LEGALIZING THEFT:
THE RIAA AND NEW MUSIC COPYRIGHT LAWS

Clearly lawyers and not musicians (or even marketers) run the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). How else could the trade organization representing the five -- check that, it's soon to be four -- major record conglomerates be so out of touch with the music loving public and artists alike?

The RIAA often claims to have the interests of artists at heart, but nothing they have ever done (and they have been pulling some wild stuff in recent years) shows the lie in that rap more than the copyright amendment the RIAA snuck through Congress recently. In a move that represents a tremendous shift in artist rights to ever control their musical copyrights, the RIAA convinced lawmakers in the United States to classify music albums the same way films are classified, as "collaborative efforts."

That makes some sense in the film industry, of course. When a major studio makes a film, tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars are invested. Often hundreds of people are involved, from producers and directors, writers and actors, cinematographers, lighting and sound people, to a host of set and costume designers, extras, drivers, even accountants, managers and go-fers. Everyone involved in such a collaborative effort is considered a "hired hand" and the money managers -- the studios -- get ownership of the copyrights forever, even if a certain small amount of people get "points," or a percentage of the money the film makes over time.

That is generally not the case with albums, however. With music it's most often one person or band that writes and performs the music. It's their vision, their effort. Everyone else involved (producers, record companies, engineers, side artists) has generally been considered a hired hand in practice, contractually, and under US law. Even artists that had support from major labels could recover their musical copyrights after 35 years under the old copyright system -- if they ever signed them completely away at all.

That was all changed with the 1999 copyright law amendment passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. Now artists who wrote, produced and played on their own records could lose control of their record forever if a major label gets its mitts on it -- even if the record was done before any deal with a label was signed, as is often the case. And the law applies retroactively, affecting virtually anybody who has released music on major labels since 1978!

That's a law that must be changed immediately. Artists have already begun working friendly members of Congress, such as Massachusetts's Barney Frank, to call hearings on the law to begin the process of getting it overturned.

With the RIAA so clearly representing corporate interests rather than artist interests, several things could happen. I predict a resurgence of the major musicians' union to be coming any day now. The union was not consulted before the RIAA pushed the legislation through congress, nor were any major managers or performers, by the way. Which proves that the RIAA doesn't give a hoot about artists' concerns. (The musicians' union also offers fantastic musical equipment insurance, something no working musician can afford to be without.)

Short of unionizing, there will probably be the formation of managers' coalitions to represent the interests of artists collectively. With such huge corporations banding together under the RIAA banner, individual artists, no matter how fiercely independent they tend to be, will also have to band together if they are to have a chance of overturning laws like this one, and preventing future debacles of the this kind.

Whether it is through a union or other coalition, recording artists are going to have to collectively fund lobbyists in Washington, DC to protect their legal rights against the increasingly active RIAA. Musicians were caught with their pants down on this one because no one monitors legislation like this on behalf of the artists when it is still pending. (The bill was an amendment on a completely unrelated bill; no hearings or debate was held on it, and it sailed through with few people even realizing it was there until after it became law.)

Fans and artists alike -- not to mention the recording industry itself -- would be way better off if the RIAA stuck to advancing recording technologies (something they seem to have no clue about, constantly fighting every development in digital music technologies) and certifying gold and platinum records. But that's not what they are doing, so artists will have to fight back.

Furthermore, why is it even called the Recording Industry Association of America ?. Only one of the five major label conglomerates is a United States based company -- and even that may be changing soon. Sony is from Japan, BMG is from Germany, Universal Group is owned by Canada's Seagrams Corporation (one of it's major components, Polygram, had been based in the Netherlands), and EMI is based in England. Only Time Warner is based in the US. With AOL's recent acquisition of Time Warner, and AOL Time Warner's pending acquisition of EMI, it seems even AOL Time Warner EMI's main music offices may be based in London. The recording industry is being consolidated and globalized so thoroughly and so fast that the RIAA should change its name to reflect that fact. How about World Recording Monopoly (WORM), or Lawyers for the Industrial Association of Recording Syndicates (LIARS)? Both would fit like the gloves really fit OJ.

Of course such power grabs always subvert themselves to a large degree. Major labels are going to find it harder than ever to find up-and-coming talent that is willing to sign with them if they continue to press for total monopoly and total control. Music can be a tremendously valuable thing on the commodity level; most won't be, but some will be commercially valuable forever. Who will risk signing all that potential away forever? For how much money up-front? Those acts that do sign with majors will have to demand much more money up-front and at every step along the way, as well as having very good lawyers drawing up very specific contracts.

Other bands will stick to labels that are not affiliated with the major conglomerates at all. With the RIAA's members acting so vicious -- and with the at best mixed relationships jambands have had with the majors (moe., God Street Wine and Acoustic Junction come immediately to mind, there are legions of others) -- new independent labels are popping up all over the place (the Phoenix Media Group, High Sierra, HydroPhonics, and Lauan for example). Independent distributors like the Homegrown Music Network can also help get the music out there. Mid-sized labels that have developed good reputations over the years (The Rounder Group, Sugar Hill, Compass, Koch, Red House, Prime Cuts, Razor & Tie, Acoustic Disc, and Mammoth, to name but a few) will also become increasingly attractive to bands that might otherwise have signed with a so-called major label in days gone by.

Lastly, some bands will simply form their own labels, in a true DIY (do-it-yourself) style. String Cheese Incident is leading the way on this front among jambands, forming SCI Fidelity Records last year. With SCI Fidelity, it's own merchandising wing, Madison House management, booking and ticketing, even Madison House Travel to handle those kind of arrangements for the band and their fans, String Cheese Incident is demonstrating a truly independent streak that will serve them well.

Of course this means work; one of the reasons the original plans for Grateful Dead Records and Round Records -- which the SCI plan is clearly modeled on -- was, in the words of Bob Weir, that it became "too much like work" to do all that. Eventually Grateful Dead Records was resurrected, however, because the alternative to not doing the work for yourself was to do the work for other people's benefit. Dave Matthews is also in the process of forming his own label; Merl Saunders has had his own label, Summertone, for years now. It can be done and done well.

Jambands tend to be made up of smart people. I hope they are smart enough to avoid the major music conglomerates, even when tempted by seemingly large amounts of money. Those labels do not have your interests at heart. Don't believe them when they tell you that your interests and their interests are one in the same. The copyright law amendment of 1999 should be enough to disabuse anybody of that notion right away.

da Flower Punk loves music of all kinds. Check out his CD and concert reviews at PauseRecord.com http://pauserecord.com