boycott-riaa.com - Article: Musicians to Industry Groups: "Not In Our Names"

Musicians to Industry Groups: "Not In Our Names"

Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on October 25, 2007 at 9:47 AM (printer friendly)

Musicians to Industry Groups: "Not In Our Names"
Throne Speech, Recent American judgment, potential
preview of worst case scenario for Canadian music fans

Montreal
October 22, 2007
The Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC) renewed its calls for the Canadian government to ensure a made-in-Canada response to copyright reform. This call comes in the wake of the landmark judgment October 4 against Jammie Thomas, the single mother of two from Brainerd, MN who was hit with a penalty of $222,000 US for downloading 24 songs (approximately 90 minutes of music with a retail value of less than $25) and the Federal Government's addition of "copyright reform" to it's list of priorities in last week's throne speech.

"When the Canadian Record Industry Association (CRIA) says 'copyright reform' what they really mean is 'give a free hand to sue fans who download like they have in the US,'" explained CMCC representative and Barenaked Ladies front man Steven Page. "We hope the government has a better solution in mind."

"We think lawsuits like the one in Minnesota would be terrible for the music business in Canada. It's shortsighted to say 'See you in court' one day and 'See you at Massey Hall' the next," Page continued. "If record labels want to try and sue fans, we hope that they'll have the courtesy to stop trying to do it in our names."

The CMCC suggests a more effective legislative approach to peer-to-peer technology would be one that accepts current technological and music-business realities.

"It's been nearly ten years since peer-to-peer file sharing changed the music industry and, despite what some people suggest, suing people isn't going to make it 1995 again," Page elaborated. "Capitol Records v. Thomas is just another example of the drastic measures American record labels have been taking against their fans for years. Despite all this ill will, peer-to-peer downloading hasn't shown any sign of going away. If the Canadian government wants to reform copyright it should be creating a made-in-Canada solution that looks to where the music industry is going, not where it was."

-- 30 --

For Further Information Contact Steven Page c/o CMCC Communications: (514) 867-8337 or press@musiccreators.ca.

About the Canadian Music Creators Coalition

Our membership rolls boast dozens of household names including Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Broken Social Scene, Matthew Good, Metric, Randy Bachman, Billy Talent, Sloan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), The New Pornographers, Bill Henderson (Chilliwack), Ronnie King (The Stampeders), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Three Days Grace, Andrew Cash and Sam Roberts. We are the people who actually create Canadian music. Without us, there would be no music for copyright laws to protect.

Until recently, a group of multinational record labels has done most of the talking about what Canadian artists need out of copyright and cultural policy. Record companies and music publishers are not 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.

The CMCC is united under three key principles:

Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against artists' will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in artists' names

Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels' control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of fair use, without having to pay twice.

Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists
The vast majority of new Canadian music is not promoted by major labels, which focus mostly on foreign artists. The government should use other policy tools to support actual Canadian artists and a thriving musical and cultural scene.

More information about the CMCC (including a more detailed policy statement) is available at www.musiccreators.ca.

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


INeedAlover	Date: October 25, 2007 @ 11:03 AM "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." WELL SAID WELL SAID!!! What's truly amazing about that statement is that the same can be said here in the United States (except for one record label). Why do our politicians support foreign interests in suing our constituents??? It must the free vacation our politician received from said foreign corporation's lobbyist.

gdZiemann	Date: October 25, 2007 @ 11:20 AM Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against artists' will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in artists' names Too bad American artists don't have the balls to speak out against this activity.

gdZiemann	Date: October 25, 2007 @ 1:15 PM In fact, my previous statement was far, far too nice. Reality is that the American artists just want to know where their share of the money is.

leedsquietman	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 1:15 AM That wasn't entirely what I read, they seem to be more anti RIAA than anti p2p in some of these journal posts, including not supporting the legal action against grokster etc. Not all American artists are against p2p filesharing or supportive of suing individuals, to suggest such is quite stereotypical, even if you're right in that the majority are drones to their labels and tow the line.

gdZiemann	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 1:57 AM Not all American artists are against p2p filesharing or supportive of suing individuals But these are the Stars on Parade. They're the ones who show up for congressional and senate hearings. What they choose to ignore is just as important as what they say. Which American stars say that suing the fans is wrong? I'm not hearing any rock stars say that the lawsuits are destructive and should be stopped. Not one. There sure are a boatload of them that will tell you it's stealing, though. I've been told in the past, by someone in a position to know, that there is a subculture of "good guys" in the music business. So far, I know of three, but I haven't even heard one of them publicly say that the lawsuits should stop. It's not a stereotype if there are no exceptions; it's merely a description.

ChillinBuzz	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 5:22 AM We aren't hearing them say it's wrong because nobody would allow such heinous (sic) comments to reach the mainstream media but to say you aren't hearing it doesn't mean it's not being said. Anyway, it doesn't matter if they aren't on our side in this, they soon will when they see the light (above the exit door when their contracts run out) and realise they've been shafted all along.

pessimist	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 7:09 AM In regard to important issues, I concur with the concept of what doesn't get said (that could/should be pertinent) by a person or an entity is just about as significant as what does get said. Or, in the case of mainstream media, what isn't reported can be almost as important as what does get reported.

gdZiemann	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 2:14 PM to say you aren't hearing it doesn't mean it's not being said. Aw, come on. Be real. We'll know if Britney remembered to wear panties today. If someone says something, we'd hear about it. I used to have considerable respect and admiration for the majority of the Recording Artists Coalition's membership. They used to be my heroes. I spent time learning their songs. In the last four and a half years, the RIAA has sued enough individuals to fill a small stadium. The RAC and its members, collectively or individually, still have nothing to say about the effect this has on their audience? Sounds a lot like the FEMA response to Katrina. Not hero material.

independentm...	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 8:52 PM I am sad to say I agree with George. Not enough (hardly any) of the "big name" Amercian artists have spoken out against the lawsuits, the RIAA, or much of anything. I suspect there is very considerable pressure (perhaps even contractual clauses) from the labels on the artists to keep their mouths shut on these issues. I can only hope and pray that they really do "see the light (above the exit door when their contracts run out)" instead of being stupid and re-signing. The ONLY possible benefit to being with a major label is that you MIGHT be allowed radio/eMTv airplay. (But even the majority of signed acts recieve very little promotion by the label. MOST acts struggle to pay back the recording advance.)

pessimist	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 9:37 PM Re: "pay back the recording advance" ?? I thought they didn't have to repay an advance. How about it, George?

independentm...	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 9:37 PM Wisdom in the Great White North By George Ziemann -- October 25, 2007 While the RIAA continues the music inquisition and people continue to share music with reckless abandon, the question that the media seldom asks is where the artists stand on the issue of the record labels suing their fans. This has not stopped some of them from telling us anyway. In October, 2003, Todd Rundgren was speaking to the artists when he said, "Ask also whether, as a musician, you ever believed the RIAA was actively protecting your interests until they got into a fight with their own customers and started using your name, your so-called well-being, as justification. And when the customers became skeptical they became the enemy. And to follow the RIAA's logic, customers are therefore the enemies of musicians. Let us ignore the fact that if you ever got compensated for your contribution, it would have been because your manager and lawyer (and many before) forced the labels to recognize your labor in financial terms. "The reason why the RIAA comes off as a gang of ignorant thugs is because, well, how do I put this -- they are." That was four years ago. Did anyone listen to him? Maybe, maybe not. Canadian Artists: Don't Sue Fans in Our Name Spotted this one over at Boycott-RIAA. Here's the link, and here are the most important points: "When the Canadian Record Industry Association (CRIA) says 'copyright reform' what they really mean is 'give a free hand to sue fans who download like they have in the US,'" explained CMCC (Canadian Music Creators Coalition) representative and Barenaked Ladies front man Steven Page. "We hope the government has a better solution in mind." "We think lawsuits like the one in Minnesota would be terrible for the music business in Canada. It's shortsighted to say 'See you in court' one day and 'See you at Massey Hall' the next," Page continued. "If record labels want to try and sue fans, we hope that they'll have the courtesy to stop trying to do it in our names." The article also offers the key principles of the CMCC, which the first being: "Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical -- Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against artists' will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in artists' names." After I read that, I thought that it was pretty awesome that the artists were finally going to step forward to show some common sense and dignity. Then I looked at what the U.S. artists have to say this year. Not quite as awesome, to say the least. American Artists: Where's Our Money? In March, the Recording Artists Coalition decided to take a survey to find out if anyone had seen a dime from any of the settlements (Kazaa, eDonkey, BearShare, Grokster, iMesh, Audiogalaxy, mp3.com) because, according to their figures, these add up to at least $363 million. In May, they were concerned that the webcasting royalty rates which threaten the small webcasters might be reduced. June brought the realization that, since they didn't have to shell out for payola any longer, they deserved to get paid for airtime. August brought an update on the lawsuit money. "The RIAA claims that in all but two instances, the actual money collected thus far is much less than the reported settlements. Those two exceptions are the MP3.com and Kazaa settlements. To date, the RIAA has reported that it has received slightly less than $6M from the other settlements combined, all of which was applied to the legal costs associated with anti-piracy prosecutions against those and related entities. The RAC also reports that "in MP3.com, each label reached its own settlement and thus dealt with its artists separately," and that "$100M of the Kazaa settlement... is close to being distributed by the RIAA to its member labels; however, there is no indication as to when the labels will distribute the money to the artists." There is also no indication that the RAC even has an opinion on suing the fans. The RAC's key principles don't seem to have anything to do with their fans. They just want to know where their money is. (Embedded links and all that at the source: http://azoz.com

independentm...	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 9:38 PM They pay back the recording advance from their royalties BEFORE they ever see a dime. That's recording industry practices 101 pessimist. You already know that! :)

pessimist	Date: October 27, 2007 @ 10:29 PM George once once wrote that advances to an artist from a label don't have to be paid back. Let's see if he remembers writing that.

gdZiemann	Date: October 28, 2007 @ 4:30 PM George once once wrote that advances to an artist from a label don't have to be paid back. I don't specifically remember saying that, but it is true. So is what Shmoo said. Hypothetical scenario: The Radioactive Snails get signed to Barf Records. Barf gives them $200,000 to make a record. The Snails do their part and give the record labels the master tracks. Barf has the masters, the Snails have whatever is left over after doing the recording, but they have a bill for $200k, plus whatever the label spends on promotion. If the Snails never sell a single record, they do not have to pay back the advance. It wasn't a loan. The Snails have no obligation beyond finishing the album. Barf can't send a collection agency after the Snails if the record doesn't sell. They already have the collateral -- the masters. It was an advance payment for future royalties. If the record does sell, the advance must be paid off before the Snails see another dime. Also unlike a loan, if the Snails sell enough to pay off the debt, Barf still keeps the collateral -- the masters.

pessimist	Date: October 28, 2007 @ 6:12 PM George -- thanks for the clarification! This is a wonderful website for information.

CodeWarrior	Date: October 29, 2007 @ 2:13 PM I think George the Z did a great job and I second his comments and opinions. I looked at the link he posted and , under FAIR USE, quote from that page... "The RIAA claims that in all but two instances, the actual money collected thus far is much less than the reported settlements. Those two exceptions are the MP3.com and Kazaa settlements. To date, the RIAA has reported that it has received slightly less than $6M from the other settlements combined, all of which was applied to the legal costs associated with anti-piracy prosecutions against those and related entities. We are told that in MP3.com, each label reached its own settlement and thus dealt with its artists separately. (Sony BMG says that it has indeed shared that money with its artists, but that the specifics of those sharing arrangements are a confidential matter between the label and its artists). We have learned that $100M of the Kazaa settlement -- by far, the largest of the P2P settlements -- is close to being distributed by the RIAA to its member labels (it is currently sitting in an interest-bearing account); however, there is no indication as to when the labels will distribute the money to the artists. (Again, Sony BMG says that it will share net proceeds with its artists in the same manner as it did in the MP3.com case)." ===SNIP===== Perhaps, if American artist think the RIAA may be either now, or will, screw them out of "their fair share" of the blood money, or that their own labels may not pony up the bucks, perhaps these artists should hire attorneys ("lawyer up") and sue both the RIAA and their own label(s), and demand an audit of how the funds from these lawsuits are being used. Hey, how about that idea Cary Sherman? How about Metallica suing YOU for a change? ~Code

independentm...	Date: October 29, 2007 @ 3:42 PM That would be so AWSOME, I'd actually almost be willing to CHEER for Metallica again for the first time in many many years.

gdZiemann	Date: October 30, 2007 @ 12:51 AM Billy Barf, the fictional CEO of Barf Records (from earlier hypothetical) says... "Audit? There's nothing to audit because I don't HAVE to give them anything. "I pay the artists a percentage of record/download sales. This wasn't a sale. This is money earned by fighting against the damn pirates. I own the copyrights. I was just protecting my own interests. "I don't have to pay the artists a dime unless there's a clause in their contract that specifically mentions income from lawsuits. Since I wrote up the contracts, I'm relatively certain there is no such clause."

INeedAlover	Date: October 30, 2007 @ 11:35 AM Pluto Plutoniam of the Radioactive Snails says, "Well that sucks!!! Let's see, if we are lucky enough to sell a million records at $10 a pop, by the time I'm done paying attorneys, producers, recording studios, promotions, etc., my band only gets about $160,000.00 to divide amongst the four of us. Everyone else made money, especially the record label. And yet, we haven't paid the label back in full for the advance. We might as well have worked at 7-11 for the year."