Morrissey: Don't Buy My Music
from the no-royalties dept
We keep hearing from the big record labels and the RIAA how they're doing everything they do "for the artists." Yet, everywhere we turn, we see artists who are anything but happy by what's being done
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Richard Marx is another one
Fawk you too Mettalica,U2,PRINCE or whatever he calls himself these days,Garth Brooks and the rest that are right there with the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh...
....Really? I mean, I tend to think of these big conglomerate multinationals as being as evil as....well....Dick Cheney, for instance, but usually, like Dick Cheney, they like to HIDE their evil from me a little bit, so that by the time I find it, I'm so tired from looking I'm too tired to be angry.
But...really? EMI can put out a compilation box set of an artist's work and that artist won't see a DIME from the box set in royalties? I mean, where's the hiding? Don't just come out and piss on my shoe, for Christ's sake.
Ok, coffee time. I feel a good Tech Dirt post coming up soon that will REALLY piss me off and send me on one of those wonderful six paragraph rants that I like to go on. C'mon, Mikey, do me proud....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh...
It's down to the hideously one-sided contracts that major labels traditionally have. Artists who sign with them often sign away the rights to their music, and this includes royalty clauses that mean the artists rarely see much income past the initial "advance".
Why did they sign such ridiculous contracts? They came up during a time when the majors held all the cards, and they were young/dumb enough for the wool to be pulled over their eyes. Now that the contracts are expiring and the majors are no longer necessary, expect to see more big names coming out against the majors like this over the next few years. Hopefully, this will start getting enough mainstream attention for the RIAA to stop the ridiculous "for the artists" crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is difficult to reconcile these two positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Position #1 was when he was getting paid for his work.
Position #2 was when he was not.
....Anything else I can do for you today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right now, it almost seems as if you are taking the position of those that you fight so hard against. I thought you believed in the inherent right to protect that which is yours and to get paid for it indefinitely?
Does this not apply to the artist in question that created everything that is going to be sold? It only applies to the label that owns the copyrights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The creator received their full compensation for the work when they recorded their music, and probably received more money upfront than they would have under other contract situations. EMI took a larger financial chance and gained all copyrights in the process.
Perhaps Morrissey didn't have other contracts offered to choose a better situation to create in where they retained at least some rights ... or maybe they made a poor decision and took more upfront money at the expense of potential revenue later (i.e. they DIDN'T bet on themselves). Either way, Morrissey signed a bad contract, and are now throwing up a stink about it.
That, I believe, is a problem with the old system. To get their music heard, musicians felt they had to sign these bad contracts. Hopefully, more will learn they can create their music, and leverage the Internet & free music models to get heard & make money on their own without the need to sign away all rights to a label just to get an audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
EMI has contracted rights to use Morrissey's name and face in whatever way they choose, without compensating Morrissey and without his explicit permission?
It'd be interesting to see something like this taken to court. It's hard to imagine such a contract being upheld.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, not north of the Mason Dixon line, anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's just an example of the mess that is known as copyright. I say total destruction of the system, remove the government involvement, and let the market figure itself out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello?
It is difficult to reconcile these two positions."
Hello?, "difficult to reconcile these two positions? Really?
Let's break it down:
He was apparently pleased to take the label's money for his work, and now, he's *not pleased* to *not take* the label's money for his work.
Yeah, that's a brain scrambler...
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you suppose he should just keep his mouth shut like a good little errand boy for EMI? Or, perhaps, does he have a right (if not an OBLIGATION) to let his fans know that the product they think is HIS (and possibly think some of their money for it might be going to reward him for his artisty) actually is NOT?
Please, if you don't understand the article, ask someone for help reading it before you comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Morrisey as the rightful owner of the relevant works should get paid for their commercial exploitation.
Morrisey as the fellow you want to encourage gains nothing by you throwing money at EMI.
I would love getting advice from my favorite artists regarding which products yield the most "encouragement" to the talent. Will you get any royalties if I buy X?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The folks over at Question Copyright have devised a mechanism for this. Its called the creator endorsed mark - see
http://questioncopyright.org/creator_endorsed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think there is MUCH more to this story than this guy is letting on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But isn't that what we've been saying here for a while? The recording labels go out of their way not to pay their artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps MOrrissey signs a contract that paid him over well to start with, perhaps he made his millions up front. Perhaps he sold his authorship rights for a bottle of whiskey. Perhaps he isn't listed as a writer in any of the songs.
Like I said, there is more to the story we aren't see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wouldn't it be kinda funny if it turned out this guy never wrote a single song, and the reason he isn't getting money from the studios is because he had work for hire contracts with the????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you not know this or do you just work for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Morrissey isn't getting paid for his work, presumably as a result of a one-sided contract he signed when he was trying to get his career started. Maybe he was tricked, maybe he was too young to know any better, maybe he didn't think this far ahead. Whatever.
So what's wrong now? Here we are, over 15 years later, and EMI are still going to make a profit from his work while he makes nothing. In the mean time, the company is involved in lawsuits against his (and others') fans, citing artists' welfare as the reason.
It's pure hypocrisy, and Morrissey has decided to point this out rather than stay silent. He's probably not taking legal action because what the label is doing is technically legal, but that doesn't excuse the hypocrisy or make it morally correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The singer made a similar move in August 2008, asking fans not to buy a DVD of one of his live shows, 'Live At The Hollywood Bowl', describing the sleeve art as "appalling". "
Sounds like an agreeable sort of a guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because you don't like him, that doesn't mean his words are not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
artist's rights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds depressing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds depressing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds depressing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rights question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, I do not have any sympathy for artists like Morrisey that signed bad contracts and now want to complain about - the money was good enough at the time, quit whining. Anyone that cares already downloaded all of Morrisey's music and won't buy the box set anyway.
This same thing happens with folks that create patentable work for a corporation, the corporation owns the patent. If the company I work for makes tons of money from a patent I worked on I do not get any 'extra' pay. You do not hear me bitching about it and telling the world to boycott the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Business Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morrissey is performing a number of concerts coming up. Now, in the CwF world, a new box set (even if he never makes a penny) should be promoting him and making his concerts bigger sellers.
After all, what is the difference to the artist between EMI selling a box set and people "infringing" the music on a torrent? NOTHING - they still get absolutely f-all for their work.
Seems like he is a Masnick Winner, he just doesn't know it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oooh, tell me, I love to laugh!!!
"Morrissey is performing a number of concerts coming up. Now, in the CwF world, a new box set (even if he never makes a penny) should be promoting him and making his concerts bigger sellers."
Wait a minute, you said it was going to be funny. That's not funny, that's just you being an ass. Why? Well, because I have yet to hear Morrissey say anything along the lines of DON'T download his music for free. Sounds like he's pissed at his label and is trying to make sure that they aren't profitting off of his music when he isn't. More to the point, EMI putting out an expensive box set is NOT CwF. However, Morrisey reaching out to his fans and speaking directly to them about how this whole box set thing works AND encouraging them NOT to spend their money IS CwF, particularly in that this connection is generating news that ultimately resulted in YOU filling us in on his upcoming concerts. Thanks for the help!
"After all, what is the difference to the artist between EMI selling a box set and people "infringing" the music on a torrent? NOTHING - they still get absolutely f-all for their work."
On one a ginormous corporation makes money when the artists does not for what is essentially rehashed work by an artist, on the other fans get the music for free (meaning there is no chance for buyer resentment at the product) while still retaining its promotional value. See the difference, you very, very Wierd Coward?
"Seems like he is a Masnick Winner, he just doesn't know it."
I added a period, since you're clearly on yours. But seriously, all odd mis-capitalization aside, I love the way you punctuate your idiotic comments with nonsensical soundbyte-ish sentences, you Anonymous Harold.
Seriously, do you have any idea how easily identifiable you are simply by your writing style and vocabulary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fax X knows the box set is coming out for the example-frendly price of $50.
Fan X also knows that Morrissey will be playing the next town over, and costs to see the concert are conveniently also $50.
All else being equal, the box set would provide repeatable enjoyment and seeing the show would have the added cost of time spent driving/watching the show/etc. The Box Set looks like a marginal winner. Fan X buys the box set and doesn't see the show. Unbeknownst to Fan X, he loses his $50 without getting a dime to Morissey.
Contrast this with free music which could potentially have the same or more promotional value as the box set, but will not deprive Fan X of his $50. Fan X can not get the music AND see the show, and Morrissey gets paid.
See? Box Set != Free Music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful what you sign.
This is not an RIAA issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]