Since the Recording Industry Association of America began its campaign against file-sharing services and unauthorized song swapping online in 1999, it has offered one chief justification for its actions: downloading songs is stealing money from the pockets of musicians.

But the musicians themselves have conflicted responses to file sharing and the tactics of the association, a trade group that represents record labels, not the musicians themselves, who have no organization that wields equal power.

So, many musicians have found themselves watching helplessly from the sidelines as the recording industry has begun suing people who are their fans, their audience and their consumers — who also share music online without authorization. Last week, 261 lawsuits were filed, the first battle in what the association says will be a long campaign of litigation against the most active music fans sharing songs on services like KaZaA.

"On one hand, the whole thing is pretty sick," said John McCrea, a singer and songwriter in the rock band Cake. "On the other hand, I think it'll probably work."

Many musicians privately wish file sharing would go away, though they are reluctant to admit it, because they do not want to seem unfriendly to their fans. So they have been happy to have the industry group play the role of bad cop. But with the escalation of the battle last week (with lawsuits filed against, among others, a 71-year-old grandfather and a 12-year-old girl), some musicians say they are beginning to wonder if the actions being taken in their name are a little extreme. This is especially true because they rarely see the royalties they are ostensibly losing from file sharing.

"It would be nice if record companies would include artists on these decisions," said Deborah Harry of Blondie, adding that when a grandfather is sued because, unbeknownst to him, his grandchildren are downloading songs on his computer, "it's embarrassing."

The artist Moby, on his Web site, offered a similar opinion, suggesting that the music companies treat users of file-sharing services like fans instead of criminals. "How can a 14-year-old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multimillionaire musicians and greedy record companies," he wrote. "The record companies should approach that 14-year-old and say: `Hey, it's great that you love music. Instead of downloading music for free, why don't you try this very inexpensive service that will enable you to listen to a lot of music and also have access to unreleased tracks and ticket discounts and free merchandise?' "

A few artists, like Metallica and Loudon Wainwright III, have come out strongly in favor of the record industry's crackdown. It could be seen as a gutsy move, considering the criticism Metallica faced from music fans when it campaigned against the file-sharing service Napster, which was declared illegal.

In a new song, "Something for Nothing," Mr. Wainwright makes fun of the mentality of file sharers, singing: "It's O.K. to steal, cuz it's so nice to share."

As for the lawsuits, Mr. Wainwright said that he was not surprised. "If you're going to break the law, the hammer is going to come down," he said.

At the same time, other influential musicians and groups — like Moby, System of a Down, Public Enemy, and the Dead — contend that the record industry's efforts are misguided and that it must work with the new technology instead of against it.

But most seem ambivalent, or confused.

"I see both sides," said Rodney Crowell, a country music singer and songwriter. "In some ways, I think the record companies have it coming, but at the same time, being a writer and therefore in the business of copyright, they're saying it's impacting our business by 30 percent or more, so we have to do something."

The Recording Industry Association says there has been a 31 percent drop in sales of recorded music since file sharing became popular more than three years ago, but statistics from Forrester Research show that the sales decline since 2000 has been half that, or 15 percent, and that 35 percent of that amount is because of unauthorized downloading.

The situation has become so thorny that many top-selling artists, even those who have been outspoken about embracing new technology, declined to comment on the lawsuits on the record, for fear of upsetting their labels. In interviews, some musicians and their representatives said that their labels had asked them not to talk. And in a dozen cases, record labels did not grant interviews with musicians on the subject.
Advertisement

"I don't think anyone really understands the impact of what's happening, and they don't want to make a mistake," said Allen Kovac, who runs 10th Street Entertainment, an artist management company in Los Angeles. "The impact of lawsuits on fans is a double-edged sword. If you're a record company, do you want record company acts being persona non grata at every college campus in America?"

Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)

Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said.

"I don't have sympathy for the record companies," said Mickey Melchiondo of the rock duo Ween. "They haven't been paying me royalties anyway."

Musicians tend to make more money from sales of concert tickets and merchandise than from CD sales. In fact, many musicians offer free downloads of their songs on their Web sites to market themselves.

For some of them, the problem with file sharing is control. Before a CD is released, early versions of the songs often end up on file-sharing services, where fans download the music under the misconception that it is the finished product. Other times, songs online by one act are credited to another act. And fans exchange studio outtakes, unreleased songs, and live performances that some artists would prefer remain unheard.

Serj Tankian of the hard-rock band System of a Down, for example, said he thought that the free exchange of songs by his band and others online was healthy for music fans, but objected when that free exchange included unfinished studio recordings.

Ween, which recently left a major record label, Elektra, to release its records independently, has found a way to coexist with file sharing, which the band actually supports by encouraging fans to record and trade shows.

At the same time, Ween fans police eBay for people who are selling live recordings and KaZaA for people who are leaking songs before an album is released. "Before `Quebec,' came out," Mr. Melchiondo said, referring to Ween's latest CD, "our fans would message people on KaZaA who were sharing tracks and ask them to take the music down. And they also mounted a campaign where they put up fake copies of our record to throw people off."

I keep thinking about Wilco's last CD. Orphaned for a while by their record company, the band posted the entire album for free on their website. All the Wilco fans I know had burned copies; and they all bought the official release when it finally appeared!
I think a part of the problem lies in the record companys' obsession with big hit singles and mega-pop sounds that becomes obsolete very quickly. Why buy something when it's available for free, and pretty much disposable anyway?

However, I'm assuming you signed some sort of agreement with the record companies. If so, how did the agreement address royalties? If the record company did not live up to the agreement, you could also sue under breach of contract.

Regarding the article above, it's interesting to note the part that says,

--"Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)"--

This is typical of the overgeneralized statements made by the press in order to fit in with the overall slant of the story. That is, the author of this piece simply makes a statement that infers that most record companies are ripping off the artists because the record companies are not paying them royalties.

What the article somehow "forgets" to mention is that it's entirely possible that in most if not all cases, the artists have entered into agreements with the record companies with full knowledge that they may never receive any royalty payments. The article also somehow forgets to mention what the artists HAVE been paid by the record companies. What's more is that,unlike the old days, these artists are all represented by their own counsel at the time they enter into these agreements with the record companies.

Since the record companies don't know which artist is going to suddenly become the next big thing, they often sign up a bunch of artists and pay each one a pretty healthy up front sum, in return for which the record company obtains certain publishing rights to the music. This way, the artist is happy because they get a big chunk of money right away, and the record company hedges by signing up as many artists as they can -- so if one of them breaks out, the record company makes back the money they've spent on the whole group of artist, plus -- hopefully -- a little profit.

But, after the artist blows all the money, they start thinking that they've been robbed by the record company.

Kevin -- I think you've made a good point. That is, part of the problem with the recording industry today is that most of the acts are "here today, gone tomorrow." That makes it very difficult for the big record companies to sell music. However, I don't think we can fault the record companies for not signing more stable artists -- I'm sure they would sign them -- if only they could find them!! In other words, I think the "here today, gone tomorrow" phenomenon is mostly the result of a fickle buying public. That is, most of the people who buy music these days buy music of the type of artist who tend to shine bright and fizzle fast.

So, it's sort of a vicious cycle. The bulk of the buying public constantly wants something new, and the record companies don't know which new artist is going to sell. At least that's my take on it.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 14 September 2003 at 09:18 AM.]

Of course it is wrong to steal..but on the otherside is a Label that continuosly takes advantage of their ability to present and distribute pure trash with no recourse for the buyer of the $16 trash CD .

The execs fully understand that they can distribute anything they want..and I beg to differ with them about 30% drop in sales from Kazaa..

In my home it's 90% and it's totally due to poor products being sold, with no satisfaction..We buy CD's but we are very cautious.

The last CD my daughter purchased was a Myria Carey CD, she paid for it herself with babysitting money..she was so upset that she spent $16 on pure trash..1 radio song, the one she wanted, and 8 or 9 studio outakes of pure nonsense..that was the last CD she ever purchased. For a young girl, at the time, she was really quite mad about the whole thing and when she found out she couldn't return it to Wallmart for a refund..that was it for her..end of the line..

So Mr. Label Exec..if you're reading..how about explain to her why you packaged a product that was pure trash..and she couldn't return it due to this entire royalty/licensing/copyrights issue...You stole from her..misrepresented your product
and got away with it becasue of your legal position.

How many of those Myria CD's did you all sell that may have participated in the downward sales trend ? Did you bite a chunk out of the hand that feeds you ? How many new artists sales are effected by this mega star artist hype/rip off?

The weekly activity charts the volume of CD sales..not the amount of happy campers..

And if you're an Artist selling on the market..what gives you the right to offer out a package of 12 or so songs where 10 are not even worthy of a second listen ? Where do you come off complaining about royalties ?

True ,their is a sucker born everyday..but unfortunatley the ones buying CD's were not born today..or yesterday...fool me once shame on you..fool me twice..shame on me...

Here are a few CD's that we recently went out and bought the day of release and they all are worth every penny of the money spent..

Buddy Jewell
Terry Clark
Suzzy Boggus
Brad Paisley
Alan Jackson

"If you create something everyone wants they will beat a path to your doorstep to get one"...

tp

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 15 September 2003 at 04:10 AM.]

Their current model has not changed in my time on the planet - you pay money, you get a physical recording, and musicians continue to struggle. Formats have changed -big deal. You know I've bought perhaps 30 CD's this year, but I think 4 from traditional stores, or Amazon. All others from other channels not controlled by major record industry execs. Like thru this forum, or from artists directly, independent distributors, at concerts, at conventions, and used CD stores. I also listen to and record off internet radio, and digital cable radio feeds. There's lots of ways to get music. I never did Napster and don't download much, yet - but now that I have DSL, who knows. iTunes looks great. I only listen to CD's in the car. At home audio is streamed to my stereo via special PC audio server and I have almost instant access to any tune I own that I have a whim to hear. Great for practice, teaching, rehearsing the band etc. I'm not unique.

Consider this: What scenarios might present themselves and how do we deal with them if they do? = the long view. (good book btw) Remember the phrase 'plastics' in The Graduate. Fast forward to 2005 - 'wireless'.

Here's some facts to ponder;
- college kids (and many others) are beavering away building their own wireless networks that are 'dark', can't be seen by the rest of the net. However they can acces the web, share files etc.
- these networks typically share one network service tap that they share the cost of and they can share this via wireless between houses, apartments etc.
- many run their own web server networks
- cell phone/PDA technology converging big time.
- home recording often rivals big label quality with the avail. of 24bit, 24 track studio-in-a-box technology
- ecommerce capability is avail. to anyone easily now with Paypal etc.

Given all those realities - I often wonder, How long will it be before musicians and fans take ownership of the venues and their own art and bypass traditional channels completely? Not long is my guess. Because the venue is virtual, it's wireless , the product is digital, and the young people in college today grew up with computers, so will create and accept things that most business people over 40 can't contemplate yet, if at all. Because this is not technology to them, it just 'is'.

I think:

-Private sponsored internet radio programs, and live video programs will become hip and promote most of what people will want to listen too. If they want 'legacy' music they can get it from iTunes. or others.
- Who's going to have the first popular wireless radio show? Where can I get that DJ job? Imagine the marketing capability there! Keep that stupid cell phone headset plugged in 100% and listen to great tunes, watch sports, whatever.
- IM (instant messaging) email, forums like this, and other forms of communication tools will increasingly link communities of like minds - 'thumb tribes' as some have been called. They'll purchase like lemmings.
- Download music will clearly become the primary distribution, and storage will be many things (dvd, cdr, , smart media, PDA's hd archive services etc.)

The download debate is moot, the record companies should just move on before it's too late.

------------------
Chris Kennison
Ft. Collins, Colorado
"There is no spoon"
www.book-em-danno.com

I also think another important issues is -- unless funds can be generated at least somewhat based along traditional lines, music will simply cease to exist as we have known it to be.

Yes, there are new things happening in the world of communication and computers -- maybe the entire realm of what is "music" is due to change too(?)

We've traditionally associated music with professional production, state-of-the art manufacturing and distribution, as well as high-level promotion -- in other words, music has, at least for the last 5 decades or so, been associated with big money. The record companies are trying like heck to keep that big money coming in. If they are unsuccessful, we WILL see a change in music.

For example, consider the railroad industry. Passenger rail service used to be a big thing. Travel by rail was once considered glamorous, exciting, etc. etc. and the railroads generated big revenues from passenger rail travel. Enter the automobile, interstate highways, and jetliners. Bye bye passenger rail service.

Once there were big record companies which sold millions of recordings. Enter the internet and other file-sharing devices. Bye bye recording industry --

hello AMTRAK

In other words, the reason that big name acts ARE big name acts is because they generate BIG MONEY. Take the big money out of the equation and you no longer have big name acts. Of course, it really depends on what your definition of "big name act" is.

If record companies cannot generate big money from sales of their "stable" of acts, then the money won't be there to spend in promoting the big acts. Without promotion, most -- if not all -- big acts would not be big acts anymore.

The result -- a vicious circle in which lack of money due to falling record company revenues leads to lack of promotional funding.

What will ensue (at least in my opinion) should the above scenario (music sharing gone rampant) actually happen, is that all musicians and artists will basically be "on their own" -- that is, the record companies will eventually go away because there will be virtually no money to be made in recordings. The only money will be in live performance.

That is, any recording will be subject to file sharing -- so there is no incentive for consumers to purchase the recording. Then, the only incentive for issuing a recording at all will be an attempt to gain popularity in order to get people to come to your live performances.

However, it's doubtful that there's really THAT much money to be made in live performances in cases where the act is not a big time act promoted by a record company.

So, the end result of such a scenario might be that the only people producing music are those who are driven to produce music simply for the sake of the music itself and not for the money -- hey, maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 26 September 2003 at 08:44 PM.]