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)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Funny)
CDs for freeing Prince? (Score:3, Funny)
S.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Funny)
And if they start focusing unknown weapons of hip-hop music, be sure to shout "ITS A RAP"
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't a fan before, but I am now.
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (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:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Funny)
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:Please retaliate. (Score:4, Funny)
I, on the other hand, haven't been buying (or downloading) much if any music for years.
Welcome to middle age. :-)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I too will buy this free CD.
Leave the free CD market alone! (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
ahhhhhhh! HELP! My head just my head a'sploded!
-
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:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:4, 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:5, Funny)
Re: (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 "
Re: (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: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: (Score:3, 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.
The GPL equivalent for music would be giving it away with the sheet music, and allowing others to redistribute it or modify it as they pleased, so long as they also distributed the modified sheet music with it. Would you be happy with a "music license" like that? (Also note the parallel here, what if you only modify the binary/mp3 and not the code/sheet? Do you have to create code/sheet to match your modified binary/mp3 and distribute that, too?)
Re:No correction needed (Score:4, Informative)
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:100% wrong, it's just as inethical if not more (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:4, Funny)
"All your talents are belong to us!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Please retaliate. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Please smarten up (Score:4, Insightful)
Prince should say screw you (Score:5, Insightful)
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. ]
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: (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:Prince should say screw you (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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: (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 tr
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.
Re:where to start? (Score:5, Funny)
(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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:where to start? (Score:4, Informative)
I really hope you don't work in the financial industy. The valuation of a company [wikipedia.org] is actually a fairly stnadardized concrete thing. It is based on the analysis of a rational outsider, not the "projections" of an insider.
As for people being upset and looking for scpegoats when they don't meet budgets or forecasts, well, that's been happening for hundreds of years. Brunswick, the bowling company, was in the 1950s valued very highly by some stock speculators because "bowling was exploding in popularity". Then things collapsed on them as the true, limited market for bowling equipment was saturated. Executives were fired, stock price tanked, etc. There really is nothing new or different about what's happening in some areas of business today.
Key line (Score:5, Insightful)
"Perception of value"... that just about says it all, doesn't it?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Key line (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Key line (Score:5, Funny)
Dude.
You are asking for a bunch of fat male geeks on
And in the same post you complain about "unfaithful significant others,"
Hmmm
I'm not sure what bothers me more, hypocrisies or that you have a disturbing attraction to fat male geeks. I'm just going to wander off to the pub to enjoy a pint.
Disturbing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Assuming he's a he, he didn't say he *currently* has an S.O. Your assumption of hypocrisy is, dare I say, a little presumptuous.
Yes. I did dare. And I feel better for it.
There's still that fat geek thing, though.
Re:Key line (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Key line (Score:5, Funny)
Desperation is a stinky cologne, Prince.
-The RIAA
Re: (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.
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.
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!
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
As it was in the beginning, (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Don't think so (Score:5, Funny)
"The executive with an attitude like this should know that his outlets will soon be The Buildings That Used To Be Record Stores"
Fixed that for ya.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps it's a good thing that the record shops are closing, seem that at least some of them are bad employers. See this BBC article from today about FOPP. [bbc.co.uk]
Having employees work for a month for free before totally screwing them? Aren't record stores great! It's time more artists started disrespecting them.
Buy music secondhand or direct from the artist -- never buy it any o
Nothing like admitting it (Score:5, Interesting)
Should make for utterly gripping testimony in the antitrust lawsuit under Sherman Act Part One.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might not like Prince? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You might not like Prince? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Q: Giving Away Free Music? (Score:3, Funny)
A: If the music sucks then I think the answer is quite clear.
if we wanted to really piss the RIAA off (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
RIAA at the Quicky Mart (Score:5, Funny)
An Insult? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 pe
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...
Fear and loathing in RIAA land (Score:3, Informative)
Legally I don't think Prince can do this if his records are licensed. His distributor may seek to sue. On the flip side, he can always re-do a re-mix like release of said songs and release those worry free. I do believe though that if he went the ASCAP way though, he is legally bound to his distributor...
With ASCAP and BMI control somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% crap, it all depends on copyrights at this point... Two copyrights associated with a song, one that covers the song itself another that covers a particular of the song. E.g. author of a song might hold the copyright on the words and music - person who performed the song might hold a copyright on the actual recording... To perform said song - the performer would need the permission of the holder of the copyright on the song itself. In order to distribute a recording of that song - distributor would need the permission of the holder of the copyright on that recording.
So it all depends on how Prince laid this out (copyrights). Judging by who he is, he likely is the copyright holder of both which means he pulls weight... However, he is to some degree imposing on the distributor's TERRORTORY so its likely they'd want to fight him and tie some money up knowing damn well they'd lose. In this case, if they took say a 10mill hit from his antics, tying him up in court cases in which the amount of legal fees amount to what they perceived to lose... They'll likely like that anyway. They're nothing more than rich, selfish crybaby bastards anyway
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
War of Words (Score:5, Funny)
Might The Artist Formerly Known as Prince then become, in response, The Artist Formerly Giving A Flying Fuck?
Its the same reason he changed his name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tm
Re:Its the same reason he changed his name... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Unlawful (Score:3, Insightful)
Should these guys really be calling attention to the illegal actions an illegal monopoly may be taking in the future?
Music is worthless (Score:4, Informative)
The day music started becoming easily traded online was the day music became monetarily worthless. The cat is out of the bag and will never go back in. Whether this is immoral is irrelevant because the morals have been rewritten for the 21st century. The music industry's only hope is to embrace this fact and make their money from "NOT music" - albums with nice art, books, t-shirts, concerts, and other services and widgets that are related to music and cannot be duplicated.
I highly respect artists like Prince who give their music away for free and allow people to purchase it after the fact. I also highly respect artists like Nine Inch Nails who release their songs and samples under a Creative Commons license to allow fans to remix their works. It's going to happen whether the industry likes it or not, so why not embrace it today and show the world you're a pioneer full of good will?
If anyone is interested I blogged on this topic [demodulated.com] last week. I spoke primarily about DJ Amber [iamthedj.com] from San Francisco who sells CDs for cheap but also gives the same music away for free in MP3 format. For $10 she sent me a beautiful CD, autographed, within a week of sending her the money via PayPal. I had the pleasure of dealing with the artist personally and all my money went directly to her.
The internet empowers everyone but those who fight it. RIP music industry.
Prince's response (Score:3, Funny)
Then its alllllll good.
Cha - Chiiinnnng!
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.
Let's play - respond to the corporate shill! (Score:5, Informative)
It's easy, and fun! Here we go:
It ain't SoundExchange that's deciding they should collect those royalties, it's the *government* deciding they should, and it's actually not a bad idea.
Of course it's not a bad idea - if you're the one collecting the checks. And just because the government says it should, that doesn't mean it represents what the people want. Let me introduce you to a concept called a Lobbying Group. [somafm.com] Just because you can lay down big bucks and effect a change in the legal system does NOT mean it's what the people want. It's what the industry wants, and they are radically different things.
They can simply sign some forms and demand their cheque.
It's as simple as that! No...actually it's more like this. [soundexchange.com] You must join to collect your money. Resistance...is useless.
It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play.It is, as it happens, *particularly* good for the small and independant artists, as radio stations would have a hell of a time tracking down and dealing with every random garage band they decided to play.
Provided of course that the band in question actually wanted to get paid. Some of us make music just because we like it, you know. It was art before it was a business. Some folks think of it still as art. Not everything amounts to a "cash flow opportunity".
Without compulsory licensing, I'd bet the vast bulk of college, independant, and web-based radio stations would shut down completely, thanks to the overhead of negotiating licensing deals.
And yet, these are the exact same groups compulsory licensing are shutting down. Wow, what a surprise! The people who promote indie music are the ones being nailed, all the while the shill says that these are the people he's trying to help.
Sure, pal. Sure.
the music industry problem in a nutshell (Score:4, Funny)
Music Industry: "What the fuck does what customers want have to do with anything?"
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.
George Michael also (Score:3, Interesting)
Pop star George Michael said the same thing [smh.com.au] to BBC radio in 2004, talking about his impending retirement from commercial music.
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.
Stop Me Before I Distribute Again (Score:3, Funny)
In 1989 my band made a vinyl record and pressed a 1000 copies. There are 920 or so copies still within our control. I've been giving some thought to setting up a MySpace page and providing free downloads of the band's works and writing and recording some new songs.
Mr. and Madam Record Company executive, this is your chance and time is running out. Sign me to a record deal now before I give away more of my music. Your industry needs you!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Formerly known as? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)#Na