September 22, 2010

As far as solving the music industry’s financial woes, U2 manager Paul McGuinness still hasn’t found what he’s looking for. But he's not about to stop beating the drum.

The new issue of Rolling Stone has an abridged version of a piece McGuinness wrote for the UK edition of GQ addressing the file-sharing and piracy issues that he believes are largely the source of the meltdown of the music business in recent years.

It’s an update and expansion on ideas he put forth at the international MIDEM music conference in Cannes two years ago, an event at which I spoke with him at length about some very specific recommendations on how to address those issues.

Now, as then, he holds Internet service providers — and the giant telecommunications corporations that control the vast majority of ISPs — responsible, arguing that they’ve built their industry to a large extent by providing free content, often irrespective of the intellectual property rights of musicians and other creative types responsible for that content.

When I sat down with him in Cannes, he noted that ISPs have no qualms about promptly shutting down the accounts of users who don’t pay their ISP bills; they should do the same for those who illegally share copyrighted Web content like music.

This just in:

Senate Bill Targets Online Piracy

September 22, 2010

A bill introduced in the US Senate on Monday would give US law enforcement authorities more tools to crack down on websites engaged in piracy of movies, television shows and music.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act has received support from both parties and was introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, and Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah.

The bill will give the Justice Department the "tools to track and shut down websites devoted to providing access to unauthorized downloads, streaming or sale of copyrighted content and counterfeit goods," Leahy's office said.

The illegal products offered by websites, many of which are based outside of the United States, range from movies, television shows and music to pharmaceuticals and consumer products, it said in a statement.

"Each year, online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods cost American businesses billions of dollars, and result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs," Leahy said.

"In today's global economy the Internet has become the glue of international commerce -- connecting consumers with a wide-array of products and services worldwide," Hatch said. "But it's also become a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property.

"This legislation is critical to our continued fight against online piracy and counterfeiting," Hatch said.

The bill gives the Justice Department an expedited process for cracking down on websites engaged in piracy including having a court issue an order against a domain name that makes pirated goods available.

In May, the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus condemned Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain for failing to crack down on Web piracy and said theft of intellectual property in those countries was at "alarming levels."

The bipartisan caucus also released what it called a "list of notorious offenders" -- websites involved in making available unauthorized copies of the works of US creators.

The websites singled out by the caucus, made up of 70 members of the Senate and House of Representatives, were China's Baidu, Canada's isoHunt, Ukraine's MP3fiesta, Sweden's Pirate Bay, Germany's Rapidshare and Luxembourg's RMX4U.

http://www.google.com/hos...tLAtgDLuIw

Just make the computer obsolete !

and just imagine when the porn industry says "hey, what about us?" it all gets quietly dropped and they quit worrying about this.

even before that, they can pass all the laws they want, but they're just going to clog up an already clogged up legal system and will take a considerable amount of enforcement that just isn't available, and even if it was, would be preoccupied with actual crimes that affect real life instead of record companies and movie studios not making as much money as they feel they should.

and again, since so many of these places to get pirated material online are based in countries that lenient with such laws, what exactly is the point of law-makers doing anything about it with laws in the US, the UK or wherever.

I think I need to use this article and his original speech in a paper I have to write about piracy and file sharing.

Identity said:

September 22, 2010

As far as solving the music industry’s financial woes, U2 manager Paul McGuinness still hasn’t found what he’s looking for. But he's not about to stop beating the drum.

The new issue of Rolling Stone has an abridged version of a piece McGuinness wrote for the UK edition of GQ addressing the file-sharing and piracy issues that he believes are largely the source of the meltdown of the music business in recent years.

It’s an update and expansion on ideas he put forth at the international MIDEM music conference in Cannes two years ago, an event at which I spoke with him at length about some very specific recommendations on how to address those issues.

Now, as then, he holds Internet service providers — and the giant telecommunications corporations that control the vast majority of ISPs — responsible, arguing that they’ve built their industry to a large extent by providing free content, often irrespective of the intellectual property rights of musicians and other creative types responsible for that content.

When I sat down with him in Cannes, he noted that ISPs have no qualms about promptly shutting down the accounts of users who don’t pay their ISP bills; they should do the same for those who illegally share copyrighted Web content like music.

More than two years later, he writes that little has changed in that regard.

“For the world’s Internet Service Providers, bloated by years of broadband growth, ‘free music’ has been a multi-billion dollar bonanza,” McGuinness writes.

"Unfortunately, the main problem is still just as bad as it ever was.

“Artists cannot get record deals. Revenues are plummeting. Efforts to provide legal and viable ways of making money from muse are being stymied by piracy. The latest industry figures, from IFPI [the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], show that 95% of all the music downloaded is illegally obtained and unpaid for….A study endorsed by trade unions says Europe’s creative industries could lose more than a million jobs in the next five years.

“Finally,” he adds, “maybe the message is getting through that this isn’t just about fewer limos for rich rock stars.”

Many of those rock stars have been reluctant to go on the offensive, because the problem is often cast in precisely those terms: millionaire musicians whining that they aren’t making even more money.

McGuinness still thinks, as he did back in early 2008, that music subscription services should be the way of the future and that ISPs should be sharing their windfall profits with the artists and labels that have helped them pull in that money. If they don’t do so voluntarily, government intervention should be the next step.

He points to laws passed in France, England, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand aimed at tipping the scales back toward equity for musicians. But that still leaves much of the world without any such protections.

“I think we are coming to understand that ‘free’ comes with a price,” McGuinness writes, “and in my business that means less investment in talent, and fewer artists making a living from music.”

The $64-billion question is: How many musicians, managers, record company executives or even ISP bigwigs will be willing to get behind McGuinness?

The main point that so many of you free music folks need to take from this article is below. You wonder why music sucks ass well the statement above explains it in a nutshell. New talented artist are not going to get deals if no money can be made and you are going to continue to have crappy artist putting out music marketed to 5 years old to make a quick profit. No industry can make it when only 5% of the product is selling and the rest is stolen.

I find it interesting the lack of comments concerning this article perhaps when Paul McGinnis speaks about stopping privacy it is okay with Prince.org fans. If P speaks on the same topic he is a greedy devil.

I've heard this "solution" proposed by other people all through the 00s. Nothing happened (yet).

Cinnie said:

I've heard this "solution" proposed by other people all through the 00s. Nothing happened (yet).

Because its not really a solution, it's band aid meant to stop hemorrhaging wound.

Piracy cannot be stopped unless governments go into "Big Brother" land.

Tempted as they may be, it will stomp on many private liberties.

Paul, is hiding behind the fact that downloads aren't really the problem anymore.

And he knows it, and so does everyone in the industry.

Record Companies are becoming obsolete and expensive.

All of these major artist, including U2, have to sell their life away to their record companies, because said companies need to stay afloat.

Having signed a 360 deal, has forced U2 to give 15 % of their revenue cash stream that aren't part of digi or mechanical music. They have to sign away their publishing and merchandise to the labels now.

Paul, and many others think that, finding a solution to online piracy, will help regenerate the industry and revert back to the pre-2000 practices.

Thats not happening.

Signing a 360 deal, is like signing your soul away to the devil, and once you do that, your never getting it back.

unless you go indie... and not indie company...

I mean by your damn self... Radiohead style...

Give your music away free, make money off of tours and merchandise.

Thats the future...

As low as people may be, we are still a species that has alot of integrity.

Radio head gave the option to download their album In Rainbows for free.

And people stlll decided to pay for it. Because if your music is good enough

People will pay, even more so if they know its going solely to you rather some demonic soul crushing record company.

[Edited 9/23/10 12:06pm]

quite honestly, as long as Bono is shouting about debt relief and redistribution of wealth and public paid for health care for all, nobody on team U2 should be complaining about music that goes unpaid for. whats good for the goose and all that...

folks always like to redistribute OTHER peoples' wealth but never their own.

ps - i DO NOT illegally download music or movies. i think its theft. but i also think robin hood politics is theft too.

laurarichardson said:

Identity said:

September 22, 2010

As far as solving the music industry’s financial woes, U2 manager Paul McGuinness still hasn’t found what he’s looking for. But he's not about to stop beating the drum.

The new issue of Rolling Stone has an abridged version of a piece McGuinness wrote for the UK edition of GQ addressing the file-sharing and piracy issues that he believes are largely the source of the meltdown of the music business in recent years.

It’s an update and expansion on ideas he put forth at the international MIDEM music conference in Cannes two years ago, an event at which I spoke with him at length about some very specific recommendations on how to address those issues.

Now, as then, he holds Internet service providers — and the giant telecommunications corporations that control the vast majority of ISPs — responsible, arguing that they’ve built their industry to a large extent by providing free content, often irrespective of the intellectual property rights of musicians and other creative types responsible for that content.

When I sat down with him in Cannes, he noted that ISPs have no qualms about promptly shutting down the accounts of users who don’t pay their ISP bills; they should do the same for those who illegally share copyrighted Web content like music.

More than two years later, he writes that little has changed in that regard.

“For the world’s Internet Service Providers, bloated by years of broadband growth, ‘free music’ has been a multi-billion dollar bonanza,” McGuinness writes.

"Unfortunately, the main problem is still just as bad as it ever was.

“Artists cannot get record deals. Revenues are plummeting. Efforts to provide legal and viable ways of making money from muse are being stymied by piracy. The latest industry figures, from IFPI [the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], show that 95% of all the music downloaded is illegally obtained and unpaid for….A study endorsed by trade unions says Europe’s creative industries could lose more than a million jobs in the next five years.

“Finally,” he adds, “maybe the message is getting through that this isn’t just about fewer limos for rich rock stars.”

Many of those rock stars have been reluctant to go on the offensive, because the problem is often cast in precisely those terms: millionaire musicians whining that they aren’t making even more money.

McGuinness still thinks, as he did back in early 2008, that music subscription services should be the way of the future and that ISPs should be sharing their windfall profits with the artists and labels that have helped them pull in that money. If they don’t do so voluntarily, government intervention should be the next step.

He points to laws passed in France, England, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand aimed at tipping the scales back toward equity for musicians. But that still leaves much of the world without any such protections.

“I think we are coming to understand that ‘free’ comes with a price,” McGuinness writes, “and in my business that means less investment in talent, and fewer artists making a living from music.”

The $64-billion question is: How many musicians, managers, record company executives or even ISP bigwigs will be willing to get behind McGuinness?

The main point that so many of you free music folks need to take from this article is below. You wonder why music sucks ass well the statement above explains it in a nutshell. New talented artist are not going to get deals if no money can be made and you are going to continue to have crappy artist putting out music marketed to 5 years old to make a quick profit. No industry can make it when only 5% of the product is selling and the rest is stolen.

I find it interesting the lack of comments concerning this article perhaps when Paul McGinnis speaks about stopping privacy it is okay with Prince.org fans. If P speaks on the same topic he is a greedy devil.

“Artists cannot get record deals. Revenues are plummeting. Efforts to provide legal and viable ways of making money from muse are being stymied by piracy. The latest industry figures, from IFPI [the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], show that 95% of all the music downloaded is illegally obtained and unpaid for….A study endorsed by trade unions says Europe’s creative industries could lose more than a million jobs in the next five years.

artists are still going to get record deals. and if they're smart, they'll bypass that route all together and do it on their own and pay labels or starbucks or wal-mart or whoever to distribute them. or just put it online.

but new artists are not going to get record deals like the U2's and Madonna's or the Michael Jackson's of the world. the marketplace will no longer support it. the marketplace will no longer support the superstar icon. in a way, that's kind of sad. but in a way, it's kind of liberating and probably a good idea.

times change. who better than an artist to adapt to it? that's what art is about. business is another matter. but this particular business is reaping what it has sown. not necessarily in its practices leading to piracy (though a case could be made), but aside from radio, to which it is closely tied, there has never been a shadier big business model than what the recording industry perpetrated on its bread and butter up until about 1999.

is anyone besides a record industry executive going to shed any tears over the demise of the record "industry"?

doubtful.

errant said:

laurarichardson said:

The main point that so many of you free music folks need to take from this article is below. You wonder why music sucks ass well the statement above explains it in a nutshell. New talented artist are not going to get deals if no money can be made and you are going to continue to have crappy artist putting out music marketed to 5 years old to make a quick profit. No industry can make it when only 5% of the product is selling and the rest is stolen.

I find it interesting the lack of comments concerning this article perhaps when Paul McGinnis speaks about stopping privacy it is okay with Prince.org fans. If P speaks on the same topic he is a greedy devil.

“Artists cannot get record deals. Revenues are plummeting. Efforts to provide legal and viable ways of making money from muse are being stymied by piracy. The latest industry figures, from IFPI [the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], show that 95% of all the music downloaded is illegally obtained and unpaid for….A study endorsed by trade unions says Europe’s creative industries could lose more than a million jobs in the next five years.

artists are still going to get record deals. and if they're smart, they'll bypass that route all together and do it on their own and pay labels or starbucks or wal-mart or whoever to distribute them. or just put it online.

but new artists are not going to get record deals like the U2's and Madonna's or the Michael Jackson's of the world. the marketplace will no longer support it. the marketplace will no longer support the superstar icon. in a way, that's kind of sad. but in a way, it's kind of liberating and probably a good idea.

times change. who better than an artist to adapt to it? that's what art is about. business is another matter. but this particular business is reaping what it has sown. not necessarily in its practices leading to piracy (though a case could be made), but aside from radio, to which it is closely tied, there has never been a shadier big business model than what the recording industry perpetrated on its bread and butter up until about 1999.

is anyone besides a record industry executive going to shed any tears over the demise of the record "industry"?

doubtful.

Wow how sad that you do not find anything wrong with an industry that will never produce icons.

What would the world of music be like without the U2's, Bruce Springsteen's, Maddonna, Prince and MJs. In addition the industry has been going down hills since 1999 and very few artist have been able to bypass the music industry machine. New artist do not have the funds to do it and a lot of older artist get their ass handed to them when they try it.

I find it odd that music fans are so happy to see a music executive suffer but they do not think about the fans or the artist. A smart music executive cashed in his or her stock options and bounced from the industry a few years ago. A lot of artist are struggling and fans are left with shit music.

laurarichardson said:

errant said:

artists are still going to get record deals. and if they're smart, they'll bypass that route all together and do it on their own and pay labels or starbucks or wal-mart or whoever to distribute them. or just put it online.

but new artists are not going to get record deals like the U2's and Madonna's or the Michael Jackson's of the world. the marketplace will no longer support it. the marketplace will no longer support the superstar icon. in a way, that's kind of sad. but in a way, it's kind of liberating and probably a good idea.

times change. who better than an artist to adapt to it? that's what art is about. business is another matter. but this particular business is reaping what it has sown. not necessarily in its practices leading to piracy (though a case could be made), but aside from radio, to which it is closely tied, there has never been a shadier big business model than what the recording industry perpetrated on its bread and butter up until about 1999.

is anyone besides a record industry executive going to shed any tears over the demise of the record "industry"?

doubtful.

Wow how sad that you do not find anything wrong with an industry that will never produce icons.

What would the world of music be like without the U2's, Bruce Springsteen's, Maddonna, Prince and MJs. In addition the industry has been going down hills since 1999 and very few artist have been able to bypass the music industry machine. New artist do not have the funds to do it and a lot of older artist get their ass handed to them when they try it.

I find it odd that music fans are so happy to see a music executive suffer but they do not think about the fans or the artist. A smart music executive cashed in his or her stock options and bounced from the industry a few years ago. A lot of artist are struggling and fans are left with shit music.

The thing that People are forgetting that if it wasnt for the MUSIC EXECUTIVE that took a chance there wouldnt even be Prince,Madonna,MJ etc we can go on forever. All of these artists would be forgotton in todays climate, Prince would be dropped and fall into oblivion if he was trying to break through now. Back then there was room and funds to take the chance, to LOSE some $$ for the long term investment, now there isnt because its a whole new business model, its not a music industry its a Media industry that music just happens to occasionally fall into.

Now even the older artists who have felt and where ripped off by that system, they even thank the executive for giving them the chance, sure that system sucked but a lot of systems back then were wrong. A label now will only invest now in something that is already or a proven seller, meaning the business model. An artist like Justin Beiber is a sure sell because that has always sold, young pop kid just like all the disney stuff sells and high school musical etc...so Labels now are just really looking for what has happend already as opposed to investing long term and thats why you will NEVER have a major artist with a deep catalog of work EVER AGAIN

laurarichardson said:

errant said:

artists are still going to get record deals. and if they're smart, they'll bypass that route all together and do it on their own and pay labels or starbucks or wal-mart or whoever to distribute them. or just put it online.

but new artists are not going to get record deals like the U2's and Madonna's or the Michael Jackson's of the world. the marketplace will no longer support it. the marketplace will no longer support the superstar icon. in a way, that's kind of sad. but in a way, it's kind of liberating and probably a good idea.

times change. who better than an artist to adapt to it? that's what art is about. business is another matter. but this particular business is reaping what it has sown. not necessarily in its practices leading to piracy (though a case could be made), but aside from radio, to which it is closely tied, there has never been a shadier big business model than what the recording industry perpetrated on its bread and butter up until about 1999.

is anyone besides a record industry executive going to shed any tears over the demise of the record "industry"?

doubtful.

Wow how sad that you do not find anything wrong with an industry that will never produce icons.

What would the world of music be like without the U2's, Bruce Springsteen's, Maddonna, Prince and MJs. In addition the industry has been going down hills since 1999 and very few artist have been able to bypass the music industry machine. New artist do not have the funds to do it and a lot of older artist get their ass handed to them when they try it.

I find it odd that music fans are so happy to see a music executive suffer but they do not think about the fans or the artist. A smart music executive cashed in his or her stock options and bounced from the industry a few years ago. A lot of artist are struggling and fans are left with shit music.

to reiterate my point: who gives a shit. every business, every person, every species, adapts to the environment it is given (or even cultivates itself in some cases) to survive and if it doesn't, it ceases to exist. it may not be right, it may not be fair, but it is what it is. for the artist, especially the up and coming ones, they might as well give up on that dream of the $100 million paycheck. same for the record executive. and there's not much point in complaining about piracy. it's there and it's always going to be there, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it or even curb it.

it's the world these people are in. it's the world they have to deal with. might as well, because complaining about it isn't doing a damn thing and neither are any laws.

they aren't alone. newspapers and magazines are drying up all over the country because the marketplace just doesn't support their existence any more. terrestrial radio will be next. and network television after that.

adapt or die. trying to combat a shifting cultural status quo isn't going to do any good. it's bigger than them. they just have to adapt to keep up with it.

I think online music piracy is so prevalent that it threatens the entire record industry.

I would not decry the demise of the major labels given some of their underhanded business practices, but illegal file sharing is another example of the younger generation wanting something for nothing.

lastdecember said:

laurarichardson said:

Wow how sad that you do not find anything wrong with an industry that will never produce icons.

What would the world of music be like without the U2's, Bruce Springsteen's, Maddonna, Prince and MJs. In addition the industry has been going down hills since 1999 and very few artist have been able to bypass the music industry machine. New artist do not have the funds to do it and a lot of older artist get their ass handed to them when they try it.

I find it odd that music fans are so happy to see a music executive suffer but they do not think about the fans or the artist. A smart music executive cashed in his or her stock options and bounced from the industry a few years ago. A lot of artist are struggling and fans are left with shit music.

The thing that People are forgetting that if it wasnt for the MUSIC EXECUTIVE that took a chance there wouldnt even be Prince,Madonna,MJ etc we can go on forever. All of these artists would be forgotton in todays climate, Prince would be dropped and fall into oblivion if he was trying to break through now. Back then there was room and funds to take the chance, to LOSE some $$ for the long term investment, now there isnt because its a whole new business model, its not a music industry its a Media industry that music just happens to occasionally fall into.

Now even the older artists who have felt and where ripped off by that system, they even thank the executive for giving them the chance, sure that system sucked but a lot of systems back then were wrong. A label now will only invest now in something that is already or a proven seller, meaning the business model. An artist like Justin Beiber is a sure sell because that has always sold, young pop kid just like all the disney stuff sells and high school musical etc...so Labels now are just really looking for what has happend already as opposed to investing long term and thats why you will NEVER have a major artist with a deep catalog of work EVER AGAIN

I don't agree with the new or old system because both were built for the Artist to fail, superstar or not. The old regime was just as fascist as this new budding one, just in a different light. Record Companies never "took a chance" on artist. A record deal never entailed the concealment of money to an artist to make music, like say a grant. Every advance given to the artist was money to be paid back to the record company. It was a loan. And if you could not pay back that loan by the end of your contract (if they hadn't dropped you) you were shit out of luck. Why do you think so many artist end up broke after their contractual obligations have ended? The record company gives you an advance and 10% royalty rate of the music YOU CREATED (they should fucking get 10%) and thats it!. Why is it worse now? Because the record company now doesn't want to give loans, and yet wants a piece for your touring and merchandise.

The reason older Artist don't complain, is because it was their own damn fault. NOBODY read their contract. The smarter ones, saved the little money they earned and invested it in other enterprises. There's a reason why Prince had a tissy fit in the 90's with Warner about his masters. Master recordings are everything, and if you don't own them, it means you don't own the music you created. Whilst these record company hacks can make money off you without your consent. Without notifying you or even paying you a royalty. The Industry was always bad, its just getting worse. I say bring it on, let Rome burn.

my solution is simple....everyone pays an extra 6/7 pounds or 10 dollars a month to their isp on top of the normal access charge and this goes to to a body which shares this revenue out to whatever movie, song, album is getting downloaded...these figures are easy to obtain and the money gets shared out by percentage of downloads...this might not be as much as the artists/companies would want but its better than getting nothing...it also makes it all legal...i think trying to stop downloading is pointless so this makes the most sense to me...

Paul is just upset because U2's last album didn't sell as much as a "U2 is back after 4 years!!!" album was supposed to sell in his mind.

It's true the labels are greedy, in the past there were artists who sold millions of records that went bankrupt because of the label. Most of the artists are NOT against piracy because they know their fans will go to their shows and pay to see them live, it's always the execs who are all "BUT YOUR BELOVED ARTIST NEEDS TO EAT TOO" and stuff.

Labels are in their final state now, they are living off on a few acts whose old albums keep selling and a couple of currently big acts. The artists who are MEANT to be successful will manage without labels, but those acts who have their teams shop for songwriters are most likely facing a dark future. TV talent show winners are the first in line, they draw in the ratings and the votes but when the show ends nobody cares to invest in them anymore.

LiveToTell86 said:

TV talent show winners are the first in line, they draw in the ratings and the votes but when the show ends nobody cares to invest in them anymore.

Another reason American Idol needs to be cancelled.

EmbattledWarrior said:

lastdecember said:

The thing that People are forgetting that if it wasnt for the MUSIC EXECUTIVE that took a chance there wouldnt even be Prince,Madonna,MJ etc we can go on forever. All of these artists would be forgotton in todays climate, Prince would be dropped and fall into oblivion if he was trying to break through now. Back then there was room and funds to take the chance, to LOSE some $$ for the long term investment, now there isnt because its a whole new business model, its not a music industry its a Media industry that music just happens to occasionally fall into.

Now even the older artists who have felt and where ripped off by that system, they even thank the executive for giving them the chance, sure that system sucked but a lot of systems back then were wrong. A label now will only invest now in something that is already or a proven seller, meaning the business model. An artist like Justin Beiber is a sure sell because that has always sold, young pop kid just like all the disney stuff sells and high school musical etc...so Labels now are just really looking for what has happend already as opposed to investing long term and thats why you will NEVER have a major artist with a deep catalog of work EVER AGAIN

I don't agree with the new or old system because both were built for the Artist to fail, superstar or not. The old regime was just as fascist as this new budding one, just in a different light. Record Companies never "took a chance" on artist. A record deal never entailed the concealment of money to an artist to make music, like say a grant. Every advance given to the artist was money to be paid back to the record company. It was a loan. And if you could not pay back that loan by the end of your contract (if they hadn't dropped you) you were shit out of luck. Why do you think so many artist end up broke after their contractual obligations have ended? The record company gives you an advance and 10% royalty rate of the music YOU CREATED (they should fucking get 10%) and thats it!. Why is it worse now? Because the record company now doesn't want to give loans, and yet wants a piece for your touring and merchandise.

The reason older Artist don't complain, is because it was their own damn fault. NOBODY read their contract. The smarter ones, saved the little money they earned and invested it in other enterprises. There's a reason why Prince had a tissy fit in the 90's with Warner about his masters. Master recordings are everything, and if you don't own them, it means you don't own the music you created. Whilst these record company hacks can make money off you without your consent. Without notifying you or even paying you a royalty. The Industry was always bad, its just getting worse. I say bring it on, let Rome burn.

Agreed however labels did take chances on artists, mostly the people at the label took the chances but now thats not an option. Back in the day a group like INXS could have 5-6 albums with no hit selling about 100,000 each album, now IF a label invested say a million in a deal and promo, they better sell a million or there gone. So none of the artists then could exist today and get the play and spotlight they had. Lets remember that artists like Prince and u2 and rem and inxs were all not "superstars" for quite awhile, at least 5-6 albums, but were also getting videos made, and doing the promo thing and touring, and someone was footing the bill, now, that wouldnt happen.

Believe it or not though alot of artists were not DUMB, and alot got ripped off by people in their own camps, how many artists went broke because of Managers, i mean look at Billy Joel, this guy practically owns all his shit, has a great masters deal with sony, and yet he was ripped off by two managers and lost everything twice, though he is very wealthy still, that wasnt a labels doing, Duran Duran had the same issue, as did u2, Bon Jovi etc...so even though the system sucked, they actually read the deals, but got ripped off by their own people

errant said:

laurarichardson said:

Wow how sad that you do not find anything wrong with an industry that will never produce icons.

What would the world of music be like without the U2's, Bruce Springsteen's, Maddonna, Prince and MJs. In addition the industry has been going down hills since 1999 and very few artist have been able to bypass the music industry machine. New artist do not have the funds to do it and a lot of older artist get their ass handed to them when they try it.

I find it odd that music fans are so happy to see a music executive suffer but they do not think about the fans or the artist. A smart music executive cashed in his or her stock options and bounced from the industry a few years ago. A lot of artist are struggling and fans are left with shit music.

to reiterate my point: who gives a shit. every business, every person, every species, adapts to the environment it is given (or even cultivates itself in some cases) to survive and if it doesn't, it ceases to exist. it may not be right, it may not be fair, but it is what it is. for the artist, especially the up and coming ones, they might as well give up on that dream of the $100 million paycheck. same for the record executive. and there's not much point in complaining about piracy. it's there and it's always going to be there, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it or even curb it.

it's the world these people are in. it's the world they have to deal with. might as well, because complaining about it isn't doing a damn thing and neither are any laws.

they aren't alone. newspapers and magazines are drying up all over the country because the marketplace just doesn't support their existence any more. terrestrial radio will be next. and network television after that.

adapt or die. trying to combat a shifting cultural status quo isn't going to do any good. it's bigger than them. they just have to adapt to keep up with it.

What is it that you want to see artist and the industry adapt to? Because I do not see anyone adapting to anything right now.

lastdecember said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

I don't agree with the new or old system because both were built for the Artist to fail, superstar or not. The old regime was just as fascist as this new budding one, just in a different light. Record Companies never "took a chance" on artist. A record deal never entailed the concealment of money to an artist to make music, like say a grant. Every advance given to the artist was money to be paid back to the record company. It was a loan. And if you could not pay back that loan by the end of your contract (if they hadn't dropped you) you were shit out of luck. Why do you think so many artist end up broke after their contractual obligations have ended? The record company gives you an advance and 10% royalty rate of the music YOU CREATED (they should fucking get 10%) and thats it!. Why is it worse now? Because the record company now doesn't want to give loans, and yet wants a piece for your touring and merchandise.

The reason older Artist don't complain, is because it was their own damn fault. NOBODY read their contract. The smarter ones, saved the little money they earned and invested it in other enterprises. There's a reason why Prince had a tissy fit in the 90's with Warner about his masters. Master recordings are everything, and if you don't own them, it means you don't own the music you created. Whilst these record company hacks can make money off you without your consent. Without notifying you or even paying you a royalty. The Industry was always bad, its just getting worse. I say bring it on, let Rome burn.

Agreed however labels did take chances on artists, mostly the people at the label took the chances but now thats not an option. Back in the day a group like INXS could have 5-6 albums with no hit selling about 100,000 each album, now IF a label invested say a million in a deal and promo, they better sell a million or there gone. So none of the artists then could exist today and get the play and spotlight they had. Lets remember that artists like Prince and u2 and rem and inxs were all not "superstars" for quite awhile, at least 5-6 albums, but were also getting videos made, and doing the promo thing and touring, and someone was footing the bill, now, that wouldnt happen.

Believe it or not though alot of artists were not DUMB, and alot got ripped off by people in their own camps, how many artists went broke because of Managers, i mean look at Billy Joel, this guy practically owns all his shit, has a great masters deal with sony, and yet he was ripped off by two managers and lost everything twice, though he is very wealthy still, that wasnt a labels doing, Duran Duran had the same issue, as did u2, Bon Jovi etc...so even though the system sucked, they actually read the deals, but got ripped off by their own people

Interesting about artist getting ripped off by their own managers when no one on this board every gives credit for P's master issue to Steve Fargoli who should have worked something in so P would have the masters.

laurarichardson said:

errant said:

to reiterate my point: who gives a shit. every business, every person, every species, adapts to the environment it is given (or even cultivates itself in some cases) to survive and if it doesn't, it ceases to exist. it may not be right, it may not be fair, but it is what it is. for the artist, especially the up and coming ones, they might as well give up on that dream of the $100 million paycheck. same for the record executive. and there's not much point in complaining about piracy. it's there and it's always going to be there, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it or even curb it.

it's the world these people are in. it's the world they have to deal with. might as well, because complaining about it isn't doing a damn thing and neither are any laws.

they aren't alone. newspapers and magazines are drying up all over the country because the marketplace just doesn't support their existence any more. terrestrial radio will be next. and network television after that.

adapt or die. trying to combat a shifting cultural status quo isn't going to do any good. it's bigger than them. they just have to adapt to keep up with it.

What is it that you want to see artist and the industry adapt to? Because I do not see anyone adapting to anything right now.

the marketplace.

lastdecember said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

I don't agree with the new or old system because both were built for the Artist to fail, superstar or not. The old regime was just as fascist as this new budding one, just in a different light. Record Companies never "took a chance" on artist. A record deal never entailed the concealment of money to an artist to make music, like say a grant. Every advance given to the artist was money to be paid back to the record company. It was a loan. And if you could not pay back that loan by the end of your contract (if they hadn't dropped you) you were shit out of luck. Why do you think so many artist end up broke after their contractual obligations have ended? The record company gives you an advance and 10% royalty rate of the music YOU CREATED (they should fucking get 10%) and thats it!. Why is it worse now? Because the record company now doesn't want to give loans, and yet wants a piece for your touring and merchandise.

The reason older Artist don't complain, is because it was their own damn fault. NOBODY read their contract. The smarter ones, saved the little money they earned and invested it in other enterprises. There's a reason why Prince had a tissy fit in the 90's with Warner about his masters. Master recordings are everything, and if you don't own them, it means you don't own the music you created. Whilst these record company hacks can make money off you without your consent. Without notifying you or even paying you a royalty. The Industry was always bad, its just getting worse. I say bring it on, let Rome burn.

Agreed however labels did take chances on artists, mostly the people at the label took the chances but now thats not an option. Back in the day a group like INXS could have 5-6 albums with no hit selling about 100,000 each album, now IF a label invested say a million in a deal and promo, they better sell a million or there gone. So none of the artists then could exist today and get the play and spotlight they had. Lets remember that artists like Prince and u2 and rem and inxs were all not "superstars" for quite awhile, at least 5-6 albums, but were also getting videos made, and doing the promo thing and touring, and someone was footing the bill, now, that wouldnt happen.

Believe it or not though alot of artists were not DUMB, and alot got ripped off by people in their own camps, how many artists went broke because of Managers, i mean look at Billy Joel, this guy practically owns all his shit, has a great masters deal with sony, and yet he was ripped off by two managers and lost everything twice, though he is very wealthy still, that wasnt a labels doing, Duran Duran had the same issue, as did u2, Bon Jovi etc...so even though the system sucked, they actually read the deals, but got ripped off by their own people

Thats still pretty dumb. Because it means he didn't pick the right people in his camp, and more importantly he didn't WATCH them. Or have his lawyers watch them, and have someone watch the lawyers. you can negoatiate great deals, but if you don't have a trustworthy camp, your just as good as fucked.

If your going to work in this business, DTA, Don't Trust Anybody.

Cause even your mother will turn into satan in a sunday hat once you get some money.

Its a very complicated issue, and i dont know if there is a solution at the moment. At least not one that would appease or thwart anyone.

At the moment I dont see anyone investing anything too worthwhile into the music industry other than as a loss leader or promotion for a live show. We might just have to get used to a world where our entertainment is the likes of a double rainbow guy and the play it off keyboard cat.

errant said:

laurarichardson said:

Wow how sad that you do not find anything wrong with an industry that will never produce icons.

What would the world of music be like without the U2's, Bruce Springsteen's, Maddonna, Prince and MJs. In addition the industry has been going down hills since 1999 and very few artist have been able to bypass the music industry machine. New artist do not have the funds to do it and a lot of older artist get their ass handed to them when they try it.

I find it odd that music fans are so happy to see a music executive suffer but they do not think about the fans or the artist. A smart music executive cashed in his or her stock options and bounced from the industry a few years ago. A lot of artist are struggling and fans are left with shit music.

to reiterate my point: who gives a shit. every business, every person, every species, adapts to the environment it is given (or even cultivates itself in some cases) to survive and if it doesn't, it ceases to exist. it may not be right, it may not be fair, but it is what it is. for the artist, especially the up and coming ones, they might as well give up on that dream of the $100 million paycheck. same for the record executive. and there's not much point in complaining about piracy. it's there and it's always going to be there, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it or even curb it.

it's the world these people are in. it's the world they have to deal with. might as well, because complaining about it isn't doing a damn thing and neither are any laws.

they aren't alone. newspapers and magazines are drying up all over the country because the marketplace just doesn't support their existence any more. terrestrial radio will be next. and network television after that.

adapt or die. trying to combat a shifting cultural status quo isn't going to do any good. it's bigger than them. they just have to adapt to keep up with it.

Yes you're right in that the industry will have to adapt.

That doesn't change the fact that for some reason we've gotten to a place where 95% of youngsters will steal music without even having a second thought about it. It's become too easy and too ingrained.

No one that does anything for a living would support people stealing the very product that his industry produces.....

Oh, you own a fruit store, how bout I just take a few bananas off the rack whenever I walk past, a few won't hurt ya...

How about you, the doctor, give me free checkups and prescriptions whenever I have a niggle....

No, it doesn't fly in any industry that's not digital. It shouldn't be accepted in the music/publishing/movie industry either. There' a SHITLOAD of people that put their hearts into it and they deserve to be fairly paid if you want to be entertained by their results.

nd33 said:

errant said:

to reiterate my point: who gives a shit. every business, every person, every species, adapts to the environment it is given (or even cultivates itself in some cases) to survive and if it doesn't, it ceases to exist. it may not be right, it may not be fair, but it is what it is. for the artist, especially the up and coming ones, they might as well give up on that dream of the $100 million paycheck. same for the record executive. and there's not much point in complaining about piracy. it's there and it's always going to be there, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it or even curb it.

it's the world these people are in. it's the world they have to deal with. might as well, because complaining about it isn't doing a damn thing and neither are any laws.

they aren't alone. newspapers and magazines are drying up all over the country because the marketplace just doesn't support their existence any more. terrestrial radio will be next. and network television after that.

adapt or die. trying to combat a shifting cultural status quo isn't going to do any good. it's bigger than them. they just have to adapt to keep up with it.

Yes you're right in that the industry will have to adapt.

That doesn't change the fact that for some reason we've gotten to a place where 95% of youngsters will steal music without even having a second thought about it. It's become too easy and too ingrained.

No one that does anything for a living would support people stealing the very product that his industry produces.....

Oh, you own a fruit store, how bout I just take a few bananas off the rack whenever I walk past, a few won't hurt ya...

How about you, the doctor, give me free checkups and prescriptions whenever I have a niggle....

No, it doesn't fly in any industry that's not digital. It shouldn't be accepted in the music/publishing/movie industry either. There' a SHITLOAD of people that put their hearts into it and they deserve to be fairly paid if you want to be entertained by their results.

it's kinda forced to adapt.

Radiohead pretty much paved the way for artist, by generating over 10,000,000 dollars from the sales of their latest album In Rainbows (2006.)

This is astonishing because they initially offered it as a free download, and than as a "pay what you want"

its the most money they've ever made

If the industry doesn't adapt, the artist sure will.

nd33 said:

errant said:

to reiterate my point: who gives a shit. every business, every person, every species, adapts to the environment it is given (or even cultivates itself in some cases) to survive and if it doesn't, it ceases to exist. it may not be right, it may not be fair, but it is what it is. for the artist, especially the up and coming ones, they might as well give up on that dream of the $100 million paycheck. same for the record executive. and there's not much point in complaining about piracy. it's there and it's always going to be there, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it or even curb it.

it's the world these people are in. it's the world they have to deal with. might as well, because complaining about it isn't doing a damn thing and neither are any laws.

they aren't alone. newspapers and magazines are drying up all over the country because the marketplace just doesn't support their existence any more. terrestrial radio will be next. and network television after that.

adapt or die. trying to combat a shifting cultural status quo isn't going to do any good. it's bigger than them. they just have to adapt to keep up with it.

Yes you're right in that the industry will have to adapt.

That doesn't change the fact that for some reason we've gotten to a place where 95% of youngsters will steal music without even having a second thought about it. It's become too easy and too ingrained.

No one that does anything for a living would support people stealing the very product that his industry produces.....

Oh, you own a fruit store, how bout I just take a few bananas off the rack whenever I walk past, a few won't hurt ya...

How about you, the doctor, give me free checkups and prescriptions whenever I have a niggle....

No, it doesn't fly in any industry that's not digital. It shouldn't be accepted in the music/publishing/movie industry either. There' a SHITLOAD of people that put their hearts into it and they deserve to be fairly paid if you want to be entertained by their results.

none of this matters. it's their new reality, whether it's right or not, and it's not going to change. time to move forward. and if moving forward means there is no industry left to the record industry, so be it.

errant said:

nd33 said:

Yes you're right in that the industry will have to adapt.

That doesn't change the fact that for some reason we've gotten to a place where 95% of youngsters will steal music without even having a second thought about it. It's become too easy and too ingrained.

No one that does anything for a living would support people stealing the very product that his industry produces.....

Oh, you own a fruit store, how bout I just take a few bananas off the rack whenever I walk past, a few won't hurt ya...

How about you, the doctor, give me free checkups and prescriptions whenever I have a niggle....

No, it doesn't fly in any industry that's not digital. It shouldn't be accepted in the music/publishing/movie industry either. There' a SHITLOAD of people that put their hearts into it and they deserve to be fairly paid if you want to be entertained by their results.

none of this matters. it's their new reality, whether it's right or not, and it's not going to change. time to move forward. and if moving forward means there is no industry left to the record industry, so be it.

It does not matter to you because you really do not give a shit about music. You want artist to adapt to a market place that really is not a market as free music means no exchange takes place.

laurarichardson said:

errant said:

none of this matters. it's their new reality, whether it's right or not, and it's not going to change. time to move forward. and if moving forward means there is no industry left to the record industry, so be it.

It does not matter to you because you really do not give a shit about music. You want artist to adapt to a market place that really is not a market as free music means no exchange takes place.

Calm down there kimosabe.

The real question you'd have to ask yourself is Art meant to be bought, or owned.

Artist have always been civil servants.

The "exchange" between The Artist and the Fan, is more than a monetary exchange.

If an Artist is complaining about said monetary exchange.

That Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

We live in a capitalist society, and thus the artist is now a commodity.

I being an artist, and someone who has to make money in the music business am constantly torn between that dilemma.