Music Industry Attacks Free Prince CD

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?"

Nothing like admitting it

[overshoot]

I love it -- they're actually foaming mad enough to publicly admit that they're engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade based on blocking artists' access to radio and retail.

Should make for utterly gripping testimony in the antitrust lawsuit under Sherman Act Part One.

Re:Not surprising - it is an affirmation they fear

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that might be the reason, the other reason could be that its pulling the potential value of their songs when suing people from $750 per song [slashdot.org].

I suggest we all just kick back and laugh at the RIAA (and its member companies) as more and more artists become famous on their dollar and then flip them off and do what they please. It is just another sign that this dinosaur is ready to die.

if we wanted to really piss the RIAA off

[OutOnARock]

We could of our own free will send Prince $1 for each free CD he gives us!

Do RIAA execs throw chairs?

Disclaimer: I love Prince's work, have seen him live many times, and his guitar is amazing and every bit as good as Eddie Van Halen or Eric Clapton, who yes, I've also seen live.

Re:Please retaliate.

[Ngarrang]

Prince is rich. He is content with his career. He was already in one tizzy with the labels and bolted, which made him more money. He became Prince again, made more money. He already owns his own recording studio. Okay, so he may lose a distributor or two. Prince has never shown himself to care about the NORMAL way of doing things.

Re:music's not his to give away.

[brunascle]

well, the question is, was this music under contract, and does that apply to the UK?

As it was in the beginning,

[twitter]

is as it is and ever will be. One day soon, the phrase "I got it for a song" will have it's meaning back. It's not that talent is worthless, it's that it will not remain a centralized commodity three companies can manipulate and artificially limit. That it was is the real quirk.

Re:No

[BobMcD]

I bristle at the thought of a 'right to retaliate'. Right to defend one's self, sure. But vengence isn't a 'right', is it? Or is this a case of two wrongs making a right? I'm confused...

Re:Please retaliate.

[Hoi Polloi]

If they hadn't pooped themselves over this I probably wouldn't have heard about it.

Re:Please retaliate.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I don't particularly like his music, but I'm inclined to buy a CD just to support him.

I, on the other hand, haven't been buying (or downloading) much if any music for years. But not long ago I hit a Prince video on the cable and was impressed by how good (IMHO) the music was. (The stage show was a separate issue - but doesn't come across on the audio-only CD. B-) ) Tastes vary.

This gives me an excuse to go out and buy a CD I can expect to be decent, supporting a good artist AND tweaking the RIAA's nose simultaneously.

Re:Please retaliate.

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

Exactly. Who would not read this and think: 1) Big business record companies crying about this? 2) Little ole Prince...who is a man of the people. (He really has looked out for his fellow recording artists...and helped many escape the trap that is the RECORDING companies contracts.) 3) How will this tantrum help the record companies...it wont. Prince who was already a hero in my book for fighting the record companies and kickin their asses. (over his name / music)....is now approaching GOD status. I hope he does this again and again...and continues to PISS on the record companies. They have everything to fear from him. he does not NEED THEM AT ALL!!! and he is gathering new artists to the cause. He is getting their music made without the contracts for ownership of the musicians soul and he is breaking the mold. You may not like his music but as far as the man goes...there is little not to like. A lot think he was just an oversexed pop star...but truth is he is quite talented and very smart. Go Prince Go. I will do what i can to buy your music and your produced music. One last thing about the big record companies...you would think they would have learned that squaring off against Prince has been nothing but a dismal loss for them...yet they continue to act in ways that destroy them. As for the retaliation....BRING IT ON MFer's....I know Prince aint scared of you...and in a caged death match my moneys on Prince.

Re:Key line

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I want to scream in these executive's faces: "The value of music is not monetary."

If it's desirable it has value. If it has value it's usually possible to monetize it, which tends to enable and/or streamline the exchange of it for other things of value, encouraging production and better satisfaction of demand (read "desire") for the thing of value.

The RIAA wants to take advantage of the monetization of the value of something they don't themselves create, taking a cut of the resulting cash flow from fans to creators, without contributing perceptibly to anything but roadblocking the flow.

If I have the economic jargon right that sort of extortion on commerce is called "rent-seeking behavior" and is frowned upon by economic theoreticians as a parasitic drain on productivity and standards of living.

Re:Key line

[Rinikusu]

Disclaimer: I'm a musician. I'd prefer people to buy my music rather than just download it for free because, obviously, I can use that money that they pay to do things like pay my rent, eat something other than ramen noodles, fix/replace equipment, and put gas in the van (not to mention maintenance). Touring is "where the money's" at, so people keep saying, and I keep seeing "touring" as a break-even proposition at *best*, and most artists, if you bother to ask them, will tell you they're losing money by touring. Unless you're pulling in thousands of people to see you where economies of scale work better for you, merch sales are "pleasant bonuses" which means I might can eat something that's not on the 99 cent value menu for a meal. Not to mention that this is with a pretty decent network of people to give up couches and floors to save on Motel costs. Now, at age 34, it's harder and harder to do these kind of tours. Let's face it: I'm not in the next Green Day or Metallica or whatever. Those guys are the exceptions. Even Fugazi (who make a small mint touring and on record sales) are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of working artists are not rich. We rely upon our friendships and networks to keep us fed and sheltered when we're out on the road. We all have to quit jobs after saving up a small wad of cash just to tour, and once we get back, we come back to stacks of unpaid bills, eviction notices, storage room fees, unfaithful significant others, and the realization that the drummer (guitarist/bassist/etc) is a fucking prick and have to kick him out and look for a new one. Touring bands rarely keep jobs for more than a few months (imagine how that looks when you're applying anywhere), rarely have time to "improve skills" for better paying jobs (say, programming), and generally have a really tough time. Many bands break up during tours due to the fact that once you're in close proximity with your bandmates 24/7 for months at a time, stuffed in a van, sleeping next to each other on a cold, hard floor, and that every character flaw is magnified due to lack of proper sleep, nutrition, and stress. Not everyone can hack touring constantly.

And those of us who can, well, we generally love what we're doing. It's worth it.

So, from the artist's standpoint, I want you to buy my music. I want you to pay the $5-$10 we charge at the door and come see us because that $5-$10 really just gets us to the next show. Hell, I want you to buy a T-Shirt for $10 (HA!), a bunch of stickers ($1), a button ($1.50), and give the band a blowjob, because, well, I'm selfish that way.

But, if it comes down to strictly exposure, I want everyone to experience my music, whether they pay for it or not. If someone finds my music on Limewire, I want them to get it and hear it. You'll find most musicians have the same notion. /ranting at work (at least I have a decent paying tech job to support my losing effort)

Re:Its the same reason he changed his name...

[realmolo]

No, he changed it on his own. He was trying to distance himself from their marketing machine, which is why he chose that goofy "symbol" as his name. Made it really tough on the marketing department, because he had no prounouncable name. He also said some typically bizarro Prince-type stuff about how he was "abandoning his slave-name" or something like that.

Also, his birth name really *is* Prince. It's not a stage name. Prince Rogers Nelson is the name on his birth certificate.

Prince is awesome. He best music is FAR behind him, but he still does some good stuff, and, well, his old stuff is so great that it doesn't even matter what else he does.

Re:Whoda thunk? Prince "gets" the revolution!

[Adambomb]

This is one thing that I was wondering that you managed to put perfectly. It seems that the future focus of music is going to be in the DJ's/VJ's and those who focus on presenting the content. The content may be easily distributed and replicated these days, but it takes taste and a feel for ones audience to be truely great at setting up shows, mixed cd's, etc.

Hopefully we'll start so see more music "packages" become available, where artists with similar target audiences hook up with a talented DJ/VJ type person (not necessarily those labels specifically), and include different lineups of their songs. I do not mean the "OMG SUPER PARTY HITS 335.4235475236452364 2007 EDITION" cd's you see on infomercials, but ones created with the direct input of the artists involved AND such talent. We've seen that a true fan will purchase multiple versions of the same music and be happy as long as there is a reason to (IE: remixes, live version, even _specific_ live versions).

Music seems to be a lot like food, except for the "we die without it" part not being quite literal. And as many chef's know, presentation is everything. Good taste, insofar as it applies to a similar target audience, definitely DOES have value.

George Michael also

[maggard]

Pop star George Michael said the same thing [smh.com.au] to BBC radio in 2004, talking about his impending retirement from commercial music.

"I think it's ("Patience") going to be my last commercial promoted release. I've been very well remunerated for my talents over the years so I really don't need the public's money," he said.

Now, he added, he would "really like to have something on the internet with charitable donation optional, where anyone can download my music for free".

"Believe me, in the modern world if you take yourself out of the financial aspect of things, ie. if you're not in anybody's chart, you're not making anybody any money, you're not losing anybody any money, believe me, I'll be of very little interest to the press in a certain number of years."

Frankly I don't see why not. Once you've got "enough" money why not sell-out entirely to your own creative impulses? It's certainly better then wearily pumping out material you're no longer interested in just because you've become accustomed to life as a hamster on a pop-star wheel.

I thasnk Mr. Michael, Prince, and every other artist for sharing their talent with us. If their non-commercial expressions discomfort trade cartels and music store chains then so be it, artists have no obligation to support music industry chattel. Perhaps the record stores would like to have parents stop singing non-commercial lullabyes and birds be required to have performance licenses.

Re:You might not like Prince?

[captainjaroslav]

Okay, I was just being silly when I first posted about Prince, but, because I do love His Purpleness, I'll point out one of the many things that makes Prince amazing that those other bands don't have: read the liner notes of most Prince albums and you'll see...

Music and lyrics by Prince
Guitar: Prince
Bass: Prince
Drums: Prince
Keyboards: Prince
Vocals: Prince
Backup Vocals: Prince
etc.

Stevie Wonder actually did a lot of the same kind of thing and a lot of people don't know that about either of them. Now, on to your list, an (almost) alternate version might have something like:

40s - Charlie Parker
50s - Chuck Berry
60s - The Funk Brothers (the backup band on almost all the Motown records)
70s - James Brown
80s - Prince
90s - Dr. Dre
2000s - ??? (I live in hope, there's always something cool going on, even among all the crap.)

Now, what's different about my list?

Re:Key line

[blackmonday]

Ok, but there's nothing wrong with working a 9 to 5 job to make a decent living, so you can play weekend tours on the side, and hope to get a little cash and exposure. You don't have to be the next Green Day or Metallica to taste success. Every time someone buys a CD or a shirt you've been succesful.

I feel you on the band member situation. I've been lucky to play with the same guys for over 10 years, but I know all the horror stories.

I gave up on joining the big leagues a long time ago, and it doesn't bother me. The quarterly cdbaby check is meager, but I have a real job...stay away from that 99 cent menu!

Re:where to start?

[Kadin2048]

disrespectful to record stores? Hwah? How? Because they don't get to sell the CDs Prince decided to give away? I recently gave a camera to a friend... should the local camera shop be angry? I dinged their sales!

Replace "camera" with "music," and "local camera shop" with "giant media conglomerate," and the answer, I think, is yes.

It seems that in the past 10 years or so, many corporations have decided to treat anything that denies them revenue as if it's identical to actually taking something they already had. Personally, I think it's an effect of the type of cash-flow accounting and projection that's now overwhelmingly popular, where the entire worth of your business (read: stock price) is based on how much money you think you're going to make. When it turns out that, oops, you didn't actually make that much money, they go absolutely berzerk and start looking for anyone to pin the blame on. Because, to them, they've already made that money, in some weird way, as soon as they started projecting it.

How do you show support

[Fatal67]

How would one show support for an artist that is giving their music away for free?

I definitely don't want to buy anything from the music stores..

So what would be a good way to support him on this, without feeding the mouths that are so upset..?

Re:100% wrong, it's just as inethical if not more

[AndersOSU]

I think the AC makes a valid point. I also think he draws a wrong conclusion. If you make a knock-off of something a merchant creates either the original isn't valuable in itself, or the original will retain its value (or it could do both). Take the situation of knock-off designer bags. The original bag still sells for as much (arguably more - due to increased visibility increasing desire) while the people both buying and selling the knock off are also benefiting.

No number of obnoxious people on E! claiming that knock-offs "dishonor the brand" is going to make it true, just as no number of people calling copyright infringement theft will make that true. The difference is that fashion designers, along with artists, have figured out a viable business model, whereas the RIAA has not. Designers and artists understand the value of having an original prestige item and charge for it, the secondary market doesn't harm them at all. OTOH the RIAA fails to understand that something easily copied cannot be a mass consumer good. They're trying to have it both ways. They'd be better off selling albums for $3 and concert tickets for $50 (sort of how the MPAA is slightly more relevant due to the value of a movie screening) or sell authentic original CDs for $200.

Companies have found ways to be successful in spite of (sometimes because of) knock-offs, generics, reproductions, or piracy basically forever, why the RIAA seems so intent to buck this trend is beyond me.

Re:Key line

[juniorbird]

Well, it's Prince's job, so there's a monetary value to him. But he's clearly making the statement that he doesn't see the sale of these albums as of monetary value to him. There's two reasons this might be true:

1. He makes more money off of touring, or sales of other material
2. He, like those Communist nutbags at Procter & Gamble, has realized that you can sometimes sell more overall by giving some stuff away. Prince is looking at the whole value of his portfolio of music products and he realizes that he can increase the value of his other assets by giving some of this one away:
   • Availability of new music may drive traffic to his shows
   • Perhaps people who would otherwise spend $19.99 (or whatever, in pounds) on this album may spend $19.99 on a Prince t-shirt, on which he may earn more
   • Availability of free music may develop new fans, who will then create marginal revenue increases across his whole portfolio of music products, especially including his back catalog, which they'll now need to buy for the first time

I tend to think that #2 is particularly true. I've said for a long time that I'd bet the best predictor of whether or not an individual will buy an act's new album is whether or not they have -- not that they bought, just that they have -- that act's last album. If that's true, piracy today creates marginal revenue in the future at some function of the volume of the cost of piracy today, and the economic cost (or value) of piracy to record labels can be more accurately calculated by skilled marketing staffs. But Prince is taking this even further -- he's saying that whether or not someone has -- not buys, but has -- his current album is a strong predictor of whether or not they'll buy his previous albums. Because he's released more than 25 previous albums, possession of the new album doesn't need to be that strong of a predictor for him to break even on the giveaway, just so long as there's some correlation (and causation, of course).

This has interesting implications for other long-established artists. If Prince is right that he'll make more money from back catalog sales than he gives away on this album, then other acts with deep catalogs should consider encouraging piracy of at least some subset of their works, in order to get new fans (I'm looking at you, Rush). This would then, in turn, suggest that the artists who can most benefit from piracy are the oldest, most established artists, and the newest artists whose fan base is too small for them to reach breakeven. The squeezed-out artists would be those who have a couple of hits and a couple of albums out but haven't really proven they aren't yet a flash in the pan.

Re:Key line

[Rinikusu]

Oh certainly. I've done my share of weekend "tours" and I've never regretted a single one, even though each one was a "losing" proposition financially. However, I do have my stories and my experiences and frankly, those are worth more to me than the idea of making money, so I'm not bitching about that at all. I just want people and potential music fans (not necessarily of my band/music) to understand that the whole argument of bands making money on the road is pretty much a myth. A lot of factors come into play for a band to be financially sound, touring isn't some kind of magic pill.

As a recent transplant into Los Angeles, I'm looking pretty eager to dive into the music scene. The idea of playing gigs in San Diego, Santa Barbara, even San Francisco over a weekend is pretty exciting.

From reading a bit on your URL, are you in Anaheim? Long shot question, but does the name El Taro mean anything to you?

Re:100% wrong, it's just as inethical if not more

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think the AC makes a valid point. I also think he draws a wrong conclusion. If you make a knock-off of something a merchant creates either the original isn't valuable in itself, or the original will retain its value (or it could do both). Take the situation of knock-off designer bags. The original bag still sells for as much (arguably more - due to increased visibility increasing desire) while the people both buying and selling the knock off are also benefiting.

The problem being that your assumptions are based on the knock off being of inferior quality and not an exact digital reproduction. When talking about songs, each digital copy of a song in the wild lowers the value of the authentic song file. Why pay for something you can get for free?

Oh but the artist should perform at concerts to make his money! Well that was simplistic and quite frankly unfair. Why should a musical artist be forced to make money by touring? Why can't his song be a commodity like any other work of fiction? When E-books are shared, do you expect the book author's main source of income being from performing public readings?

To be fair, I am mostly irritated by the idea of giving an artist (or ticketmaster) a valid reason for charging even more money for a concert. It would be nice if a concert ticket remained within the economic means of an average teenager/young adult.

I was led to believe that an artist tours to promote their album...

Prince is sticking it to UK distributors

[gevantry]

From what I gather, Prince had a world-wide marketing deal in place that would have distributed his CD to UK record stores, but greed inspired the UK distributors to stay out unless they could get a higher percentage. It seems like distributors everywhere else plan to get some profit by going with the deal in their regions, and the UK distributors would have got a bit of profit as well. Now they're not going to get anything. Prince doesn't like leeches trying to blackmail him like this. So everyone in the UK who gets a copy of the MAIL gets the CD. Blackmail me, will you, you putzes? Take that! Maybe he will be seen as a kind of Guy Fawkes of the music distribution system with this little bombshell, inspiring other big artists to do the same and knock the current corrupt system in the UK. But it's also a shot across the bows of distributors everywhere. Come to think of it, hasn't Paul MacCartney done something similar with his recent CD, at least in terms of bypassing the usual distribution outlets?