Artists: Don't Expect To Get Paid For What Imeem & Snocap Owe You
from the sorry,-too-bad dept
We always hear the record labels and politicians screaming bloody murder over the concept that musicians aren't being paid "what they're owed" due to piracy -- but when there's a situation where musicians might actually not be getting paid what they're owed? Silence. A few weeks back, MySpace "bought" Imeem in a fire sale. But, the details of the deal suggest they didn't actually buy the company, but "certain assets," which means they get to ignore the liabilities. Guess what those liabilities include? You got it: paying artists what they're owed. Now, as the Wired article notes, there's nothing technically wrong with MySpace acquiring just the assets, but it is notable that it's the musicians left without getting paid what they're actually owed (not some theoretical concept like what they might be "owed" due to unauthorized file sharing). And, yet, we don't seem to hear any politicians or record labels screaming about this. Funny, since they keep insisting that they're really just interested in helping artists...
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, money, music, paid
Companies: imeem, myspace, snocap
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's the nature of the game. Why would you complain about this Mike, considering you are so against these royalty schemes to start with? Perhaps just because you can get an extra slam in on "the recording industry"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good question. I'm not against contractual royalties at all. I am only against gov't-decided royalties. If two parties reach a willing agreement on royalties, then that's perfectly fine.
But, the reason for the post (and I apologize if this was not clear) was not about "royalties" but about the fact that the record labels and politicians always talk about artists not getting paid what they're owed -- and in post of those cases it doesn't actually involve anyone being owed anything. Yet, here, when there's an actual case of artists not being paid what they're contractually owed, those same entities are noticeably silent.
I thought that was telling. Perhaps you disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The government system is just a way to avoid having to negotiate royalties with each individual user, which would just be making money for the lawyers. It also helps to keep a level playing field and avoid sweetheart deals that could put one company at an advantage over another.
But, the reason for the post (and I apologize if this was not clear) was not about "royalties" but about the fact that the record labels and politicians always talk about artists not getting paid what they're owed -- and in post of those cases it doesn't actually involve anyone being owed anything. Yet, here, when there's an actual case of artists not being paid what they're contractually owed, those same entities are noticeably silent.
What are they going to say? I suspect this way they will get at least a little more money, as MySpace bought some of the assets, which puts at least a little money back in the pile. Should they jump up and down and say that this money losing system should be forced to stay open? Should they have the owners drawn and quartered for being business failures?
Heck, do you think they go all wild every time a night club or radio station goes broke? Do they issue press releases and send in the lynch mob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You make a good point. Yet, why is it that they do exactly that for end users who they then argue owe millions?
It appears there's a bit of a double standard. That is all I was pointing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except that it doesn't do any of those things in the cases where the copyright holder is the weaker party - artist's regularly end up signing over their works for very little.
(and the lawyers still seem to make a lot of money)
What it does do is to give a veneer of legal respectability to what is to all intents and purposes a cartel.
If publishers (including record companies, movie studios etc) actually competed with each other in the terms they offered to the public then copyright as we know it would probably wither away.
At present they are all able to agree on a standard set of conditions (as suggested by copyright law) and that makes it much easier for them to avoid competing in this area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't pay small artists, it creates a pool of money that favors the big ones. So where is the real gain for artists again?
There is little, who gains most are corporations, that have sweet deals with collections agencies and get advantages that small ones can't.
About your referencing that they(comapnies and government I assume) would jump up and down. I don't think you understood what people tried to say to you.
Because the RIAA always complain that artists are not getting paid and apparently this is a big deal for them, why is that they are not saying anything about a lot of artists that will not receive money? Why are they not screaming bloody murder because those artists are not getting paid?
Because it is not about artists is it?
For them is about their profits and artists are just a moral front to justify that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So REALLY now are you REALLY all for the contractual royalties or or ONLY for it when it works for your agenda of spitting out crap from your keyboard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Not sure why the caps and the extra ?. They are not needed in polite conversation.
But wait how many times have you went on and on and on about how the Labels screw the artist????
I haven't complained about reasonable deals. I can suggest that deals were unfair, but that's different from being against royalties. I'm sorry if that is unclear.
Yet the Artist willing entered into the contract that provided them a huge sum up front in exchange for their rights to distribute the music....
Indeed. And I have no problem with such agreements when done properly. My only complaints have been about how some of those deals have been carried out. But for the most part I am perfectly fine with them. I think that, these days, there are more opportunities for artist to get better deals, but I don't believe I've ever suggested that artists in the past shouldn't have signed a reasonable deal when it came to them.
So REALLY now are you REALLY all for the contractual royalties or or ONLY for it when it works for your agenda of spitting out crap from your keyboard?
I'm sorry. I think I've been rather clear on this topic. I don't quite see what your complaint is other than that you seem to misunderstand what I have written. I would suggest rereading what I write more carefully, and if you still have questions, let me know (but you could lose a few of the excess punctuation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or are you merely saying that they are so focused on selling the argument that piracy is preventing artists from getting paid that they don't even realize when a legitimate harm materializes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (I don't have a Ferret)
SOMEBODY signed a contract that said "yes, we'll pay you artists." and in the end, the contract was not honored.
In fact, if there was never any intention to honor said agreement, then that's likely fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (I don't have a Ferret)
Now, there are plenty of nefarious people in the world, but if you think this was the plan all along (we'll lose a ton of money and nose dive into bankruptcy so we can avoid paying artists), I've got some oceanfront land in Nebraska to sell you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: (I don't have a Ferret)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting to watch
It would not be shocking to find out they do not know who they owe. In fact, I think it would be shocking to find out they actually are accounting for who they owe money to and exactly how much they "should" be paying out. I hope they end up having to open their books a bit. We may find out the answer to the big question "Are these collection agencies inept at book-keeping, or do they know what they owe the artists and are actively ripping them off?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting to watch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Interesting to watch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the sad things about this is, how this need to be paid now, to prevent any competition, and the general lack of interest and fear of being the first to implement something new, is going to be what causes the death of the labels. They should be hooking up with every music site they can, and not suing these music sites as a negotiating tactic to gain a greater leverage and profits. This again goes back to short term goals (profits) in the end this is ultimately self defeating as it leaves them with no outlets for the sales of their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leaving artists holding the bag
Perhaps we are saying "artists are wussies" (civil liabilities have to be enforced by the debt holder), or "the amounts owed were only anticipatory", or "someone doesn't know what they are talking about", or ?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]