Because Only The Record Labels Are Supposed To Get Away With Not Paying Their Musicians...
from the bad-timing dept
So lots of people have been submitting versions of the story about how Pink Floyd is suing EMI, claiming that EMI isn't paying the band what it owes for iTunes downloads. I'd avoided posting this, because it's basically the same contractual dispute we've seen from other acts, where they claim that their labels are accounting for iTunes downloads improperly in order to avoid paying the bands. This story is as old as the recording industry itself. The labels have always worked hard to avoid actually paying bands anything.But what made it worth mentioning is that the lawsuit has come out at just about the same time that the record labels are now hilariously trying to claim that radio stations are "pigs" who refuse to pay musicians. In one of the more juvenile pranks out there, a lobbying group supported by the labels is going around with a giant inflatable pig, mocking radio stations for "refusing to pay musicians for their work ."
You would think that the record labels would be smart enough to avoid making an argument that could so easily be turned against them. How about before you go blame the radio stations for not paying the labels to promote your acts, you start out by paying money to some of your top selling acts who claim they've never seen a dime in royalties. Given the labels' propensity to blatantly lie to artists about how much they're owed, you'd think the last thing they'd want to do is call attention to who is "refusing to pay musicians for their work."
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: radio stations, royalties
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
missed the mark on this one
Pink Floyd won the suit today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/mar/11/pink-floyd-win-download-case
"the judge sided with the band, noting that the contract was designed to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums"."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: missed the mark on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: missed the mark on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: missed the mark on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: missed the mark on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: missed the mark on this one
It's quite clear - it's about control.
The labels complain about radio because it's slipping away from their control. They cannot control both the playlists and the resulting payments like they used to (payola), even if it brings them more cash in the long term (free promotion).
Pink Floyd complain because they cannot control listener habits. That's equally silly, because even if they were somehow able to force album-only sales, they cannot control how a listener plays the album. Don't like the (IMHO) rather silly and dated "Money" from Dark Side Of The Moon? You can skip it on the vinyl or leave it off when you rip the CD.
The only real difference is where or not Pink Floyd gets paid for said track when a listener buys their album. Which is why articles tend to focus on the money aspect - the control thing, while more likely their motivation - is utterly retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: missed the mark on this one
An album is not an individual work; it is a collection of individual works. It is no longer possible to force people to buy all of them at once. The sooner these self-important artists understand reality, the less money they lose as people look in vain for the purchase option they prefer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: missed the mark on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: missed the mark on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: missed the mark on this one
Want to be paid? Sell what the audience wants. Want to "maintain artistic integrity" by doing something else? Don't blame others when that backfires. Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: missed the mark on this one
Where's the hypocrisy in that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not going to claim that this lawsuit isn't financially motivated, but I'm not sure if it's 100% money-based. There seems to be a genuine concern from Floyd about their seamless albums (which they and their fans have always treated as whole works of art, not collections of songs) being broken up and thus losing their original artistic purpose.
Now, I think it's a bit silly to tell fans they must listen to all of Dark Side even if all they want to hear is Money, but I do find the "whole album" issue interesting because it's something that has always bugged me: everyone talks about how great it is that you can buy individual songs on iTunes, but they never mention how this often means buying a digital album costs *more* than a CD would. It economically locks musicians and consumers into the "song" format, when really there is no reason that music as art must take the form of a series of individual songs.
So I actually wonder if, on an artistic level, Floyd's case might have some merit here. They do not want their songs published and sold individually whether they get paid for them or not, and they signed a contract with EMI on the condition that this wouldn't happen -- it could almost be compared to a license that forbids derivative works, with the songs considered derivatives of the album.
I'm not entirely sure what I feel about this, but I have always thought there was an important question about the nature of "albums" that is being ignored online. True, albums were originally organized as such for the sake of distribution methods (vinyl, CDs) - but many artists embraced the album structure and used it to define and enhance their creation. The majority of albums may just be convenient combinations of a dozen songs, but there are lots that were intended as whole works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the online thing, well, make the labels offer a "full disc" option too for download. But removing single tracks from the e-stores will just encourage piracy from people who want to pay for stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, not necessarily smart. But I can somewhat dig it. These are old-school musicians, and for once they aren't just being greedy like a many others of that order - they are upset because they thought they had a contract defending what they see as the integrity of their music, and they don't see any reason why that contract shouldn't still apply. Neither do I.
I'm not saying that contract still makes sense. It would be in their best interest to revise it, or to take over the digital distribution of individual songs themselves, or anything that makes the songs available - I fully agree that the smartest response is to give the consumer what they want. Nonetheless, if they don't want to do that, I see no reason why they should have to. Yes, the songs will still be available on file sharing networks and they will drive a lot of potential customers there - maybe this will help them figure that out - but I don't see any legal justification for EMI to violate a contract that was signed in good faith for the sake of keeping the albums intact.
And apparently the judge agrees, because as mikez pointed out above, Pink Floyd won the suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Next thing you know, Sonic Youth will be all up in your cooler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't get is not selling singles where you can (esp. when they've been available for a while now), eliminating that option could cut you out of some income since people will go elsewhere for them and not pay you a dime.
So I guess it isn't all about the money.
I love The Wall, but there are songs I'll skip (Vera Lynn), or even replay (Run Like Hell). Hope they don't mind. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it makes perfect sense...
New artists see the big artists screaming about no money coming in, so they may be less apt to offer their songs for download for money.
So what's the downfall? If it doesn't work, the record labels really haven't lost too much as they can always hide the numbers somewhere in the ethereal plane of the internet and blame everyone else. If it works, the artists demand their music be pulled from online services, the online services close up shop and go under, and the record labels once again control the music.
It doesn't mean this is happening, but if one looks at it in the right way.... *shrug*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, it makes perfect sense...
People would still buy said shiny disc, rip the songs to digital files, then share them via P2P.
The labels can never get this proverbial genie back in the bottle. Even if they went back to magnetic tape, or even LPs, there are plenty of cheap, easy ways for the average consumer to translate analog recordings to digital, and start sharing it all over again.
The only way the labels could ever hope to control the product would be to control the Internet, and no matter how many stupid laws they get governments to enact, it ain't gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, it makes perfect sense...
Given this is just a suggestion, but I wouldn't put it past them as the labels appear to be searching for anything to keep control over music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually, it makes perfect sense...
Expressed in dollars and cents,
Pounds, shillings and pence
-Roger Waters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet some people still dispute the power of the pen versus the power of the sword.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok. What is it when its an on-going, chronic, & blatant refusal to pay them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmm....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..as old as the recording industry itself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"An album is not an individual work; it is a collection of individual works"
Opinions are like arse holes. Everyone's got one. Who the f. are you to define what an album is for the Floyd. That's their prerrogative, not yours. Go back to Britney Spears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_Singles_(Pink_Floyd_album)
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/1967:_The_First_Three_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoes:_The_Best_of_Pink_Floyd
t he idea that Pink Floyd doesn't want to break up their mighty albums is laughable. Yeah, they'd prefer the albums be whole (clearly they were designed that way), but what they'd prefer even more is more money.
The idea that they can "control" their artistic vision is of course absurd. I don't care how they want me to listen, I care how I want to listen. They can only control their expression. They can't control how others experience, interpret, and build on that expression. Ideas are not property, and they do not own their music except under the artificial construct of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try This For A Story Line ..
Corporations hide actual download revenues from artists, which shows losses to musicians, and the industry at large. In the meanwhile, those same corporations twist and distort intellectual property laws pertaining to the internet, to justify the very losses that they create.
Sound familiar?
Bill Wilkins, CEO
Melted Metal Web Radio
http://www.meltedmetal.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no excuse for that entity, and the sooner it dies the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]