Elvis Costello Tells His Fans 'Steal This Record'

from the this-price-is-crazy dept

The price at which labels want to sell music and the price customers are willing to pay are often two totally different things. Yet, as we talk about this price disparity, we very rarely consider the price at which the artist wants to sell the music. This point of contention has come to a head with the release of Elvis Costello's latest music collection. In a post titled "Steal This Record", Costello states his album, "The Return Of The Spectacular Spinning Songbook", just plain costs too much.

Unfortunately, we at www.elviscostello.com find ourselves unable to recommend this lovely item to you as the price appears to be either a misprint or a satire.

Yeah, I would say that $202.66 is a joke. For that price you get 1 CD, 1 DVD and 1 Vinyl EP. That's it. You would think that for that price you would get a lot more, but no. along with other memorabilia including a coffe table book and autographed commemoration card. But still, if the artist thinks even with those extras the price is just way too high, then perhaps he is right. I can imagine how frustrating it must be for Costello to try and get the price changed with no luck. This is one of the downsides of working with a label.

After hitting a brick wall with his label, Costello has decided to take drastic measures to get his point heard. He is suggesting that his fans avoid buying the album and instead buy something he feels is far superior and cheaper to boot:

All our attempts to have this number revised have been fruitless but rather than detain you with tedious arguments about morality, panache and book-keeping - when there are really bigger fish to filet these days - we are taking the following unusual step.

If you should really want to buy something special for your loved one at this time of seasonal giving, we can whole-heartedly recommend, "Ambassador Of Jazz" - a cute little imitation suitcase, covered in travel stickers and embossed with the name "Satchmo" but more importantly containing TEN re-mastered albums by one of the most beautiful and loving revolutionaries who ever lived - Louis Armstrong.

The box should be available for under one hundred and fifty American dollars and includes a number of other tricks and treats. Frankly, the music is vastly superior.

That is quite a show of humility. Not only does he suggest Armstrong's album as a better buy for the money, he also gives Armstrong props for making better music. This is a pretty good endorsement and according to Amazon, "Ambassador of Jazz" is already sold out. So people are listening. Perhaps the end goal here is to get the label to admit that it screwed up the pricing and to soon change it. However, if even the artist cannot get the price changed, what hope is there for a consumer boycott?

We talk a lot about the need for artists to connect with fans as a way to give them a reason to buy. Here, we have an artist connecting with fans and asking them to avoid buying. You would think that this would be counter productive for the artist but this move shows that Costello has the best interests of his fans in mind and will do anything to protect them from unscrupulous business moves. That is certainly a reason to support an artist.

If you really want to support him, Costello gives his fans other options if they really want this album but don't want to pay the current asking price:

If on the other hand you should still want to hear and view the component parts of the above mentioned elaborate hoax, then those items will be available separately at a more affordable price in the New Year, assuming that you have not already obtained them by more unconventional means.

Filed Under: albums, elvis costello, music, pricing

Indie Rapper Tops Sales Charts By Connecting With Fans, Using Free Music

from the oh-look-at-that... dept

To hear some people tell the story, there's no way to become a super successful musician embracing the internet and what it allows, unless you give in and sign a deal with a major label. Of course, that seems silly. For years, we've pointed to tons of artists who would never have found success in the old "major label" system (or who bounced out of that system after not scoring the massive hit), but who are now able to make a very, very good living thanks to new business models and doing little things like connecting with fans. But still, some keep asking, where are the "chart topping" artists that come out of the internet, without a major label. Well, now there's one. Rapper Mac Miller recently debuted at the top of the Billboard charts with his debut album, despite not working with a major label. I don't think much of the Billboard charts, but if people want those kinds of traditional metrics, there you go.

Miller sold about 150,000 copies of his debut album last week and became the first indie artist to debut at the top of Billboard in well over a decade. And he did so without having a single playing on the radio (another thing that old-timers insist is a "must.") While he had some help from truly indie label Rostrum, he also worked with INgrooves and Fontana for distribution, and apparently it all worked well enough. But, of course, the real key was the internet. The NY Times points out that Miller is one of a generation of hip hop artists recognizing that "free music is an investment that pays off." Shocking. If only there had been sites arguing that for the better part of a decade... But I digress.

But the driving force behind Miller's success on the sales charts is that he's really connecting with fans. His Twitter feed has 1.2 million followers and his Facebook feed has 1.5 million fans. His YouTube channel apparently has something crazy like 176 million views. But it's not just about the numbers, but the connection. Miller has continued to tour and perform live as a way of building up his fanbase, but also interacts with them online in a variety of ways.

I'm sure, as with every artist success story we highlight around here, our usual critics will come up with all sorts of reasons why Miller is "an exception." But one by one, all of the "must haves" that the old guard insists are necessary are being shown to be total myths. Embracing the internet works. Treating the internet as a problem, doesn't.

Filed Under: charts, connect with fans, free, indie music, mac miller, music
Companies: rostrum

RIAA Thinking Of Backing Righthaven

from the can-they-get-any-more-out-of-touch dept

Every time you think the RIAA can't make things even worse for itself... it does. The latest is that it's apparently considering helping Righthaven out. Righthaven! The company that has become the total laughingstock of the copyright world, that is on the losing end of a bunch of cases and is desperately trying to get out of paying all the attorneys' fees awards that are being given to the companies, individuals and sites it has sued. Of course, as some have noted, the good thing about Righthaven is that it has tee'd up a bunch of rulings that will be useful precedents in other copyright cases.

And that's what has the RIAA scared.

In particular, the RIAA is freaked out about a couple of rulings saying that even reposting full articles can be fair use. That has the RIAA shaking, because the big labels hate the concept of fair use. The major labels are still upset at the idea that the Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose ruling means that commercial use can still be fair use. And they love the the Bridgeport Music ruling that wasn't about fair use, per se, but did take away de minimis use, saying "Get a license or do not sample."

So, now the RIAA is realizing that Righthaven -- and in particular the Hoehn ruling, which lays out in great detail why the full use of a copyrighted offering can still be fair use -- is suddenly an important battlefront in its war on fair use. Just having the line from the case "wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use" freaks the RIAA out.

So we've now seen that RIAA's chief apologist litigator is suggesting that perhaps the RIAA is going to get involved in the fight (from an interview behind a paywall, so we'll just quote her words) concerning the fair use finding in Hoehn:

"From our perspective, that just can't stand."

That certainly suggests that the RIAA is thinking of inserting itself into the appeals process here. Probably with an amicus brief, but it makes you wonder if they won't also consider figuring out ways to fund Righthaven to keep it afloat. There are already quite reasonable concerns that the company is effectively insolvent due to all the legal fees it owes to those it has sued. Either way, when you're at the level where you're joining forces with Righthaven, you've really hit the bottom of the barrel.

Filed Under: commercial use, copyright, fair use, full work, hoehn, jennifer pariser, music
Companies: riaa, righthaven

As Expected, RIAA Threatens Site That Claims To Let You Sell Used MP3s

from the dumb-in-almost-every-direction dept

Earlier this year, we wrote yet another attempt (and there have been a few) to set up a system for "selling used mp3s." It seems like a pretty pointless idea for a few reasons. First, why bother? Second, all the convoluted and annoying systems the company puts in place to try to make this "legal" just makes it annoying and useless. But, third, as we noted at the time, there was no way that the RIAA would let this happen.

And, indeed, the RIAA is now demanding that ReDigi stop allowing for the sale of used mp3s. I'm having trouble thinking which is the dumber idea: trying to set up a convoluted and useless marketplace for selling "used" MP3s (something almost no one will want to do), or the RIAA even bothering to call extra attention to ReDigi by threatening and potentially suing.

A tip to the RIAA: this was dumb. Almost no one cares about or was using ReDigi anyway. It would have just faded away. By threatening, you bring them back into the limelight. On top of that, you (yet again) make yourselves look like clueless luddites who wish to wipe out the First Sale doctrine. Even worse, you could end up in a lawsuit that reminds you that the First Sale doctrine does exist, and is recognized by the courts, and you could establish a precedent that "reselling" used digital content is legal. So why bother, other than this bizarre and shortsighted infatuation with the idea that if anyone, anywhere benefits without you getting a slice, it must be illegal?

Filed Under: first sale, licensing, mp3s, music, resale
Companies: redigi, riaa

How Sirius' Move Towards 'Direct Licensing' Is Bad For Artists

from the labels-will-receive-the-Big-Bonus-and-artists-will-receive-The-Shaft dept

When people like myself hear the term "direct" being used in relation to artists and their fans, it often conveys a better deal is being struck for the artist(s) in question. Unfortunately, Sirius' desire to ditch SoundExchange and strike "direct licensing" deals with the labels will result in a loss of revenue for nearly every artist involved. The Hypebot Blog points us in the direction of an excellent editorial written by Kristin Thomson of the Future of Music Coalition, detailing exactly how much these new licensing deals play right into the best interests of the labels (and Sirius itself):

Currently, Sirius/XM pays digital public performance royalties to SoundExchange for the music it plays; SoundExchange then distributes 50 percent of the royalties to the sound recording copyright owner (usually a label) and 45 percent to the featured performer. The non-featured performers receive the remaining 5 percent.

Under the current structure, the money doesn't pass through the record labels first; payments to performers are made directly and simultaneously, which means the performer gets his/her money for the digital performances whether they've recouped or not. And in some cases, performers are receiving checks with four or five figures on it, and the money keeps growing with each distribution.

If labels start to license to Sirius/XM directly, guess who gets all the money? The labels. Artists will no longer be paid directly and simultaneously via SoundExchange. Instead, their money would be passed through their label.

Perhaps the most beneficial aspect of the current agreement with SoundExchange is that it gives unrecouped artists (and that's most of them) an ability to earn money from their music, rather than just seeing the royalties disappear into the labels' opaque accounting system. On top of that, royalty rates paid to artists (if they're recouped) could actually decrease:

How much Sirius/XM pays SoundExchange is based on a rate set by the Copyright Royalty Board with input from stakeholders, in compliance with federal statute. Currently, Sirius/XM pays 7.5 percent of its gross revenue...Then there's this. Billboard reported in August:

The question arises if the labels will pay the artist half the royalty, or 50 percent, they receive for each time a song is played, or will some labels choose to pay them their artists the regular royalty rate, which typically ranges between 15 percent and 20 percent.

Obviously, Sirius (like any business) would like to cut its costs. The labels are likely interested in doing the same thing. However, direct licensing would allow the labels to, first of all, gather all royalties up front without a simultaneous distribution to the artists and then redistribute those royalties, most likely at a much lower rate.

There's simply nothing good for artists in this new arrangement. The SoundExchange board is made up of 9 artist reps and 9 label reps, ensuring some sort of equitable treatment for everyone involved. Bypassing this setup means that all future negotiations will be between the labels and Sirius, leaving the artists without any say in the matter. Furthermore, this new setup would allow Sirius to alter its offering, aiming to compete with Rhapsody, Spotify, etc., all without positively affecting the licensing payout.

In moving to directly license masters, the company is seeking expanded licenses that will allow for more functionality. For example, it wants to allow subscribers to record programming blocks and be able to rewind and fast-forward that segment. It also is seeking to allow music to be cached locally on devices and applications that have that capability. In seeking the former, it is in effect asking for a waiver from the sound recording performance complement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which limits how many times songs from an artist can be played within an hour.

That would make satellite radio much closer to on-demand services like Rhapsody, MOG or Spotify, which operate under an entirely different licensing structure. Even non-interactive services like Pandora currently pay a different rate than satellite radio. By bypassing SoundExchange, Sirius/XM could up paying an even lower fee for expanded offerings.

Clearly, Sirius would benefit the most from this new arrangement. But the labels will benefit as well, regaining control over the incoming royalty stream as well as controlling the entirety of the disbursement. This explains why the labels would be willing to accept 100% of a smaller payout, rather than 50% of a larger sum. Any way you slice it, the affected artists are on the losing end of the bargain.

While many will point out that Sirius is looking out for only its own bottom line, it would be disingenuous to place all the blame at its feet. Most labels have no desire to equitably share revenue with their artists, especially unrecouped signees. If the labels decide to follow through with this, the licensing deal will only reaffirm the status quo at the expense of the actual performers.

(Additional note: Jeff Price at the Tunecore blog makes an important point. Artists who are their own label (unsigned) will actually receive less through SoundExchange.

[I]t's causing an uproar for artists who have transferred their copyrights to labels (i.e. artists "signed" to a label), not for the millions of artists that are their own record labels. It all depends on which side of the coin you're on.

Under the current law, an artist who is also the record label (which the hundred of thousands of TuneCore Artists are) could make less money (and get paid less often) if their Sirius satellite radio payments go to SoundExchange...

[W]hat happens if you are both the lead performer AND the record label (like 95% of all TuneCore Artists)?

For the sake of conversation, assume an entity like TuneCore enters into a deal with Sirius to go direct (we have not, but bear with me so I can make the point), and the rates Sirius pays are not so low that the artist/label would make more money, not less, by getting paid directly.

As the artist is both the label and the lead performer, the artist gets MORE money then he/she would if he/she went via SoundExchange, as 5% of their money is not being given to unions. I have no idea if this TuneCore-like entity would charge an administrative fee like SoundExchange (never thought about it), but if it did, and it was less than 6.7%, the artist would make even more money. In addition, the artist would most likely get paid more quickly and more accurately then if the money went through SoundExchange.

So, all in all, SoundExchange is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Truly independent artists would likely see gains if direct licensing were put into place. However, artists whose music is controlled by labels would see a tremendous dropoff.)

Filed Under: licensing, music
Companies: sirius, soundexchnge

Aesop Rock Admits That Copying Others Is How He Makes Music

from the good-for-him dept

We've discussed many times how creators copy all the time, and mentioned the T.S. Eliot quote:

Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.

This is often shortened to something along the lines of "good artists copy, great artists steal" (and attributed to Picasso). Even so, outside of pure mashup artists, it's rare to see artists admit that they copy others for inspiration. However, Jon Lawrence points us to a cool "Ask Me Anything" (AMA) session at Reddit by the famed hip hop artist Aesop Rock (who, I never realized until now, attended high school at the same time I did, just one town over). At one point, someone asks him "what inspires your beats," and Aesop gives him a straightforward answer:

i just listen to old music til i hear a sound i like - then i steal it. rinse, repeat.

The thing is, assuming he means "copy" and not "steal" (sorry, sticking point around here), that's true of tons of creators, though just as Aesop does, they then do something cool and amazing with it. Still it's nice to see an artist of Aesop's stature willing to admit it up front. It's just too bad that those who don't understand how art works keep wanting to make this illegal.

Filed Under: aesop rock, copying, music

Toughest Job In All Of Showbiz? Trying To Teach Major Record Labels How To Adapt

from the great-way-to-get-fired dept

Want to know what the toughest gig in show business might be? Perhaps it's teaching the major record labels how to adapt to new technologies from within. Digital Music News has a list of 34 former execs at the various major labels, whose role it was to help get those companies up to speed on new technologies and new media -- all of which were "pushed, fired, or otherwise jumped ship over just the past few years." While the stories behind what happened to the different individuals may be different, from those on the list who I'm familiar with, there's a common refrain: the label they worked for had no real interest in embracing what the technology allowed. They hired these execs because they thought that just hiring such people would fix their problems, but then they generally didn't like what they were hearing... which is why they all ended up moving on.

Filed Under: adapt, digital, execs, music, new media, record labels

California Politician Discovers That You Can't Ban Specific Type Of Music; Admits 'I Didn't Know What Was Going On'

from the no-pacifiers! dept

Sinan Unur points us to a story about California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, who last year totally and completely overreacted to the news that a teenager died at a rave, by introducing legislation that tried to completely ban raves. After finding fierce opposition to the law (leading another politician to talk about the power of the "rave lobby"), Ma changed her legislation and somewhat candidly admits that she only learned after she introduced the bill that the government isn't allowed to ban types of music:

"We found out later on that, Constitutionally, you can not ban a type of music," said Ma. "Plus, I, like my opponents said, I didn't really know what was going on."

It's really quite incredible to see a politician admit such a thing. But seriously, if you're an elected official and you only learn later that (a) you can't ban a type of music and (b) that you were trying to legislate without knowing a damn thing about what you were legislating, perhaps it's time to find a more productive line of work. One that doesn't impact the lives of others.

Ma admits that she finally went to a rave herself, and it wasn't that bad. However, she still felt the need to "do something!!!!" and ended up getting a bizarre law passed in California that bans certain events on state property... but part of that is that it bans things that she saw at a rave, and assumes are associated with raves: gloves with lights on them, walking around with stuffed animals, and most bizarre: no pacifiers. You see her talk about this -- and she seems really proud of the pacifier bit -- at 4:20 in the video above. The statement there is so bizarre, and so out of touch, it's really funny. She gets all worked up about how a rave must be just like an old fashioned concert, in the most condescending tone possible. Here's the quote, but honestly, you have to see her say it to really do it justice:

"You can't wear gloves with lights. You can't walk around with stuffed animals. All the things with rave culture... the promoters have tried to break down, and make it more like a concert, where people go to a concert to enjoy themselves. And not have things that traditionally, in the past, are associated with raves. No pacifiers! Nobody was allowed to have... um... pacifiers in their mouths."

Of course, we can add this to the long line of ridiculous moral panics from clueless politicians. In the future, perhaps people will include Ma's ridiculous quotes, along with the warnings about the evils of the waltz:

The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced ... at the English Court on Friday last ... It is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies ... to see that it is far indeed removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is ... forced on the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion.

And remember, no pacifiers!

Filed Under: fiona ma, moral panic, music, pacifiers, raves

Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks, Despite Having Nothing To Do With Her

from the the-plight-of-the-indie-musician dept

Zoe Keating is a wonderful musician, who you hopefully already know about. A truly independent (but quite successful) musician, she's been showing how to connect with fans in a variety of interesting ways, building up a massive fan base (and she recently explained how she approaches her career over at our Step2 service). A few months back, she had mentioned to me that she was surprised when she received a statement from SoundExchange (who collects money for artists for online streaming), in which the royalties for some of her original music was being claimed by Universal Music Group. I was curious to see how such a thing could happen. Keating filed a complaint with SoundExchange, who checked with Universal, who admitted the music was Keating's alone... and the whole thing was worked out. Mistakes happen, and while it was a bit of a pain, it all got corrected, and we decided not to write a story about it.

However, earlier this week, Keating noted that Universal Music was once again claiming her own music as its own, and trying to claim the royalties owed to her. I asked her for some details, and she passed along all of the various emails, including the ones from earlier this year, in which SoundExchange insisted that everything was sorted out. Of course, in one of those emails, SoundExchange also admits that such situations are "not uncommon." That seems pretty ridiculous, but as long as they sorted everything out.

The latest, however, is that even though SoundExchange had previously reached out to Universal Music, on behalf of Keating, it now sent her an email saying that there were, once again "overlapping claims." Even worse, the note said that if she didn't respond within 90 days, the royalties would go to Universal, because they give preference when songs are claimed directly by a label.

Keating was forced, yet again, to complain to SoundExchange over Universal Music trying to take her royalties. In response, someone from SE suggested that it may have been Keating's own confusion -- even suggesting that she may have been confused about the difference between master sound recordings and compositions (Keating was not confused, and holds the rights to both, since they're entirely original compositions and recordings by her).

Those with a conspiratorial bent might think that this is a neat way for the major labels, like Universal Music to simply claim the rights to any indie artist's music. Just keep making the claim, and leave it to the artist to sort it out by working through SoundExchange's bureaucracy. I certainly doubt that's truly the case. It probably is just someone, somewhere making an administrative mistake in how things are recorded -- but just the fact that Keating has to continually explain this situation just to keep Universal Music from getting the royalties owed to her is pretty crazy. On top of that, each time this happens, such funds are held until the conflict is resolved. For an indie musician, having such funds held can be a pretty big deal.

The whole situation seems pretty ridiculous all around.

Update: The situation has now been resolved, with Universal admitting -- yet again -- that it does not have any claim or rights to Keating's music. Separately, SoundExchange wanted to make clear that the "conflict" in data came from a (nameless) webcaster, who incorrectly listed Keating's music on their playlist as belonging to Universal Music. They insist that Universal had nothing to do with the actual claim. What's unclear is why SoundExchange relies on webcasters for the copyright holder info. I can understand getting a listing of songs and artists, but asking them to figure out who the label/copyright holder is seems like a situation that is going to turn up all sorts of bogus data, something that SoundExchange admits outright is "a challenge across the industry."

Separately, SoundExchange claims that they do not give preference to labels as I stated in my post. But in the letter sent to Keating on Monday, it states: "our policy is to give preference to repertoire that is claimed directly by a label. Therefore, if we haven't heard from you within 90 days, we will adjust the claim in favor of the new claimant." That certainly sounds like they would have given preference to Universal Music. If that's not the case, it seems like they should clarify the language in such emails.

Filed Under: music, royalties, zoe keating
Companies: soundexchange, universal music

YouTube Now Helping Artists Sell The Scarce

from the good-for-them! dept

About two and a half years ago (soon after I did my first presentation about CwF+RtB), I was asked to stop by the YouTube offices, to talk about what things they might do to help artists earn more money. And the key suggestion I made was -- add more features that would allow artists to sell scarcities with their content: let them sell concert tickets, merchandise, access, whatever. I was thanked... and never heard from them again. So it's nice to see that, years later, it appears that YouTube is finally doing exactly that:

We’re launching a feature called the Merch Store that will allow YouTube partners to offer fans merchandise directly on your channel. Fans will be able to buy artists’ merchandise, digital downloads, concert tickets and even unique experiences like meetups. These features are made possible through affiliates like Topspin for merchandise, concert tickets and experiences; Songkick for concerts; and iTunes and Amazon for music downloads. We’ll be rolling out the Merch Store to music partners globally over the coming weeks

As YouTube has become a bigger and bigger source of music listening and discovery, I think this is fantastic. It will be interesting to see how well integrated it really is. As musicians get to test this out, we'd love to hear about their experiences, which they can provide over at Step2.

Filed Under: music, scarce, youtube
Companies: amazon, apple, google, songkick, topspin, youtube