Know the river has its destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above the water.

The internet has its destination and that destination is freedom of information.

Those who want to profit from it must go with the flow.

They must let go of the treaties, laws and contracts and jump right into the middle of it.

Let go of the shore, because you are losing out.

Let go of the easy come easy go attitude, because it's wild in the middle of the river.

Keep your head above the water and your eyes open, because the internet is constantly changing.

Like a river.

Below is a little history, for those who find it interesting...

- -

[Edited 11/19/10 19:00pm]

The first copyright laws were triggered by the invention of the printing press.

This invention caused a true revolution.

From then on, information could be reproduced not just by hand, but also by machine.

That is, as long as you owned a printing press.

So those who did soon achieved a powerful position.

And authors that wanted their writings printed and published had 'no choice' but to bend to their will.

It took many years, hunderds of them, to come to laws that had the best intersts of the authors at heart.

In many societies for a long time, the printers used to be the priviledged ones to copy.

Often they were given that priviledge by their kings.

Or there were laws granting them the exclusive right to copy.

It wasn't untill the American Revolution and subsequent Constitution, that this started to change.

Its consitution states in fairly lofty terms that:

Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

The US Constitution is a product of the Age of Reason, in which authors of all kinds played a very important role.

For hundreds of years they had been dominated by the printers, but the products of their minds had helped given birth to revolutions and they had achieved renewed standing in society.

It was only natural that they should be rewarded with the exclusive rights to their writings, for a limited period of time, and no longer the printers.

But economic power structures are tough

The printers held on to their position of power, because authors still needed them to print and publish

And they had no money, nor did they control the distribution channels, but the printers/publishers did

Contracts became more and more important, because with contracts you can acquire rights

And with rights you can make money

While with money you can obtain power

More and more people learned how to read and so books and other literature became more and more important in society

This attracted lawyers, bankers and big businessmen, who came in to exploit the new found copyrights as much as possible

A entire new business arose, copyright had not just made its entrance, it was there to stay

And so, by the end of the 19th century authors were back to were they started:

In submission to the printers

.

[Edited 11/19/10 20:00pm]

This process repeated itself over and over again in the next century

The 20th century, which gave birth to many information revolutions

The phonogram, the radio, TV, the cassette recorder, the video recorder, the compact disc player

And most of all: the computer

Moreover, it wasn't just printers and writers anymore producing works of literature, that were seeking copyright protection

The 20th century's information revolutions also gave other art and information forms such as music, newspapers, magazines, software, film and various other visual works a very strong impulse

Copyright laws grew and grew along, whenever any new reproduction and publishing technology was invented

This never went easy, nearly always the copyright owners would object strongly, even to the point of demanding a ban on the new technologies, such as VCR's and cassette tapes ("hometaping is killing music!!" is what the industry used to have as a slogan against that kind of "piracy")

However, in the end, the law always managed to adapt and the industries always learned how to profit from the new technologies, instead of losing out by fighting them

And so, from a basically simple law, that was mainly meant to protect writers against unauthorised reproduction by printers, Copyright law became a highly complicated kind of law that started to cover practically any and all kinds of information and all parts of society...

- -

[Edited 11/19/10 20:28pm]

All my posts on this site are copyright protected

I don't have to file for anything to have that protection

The law granted it to me, as soon as I've written them

All your posts on this site? Copyright protected.

This site itself: Copyright protected

The logo: Copyright protected

The design: Copyright protected

The pictures on it: Copyright protected

Every single, damn post on it: Copyright protected

That's what it has become

And we all know that that don't work on the internet

The internet is a network of billions of computers

These computers are superfast copy machines

Like our brains...

Together they make trillions of copies of all kinds of files a day

But many of those files are in some way copyright protected

They are not really free, nope, they are 'intellectual property'

So when, in the early nineties, computers and the internet were becoming more and more important

Lawmakers from all around the world came together to come up with new treaties aiming to integrate copyright law with the internet

And now every single one of us, whether we like it or not, whether we wanted to or not, have at least once violated somebody's copyright

Worse or better yet: many of us have violated countless of copyrights already.

Is one copyright worth more than the other?

Perhabs, but the fact remaisn that they are all copyrights and that none of them can be maintained on the internet.

The old information industries need to change, to adapt, to the new rules

This is hard. This has always been hard

But so far, they have always managed to in the end

And that's what keeps me optimistic about the future

The future will be about freedom of information, else we want to run that river dry

But it will also still support the creators ànd distributors of that information

Which by now, has become each and everyone us

Not just an exclusive group of authors and publishers or recording artists and record companies anymore

But a world in which we all create and in which we all share, while that river of information runs free

I believe that soon, not too many years from now, the music industry's old business models will be thrown out

Because all they have really left to make money off is a bunch of talentless whores with 360 contracts

When given the choice between supporting a true artist and a fake one, most people will support the true artist

Like when you cross the musician in the subway on your way home from work

He touches you with his music, his voice, his energy

What do you do? You either decide to walk on, or you throw him a dollar or two and let him now that he is appreciated

When you are good, when you have real talent, you will have lots of fans

And when you have guts and a bit of luck you will be able to make money, on your own, while you also get to keep your freedom and artistic integrity

But when you are not, you will just whore yourself like all the others, on a sinking ship of money grabbing, ego tripping fools

That's what the future will be like

It will be tough, but also good

.

[Edited 11/19/10 19:50pm]

robinhood said:

ultimately we can place blame on whomever we like, although i agree with prince about lawyers and accountants.

the contracts artists sign are as much the problem as anything else, and those types of contracts are drafted by lawyers and they attract the kind of no-talent ego pop divas that have watered down the content of the industry.

its a human problem, this lack of self-respect and ethics. its not just in the music industry either, but it is more prevalent in the music industry because of how drenched it is in all the temptations that lead a person to sell their soul.

its a big money-makng industry that promises people fame and money, and when you live in a love-starved world, people run to whatever avenue they can to get the 'love' they really need, only to come up short at the end of it, cuz none of it is real anyway.

lawyers, accountants, pop stars, artists, ceo's etc etc ... they all in there for the same things: money and fame, the feeling of success and all that entails.

this is what happens when people look outside themselves for happiness, when people have been conditioned to believe the same old bullshit about money and fame.

the love of money promotes USURY, and usury is the root cause of so much financial dilemma on this planet its ludicrous.

plus i dont think a lot of artists are aware that they are directly contributing to the military budget when they sign a record deal. a lot of the profits of the industry get syphoned off to much bigger guys than the ceo's.

think mafia and arms dealers, satans little cult of unconscionable individuals who salivate over every power-tripping dollar they make. the music industry is one of their ports of call when they collect money for their dirty little deeds.

blood-lust, young flesh, glits and glam, everything superficial about the world you can find in the music industry, prostituting young women, dressing them up like whores, young boys trying to be manly doing their whole pimp routine, its really very sad.

music is meant to enlighten us, not take us down into hell, and that is what the money-lovers in the industry have done. the lawyers and accountants play a very direct role in that.

Wow. I just read your thread and you have mentioned that you were a lawyer in the industry, which makes me even more impressed with your candidness about your profession within the industry. I was a paralegal, not in the music industry, but I have observed practices which skated on the side of illegal. I am glad that one legal person who operated within the industry still thinks the way you do about the music profession, what artists are entitled to, what they should do now as opposed to back when, and what music is meant to be. Very refreshing. Thanks for your post.

purplethunder3121 said:

robinhood said:

music is meant to enlighten us, not take us down into hell, and that is what the money-lovers in the industry have done. the lawyers and accountants play a very direct role in that.

Wow. I just read your thread and you have mentioned that you were a lawyer in the industry, which makes me even more impressed with your candidness about your profession within the industry. I was a paralegal, not in the music industry, but I have observed practices which skated on the side of illegal. I am glad that one legal person who operated within the industry still thinks the way you do about the music profession, what artists are entitled to, what they should do now as opposed to back when, and what music is meant to be. Very refreshing. Thanks for your post.

ur welcome, but i think you may have me confused with tremolina who started this thread. he is the lawyer, not i, but i agree this is a great thread and i'm enjoying it.

tremolina: thank you for all the info about copyright, very interesting. cant help but mention the unmentionable, and that is, technically, no one owns anything.

all we need to do is look at the size of the universe to realize that our silly notions of ownership are just that, silly, and purely ego based.

peope like to think they own all sorts of things, like land, houses, islands, material goods, and this weird concept of 'copyright', well from what you've said, its based on the premise of 'rights', but according to whom? man.

since man is not sole ruler of the universe, we could easily assume that man's laws hold no real authority over anything much.

we deivse them to keep our little patch of land protected, or our little patch of art, but we of ourselves are only partly responsible for the creation of art, and intellectual property.

scientists are yet to directly observe a thought, they have no evidence that thoughts even exist, they've observed symptoms, like what the brain is doing when we are supposedly having a thought,

but they dont know what a thought is and have never seen one.

given that we are sentient creatures, beings who think, and given that we do not know where our thoughts come from, seeing as we have never directly observed one or seen the birth of a thought to know its origin,

all laws regarding copyrights and intellectual property and protected art, are ultimately, based on an egoic presumption.

that presumption is, we own it, we have the rights, we created it. um no, we have played a role, but we've assumed the position of supreme creator,

without even knowing where our thoughts come from, where our consciousness comes from, or even where our imagination comes from.

some will say 'oh but science has shown us what the brain is doing and what our glands are doing and blah blah and thats proof that we and we alone are very directly the supreme creator of our works,

but thats not a feasible argument in light of the fact that thought has not ever been directly observed.

until someone can prove the origin of their thought, they have no scientific standing to presume 100% ownership of anything lol

that for me is the real reality of this situation, and some might say its a matter of opinion, and thats ok with me.

the internet may indeed be proving what i've just said, to everyone, and those who cant accept it either try to keep going on their money joy-ride, or ditch the net altogether.

btw, this is not to suggest that anyone should be financially exploited by someone else, but i think the real reason why any of that is even an option is because of our little egoic ideas about who and what we are and the position we hold as human beings.

maybe we're not so grand as we think, or maybe we're much more than that and havent realized it yet.

^ thank you robin (and purplethunder, I guess lol)

But without you this thread probably wouldn't have survived long and turn out like this.

Tremolina said:

^ thank you robin (and purplethunder, I guess lol)

But without you this thread probably wouldn't have survived long and turn out like this.

ur welcome, i could talk about this all day lol, thanks again for a great topic.

bet he wishes he was a little more lawyered up when he went in to that last contract negotiation, instead of firing them all, considering he's done little else but piss and moan for almost 20 years about what he signed.

and who hasn't put more lawyers to work sending cease & desist letters to fans, fanzines, former associates, youtube, etc., than him?

that's our Prince. hypocritical at every possible turn.

errant said:

bet he wishes he was a little more lawyered up when he went in to that last contract negotiation, instead of firing them all

I am not familiar with the terms of his deals, so please don't take my word for it, but it seems to me that it didn't really matter how 'lawyered up' he was already. I think he was a victim of his addiction to the major advances and that he got outplayed by the dirty old trick of a joint venture record deal, thinking he 'owned' his records, but not really.

-

[Edited 11/21/10 8:49am]

robinhood said:

Tremolina said:

^ thank you robin (and purplethunder, I guess lol)

But without you this thread probably wouldn't have survived long and turn out like this.

ur welcome, i could talk about this all day lol, thanks again for a great topic.

Well, then I guess you've found yourself somebody who is exactly the same lol

Tremolina said:

robinhood said:

ur welcome, i could talk about this all day lol, thanks again for a great topic.

Well, then I guess you've found yourself somebody who is exactly the same lol

maybe you could revolutionize the 'industry' by pushing to make it illegal for a record company to ask for, or receive, OVER a certain percentage of money from publishing, across the board.

i think contracts should be policed, with a certain set of adjusted criteria in place to make sure the company does not have an unfair advantage.

also i dont think its right that the company own the masters, but the only point they have in their defence is if they own the equipment they're recorded on and/or they front the studio fees.

back in the old days, they owned the tape cuz they paid for it. but even when the artist paid back their advance, the company still held on to the tapes,

even though they had technically been bought back by the artist when they recouped recording costs.

i think the artist should be entitled to their masters, and the rights to masters - as soon as all recording costs have been recouped, not some 30 years or whatever later.

"time"-based agreements are ludicrous. i have no idea why anyone would ever take them seriously when they say 'we want the rights for 30 years'. please. go away mister executive lol.

but if the artist wants to own their masters from the get go, then they should record their music on their own equipment, or pay for it themselves.

back to the money from publishing thing: i dont think its right for a company to take huge chunks of publishing via their publishing arm.

if they dont get the artist radio play or other play, they should not be entitled to anything (well they wouldnt get anything anyway)

and if they DO get the artist radio play etc, then they could ask for a small percentage of publishing.

if they sell a lot of units, then they are entitled to make money from sales, and with mechanicals, the artists slice of the pie is not too great, so i think that should be rectified as well,

but i think its fair for the company to make most of their money from sales.

basically, if a record company cant afford to survive on a smaller percentage of publishing and mechanicals, and give the masters and rights back when costs have been recouped,

then they should not be in the recording industry, imo.

maybe they better off serving fried chicken at the local take-out to feed their family.

and if an artist cant record their work on their own equipment then they shouldnt complain about the master 'tapes' being owned by someone else, nor the 'rights' to said 'tapes',

until they have recouped costs, at which time they should be entitled to own both the tapes and the rights.

thats just my take on it, and i realize its a bit simplistic, but thats just the way i see it.

on the other hand the 'industry' is 'dead' anyway so it probably doesnt matter, but it would be nice to see them get things right and fair for a change, with equal rights to ALL artists across the board,

and a thorough overhaul of contracts to ensure that the agreement is right and fair from the beginning, whether the company wants the artist 'badly' or not.

*

[Edited 11/21/10 17:26pm]

A lot of this stuff is irrelevant given the music industry's digi-sales chart is posting its third quarterly net loss in a row. Video killed the radio star and it doesn't matter how cheap the music is, where the money is going and to whom.

Spinlight said:

A lot of this stuff is irrelevant given the music industry's digi-sales chart is posting its third quarterly net loss in a row. Video killed the radio star and it doesn't matter how cheap the music is, where the money is going and to whom.

Yeah, and if you want to follow up on that musical quote, the internet has killed the video star...

robinhood said:

thats just my take on it, and i realize its a bit simplistic, but thats just the way i see it.

on the other hand the 'industry' is 'dead' anyway so it probably doesnt matter, but it would be nice to see them get things right and fair for a change, with equal rights to ALL artists across the board,

and a thorough overhaul of contracts to ensure that the agreement is right and fair from the beginning, whether the company wants the artist 'badly' or not.

Oh it matters, because the industry is not dead. It will simply cease to be what it used to be and ultimately adapt. Question is HOW it will do that, in which contract issues are essential.

It's interesting you focus a lot on who pays for the recording costs, but that's also a bit of a limited view on what a record company does. In essence tho you have a good point.

The company has a major interest in owning the rights to the masters in order to recoup their costs and make a profit on their investment, so they should be entitled to some form of ownership to the tapes. In European laws - unlike in the US - this is arranged for by granting joint ownership; exclusive rights not just for the recording artists on the sound recording, but also for the producer of the sound recording, the one who is paying and arranging for it, which is usually the record company. UNLESS of course the artists produce their recordings themselves. Then they are entitled to FULL ownership of the tapes.

In reality tho' many recording artists do not pay for the recording costs themselves and record companies usually pay for a lot more than just the recording costs. They pay for mass production of a new CD, (worldwide) distribution and promotion expenses too. A major label usually also pays for the living expenses of their artists and bands with ridiculously expensive lifestyles, costs for concerts, merchandising etc. Basically they pay for everything. And so when they lose, they always lose big.

However, because it's all paid for with fully recoupable advances, they make it really big when a CD sells big, which is why this will never change. Money talks. That is the system's trick and artists fall for it every time. And if they don't watch out, it could be a loan too. When they are just starting out, many don't even expect an advance or just a little bit. They are just happy to get a chance, afraid to lose out by saying no and maybe hope they will get 20% of the royalties instead of 10 or 15. Not that that really matters then, because with such royalty rates 90% never recoups the costs that were made, anyway.

Work for hire clauses and transfers of any and all rights for the entire universe and all eternity, do matter a lot however, yet are standard terms; most artists don't expect anything else and don't even dare to ask for a different deal. But when your record sells and you put your entire heart and soul in it, you wish you hadn't agreed to those terms....

Often however, the record company owning everything isn't even that bad, because can you imagine the average no talented, one day fly pop star being willing, let alone able, to do business when needed, while they are high on drugs and/or banging some groupies? The singer/songwriter says no to the proposed deal, while the guitar player/co-songwriter wants to say yes and make some money quick. What do you do as record company? Let them fight it out, while you keep losing out? Now that would be bad business.

It's only really in cases where it's about one artist or one strong band producing him/itself, who are really serious about their art, such as Prince or U2 for example, where it's the morally right thing to do and business-wise not a terrible mistake for a record company to make, to let them own their records. But much of the rest of especially todays artists? I don't really blame many companies that often for trying to own it all.

Publishing is a different matter tho', because that's not the record company's business. Major labels however will always force you to do your publishing with their publishing company, so they can make money there too. This is cool, as long as they really invest in promoting you and administer your rights worldwide, but when they do not, it's a rip off. When an artist or group is popular there is a lot of money to be made with publishing. Companies know this, so publishing deals are very tricky and should in essence be about administration and/or promotion only.

Should there be statutory minimum standards to contracts? Yes, but there are already and authors in the US really should be happy with the 35 year clause, because it's unique in the world. Should there be standard contracts for beginning artists, providing a 'level playing field'? In principle yes, but the question is how far you go with that and how hard are musicians willing to fight for it? It's hard, if not impossible, to come to decent standard deals in the music business, because record companies won't have it and while they do complain a lot, musicians never really fight for their rights, never really have and in my opinion, never really will either.

The few times that they did, were a long time ago already and were about music composers, not recording artists, who organized themselves and came up with collective rights organizations such as Ascap (for public performance royalties) and the Harry Fox agency (for mechanical licenses). In the US recording artists still don't have such an organization, because they still don't have a public performance royalty right by law. In Europe this is different, but there the record companies have made sure they control those organizations and recording artists also usually transfer those rights to the record company in return for nothing, so they usually don't make anything of those rights either.

What can you do, blame it on the lawyers and accountants?

- -

[Edited 11/22/10 15:06pm]

Tremolina said:

Should there be statutory minimum standards to contracts? Yes. Should there be standard contracts for beginning artists, providing a 'level playing field'? In principle yes, but the question is how far you go with that and how hard are musicians willing to fight for it? It's hard if not impossible to come to decent standard deals because record companies won't have it and while they do complain a lot, musicians never really fight for their rights, never really have and in my opinion, never really will either.

then i guess its just part of 'the system' to be weak and powerless while the devil laps it up. i hear you loud n clear. but i still think the fault lies with the companies.

THEY are the ones who decided to sign no-talents for quick-fix saccharine pop hits.

they opened the door for that kind of so-called 'art'. so everyone who could pull off a song with auto-tune and tits and ass and some junk in their trunk and some 'yo dawg i'm so pretty look at me baby i'm a STAR" - came running.

i also think that if the major labels put the focus back on the quality over quantity of artists on their rosters, and quality of art, they'd have less to spend over-all.

would it be fair to say that a lot of their money gets wasted on the no-talent fame-whores they attract, leaving them with tighter money-belts when it comes to more serious artists, and therefore less generous deals?

on another point, i still think that once the recording costs are recouped, the artist/s should own the masters and the rights.

the 30-year thing is a disgrace and any company talking that way should be immediately and swiftly laughed off the face of the earth with a huge kick up the rectum on their way out.

The few times that they did, it were music composers, not recording artists, who organized themselves and came up with collective rights organizations such as Ascap (for public performance royalties) and the Harry Fox agency (for mechanical licenses). In the US recording artists still don't have such an organization, because they still don't have a public performances right by law. In Europe this is different, but there the record companies made sure they control those organizations and recording artists also usually transfer those rights to the record company in return for nothing, so they usually don't make anything of those rights either.

What can you do, blame it on the lawyer and accountants?

well like we already discussed, they play a very direct role in these seedy one-sided contracts, so yeah they should take responsibility for being complicit with every violation of basic integrity they condone and support.

you have to look at this from a distance and see that one person is offering something and the other person takes it.

the person agreeing to the deal is uneducated, whereas the person doing the offering is not.

the artist is blind-sided from the beginning, whereas the company does its dirty work with full conscious knowledge of its actions.

would you blame the child if he/she agreed to sex acts with a pedophile, simply because the child wanted the attention? or would you blame the pedophile for taking advantage of the childs naive innocence?

i cant blame a person for making uneducated decisions, but i can easily blame the educated devil who tempts the naive into his lair.

i'm glad prince made a point of all this back in the day, i support him fully whether he became hypocritical or not, because his point is valid, and true.

it is absolutely no surprise to me that the 'music INDUSTRY' churns out more fodder than gems these days.

$ + VIRGIN BLOOD SACRIFICE = ONE HAPPY DEVIL

robinhood said:

then i guess its just part of 'the system' to be weak and powerless while the devil laps it up. i hear you loud n clear. but i still think the fault lies with the companies.

THEY are the ones who decided to sign no-talents for quick-fix saccharine pop hits.

they opened the door for that kind of so-called 'art'. so everyone who could pull off a song with auto-tune and tits and ass and some junk in their trunk and some 'yo dawg i'm so pretty look at me baby i'm a STAR" - came running.

And who were the artists who first started promoted this shit and this shit kind of 'artists'? Can I name eh... Prince and his nasty girl groups? Madonna and her whore trade mark?

Who was the one to boost in the early 90's already, about a deal with a potential worth of 100 million in advances? Who were the artists who paved the way for todays' talent/no talent?

It's not just the big wigs at the big record companies, but also the big shot artists on those labels who made the music industry the way it is.

i also think that if the major labels put the focus back on the quality over quantity of artists on their rosters, and quality of art, they'd have less to spend over-all.

would it be fair to say that a lot of their money gets wasted on the no-talent fame-whores they attract, leaving them with tighter money-belts when it comes to more serious artists, and therefore less generous deals?

Yes I think so, but it would also be fair to say that once these no-talent-fame-whores sell BIG, which unfortunately some of them still do, the company is laughing all the way to the bank, especially when they are on a paid off 360 contract with no rights to any royalties whatsoever.

on another point, i still think that once the recording costs are recouped, the artist/s should own the masters and the rights.

the 30-year thing is a disgrace and any company talking that way should be immediately and swiftly laughed off the face of the earth with a huge kick up the rectum on their way out.

lol.. I admire your passion about ownership robin. It's important, much more important than royalty rates. But demanding the artist owns it all once the company has recouped is also not feasible. I agree that 35 years is a very long time to get your rights back, but it's much better than nothing, as in other countries, where once you sell your rights, you really actually sell them.

You can't forget that the company usually pays for a lot more costs and that a profit based corporation has to make a profit, not just recoup their investment. Moreover, owning all the copyrights, or an exclusive license to them, is important in order to smoothly do business and not be sabotaged by idiotic 'artistic' decisions. Every company, in whatever industry therefore always seeks full ownership or a license covering as many rights as possible, which makes it pretty much impossible to make what you claim a standard deal.

What you are suggesting, also means that artists would obtain full control once the record company has recouped its costs. That means that at that point, they could prohibit the company from doing its job, less they pay up the artists even more. Record companies won't have that and can you really blame them?

What is obtainable is an exclusive license deal that is limited in time, place and distribution channels. How limited is up for negotiation. You will have to be ready to pay for 100% of your own recording costs tho' and be happy with only little royalties, but this is always a good idea for the artist that is serious about his work, because you keep control over your work and you can renegotiate deals easily, as well as distribute your work through other channels yourself, or with other companies too.

It's also basically what Prince is doing these days: he produces a new CD and then grants an exclusive license for 5 years or so to a major label, which only covers the regular production, distribution and sale in only a limited number of countries. Or he grants a license to a newspaper to distribute a CD only once and only in a particular country. He grosses a million or so and remains free to sell the music elsewhere and by other means. Best thing: after a certain period of time the work is completely license free again.

well like we already discussed, they play a very direct role in these seedy one-sided contracts, so yeah they should take responsibility for being complicit with every violation of basic integrity they condone and support.

you have to look at this from a distance and see that one person is offering something and the other person takes it.

the person agreeing to the deal is uneducated, whereas the person doing the offering is not.

the artist is blind-sided from the beginning, whereas the company does its dirty work with full conscious knowledge of its actions.

would you blame the child if he/she agreed to sex acts with a pedophile, simply because the child wanted the attention? or would you blame the pedophile for taking advantage of the childs naive innocence?

i cant blame a person for making uneducated decisions, but i can easily blame the educated devil who tempts the naive into his lair.

If only this were true... Then everything would be so much more simple.

But it isn't. See, I always explained my musician clients everything. I would walk with them through the contract into full detail, so they would know exactly what they were offered. I always did that in a personal meeting, that I didn't care how long would take, so there would be direct communication and they could ask me whatever. They knew precisely what al the consequences could be and several times, I practically begged them not to sign. They were not ignorant, nor innocent. Oh no, on the contrary. They knew full well what they were signing, knew full well their lawyer told them not to and knew full well they would later regret it, but they STILL signed it.

You know robin, I have always had a passion for law and especially copyright law and I have been educated by some of the best professors and lawyers in copyright law, but the music business, with ALL its actors, really is a disgrace to the heart and soul of this law as well to their own integrity.

I have been working as a lawyer for 12 years already and by now have dealt with thousands of clients. I have worked for the 'other side' too, but mainly for those with little money and power. I started with children cases, then musicians and composers, writers, directors, actors, editors, journalists, designers, architects, painters, sculptors, software engineers etc. Out of all these people, none of them were so scared, apathetic and money and fame orientated as musicians. I tried everything with them, but what my mentor used to tell me was true: you should be glad if they even listen to one of your advices and you should celebrate when a record company even accepts once of your changes... Cynical, but the only way for him to keep on doing what he had been doing for so long...

It wasn't my cup of tea robin. If there is bullshit or injustice going on, I want to take action, that's who I am, that's what I am made of. But musicians don't want you to. So I moved on and did cases for 'the other side' for a while too. Also for companies like microsoft and nike, but there is even less fun to be had there. It's simply depressing when you have to put all your energy into things like litigating a load of schools into bankruptcy over the price of a bunch of software licenses or when all the famous person wants you to litigate for, is not the provoked invasion of their privacy, but the amount of damages they feel they are entitled to in order to pay for their sickening lifestyles.

Happy much? Uhm, no not really, so after moving on to another adventure in another snake pit named the TV business, where I dealt with people who went all the way to the top of the government and the media, I figured out that there is not much you can do as a lawyer in the arts, news and entertainment business, but to either work along with their bullshit or go and do something else. Which I did. My clients now come from a very broad range of people who work in the public sector, for the local, provincial or federal government, for energy companies, water, telecom, mail, hospitals, nurse care taking homes, youth care, care for the disabled, the elderly, the social weak, children day care etc. and also for people who are unemployed, retired or disabled.

I basically fight the power of the government and other major companies now on behalf of normal people like you and me, but this job I love very, very much, because in this job I can actually DO something. 99% of my clients actually listens to me, instead of 99% saying they do, but in the meantime... And 99% are also willing to battle when it comes down to it, when its needed to protect their rights and integrity, unlike the 99% of the musicians I worked for...

i'm glad prince made a point of all this back in the day, i support him fully whether he became hypocritical or not, because his point is valid, and true.

Yes Prince's point is valid and I support him in expressing it too. Always have and always will.

But in my opinion he is also partly to blame for the state of today's music industry.

- -

[Edited 11/22/10 18:50pm]

And who were the artists who first started promoted this shit and this shit kind of 'artists'? Can I name eh... Prince and his nasty girl groups? Madonna and her whore trade mark?

you have a point there - prince's proteges fit the whore bill perfectly - almost none of them could sing - but they could open their legs and show their tits pretty good.

and as much as madonna liberated women's sexuality - yes - she whored it up big time and still does - a mother no less - still pimping herself out to absolute tacky extremes all these years later...

but why? addiction to money and attention and ongoing fame - offered to the artists - by a recording company - over and over again - "hey you know that last advance we gave you? well this one's even bigger" - and when these artists came into their own and started producing off their own labels - they just took the same record company ethos with them.

trem i'm looking at where all this shite actually started - what was the impetus - what was the inspiration for ANY artist to degrade themselves and their art and the industry - and i think we already covered it - MONEY AND FAME - on this we agree - but my point is its the record companies who idle on in with big shiny white teeth promising these things in the first place...

and managers. "I WILL MAKE YOU A STAR. YOU WILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY. EVERYONE WILL LOVE YOU"

lol.. I admire your passion about ownership robin. It's important, much more important than royalty rates. But claiming the artist should own it all once the company has recouped is also not feasible. I agree that 35 years is a very long time to get your rights back, but it's much better than nothing, as in other countries, where once you sell your rights, you really actually sell them.

why is it not feasible? and not feasible for whom? the suits? they already got their one-sided deal. how much more do they want? of course its feasible. once you've recouped your recording costs - you own the masters - and once you've paid back their advance - you technically own the rights as well.

its like if someone loaned me money to go buy something - so i do - but until i pay them back - i dont own it. i have to pay them back to own it. and if they loaned me even more money as a publishing advance - then once i pay them back - i own the rights.

its simple. but these guys will twist everything to suit their bank balance - which is already tipped in their favor from the beginning. they take pure logic and lace it with devilish slippery snakey lizard thinking.

its passe and boring and they are totally seen by anyone with even half a brain cell in their head.

What you are suggesting, also means that in artists would obtain full control once the record company has recouped its costs. That means that at that point they could prohibit the company from doing its job, less they pay up the artists even more. Record companies won't have that and can you really blame them?

of course i can blame them lol. if they want to make profit past what is recouped, then they better get real nice toward their artists and come to an agreement of percentage.

see, this is the way it should be from the start, where the artist has control once costs are recouped. i think thats fair enough dont you? the record company has made its money back and THEN they can come to an agreement re profits.

the artists is taking a risk by signing to a company - but the company will tell you its the other way around because they are the ones fronting the money. rubbish. its a loan, an investment, and if they dont believe their artist can make them their money back plus profits then they shouldnt sign them in the first place.

since when is it logical to invest in something where such a huge risk is involved? is that funny? do i sound naive? no i'm just tenacious and on point lol

if record companies want to make that investment, thats on them. if they lose out, then maybe they should choose better artists and do their job properly by giving each artist the attention they deserve, not let them sit on a shelf with umpteen others, mostly tartlets, while their talents rot in the corner, then complain the artist isnt happening for them anymore.

these guys are incompetent trem, and they veil their incompetence with big talk and slippery promises, all one-sided, in the hope the artists wont question their incompetence, lack of business ethics and total lack of morality.

What is obtainable is an exclusive license deal that is limited in time, place and distribution channels. How limited is up for negotiation. You will have to be ready to pay for 100% of your own recording costs tho' and be happy with only little royalties, but this is always a good idea for the artist that is serious about his work, because you keep control over your work and you can renegotiate deals easily, as well as distribute your work through other channels yourself, or with other companies too.

It's also basically what Prince is doing these days: he grants an exclusive license for 5 years or so to a major label, which only covers the sale, production and distribution of one new CD, in only a limited number of countries. Or he grants a license to a newspaper to distribute a CD only once and only in a particular country. He grosses a million or so and remains free to sell the music elsewhere and by other means. Best thing: after a certain period of time the work is completely license free again.

yes i agree license deals are great, but the point is, this is the way it should be, not some stupid one-sided con (tract) that 'most' artists are handed by these shady lizards. those types of contracts should be made extinct.

If only this were true... Then everything would be so much more simple.

But it isn't. See, I always explained my musician clients everything. I would walk with them through the contract into full detail, so they would know exactly what they were offered. I always did that in a personal meeting, that I didn't care how long would take, so there would be direct communication and they could ask me whatever. They knew precisely what al the consequences could be and several times, I practically begged them not to sign. They were not ignorant, nor innocent. Oh no, on the contrary. They knew full well what they were signing, knew full well their lawyer told them not to and knew full well they would later regret it, but they STILL signed it.

yes, because they have been LURED INTO THE PROMISE. by whom?

Yes Prince's point is valid and I support him in expressing it too. Always have and always will.

But in my opinion he is also partly to blame for the state of today's music industry.

i dont disagree that he has been infected by what i call "the industry lizard". you can hear it in his interviews, always rambling on about money, is he aware he sounds like the guys he wanted to be free of? lol

and i agree there are many other areas in which prince let the industry get the better of him and he became the very thing he fought.

but i think over-all this whole scenario is more directly accurately assessed by the things we discussed earlier:

LOVE OF MONEY - LOVE OF FAME - because people are conditioned by the SYSTEM to believe in these things and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get them.

maybe humanity is just desperate. and then they turn around and say we shouldnt believe in a higher power or live lives of integrity and should be able to just do what we want all the time.

sometimes i wonder if the problem is really inside each person, whether they be lawyer, accountant, record exec, or artist.

they all seem to have their own trip going on and look where its got them? nowhere. maybe it got them some money, but it never bought them happiness and fulfillment.

i look forward to the day when we all have our priorities in order, and imo, money and fame should be on the bottom of the list.

i think the music industry has successfully proven that. anyway i'm glad you are enjoying your current job more than the old one lol

robinhood said:

trem i'm looking at where all this shite actually started - what was the impetus - what was the inspiration for ANY artist to degrade themselves and their art and the industry - and i think we already covered it - MONEY AND FAME - on this we agree - but my point is its the record companies who idle on in with big shiny white teeth promising these things in the first place...

Then it's clear no? Lust for money and fame is at the core of the problem. Record companies offer it like nobody else and recording artists crave it like nobody else. So it's them both, artists and record companies, and all the people leaching off them, like managers, ceo's, lawyers and accountants, who are at fault.

The internet will put an end to this.

why is it not feasible? and not feasible for whom? the suits? they already got their one-sided deal. how much more do they want? of course its feasible. once you've recouped your recording costs - you own the masters - and once you've paid back their advance - you technically own the rights as well.

They want profit. Lots of it.

And it's not just about recording costs. Record companies usually pay for everything in advance: not just studio costs. Also costs for videos and other promotional activities like radio plugging, costs for touring and not to forget costs for mass production and distribution. Hell, often they even pay for all the costs of a band living the life of the rich and famous for a year or so.

That's the system. That's what most record companies offer their whores and that's what most recording artists want. They want it easy come easy go. They want to be famous and live like kings, make music, use a lot of drugs and fuck a lot of people. The record companies and music publishers know this, take advantage of it and are just promising they will make all that possible, but hardly ever live up to it. They are leaches and the artists know it, but they STILL sign it.

Money whores and fame junkies.

see, this is the way it should be from the start, where the artist has control once costs are recouped. i think thats fair enough dont you? the record company has made its money back and THEN they can come to an agreement re profits.

That's only fair when when the company only fronts the recording costs, but like I said they usually pay for a lot more (production, distribution, promotion, touring and living expenses)

Also, really: can you imagine a band like Oasis for example, that's usually stoned out of their heads and in constant disagreement with eachother, making sound business decisions about their recordings? They would have to if they would be the owners...

Moreover, record companies really need to make a profit from the few artists that they do sell big. They need to, because if they don't, they don't survive. That's the consequence of their idiotic business model of ponying up ridiculous advances for their artists, but losing out on 95% of them.

The point is that as long as they hold on to that system and recording artists go along with it, which they will because they will not fight for their rights as long as they are paid and worshipped: nothing changes.

But the internet will force them to change it...

yes i agree license deals are great, but the point is, this is the way it should be, not some stupid one-sided con (tract) that 'most' artists are handed by these shady lizards. those types of contracts should be made extinct.

No it should not be like this, because there are many sort of recording artists and instances where it would not be a good idea to give them any say whatsoever. Imagine britney spears or one of her spin offs deciding what, where and how her new record should be sold. Or a boy group like take that etc. Suppose a group of rappers wouldn't agree with eachother, or a jazz band that is constantly changing its members and doesn't even know what agreements everybody has. It would be impossible to hold track on all the owners and it would be very hard to come to agreements on the sale and distribution of the music. Who would be the victim in the end? The consumer, the one loving the music and wanting to buy it, but failing to because the music is not available...

They were not ignorant, nor innocent. Oh no, on the contrary. They knew full well what they were signing, knew full well their lawyer told them not to and knew full well they would later regret it, but they STILL signed it.

yes, because they have been LURED INTO THE PROMISE. by whom?

They were lured into it, but they were full aware of being lured into it, so they are not innocent.

sometimes i wonder if the problem is really inside each person, whether they be lawyer, accountant, record exec, or artist.

they all seem to have their own trip going on and look where its got them? nowhere. maybe it got them some money, but it never bought them happiness and fulfillment.

i look forward to the day when we all have our priorities in order, and imo, money and fame should be on the bottom of the list.

i think the music industry has successfully proven that. anyway i'm glad you are enjoying your current job more than the old one lol

All I can say is that money is not on the top of my list of priorities, never has been, never will. Which is probably why working in the media isn't my thing, regardless of my passion for copyright law. I only need enough money to lead a pleasant life, which is not so much and the gratitude and appreciation I get from the countless of clients I have helped so far and the kick I get from winning cases and bringing major powers to their knees, is far more exciting and worth way more to me than any amount of money could ever offer me.

Prince is always bitching and moaning. So fucking tiresome.

Tremolina said:

They were lured into it, but they were full aware of being lured into it, so they are not innocent.

i think of it like a drug addiction. one hit of smack and ur done for. the nature of the lure is what makes it almost impossible for them to say no, even when they know they should.

thanks for your other comments also. in my simple mind, if they stopped spending so much, cut down their rosters, and focussed on artistry instead of profit first and foremost, there wouldnt be a britney spears.

leonardo davinci once said that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. i think the internet proved that a long time ago already and these guys are just pissed they dont have the class it takes to make it work for them.

i'm glad they dont matter anymore.

Well, it can go back to the old days when the mafia ran the record business, and most of the entertainment industry (at least in the USA).

I read an interesting article in the newspaper today about the way young people listen to music these days. Young people don't just let dj's or vj's decide for them anymore what music is cool and what's not. The internet offers such a broad range of music to choose from, that traditional media supported musical 'sub cultures' cease to exist. Young people choose themselves now. One trend follower says this is a positive trend: "It produces a creative generation of confident, free and independent individuals. Record companies, marketeers and advertisers appear to be losing their grip on this group of consumers. They will have to educate themselves fast in the development of young people's taste in music and their online contacts with the new media".

Tremolina said:

I read an interesting article in the newspaper today about the way young people listen to music these days. Young people don't just let dj's or vj's decide for them anymore what music is cool and what's not. The internet offers such a broad range of music to choose from, that traditional media supported musical 'sub cultures' cease to exist. Young people choose themselves now. One trend follower says this is a positive trend: "It produces a creative generation of confident, free and independent individuals. Record companies, marketeers and advertisers appear to be losing their grip on this group of consumers. They will have to educate themselves fast in the development of young people's taste in music and their online contacts with the new media".

People are looking for the "next big thing", but as soon as it makes money, the industry is looking to milk it for what it's worth.

But go back to '99, and come up with a list of who's still around, and whether it's because the industry is keeping them in the game, or because they are able to come up with something themselves, because they really are talented.

Record labels make their money off the past. Polygram was one of the first record companies to quit signing new artists sometime in the mid 90s, and focused more on back catalog.

But sometime in the mid 90s, artists started trying to get on soundtracks. An up and coming artist could make more with one song in a successful movie than they might have been able to do with 5 CDs that broke even.

Or the whole history of DJ culture as performing... starting off as replacing live bands in discos, to becoming artists in their own right, developing followings, becoming celebrities, and even being incorporated into rock bands as an instrument.

Music is experienced a whole other way in 2010. Record companies took 7 YEARS to adapt to legal downloads. Back catalog business in the 90s is what made the sales figures high. Once people got the music they wanted, as far as I'm concerned, the timing of Napster was just coincidence. It would've levelled off and gone down over this past decade. The record companies were too busy throwing money towards BS protective measures that only frustrated customers. And they pulled CD singles out of stores in the US, so the customer HAD to buy full length CDs of pop artists.This was right when the Now CDs just started coming out in the US, even though the UK had been rolling them out for a while.

Those CDs seem to come out every couple of months, they're up to 36 in 12 years time. And they usually make it in the top 5 on Billboard, if not #1. They're slightly behind what's popular at the moment, but to me it's a good summary, and also a good way for new artists that they tack on there.

And let's not forget the recording industry had to pay millions out for price fixing, and the way they "paid" was giving a bunch of libraries their inventory that they estimated to be worth x amount of dollars.

Very few artists have good business sense, and even though big record companies have a rep for being "evil", some of us know that the "indie" companies have had their share of a shady history, if not a flat out front for a mob organization. Tommy James had written about working for Morris Levy. If you want to read about what it's like to be an artist working for a connected guy, it's a must read.

Record companies and music stores are barely hanging on. Chain music stores are pretty much gone, the ones that stayed open were because they started stocking DVDs which kept them going for a decade. But the past couple of years, you can blame the economy, you can blame copying music and movies, but for those who love old movies, once they've seen a few Blu Ray of classic flicks, they're not really jumping to get their entire movie library upgraded. They might get it for the bonuses and deluxe packaging. They might buy 10-15 movies.

But where movies make money through different avenues, and even get people to go to the theaters to see it twice or three times, you don't get that kind of repeat customer with music. Also, the allure of seeing a classic movie in a "one night only" situation can make a couple of million if it's a beloved movie.

3D is a little too gimmicky... when people can have the option to switch it between 2D and 3D and not need glasses to watch it, then it'll be a legit format for home viewing.I can't even find a reason why I'd want to watch "Star Wars" in a format it was never intended for.

MickyDolenz said:

Well, it can go back to the old days when the mafia ran the record business, and most of the entertainment industry (at least in the USA).

mm and these days its the U.S. military that skims the profits off the top. real nice industry. not lol