Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News

Australian Record Industry Goes After the Red Cross 23

cavaroc writes "Wired is reporting that the Australian record labels are now threatening the International Red Cross for being a beneficiary of Sharman Networks. They said they'd politely ask them to cooperate, but that if they didn't cooperate, 'It would be incredibly disappointing if we had to sue them.' My favorite quote from the article: 'We never take a case against technology, we will take cases against people who use technology to take away our artists' property.' They're expected to sue themselves sometime early next year. ;-)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Record Industry Goes After the Red Cross

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Sue Themselves (Score:3, Insightful)

    by realityfighter ( 811522 ) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @06:48AM (#11129110) Homepage
    Have you ever had occasion to read a recording contract?
    My guess is no - I haven't either. If either of us did, though, we would inevitably find 1 of 2 possibilities to be true.

    Possibility 1: The contract is designed to confuse the artist into signing away rights that they naturally own, or to simply be so unreadable that the relevant terms are lost in the legal gibberish. This enforces the view that the contract is bad, but exonerates the artist of any wrongdoing as they were intentionally decieved.

    Possibility 2: The contract is clearly laid out without any trick clauses. In this case, the artist is knowingly giving away certain rights to have his work published. Fair enough. In that case, their rights are not being taken away, they are being given away. Thus, it isn't a "deal with the devil" as you claim.

    If you're dealing with the devil, you probably won't know it till you're in too deep. We can only make it worse pretending that you should have known better.
  • by tdhillman ( 839276 ) * on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:19AM (#11130027)
    The recording industry is, and will likely always be, wholly hypocritical in its desire to "protect the artists."

    If they were actually protective of the artists, they would make sure that those who actually create the music are protected not only from technology, but also from te nefarious management personnel whose sole task it is to make as much money from someone else's work as humanly pssible.

    To the best of my knowledge, artists are not members of the industry associations. That belongs to the labels. Their job is to protect their cash flow, and secondarily the artists.

    Take a bunch of 20 year old kids who know nothing about contract law and I'll show you a group about to get screwed by a label.

    Artists get screwed by those who make a profit from their own inability to create something of lasting value.

    What role does the industry play in getting rights back to the actual artists? Take a look at who wrote Buddy Holly's songs. That'll answer the question.
  • Re:Sue Themselves (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Trepalium ( 109107 ) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:38PM (#11131724)
    "Oh, well, if you don't want to sign this now, I have another band coming in in fifteen minutes who is going to sign. Sorry, but I can only take one of you." Such a simple pressure tactic usually attributed to used car salesmen, but when you've worked so hard to just get to this point, this pressure can be overwhelming. After all, if you refuse, there's probably another two or three that make music very similar to you that will be willing to sign on the spot. What is forgotten by these bands often is that this is no longer music at this point. Now it's business, and business will try to squeeze out every penny they can possibly get regardless of your wishes.
  • Re:Sue Themselves (Score:3, Insightful)

    by david duncan scott ( 206421 ) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @04:18PM (#11131971)
    I see your point, but I still think that there's a startling contrast in book publishing. How often have you heard a writer complaining about his publishers and agent?

    Of course, as I understand it, book publishers don't generally expect perpetual world-wide rights to anything. Writers generally sell limited term limited rights in specified countries, like two years hardcover US publishing rights, reserving, e.g., paperback rights in Europe.

  • Re:Sue Themselves (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Casualposter ( 572489 ) on Monday December 20, 2004 @12:01PM (#11137278) Journal
    If you want to control the terms of the publishing of anything you create, you'd better not need to ever have it published. That way, when the pressure sales tactics come out, you shrug and say NO.

    As soon as you need to have a record deal, or a publishing deal, you've lost any bargaining position whatsoever.

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...