Major Labels Shamed Into Promising To Give Some Of $105 Million Limewire Settlement To Artists
from the but-how-much? dept
After Limewire settled with the major labels last week, many of us questioned how much of that money would go to actual artists. Many people, quite reasonably, pointed to a quote from a few years ago from the RIAA's Jonathan Lamy saying, "Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs." That line got a lot of attention, and I wondered if the labels would be forced to actually give some money to artists, and it appears that may be happening. Lamy came out and said that his quote was about something else -- the RIAA's lawsuits against individuals (hurray for suing fans!), rather than this lawsuit against Limewire. Now, the major labels are starting to step forward and say that yes, yes, yes, they'll give some of the money to artists. I'm guessing, at this point, that it's purely a crisis management type situation, where the labels are realizing they need to show that they're giving some of the money to artists (in part because all these stories mean that the artists themselves have started asking). So now that the labels promise to give some of the money to artists, let's see if they ever say how much actually goes to 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: artists, labels, music, settlement
Companies: limewire, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No - nothing.
Yes - less than 5%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Luckily, lots of people will probably have been exposed to the smaller bands by infringement, so they don't have any actual losses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Part of an anti-piracy campaign must be lobbying
Now that they're close to getting all of their dream legislation passed, maybe they realize they can shift some of this money from lobbyist's over to the pretense of paying artists.
I'm sure they'll pretend loudly and publicly to pay artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of an anti-piracy campaign must be lobbying
I think you would find that anything we look at as their dream legislation is actually only another click of the ratchet and they would just push for even more draconian legislation the second they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold the phone
How about the ASCAP extortion ring?
Who is it going to and how is it being collected, plus how do you count up how it's going to each artist? How about back pay? What if you were a part of the majors but left before the settlement?
There's so many questions left unanswered, it may have just been better not to sue in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay the artists?
Of course, the little artists still haven't recouped the advance that the labels gave them, so the money will just go to that debt. How much do they owe? The labels aren't sure, but it's certainly more than the settlement share...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay the artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike shows once again, how well the system works
What problem do you now have with it Mike ??
The criminals were fined and found guilty, the goodies got paid, and the industry association did what they were put there for, that is to uphold the rights of the industry.
I guess if you have nothing to complain about Mike, you will complain about nothing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
Well, at least your posts are comprehensible now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
I dont really care what you can or cannot do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
This was and still is an example of the system not working.
When the artists get paid, then we can celebrate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
You are right. damnit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike shows once again, how well the system works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This rather naive idea that the labels are under the creative direction of dinosaurs is false. I had dealings with a major label back in 2000 (long story, it wasn't me being signed or anything, I just had credits on a popular album that was picked up), but I can assure you that the staffs of record companies at the turn of the century were predominantly young, extremely hip, savvy people. Specifically Universal, who I dealt with. It isn't that they didn't understand P2P, it's that they understood it too well. They knew it was silly to think that they could monetize that stream.
Even today, no one seems to be able to explain what the labels could have done to effectively monetize it. Advertising? To people who are taking free stuff? Not exactly a demographic a third party selling products wants to focus on. I'm just not convinced P2P, or music on the internet in general, is something that can be effectively monetized on the scale large companies would require.
C'est la vie. My MO is to keep making music, and it's a great time for that. Maybe not for making money, but I made a lot of money back in the days I was haunting record labels; it doesn't really change your life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean they couldn't work out how to make as much money as they used to. Simply, they can't. Technology has significantly reduced the need for the services the labels used to provide. It's called disruptive technology for a good reason.
Also, given the labels' long and inglorius history of ripping off artists and consumers alike, it's hard to feel sorry for them now that their gravy train is rolling to a stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok the Labels could have run their own p2p network. They could have promoted new artists with free tracks in a special "What's Hot" category. They could have sold ads for the freeware version of their software and offered a Pro and Gold version of the software at different prices. They could have gone beyond limewire. They could have even SOLD music like itunes does, but on their own software. They could have offered tons of cool perks for using their software.
Just a quick lesson for anyone who thinks someone getting a freebie is a poor target for advertising. If I am getting a $16 value for free, guess how much I have to spend on something else. Advertisers know this.
Try to say it with me now... The internet is GLOBAL. Think of the consumer base. Couple that thought with this....Distribution of digital goods has almost ZERO cost. The labels are under the creative direction of dinosaurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet, recently they've started making money from the likes of Pandora or iTunes. If they'd would have thought "hey, what can we do to have the internet work for our industry" instead of "how can we shut this thing down", they would have been in a much better spot right now.
There was a giant distribution forming and they chose to let it ride on plan A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They couldn't have monetized p2p technology it has obsoleted them. P2P and other software effectively became the distribution chain, making the value of their services effectively nil. Other than their back catalogs they have nothing of value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe Mike commented on the Big Four musical chairs. New ideas are very difficult to get to the CEOs and they frustrate the people that understand the technology.
Which of the CEOs do you think wanted to allow P2P technology? How about Bittorrent? This is the problem.
When you have legal options of distribution and no one will allow it because it's taboo, you have a bottleneck appear. The frustration of the labels is that they want to shut down p2p or wait 10 years to monetize it. The deadline has passed but all they can do is require more draconian methods of enforcing an old business model.
If they had allowed Napster, iMeem, or even Limewire to function, they could have made more money. But because of the rents of copyright and bad licensing, the venture capital is gone from the music industry. People would rather invest in the Googles than the RIAA.
That should tell us something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Not wasting money trying to ban the first MP3 players (Diamond Rio lawsuit in 1998), but to realise that this may be a wave of the future and prepare for it as the movies studios were forced to deal with VHS.
2. Adjust licensing models to take advantage of the fact that the internet is not bound by physical boundaries.
3. Accept, rather than fight, Apple's attempts to launch iTunes.
4. Not insist on DRM that fragmented the early digital market and led to Apple's dominance and frustrated many consumers to the point where it was easier to pirate than buy legally.
5. Recognise that the far lower overheads of digital music made it a more lucrative market if handled properly.
6. Realise that Napster's success was not due only to the "free!" aspect, but also the immediacy, range and discoverability of both new and old music.
7. Not suing their own damn customers!
8. Not trying to enforce the pricing models that worked for physical media onto less valuable digital media.
9. Recognise that freedom to buy individual tracks rather than enforced bundling would lead to lower revenue in some areas (especially the soulless pop albums with 2 hits and 10 tracks of pointless filler) and adjust their business models accordingly.
10. Work with new innovators in the market rather than pricing them out of it.
11. Realise the allofmp3's service had value well beyond the pricing and adjust their models to give customers what they actually want.
12. Realise that the internet allows a lot of niche markets that are being well serviced by pirates and ignored by labels when they could easily be offered (e.g. the oft-demanded FLAC files for audiophiles with money to burn).
There's many other things, but that's a start. I was saying pretty much the same thing back in 2000 myself as well, so those "young, hip people" you're think of were, to put it frankly, morons who helped destroy their own industry. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What? The hired help wants some of this money too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What? The hired help wants some of this money too?
"I sold my soul to the company store..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What? The hired help wants some of this money too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm guessing, at this point, that it's purely a crisis management type situation
Of course you're guessing that- you're a ginormous douchebag after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait: http://www.newrockstarphilosophy.com/2011/01/artists-sue-major-record-labels-for-pirating-music-and- get-back-millions/
Time and time again, the major labels have shown that they will short-change the artists they represent at every possible opportunity.
Apparently, for you, doing the wrong thing is perfectly okay until you get caught at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You name Masnick as if he did something? All he did was point out publicly available information. So exactly how does that make him look bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something tells me that the Red Hot Chili Peppers are somehow going to make bank.
This money should be spent on music education in public schools. It should also be used to to make sure recordings locked away in vaults are being properly preserved. It should be spread around to ease licensing fees for small venues; the kind that actually book and pay struggling, starving artists. It should be used for the benefit of society. It shouldn't favor any specific artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The artists will get paid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The artists will get paid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did the labels..
Pay artists for their work? what a strange idea to the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
semantics?
because 0% is a percentage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: semantics?
It's not really a black and white issue. It's really shades of gray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shamed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]