Band Protests As A Copyright Troll Sues Its Fans
from the control-your-copyrights dept
One thing that's always amazed me is how the record labels ever got away with making it a standard thing that musicians hand over their copyrights to the label entirely. Sure, the labels put up some risk capital and handle part of the business side of things, but to totally give up all of your copyrights? In the tech industry, we've got lots of experience with risk capital, but venture capital deals (even as many entrepreneurs bemoan the deal terms) never go as far as record label deals in basically claiming 100% equity ownership in exchange for a piddly royalty (and only after you pay back the initial loan). But, of course, thanks to a broken system, musicians basically had little choice in the past but to sign a record label deal -- and with just a few large players in the space, giving away your entire output was considered "standard."But, that leads to some troubling results. We've already seen how artists have complained about their own works being used in suing fans. These artists feel helpless about this legal campaign that attacks their fans, potentially creating significant problems for any attempt by those musicians to connect with fans and earn a living going forward.
Take, for example, the tragic story of the band All Shall Perish, as chronicled on TorrentFreak. Apparently, the band's German label handed over the rights to sue to a Panama-based copyright troll who is now suing people in the US, contrary to the band's own wishes. The band, of course, recognizes that suing dozens of its biggest fans is not a good idea, but seems powerless to stop things.
“The band’s attorney made it clear to the licensing people [at Nuclear Blast Records] that the band wanted no part in lawsuits against fans. The industry is changing, illegal downloading is troublesome for bands and of course, for record labels, but whatever the solution will be – streaming, subscription, Kickstarter, new ways of looking at it entirely, whatever comes about – the band and I are in agreement (as is their lawyer) that SUING MUSIC FANS SURE ISN’T IT,” Downey told TorrentFreak.Apparently, after a lot of pressure from the band, the label claims it will tell the trolling operation, World Digital Rights, to dismiss the lawsuits. The band is now trying to regain control of its copyrights, and is saying that it would much prefer to protect its fans rather than sue them:
“The band, their attorney and myself have and will continue to take any steps to protect their fans, yes, even those who file trade,” Downey told us. “The band would prefer that their fans legally purchase, stream or otherwise enjoy their music. But they definitely have not, will not and do not wish to sue their fans.”
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: all shall perish, fans, record label
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Clarifying Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarifying Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarifying Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarifying Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarifying Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clarifying Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
pirate bay = 100% of the artists money
artists = 0 % of the artists money
nice "sharing" there huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Probably also think that if I download a movie from TPB, somehow a DVD in a warehouse somewhere just mysteriously fades to dust too eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
artists = 0 % of the artists money
Shouldn't that be RIAA gives 0% of the artists money TO THE ARTIST? :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Typo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're != your
I'm sorry. While others choose to continue reading the entirety of the summary, despite the failure, you prefer to remain blissfully ignorant due to a single error. I have to ask, with all due respect; do you also throw the baby out with the bathwater?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
Well played, sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: you're != your
This is the Internet, why do such petty grammatical errors matter?!
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
Usually done by someone who hates whatever is being talked about but can't logically argue their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're != your
Never made a typo in your life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you're != your
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anvil's Lips Kudrow gives advice on this subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HyIgaYy2W0
If you have not seen the movie, even if you don't like metal, it's a really good movie and gives some insight to struggles bands go through.
I actually bought it and it was worth it and very informative (and funny but also sad).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Independent Music FTW
http://www.sebstone.co.uk/music/
Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The so-called recording industry has a long, long, loooong history (as in, since its beginning 100 or more years ago) of being filled with the sleaziest scumbag lowlife abusive rapists and pimps who do fuck-all for a living and simply screw "their" 'artists' into the ground while treating them worse than corporate chicken ranchers treat their chickens and meanwhile driving BMW’s and eating filet and drinking vintage champagne and snorting cocaine paid for from the stolen revenues of the 'artists'.
ANY 'artist' fucking stupid enough to "sign" with any of these lowlife pimps and rapists in the last 50-75 years (you know, since regular newscasts began) DESERVES to get screwed to shit (including talented friends of mine who couldn't help themselves but bend over and drop their pants for the major label rapists despite my warnings - they have several albums out there and after allegedly selling millions in the last 30 years were left with sweet fuck-all by the rapists and some of them still don't have any real income).
I keep telling buyers to boycott that sick sadistic industry. The 'artists' also need to totally boycott the rapists and pimps and starve those fuckers to death. Those fuckers are worse than killer drug-resistant bacteria (yet still sleazier) and will not stop their evil ways until they are killed off completely as a species.
As for copyright trolls - they're the answer to the question "what is something so disgusting that even pigshit holds its nose when it hears about them?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Bowie, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, Joe Strummer, Lou Reed all stupid, and apparently willing to ally themselves with 'rapists and pimps'?
Really the vitriolic fantasy world most of you live in tells a lot about the threat you feel from other ordinary people just going about their business.
Secondly, no artist is forced to sign a mainstream record company contract. And ALL those contracts are negotiable. The article above is wrong in that regard. You are not forced to give all your copyright away. It's negotiable.
Thirdly. again the article is wrong. It's not about 'venture capital', it's about owning what you pay for. If a record company pays for 100% of a records recording costs, they own it. Many artists are now recording their own music at their own expense, then licensing the recording to a label (if they want to go that way).
So the article is ill informed as to the basics of how the modern industry works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Band: We want to keep our copyright, but are willing to negotiate.
Label: We'll get back to you on that.
Label to secretary: Please send in the next band.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd say the thousands of hours a band practices and works to create their own music are efforts far more worthy of owning the copyright. Really what happened is the recording industry held the means to produce a recording hostage and demanded an extortionists rate. Fortunately the tech industry has been slowly but surely eroding that position of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The artists go to the label to arrange to make an album. They offer to help the artist use their facilities to make & distribute the album, but the artist will be required to pay that back on top of interest (% of sales). Once the artist has paid back the label for the use of their services, the label keeps the copyright.
So, I go to a banker trying to arrange to buy a house. They offer to lend me the money to buy the house if I will pay back all the money they gave me, plus interest, and in the end they get to keep the deed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Show me artists who signed mainstream deals where they retained their copyright, and I'll show you a ridiculously short list of people.
Thirdly. again the article is wrong. It's not about 'venture capital', it's about owning what you pay for. If a record company pays for 100% of a records recording costs, they own it. Many artists are now recording their own music at their own expense, then licensing the recording to a label (if they want to go that way).
Really? How is that any different from venture capital? They pay to enable a company to make their product as well, but they take a much, much smaller amount of ownership.
So the article is ill informed as to the basics of how the modern industry works.
No, it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You first.
My list would be too long.
I thought you were hip to the new music business?
Fact is, since the 70's bands have been recording their own music.
Signing your life away to a label so they can pay for everything is old school.
And as I said, every contract is different, every contract is negotiable. So any blanket statement about signing away copyright is bound to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are so many examples (say Courtney Love) where people have been screwed by the labels and lost their rights.
Talk to Billy Corgan about recording their own music.
Can you cite some examples? Link to some artist blogs that defend your claims? Mike's entire site is full of examples of modern industry realities, both positive and negative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But have you ever read a football player cut from the team who is complimentary about the coach and management? Recording contracts often end unfortunately, that's just a fact of business. For most it's a mutual parting, which is why you don't see most artists griping about labels.
Funny you guys keep mentioning Anvil. For decades and through most of the film about them, they are busting a gut JUST to get signed to a mainstream recording contract.
Are they stupid???????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you provide a list of people who have gone on record or at least described to you that they have loved their contracts and were very happy, all of the contracts, even at first signing when they had never been on a label before?
Even 20 artists who've said they enjoyed their contracts and didn't feel they were slaves or taken advantage of or lost their copyrights.
I'm actually eager because I believe, from what I have read and heard, it's the other way around, millions are pissed and say nothing because that was a clause, and a few say something good because that's always permitted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the problem with Techdirt, it's all based on what you 'read' or 'heard', not what you experienced first hand.
Does Masnick have any music industry experience? I'm pretty sure not, and yet he's happy to argue with people who do.
Anyway, you read and heard wrong. Artists are not blocked from talking about their labels. many do.
Also, you set the bar unrealistically. A label deal is a long term relationship. You never argued with your partner? Of course artists have ups and downs. There are few who are 100% happy with everything their label does. That's the nature of a relationship, partnership and compromise.
The huge gulf between being 100% happy with labels, and regarding labels as rapists, pimps, evil slave owners etc, shouldn't need my explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So your comments are based on first-hand experience? Great, once you've told us who you are and what your experience is, you might have a chance of convincing Techdirt readers that things really are as you say. If you can't or won't do that, your comments will continue to sound like the self-serving defensive retorts of someone who fully understands how label deals are heavily weighted in favour of the labels' interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Long term? How many are long term vs one-record deals? Have you the numbers?
You say in post #64 that you're not an artist, so how do you have first hand information about contractual negotiations? Is it second hand from the artist themselves or are you their lawyer reading the contract for them? Or are you the lawyer drawing up the contract on behalf of the label, at which point you don't know what's going through the artists' minds, and they won't share their real views with you. You'd be crazy to think that. That's akin to a SW developer telling Steve Ballmer 2000 what they really think of Windows ME. They would not be honest.
So what are you then? If you do know the contractual details, then why not share them (without labeling the artist)? Ask politely and you'll receive links to sites that claim to have knowledge of contractual information that supports the slave/rapist accusation.
If that's rare, please let us know a ballpark estimate of your experience without pulling numbers out of your backside. Just a rough estimate would suffice, such as "I've met 12 top Billboard artists who showed me their contracts and they all were good." But you'd have to establish what their contracts were like when they first got signed, not after they were a commercial hit.
That's where we're coming from. We know Lady Gaga and now Adele can have more say in their contracts, or Nickelback, as they all made the labels profitable. But what about 24-Gone? Ride? Catherine Wheel? School of Fish? Rush?
They were not as lucky as say Matthew Good Band who's independent debut album hold's the Canadian record for sales. Even they didn't get all they wished for and even Matthew Good himself has explained about being pushed to add material that didn't fit the album and write a hit.
Hello Time Bomb has an interesting story to it. It was a last minute piece that was added because the label wanted it, then it was a hit, so the next several albums had the same pressure applied.
That's not creative freedom.
Rush, from their documentary, explained that they had to use high sales and a lot of arguing to allow the likes of Farewell To the Kings to be released. Of course the label felt it would flop, but it did very well and that's what won their artistic freedom. That's from the band themselves in their documentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And as to Mathew Good and Rush, yeah, working with a label is a partnership.
If you don't want to share in decisions, don't sign up to do so. Many artists haven't.
I don't think Rush would be where they are without major label support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The truths you tell when you don't realize it.
Thanks for admitting that new artists are negotiating from a powerless position. And thanks for admitting that a superstar has an "unusual" power position in the industry. Taken together, this shows that even you know that everything else you're arguing is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FAIL
This guy was their drummer:
http://community.musiciansfriend.com/docs/DOC-2557
The jokes write themselves when dealing with freetards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the guy started as an A&R man and worked his way up. What does that have to do with School Of Fish not being a huge money maker for their label, to the point where they could actually negotiate what they wanted?
On top of that he wasn't with the band in 1990 when they released their debut. So I don't see how his non-discussion of School of Fish in that article helps prove any point or illustrate a "fail."
And according to an email with Matthew Good, in Canada A&R people are few and far between (he claimed none).
So I don't trust Anderson's "We'll find you" however it does concur with what Steve Kudrow of Anvil said in an interview with a fan (paraphrased) "Once you get your management, songs written, audience, fan-base, etc... that's when the label comes along, after you've already made it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does Masnick have any music industry experience? I'm pretty sure not, and yet he's happy to argue with people who do.
Heh. Do you have any experience in economics or business? Because that's what we're actually talking about.
And why do you assume, incorrectly, that my information doesn't come from many people I know who are in the business?
Anyway, you read and heard wrong. Artists are not blocked from talking about their labels. many do.
I know -- personally -- some top notch artists who have told me flat out that there's a "gag order" on speaking badly about the label. This is on one label in particular... One you've heard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I've run my own music business successfully for decades. And you?
This is on one label in particular.
What about ALL the other labels. Can you prove they have gag orders?
I can see how a label would take a dim view of their signed artist badmouthing them, but deals last for a few years, sometimes a few months if things go wrong, and you're seriously suggesting you can't bad mouth a label after your no longer contracted to them?
Fact is, there are hundreds of thousands of artists happily working with labels, and a few who are not. So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. Sure you have, sparky.
What about ALL the other labels. Can you prove they have gag orders?
No one said they all do. Why do you make stuff up. There are gag orders on many artists.
I can see how a label would take a dim view of their signed artist badmouthing them, but deals last for a few years, sometimes a few months if things go wrong, and you're seriously suggesting you can't bad mouth a label after your no longer contracted to them?
Nope. But tons of bands do badmouth their labels afterwards. And, trust me, plenty who don't do it publicly do so privately. They don't do it publicly because they don't want to be labeled "tough to work with."
Fact is, there are hundreds of thousands of artists happily working with labels, and a few who are not. So what?
Keep believing that and the labels won't have any problem. But you and I both know that's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's true Mike. You are really guessing, and as you've never owned and operated a music business, or released a record, I think you are guessing from a handicapped position.
But keep on with the 'you're a nobody line' as much as you like. I'm guessing there is a reason Barack Obama doesn't use that line, or Ban Ki-moon don't ever use that tactic, even with ordinary members of the public who disagree with them. It's because they believe in what they are saying and are comfortable with their beliefs. It seems you HAVE to convince yourself I'm a nobody. Strange???
And on from that,
The big problem labels have is that people pirate music instead of buying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's strange that you believe you're contributing to this discussion, while we see you for what you are - a troll. And a bad one at that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's quite easy to prove it. Why do you refuse to provide proof of your own claims? Why do you expect people to believe your claims when they're based on a positon of authority you refuse to verify?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Strange? Really?? You just bounce in here off the turnip truck, start talking mumbo jumbo, acting like some know it all bigshot without giving anyone a clue what you even do for a living and expect everyone to just accept everything you say is a fact? Anyone can anonymously claim to be anybody on the internet, but it doesn't mean what they say is true.
Seeing as how you've said nothing to prove you're not a nobody, you shouldn't expect anyone around here to think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay then, how about Kanye West?
And Radiohead?
And Slipknot?
Just a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Radiohead crack me up.
They made a mint signed to a record company that also made armaments, then when they'd made enough money kicked up a stink about evil corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real pirates are the professionals.
The vast majority of artists end up in debt to the labels.
It's a great big lottery with the big name bands being the lucky winners. Most people don't make a decent living. Most people ultimately can't be working musicians.
That's the label system. It's been that way forever. You can't even use the Internet as a scapegoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Dixie Chicks, in the 90s, said to Dan Rather "please don't say that our CDs made lots of money, we don't see that" and "our deal is the same as any deal in Nashville".
Toby Keith now owns his own music and makes his own money because of the records screwing him over.
That's two, A list musicians who have said that they were getting the short end of the stick...
During their peaks.
So, you fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Respect the artists you love by not stealing their music. You're in control. Support music, don't steal it," said the Dixie Chicks in a statement.
uhmmmm, you fail...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Dixie Chicks have gone on RECORD as having said that they weren't making money outside of tours.
And, stealing music? I guess listening to the radio is stealing music, since I listen to free music on the radio.
Please try to get a correct response before replying.
The ONLY time stealing comes into play is if someone walks off with a CD, sneaks into a concert without paying or steals a shirt from said concert.
Notice how none of that was downloaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lots more than two. We've discussed Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Kenny Rogers, Weird Al, Too Much Joy, Amanda Palmer, OK GO, Lyle Lovett, 30 Seconds to Mars, Counting Crows and many, many more artists who talked about how their major labels screwed them out of royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But those are two that came to my mind because they spoke out on television over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fact is, since the 70's bands have been recording their own music.
Signing your life away to a label so they can pay for everything is old school.
And as I said, every contract is different, every contract is negotiable. So any blanket statement about signing away copyright is bound to fail.
I said mainstream deal.
Name one mainstream deal for a first time artist signed prior to 2000 where the artist kept their copyright.
I'll wait.
[ 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 ]
Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: you clearly know nothing about the industry or what you're talking about. Each and every one of them (who is still alive) would tell you about how they got screwed - I know some of the stories (btw, is no-talent nobody Joe Fucking Strummer the best you could some up with? And "Mr. Rare Hit, Mostly Total Miss" Lou Reed? Wow, that's lame).
And I'm sure that Yoko and/or either of the two remaining Beatles would tell you endless stories about how John got screwed (not only by the "industry rapists" but by that evil criminal Richard Shithouse Nixon).
If someone who has a clue wants to chime in, have at it. But like I said - your comment makes it clear that you know nothing about the subject and you're not worth my time, so, end of discussion with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Ha, ha. If you only knew who I was.
The only 'clueless' one here is you claiming intelligent innovative artists who signed and resigned with major labels over decades were 'stupid'.
Last time I looked, everyone of them was a millionaire (often several times over) living in multiple mansions around the globe.
How did that happen? T-shirt sales????????
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
I believe the words to the song are:
Please allow me to introduce myself,
I'm a man of wealth and taste,
I've been around for a long, long year,
Stole many a mans soul and faith...
-- Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Back in their days copyrights as hard as diamonds and copyright trolls don't exist. And they actually all get their fair share.
If the Beatles were to have existed as a modern band though, they'll all be complaining like the rest of the artists in the industry.
Aaaaand: Ha, ha. If you only knew who I was.
We know: You are an Anonymous Coward. A faceless nobody. A disembodied voice who is as insignificant as a grain of sand. Show us who you are before saying those words. Only a coward and a sinner would hide in the mask of anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
You're a nobody. If you were somebody real, you'd be willing to put a name on it. But you're not. You just pretend you're someone anyone cares about by playing anonymous online.
The only 'clueless' one here is you claiming intelligent innovative artists who signed and resigned with major labels over decades were 'stupid'.
You have to admit that for most of their lifetimes, they had no other choice if they wanted to be a successful musician.
Yes, that's changing in the past few years, and many are, in fact, now striking out on their own.
Last time I looked, everyone of them was a millionaire (often several times over) living in multiple mansions around the globe.
Yes, because the system made a small handful of people super wealthy, while screwing over the vast majority of artists they signed, clearly it's a good deal.
Of course, if you ask many of those super successful artists if they made more on touring or recorded music sales, many would tell you touring. Lyle Lovett has talked about how he's yet to see a dime in royalties.
How did that happen? T-shirt sales????????
Why do you always go back to this trope? No one has argued that t-shirt sales is the answer. This doesn't make you look "clued in." It makes you look the exact opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Dream on Mike. The absolute reality is you don't know. I've read enough on this site not to want to be personally called a rapist and a pimp by your members just because I have a different opinion, so I remain AC thanks all the same.
You have to admit that for most of their lifetimes, they had no other choice if they wanted to be a successful musician.
But the reality is there is NO revolution against the mainstream labels. You and your type expect us to believe intelligent innovators like Bowie and Dylan accepted being raped and pimped. If you talk to these artists (as I HAVE) the topic rarely gets a mention.
You say artists are only recently striking out on their own, But The Beatles started Apple in the 1960's. The punks and new wavers started their own record labels - like Joy Division on factory. The Smiths went with indie distribution through Rough Trade.
If the majority got screwed as you claim, the majority would have revolted and found a new way to record and distribute. But even after low cost recording and internet distribution, the majority still seek a label deal.
It's only people like you that have never released a record and never had a record deal who seem to think record deals are evil. Weird don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
http://www.marklafay.com/2011/03/signing-to-a-record-label-is-likely-not-your-best-opti on/
Please hang up and try your call again later.
But, if you don't want to read the link, let me give you an excerpt from it...
"When I signed my first artist in 2003, we did a more traditional artist royalty type of recording agreement. We also signed a co-publishing agreement with the label�s publishing entity. Even then, the labels were viewed as banks and the agreements they gave bands were, at best, really bad loans. Bands would sign away most of their rights for a recording advance, maybe some commitments to tour support and a whole lot of �potential.� Once you sign an ERA &/OR EPA, you are largely at the mercy of the company. Your future will rely heavily on the label�s ability to work your record and support your efforts to exploit your art. The problem with being a smaller band signed to a deal is that you rarely, if ever, see any money from the sale of your recorded music. These deals are structured in a way that the bulk of the financial burden is shouldered by your 10-18% of MSRP (less all applicable deductions, of course). Selling 100k albums on your own would be a hefty pay check where as a selling 100k albums with a recording company may not even recoup your debt to the label."
So, wanna try your argument again? This time with some real facts to back it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
No, we all know that Bowie and Dylan were among a few very successful drops in an oceans of musicians. We also know that the experiences of Bowie and Dylan are pretty irrelevant in a discussion about the modern music industry, and yet you keep bringing them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
�Just because technology exists where you can duplicate something, that doesn�t give you the right to do it. There�s nothing wrong with giving some tracks away or bits of stuff that�s fine. But it�s not everybody�s right. Once I record something, it�s not public domain to give it away freely. And that�s not trying to be the outdated musician who is trying to �stop technology. I love technology.� - trent reznor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
�Just because technology exists where you can duplicate something, that doesn�t give you the right to do it. There�s nothing wrong with giving some tracks away or bits of stuff that�s fine. But it�s not everybody�s right. Once I record something, it�s not public domain to give it away freely. And that�s not trying to be the outdated musician who is trying to �stop technology. I love technology.� - trent reznor
Or.
"Steal it," [Reznor] said. "Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'. Because one way or another, these motherf�ers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that�s not right." -- Trent Reznor
Or.
"I steal music too, I'm not gonna say I don't." -- Trent Reznor
For what it's worth, your comment comes years before mine. And I've spoken with Trent enough to know that the view you describe above is not the view he has today.
Trent has an open mind, learned, grew and embraced his fans. And they've embraced him quite nicely in return.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com/?url=rants/rant24&lang=eng&link=features
By 2007 his views were this...
"After all, we as artists dedicate our lives to producing the best music we can. It's been a painful process for me personally (to see the changes in the music industry). But should I be angry at the audience that wants to hear music so much, an audience that is so passionate about hearing it they go online to get it two weeks before the music debuts? No, I want them to be that way."
Reznor has become a revolutionary figure to the file-sharing community. A video ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5iHaV0dP4 ) appeared recently at YouTube that showed him during a concert performance lamenting the high prices of CDs. Fans whooped it up when Reznor told them to go ahead and steal his music.
-------
"I don't know what the future holds," he said. "I don't know what model is going to work. I do know relationships between music labels and artist like myself aren't going well. These days when digital elements come into play labels have dealt with them generally poorly. It has gotten to a place where it couldn't be worse. Their treatment of artists has less sympathy and it's more like 'What can we get out of you?' My only concern has always been that my audience is treated fairly."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9807934-7.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Ha. You're full of it. If you actually had knowledge to impart, people would respect that and no one would call you that. We've had lots of people who *respectfully* disagreed with us, and brought serious knowledge in doing so, and people were very engaged with them.
But you didn't do that. You insult and attack and make statements that have no basis in reality.
If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd have no reason to fear. That's why I know you're a nobody pretending to be a somebody. A legend in your own mind and no one else's.
But the reality is there is NO revolution against the mainstream labels.
You have this problem where you pretend people said something they didn't. I never said there was "a revolution against mainstream labels." In fact I've argued repeatedly that there are places for major labels. My problem is with their standard deals.
If you talk to these artists (as I HAVE) the topic rarely gets a mention.
I talk to lots of artists who *always* talk about how the labels have screwed them. Tons. Once again, it's clear you're a nobody pretending to be a somebody.
If the majority got screwed as you claim, the majority would have revolted and found a new way to record and distribute.
There was no other way to distribute. Even the folks you describe who started their own labels did distribution deals with the majors.
And, the "new way to record and distribute" is called computers and the internet. Welcome.
But even after low cost recording and internet distribution, the majority still seek a label deal.
As I've said there are plenty of reasons for some acts to work with labels. I've never been anti-label at all, and have argued over and over again how they could adapt and be more helpful.
But you should look at the trendlines, and you'll see that fewer and fewer of your "majority" (which I'd question) are still seeking that major label deal.
It's only people like you that have never released a record and never had a record deal who seem to think record deals are evil.
Um. Okay. You have no clue what you're talking about. It's difficult to throw a stone without finding a musician upset with their first record deal with a major. They're everywhere. Perhaps if you actually knew some you'd learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Once again, it's clear you're a nobody pretending to be a somebody.
It's actually sad that people think you are a commentator with some gravitas, and yet when you come up against someone who disagrees with you, all you can do is tell them they';re a nobody.
Well dream on in your delusional way Mr Masnick. You're absolutely wrong, but I have no need to prove it to you.
I've never been anti-label at all, and have argued over and over again how they could adapt and be more helpful.
Hard to think you are not anti label when you say things like:
the system made a small handful of people super wealthy, while screwing over the vast majority of artists they signed
The "vast majority are screwed", but you've never been 'anti label'?
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
You have no clue what you're talking about. It's difficult to throw a stone without finding a musician upset with their first record deal with a major. They're everywhere. Perhaps if you actually knew some you'd learn.
I know plenty. I work with them everyday (unlike you), have done for decades.
As I said earlier, a lot of artists say they're upset with their first deal, because every first deal comes to an end. Just like every football player leaves a team after being dropped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Heh. Lots of people disagree with me and I don't call them nobodies. In fact, there are some "somebodies" who disagree with me and I'm happy to talk to them (and do so all the time). I'm currently in an email debate with a "somebody" who vehemently disagrees with me. I'd never call him a nobody.
I didn't call you a nobody because you disagree with me. I called you a nobody because it's clear from your words and knowledge that you are, in fact, a nobody.
The "vast majority are screwed", but you've never been 'anti label'?
You seem to have trouble with basic concepts of logic. I'm not anti-label. I'm anti-bad label deals which did, in fact, screw over the vast majority of artists. What I support are more forward looking labels who do more reasonable deals. I'm pro-label for labels that don't screw over artists.
Why do you support screwing over artists?
As I said earlier, a lot of artists say they're upset with their first deal, because every first deal comes to an end. Just like every football player leaves a team after being dropped.
Funny. I was recently at a party where two artists that were "dropped" from their major label deals were celebrating like crazy because they fought so hard to get out of those awful deals and were thrilled to be out on their own. Fun party. Good music. I don't see too many bands upset about losing their deals these days. Too much opportunity to do a better deal elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Surely you are better than this. Is this an adult debate or high school? Amazing. Oh well.
Why do you support screwing over artists?
Hmm did I say that? I don't think I did. I don't like to see any artist screwed. I support artists choice. The right to choose to self release, or the right to sign with a major, or whatever they want.
It's up to them, not up to me, OR YOU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
But you ARE a nobody - as for example I am. While I am not afraid to sign in I'm still a nobody at this topic - I don't know enough of the topic to contribute. If this was my blog, I'd tell you off just the same (not as eloquent but at least that blunt).
You're just a (pretty bad) troll. I've heard parrots use better informal fallacies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
It's up to them, not up to me, OR YOU.
And, um, no one has ever said otherwise. We've argued all along that everyone has the right to release how they want.
But, if the market isn't interested in your chosen method of release (or, aren't interested in supporting you because they don't like you), then you shouldn't lash out mistakenly and blame third parties who aren't the problem.
Look, I'm sure some artists would still like "the choice" of making their living painting frescoes. But the market for frescoes has diminished. Ditto the market for stained glass windows.
Perhaps the market for releasing music the traditional way is declining as well.
But we do see -- every day -- artists who embrace smart new methods of connecting with fans being able to make a hell of a lot more money than they did otherwise.
And that's the kind of "choice" we've been supporting all along. Why you'd argue otherwise suggests (again) that you are arguing with the strawman in your mind, rather than anything anyone here has ever said. You might want to look into that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Right. It's declining because everyone knows they can obtain free music from unauthorized downloads.
Wait.. you hadn't forgotten about mass unauthorized downloading had you?
Here's the real funny thing, you can't download stained glass windows, or frescoes. So they seem like odd analogies to reach for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
And you don't mention iTunes?
Why do you go straight for the "but piracy" thing?
*Sigh*
Such an argument is so STUPID!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
I can't download a CD either, I can download the music on the CD, sort of like I can take a picture of the window or fresco. Both are copies, yet for some reason some like to argue that they are different. I really do not understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Try supporting your argument from authority with the actual authority, i.e. you identity.
I'm guessing, even if you work with "them" every day, you work to screw them over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
You guess wrong.
I'm most often screwed over by people pirating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
DC says:
"I'm guessing, even if you work with "them" every day, you work to screw them over."
With "them" referring to the artists.
Then Nobody responds:
"You guess wrong.
I'm most often screwed over by people pirating."
With complete disregard for the artists and making it all about "him", sounding like a complete corporate label douchebag, because he's already stated that "he's" not an artist.
If you do in fact work for a label, you just completely justified the worldwide hate for your kind once again, because no one gives a damn about you, the control freak middleman out to exploit the artists for every cent you can get then kick them to the curb once their sales begin to drop. However we do have a lot of love and respect for the artists themselves which you do not as I've just pointed out through your own words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
The level of concentration and therefore debate at this site is extremely poor.
I said i wasn't 'an artist of some stature', I also said i wasn't the SAC you all seemed to think i was.
The realities of the modern music industry is you have to diversify and multi-task.
You have to be an artist, a recording engineer, a record label, etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
So if you think only people who have been in the know should be commenting on things they know about, why the fuck is Hollywood and their Music Industry Bitches (RIAA/labels) writing laws and demonizing technological breakthroughs that don't kiss their ass? They clearly have a limited knowledge on the subject, so why should we listen to anything they have to say?
Do you see how the appeal to authority method of arguing is a fallacy?
Contrary to your belief, you don't need to be an expert to understand and even propose solutions to a problem. You do need to listen more though, and you can't expect people to listen to you when you shit on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Good luck with that 'armchair quarterback'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Therefore you are a nobody as Mike has called you out on.
"The level of concentration and therefore debate at this site is extremely poor."
Then pick a damn name to post with already, fake or otherwise, to clear up any confusion. You're all over the place. The snowflakes help until there's hundreds of comments, and they can change with a page refresh.
I just fail to see you convincing anyone here of anything except that you're completely full of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
One of those Beatles wrote a song about how badly they were screwed by their publisher "Northern Songs Ltd" which EMI/Capitol set up after they got around to signing them. And considering their record sales, concert attendance and popularity they could have been paid a tenth of a pittance and ended up wealthy on that alone. And you did notice that first chance The Beatles had they set up their own label and distribution.
Oh yeah, George Harrsion's song was "Only A Northern Song". Listen to it sometime.
It was Northern Songs that sold The Beatles entire songbook catalogue to Micheal Jackson over the objections of Yoko, Paul, George and Ringo who had put in a better bid on it.
The reality was and is that an artist signing with a major label is basically forced to sign over copyright to their material and agree on the label's choice of publisher unless the artist has a past where they've controlled both and become successful by recording and publishing as independents. Something many do now.
So, until O Wise One Giggling, you have the balls to post under your own name you won't mind if we continue to think of you as as a clueless ignoramus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
But the fact is they were successful, rich and powerful by their early twenties, despite EMI if I take your opinion. McCartney was still releasing his albums though EMI as a multi-millionaire in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
What was Lennon's last label? Geffen?
But these guys were rich, experienced and opinionated enough not to associate their name with with, or put their music out through labels that were abusing other artists as pimps and rapists would.
So what do we have here. Actual politically aware artists signing to major labels versus inexperienced techdirt posters who think they know better.
I know which side I believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Our contracts are awesome. We give the band money and help them sell their music to the public. We take a cut of all sales, the band has to pay us back plus interest out of their share of the sales and then we retain copyright on the songs. Win-win for me.
I won't tell you who I am, you'll just have to take my word for it. Also, people who don't believe me can suck an egg.
See what I did there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
Hey this is fun! I get to lie, claims others don't know stuff and when called out on what I say respond with, "Well, I'd love to tell you who I am but I cannot. My reputation is so big and amazing that by commenting on such an insignificant blog, filled with pirates and their anti-artists/copyright ways, it might be hurt. You'll just have to trust me I am and know what I say I am and know." Woo! Let's all play this game from now on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Saw this clueless kneejerk coming.
So your choice was the ultra expensive route of record yourself, drive to record stores and beg them to put you on a shelf (many did not and from what I read that was label control preventing such things). That was your only means.
Things have changed so yes they could have gone on their own if the Internet existed back then with the maturity and popularity that it has now.
But try to stick on the topic at hand of bad record contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At last, someone who knows what they are talking about in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And this folks is why we should pause and read what we wrote before we hit submit. Then again, it is probably the first truthful thing you've ever said on this site. So kudos to you.
The sad part is if we knew who you were, with your claims to be an artist of some stature, although that's highly doubtful, we'd probably boycott you on principal alone. Not for what you say, but for how you say it. Namely, you act like a dick. Then again, it's possible you actually are an artist. In which case we wouldn't boycott you, we might give your work a listen, but we'd probably regret the money spent doing so, and we'd realize blaming pirates for your failure is just you're way of coping with not having any talent and just sucking as a musician in general.
Be a man, tell us who you are. Plenty of other artists come here and do so. Some big, some small. Some on labels, some independent. Their opinions are respected, even if disagreed with. Why? Because they're willing to stand by their words and beliefs.
Sadly, I'd expect nothing less of an Anonymous Coward such as yourself to say "Well, I can't reveal who I am but suffice it to say I'm kind of a big deal and I know all". Truly laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You DO understand there can be multiple people posting as AC right?
Or are you as clueless about that as you are on the workings of the music industry.
I've never claimed to be an 'artist of some stature'.
However, I have ACTUAL, and lengthy music industry experience. And it's clear anyone who claims record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody' is either 'clueless' themselves, or more likely a very sad and angry individual.
What a shame you've never met these people in person as I have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know.
Were you talking about your own experience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've never met anyone really famous. I don't proclaim to have met famous people either, then again I'm not pulling an appeal to authority fallacy argument.
You've just given attacks against Mike saying "I don't agree, I know people." But listing famous people by name does not support your argument. Now quoting some of their contractual agreements sounds far more believable. Providing links to their sites where they rant is more believable.
Mike has done that, true not in every single post does he link to every single site, he keeps them relevant to the post.
You won't be attacked if you don't launch an attack, so you CAN use your real name. It is all about how you deliver your message.
Some will disagree, duh, it's the Internet some disagree just because they are bored and need hobbies. But most here will want to hear what you have to say.
When you hide, you're not going to get any believable points, especially when you're basically saying "I call bullshit" and "I know, I'm an expert" without providing any credentials.
I am currently AC because I have not yet logged in on my own comp (logged in by default at work).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that you receive a snowflake every time you post a comment to the same article, and when those match, we can figure out it is you. Unless, of course, you are using the same proxy server as another poster, and both posting anonymously.
You show up as a red circle with an X through it, and have said previously that you are a musician of some stature. Since you have spoken previously, and you have said that the Anonymous Coward you are replying to, who does not have your snowflake is the only person here who knows what their talking about, I believe the other Anonymous Coward's comment is correct. I do often time have to explain other people's punchlines, even when everyone else gets it, and I am usually the life of the party (as if that really needs a /sarc tag.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh well, someone other than me is confused then, because I never claimed to be an artist of some stature.
I have a lot of direct music industry experience, and rub shoulders with intelligent artists who sign major record deals. It's simply unrealistic to claim they did this under duress, or because they were stupid. In fact it's the norm for artists to sign a deal with a label based on the personalities at the label they will be dealing with.
I'm sure it's some comfort to your collective delusion to assume they are either stupid or forced into label slavery, but in fact they are usually excited to partner with a label. And these are artists with a social conscience, an independent voice and many times years of music industry experience behind them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, I am sorry, when you said "Ha, ha. If you only knew who I was." I figured you were an artist that we cared about. My bad.
I'm sure it's some comfort to your collective delusion to assume they are either stupid or forced into label slavery
You do realize that there is more than one speaker here. I never said anything about artists being stupid or forced into label slavery. I was just pointing out that the other anonymous coward said something that you seemed to miss in your reply, about being more than one AC present in the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why did you tell him/her that? XD I was having a good laugh at his/her posts... :3
Anyway, you claim to be an artist(stature or no), correct? Sorry, but I haven't heard of an artist named "Anonymous Coward." Is that a K-Pop band or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I think David is clearly thinking with his butt: If he just throw away that idea that they needed middlemen and start thinking up a better way to distribute his music to the fans, he's gonna find he'll earn a lot more dough than he had before.
And that post: can he even call himself a real artist? It's like he's just making music to make cash, period.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'd be a member of the Darkspear Tribe amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Regarding the bit about you claiming to be an artist, well that may be a mistake on my part. But I'm basing that on your writing style. As I've said in other articles, writing styles are quite unique and it's easy enough to determine who's who (even using those using the AC moniker) based solely on their writing and writing style. Yours is QUITE unique. I have little doubt that you are the same AC who has previously claimed to be an artist of some sort. You can deny that. And I may be wrong, but it's highly doubtful. As I said, writing styles. You may want to change yours if you want to truly be anonymous. Like I already said, you come off as a bit of a dick. While there are some people here who are rude and short with others, there's only one who stands out the way you do.
"However, I have ACTUAL, and lengthy music industry experience. And it's clear anyone who claims record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody' is either 'clueless' themselves, or more likely a very sad and angry individual.
What a shame you've never met these people in person as I have."
What's really interesting is that I in my previous comment said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about "rapists and pimps" or called Joy Strummer a "no talent nobody". I admire Joe Strummer in point of fact, so I would never call him a no talent nobody. You seriously have a problem of some sort. Especially when you look at what I said and what you respond with. A reasonable person would immediately realize you're trying to put words in my mouth. Well that and for some odd reason you always seem to think I'm Mike. You did this yesterday as well. "Clueless" and "a very sad and angry individual" both describe you well though. Based on what you say and how you say it. Again, kudos to you. It's quite astounding to see you speak honestly, even if you're trying to paint others in a manner which is more descriptive of yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my contributions to this site I've NEVER claimed to be an artist of some stature, or even an artist. I've never claimed you were Mike (weird confusion you have!).
I'm not putting words in your mouth either.
I'm taking part in this debate, and some here refer to record industry employees as 'rapists and pimps' and seem to think educated and intelligent artists are 'stupid'.
So, in my opinion you are one of many arguing against a reasonable view, and allying yourself with some of the most ridiculous comments ever spoken about the music industry. That's your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or are you as clueless about that as you are on the workings of the music industry.
I've never claimed to be an 'artist of some stature'.
However, I have ACTUAL, and lengthy music industry experience. And it's clear anyone who claims record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody' is either 'clueless' themselves, or more likely a very sad and angry individual.
What a shame you've never met these people in person as I have."
That was your previous reply to me. By reading it, one could easily infer, based on what you said, that I had said something along the lines of claiming "record company employees across the board are 'rapists and pimps' and calls Joe Strummer a 'no talent nobody'". Now would you like to revise your statement about not putting words in my mouth? Because based on that, it's apparent that is what you were doing. I never stated any such thing and yet out of nowhere you brought that up. Now, if you want to make blanket statements that are not fact about the people on this site, by all means. Go ahead. But if you want to put words in my mouth, be prepared to be called out on it.
In fact, can you show me where at all in this thread anyone has called record industry employees "rapists and pimps" or that artists are "stupid"? Go ahead. Show me, I'll wait.
I am not arguing at all against a reasonable point of view or allying myself with others. In fact, if you bothered at all to read the comments in a threaded manner, you'd easily see that all I have said so far was that you included yourself in the "at last someone who knows what they're talking about" bit. (Meaning you don't know what you were talking about, because up to that point no one who had commented apparently did, which is the main point I was making by quoting you). And the only other thing I said is that writing styles are unique, so contrary to what you're claiming suddenly or not, you're writing style is either uncannily similar to the one AC who claims to be an artists and post anonymous because he's scared of the pirates (namely everyone here but himself) or you are that AC. That was implied on my part. Nothing more, nothing less was stated by myself.
If you can't follow the conversation try reading a bit more slowly and responding to things that are actually said. Quote something. Reply to it. Quote something else. Reply to that. And so on and so forth. Don't start bringing up things that haven't been stated and replying to what you imagined I said or others have said. Technically, the one showing confusion here is yourself. I'm lucid beyond belief and clearly able to follow the conversation, which is more than I can say for yourself (your comments so far are proof of that).
Now, we can stop here or we can continue. The choice is yours? The one coming off as looking foolish and a bit confused is you. Not me. Also, you're not taking part in any debate. You're making wild claims based on things no one has said and then responding, partially, to what they do say when they try and correct you. That is not "taking part in this debate". That's you going off, then going off more when people are like "wtf are you talking about, sunshine".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- EMINEM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One person made the "rapists and pimps" comments and you immediately try and tar and feather everyone here with it.
That's why you're a joke. If you want to have a serious discussion, folks here will do that. If you want to be a jackass, well, don't expect anyone to take you seriously when we know you're a nobody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why you're a joke. If you want to have a serious discussion, folks here will do that. If you want to be a jackass, well, don't expect anyone to take you seriously when we know you're a nobody.
Stop with the 'nobody' line Mike, seriously. It makes you look weak and afraid.
As for the rapists and pimps line. You used to censor off color comments and hide them behind a pink warning.
If you don't want your site to look like a joke, you shouldn't let your followers call ordinary music industry workers pimps and rapists. Rape is a very serious crime, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO with music and the debate we are having now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plainly a few people here have confused you with another AC who also posts as hurricanehead.
To be fair, it's an easy confusion to make as you both repeat the same points, in very similar wording, in a quite aggressive and insulting fashion whilst cherry-picking data points.
It would be easy enough to avoid this confusion by just signing in with a pseudonym. You don't have to use your real name (though that might garner you a lot more respect) but a username would help the discussion along quite a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oddly enough when it comes to comparing downloading music and rape the shills have absolutely no problem with equating the two. Do you mind telling them that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You aren't alone. Several of us made the same connection. I was looking back at previous comments, and I could swear they made a comment about being an artist in a previous article in response to me, along with the same statement of "if you only knew who I am." I challenged them before to name themselves...but they didn't respond. Anyone can be an anonymous troll on the internet, but it takes huge balls to be a named troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really though, cherry-picking quotes from the top 1% of the recording artists* is hardly representative of the bulk of the industry now is it? How about some quotes from those in the middle or lower quartiles?
* By sales, i'm not convinced they're the top 1% of artists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slightly less evil...
It doesn't really change the underlying depravity of those that run the industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hogwash
"The copyright that is "given away" is the ownership of the particular recording, aka the master tape, that the label is paying for, not the song itself. The copyright for the melody and lyrics will always belong to the person/persons who composed it, that copyright is non transferable."
Nobody follows up with:
"Perfect.
At last, someone who knows what they are talking about in this thread."
So explain to me then, if the labels only own the "master tape" of one particular recording of a song, how is it that the labels can issue DMCA takedowns for live performances recorded by fans or cover versions of songs? Happens all the time and the labels have absolutely nothing to do with these recordings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Downloading =/= obtaining a physical copy...
I.E. there is no theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
pirate bay = 100% of the artists money
artists = 0% of the artists money
no sharing where it counts, huh... FAIL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The promo bay offers far more exposure than the most expensive label marketing. And it scares you. Thats why you spam your copy-pasta lies everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I go to the cinema instead of buying that album, have I cost the artist any money?
If I buy another album instead of that artist's album, have I cost them any money?
The final two are both 'legal' and 'moral'. How come the first magically isn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
were, not where. :P
And, who's exploiting anyone?
I can put a blank cassette tape into my old-school stereo system and record music off the radio.
Why is it that something you can do in real life that's legal is suddenly ILLEGAL when it goes online? That makes no sense to me at all. If it's legal in the real world, it should be legal online.
I can borrow a friend's CD/iPod and listen to those songs all I want, without paying a penny to anyone, and it's legal.
But if my friend rips the CD and puts it onto Cloud storage so I can DL it for myself, it's suddenly illegal.
The only FAIL I see is your "arguments".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's just doesn't represent informed debate. More like a low level high school argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If people are acting like trolls and assholes, they get calls such.
If somebody with a different experience actually wants to start an adult debate, they are free to. If that's rare, there may be a reason for that, and it's not the people calling them out for being trolls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't attacked ANYONE, or called anyone a name.
I'm saying in my experience, the vast majority of artists are not ripped off by labels. Masnick can disagree all he likes, but he hasn't proven the vast majority of artists are ripped off either. It's more a matter of opinion on his part I guess.
Anyway, it's just funny many of you spend more time telling an AC they are a nobody, than answering that AC's points with irrefutable evidence.
Of course, if the vast majority of artists are happy to sign with labels, you have no other tactic than to try and dismiss someone as a nobody, clueless, an asshole, a troll etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my experience people can say (type?) anything they want on the Internet. You can't expect anyone to believe you when you claim to have decades of music industry experience without any proof other than your written word, can you?
Are you honestly surprised no one believes your claims? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Did i say i was surprised? No.
I'm just surprised most of you expend so much energy telling a mystery poster they are a nobody, rather than taking on the issues in an insightful way. Especially Masnick. he's told me I'm a nobody about a dozen times in this thread. And he has no idea really. It's pure guess work.
But it fills up space, that would otherwise have to be filled with intelligent debate. I guess it probably makes him feel good too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can say the same about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, I can see how that's working out GREAT for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't call him an asshole. I called him out on his inability to make an argument without falling back on his fallacious accusations that we're all unethical pirates. He also claimed that many artists hate Techdirt, and that the users here are permanently censoring his posts beyond retrieval.
So I invite him, as I have done so multiple times, that if there is such a deluge of opposition to Techdirt, they can come and vote all his comments as insightful. They don't have to leave names or comments. All they need to do is appear as IP addresses to show that this opposition of hate, consisting of artists, exists.
Until then, his alleged huge anti-Techdirt crowd is a baseless whim of his imagination, and until he proves otherwise, he will be called out on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A long and distinguished tradition.
You would probably call him a freetard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To thank them for being nice people, I will tell my friends to check out their music, I know a few people who might like what they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're agreeing with what I wrote then? "But you'd have to establish what their contracts were like when they first got signed, not after they were a commercial hit."
Point being, as other artists have ranted, you either do what they say (unless you've made the label rich) or you don't sign, no other choice. If you have examples of artists first signing and not being given the "take it or leave it" option, please list them.
So while "rapist/pimp/slave master" are exaggerated terms, they have been uttered in similar form from many former and still current label artists.
Many who say such things say "everyone we know..." just like David Lowery saying everyone he knows (and extrapolated to everyone) royalties were well above %12. However, DeeLite's female vocalist replied in a comment saying everyone she knows is stuck with %12. So she says "don't generalize" to him. I posted the link a few weeks ago and don't feel like searching for it. Sorry.
So I would not generalize that every label is a rapist, however I would not generalize that only a small number of artists are being exploited, as you have implied with "partnership" analogies. Please tell me what artists who are not Nickelback or Rush who can stand up to their label and get what they want?
Raw numbers, I am willing to bet, will illustrate that, as I said before, only a few have say in their own contracts beyond "No." to which the label will respond with "Fine, give us back the money we lent you plus these extra fees."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Almost all signed artists.
The fact is there is a whole industry in contract negotiation,
There are teams of entertainment lawyers working for artists, as well as established managers and management companies.
You are never told 'take it or leave it' when it comes to your recording contract. It's a negotiation.
Of course, once you've signed up to be in a partnership, it's not acceptable to ignore your partners suggestions completely.
Sometimes an artist will suggest recording their album on Endeavor, while orbiting the earth, then when the label says it's a ridiculous idea, the artist whines to the press their label controls them and treats them like a slave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I see a lot of effort spent on trying to convince a lot of people of a lot of lies, fortunately, the supreme court justices are not so gullible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Huh? We stated clearly that we expected the Supreme Court not to hear the case. How is that whining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Racketeering?
Maybe it is time the US Code Title 18, RICO LAWS are used. Not that I would expect it would ever happen.
In the old days, publishers were the only outlet (other than vanity publishers). Today it is far easier to publish and promote yourself electronically. Still marketing channels are not easy to come by. I would just like to see a little more transparency and less extortion by the publisher/promoters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Racketeering?
old gate keepers = access to distribution
new gate keepers = access to revenue from distribution
in both cases the actual artist is screwed...
pirate bay = 100% of the artists money
artists = 0% of the artists money
no sharing where it counts I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Racketeering?
But you're right in a way, they're not gatekeepers, they're middlemen providing a useful and valuable service. Hence they're able to build a business model in the current environment without trying to screw over the rest of the web whilst they're at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Racketeering?
Huh? Anyone who believes that Pirate Bay actually gets something other than Ad money is mad. They don't get anything from the artist. They don't sell the music. They distribute it... FOR FREE. Which is the point of piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Racketeering?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have not insulted you, I want information to back up your claims, and I did say please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don't feed the trolls, it means they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]