Work 4 Hire?
On a normal day, one would tend 2 think that the ways of the music industry r pretty much set, and that it's going 2 take a long time 2 initiate any changes in one direction or the other... The spread of technologies such as the Internet and the MP3 format already has some people shaking in their boots, but any major evolution in that respect in the music industry is going to take time, if only because of the profound inertia of the xisting system.
Double Standard
Then, all of sudden, out of the blue comes news of changes that could totally redefine the way artists work and r compensated 4 their work — news that reveal that the core "philosophy" of the music industry is based on pure cynicism and total lack of respect 4 the artistic nature of the work in question. Then u can't help but think that, behind all the official propaganda about "respect" and "recognition" 4 the artists and their invaluable contribution 2 society, those industry xecutives r actually revealed as never having had one ounce of sincerity.
The recent news of a new amendment 2 the 1976 Copyright Act — added without congressional debate or input from artists — which would allow record companies to treat musicians' recordings as "works 4 hire" is xactly such a revelation. This new amendment prevents artists from reclaiming the rights of their work after 35 years, the current legal waiting period, and treats the artist as a person hired 2 make the recording, which is then owned by the record company, with full control over how 2 distribute and use it indefinitely.
The ramifications of such a decision r mind-boggling, and yet, in this world of instant gratification where brand new pop stars seem 2 b perfectly content with becoming millionaires overnight, the threat 2 these fundamental rights seem 2 b unable 2 stir up the controversy necessary 2 prevent such an amendment from coming in2 effect.
Entire and Indefinite Ownership
At the core of the issue is the notion that the artist's work, the composition of songs, the writing of lyrics, the recording of his playing — all those activities which, in a real artist, draw their essence from the very soul and heart of the artist and r an xpression of his/her invaluable gift as a creator of new works of art — all those things amount 2 no more than the repairs that ur plumber did when ur dishwasher broke down last night and needed a belt or a screw replaced. No disrespect meant 2 plumbers, they do a very valuable job, but there is something absurdly demeaning in implying that the complex, spiritual, inspired, and miraculous nature of the artistic work of a musician is of no more value 2 him than the plumbing job is 2 the plumber — and that he/she will and should readily relinquish his/her rights 2 his/her own work just because he/she was "hired" by a company 2 do it.
It seems that everyone xcept the record companies themselves would agree that "the major creative individual or band behind an album is the music's author." As more and more artists, with the help of new technologies and alternative methods of distribution, compose and record on their own, this is becoming increasingly more obvious, and record companies have less and less ground 2 claim ownership of something that they have little — if anything — 2 do with. Yet, as if composing a musical masterpiece were equivalent 2 completing a nice house painting job, they want 2 claim entire and indefinite ownership of it.
Of course, the RIAA claims that the amendment "merely makes a recording 'eligible' for work-for-hire' status, and that the artist and label must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist." But let's not b fooled: the very idea that the RIAA would want 2 introduce such a possibility already speaks volumes about the cynical, all-for-profit approach of record companies. In addition, we know all 2 well that 2 many young uninformed artists, lured by the prospect of immediate fame and recognition, would relinquish those rights without even realising the consequences.
As well, the fact that the RIAA and the Congress did not consult any association of artists before introducing such an amendment tells a lot about how little respect they have 4 their work.
One Step 4ward, ...
We r in a period of profound changes in the recording industry. Modern technology gives individual artists more power than ever over composition, production, and distribution of their work — and the recording industry is worried. By taking reactionary measures such as this amendment, however, the industry will only alienate what real artists r left in its ranks, and become a plain manufacturer of pre-packaged pseudo-music designed 2 feed masses of consumers with no discernment.
It is quite absurd, really, that, at a time when, finally, after decades of individual and collective struggles by "popular" artists 2 b recognized and treated as REAL artists, when history is finally beginning 2 show us in an irrefutable fashion that the last century enjoyed the invaluable artistic contributions of a great number of so-called "pop stars" 2 our musical heritage and aesthetic enlightenment — that now is the time that the recording industry chooses 2 reveal its true colors in such a blatant and offensive fashion. It is undoubtedly linked 2 the increasingly fractured landscape that goes by the name of "music industry," and it's definitely the lack of unity among artists and managers that prevents them from having a strong voice 2 defend their fundamental rights.
We r not saying that occasional, temporary agreements cannot b signed between artists and record companies. We r not saying that the RIAA and big record companies r things of the past that can easily be done away with. What we r saying is that such actions as the introduction of this amendment r yet another reminder of what the true objectives of record companies and xecutives r, and that, without caution, unity and artistic integrity, things can only go the way of the record companies — which is less than ever, 2day, the way that art should b going.
Related Reading
|
