadsheet on the Project EquillibRIAA also lists Radiohead (who has spoken out against the RIAA tactics) and Courtney Love (who has been very explicit in condemning the RIAA's actions since way back in the Napster days), though I don't see either of them actually listed on Joel's list.
Either way, I agree it would be interesting to see what the musicians have to say -- whether they agree with the RIAA's strategy or not... and if they expect to see a dime of the $675,000.
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: joel tenenbaum, musicians
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It would sort of like putting a dairy farmer in touch with a kid who stole milk posters at school. The relationship isn't relevant.
"Either way, I agree it would be interesting to see what the musicians have to say -- whether they agree with the RIAA's strategy or not... and if they expect to see a dime of the $675,000."
Mike,how much did the RIAA pay out to artists in the last year posted? Would you care to remind us? How much does the RIAA send to artists every year? You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They do not even always pay when they DO have a legal requirement. (I think there were quite a few lawsuits over that, with both popular bands, and studio musicians.) That may have changed due to negative press.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, that just about says it all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.
How about you just tell your boss to keep half your paycheck. I mean, they are still paying you, right?
They can call the part they keep "Administrative Overhead and Market Research" charges, then use it to research new sports cars and coffee machines. That shouldn't be a problem, right AC?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Irrelevant??
But of course the LEGAL SYSTEM is not INTROSPECTIVE and neither is the government, which is the principle cause of revolutions. These can either be slow and almost imperceptible, or sudden and violent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
equilibria sounds like a good idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: equilibria sounds like a good idea
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA is selfcentered
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: equilibria sounds like a good idea
Let's not forget that these artists are not only compensated by their labels in cash, but in fame. Which, in the absence of a so-called (and much decried on Techdirt) "360 deal" they get to exploit mostly on their own and for their own benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yep, that's the point actually.
Whenever you hear a pronouncement from the RIAA, it's always about "protecting the artists" and "the future of music". In reality, it's about their profit margins and selling products.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's fundamentally dishonest for them to pretend that victories like this are about the artists when it's really not. The post simply reinforces that, and reinforces why the major labels are their own worst enemies and will become irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA business plan
2) sell plastic
3) screw fans
4) ???
5) profit !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does it really matter what the Artists think???
I could care less if the artist stood on stage and told everyone to download their music, if they signed the distribution rights away, they are equally guilty of copyright infringement by telling people to download the music too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Please, follow along. It's important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
I take issue with your use of the term "all". Independant artists have not signed or agreed to anything with the labels, hence the title "Independant". Get it?
I find it puzzling why the labels (and yourself) refer to all music as being under their purview. In addition, the royalty collection agencies seem to think that they have a right to collect on behalf of all artists regardless of whether the artist wants them to or not.
So - Michial, what (some) artists think does matter. It is you who have a narrow field of view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
As for the artists you may feel are missing out, I daresay the contracts they signed with their labels governs matters pertaining to compensation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
question on distrobution rights
To sum up, What does distribution rights entail? Can I terminate your rights to distribute my voice singing a particular song?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
Granted, that may be the case. However the following exerpt could imply that all artists are being addressed.
Mike -> "Considering that the RIAA is out there claiming this is all for the artists, it would be worthwhile to find out what those artists have to say."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Your not-necessarily-accurate assessment of Mike's views on the matter is a useless red herring. The RIAA position is frequently justified by the claim that they are acting in the interest of artists. Do the artists in question agree with any of this?
This isn't about what Mike says, this is about what the RIAA says and the commonplace notion that the RIAA only gives lip service to the interests of artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You make it it sound like they just keep the money and don't pay anyone. What a misleading post.
And if you had to spend all that money to create, promote and distribute the album (using the labels facilities sure, but with your money), leaving about 40k to share among your band, while the label takes their 4 million share of the proceeds and runs straight to the bank with it?
Would you still be going 'heh-heh' then, or would you have a bad taste in your mouth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
The RIAA would not be representing any artist not a part of the big labels, and if they did lump them in, then the courts should at least seperate thos artists out of the list when it is pointed out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
Technically the RIAA's claims of it being for the artist are somewhat accurate (though misleading). If you define the "artist" as the owner of the rights, and not as the creator of the art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: question on distrobution rights
The contract you signed would dictate the answer to what you are saying. MY guess would be that the distribution contract would be heavily slanted in favor of the Distributor rather than the creator.
In a lot of big label cases the label licenses use of the music from the writer, then hires a band to promote it. I would guess that most of the big label music on the radio and most of the top 40 artists fall under work for hire contracts to the studios rather than them being actual copyright holders or song writers.
At one time a few years ago I did a little research of the top like 20 songs at the time and more than half of them were written by someone other than the person singing the song on the radio....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: question on distrobution rights
It is another one of the things that people around here often miss - that music isn't a uni dimensional "guy with a guitar and a tape recorder" sort of thing. There are plenty of people in the process, some "stars" write their own music, but more often than not, it is a collaborative effort or songs are even brought in from the outside.
So those writers never have a chance to "take it on the road". Nor do many of the producers that often lend their particular style or sound to music. In Mike's world, producers would work for minimum wage, or for FREE, with no hope of making a living until they start schlocking t-shirts of going out to the Malibu GP with lucky buyers (pronounced sheep). The song writers, the arrangers, and all those other people are all in the same boat, they should work for nothing, or hope that maybe the artist will pay them later, perhaps. Maybe not.
So in those 30 songs, there are likely twice or three times as many writing credits, and some production credits that also get paid through residuals. But that doesn't matter, it's only the bands that matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joel Tenenbaum torrent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Somehow it seems an inappropriate name for a total tool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Joel Tenenbaum torrent
The problem with downloading and hosting torrents is that you are putting yourself into the same ridiculous legal situation as the poor schmucks that have been sued by the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
You used the word "all" in your first post, that must have been in error.
MT -> "The RIAA would not be representing any artist not a part of the big labels, and if they did lump them in, then the courts should at least seperate thos artists out of the list when it is pointed out."
That's nice, since they are not authorized to do so. And why is it up to the courts to sort out RIAA screw ups?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights
and a large percentage of the musical groups these days can not play a single instrument - and lip syncing is much more prevalent - oh and did I mention, they suck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Joel Tenenbaum torrent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights
30 years ago every high street here in the UK had at least one - maybe two or three "HiFi Shops". You could go in, sit in a nice plush room, be served coffee and then listen to various different combinations of record deck, amplifier, speakers etc. The business model worked because a complete set of equipment then cost approximately 1/5 annual income so with a 10-20% profit margin for the shop the overhead could easily be covered.
Since then the price of the equipment has dropped dramatically and so these shops are almost completely gone (I did see one in Norway a couple of months ago but then Norway is a strange and expensive place).
The premium they would have to charge now against the basic cost of the equipment would be more than 200%. No one will pay that premium and so the shops died.
The music industry's problem is that their business model was based on charging a premium on the marginal cost of the music distribution medium. When that marginal cost was a pound or so ($2) then there was room to fund lots of hangers on at 1-2% each - typically the artists got 2%. The problem no is that the marginal cost has dropped to essentially zero and there is no way you can charge a million percent margin on something and get away with it.
It is like Canute trying to hold back the tide by decree - with all the lawyers and DRM technicians scuttling around making little dams out of sand to try and hold back the inevitable advance of the sea.
Whether you think it is good or bad, fair or unfair, moral or immoral doesn't really matter here - it is just a fact of economics. There is no law of nature that says that there has to be a professional music industry at all - let alone one that works on a luxury model like the old HiFi shops.
For the first couple of thousand years of human civilisation there was no music industry - just people singing in church (temple, synagogue, mosque etc) and a few buskers.
It is up to artists and the rest of the industry to find new business models - not so much because the old ones are immoral or unfair - but just because in the future they simply won't work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The only way to fight the RIAA
If you buy a CD, download a song, or even go to a concert for an artist that is signed with a member label you demonstrate that there is a demand for their product, and give them ammo in court, and incentive to stick with their current way of doing things.
As long as there is a demonstrated demand then they will continue to try to keep their current way of doing things, and all that's going to do is give this blog owner something to whine, cry and bitch about.
For the idiots that get on here and brag that they will never buy the music, but keep downloading it for free, all you are doing is making the problem worse. Go listen to these "indie" groups your always talking about for a few years and give the market time to fix it's self. Quit downloading the RIAA music as well as quit listening to it.
You cannot tell them there is no demand, then come along and download it. Mixed messages are going to just make this go on and on an on.
I am far from a fan of the RIAA or MPAA as far as that goes, but I do respect the position of protecting what is theirs to protect. If the want to stay with the sinking ship that's their business, but I am not going to be pooring water into the boat, or even helping to bail them out. I am just going to sit back and watch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights
The marginal cost of distribution is lower now. But the fixed costs (which ends up being broken down in a "cost per unit") doesn't change. No matter is you have the "infinite" distribution or you push "shiny plastic disc" there is still costs per unit to produce.
Mike has everyone concentrating on marginal costs, when those marginal costs often represent only a small part of the true cost of the product. So it is often misleading to say that music has no cost because you can distribute it digitally.
Let's say there are $100,000 of costs involved in making an album. If you sell 100,000 units, the costs are $1 per unit. But if Joel gives away your music and you only sell 50,000 units, the cost per unit just went back up to $2, and the profits per unit probably disappeared.
Let's say you are selling a single through itunes. It cost you $25,000 to produce the single. You sell 50,000 units on itunes, and you about break even. Now, if Joel gives away the music and you only sell 25,000 units, you just lost money.
Marginal costs didn't even come into the discussion. I didn't even consider them here.
As for you hifi shops discussion, it's cute but misleading - they work on margin (straight markup), with no benefits for volume. The music business is entirely based on volume, the higher the volume, the higher the profit per unit. Two very different businesses, just in the same way you can't compare stealing music with stealing pizza, or deciding not to buy pizza. They are unrelated business models.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RIAA business plan
HTH
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights
There's a slight problem with what you're proposing: There's no evidence at all that online sharing of music is having any impact on the music industry as a whole.
It looks good on paper, but you simply can't prove it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: question on distrobution rights - fixed costs
When they were dying the HiFi shop owners complained that people would come in - take their coffee, listen to their equipment, say "yes , very nice - I'll think about it" and then go and buy the stuff from a discount mail order house - but that wasn't really what killed them -it was the low marginal cost.
High fixed costs are sustainable when the marginal cost of the product is high enough that a moderate "tax" on it will cover the fixed costs.
When the marginal cost drops to almost nothing then the public perceives that tax as too high - esp when they know that they can do the copying themselves very cheaply. (Not for nothing - because it costs some time.)
What the RIAA are trying to do with DRM and lawsuits is to artificially inflate the marginal cost in order to maintain their high fixed costs. Unfortunately this strategy requires a police state in order to get anywhere near working and even if it does so will create an enormous business opportunity for (offshore) criminals.
"Let's say you are selling a single through itunes. It cost you $25,000 to produce the single. You sell 50,000 units on itunes, and you about break even. Now, if Joel gives away the music and you only sell 25,000 units, you just lost money."
Let's say your running a railway. It costs $25000 per week to run so you need to sell 1000 tickets at $5 each day to break even. Now 250xJoel use their cars and give 500 people a lift. You lose money. You close the railway - tough.
So economics is telling you it's no longer viable to spend $25000 dollars making a single.
If you don't want to lose money don't do it. There is no divine right to make a living in a particular way - no matter how good you are.
When Pete Waterman was growing up he wanted to be a steam train driver - but the railways changed and there were no more steam trains - so he became a record producer instead and now uses the income from that to run steam trains as a hobby.
Someone growing up now might want to be a record producer - but maybe that isn't profitable anymore - so earn your money somewhere else and produce records as a hobby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The only way to fight the RIAA
Therein lies the problem with your ran, er, position, Michial.
This industry is ruining other industries and making it harder for them to succeed. Case in point: WKRP in Cincinnati DVD release.
That's a problem. No matter how you look at it, this "demand" you're against seems to apply everywhere even when the artificial demand doesn't really exist.
Now this idiocy is attacking the internet. No, not the download sites of songs, but everywhere else. Want to play a snippet of a song of an artist you like? Can't do it. It's infringement. Want to show off a video with background music playing? Can't do it. It's infringement.
Yet none of these pertain directly to the music or recording industry. So why is it they're making it their business?
Telling people not to buy RIAA-backed music is like telling them not to breathe. It's not going to happen and this leaves it up to the rest of us to "fight back", rant, or do whatever else we need to do to wake the industry up to their damn problem.
I should be allowed, despite what people may think there, to list every mp3 I legally purchased on my website. I am breaking no laws by doing this.
I did not reproduce, copy, or infringe on my copies whatsoever by doing this.
Yet this industry states that doing so is wrong.
If you can't see a problem with that, then maybe you shouldn't post in comments regarding RIAA.
Because the line "respect the position of protecting what is theirs to protect" means you also respect their decision to screw others.
Which makes you more part of the problem than those who buy RIAA-backed music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where the money is going
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does it really matter what the Artists think???
You can also define an "ass" as a "head" (shape is about the same, it distributes/owns whatever the head eats) - you'll get us all very confused!...
[ link to this | view in thread ]