Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Ask Singer Janis Ian About the RIAA and Online Music 334

Posted by Roblimo from the fallout-from-the-internet-debacle dept.
Janis Ian has been a popular songwriter and performer since the 1960s, and has decided that Internet music downloads help her and many other recording artists. She wrote an article saying so, then wrote a followup piece, and now it's time for Janis to answer your questions about how the RIAA, the "major labels," and online filesharing affect artists like her. We'll send 10 of the highest moderated questions to Janis tomorrow and post her answers when we get them back. (Off-topic note: Alton Brown has not forgotten Slashdot. He had some show taping problems that messed up his schedule, and asks us to be patient, please.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Singer Janis Ian About the RIAA and Online Music More

Ask Singer Janis Ian About the RIAA and Online Music

Comments Filter:

  • Does the RIAA pretend that these don't exist? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What kind of response from the RIAA et al have
    you received from your writings? Do they just
    pretend like if they ignore your commentary, it'll
    go away, or have you actually gotten some sort
    of response from an actual industry exec?

  • How much? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:08PM (#4189808) Journal
    What percentage do you make of the sticker-price of your CDs?

    Also, if you know, how much of that price is going to pay for advertising, studio time, et al., and how much is pure profit for the record companies?

    Do you not find it strange that a 2-hour DVD, with commentary, subtitles, and extra scenes, can be sold for less than $10, while few audio CDs are that low priced?

    • DVD prices (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Captain_Frisk ( 248297 )
      I'm not sure where you're shopping for dvds son, but generally list price on those things goes around $20 to $30. Granted, you can find deals, but you can do the same for CDs. Comparing the standard overpriced CD to the bargain DVD isn't really fair.

      That being said, I agree that CDs are overpriced for carrying 40-70 minutes of stereo audio, while a DVD carries 2-3 hours of video + 5.1 digital surround sound + bonus features, and doesn't cost substantially more.
      • Lord of the Rings the Day it was Released, freely available to anyone walking into the store, and with plenty of them to spare for 16$.

        At Wal-Mart.

        I bet that by christmas the version I got will be $9.99 most places. Thought the special edition ones will be more expensive.

        Kintanon

    • Re:How much? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elefantstn ( 195873 )
      Do you not find it strange that a 2-hour DVD, with commentary, subtitles, and extra scenes, can be sold for less than $10, while few audio CDs are that low priced?


      This argument is pointless. Do you not find it strange that record companies don't make hundreds of millions of dollars from people coming to listen to albums before they can buy them on CD? There's no comparison between DVDs and CDs because (successful) movies have already made back the cost of production before they ever get to DVD.
      • There's no comparison between DVDs and CDs because (successful) movies have already made back the cost of production before they ever get to DVD.

        OK, and how about the unsuccessful ones?

        Last month I bought a DVD of "Route 666" (it's a Lori Petty thing - if you don't understand, don't ask) for $9.99 CDN.

        This movie never made anything close to it's cost of production - how then, can I buy it for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a new music recording?

        Your argument sounds good until you analyize it.. in fact, pretty much any box-office bomb will sell for less than the popular titles - if the price of the DVD is an indication of how much a title made at the box office, why is this?

    • Re:How much? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 )

      Do you not find it strange that a 2-hour DVD, with commentary, subtitles, and extra scenes, can be sold for less than $10, while few audio CDs are that low priced?

      Do you find it strange that a hard-working janitor can be hired for $6/hour but a computer programmer who sits on his ass downloading music on napster all day charges $75/hour?

  • Lesser Artists vs. Popular Artists (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kylow ( 581998 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:10PM (#4189819)
    Its obvious that CD's from a lesser known artist such as yourself (no offense intended) might have difficulties selling. Its also apparent that free downloads of your music would expose it to more people and potentially increase sales. However, what do you think the effect of peer to peer sharing is on more recognized artists and groups, particularly very popular artists and groups (Britney Spears and the like) who don't need peer to peer technology to gain recognition?
  • what would you say to RIAA executive to try to convince them that p2p helps the music industry, and they shouldn't be so concerned about money anyhow?

    • Re:what would you say (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SquadBoy ( 167263 )
      Implied in your question is the assumption that P2P takes money away from the labels. This is IMO untrue. I think I'm a fairly typical user and will try to explain to you why you are wrong.

      To start with many times a download of a sone or two leads to a purchase. For a recent example about 6 months ago I downloaded some tunes from these [millencolin.com] fine young men and as a result bought their entire back catalog. I have done this on many occasions. The other things that I download are 1 or 2 songs that I may like but I would never buy the entire album because they may have at most one good song. No money lost because I would not have bought it had the download not been there. I think a lot of p2p downloads fall into one of these two situtaions and so they are either a good thing for the labels or at worst neutral. Make no mistake this is all about control and not about money.

  • Radio Station consolidation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gorilla ( 36491 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:11PM (#4189828)
    When you entered the music business, radio stations were diverse. In the last few years, this diversity has disappeared. Do you have any comments on this?

  • Indentured Servitude (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zapfie ( 560589 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:11PM (#4189830)
    In one of your interviews, you mentioned that contracts with the music industry should be likened to indentured servitude (must produce X albums, but the label has the final say on if what you produce was acceptable). Why do you think so many artists willingly accept these terms? What can be done to promote contracts that are more fair?
    • Why do you think so many artists willingly accept these terms?

      Two main reasons:

      1. At the time they sign, some of them don't know any better. They think "hey, I got a contract, so that must be good!" without realizing that what is actually in the contract may not be so good for them.

      2. Even if they do realize that the contract pretty much screws them over, what other real choices do they have? Most startup groups and singers can't afford the cost to promote themselves, make their own CDs, etc. So, in order to have even a glimmer of hope of making it, they have to go RIAA. And as a side note, if I'm not mistaken many record stores aren't friendly towards selling non-RIAA CDs.

      Basically, it's a case of fucked if you do, fucked if you don't. Unfortunately, due in large part to the monopolistic tendencies of the RIAA, going with them tends to be less of a fucking.

      Which leads from my response to zapfie's question to my own question for Janis: How do you think the market could be changed to combat the monopolistic tendencies of the RIAA and provide a fairer scenario for startup artists, both in terms of the compensation they receive and the barriers they must overcome?

  • Life without RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ahknight ( 128958 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:11PM (#4189832)
    RIAA is evil. This is an established fact of life. What I'd like to know, from an artist's standpoint, is how SHOULD it be? Now you sign with a label that helps production and then calls you a hired hand and steals your music. How should it work, start to finish? What's currently broken that's stopping this? Do you have any ideas on how we can fix this for the artist, as a society? How can we get involved to help the artists?
    • The limiting factor for making a record isn't distribution, it's the cost and availability of studio time. If recording music was as free as getting together with some bandmates and writing it is, then there would be a lot more quality recordings and a lot more good material. I can't count the number of local bands I've heard that are as good or better than the shit that gets on MTV but their demo cd sounds horrible.

      But guess who owns the studios? the RIAA.

      It's a hell of a racket. Don Corleone would be proud.
  • What exactly does the RIAA do to help the individual artists, anyhow? To me, it appears that their business model is to protect the record companies at all costs, and do very little for the actual creators.

  • Solutions rather than accusations (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ra5pu7in ( 603513 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ni7up5ar>> on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:14PM (#4189849) Journal
    What do you propose as a long-term solution for the music industry? How does your proposed solution benefit each of the parties involved: the artist (songwriter, singer, musician), the consumer, the recording studio, the talent agent, and the producer?
    • As long as you're talking long-term, you should realize that only two of the parties you mentioned need necessarily be involved: The artist, and the listener. Recording studios are likely to be involved, but need not necessarily be so (if the artist has the capital and knowlege to do their own recording). Talent agents and producers are merely artifacts of the current method by which music is created in the "industry".

      So as far as I'm concerned, a valid way of dealing with agents and producers (and to a lesser extent studios) is to remove them from the equation completely. If the plan does involve them, it would be sufficient to show that they are being compensated and not screwed (as the artists are now) -- not that they should experience improvement over their current situation.

  • 1) is it the lack of control they have over the distribution?

    2) is it the fear that someone will find out what the "filler" material on the album sounds like.

    3) that P2P actually cuts into sales.

    or is it a combination of the three?

  • How has the RIAA changed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:16PM (#4189867)
    I'm curious - you're an artist who's been in the business for a number of (ahem) years. How has the RIAA changed since you signed your first recording contract?

  • The battles between artists, listeners and the recording industry strike me as just a high profile version of what is happening in the larger society. We are seeing the centralization of power in the hands of the few to the immediate detriment of workers in a field and longer term harm to society as a whole.

    What kind of efforts can those of with relatively little power make to reverse this centralization? Or should we just wait for the inevitable collapse and prepare to pick up the pieces?

  • Hello, Madam Ian. I'd like to point your attention to Scott McCloud's [scottmccloud.com] essays named "I Can't Stop Thinking!" [scottmccloud.com], especially #5 and #6, the Coins of the Realm. After reading those two, and the claim that 15 cents per song would be apropriate for the artist directly, what would your reaction and responce be?

  • Do you lose control when you sign to a label? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:17PM (#4189875) Journal
    When an artist signs on to a record label, exactly how much control do they lose over they type of music that they will put out?

    We've all heard the stories or watched a movie about how an indy band decides to sign onto a record label, and the label then forces them to change their image / play crappy music written by some 2-bit composer / or do something else that the band doesn't really like, but their contract obligates them to do.

    Are these views extreme in most cases?

    Does the artist lose all control, allowing themselves to be remade into whatever the record company wants them to be? Or is some amount of control retained?
  • I learned the Truth at seventeen,
    That P2P is met with Lawyer Teams.
    And High School file sharing friends,
    destroyed by thought control bends.

    We all play the game, but when we dare,
    to download songs, is it unfair?
    Inventing email accounts unknown,
    causing profit losses to the bone,
    that call and say "Don't download that!"
    but we think that Napster was just phat.

    It isn't all it seems, at seventeen...
  • While I must admit I really haven't heard much of your music, your stance with regards to the RIAA and Peer-to-Peer song swapping has ceratly drawn my attention both to you and your music. With bills in the US congress to allow entities such as the RIAA and MPAA to 'attack' p2p networks, specifically those allowing copyrighted works for download, do you think the RIAA and/or the MPAA has any concious understanding of the mistrust and Orwellian thoughts that their lobbying efforts are creating? Lastly, what do you think it would take to get them to realize the light at the end of the tunnel that they see is actually an oncomming train?

  • What about the future? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mshomphe ( 106567 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:20PM (#4189899) Homepage Journal
    I don't think many can argue that the overall experience of downloading/ripping/burning music is still prohibitive to many. People will still buy CDs and whatnot because the current technology does not allow for immediate, complete, high-quality copies to be made. In that way, modern filesharing is very much like sharing tapes. This, in my opinion, does help artists.

    However, let's take a look into the future. Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD (or whatever the current technology is) in even less time. One click allows me to fully reproduce Janis Ian's latest release - liner notes & all.

    At that point, should artists be worried? Or, to put it more generally, should artists always permit the reproducing of their works?
    • However, let's take a look into the future. Let's say that technology has evolved to the point where one can transfer complete, same as CD-quality albums in less than a second, and imprint them onto CD (or whatever the current technology is) in even less time. One click allows me to fully reproduce Janis Ian's latest release - liner notes & all.

      At that point, should artists be worried? Or, to put it more generally, should artists always permit the reproducing of their works?

      Or, the question should be, is it acceptable to cripple this future technology to protect the entertainment industry?
      • What I really want to know is what constitutes "good" copying, versus "bad" copying. Clearly, it's fine to make backup copies and all other "personal use" copies. It starts to get bad when you start giving things out to friends. Sure, one or two is fine, bu twhat if you just sit outside and give a free CD to everyone that walks by? Is that bad?

        In my opinion, if one copies for self-gain, then it's bad. So, an artist has control over someone using their music for monetary gain or for associative value (I don't want the neo nazis to use my work). But they don't have control over the distribution of copies of the work.

  • RIAA Attitude to all this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sdjunky ( 586961 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:21PM (#4189913)
    What has been the RIAA's or label's attitude about your online pieces regarding the "biz" and have you received threats ( legal or otherwise ) for speaking so candidly about it?

  • I personally believe that the big reason that the RIAA's up in arms about music sharing is that they're concerned that people will hear the music and realize they may not want it. They fear losing money from people buying an album without really knowing what's on it.

    Do you think there's any truth to what I'm saying?

  • Shorter Copyrights? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spud Zeppelin ( 13403 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:23PM (#4189925)
    As the coauthor of a rapidly-becoming-obsolete technology book that's barely more than two years old, I can certainly sympathize regarding royalty checks in the red (I only received one, so far, that actually came with a check attached). Knowing that, how do you feel about significantly reduced copyright terms? Obviously, it would mean your former label would no longer be able to profit off of songs like "At Seventeen", but conversely, having that material in the public domain much more quickly might result in some of the collateral effects on your current material that, as you described in your first article, Baen is doing for authors.

    This expiry issue is actually a more critical concern for many in technology, because unlike other, more tangible cultural elements like books or records, a lot of culturally significant digital content (e.g. old video games) has been produced in the technology arena that, by the time its copyrights expire under current law, no one will remember how to (or have the right hardware to) reproduce. Then again, how many people today (a mere decade later, really) still have working phonographs?
  • Can you honestly say that you believe in human altruisticness? If I for one made an album, no way would I put it online for download. It's not a matter of greed, I just believe that the majority of people won't pay for what they can get for free. And not to troll, but this site reaffirms that opinion everyday.
  • We know that the movie industry doesn't have the "problems" music does -- Macrovision can be easily circumvented, and copying from cable and satellite TV picks up where that leaves off. And yet people continue to buy and rent and watch movies at the box office, and the industry continues to do well despite piracy. Software isn't all that different: good programs and games continue to sell well despite the availability of "warez" and casual copying.

    What then, in your opinion, are the significant differences between video and music or software? Why is digital piracy such a "problem" for them when the others have successfully made money despite it?
    • I'd say that right now it's because of bandwidth limitations and because, for some reason, music and flim studios seem to flip out over digital copying, but don't seem to care about analog (probably because they know that digital is the future and analog will be phased out). The movie world is still very much about VHS and analog projection.

  • 1st Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 ) <mike&mikesmithfororegon,com> on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:26PM (#4189948) Homepage
    When I talk to RIAA lawyers they insist that they and their colleagues with the major labels are staunch defenders of the 1st Amendment. Has this been your experience? Why or why not?
  • I've read how the record industry effectively robbed many early recording artists, requiring them to sign exclusive contracts which resulted in all rights and most profits remained with the producer and artists like Chubby Checker, despite a very productive career ended up with very little to show for it.

    How much has ownership of lyrics, music and captured peformances shifted in favor of the artists? How much of a factor do you view the RIAA's alleged-piracey tactics are to avert risk of further erosion of these lucrative properties away from producers (i.e. big labels)?

  • For instance, you might want to start by signing my band, Local Porn Star [localpornstar.com]. Thanks.
  • I really liked your idea about a proposal for the RIAA to "test the waters" with music that was out of print. But that got me thinking even more. Most of the music I downloaded from Napster was music that was either OOP altogether, or never released on CD in the states. Why would the RIAA be concerned if I just happen to like music that they deemed not important enough to even make available for me to purchase. I think your idea would go much further than just "testing the waters" for people in my niche.

    My question is this: Why would they not go for something like this?? Have you heard any rational reason for the labels not getting together and giving this a go??

  • Downloads cost you money (Score:3, Interesting)

    by locarecords.com ( 601843 ) <davidNO@SPAMlocarecords.com> on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:29PM (#4189968) Homepage Journal

    I think it is interesting that the success or otherwise of musicians and music in general is now measured in CD sales, playlists and MTV airplay. I think this is a great shame considering what music can be, and indeed ought to be. These great custodians of the income of the record labels (who incidentally themselves make no music, they merely package and sell it) shows how crazy the whole discussion has gotten. Can we please remember the lowly musician?

    Fundamentally musicans make music because they love music. They don't do it for the fame, for the limo or the huge paycheck (though I grant some do). Musicians make music because they are crazy about music.

    I believe that the Internet has the potential for us to rediscover musicians who make music, music for themselves, their friends, their local community but most of all music for people to listen to and enjoy. Musicians with a passion for the music in itself. But this potential is being criminalised as the labels and their cronies see their massive revenues slipping away. Lets face facts record labels are the most conservative, non-innovative and staid organisations known to man. They *buy* talent in, and most of all they buy it cheaply, often through one-sided contracts, usually underpaying by substantial amounts - you only have to look at the countless court cases surrounding record contracts.

    Musicans need to innovate and need people to listen to their music, and the normalising effects of the record industry merely serve to homogenise and standardise music into need easily digestable packages. This is the problem - the record labels have gotten bigger than the musicians and consequently they now try to mass-produce them. This is a pathetic attempt to continue to cash in on their cash-cows and suppress innovation and creativity.

    I hope people will continue to experiment with downloading and trying out new music, and yeah hopefully some method will be developed to help musicians get paid when you want to buy it. But the record labels have grown fat and lazy and have become part of the problem.

    I believe Open Music initiatives (like Creative Commons, EFF, LOCA public license etc) are the way forward to get exciting new sounds and musical movements underway. I look forward to seeing what musicians the world over can create in this new medium.

    I would be very interested in hearing what Janis thinks of these Open Music licenses.

    David

    locarecords.com [locarecords.com]

  • What reaction from other artists? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by north.coaster ( 136450 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:30PM (#4189977) Homepage

    I assume that you get a chance to talk to other artists at music festivals and the like. Have you received any feedback from them regarding your recent public comments? What about other music industry people (festival organizers, recording industry execs, radio DJ's, etc)?

    /Don

  • Is the RIAA always a negative force? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nomad7674 ( 453223 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:31PM (#4189983) Homepage Journal
    What times in your life have the RIAA helped you in your career and/or artistry? How has this organization been a positive force in your life?

    (Seems to me that this organization can not only exist to deny P2Pers. It existed before Napster, et. al. and thus provided some service to artists, even if peripherally.)

  • Hi Janis,

    How do you feel about the general policy of "CD's cannot be returned unopened."? Do you feel this is necessary to protect artists? The reason I ask is that it seems to fly right in the face of customer satisfaction.

  • Contractual gag order? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Odinson ( 4523 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:32PM (#4189989) Homepage Journal

    Is there anything in your assorted contracts, past and present, that disallows you from organizing with other musicans to protest or strike against your label or the RIAA?

    Has artists ever sucessfully orginized against the RIAA or one of it's member companies, to stop a practice that makes the industry money at the artists expense?

  • What Should We Do? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by north.coaster ( 136450 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:34PM (#4189999) Homepage

    What do you think that the general music-buying public should do about the current situation? Should we boycott copy-protected CDs? Write letters to someone? Share our views artists after concerts?

    /Don

  • An important question was asked here [machall.com]... It's in the 4th panel, you'll understand when you see it.

    Now, the fictional Shawn Fanning refused to answer the question, would you care to take a shot at it?
  • From the little history I know, the RIAA was originally created to bring standards to record formats, and today has become a political tool for the big-wigs of the industry. We need to see how they changed, and learn from it..hopefully to prevent it from happening in the computer industry.

    ttyl
    Farrell

  • Artists leaving the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Washizu ( 220337 ) <bengarvey@co m c a s t . net> on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:39PM (#4190045) Homepage
    How difficult would it be for an established artist to leave the RIAA and remain a success?

  • Can Artist Retain Copyright and Still Make Living? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:41PM (#4190059)
    How practical or common is it for an artist to retain copyright to their own material? Is there a financial incentive to do that? Does a wish to retain copyright of recorded material have an impact on your chances of signing with a "mainstream" label?
  • At one time, subscription recordings were common, particularly for classical works: money would be raised, a particular orchestra hired, and a recording produced, for the benefit of the subscribers. If insufficient money was raised, the bulk was returned, less organizational expenses, and the recording not made.

    Do you see a possibility of a return to subscription recordings, for currently relatively obscure artists that make a name for themselves by offering free samples of their music on-line, to establish their reputations, if the recording industry's lock on distribution were to be diminished?

  • Apple (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Triv ( 181010 )
    Apple seems to have the most geek-friendly attitude towards digital music and fair use - they ask not to steal music and (as far as iTunes / iPods are concerned) obscure the methods to do so without completely preventing it. As a practicing musician myself I understand the necessity of copyright and all its baggage and am enthralled with Apple's stand - I also grew up writing / scoring all my stuff on a variety of macs. I'm therefore wholeheartedly biased and would like another professional opinion.

    So I guess the question is: How do you feel about Apple's stance on fair use?

    Triv
  • The Ultimate Home Theater
    This 20-person home theater earned Escient Solutions an award for "Best Home Theatre Electronic System Design Over $150,000"

    At over 150K with no upper limit, any home theater could be best.

  • FBI files on you? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @01:49PM (#4190109)
    Hi Janis,

    Your site has some material that implies you were the subject of FBI investigations. Could you tell us more about that? Was it related to your early work regarding interracial relationships ("Society's Child", 1966), or something else?

    Thanks,
    S.D.

  • Will they lock out us "amateurs"? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @02:02PM (#4190198) Homepage Journal
    As a long-time "amateur" musician who has made a lot of recordings and kept all the rights by not signing any contracts, my main worry about all this is: The RIAA are once again trying to prevent me from making my own recordings of my own music. They tried this when they tried blocking other recording media such as cassettes, and they lost. But in today's corporate-dominated world, I keep worrying that they might succeed the next time.

    The "Digital Rights Management" software seems to me to be an attempt to do the same thing. If this succeeds, I'll have to get a license (probably from Microsoft) to record and listen to my own music on my own machines.

    Is there anything we can do to prevent this? Or are we facing a world in which all music, even my own private music, will be owned by the corporations?

    • If you had read Janis' articles you would see that she is pretty optimistic long-term, and I am too, especially if the technology folks make it impossible to easily make "home recordings."

      The reason behind this is simple. Most folks understand the entertainment industry's desire to control copying. So as long as the effected groups are small (like people who want to play DVDs on their Linux boxes) then they aren't likely to get too upset. However, if the entertainment industry starts getting in the way of people emailing their home movies to Grandma, then all hell is likely to break loose. No amount of RIAA money is likely to save candidates that make it impossible to make recordings of your own original works.

      Now, I still think that DRM has a very good chance of becoming widespread (mostly because of the dominance of Windows), but I would guess that you will still be able to save your own creations in an unencrypted format. Congress isn't going to push for laws requiring DRM on home recordings, and Microsoft isn't going to require that all media have DRM. Otherwise Microsoft will likely lose another generation of artists to the Macintosh (or Linux).

  • You came up with a good way for the RIAA to get a reasonable benefit from online music and get what they are actually due when music is freely available. The RIAA hasn't gone for it, which is hardly surprising, considering that the RIAA are, so far as I can tell, the only people who don't like you.

    So what can be done without the RIAA getting involved? Perhaps the RIAA would buy in if someone had gotten something working which was making money and didn't use RIAA-owned materials. I bet it would be possible to put together the music needed to have a site from people who just play for fun and aren't expecting to make money (but want to spend their free time but little money on it).

  • Lead from the front? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrWinkey ( 454317 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @02:15PM (#4190300) Homepage
    Miss Janis Ian,
    Everybody seems to have a solution but nobody seems to be putting one into place. Will you lead from the front on this issue and start putting up your own website where people can pay for your songs to download and or buy your songs on a MP3 CD? Maybe if some hard evidence is shown to the record companys they will follow suit?

    Thanks alot,
    Mr.Winkey
  • First off, thanks to you and to Christine Lavin [christinelavin.com] for eloquently voicing the artist and consumer side of this issue and puncturing the facade presented by the RIAA.

    In the 1940's the musicians' union shut down the record industry for 2 years. In today's market, that would be next to impossible. Artists like you, Christine Lavin, and Ani DiFranco have proven that it's possible to survive and prosper away from the major labels. What do you envision as a fair balance between artist, label, radio, and consumer, especially for artists outside the mainstream? How can we as fans and consumers be effective in pushing the mass media towards that balance? Would it make sense for independent artists and smaller labels to form their own coalition, say as BMI was formed as an answer to ASCAP?
  • Your stance on the recording industry and the public is right on, but how can we convince other artists of our viewpoint?

    - Serge Wroclawski
  • I recall my grandfather telling me as a kid about the early 1970's CB radio problem. It turns out that the FCC initially required licenses [breaktherulesandwin.com] to operate a CB radio. Truckers and the general public broke this rule in such numbers that the FCC dropped the requirement all together to aviod looking stupid. Obviously this situation can be applied to today's music "sharing" situation. Here the laws forbid the act of private citizens giving out thousands of copies of copyrighted music, but millions of people disregard those laws and most are better off for it (having more music for less money afterward). Do you believe this civil diobedience to be a legitimate expression of one's sentimate towards these regulations? If so, how far away can the "critcal mass" of file sharing be? Does this disregard for the current statutes help the cause or detract from it by branding music sharers as hacker/thieves.

    Thanks, and mad props to artists that speak their mind!

    James

  • Will music survive? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stain ain ( 151381 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @02:30PM (#4190409)
    Imagine a future where music bands only make a small percentage of money of what they earn now because of piracy, a future where the most popular band is not even close to being millionaire.
    Do you think music would disappear? In other words, would musicians (both new and already well-known) compose, play, perform as good if money were not there? How important is money in all of this?

  • What do record companies offer artists today? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Just Jeff ( 5760 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @02:32PM (#4190424) Homepage
    Not too many years ago, widely distributing recorded music took expensive equipment and cost a lot of money. Only a large record company could do it. Artists had little choice but to sign their life away to a major record company.

    Today, distributing recorded music costs next-to-nothing. Yet the price of recorded music has never been higher.

    What does a record company offer an artist today? What can a record company do for an artist that the artist can't do herself? Are artists beginning to realize this on their own?

    Thanks / Jeff

    • Advertising.
      Marketing.
      Airtime on radio play lists.
      Concert organization and promotion.

      As well as the things you mentioned, like:

      Recording studios.
      Qualified engineers.
      All the back office stuff for running a music business.
      Distribution channels. (Janis doesn't make money fom MP3s)
      etc.....

      Bottom line, a better chance at a steady paycheck. Doubt it? Name one garage band that is distributing over the internet that has global mind share and is making the big bucks that even burned out stars are making, much less Brittney or Backstreet or any other pop group.

    • When you buy a CD, you're not just paying for the production of that one CD. You're paying for the production of that CD and the 9 others that flopped and didn't recoup their expenses at all.

      When the artist is already a success it certainly looks like the record company is getting a great deal. But if some no-name came up to you and wanted you to invest $10,000 in his new record, what kind of return would you want?

  • Who do you believe that the RIAA primarily works for? The artists or the labels, and how do you think that this can be changed? (or should it even be changed?) Thank you.

  • Is it about lost sales, or is there more to it? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mini me ( 132455 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @02:42PM (#4190503)
    It has always been my opinion that the RIAA cares not about selling a million different CDs, but rather sell a million identical CDs. The RIAA would be silly not to think that way. I believe the record industry isn't so concerned about "theift" of the music, but more about controlling what people listen to.

    It's a little hard to justify the cost of buying a CD without hearing it first. So, to first hear it you have the option of radio and TV which are pretty much controlled by the RIAA or you can get a copy from a friend (extending to online "friends") which is frowned upon by the cartel.

    Do you feel the RIAA's stance on music trading on the Internet and even outside of the Internet is entirely about lost sales, or is it more sinister?

  • On getting signed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Scaba ( 183684 )
    My fiancee and I are songwriters and we have a band [soraia.com], and of course we'd like to be able to make a living writing and playing our music, even if we never become zillionaires doing it. If you were getting your first recording deal today, but had your 30+ years knowledge of the music business, what things would you do, not do, do instead, etc. What sort of things would you do to protect yourself and your rights to your own music? In other words, what wisdom in dealing with record companies have you acquired can you pass on to other artists about the whole signing process, copyrights, publishing, etc.?

  • Touring (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VB ( 82433 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @03:03PM (#4190654) Homepage

    About 10 years ago, I submitted tapes of my material through the Readers_Digest_Songwriters_Market : RequestToSubmit : SendTape : Never_Hear_Anything_Back_Except_For_Promotion_Scam s process and wasted a lot of money doing it. Now that technology has become affordable, along with talented and experienced sound engineers, I'm reproducing the tracks / spending many hours in the shed each week and taking the final CD out to the coffee shops and smoke-filled bars to try and spread my work around that way.

    Having spent a considerable amount of time touring, do you see this as a viable approach for undiscovered songwriter / artists to get their message out; perhaps the only one? Do you know other signed artists personally who are still benefitting from the legacy A&R / Promotion-heavy approach who might be considering the recent turns of events in their current model of distribution? Are they planning to focus more on touring if the current CD sales slump doesn't turn around?

    As a side note, I love where all this is going and look forward to the promise of a world where we can get access to creative content unfiltered by the RIAA. With cheap / useful technology, artists should be able to finally get some real creative work done. I only hope our lobbyists don't legislate that potential away from us...
  • Seems to me that you and your fellow artists and the open source community have at least one thing in common - a strong dislike for the RIAA.
    Given that, perhaps the two communities could get together and take on the recording industry by developing a replacement for it.

    Today, the industry supplies the artist with:

    1) Funding - supply up front funding to artist to create music
    (i.e venture capital).
    2) Recording - they provide a studio,(optional) other musicians
    to record with, technicians to record the music, mixing, editing, etc.
    3) Manufacture - create physical CD's, art-work, etc.
    4) Distribution - distribute the CD's to record stores.
    5) Accounting - Track sales, send payments to artists, songwriters, etc.
    6) Promotion - promote your music to the fans. Get air play on radio, TV. Arrange for concerts, etc.

    Unless the artist has recent "megahits" much of the above is done poorly or not at all. What software would you like to see the open source community develop, to enable artists to become more independent of the recording industry?

  • I have just finished reading "Our Band Could Be Your Life" [amazon.com] by Michael Azerrad which details the creation of the American independent music scene from 1981 to 1991 (when Nirvana "Nevermind" went #1 on the Billboard charts). In it there are many examples of independent artists (those not affiliated with the Big Six) trying to move up to a major label.

    However there is also a strong segement of the underground that is vehemently independent: Steve Albini for one and his diatribe against the majors (The Problem With Music [negativland.com]) or Ian MacKaye and Fugazi who assure all their products cost at most ten dollars [dischord.com] and who have concerts for five. It seems that there has been a long standing (at least twenty years) of a "shadow industry" that stands for all the virtues of music making.

    My question is this: what do you think causes the majority of the music buying public to only purchase from the Big Six (99% of all music I believe)? And what would the underground have to do to bite into that? Or should they even bother (the idea being someone who buys music from the mainstream isn't worth the effort)?

  • will unitedmusicians work? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by evenprime ( 324363 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @04:02PM (#4191049) Homepage Journal
    On pg. 57 of the June 2002 issue of Performing Songwriter [performingsongwriter.com] (i.e. the same issue that ran the print version of your internet debacle [janisian.com] column) contains an interview with Michael Hausman about his new organization United Musicians [unitedmusicians.com] that seems to suggest that his group can help artists retain ownership of their masters and the copyrights on their songs instead of signing those rights over to publishing companies. Unfortunately, their website is very short on details.

    What do you think about unitedmusicians.com? Will the idea work? What would you recommend as the best course of action for an independent musician who wants to maintain ownership of the publishing portion of their songs' mechanical and performance royalties? Should singer/songwriters start their own publishing companies in order to maintain control of their work?

  • When will Janis Ian appear before Congress? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uncoveror ( 570620 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @04:14PM (#4191119) Homepage
    Hollywood and the RIAA have the likes of Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen [uncoveror.com] speaking before Congress all the time. Other than Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia, [com.com] consumers have no voice there. Is there any way Janis Ian could speak before Congress on behalf of musicians and music consumers? I would hate for the likes of Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti to be the only voices they hear.

  • Trusted Computing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by KarenAnne11 ( 74123 )
    Janis,

    How do you feel about the Palladium and the so-called "trusted computing" initiatives that are being pushed by industry leaders as a way of protecting content providers and copyright owners? Do you see this as something that might benefit artists, songwriters and musicians, or more as an attempt to cede total control in the hands of the RIAA membership? By placing the onus of protecting digital content on the consumer rather than on the entity claiming ownership, will we be helping the struggling musician or will it give the record companies an unassailable lock on the entire industry? In short, if the promoters of trusted computing succeed in their plans, do you think this will move the balance irretrievably in favor of the Big Three?

  • Open Audio License (and related licenses) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SnakeStu ( 60546 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @05:00PM (#4191413) Homepage
    I noticed that you are offering free MP3 downloads from your Web site, but I didn't see a specific license associated with those files. To me, this implies that I can download them and enjoy them on my own system, but I have no rights beyond that. For example, I couldn't give a copy to a friend -- he or she would need to download their own copy. However, another person might interpret their rights much more freely; they might, for example, use portions of the audio in their own music.

    Have you considered providing a specific license for those downloads? If so, would you use your own license, or would you use an existing "open music" license such as the Open Audio License [eff.org] published by the EFF? If you didn't use an existing license, what would your primary reason(s) be for using your own?

  • I just came back from DragonCon, so this is fresh in my mind, but I saw a band called the Brobdingnagian Bards. They have one of the most popular songs on Mp3.com, and are somewhere in the top 20 most popular bands, I think 14th... They do sell CDs, they have one produced by Mp3.com, and 2 produced by some other folks. The mp3.com CD that I got from them for 15$, contains 17 songs PLUS all 17 songs in mp3 format. The other two cds cost me about 10$ apiece, maybe a bit more. They don't contain the Mp3s. As far as I can tell these guys just go to RenFairs, Cons, etc... play their music, sell their CDs, put stuff on Mp3.com, etc... They make pretty decent money from what I can tell.
    So what entitles Musicians to 'Make it big' ? Why can't they make it 'big enough' and be happy? Why sign with a record label at all if you don't have to?

    Kintanon

  • Other models. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Tuesday September 03, 2002 @07:29PM (#4192133)
    A great deal of the debate over the RIAA/MPAA copyright crackdowns and new technology such as P2P focuses on the monolithic marketing models of the big labels/studios. You yourself have pointed out that their models are based upon a world where music (or movies) are expensive to produce and share.

    What alternative model you look foreward to (or fear) arising? Do you want to see artist/promoters working with radio stations (like the old days) or do you beleive that there will always be a place for middle-man labels such as BMG?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Close