Music Industry Lawyer Complains Both That Musicians Don't Get Paid... And When They Do

from the i'm-confused dept

Mon, May 10th 2010 10:13am — Mike Masnick

There's a music industry lawyer named Chris Castle who we've mentioned a few times on this site in the past. He's the guy who used to (don't know why he took it down) have a blurb on his website that referred to Creative Commons supporters as "self-serving shilling for the self-absorbed on the short con." He once complained that next time he wrote a contract for licensing music to a website, there would be a clause that once the contract was over, the website wouldn't be allowed to tell anyone why, because just having the music disappear and pissing off all the users is such a good solution. He's also, on multiple occasions predicted that "free culture" was dead. Lately he's been focused on running a bizarre and hilarious series of black-helicopter-type conspiracy theories about people pushing for copyright law that actually takes consumers into account. And I won't even get into the nicknames he has for everyone. He's a really fun read.

And, it should be noted, he's no fan of the record labels. From what I can tell, he's a lawyer who represents musicians and songwriters for the most part -- and seems to think that the business models that got them paid back when he was a child should somehow be forced by law into never changing and staying that way forever. But since he's so focused on getting musicians paid (and has been known to pat himself on the back when he wins lawsuits for certain musicians) you would think that reports showing new business models that work and help get musicians paid -- while doing so in ways that allow musicians to rely less on the hated labels would be a good thing.

But, no, apparently not. The only acceptable way for a musician to get paid is via copyright, I guess. He recently put up a a rant about the evils of musicians getting money from corporations in the form of sponsorship or advertising.

Why is it bad? Well, something about the purity of music the old way. You know, where instead of taking money from corporations to make commercial music they... took money from corporations (record labels) to make commercial music. Oh wait...

We've seen this argument before. A few months ago, someone insisted that Jimi Hendrix never would have chatted with fans on MySpace. In Castle's world, he sees something similar. Would Bob Dylan ever take sponsorship money, he wonders?

It doesn't take a lot of prescience to see where this leads. Ask yourself this--is an advertising-driven model likely to produce the next Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan? If presented with this reality, what would the next Bob Dylan do? Would he still be attracted to the music business or would he write it off as yet one more corporatization, more McMusic? Would popular music become like the jingles in Demolition Man? (Not to mention the cross-cultural issues.)

Really? First of all... last I checked, Dylan himself had no problem with an ad driven model:

But, more to the point, the myth that those musicians became successful in an anti-corporate way is a joke. Dylan signed to Columbia Records very early in his career, and they didn't do it "for the music." They signed him because they thought he'd make them money -- and, famously, when his first album didn't sell well, almost resulted in him being dropped from the label and caused trouble for John Hammond, who had signed him. Hammond, by the way, also signed Cohen to his first major label contract... also at Columbia. I'm sure in both cases, it was purely out of the kindness of his heart and the love of music... and the commercial prospects had nothing to do with it. Hell, wasn't Columbia Records run as a charity back in the 60s?

What this comes down to, in the end, is the absolutely worst kind of revisionist history. It's people who pretend that "back in the old days" the industry was about something other than money, and that anyone who talks about money now is creating a problem. And, then, at the same time, they'll turn around and bitch about how musicians won't make music any more because they won't get paid. Contradiction much?

If Mr. Castle really wants to move away from musicians scared away from music because of "more corporatization, more McMusic," you would think he would actually be a huge fan of many of the business models we've written about, because they allow those musicians to go direct to fans and make money in ways that get away from the corporatization -- including the exact corporatization of music that Dylan and Cohen needed back in their day -- but which musicians today no longer need if they want to avoid it.

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: bob dylan, business models, copyright, culture, leonard cohen

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2010 @ 10:56am

ppppfffffttttt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 11:25am

No way
If they don't sue the shit out of everybody, where does that leave him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Votre (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 11:46am

Hubris Unlimited
Mr. Castle is an attorney, not a working musician.

His attitudes, theories, personal beliefs and comments are all those of an attorney - and not those of a working musician.

Why is it that attorneys, who live in their own legal virtual reality, feel they have anything to say that could be of any possible relevance to those of use who live in the real world?

I'd be very happy if Mr. Castle would just bugger off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg, 10 May 2010 @ 12:01pm

Re: Hubris Unlimited
Approved
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 12:08pm

the next bob dylan
this has been a "problem" since the 80's.

the dead kennedys said in like 1986 "if the doors or john lennon were getting started now, the industry wouldn't sign them in a million years".

no matter how hard you try, the music from the 60's isn't coming back, and the money from the 70's isn't coming back either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 12:32pm

"strange doctrine" indeed
[Chris Castle] seems to think that the business models that got them paid back when he was a child should somehow be forced by law into never changing and staying that way forever.

I read a quote last night that seems to fit perfectly the attitude referenced in the quote above (and frequently on TechDirt)...

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."

- Robert Heinlein
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nitpicker, 10 May 2010 @ 12:56pm

hilarious series?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 1:07pm

Re:
hilarious series?

Nit picked. Correction made. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 10 May 2010 @ 1:17pm

Ummmm Hes A Lawyer
Nuff Said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Auditrix (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 2:53pm

Chris Castle, Esq.
I have heard Chris speak at many events and I am impressed by his ability to articulate dynamic analysis from a variety of domestic and foreign perspectives. For example, Mr. Castle is one of the few people in the US who is knowledgeable enough to speak on the different interests at play in Europe in connection with Pan-European licensing. Also, he was involved with Snocap, so it is not fair to characterize him as an attorney who solely represents musical artists and songwriters.

I do not agree with everything Mr. Castle has said, but if you listen to him speak at length, I believe you would interpret his statements in a different context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 3:37pm

Re: Chris Castle, Esq.
I do not agree with everything Mr. Castle has said, but if you listen to him speak at length, I believe you would interpret his statements in a different context.

Given the hatred and absolute *disgust* he spews towards pretty much everyone on his blog, I'm afraid that's not likely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Chris Castle, Esq.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 4:30pm

Re: Re: Chris Castle, Esq.
I took your advice and read a number of random entries on his blog. All I can say is... wow. Each entry was an amazing example of hate, ridicule, misrepresentation of opposing views and statements, straw men, and logical misfires.

My sampling tells me that Mr. Castle has as much credibility, insight, and maturity as your standard YouTube commenter. I think I can safely disregard his opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 5:18pm

Re: "strange doctrine" indeed
I've seen that before, but unattributed. Do you know where it's from?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 5:49pm

Re: Re: "strange doctrine" indeed
The site where I found it has the source as "The Judge in Life-Line". I don't know what he was referring to, but it'd be interesting to find out. Reading it today, it could easily apply to any number of organizations (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) discussed regularly on TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt L, 10 May 2010 @ 6:11pm

A recent trend?
"...one of the most alarming trends that we see in the recent music business is the increasing dependence on corporate sponsorship and advertising revenue..." Does Mr. Castle really believe that dependence on corporate sponsorship in the music business is a recent trend? And does he really believe that it cannot produce anything more than corporate jingles? http://www.kingbiscuittime.com/?page_id=7 I would have to agree with other posters that Castle has little credibility or insight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 6:30pm

RIAA blog
Isn't he just recycling these ideas from the RIAA's Music Notes Blog from a few weeks ago?

Maybe the RIAA should sue him for infringement.

If anyone cares, I debunked (I hope) the RIAA blog on my own website. (Forgive the self-aggrandizement.)

I do have some additional thoughts about this article:

I love how he picks on Google, as if it owns the internet or something. Whenever an industry apologist mentions their name, it's only to blame them for stuff they're not even connected with, with a side order of hypocritical anti-corporate FUD. This is obviously just sour grapes at an organization that was smart enough to succeed.

I also love how he thinks that record labels promote "noncommercial" music. Because, y'know, Brittney Spears' music has too much integrity to be in a car commercial. Whatever crack he's been smoking, I want some.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 10 May 2010 @ 6:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Chris Castle, Esq.
Whoa, I just read some more of his posts. You're right, he is bad, he makes the RIAA look sane and rational.

Asking him about copyright is like asking a Teabagger about Obama.

Well, he can spell, but otherwise it's the same level of unreality, straw men, weasel words, and unbridled hatred. I haven't read so much self-righteous invective and alarmist conspiracy theorizing since I stopped reading Loompanics books.

His latest post says all copyright minimalists are being controlled by "The Shadow." No, seriously.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Landry (profile), 11 May 2010 @ 1:57am

Re: Chris Castle, Esq.
are you serious?

I've Admin'd enough comment boards to know a troll when I see one.

his commentary is one of the most obvious examples of commenting-for-traffic that I've ever seen. Perhaps in speaker-mode he comes off as informed but his blog is pure alarmist shiite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
top 20 songs, 17 Mar 2011 @ 8:30am

Why the hating?
Was reading through the comments and all I can see is people hating on each other. What I want to know is if anyone has seen this weeks top 20 songs chart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]