Rattle wrote: Read this whole article...
Read it. Here's my take. I touched on something similar before with respect to a store in Indianapolis that was raided for selling mixtapes. Bottom line: If you make deals with the devil, get the details in writing. It's hard for me to feel any sympathy for these guys. The word "entrapment" does come to mind, but as much as they are ballyhooed as being such genius businessmen, they should definitely know the value of a contract and insist on one. The economics of mixtapes appeal to XL, and so do their politics; as he sees it, mixtapes undermine the power of major record labels and radio stations. "Most artists can't afford to get their music on the radio, but an artist has the right to let his fan base hear what he's done," XL said. "Who is the label to dictate how to feed the fan base?" An artist does have the right to get his fan base hear their music. There are a myriad of ways this can be accomplished. These days the barrier to entry is as low as it has ever been. If you play hard, you can be heard. Mindshare is the toughest nut to crack. But, sorry, you have to play the game by the rules. If the rules seem a little too tough, those are the breaks. To answer the question, "Who is the label to dictate how to feed the fan base?" the answer is very simple if the artists has signed a contract with the label: Whatever the contract dictates! To add to what I said before, if you do decide to make a deal with the devil, be prepared to live with it. Before DJ Drama went to jail, no mixtape D.J. had been the target of a major raid; busts had been directed at small retailers, like Mondo Kim's in New York's East Village. Jonathan Lamy, a spokesperson for the R.I.A.A., said the raid on Drama's studio represented no official change in policy and had been undertaken only at the behest of Atlanta law enforcement. But for many in the industry, the focus on a single prominent figure seemed like no accident. "Arresting them criminally under RICO was firing a warning shot at anyone who has mixtapes," said Walter McDonough, a copyright lawyer who has negotiated with the R.I.A.A. on behalf of Jay-Z. Given the context of the previous bust on the bootleggers that also yielded a drugs/weapons cache, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a touch of "profiling" involved in this case as well. The Aphilliates boast at length how they lace their CD's with "gangsta" culture drops, even though they do not partake in the lifestyle themselves. But whatever you want to call it: guilt by association or 'where there's smoke there's usually fire' they painted themselves as targets for suspicion. The RICO law infraction was probably just used as a wedge, a foot in the door, in order to possibly find other associated contraband. I see that as more of a motivation than a warning shot to mixtape makers. I think the Atlanta police probaby have bigger fish to fry than giving chilling effects to alleged copyright violators. Others pointed to the selective nature of the crackdown as evidence that the raid was a deliberate effort -- major retailers like Best Buy were not raided, even though they carry many of the same CDs Drama was arrested for selling. The R.I.A.A. "would have to know nothing about the industry they are monitoring not to realize this stuff is all over Best Buy and FYE," says Eric Steuer, the creative director of Creative Commons, a nonprofit that works to develop more flexible copyright arrangements for artists and producers. "Maybe they leave them alone because the major chains have promotion deals with record labels." Mr. Steuer has a valid arguement IF this situation is not rectified. This definitely needs to be followed up upon. Will major retailers be forced to remove the remaining unsold inventory? There's also the question of liability. The Aphilliates were the actual producers of the content as well as distributors. They were the only one's targeted by this specific action if I read correctly. Retailers were NOT targeted, as they were only distributing. There is a difference. I don't know where the line is there, and Mr. Steuer may just as well NOT have a valid arguement if you look at it from that angle. Ted Cohen, a former executive at EMI Records who now runs a music-consulting business, told me that the raid was typical of the music industry's "schizophrenic" approach to promotions; a label's marketing department wants to get its artists' songs in front of as many people as possible, even if it means allowing or ignoring free downloads or unlicensed videos on YouTube. But the business department wants to collect royalties. "It is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing," Cohen said. I respectfully disagree with K's opinion that "schizophrenic" should be replaced with "hypocritical." To imply hypocrisy would also be to imply the record companies are really that smart to manage both hands in such a fine, insidious manner. Usually the marketing department and the business department are completely different cultures under the same roof. Marketing looks at trends, is close to the scene, knows what is hip, and knows how best to get the mindshare. Business fundamentals don't really change that much over time. You look at the bottom line and your margins. Copyright violations eat into your share. It's a very simple equation in a bean counter's spreadsheets: Stop the bleeding. It's a very different view with the marketer who understands today's landscape: You have to give a little to get a little. I think the majors have to get all their internal cogs spinning in a synchronized fashion is what it comes down to. RE: Hip-Hop Outlaw (Industry Version) - Samantha M. Shapiro - New York Times | 
