Major artists vs major labels
p2pnet.net news view:- Last week, popular networking site My Space announced plans to crack down on unauthorized posting of copyrighted material.
This is potentially bad news for artists.
MySpace has been a valuable promotional tool for many musicians and bands. Until now, the nature of the site made it easy to share music with multitudes of people – mostly through the networking and friends functions.
Now, though, My Space will be using music recognition software to identify copyright protected content. If the material in question was posted by an authorized entity, it’ll remain on the site. Otherwise, it’ll be removed.
It hasn’t been made clear yet who, or what, will constitute an ‘authorized’ entity. Many major label artists don’t hold the copyright to their own work. Will they be allowed to upload music? It is theirs, after all, and they have a moral, if not legal, right to make it as available as they want to.
On a more practical note, uploading is an effective method of distribution. Informal, but effective. But if My Space restricts that privilege to copyright holders, majors will regain a little of the control they’ve lost to artists via file-sharing, and artists will lose a venue for their music.
The upside is that more artists may be inspired to join the burgeoning independent scene.
Accessible, affordable technology is allowing artists to produce, promote and distribute their own work without major label support. They retain all the rights of ownership while neatly sidestepping the restrictions being imposed on file-sharing.
And independent artists are not the only ones in favour of downloading. Some major label acts have spoken out against the industry’s increasingly heavy-handed treatment of the issue.
Last year, the Canadian Music Creator’s Coalition was founded. The group’s purpose is to balance major label rhetoric with a collective artists’ voice.
We’re a growing coalition of Canadian music creators who share the common goal of having our voices heard about the laws and policies that affect our livelihoods. We are the people who actually create Canadian music. Without us, there’d be no music for copyright laws to protect.
Until now, a group of multinational record labels has done most of the talking about what Canadian artists need out of copyright. Record companies and music publishers aren’t our enemies, but let’s be clear: lobbyists for major labels are looking out for their shareholders, and seldom speak for Canadian artists.
Legislative proposals that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels’ control over the enjoyment of music are made not in our names, but on behalf of the labels’ foreign parent companies.
Clearly, major label artists are NOT universally opposed to downloading. Major labels, however, are. CMCC is evidence of this disconnect, and a sign that musicians are no longer willing to follow the industry’s lead.
[FROM: p2pnet.ca]
Tina Siegel
[Siegel is a Toronto-based writer. She says she spent two years of her life studying the politics of independent music, and is now employed as a 'government drone'. On the side, she does publicity for indie label 'Fading Ways Music which licenses all its work under Creative Commons and encourages file-sharing. From there, she says, it was but a short trip into the broader issue of digital rights.]
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
November 12th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
There may be a way for artis. Some legal work may be required, though.
Artists who are ebenficial owners of copyrights may be able to use their work as the legal owner mat no be able to sue the beneficial owners.
What is a beneficial owner?
It is a person that assigns the legal rights to a song to a publisher but retains a share of the rights. Usually the share is a share un royalties. So. most songwriters that assign their songs to a publisher (commonly the publishing division of a record company) retain the right to 50 percent of the song’s income (in theory of course, as magical accounting will reduce the royalties to far less than 50 percent). As an example, a songwriter frined of mine gets 14 cents of royalties for about 10,000 records sold (year after year for many years) for a song. He, nor the publisher that pays him the 14 cents do no own the song, my family does. That is why I have investigated the actual sales. And the publisher is one of the biggest.
The question is, can a record company sue a beneficial owner of a song if that owner licenses others to perform the song? I strongly doubt that the beneficial owner can be sued for doing what he authorized others to do as long as the owner gets a cut.
Frequently beneficial owners get nothing from the publishers because the publishers do not know or are incapable of getting the songs recorded or performed. After all, will a publisher with 50,000 songs worry about the one song a songwriter assigned them. Then, if the song is not recorded or performed as a result of the lack of effort by the publisher, it woluld make no sense that then the beneficial owner cannot authorize others to record or perform the song.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
June 14th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
more interesting debate surrounding indie vs major labels and production and distribution:
are the consumers of music, more in charge than ever? new business model necessary, big 4????
http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/Article.aspx?id=1452