Who's the pirate now!?
I'm taking a break from the artist news today for some serious music news going down right now.
Universal, Warner, Sony BMG and EMI are being sued for piracy.
Seriously! The big 4 are being taken down by a group of Canadian artists who are taking a stance against the major labels using songs without permission, like putting a track on a compilation CD without asking the band first. The suit as it stands right now is over a huuuuge 300,000 tracks. That's $6 billion in damages.
The majors have actually admitted to owing $50 millon for artist infringement.
(full story)
-----
Now, let's open this up as a forum because I want to know your thoughts. Personally, I'm torn.
A: An artist should in fact have a say in what ways their songs are used. Absolutely. They retain rights, unless of course it is a work for hire, but we aren't taking about those. We are talking about bands, writing songs and not having a say in where those songs end up. That's wrong.
However!
B: It's a label's job to promote those songs. They sign an artist to market and promote that artist for record sales. Adding a track to a comp, commercial, video game, whatever is going to expose the artist to a variety of audiences. They will be heard- which can result in interest of the artist, and then in eventual album sales.
The relationship with bands and labels is continually changing. No doubt. I wonder what effect this can have on the entire label industry? Chime in.
6 Comments:
I agree with you in both cases, however, a band should be told and be given the opportunity to say no. If it truly is in the best interest of the band, then either they will agree or the label can try to change their mind. Either way, it is up to the band. I can't see many bands disagreeing and not wanting their music on a compilation, video game, movie etc. The record label's job is to promote, however they should also be working together with the artist.
The labels rob enough money from artists,especially the "little guys". Add the band/artist being at the mercy of their A&R who can choose to throw them under the bus as far as marketing and promotion. If the people who write the music, perform it and put their lives on the line touring it can get some of the real revenue they generate, then go them. Maybe now the fat cats will have to scale back on all the unnecessary personnel and start using what they have to actually work for the artists while being a bit more generous to the actual creators.
It needs to be left up to the artist. While they are trying to help their artists, the record companies are also trying to help themselves - when their musicians are successful, the record companies are even more so.
What if the compilation/video game/commercial is for something the artist does not support? By their music being used, people could easily construe that they are backing the product/message of the product. Most of the time, it shouldn't be a big deal - who wouldn't want their music on World of Warcraft or Halo? *sarcasm*
But, when it comes to something the artist feels strongly against, it is in no way right for the record company to take their liberty away from them. How hard is it to ask a simple yes/no question? The artist will most likely be all for it.
The respect to the artist from their management could go a long way in their relationship. I think that the company should find that as enough motivation to ask the simple question.
This is simmilar to the issue I brought up with you recently. What about when people sell promo copies of CDS for money?
A) You are robbing the artist of the little bit of money they could be making if people had bought the album from the band
B)You are spreading music around so more people can hear it. That's good because they get more fans and stuff. I guess.
In both cases, you are raping money from hard working artists who deserve as much as they can possibly get. Musicians DO NOT make much money these days and you know that. The point is that the labels are exploiting artists and pocketing the dough because they aren't accounting for everything they license for that artist.
Above everything, I think that artists and/or their managers need to be consulted about every detail of marketing that involves them. This is coming from a gal who works at an Indie though. I really dont understand the mentality of majors. Maybe thats why I didnt get that job at Geffen...
Test test test. i just posted a really long response and its not showing up on here.
My opinion is that the labels have to let know the band at any moment in what they are using their songs. In case they dont do that they are creating a type of obligation that comes from ilegal enrichment. Because they are making profits with others material.
Of course in the long term the band ends up with some benefits. But is not even ethical to use something from others to win profits.
I think that the bands/manager has to create a type of penal clause at the end of their contracts to avoid this kind of problems. Therefor in case they might happen they will be protected by the law.
I am a business student and I totally understand the reasons the labels do this that dosent mean that I am in favor of it. I think that they are doing it because maybe the contracts are too ambigous and the bands or the managers dont look for a negotiation or a new type of srategies that may avoid this conflicts in the future.
I think that right now the big labels are feeling threatend because of the boom of the indies and the new autonomy or independence the bands have now a days. they have to change their strategies if they want to continue having their normal "power".
The best thing of this situaiton is that the bands (in case the labels pay the money) will win some extra money and maybe be more aware of what the labels are doing with their work.
The respect of the work of others should be taken seriously and nobody should try to make profit with it
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home