Music Industry Attacks Free Prince CD 667
Mike writes "You might not like Prince, but he's planning on giving away a free CD in a national British newspaper. Harmless publicity, right? The music industry disagrees. Executives are practically going insane over the idea and are threatening to 'retaliate'. 'The Artist Formerly Known as Prince should know that with behavior like this he will soon be the Artist Formerly Available in Record Stores. And I say that to all the other artists who may be tempted to dally with the Mail on Sunday,' said Entertainment Retailers Association spokesman Paul Quirk, who also said it would be 'an insult' to record stores. Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?"
Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Prince should say screw you (Score:5, Insightful)
where to start? (Score:5, Insightful)
So an artist decides to share his music and give it away. Where to start with the ensuing anguish by the industry?
If the RIAA and music industry could be anthropomorphized, they'd be that crazy uncle anybody would keep up in the attic.
Key line (Score:5, Insightful)
"Perception of value"... that just about says it all, doesn't it?
Not surprising - it is an affirmation they fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they are pissed at Prince - his action reaffirms the value of digital music in the public mind.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might not like Prince? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, maybe not... (Score:1, Insightful)
Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?
It depends. If he signed a legally-binding contract specifically saying he would allow some company to distribute his music, then he can't give away his music. The company poured their resources into making him a famous artist. Having made their investment, it's reasonable for them to expect Prince to honor his half of the contract.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as Prince can do what he wishes with his business, so can they. They might just be shooting their own foot, but it is their right to do so.
An Insult? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not surprising - it is an affirmation they fear (Score:5, Insightful)
In the public mind, digital music already is rapidly approaching zero economic value, and this scares the crap out of the Music Industry.
Of course, it's the music industries' own fault. Instead of building up a digital distribution business to add value to customers, they've set out to hurt customers and to cripple their own products, thereby decreasing the value of (non-free) legal copies.
If you want the "public mind" to value your service, make sure your service provides value to the public!
This is Prince (Score:5, Insightful)
I would imagine that the record labels are actually more fearful of other artists like him coming to this realization.
Re:Key line (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all there is to it. Music obviously can be bought and sold, and I don't care if you buy it or sell it. But the fact that these labels and businessmen cannot fathom a world in which it is not bought or sold is just disgusting.
Markets change, douchebags. Everybody lives with it. But the real value of music isn't going to change as long as humans have ears.
Whoda thunk? Prince "gets" the revolution! (Score:5, Insightful)
>The eagerly awaited new album by Prince is being launched as a free CD with a national Sunday
>newspaper in a move that has drawn widespread criticism from music retailers.
>.
>.
>.
>Prince, whose Purple Rain sold more than 11m copies, also plans to give away a free copy
>of his latest album with tickets for his forthcoming concerts in London
Clearly, Prince gets it. Digital Content is no longer an object to sell itself, as it has no value anymore, but is merely an attraction to attract consumers to purchase other things.
I think this is the mainstream start of the beginning of the end for people who have traditionally sold digital content to consumers. Those days are rapidly drawing to a close. With content so easily copyable, it's economic value is virtually zero. So there is no place for selling digital content to consumers anymore.
BUT, you CAN sell your digital content to an advertising firm, who will use it as flypaper to attract consumers to buy physical things.
This is precisely what Prince is doing. He isn't giving away his content for free. he's sold it to a newspaper company that will give it away to get people to buy (physical) newspapers, and he's giving them away to people who buy physical tickets to his concert.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure. Feel free to stop selling one of the more successful artists in the business. I'm sure that will encourage customers to come running to your store when they're looking to make a music purchase.
Also, in case you haven't figured it out, Mr Quirk, Prince has figured out the dirty little secret of the music industry - he doesn't need you any more. In fact, he's been doing quite well ever since he told the music industry as a whole to get bent. In case you haven't been paying attention for the last few years...
Re:Won't someone think of the artist? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:1, Insightful)
Not so quick. Most artists don't have the luxury to go it alone because it's very hard to breakthrough without support (and thieving) from the industry. Especially for up-and-coming artists, it's much easier to sign with a label than it is to eek your way on to the main stage.
Of course, for established artists like Prince it really doesn't matter if they butt heads with the industry because he's already made a fortune and has the luxury of doing things as he sees fit.
Its the same reason he changed his name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tm
Re:Not surprising - it is an affirmation they fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Still I wouldn't be surprised if Prince didn't end up selling more records to replace scratched freebie CD's
Unlawful (Score:3, Insightful)
Should these guys really be calling attention to the illegal actions an illegal monopoly may be taking in the future?
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prince should say screw you (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that Prince should start his own label and do whatever the hell he wants to with his music.
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't a fan before, but I am now.
In a word, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?
If you're asking this question, then you don't understand who you are really dealing with.
The music industry thinks they own ALL music. Not just the RIAA affiliated bands - all music, EVERYWHERE. My proof? SoundExchange. [dailykos.com] They are demanding royalty fees for all music streamed over the net from net radio - and get this - from EVERYONE. Doesn't matter if you're a member or not, they will collect on your behalf in preparation for the glorious day you elect to join the Borg. Until then they're happy to bill people for all music, everywhere.
The music industry thinks it owns all music. Everywhere. If there was a way to drill a tap into your head and bill you every time you think of a song, they'd do it.
So yeah, Prince, having the audacity to make a song and give it away clearly goes against everything these morons believe. I wouldn't be surprised to see them ban him completely.
In response - we, the public - should buy every single thing Prince makes. After he releases it over the net independently. Money straight to the artist with no insane middlemen. This could be where it starts.
Re:Prince should say screw you (Score:4, Insightful)
Giving his music away FREE by this particular method of distribution likely means those agencies that try to collect fees from 'transmission / broadcast' cannot do so. (if it was streamed, then media sentry (or equivilent) might try to charge him for distribution). Bundling with the sunday news means he can do it for the cost of the actual media which might actually be free for him if an advertiser picks up the tab.
If he gives this away free, then sharing it on p2p might not* be against the law. If this sells more Prince CD's, then other artists might follow making it pretty untidy for the record companies and their 'illegal to share music even if its Public domain or Copy-left etc.
[* depending on any shrink-wrap agreement on the cover of the CD. ]
Re:Prince should say screw you (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? In this aspect at least, Prince seems smart to save his money. It's not like it's difficult to get pirated CDs or pirated mp3s now is it? Which would seem to indicate that the RIAA has no clue, expertise or anything else for that matter when it comes to unauthorised copying and ditribution.
Re:What's yours is ours.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember a few years back when he changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol?
How about writing "slave" on his head?
Ringing any bells?
He has the luxury of not needing the RIAA's or Warner's or whoevers money any more. That's as close as any recording artist can hope to get to beeing "free"
If the strongest threat that these companies can come up with is "stop it or we'll stop making money off selling your old records in our stores" than they are well and truely fscked.
good for him.
Re:War of Words (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whoda thunk? Prince "gets" the revolution! (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost. There is one final bit of value that people will be willing to pay for: finding what you want. Most people won't want to spend hours sifting through all the rubbish to find the one MP3 copy that doesn't sound like crud. Most people won't want to go through the work of discovering unknown musicians. They'll pay for someone else to filter the content and recommend certain musicians and certain digital recordings as being superior.
What the equilibrium price is for this service, I don't know. I suspect it is lower than the current price, in general, but potentially much higher for especially good "editors" whose for-you tailored recommendations are outstanding. As far as I can see, this is the only remaining way anyone can hope to charge money for digital copies of music.
A fundamentally different point of view. (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhat fewer years ago, Wordperfect gave away a demo CD with a demo version of Wordperfect 6.0, and the rest of the CD filled with original music.
Musicians give music away all the time. Did the music industry scream over either of these? No. Then why over this? Because Prince's music sells, and the others really didn't.
Real musicians see music as an expression of art. They make it for their own purposes, and they'd do it even if they didn't get paid (as long as they can eat). I know plenty of indie bands that are happy to "cover their expenses". The music INDUSTRY, OTOH, sees music as a commodity to be sold, like soap. If someone gives away free soap, then real soap makers sell less, and they lose money.
This perception is wrong-headed, but everyone is listening to the wrong people, with the wrong point of view. The sooner we give music back to real musicians, the better.
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You might not like Prince? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please smarten up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No correction needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Most pirates don't sell the music they pirate.
Re:No correction needed (Score:4, Insightful)
2. People who defend the GPL normally argue that copying someone else's work, earning money either with it or a derivative work of it and not giving something back is unethical. That's a different type of fish.
Re:No correction needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Equivocation. Likely because the people who talk about "Stolen GPL Code" aren't the same people who talk about piracy. If you're going to argue with someone, argue on the merits of their arguments, not the arguments of others.
And he obviously didn't miss the word "ethically". His point was that ethically, piracy is not like stealing, since piracy is not like stealing in its essential character. Indeed, he came up with an analogy to piracy, and showed that stealing and piracy are ethically very different.
You'll probably feign
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
I still buy though. Basically the way I see locals stores is this:
They essentially 'ban' anything not very popular - hey, I realize you can't stock everything but when they don't carry music that I want I do look elsewhere. Local retailers in the UK ban Prince and do they really think that Prince fans will stop looking for Prince music? Prince fans will simply find another source for their music (iTunes or Amazon maybe) and quite possibly continue with that source in the future.
Re:Key line (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on the value of what.
Music: valuable.
Music distribution and marketing services: Not so much any more.
The latter is what scares the labels so much. They're not dumb; they know that in a battle between artists and distribution, distribution loses in the modern age because, while artists are scarce, distributors are not.
The music distribution industry is, to borrow a cliché, already dead; it just hasn't stopped breathing yet.
Re:Serious Question for You (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is simply that there's this absurd expectation that music-as-product should somehow generate mountains of profits. IMO It's absurd to expect any profits at all. Don't get me wrong--I *want* musicians to live on music. I would love to live on my several music projects--who wouldn't? But when anyone starts demanding money--by litigation, lobbying congress, general whining, whatever--they seem to have completely forgotten that there's no magical guarantee for anyone to make money doing anything. This is what upsets me. Record stores bitching about a famous artist giving something away for free, when THEY could have been making money off of it? Boo-hoo! The gall just astounds me! If they want to go into the business of exploitation, why not be pros and start a child-labor camp?
What is interesting to me is the European tendency toward goverment-artist subsidies (grants, etc) for bands and musicians. Have you ever toured in Italy? I HIGHLY recommend it--they're actually interested in maintaining and nourishing culture. As far as I can tell the idea of granting the talented to pursue and generate their talent benefits everyone except people whose sole existence in life is to generate money. And when an artist of any medium has the ability to execute their work without the pressure of their work as a commodity, I will cheerfully guarantee you nothing but good results.
He is not giving away copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
If the copyright notice on this free CD says that anyone can copy and distribute, that is a different matter alltogether.
I wonder if anyone would question that "shrink wrap" agreement?
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
It always baffles me when people say they can't find even slightly obscure music until I remember that I live in an awesome culture bubble; I grew up with both a very good new music and excellent used music store right in town, and could double or triple both numbers by driving an extra 10-15 minutes to the nearest (very small) city. Anything we really wanted and couldn't get right away we could have special ordered, and it was rare that such a thing needed doing. I still have trouble comprehending when places like Best Buy or FYE (to be fair, they aren't so bad for a national chain) only carry an artist's latest release, or when they forgo well-known and highly influential bands that broke up over a decade ago for some no-hit-wonder pop kid that everybody has already forgotten just because they weren't born yet when the former was in their prime.
Anyway, if anyone out there is in the Amherst/Northampton, MA area and doesn't know any good music stores, check out Mystery Train (used) and Newbury Comics in Amherst, or Turn It Up! in Northampton. In Buffalo I also used to go to New World record on Elmwood, I recall it being next to a Spot Coffee.
The internet is great and all, but there's nothing quite like browsing through a local B&M for music.
Re:Prince should say screw you (Score:3, Insightful)
There's your problem of perception right there: The RIAA is not some startup with a better product or service than its competitors, it's a cartel formed by all the major players in the business. I could no more drum up an alternative to it than I could stop a mack truck from rolling over me.
The truth of the matter is that the RIAA and its constituents have basically been accreting power for almost a century now, which as we all know, is both a positive and a negative for them, ie they're the only game in town, so everything flows to them, but they've become slow and sluggish, and unable to prepare and react to the threats that face them.
Maybe once they've been whittled down to a more managable size, competition might actually occur, and buying/acquiring music cheaply, easily and legally will become the norm, but right now, we're in the moment right after David hit Goliath, but before he falls to the ground dead. A lot of dust needs to settle.
Re:No correction needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Stolen music becomes more free.
Stolen code becomes less free.
What we care about is the freedom of information. The law is just an expedient to secure that freedom. When the law becomes injurious to that freedom we must break it.
Re:Prince should say screw you (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting note- Prince is one of the most bootlegged artists I've ever seen. I have GIGS of live shows on my hard drive; his live shows are amazing. His aftershows are legendary. I'd love to see him sell those recordings through eMusic or in some sort of DRM-free format. I'd rebuy whatever I own just to make sure he got paid for music I've enjoyed throughout my life (I'm a big Prince fan).
Now if only I knew how to get the newspaper in the US...
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is good marketing, and nothing new either. Do anyone else remember the record singles bundled with magazines back a few decades ago? I can't remember the record companies getting their panties in a twist over that -- they were the ones doing it!
But now when someone independent wants to do the same, it's suddenly a horrible thing?
It sure is, for them. This is yet another revelation showing the public that the record companies really aren't in it for the artist, but are a money grabbing and unneccessary oligopoly, working for themselves only. Spreading awareness of this is a good thing.
Re:No correction needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright holders have long ago broken their social contract with the people, nothing produced today will ever become public domain during your (or your children's, or possibly not even their children's) lifetime as per the original social contract that gave birth to copyright.
Re:Prince should say screw you (Score:3, Insightful)
In order for you to legally redistribute copies someone else's works, you need to have specific legal permission to do so, unless it is known to be public domain (this is not) or fair use (P2P is not). Note, I exclude personal copies or reselling the original CD. It doesn't matter what the sale price of the original work was. If the CD actually says that it's OK to redistribute copies, then no, it's not legal.
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it is illegal. If you want to make a copy of a bill, it has to be either smaller than three-quarter size, or bigger than one and a half size, or look substantially different. Reproductions must be one-sided. The design of the bill is in the public domain. http://www.bep.treas.gov/document.cfm/18/117 [treas.gov]
What I was trying to get at is that making an exact replica of money (say, using a Star Trek style replicator) can get you all the free music you want. And everybody involved would be happy, except for the Treasury Department. Your money would be real money to everybody involved, but using it would be morally questionable, because putting it in circulation would cause inflation.
Similarly, making copies of music creates "Musical Inflation".
Re:100% wrong, it's just as inethical if not more (Score:4, Insightful)
that person went through the work of designing and creating those items so that they were unique to him/her and planned to sell them for a living
The vast majority of artists would not be upset in the slightest to know there are infinite digital copies of their work floating around the world. In fact, they would be quite flattered, and would look forward to the increased demand for paid live performances and other product sales that would be sure to follow. The small minority who would be upset about it are already rich enough to live out the rest of their life in comfort. I don't think they have been deprived of anything that could be considered ethically significant.
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
The beauty of this story is that it's not only already-successful, rich artists like Prince who can be successful outside of the current system. With a little creativity (and after all, aren't musicians supposed to be creative?) a composer, band or producer can find ways to make a living that don't involve giving the lion's share of profits and control to some talentless turd with an MBA. I've found quite a few excellent examples of this on the web.
I won't buy anything from the first, second or third tier of record labels, period. If I want to hear the music, I'll download a copy, and if it's any good, I'll go see the artist when he comes to town. Mainly, if I buy music, I'll do it directly from the artist, which is becoming increasingly common.
I want to see the entertainment/industrial complex completely collapse. Then, I want the current model of intellectual property to fall apart. I know this makes me a crazy radical, but I think I've had just about enough of being pissed on and told that it's a shower of gold. It may be hopeless to expect the world to become more friendly to regular working people who aren't trying to scam, rob, or otherwise hurt others just so they can say they "won", but I've decided I'm not going to spend the rest of my life playing along with a system that is as corrupt, backwards and harmful as this one. Especially since I don't have to. I'm willing to trade having a device in my pocket that's delivering the latest offerings from Disney in my pocket for a little bit of fairness. And best of all, I don't have to lay down at night feeling like I've been fucked all day against my will.
Re:No correction needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Stolen code becomes less free.
What we care about is the freedom of information. The law is just an expedient to secure that freedom. When the law becomes injurious to that freedom we must break it.
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No correction needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Not so long ago (it's still in my RSS feed) Marcus and Theo [slashdot.org] of the OpenBSD project were accused (mainly Marcus) of "stealing" GPL'ed code and porting it into the OpenBSD project. Regardless of how you feel about the whole fiasco, I'm pretty sure they weren't planning on making money off of the GPL'ed driver code.
Sure, people can argue all they want about the possibility of BSD code being close sourced by an entity that will make money off of it, but I bet you a $1000 dollars that if I were to close source a GPL project and give it away for FREE (without even an ads supported site), I'll have the author knocking on my door the next day demanding the enhanced (or not) source code.
Heck, some people [slashdot.org] (Referencing an AC.. brilliant!) argue that Google is unethical because they [allegedly] didn't distribute the GPL license (which any kid in kindergarten can find online in under 10 seconds [google.com]) with their GSAs despite the fact that the source code is available on code.google.com.
Copying music is (in my opinion) exactly like copying GPL code and not adhering to the license. You may not like the rules but you have to play by them.
The music guys want money to allow you to obtain copies of their songs, the GPL guys want credit and source code enhancements back.
Rules are rules, and no matter how low your "enemy" is (not GPL in this sentence, spare my Karma
GBTW.. GBTW... GBTW...
Re:No correction needed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No correction needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fear and loathing in RIAA land (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at history (Score:2, Insightful)
Music as music has been around for thousands and thousands of years, but music as a bunch of salable mass-produced physical artifacts is less than a century old. If your business model is failing, it doesn't mean the Big Bad Pirates are stealing from you. It's not an attack on Music Itself. Make no mistake: they are not defending artists, which they treat as indentured servants. They're defending their threatened business model.
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Retailers fail to innovate and then complain when an artist does. I don't get it.
It's not their right to profit from his CD's, it's their privilege. If they were smart, rather than not carrying the cd, they should offer a deep discount on it. The newspaper thing is a one-off, it's not like every single copy of every daily paper is including a copy.
They should also keep in mind that if Prince can afford to do this out of his own pocket, imagine competing for the same amount of advertising dollars from him. Why isn't any single retail operation thinking this way?
They wonder why the major retailers are suffering. They keep front-racking the same crap against which Prince knows he has no chance of competing. (He's not 17 nor is he female and hot, he's 50 and an accomplished musician with a serious history, something no label or retailer cares to promote.)
Further: Not everybody who gets that paper is going to be a Prince fan. So his market penetration isn't going to be to his main target audience, though probably many fans will shell out for the paper. (Keep in mind he just sold out several dates in the UK at the O2 Arena, with several more still on sale.)
I challenge any retailer to claim that they could sell as many cd's as this giveaway would total. I really doubt they'd care to. They wouldn't rack it with the same exposure as Nelly Furtado, Justin Timberlake or Rihanna. It's not in their best interests to do so.
I haven't shopped at a brick-and-mortar retail store for my music in several years now and it's crap like this that makes me feel like it's probably just as well. Music retailers don't care about talent, they care about widgets. They should be the ones coming up with stunts like this (or the labels and their marketing divisions.)
I'm sick of hearing retailers complain whenever someone does something purely musical like this. Sure it's a stunt but it shows he wants the music to get out there, which is more than I could say for any label or retailer these days.
ad