Artists Want The Ability To Buy Back Their Copyrights If Universal Is Allowed To Buy EMI
from the interesting-idea... dept
As Universal Music Group (UMG) continues dealing with antitrust questions as it tries to close its purchase of EMI, there's a lot of focus on "divestment," or which parts of the combined entity that would have to be sold off. There's even talk of having to sell off the famed Parlophone Records label (home of Coldplay and Radiohead). That would be a big deal, of course, but an even more interesting proposal has been brought up by the Featured Artists Coalition, a UK-based coalition of musicians, who are saying that if the company has to divest, why not let the artists themselves have the opportunity to buy back their copyrights at "fair market value."Divestments in the wake of mergers should first offer copyrights, at market rates, to the artists who created them. To sell them to other corporations, whether large or small, is just a perpetuation of an old business model, which has seen the recorded music business halve in value over 10 years. During that time, the technological revolution has displaced the old music business players. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past.That letter is signed by Ed O'Brien of Radiohead and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd. Of course, I imagine that the labels and the artists might disagree about what "market rates" are. Also, given how focused the labels are on fighting copyright termination in the US (allowing artists to take back their copyrights after 35 years), you have to imagine that they'd fight any such plan equally hard. It's no surprise why, though: if the artists who could afford to buy back their rights did so, that would take away many of the "big name" acts, which are pretty much the remaining money makers under the old system. There's no way the labels would agree to this, even if it certainly puts the artists' interests first. Yet another example of how labels' and artists' interests are not aligned at all.
It would be good to have music business people rather than financiers owning and running music companies again. It would be even better to have artists owning their work and entering into partner relationships with service-providing major and independent record companies with all the finance and expertise an artist needs to develop their own business.
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, copyright, ed o'brien, merger, music, nick mason, ownership
Companies: emi, umg, universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This would be the most awesome thing ever. This would occur in one of two ways:
1) either the labels have to continue with the sham of "no records make any profits" except for a few big artists
or
2) they would have to redo ALL of their accounting, restate and backdate everything to show they made HUGE money on all of them, so they could negotiate a higher sale price, but then they would HAVE TO pay back ALL of that unpaid, restated profits.
It would be glorious. They get properly shafted either way, as they should for ripping off artists for the last several decades.
So that is why this will never, can never, will never be allowed to happen. Expect new proposed legislation to explicitly make it illegal for anyone to ever reclaim or repurchase a once-sold copyright assignment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is fun. Labels want them valued high for more money, but low so they don't have to redo all their royalty payouts. Artists want them low so they don't have to spend a lot of money, but high so they aren't showing the world how little value copyright's are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Honestly, just looking at what they've done in the past, there is no low they won't sink to if it means they can continue screwing the artist over and keeping as much money to themselves as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any artist could afford to buy back their music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any artist could afford to buy back their music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid hippies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, if it is an incentive for them to create more stuff, they shouldnt be allowed to give it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So "copyright holders" can profit from it.
C'mon you don't expect a hippie musician, singer, performer to really make money do you?
The copyright holder will buy the rights for the music and exploit it all the while studying law and accounting so it can better screw the creators and make the creators believe they are getting a good deal, with the sheep rallying to defend the copyright holders which are not artists.
It works like this, you buy cheap and corner the market those are basic principles that anybody can fallow, you don't need higher education to understand that principle.
Copyrights which are artificial monopolies creates the best environment for bloodsucking parasites to thrive, and it so happen that they get elected to office and then appoint their pals to occupy key positions in government institutions that don't have elections and are for life and so they capture the regulatory process and screw everyone.
Now you can see how that makes perfect sense for a very small group of people but not for everybody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We pay all for all of these things, so we need something. Let us hold the copyright, and we'll take very good care of it. And you'll be selling millions of records, its easier to let us handle the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
why not let the artists themselves have the opportunity to buy back their copyrights
It strikes me as a complete absurd that an artist has to buy the rights back. There should not be the "copyright holder" expression, just "copyright owner". The artists could "rent" this copyright to the labels but they should never be able to sell or give up their copyright. This is one more proof that the system is completely broken and only harms the creators.
Sure this poses a problem of who owns if many worked in the creative process (do not mistake it with the expression process that is when the music created by some1 is played by a group).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who could buy back
Actually, if the market rates are fair, it ought to be equally possible for any artist - since the copyrights of poorer artists ought to be cheaper - unless of course they are poorer because they did a worse deal with the label rather than because their music is less valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isn't it strange how the artists use the same argument, when it is to their advantage, as customers do, over the old and the new business models, and what is the way forward, ie giving customers what they want 'at fair market value'! instead of constantly fighting against the people, these artists should be joining the customers in the fight against the labels, the outdated business practices and copyright in general. get a win-win situation going for a change!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think most all artists keep their mouths shut.
I think most artists are more interested in music.
But I don't think most of them like getting ripped off by a label, or a publisher, or a tech company, or "the people", or anyone.
Would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're thinking of labels and "the people" as physically slapping the artist. i.e. The labels have already ripped the artist off, which is a slap in the face. "The people" also slap them in the face through "illegitimate" access to content.
What actually happens is that if the labels are ripping off artist, the artist doesn't get paid regardless of what "the people" do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ohh dear me
Personally i don't think all label's are evil, but this needs to come out into the open and those that have been ripping of the artists needs to be sued , and if people like Simon Cowel are found to have been using creative accounting then they must be forced to sell every house and every car and every whore they have purchased. Every penny they have ever made must be returned to the artists , even if it meant taking the shirt of there backs and leaving them with nothing to there names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Big Label will not let the Artist "Buy Back" their Music.And if they do so it will only be for some Astronomical Made-Up Figure.
Pink Floyd buyback at $100 Million Dollars, ETC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep your eyes open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who wants 'em?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buying Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actual case law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]