[pp.int.general] Protest certain musicians?

[Brian McNeil]

On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 13:01 +0100, Christian Hufgard wrote:
> > Which would be why I said "If you were self employed". You're comparing
> > artists to wage earners, employees of the record companies. Do you think
> > that's how they like to view themselves when they sign a record deal - as
> > an employee of the record company?
> 
> It doesn't matter what they want - they are employees. They sold their
> future work to the company.
> 
> > Being an employee of the record company would restrict their creativity
> > and freedom, would it not?
> 
> That's exactly they way it works.

You have that *seriously* wrong. They signed a contract, generally one
where they commit to create a specific amount of content, and grant an
exclusive license on said content to the record company. They are not an
employee; employee's appear on the company's payroll.

Do your homework. See how many artists have created albums, the record
company decides they will not release it, and forces them to create
another album because the musician wasn't checking the fine-print
closely enough.

Nobody is forcing them to do specific work - except for artists who
simply perform others' compositions - if part of a band - they will be
far more able to criticise the song or album they're working on.

Some smaller record labels can give a less restrictive contract, but the
flip-side is they can afford less funding for studio time and associated
staff.

-- 
Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091029/a6b2f2fb/attachment.pgp>