Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
You can't use the DVD argument here because it is two different things. Fox created SC. They own it. They pay the writers, directors, actors and crew to be in it. They have all the rights to it. If they want to license it, no problem they own it and they want capitalize on it. There is no partnership. There is no collaboration. The studio owned everything from minute one. With music it is often a partnership. The artist creates the music and the label promotes and sells it so there is the chance that the two will eventually part ways and both now have interest to protect. If the entire crew and cast of SC quit tomorrow, Fox still owns the show and the cast and crew have no say in what happens with it.
|
i am well aware of the liciencing relationship for SC, which obviously you are not.
SC was created by a company called C2. it was licienced to fox thru standard first distribution deal. While the liciencing fees did fund the production and part of fox lots were used in the filming it still is a C2 production. So you are dead wrong. The analogy fits really well.
That being said, record companies have to be very careful what they put in their contracts, as you pointed out the ONLY way to get to the mega star level of fame is to sign with a record company, that makes them a monopoly and anything that locks an artist out of the marketplace/restrict their actions significantly after the contract is done, could face very severe anti-trust sanctions (see the mpaa screener ban)
Quote:
|
For me it all comes down to the contract. You can't say the labels want more power than the contracts gives them because every contract is different. If the label retains the right to sell the old CDs on a retail level even after the act leaves the label then the act shouldn't be allowed to do things that could potentially hurt those sales. That is all I am saying. I'm not saying the labels should have infinite power, but if the contract allows them to sell on a retail level then that should be protected in some way.
|
unless the contract explictly prevents the artist from giving away, authorizing the non commercial gifting of their music (outside the scope of the record companies exclusive distribution rights) you are demanding that they be given rights not defined in the contract.
Given the anti-trust liability, i am absolutely certain that no such declaration exists in any contract of any artist on the record companies books.
Quote:
|
I have never said that the label should be allowed to cut off any and all future revenue streams. I have said that if they retain the rights to sell the CD on a retail level they should get the chance to protect that right. By encouraging fans to just download the CDs for free the artist is potentially damaging the label. If the artist owns the publishing to their music they are free to license it to TV shows, commercials, games whatever. If they want to give away every new song they write in the future they should be free to do that. But they shouldn't be allowed to purposely damage the label by telling fans not to buy the CD, but to instead just download it.
|
again the key is the contract
and given the anti-trust implications of having such a lock out clause in a contract, i am certain radio head does not have such a clause.
in fact given the amount of time between when they had a studio contract and themselves being self produced the technology that studio is trying to sue didn't even exist in the marketplace to consider.