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?"

Please retaliate.

The more bad press you give us, the more ammunition bands have to never sign with you in the first place. Keep it up, you're doing a better job at killing yourselves than we music lovers could ever do!

Re:Please retaliate.

So what you're saying is the more they tighten their grip, the more stars will slip through their fingers? =D

Re:Please retaliate.

Perhaps not, they've had time to review the mistakes of the past long long ago. You'll have to catch it under construction, blow up the shield generator.

And if they start focusing unknown weapons of hip-hop music, be sure to shout "ITS A RAP"

Re:Please retaliate.

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:Please retaliate.

Yeah, I agree. I don't particularly like his music, but I'm inclined to buy a CD just to support him. If an artist with Prince's power, can't create some art, and give it away (or do whatever else they darn well please), then what hope is there for "lesser" artists to be able to enjoy their freedoms.

I wasn't a fan before, but I am now.

Re:Please retaliate.

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.

I don't buy a lot of music from local retailers anymore either. Why bother when I can find much more of what I'm interested in online then I can locally. Part of that may be from be older and not as up to date on new releases or new bands as others are.

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:Please retaliate.

Prince fans will simply find another source for their music (iTunes or Amazon maybe)

... or maybe to the Sunday paper.

Re:Please retaliate.

The solution is to have a couple of good music stores in the area.

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:Please retaliate.

I, on the other hand, haven't been buying (or downloading) much if any music for years.

Welcome to middle age. :-)

Re:Please retaliate.

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.

It's not the RIAA (or the UK equivalent) that's protesting. It's the Entertainment Retailers Association, which stands to lose their "cut" of the profits arising from the sale of the CD's. I know the article saya "music industry," but it's not the usual part of the music industry that we all hate so much. It's the middle-men, whining.

Re:Please retaliate.

so, what part of the riaa isn't middle-men?

Re:Please retaliate.

People (especially this retail support organization) seem to forget that Prince gave away copies of his last cd with every ticket sold to see his live show as well. That was two years ago and there was some debate over whether these CD's counted as "copies sold" from a Billboard chart point of view. I seem to remember Prince saying in an interview at the time that he didn't care whether it meant he got on a chart, that it was good for exposing the music, period.

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

Re:Please retaliate.

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

Yes, I too will buy this free CD.

Re:Please retaliate.

If the only way this CD is being distributed is bundled with a UK newspaper, I expect quite a few people will buy this CD, for far more than a CD normally costs. In any case, if there's anything at all distinguishing it from other CDs, it will become a collector's item.

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:Please retaliate.

I love this story. It shows just how insane the current system of ownership for creative work has become. An artist who wants to give his work away for free is considered to be attacking the industry. Well, what exactly is "the industry" if not a system put in place so artists can be rewarded for creating music? At least, that was the original idea. Who the hell is some music executive who believes he has some special claim on the work of someone else?

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:Please retaliate.

Just a correction to your signature: "Piracy is ethically no different than finding a few nice items on the street that you weren't planning to buy for yourself, making an exact replica of those items, and taking the replicas with you, leaving the original items unharmed." That is a more accurate analogy, but quite a bit less clear-cut from an ethical point of view.

Re:Please retaliate.

"Piracy is ethically no different than finding a few nice items on the street that you weren't planning to buy for yourself, making an exact replica of those items, and taking the replicas with you, leaving the original items unharmed." That is a more accurate analogy, but quite a bit less clear-cut from an ethical point of view.

Piracy is like printing your own money and depositing it in the bank. It doesn't really hurt anybody if you do it, but if everybody does it then money becomes worthless.

Re:No correction needed

People that get called on stealing GPLed code typically are making money off it by doing so eg. bundling it with some piece of hardware, or sticking it into their proprietary software that they sell.

Most pirates don't sell the music they pirate.

Re:No correction needed

1. There are enough Slashdotters who don't like the GPL for exactly that reason: You can't just copy the code and build something new out of it, and then distribute it without disclosing not only the code you took, but also all the code you wrote solely by yourself (and which according to normal copyright you won't have to distribute). (Yes I know, there is always LGPL and also the "interface code" trick.) Those people tend to be in favor of the BSD License.

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

How dare you link to my website as your own? You jerk.

Re:No correction needed

I think he meant "all true [wikipedia.org] Scotsmen"...I mean "Slashdotters".

Re:No correction needed

Here's the difference:

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

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

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:Please retaliate.

FTSummary: "Shouldn't an artist be able to give away his own music if he wants to without fear of industry retaliation?" Hell, no -- "All your talents are own."

"All your talents are belong to us!"

Re:Please retaliate.

I know people are falling all over themselves to attack the recording industry, but I believe everybody quoted in the article are *record stores*, not the recording industry. Carry on.

You believe, but you are wrong.
FTFA: The singer had signed a global deal for the promotion and distribution of Planet Earth in partnership with Columbia Records, a division of music company Sony BMG. A spokesman for the group said last night that the UK arm of Sony BMG had withdrawn from Prince's global deal and would not distribute the album to UK stores [wikipedia.org].

Re:Please retaliate.

Sony-BMG was not one of the quotes about going insane. It just mentioned that the UK arm would not be distributing that particular album to stores. There is kind of no point distributing to stores if it is being given away for free.

Please smarten up

There is kind of no point distributing to stores if it is being given away for free.

And there will be an infinite supply of free CDs? It's not a one-time promotional event then?

Re:Please retaliate.

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.

Prince should say screw you

Prince should just open his own online store. Publicly announce he is no longer a member of the RIAA, and start selling his music online via his own channels. I'm sure he is rich enough to give them the finger.

Re:Prince should say screw you

>>Prince should just open his own online store

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. ]

He is not giving away copyrights

Just because he is giving away CDs for free doesn't mean he is giving away his copyrights, so it doesn't automatically make it legal for anyone else to distribute the contents of the CD via, lets says P2P or streaming.
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:Prince should say screw you

Brush up on your copyright law. Free does not mean public domain, and copyright is the default -- no shrink-wrap license is necessary to forbid copying.

where to start?

So an artist decides to share his music and give it away. Where to start with the ensuing anguish by the industry?

• warning artist Formerly known as Prince he may become the artist formerly available in record stores? Is that a threat? (BTW, I believe he is once again the artist known as Prince... it'd be nice for the industry to keep better tabs on their talent).
• 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!
• the industry is threatening to "retaliate". Fork 'em. Let 'em. I'd be interested in how that plays out.

If the RIAA and music industry could be anthropomorphized, they'd be that crazy uncle anybody would keep up in the attic.

Re:where to start?

(BTW, I believe he is once again the artist known as Prince... it'd be nice for the industry to keep better tabs on their talent)

Yes, he is now The Artist Fomerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. He's now called "Prince" for short.

Re:where to start?

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.