[pp.int.general] Protest certain musicians?

[Christian Hufgard]

Brian McNeil wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 14:07 +0100, Christian Hufgard wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> "Signed a contract". Of course this is not exactly the same as beeing an
>> employee. But as soon as the signed it, the compay has a massive
>> influence
>> on the way the work.
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Did I mention the opposite?
>>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I would never tell something else.
>
> I'm not going to go back through to nitpick this, you said they were
> effectively employees. Not so. Employees don't get paid up front.

Is it really just the word "employees"? Then call them contractor, if that
makes you feel better.


Christian