NY Times: "A Huge Conspiracy"

[Marvster]

Found this article fascinating. More proof that record companies couldn't care less about "protecting" artists. So if free file-sharing isn't the answer, and the RIAA hegemony isn't the answer, I wonder what's next? * * * * * February 18, 2002 Record Labels' Answer to Napster Still Has Artists Feeling Bypassed By NEIL STRAUSS In their bitter battles against Napster and other free music downloading services, record company executives have wielded one moral argument that has placed their position beyond self interest: the fans take the music without proper permission and don't pay the artists a dime. Last December, the major record labels responded with two Internet services of their own where fans pay monthly fees to download songs. Under this arrangement, however, the performers still don't get a dime: for each song downloaded, they stand to get only a fraction of a cent, according to the calculations of disgruntled managers and lawyers. And, artists and their managers say, the labels, like Napster, aren't putting the music online with proper permission either. "I'm not an opponent of artists' music being included in these services," said Gary Stiffelman, who represents Eminem, Aerosmith and TLC. "I'm just an opponent of their revenue not being shared." Because the sites are new, no payments have been made yet, but the payment plan has so infuriated scores of best-selling pop acts, including No Doubt, the Dixie Chicks and Dr. Dre, that their lawyers have demanded their clients' music be removed from the sites, with some even sending cease-and-desist orders. Only in some cases have the major record companies complied. Since Napster was born on college campuses in the late 1990's, peer-to-peer file sharing services have become the bane of the established music business, with, at their peak, some 60 million Napster users sharing nearly 40 million songs illicitly. Even after a federal district court shut Napster down, other free services proliferated, with Kazaa and Morpheus attracting an ever-growing base of users sharing not just music but movies and software as well. In December, the music business responded with Pressplay and MusicNet, both pay-to-use subscription services where users can listen to or download a specified number of songs each month. Pressplay is a joint venture between Universal and Sony Music, and MusicNet teams BMG, EMI and AOL Time Warner(news/quote) with Real Networks. "All of my clients had their attorneys advise the labels that if they did use my clients' music on Pressplay or MusicNet, they would be in breach of contract," said Simon Renshaw, who manages the Dixie Chicks, Mary J. Blige and others. "Some artists they took off, but some they didn't. It's becoming very obvious to me and my peers that we're becoming victims of what is a huge conspiracy." More.... http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/technology/18SONG.html

[David R.]

Again, the record industry figures out a way to cut their costs and pass on the savings to their own pockets. Remember when CDs were first introduced, the price was supposed to go down to LP price after a couple of years? The business of music sucks. A band is scammed into thinking a record deal is a good thing. They borrow money to record. Bust their ass touring and promoting, while the label does nothing unless CDs suddenly start selling. Then they put muscle behind it, charging it to the band's account. Even if the band somehow manages to pay the label back, [i]they do not own the master recording that they just payed for.[/i] Sorry all, bad mood. Maybe I should swim with the sharks and become a lawyer. :rolleyes: