Epic's 'Music First' Approach: Delay Album Release; Drop Band When They Leak It
from the uh-what? dept
Last month, we wrote about how the band Death Grips, an indie sensation who had signed with Epic Records (owned by Sony Music), had decided to release their latest album for free all over the internet, after some sort of dispute with Epic over the release date. The band was already considered one of the top authorized downloaded bands on BitTorrent due to earlier releases it had put online for free itself. However, with Epic trying to take a standard "slow down and wait" approach, the band posted its new album to various file lockers and started tweeting out links, noting that "the label will be hearing the album for the first time with you."Last week, the band posted a screenshot of an irate email from the label about this. Epic notes not only that is it absolutely furious about the leak, but that (1) the release is a breach of contract; (2) since Epic owns the copyright, the label considers the leak to be infringing; (3) the band's decisions have "financially damaged Epic"; (4) even though Epic still intended to release the album, the album would not count towards the recording commitment in the band's contract and (5) while Epic still intended to collect money for the sale of the album (which, again, would not count towards the recording commitment), Epic would not cover the cost of recording the album.
Either way, it appears that won't be an issue, because just a few weeks after that email was sent, Epic officially began the process of dropping Death Grips from the contract. This probably won't surprise many people, though it will be interesting to see if Epic retains "ownership" of the work in question or if Death Grips is able to get back control of its masters. That said, Epic's "statement" about this move is absolutely hilarious for being obviously, blatantly, false:
Epic Records is a music first company that breaks new artists. That is our mission and our mandate. Unfortunately, when marketing and publicity stunts trump the actual music, we must remind ourselves of our core values. To that end, effective immediately, we are working to dissolve our relationship with Death Grips. We wish them well.First of all, Death Grips had already "broken" without Epic's help. Second, since when has a major label ever really cared about "the actual music" as compared to the ability to make money off of it with marketing and publicity stunts? And, really, if it were just about "the music," then why would it have freaked out so much when the band made "the music" available for free?
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: breach, contracts, death grips, free, music, releases
Companies: epic records, sony music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And then, labels will sue said politicians for being pirates and remashing their statement without authorization. And the world rejoices.
Well, I can dream...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This made me howl with laughter. The major labels do not give a damn about the music anymore (if, indeed, they ever did). The only thing they care about is making a fast buck from a product that is easily marketable but equally forgettable. Making a long term investment doesn't even enter their minds.
I applaud Death Grips here and the sooner other articles realise just how much they are being stifled the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Judging from my experience with people who work in marketing, you're probably not that far off. They certainly don't tend to have a full human understanding of the product compared to those outside of their bubble.
That's probably part of the reason why this situation occurred in the first place (e.g. marketing people insisting on "windows" and "optimum releases per quarter" or some such nonsense, while the band themselves were far more in touch with their fans' actual needs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Progressive Insurance was involved with a "twitter bot" SANFU - http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/technology/progressive-tweets/index.html.
They apparently stepped up to defend a guy who ran a red light and killed another man's sister so they wouldn't have to pay out under an insurance policy to the victim's family.
After the family hit the net with the story, they got bombarded with negative reactions and tried to calm the storm with one twitter post. That exact post was repeated in 6 replies as if it was a spambot re-posting the original message.
It'd be poetic to see that happen to Epic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music First is one of two things
1. a typo, and should be Money First
2. a euphemism for Money First
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Music First is one of two things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Music First is one of two things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Music First is one of two things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification
"Epic Records is a music first company that breaks new artists"
Epic Records takes the music from the artist first and then breaks the will and spirit of the artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By Break they mean Destroy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epic Records in a nutshell
...on the wheel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Truth In Words.
Indeed, while others break in new artists, Epic breaks them.
No wonder the band made a choice to serve its interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epic is losing it's death grip on music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the one that gets me. Do we need any further proof of how one-sided major label contracts can be? The label not only gets to determine when and how the music is released, they also get to choose which releases actually "count". This should be simple - if a band has a contract with Epic to release 3 albums, and Epic has released 3 albums then it's fulfilled its contract. To say "well, we can release 3 but you still owe us more because that last one didn't count" is... arbitrary to say the least.
I'm sure some trolls will be by shortly to defend them (or to tell us how the band are actually dirty pirates for distributing their own work). But, unless they come up with a good reasoning for once, it seems wrong. Yeah, it's a contract dispute ultimately, but this isn't right from where I sit even if there's a clause somewhere that makes it OK. While labels have their uses, this is one extra warning to be very careful in who you choose and what you sign...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is, however, pretty crazy to be claiming you care about what artists want in a statement condemning an artist for taking an action that they disagreed with.
[ 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 ]
We're not going to pay for the album or count it toward your contract, but since you're under contract, we own it. In other words, we're going to get as much benefit as possible out of this but give you no credit for making us money.
WTF?! Then they turn around and say:
"Epic Records is a music first company that breaks new artists. That is our mission and our mandate."
We're going to smack you (the artist) down, then say that we're doing this on your behalf?
In what line of work do you work for someone who has the right to lawfully smack you around like this? I thought slavery was abolished 100+ years ago?
(OK so they may have breached the contract, I don't know, but still this was way mishandled by the music label....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Keii" "I look forward to Death Grips making a million dollars without Epic."
By the way, all of 72 posts on Step2 last I looked. Brilliant "initiative" there, Mike. And that despite the mysterious awards of $11,000 for no discernible value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Keii" "I look forward to Death Grips making a million dollars without Epic."
publicity blue. the good kind AKA not yours.
way to protect the artist brother!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Keii" "I look forward to Death Grips making a million dollars without Epic."
Why are you against artists making money, out_of_the_ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Keii" "I look forward to Death Grips making a million dollars without Epic."
*See Grateful Dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @Keii" "I look forward to Death Grips making a million dollars without Epic."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
"Epic Records is a music first company" -- You miss the key point that it's a "company", Mike, NOT a bunch of drug-dazed hipsters who make "music" to avoid work. A company has to make profit on its products. -- I'm not against companies the way you are, see "Big Media" as having no right to exist, while excusing and building up those which you choose (Big Search, Big Grifters): you're a partisan of some sort, I'm even-handed, just want to limit all companies down to reasonable excesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Media companies exist under an artificial monopoly, created by governments, who are captured by lobbyists.
In case I have to spell it out for you, the first is good, the second is bad. The solution is to get government out of the business of business (or severely limit its involvement).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
I think I know what you're trying to say, but please forgive my pedantry here. Being "the best" is not what makes something a "natural monopoly".
A natural monopoly is a situation where, by the nature of the product itself, it can really only be done efficiently by a single company. The usual examples of this are things like supplying water (it's not efficient to string a neighborhood with many different sets of water pipes) or electricity (ditto electrical wires).
Search is not that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH...
[breathe man! breathe!]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHA!
[wipes eyes]
That's some seriously funny shit there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Except that they are now claiming that they will not pay for the product, but they still claim to own it.
This could work out great for Epic, if their claims hold. The album has now gotten a ton of free publicity. They don't have to pay the production costs, and they still get to sell it and keep the profits. I'm sure Death Grips will do very well out of this in other ways, but what are the odds they'll ever see a dime from Epic selling their album?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Actually, they are explicitly saying they are not going to pay for it - and now they own it.
"NOT a bunch of drug-dazed hipsters who make "music" to avoid work"
Then they should stop claiming that they are there to make music and support artists. If they were honest and simply said - 'hey! we want to make money, not art - quit giving things away!' their position would be supportable.
"A company has to make profit on its products"
I'll give you that most companies 'wants to be profitable', but what does that have to do with this situation?
"I'm not against companies the way you are, see "Big Media" as having no right to exist"
I hate to speak for anyone, but I don't think Mike is against companies. In fact, don't you routinely (wrongly) complain that he constantly supports Google? And no company has "a right to exist", if the market does not support them, it is economically best to let them fail. Oh - and I just saw the 'big search' reference - so he's against "companies" but supports...I've gotten lost in your crazy rant...
"I'm even-handed, just want to limit all companies down to reasonable excesses"
What? Then why wouldn't we start by ending all of these record companies profiting off of the work of these abused artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Ok, then. I paid for my digital music and DVD collections so I now own them. I will now proceed to enjoy and share them however I see fit. Thank you for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
They said: "We are not going to pay for it - and now we own it"
So, if you have pirated any Epic music, you apparently now own it. I assume, if you paid for Epic music, you probably have a piece of DRM-filled garbage that only works in a Sony Walkman on Thursdays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Actually, I buy my music from Amazon or 7 Digital which is DRM free so I can enjoy it anywhere :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Only if it doesn't rain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
While Epic probably contractually has the right to act like rat bastards and screw the band out of proceeds for this album, if they're claiming breach and the band is claiming Epic is breaching the contract (see not counting the album towards their contract commitment), then the contract should be null and void.
The end of this then should be:
1) Epic keeps the masters and does what they want with them. (Although human beings with actual souls recognize this as a vile evil, especially if they're just going to shelve them).
2) The band is required to have no more dealings with their former record company.
That record companies continue to berate customers on morality and then do things to artists that would make the Devil himself blush. Hypocritical bastards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
A court would essentially attempt to make the party that did not breach the contract whole again - or as close as possible. That does not mean either party would get out of the contract, but in a situation like this, it is difficult for the court to attempt to force a party to remain in a contract if they are unlikely to fulfill the remainder of it.
Epic's crazy email is not necessarily a bad starting position (from their perspective) for negotiating a settlement for the breach. It is certainly not a mandate that the band would have to follow (assuming their contract does not allow for Epic to re-write it in the event of a breach).
The fact that they claim they are there for the music or the artists is certainly laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Actually, it appears they hadn't paid for the development, and they say they shouldn't have to in the email. See #5: "(5) while Epic still intended to collect money for the sale of the album (which, again, would not count towards the recording commitment), Epic would not cover the cost of recording the album."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Except that's not correct. I hope you understand that Mike wrote "#5," not Epic.
Epic has already paid for the album via the recording advance (likely around $200k). This is how recording deals work. Epic is saying that they will not count net sales toward that advance or pay royalties on top of that advance, because the artist breached the contract in numerous ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think you understand what I am saying. If they loaned the band $200K with the intention to use the net sales to pay off the advance, and then do not apply the royalties to that advance, then what they have done is loaned $200K to the band, NOT paid for development. It would be the same as the US Government loaning me $200K to go back to school, and then claiming that they paid for my education. If I paid them back, then I paid for my education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
I do hear what you're saying, but it doesn't change the result. As you suggest, until that advance is repaid by the artist, it is very much the LABEL that has paid for the development of the album. And the artist chose to breach the parties' agreement as to how that repayment was to be carried out (i.e., that the label would have first rights to sell the record) in a way that severely undercuts the ability of the label to recoup its expenses. If you agreed to repay the government's school loan in 2 years, and then after you graduated you decided that the loan should be repaid IF and how you choose, would you similarly argue that the government absolutely did not pay for your eduction? Semantics aside, isn't it important to recognize that the label has made a significant investment in the artist that the artist has put at risk because of its breach? There's no mention of that in this article.
The artist received professional marketing, guidance, and an advance all on the basis of a contract that the artist has willfully (and childishly) breached. My point is and was that the artist made out pretty well by screwing over its label. And yet, everyone here (including Mike) still attacks the label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
I am not entirely certain this is a correct analogy, but instead if instead of deciding if and when to pay them back, instead I completed my course of education online early instead of in the classroom, and then all of the sudden the government comes back and says because I chose to complete the coursework online, then I didn't really follow their contract and thus not only do I still have to pay them back, but I need to go back to school and learn something else without their help. It is the government deciding, by themselves, that I somehow violated their contract and what my penance should be. Keep in mind that in this case, the label didn't fulfill its end of the bargain either, in actually distributing the content.
We attack the label because it isn't entirely the victim here either. It decided it didn't want to release the album, despite being contractually obligated to do so. If the label had released the album, instead of dragging its heels, then the band would have "childishly" breached their contract and released the album, would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Keep in mind that in this case, the label didn't fulfill its end of the bargain either, in actually distributing the content.
That's patently false. If you read the original article, you'll see that the label delayed the release, they didn't refuse to release it. This happens all the time for marketing or other business reasons, and is expressly permitted in record contracts (if you don't believe me, look it up). If the artist wanted absolute discretion over release dates they shouldn't have signed the contract or taken the money.
It decided it didn't want to release the album, despite being contractually obligated to do so.
Nope. See above.
If the label had released the album, instead of dragging its heels, then the band would have "childishly" breached their contract and released the album, would they?
Really? So the fact that the label made a business decision that was entirely in their legal discretion under the contact (that the artist signed) justified the artist breaching the contract and threatening the label's $200k investment? Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Not a problem, analogies suck.
"Keep in mind that in this case, the label didn't fulfill its end of the bargain either, in actually distributing the content."
That's patently false. If you read the original article, you'll see that the label delayed the release, they didn't refuse to release it.
You have a different definition of "not distributing" than I do apparently. My definition of "not distributing" is not offering the item for sale at that particular moment. I never said they refused to distribute. I said they didn't actually distribute the content (was it available for sale at that time?) The problem I see with this is there are plenty of examples of labels burying the content never to be seen again. Hopefully, as more artists become aware of the stupidity, they will cut out the middle-man, or at least sign with one that is interested in their future.
Really? So the fact that the label made a business decision that was entirely in their legal discretion under the contact (that the artist signed) justified the artist breaching the contract and threatening the label's $200k investment? Amazing.
Have they offered the album for sale yet? Aren't you making the assumption that they won't make $200k or more off of the album even though it was released by a third party? Others have been able to sell their product despite piracy, so you are telling me that this label, if it were to offer this album for sale right now, wouldn't make back their investment? Isn't that the point of this whole thing, they couldn't recoup their investment anyway when they didn't release the album, so why are they now crying when they decided themselves not to recoup the costs by not distributing the content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Well you certainly implied as much when you said, "It decided it didn't want to release the album, despite being contractually obligated to do so." I think you're backpedaling.
Aren't you making the assumption that they won't make $200k or more off of the album even though it was released by a third party?
Yes, I am. Or at least that it will be much, much more difficult for the label to make that back.
Isn't that the point of this whole thing, they couldn't recoup their investment anyway when they didn't release the album, so why are they now crying when they decided themselves not to recoup the costs by not distributing the content?
You don't see the difference between the label delaying a release and releasing once the artist has already made it available for free to millions online? Really... no difference?
And, no, that's not the point of the whole thing, and the label isn't "crying." The artist willfully breached the agreement with the label. The label did not. The label lived up to its end of the bargain, and complied with the terms of the contract. The label only chose to terminate the relationship once the artist breached, and publicly released confidential information. I'm not convinced that the label would have terminated if the artist hadn't publicly derided the label, posted confidential messages, and generally acted like a horrible partner. And yet, still, after releasing the artist from all of its obligations (recording commitments, exclusivity, etc.), and potentially losing its investment (yes, potentially), the label is still the only party attacked here. That's the problem. That's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Also without looking at the specific contract in question there is no way for anyone to know (other than statutory conditions if there is any) what terms if any were allegedly breached nor if there are any defences like unconscionability, frustration (which is a big one in this case), or maybe even doctrine of clean hands.
Also a company does NOT have to make profits either, in fact there are a few thousand (or more) Non Profit organisations that specifically DO NOT make profits nor are they allowed to. They are Still classified as companies (corporations).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Literally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, this doesn't follow from Epic's email. Epic has already paid for the album via the recording advance. This is how recording deals work. Epic is saying that they will not count net sales toward that advance or pay royalties on top of that advance, because the artist breached the contract in numerous ways. That seems fair to me.
In addition, it should come as no surprise to those on this blog that Death Grips actually BENEFITED from this situation. The label LOST their entire advance (likely around $200k), Death Grips got to use that advance to make and release an album, and now that they have been dropped, Death Grips owes the label NOTHING. Funny how there's no mention of that crazy record label accounting in this story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it hard to believe this. If this is true, whoever set up the contract is a moron for not having any clauses in to prevent this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Moreover, I have a hard time believing that you would support the label owning the masters AND asking for the band to repay an advance that was already spent. Around here, the labels are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Epic paid the band money. From their perspective, they purchased the master & rights with that money. They consider the contract breached, which just means that planned future business will not happen -- but the business already done is still done.
Technically, Epic owns the masters & rights, as they paid for them.
My question, though, is who breached the contract first? Could it be argued that by failing to release the recording in a timely manner, Epic was in fact the one that breached the contract? I don't know, as I can't see the contract, but it's possible. Even if that's the case, Epic would probably still come out of it owning the masters & rights, but would also owe the band more money (to cover the value of the business that never got done).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a real number and maybe my sympathy for Epic will surface. Honestly, most likely not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DG
Should have done everyone (including me, a fan) the favor of never signing up there.
Epic also needs to do a better job of figuring out who is major label worthy. Between this, and the turd of wallpaper(who I am also a fan of), LA Reid is spending high and delivering low. The only thing they have going is Cher Lloyd, who came via X-Factor UK, so I guess he owes Simon a bj as a thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artists sign for X number of albums and each album has a cycle of so many months that the artist has to tour and promote it. They recorded an album before their previous cycle was up so Epic wouldn't release it yet. Epic has every right - because of that contract - to drop Death Grips after leaking it. This isn't new for record deals.
Not all moves by record labels are villainous just as not all by bands are righteous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not rebellious to sign a one-sided contract just for the express purpose of ripping it up. It just shows how stupid they are at managing their own career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not feel any sympathy for this band of traitors who sold out and in turn got punked by the Label.
LOL !
Stay away from the MAFIAA !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People can say they got paid a "boatload" but in reality, unless you have the contract or were directly involved in it, a "boatload" is a subjective quantity. I see some model ships that can't hold a roll of quarters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]