|
ARTEMIS RECORDS TO WAIVE INTERNET RADIO FEES
ARTEMIS RECORDS TO WAIVE INTERNET RADIO FEES
Artemis Records has agreed to issue licenses to internet radio for one year for the master use of songs by all Artemis recording artists. This announcement was made today by Danny Goldberg, Chairman and CEO, Artemis Records and Daniel Glass, President, Artemis Records. During this period, beginning August 1, 2002, Artemis will waive the royalty payments that would otherwise be due them.
Exact details and restrictions can be found on the licensing agreement available for viewing at www.artemisrecords.com.
Currently, non-interactive streaming radio or Internet radio stations must pay a royalty rate to the record companies.
"In allowing free use of our catalog at this early stage we hope to stimulate the internet radio format, " said Mr. Goldberg. "Both Daniel Glass and I feel it to be an incredibly worthy marketing and promotional tool."
Artemis Records is a New York-based independent record label with a roster that includes Kittie, singer/songwriter Steve Earle and rapper Khia, as well as the critically acclaimed Marah and Josh Joplin Group, Boston, Ricki Lee Jones, North Missisippi All Stars, and Graham Nash among others.
In addition they are the label for the Dark Angel Soundtrack, Steal this movie Soundtrack and others.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
Svensta
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 7:27 PM
You know, I am actually considering buying a record from this label now, to thank them for lifting this fee. I am a big fan of webradio, and I REALLY don't see how the streaming of low-fi (most users sit around 64kbps) is costing labels a FRIGGING DIME. I mean, how the $@%@ do you want us to HEAR THIS MUSIC IN THE FIRST PLACE
*ahem*
Anyways, I aint buying an album from them. Simply put, a year is inadequate. Offer all webradio stations a flat revenue fee and I will advocate lifting the ban from your label. Otherwise, this is a publicity trick and I aint buying. |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 7:31 PM
Hmm, sounds too good to be true. Maybe they're testing the waters to see how effective it'll be. How will they explain that to the RIAA, that their going against the flow?
Maybe it's a conspiracy; suck people in.
Somehow, I feel like giving the benefit of the doubt, just make sure any small print has been double-read. |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 7:51 PM
A couple of quick checks reveals that Artemis is not an RIAA member, and that Danny Goldberg is the former head of Polygram Mercury records divison, (before it was bought by 1/5 of the evil empire, Universal. Before that he was Chairman and CEO of Warner Bros. Records in 1995, during which time Warner Bros. was the #1 U.S. record label. In 1993-94, he was President of Atlantic Records, also a division of Time-Warner, which likewise attained the number one ranking among U.S. companies during Goldberg's tenure.
I gotta give hime the benefit of the doubt in this case. Former head of two different Major labels divisions, who went on his own, formed a label, didn't join the RIAA and now waives the webstreaming fees (if only for a year?) Plus he signed Boston who had majoor label issues of their own with Columbia which is owned by Sony. Anybody that gives a non riaa home to Ricki Lee and Boston, has my vote. |
|
ChillinBuzz
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 7:57 PM
The man with the facts lays it down again. If he's as good as 'tack says, the ball just rolled a little faster. Ain't it strange tho' all of a sudden all these people suddenly rallying to the support of music over the net? I still think money is the ulterior motive. But I'm just in a dark mood :D |
|
NoiseRed
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 8:00 PM
I'd tend to agree with Buzz here. Call me bitter, but *no one* in the music industry is a philantropist. Not one damn soul. Of course there's an ulterior motive, whether it is painting oneself as "cool" to the net-savvy masses and hope to attract more of them to one's products, or because there's some hidden agenda between RIAA and various warring factions in indie labels, etc. But I'm sure of one thing, the benefit of the end user is not the driving force here... |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 8:21 PM
NoiseRed, I agree, but it is a great way to get his labels music out there to webcasters who are under the gun, while hopefully (I'm sure) creating a market that will want more when it become necessary to pay webcast royalties. If anything Artemis is saying what we have said all along, that webstreaming is a great promotional tool, if allowed to be used. I expect that his motive is quite promotional in nature, and will help his artists in the long run. It takes big ones to stnad up and do this at a time when indie artists are locked out of every form of distribution and airplay. Personally I congratulate Danny on his chutzpah. (How the hell does a redheaded white baptist know that word?) |
|
smelv1n
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 9:27 PM
my question is... who the fuck are Artemis Records?
eheh, sorry but i've never heard of em.. |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: July 29, 2002 @ 9:31 PM
Follow the link in the story Smelv1n...check'em out. |
|
Svensta
|
Date: July 30, 2002 @ 6:45 AM
I understand he's not an Association member, cause I did actually look him up instead of just reacting emotionally, at least :D And while Artemis IS still a free label, I am still skeptical of them. They are the label to the Gladiator guy (Russel Crowe) rock band "30 odd foot of grunts" (I am not sure about the name), and they were also a litigant in the Napster case. They might have been acting solely under orders from Russell himself (he's anti-'piracy' supposedly) because they never mentioned another of their artists. Also you can actually get (admittedly not great quality) mp3s from their site FROM their artists.
Bottom line, I think they are on the right track, but that year condition STILL rubs me the wrong way and I still think they are a bit too focused on property rights.
As for philanthropy, I don't know that it belongs in here. This is a business. Regardless of what I feel music is (not a product like a toaster) a label is in the BUSINESS of producing and distributing that music. They have to be allowed to make a fair amount of money. The minute Ford can't make money, they will stop selling trucks, regardless of all the people and industries that will fail without their vehicles to get jobs done. This is about money. The problem is the unethical pursuit of said money.
Let labels and artists get rich, why not? Just don't do it by gouging us for it, is all. Like Chillin, I will give them a very cautious thumbs up. But I will be waiting for 8/1/03 to see what they want monetarily. |
|
smelv1n
|
Date: July 30, 2002 @ 8:32 AM
"As for philanthropy, I don't know that it belongs in here. This is a business. Regardless of what I feel music is (not a product like a toaster) a label is in the BUSINESS of producing and distributing that music. They have to be allowed to make a fair amount of money. The minute Ford can't make money, they will stop selling trucks, regardless of all the people and industries that will fail without their vehicles to get jobs done. This is about money. The problem is the unethical pursuit of said money."
reminded me of this article, heh
http://www.theonion.com/onion3826/this_promotional_pen.html |
|
Svensta
|
Date: July 30, 2002 @ 10:36 AM
I love the Onion :D |
|
thumbtack
|
Date: July 30, 2002 @ 2:24 PM
August 13th is mine :D |
|
princess-angry
|
Date: July 30, 2002 @ 7:18 PM
this is cool!!!! ;) |
|
|
Navigation
