Hard News: Another nail in the coffin of music DRM
691 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 22 23 24 25 26 … 28 Newer→ Last
-
a slightly more sobering less hyped article on the radiohead experiment.
Don't miss lessons Radiohead, Trent Reznor offeron Trent Reznor's recording and release of honesty box album for artist saul williams
A record company can afford to make bad bets once in a while, said Chris Castle, a music industry insider who has worked as a vice president for both Sony Music and A&M Records. Musicians, even successful ones like Reznor, probably can't.
on the work that a label actually does for an artist.
Does that mean, gasp, that record labels aren't entirely evil? Well, maybe. Charges of musician exploitation and plain old bad taste aside, they certainly have a purpose. The music business is primarily about promotion, Castle said. You build name recognition through all sorts of methods: radio play, getting write-ups in music magazines, making sure a CD is prominently promoted in record stores. That takes money. Castle offered this example.
"Finding music at record stores has always been tough," Castle said. "If you go into a store knowing what you want, or you're a music aficionado, it's easy. For the superficial buyer it's harder. Those are the people that are going to be influenced by displays at end caps of aisles or the stuff that's featured at listening posts. You don't get that spot because you're a nice person. All that stuff is paid for."and its impact on an artist
Then there is all the heavy lifting to worry about. In the telephone conversation I had with Reznor, he sounded like a guy who had been working too hard. He said he poured 18 months of his life into helping make NiggyTardust. Not only did he put up his own money, he produced the album, performed on it, oversaw all of the business tasks right down to the writing of the text on Williams' Web site.
Artists who sign with a label don't perform these chores. Executives packing MBAs and years of business expertise do. Is that a good thing? Not necessarily, but that division of labor helps.
"I'm spending a lot more time being the business guy than the musician and I really don't like doing that," Reznor said. He found the role of record executive more difficult than he had expected.
-
So Mr Castle is saying that for the privilege of having a publicist, you should pay over all your income and hand over all master copyrights? Someone should tap him on the shoulder and say the world has moved on.
Trent clearly needs to hire both a manager and a publicist and get back to making rekkids.
-
So Mr Castle is saying that for the privilege of having a publicist, you should pay over all your income and hand over all master copyrights?
I didn't read that anywhere in his comments.
it would depend on what deal and your contribution to the cake as to how much control you hand over though wouldn't it?
if you're silly enough to use a label as a bank and their money does most of the work for you then be prepared to let them take the bigger slice.What he's saying is its actually a lot more work than just making a recording to making a viable record. for every band that thinks its a simple as making a myspace page and sit back and see the fans come in, there's a band no one will ever hear of drowning in the ether.
There's a lot to be said for being given the time and space to just be the artists. ask any one of them that spends all their time updating web pages and burning cds and folding covers.
there's a lot to be said for autonomy too, but one of those things isn't "plenty of time to do what you do best", art, as trent knows only too well. so what's it going to be. if he hires a publicist then its going to be hire a business manager and a manufacturing and distribution agent and soon you're the label you tried to avoid.
-
on the radiohead thing why was it that they signed up quickly to a label to do their cd release? too much work they couldn't handle themselves?
-
Rob, if you think a major is gonna sign an international deal with an act that doesn't include those things then you are wiping away 100 years of recorded history. What he is saying is that we can justify what we do by doing these things. I say, hire a publicist. Its the same thing, its just that one takes all the return and makes you pay the costs out of your very small share.
Radiohead needed to put CDs in stores, they didn't sign to a label, they did a distribution deal with an indie, XL, to put CDs in stores. That is the whole point of their model, you use people to do what you need and you control the process. I would imagine XL takes a fee for each copy sold, that's it. The EMI deal (and the standard record company deal..the one you say bands seem happy with) says that they pay you a small percentage of the return out of which all costs come, and they own the masters for the duration of copyright (which is 50 years in the UK various parties are trying to extend). Despite everything that is largely what is still on offer globally, just reworded at times.
Using the facilities a label can provide without doing that sort of deal is worthwhile and happily that's the way it has gone in NZ in recent years, primarily because it's a tiny, rather insignificant market and labels simply can't viably sign acts.
The XL deal was another win-win situation.
-
if you think a major is gonna sign an international deal with an act that doesn't include those things then you are wiping away 100 years of recorded history.
sorry, you lost me there.
major label international record deal?firstly I don't make the distinction between the big boys and large indies. they're pretty much the same. in business to maximize profits. Half of the indies are fake indie anyway, owned somewhere down the line by the bigger boys.
ownership of masters all depends on who paid for the recording. you don't sign that away in a deal if you paid for them, you sign for exclusive use to exploit them for a specified time period, usually 6 years. you never lose ownership of the recordings (unless you're incredibly stupid), just the right to exploit them for a time period.
on the other hand if you used a label as a loan shark then they can very well claim and hold ownership for the recordings they paid for.
You're welcome to rerecord new versions depending on stand down clauses etc.as far as nz is concerned many if not most recording are artist funded. thats a good position to be negotiating from, although I can see why a major would rather fork the cash and take a bigger cut for a win,
-
ownership of masters all depends on who paid for the recording. you don't sign that away in a deal if you paid for them, you sign for exclusive use to exploit them for a specified time period, usually 6 years. you never lose ownership of the recordings (unless you're incredibly stupid), just the right to exploit them for a time period.
like I said Rob, you need to rewrite a lot of established fundamentals then (and find a company who is willing to do that). You seem to be edging ever closer to Radiohead's position, who incidentally, with all their power were unable to achieve the relationship with EMI that you describe as the optimum.
One of the raison'record for majors is catalogue acquisition..it's a key fundamental and the reason Universal and EMI are so powerful. I'm not sure how they'd take your suggestion that they walk away from that.
And if you don't think there is a difference between XL, Domino and Sony?? Seriously?
NZ: there is a reason they are artist funded..I don't see why any multinational in their right corporate mind would invest in most NZ acts...seriously. You could probably count one hand the number of NZ acts that have broken even signed directly to a major in the past decade. It's only the passions of certain people at said companies in NZ that has led to that investment in the past. Oh, and the fact that funding was also available from a third party.
-
I'm not sure how they'd take your suggestion that they walk away from that.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying if you paid for your recordings then you own them. if they paid for them then they own them.
There are multiple cases of labels relinquishing ownership of masters. When swervedriver got picked up by geffen recorded an album and then got culled a year later the band were free to take their masters even though geffen had paid for them. there are a few cases of this sort of thing happening. masters are only useful if the label sees worth in them, if not they're better off selling them off to deluded bands who think they've created a world changing masterpiece. Which reminds me of a graeme brazier story, which ..... nah, perhaps another time.and seriously, the only difference between shock records and some leg of sony is taste, other than that its a degree of size and power. They're still in the same game, making money from distributing music. none of them are going to take a loss for an artist, or else they won't be in business long. leave that to the small labels and artists.
-
They're still in the same game, making money from distributing music. none of them are going to take a loss for an artist, or else they won't be in business long. leave that to the small labels and artists.
No they are not, one is a making money situation as you say, the other is involved in increasing the value of the company, hence Warners share price is more important than the fact the Josh Grogan is number one and the biggest album in the US. They two are often unrelated in a major label. In an indie the current chart has more immediate value, life=cashflow. The value of the major label is it's asset base, not its chart success. Which is why PolyGram / UMG bought Island, A&M and all the other dozens of labels. Even in NZ, when PolyGram offered me a deal of the Propeller back catalogue years ago it had a purchase option. When deleted that the offer was withdrawn.
I've not seen Swervedriver's contract but I could fill pages with the names of acts who have unsuccessfully tried to gte their masters from majors. The asset is the ownership regardless of success. The major is much better off NOT selling it and maintaining and extending their catalogue. There were a couple of bands from the 80s who tried to get their masters back from Universal last year in the US. Never issued on CD, and never sold, but got a resounding no.
-
There were a couple of bands from the 80s who tried to get their masters back from Universal last year in the US. Never issued on CD, and never sold, but got a resounding no.
yeah, comsat angels on polydor. having real problems getting their stuff available, but it did happen, (made available, not got control of their masters)
swervedriver were just dumped, I think geffen were embarrassed about the situation. pretty much killed the band anyway.The value of the major label is it's asset base, not its chart success.
sure to an extent but there's no point in having a swag of unsellable records in your catalogue. some recordings are plain worthless to everyone but the band and their three friends.
Re your back catalogue. why were you having problems getting a deal with distribution for it? hell I've even been offered distro deals for my shit and none of them asked for ownership.
-
Re your back catalogue. why were you having problems getting a deal with distribution for it? hell I've even been offered distro deals for my shit and none of them asked for ownership.
No, no problem getting a distro, it's just that I was made an offer. I think they hit Pagan at the same time from memory.
The point is its worth hanging on to back catalogue if you are a major, a few grand here or there is not worth selling it for for a raft of reasons
-
No, no problem getting a distro,
so you really weren't bent over a barrel as far as options go then.
-
so you really weren't bent over a barrel as far as options go then.
no, but at the time PolyGram were on a buying spree. They'd bought Island, Go-Beat, Motown, A&M (which they bought for 500million and then simply closed it down..it was about the catalogue) and hundreds of smaller labels around the world. Philips was building up the asset base for a sale, which they did in 1998.
-
(jumping back a bit) regarding the sharability of files on ipods....
this appears to be quite popular:
:senuti : its itunes backwards
of course, there are a few people out there who use alternatives to ipods.....
-
It's not all about DRM y'know....
-
its starting to unfold in unexpected ways......
it aint over till its over folks,
more proof:
CARPHONE WAREHOUSE refuses to cut off music pirates
4 Apr 2008Carphone Warehouse will become the first UK internet provider to reject the music industry's plans to crack down on customers who download music illegally. In a move that will put the company at odds with the Government, Carphone Warehouse, which sells broadband through its Talk Talk division, called the proposals "unreasonable and unworkable". Music trade body the BPI has proposed a "three strikes" regime that would see those who consistently download pirated material disconnected from the internet. However, Carphone Warehouse chief executive Charles Dunstone said: "We believe that a fundamental part of our role as an internet service provider (ISP) is to protect the rights of our users to use the internet as they choose." He said the music industry was simply seeking to "foist their problems on someone else". The retailers said it would "take every practical and legal step to defend its customers", a statement that puts it at odds with the Government, which has promised to implement legislation by April next year unless ISPs come to a voluntary agreement with the music and film industries. The BPI said: "We are categorically not asking ISPs to become internet police but rather act on information we provide to them."
and a different perspective to mr Bragg, with actual insight into HOW some goals may actually be achieved in this new environment:
dubber:should i be worried about piracy?I’d also suggest that piracy is not something that tends to happen on the scale that the mainstream media seems to suggest. Unauthorised duplication goes on, but not piracy. The idea that these two things are the same is one that major record labels tend to be quite fond of, but it bears no resemblance to either external reality, or what words actually mean.
-
sorry,? why are we paying attention to what dubber says again?
here's a man with nice ways of saying bend over and take it without offering any solutions to the problems of income stream other than saying "that time and energy can be better spent elsewhere" . I had hoped that at the end of his length argument for "don't worry be happy" that he was going to kick in with a top ten easy ways of not starving for your art but noin other words he said, I haven't got a clue. Thats genius right there.
Now, of course, this raises more questions than it answers — and of course, things are far more complicated than I’ve laid out here — but as a general principle, it’s worth considering that rather than fret about unauthorised copying and expend time and energy in the fruitless task of preventing people from engaging in it, that time and energy can be better spent elsewhere.
-
and a different perspective to mr Bragg, with actual insight into HOW some goals may actually be achieved in this new environment
dubber didn't offer insight into anything but the one side of his argument. he has no answers to income stream, just that artists shouldn't worry,
I think that attitude has been employed many a time through out history, usually to defeated parties.a man who offers a solution that artists should stop making music if they're so worried about having people illegally copy it really isn't offering constructive help is he?
And car phone warehouse. I can't even take that name seriously but arguing that you have no responsibility for how your mode of transport is used is a little naive.
Last I checked you weren't allowed to traffic drugs through the post, or across borders and there were people at those routes to enforce that.a policed internet is not something we want to happen but its a foreseeable outcome to the increase in its use for crime.
-
dubber didn't offer insight into anything but the one side of his argument.
he did, and a lot more than brag, no disrespect to billy.
there are a LOT of positives in this new world, while we are working out how to earn from it we may as well embrace the positive aspects. its not all 'how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb' at all. and anyone that claims to have any kind of solution at the moment is not to be trusted anyway.
I know some slightly niche globaly recognised artists that are doing better out of it than they were in the early nineties. and their risk level has dropped as cost of production entry has almost disappeared. They wont go so far as to say they dont care about the work being shared, but when i mention that their latest has appeared on xtracker with several hundred downloads and a link to beatport they dont squeal that they are losing money; they know it will actually lead to more sales. its not the final point, but its getting better.
And car phone warehouse. I can't even take that name seriously
they turnover about 4 billion pounds a year. Like Canadian Tire their name belies their power. TalkTalk has about 3 million internet customers. over 10% of the uk market i believe. So its not just some small isp making a noise. Telecom NewZealand has less than 2 million customers totally.
Last I checked you weren't allowed to traffic drugs through the post
I dont think the argument is as simple as comparing it to traffiking/smuggling. Data is information, no border risk, no drug risk, no hoticulture risk, low crime risk; when compared to the physical borders anyway.
I still see a policed internet as a possibility, but a far fetched one. And if it happens a secondary one will just spring up alongside it. That I am sure of.
-
they know it will actually lead to more sales. its not the final point, but its getting better.
They don't know that. how many of your friends have stopped buy music altogether.
I'll tell you my friends have and they're not all evil drug snorting shoplifters. They're just normal people who are lead to believe by media "experts"?? that everything is fine.the only people who still buy music are the old fashioned types who like to own a pretty object, and the philanthropic types who like to support the arts. everyone else sees no reason not to steal until they're forced not to.
he did, and a lot more than brag, no disrespect to billy.
you couldn't highlight those for me could you? I missed them.
and anyone that claims to have any kind of solution at the moment is not to be trusted anyway.
so contrary to dubbers vibe there isn't an upside yet.
good, glad we've got that cleared up :)they turnover about 4 billion pounds a year.
its more the concept of a company built on the concept of a phone dedicated to a car, that plus extras christmas special taking the piss out of them. I'm sure they're very powerful, but if the govt tells you to comply by law, well you don't have much choice do you.
Data is information,
and a commodity too.
I still see a policed internet as a possibility, but a far fetched one. And if it happens a secondary one will just spring up alongside it. That I am sure of.
how do you see a second internet manifesting itself?
how will it be delivered. you thinking satellite?
it won't be land based cos it will have to come through a cable and that's the weak point for independence off a network.
that's the bottleneck at the moment. it all comes through the trans tasman cable so you can easily cut them off at the pass at the moment, if one wanted to. -
They don't know that.
yep, they kinda do, there have been several peaks in sales in short periods after listings on certain private tracker sites. Its pretty easily measurable.
not that i am saying its the answer, but its not all rape and pillage out there. in fact its almost as if the long tail is getting fatter, which is bloody good.he did, and a lot more than brag, no disrespect to billy.
you couldn't highlight those for me could you? I missed them.
ok, you got me on that, I overstated. he does at least provide a call to action, rather than a moody grumble. brag summarises his argument thusly:__If young musicians are to have a chance of enjoying a fruitful career, then we need to establish the principle of artists’ rights throughout the Internet — and we need to do it now.__;without giving any tips how. at least dubber gives some ideas that may shift the paradigm many musicians find themselves facing. and in following posts gives some tips towards actually selling and profiting in the online environment.
so contrary to dubbers vibe there isn't an upside yet.
good, glad we've got that cleared up :)yep, I do think he provides some valuable insights into valid techniques that don't follow the mainstream models though. its good to have someone analysing and sharing ideas from that perspective.its gotta be a lot more helpful than the million and one doomsayers that normally get the publicity.
Data is information,
and a commodity too.
heh, we could keep twisting this forever. Also energy, information is energy therefore data is energy.
how do you see a second internet manifesting itself
i have no idea, remember how how the internet looked twenty years ago? thirty? If governments actually manage to control the internet that way it will lose a LOT of its appeal. and renegades will appear and adapt. and they will work out how to go global. and it would look like nothing we could conceive of now. but as i said, i will be surprised if that turns out to be necessary.
I think we actually agree on a lot, thanks for the food for thought.
-
ok ladies and gentlemen,
its time to take your corners:
in Robberys corner esquire magazine:
People didn't stop buying albums because they were philosophically opposed to how the rock business operated, and they didn't stop buying albums because the Internet is changing the relationship between capitalism and art. People stopped buying albums because they wanted the fucking money. It's complicated, but it's not.
i really cant understand the logic behind most of what he states. arguing that music consumption is static, that the quality of music didnt decline (from the majors), that purchasing games and dvd's shouldnt impact on cd sales, that the majority of file sharing is due to personal debt created in the nineties!?!?!?!
sitting on the fence is post punk pop svengali Feargal Sharky
Sneakernet bigger threat than P2P file sharing
however:
[…] the limitation of the digital revolution in favour of increasing IP restrictions to maintain the illusion that technological innovation is occurring;the acceptance by the industries that the evolution cannot be stemmed by the tide of the law137, to which the industries would have to adapt as they did after the Amstrad138 and Betamax139 rulings, as opposed to hiding behind the skirt of the law;
or, unfortunately the most likely, an uncomfortable and ongoing battle between the law and cyberspace which will undoubtedly, after the passing of much time, litigation and expense, eventually result in the industries recognising the new opportunities for e-commerce, and resultingly adapting themselves to meet consumer demand and behaviour.
“Sharkey is urging the government to look to European law, which dictates that where a private copying-style exception is created there is also some sort of compensation for the creators and performers."
back to Robbery, his old mates the BPI stand up in his defence:
UK's BPI Responds To Carphone Warehouse And Its Talk Talk Service
We firmly believe in an internet where property rights are respected, and creativity is fairly rewarded. This will grow our digital economy, which is in the interest of all of us. Talk Talk should play its part in building this future.
but here comes a last ditch attempt for walker, he's down, but he's not beaten:
just like rocky versus Ivan Drago, Simon is awol, that makes him the Apollo Creed of this discussion.File sharing 'may be good', says EMI executive
"There is academic research that shows file sharing is a good thing for artists and not necessarily bad," said Merrill. "We should do a bunch of experiments to find out what the business model is."
Previously, the music industry has rubbished studies that claim file sharing can have a positive effect on music sales. "I think people will pay," Merrill said. "There is evidence that people we think are not buying music are buying music. They're just not buying it in formats we can measure."
Rocky: [Addressing the Soviet crowd, translated into Russian line by line by announcer]
Rocky: During this fight, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way you feel about me, and in the way I feel about you. In here, there were two guys killing each other, but I guess that's better than twenty million. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!
Rocky: [loud applause, even by the politburo] -
back to Robbery, his old mates the BPI stand up in his defence:
sam, I think you're trying to make a conversation here and I'm amuse, I really am, but my original reason for chipping in on this issue was to draw attention to the fact that people ill skilled to make comment were speaking as if their opinion was fact, and as you know, if you speak loud enough people will begin to take you as the voice of authority.
I find it completely disturbing that people like Dubber (who is a nice bloke with a need for attention) and RB (same) get paid ( I assume they paid you) by NZ on Air (a funding body theoretically set up to support local culture and art) to write a40 page paper on public broadcasting in the digital age and how it relates to said culture and artists.
Now that would be fine if either of them were infact skilled experts in the field of art creation, say video makers, music promoters, do it yourself artists with wide experience on the realities of bringing ones cultural expression to the masses, but these people are not.
ones a jazz buff living and working in birmingham lecturing in radio, and the others a self taught journo who cut his teeth writing articles that routinely pissed off music people and recently drawing attention to himself for his scattershot 'expert on everything' antics, leading a key figure in local journalism to be very critical and rude (shock horror).That's all that concerns me. the rest is interesting debate,
I'm not on any one side, but I'm most certainly not falling for the popularists view cos there is so much more to this than yay music is free, don't worry be happy, and I think recent events have proved me right on this, not that it will go one way or another but that it ain't over just yet.oh and I wanted to make the longest running thread in the PA blog which you're helping with cos I lost interest.
-
and a commodity too.
heh, we could keep twisting this forever.
well to be fair I hardly think categorising music and entertainment based films as information is accurate. They are quite different from the the news and weather. they represent skill talent and investment not intended for free distribution. like it or not the internet is no longer the transport domain of pure information. me saying data is a commodity is in no way "twisting" it.
so contrary to dubbers vibe there isn't an upside yet.
good, glad we've got that cleared up :)yep, I do think he provides some valuable insights into valid techniques that don't follow the mainstream models though.
but wait, didn't you just admit he didn't have insight into a viable solution? right here
you couldn't highlight those for me could you? I missed them.
ok, you got me on that, I overstated.
dubbers argument is the hale bopp comet suicide argument. lacking in proof or even reasonable evidence. on't worry, be happy indeed.
an emi exec saying file sharing "may be" isn't going to cut it. all sorts of idiots say that kind of thing without producing solid studies to back it up. I know a lot of people woh work first hand in the distribution of music, non of them (excluding simon and he's not working first hand in the distribution of music right now) are saying file sharing is going to make it easier for them to quit their day jobs.
Feargal's comments were interesting, especially the bit about the uncomfortable battle, once again though he fails to lay out how the new order will work. not even a hint, just that there will be one. it'skind of like waiting for national to tell us how they're going to make it all better, like really explain it.
merrill's argument is misleading and lacks qualifiers.
There is academic research that shows file sharing is a good thing for artists and not necessarily bad," said Merrill. "We should do a bunch of experiments to find out what the business model is."
more accurately it would be there is academic research that shows file sharing is a good thing for "SOME" artists.
and then I'd need to know what percentage of the artists it was good for. ie I think you'll find for most artists it is making them worse off income wise. SOME have however gained wider exposure than they would have otherwise
However if media had been doing their job properly and drawing our attention to them then that wouldn't be so much of a problem.
-
where's pg 31?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.