Give us our money! – artists tell Big Music
p2pnet news | Music:- These days, Napster and Kazaa are, to all intents and purposes, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG product distribution vehicles.
Kazaa has always been dodgy. It was one of the original, and primary, sources of spyware, and it’s implicated in many, of not most, RIAA file sharing cases.
Sharman Networks, the Australian company behind it, had always wanted to get into bed with the corporate music industry, finally succeeding at a cost of $115 million by way of a ‘settlement’.
Napster, now a corporate product, was once where it was at when it came to online music and now, “artist managers are girding for battle with their music overlords over when their clients are going to see some of the dough negotiated last year in copyright-infringement settlements with a host of Web sites,” says the New York Post, going on:
“Universal Music, Warner Music and EMI – either collectively or individually – settled claims with Napster, Kazaa and Bolt.com. Napster alone had to cough up $270 million.
“The fourth major label, SonyBMG, was not part of the suit because Napster was owned by BMG parent company Bertelsmann. All four struck separate deals with YouTube that included revenue participation.”
But, “A contingent of prominent artist managers claims that little to none of that money has trickled down to their clients,” so they’re talking legal action.
Corporate bosses are, “still deciding on how best to split the money,” says the New York Post.
That should of course, read, “still deciding on how best not to split the money”.
Not every artist is owed, “and it must be calculated with regard to the level of copyright infringement for each artist,” they say, according to the story, which adds, “What’s more, these sources said that after the labels recouped their legal expenses, there wasn’t much left to pass along to the artists.”
Trying to get fair treatment out of the labels is like trying to deal with an insurance company.
Stall, stall, stall.
Don’t bother to stay tuned.
Also See:
New York Post – Artists say they want their music dough, February 24, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
see artists!
Thats what you get when you make deals with “evil4″-guys!
Better set up your own website were you offer 128kbps full versions for free tryout and then offer flac versions for sale there via micromoney payment system.
Unless the mmps service is fraudulent too, you WILL get more if your music is worth to be bought then if you had made a deal with the old distribution model devils of “evil4″
And if you don’t want to bother with the logistics of such an endevour yourself, look at stuff like amiestreet for example as a way to go and bypass “evil4″
February 29th, 2008 at 6:42 am
I thought a spokes person for sony stated that they LOST money when engaging in litigation against file sharers? If they have even a small amount remaining, this could construed as litigative extortion.
March 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Its the sucker contracts.
This is the same as when music publishers sell their catalog. The money is not shared with the songwriters who’s music was sold.
Recenylt a Canafia bankrupt pubkisher sold their catalog to an american publisher. Bet you the sale money was not shared with the sucker (because of the giveaway contracts they signed) songwriters.
The sucker contracts signed by artists for record companies do not mention lawsuit income sharing.