Artists Want The Ability To Buy Back Their Copyrights If Universal Is Allowed To Buy EMI

from the interesting-idea... dept

As Universal Music Group (UMG) continues dealing with antitrust questions as it tries to close its purchase of EMI, there’s a lot of focus on “divestment,” or which parts of the combined entity that would have to be sold off. There’s even talk of having to sell off the famed Parlophone Records label (home of Coldplay and Radiohead). That would be a big deal, of course, but an even more interesting proposal has been brought up by the Featured Artists Coalition, a UK-based coalition of musicians, who are saying that if the company has to divest, why not let the artists themselves have the opportunity to buy back their copyrights at “fair market value.”

Divestments in the wake of mergers should first offer copyrights, at market rates, to the artists who created them. To sell them to other corporations, whether large or small, is just a perpetuation of an old business model, which has seen the recorded music business halve in value over 10 years. During that time, the technological revolution has displaced the old music business players. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It would be good to have music business people rather than financiers owning and running music companies again. It would be even better to have artists owning their work and entering into partner relationships with service-providing major and independent record companies with all the finance and expertise an artist needs to develop their own business.

That letter is signed by Ed O’Brien of Radiohead and Nick Mason of Pink Floyd. Of course, I imagine that the labels and the artists might disagree about what “market rates” are. Also, given how focused the labels are on fighting copyright termination in the US (allowing artists to take back their copyrights after 35 years), you have to imagine that they’d fight any such plan equally hard. It’s no surprise why, though: if the artists who could afford to buy back their rights did so, that would take away many of the “big name” acts, which are pretty much the remaining money makers under the old system. There’s no way the labels would agree to this, even if it certainly puts the artists’ interests first. Yet another example of how labels’ and artists’ interests are not aligned at all.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: emi, umg, universal music

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Artists Want The Ability To Buy Back Their Copyrights If Universal Is Allowed To Buy EMI”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
RD says:

Re: Re:

“You hit on the real issue when you spoke about the argument about valuation. If the record company is saying that a certain contract is worth $X,XXX,XXX, but they have continued to claim that the records are not profitable, it will have some explaining to do.”

This would be the most awesome thing ever. This would occur in one of two ways:

1) either the labels have to continue with the sham of “no records make any profits” except for a few big artists


2) they would have to redo ALL of their accounting, restate and backdate everything to show they made HUGE money on all of them, so they could negotiate a higher sale price, but then they would HAVE TO pay back ALL of that unpaid, restated profits.

It would be glorious. They get properly shafted either way, as they should for ripping off artists for the last several decades.

So that is why this will never, can never, will never be allowed to happen. Expect new proposed legislation to explicitly make it illegal for anyone to ever reclaim or repurchase a once-sold copyright assignment.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

This is great for other reasons as well. The artists obviously want to buy back their copyrights, so they want the price to be low, but they also want their copyrights to be valuable. If they make it too high, they have to pay more, if they make it too low, they are showing the world how much value they think their copyrights are worth (which is entirely different to how much value the songs actually are, btw).

This is fun. Labels want them valued high for more money, but low so they don’t have to redo all their royalty payouts. Artists want them low so they don’t have to spend a lot of money, but high so they aren’t showing the world how little value copyright’s are.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

3) They do a little paper shuffling/editing so suddenly all the money that the artist is already docked for due to the myriad of ‘we don’t feel like paying you’ fees is suddenly added to the worth of the albums. Do that, and they wouldn’t have to pay the artists anything more, while at the same time being able to claim that all albums make a ton of money, and are therefor insanely expensive to ‘buy back’.

Honestly, just looking at what they’ve done in the past, there is no low they won’t sink to if it means they can continue screwing the artist over and keeping as much money to themselves as possible.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:


Why do artists even have to give up their copyright in the first place?

So “copyright holders” can profit from it.
C’mon you don’t expect a hippie musician, singer, performer to really make money do you?

The copyright holder will buy the rights for the music and exploit it all the while studying law and accounting so it can better screw the creators and make the creators believe they are getting a good deal, with the sheep rallying to defend the copyright holders which are not artists.

It works like this, you buy cheap and corner the market those are basic principles that anybody can fallow, you don’t need higher education to understand that principle.

Copyrights which are artificial monopolies creates the best environment for bloodsucking parasites to thrive, and it so happen that they get elected to office and then appoint their pals to occupy key positions in government institutions that don’t have elections and are for life and so they capture the regulatory process and screw everyone.

Now you can see how that makes perfect sense for a very small group of people but not for everybody else.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:


why not let the artists themselves have the opportunity to buy back their copyrights

It strikes me as a complete absurd that an artist has to buy the rights back. There should not be the “copyright holder” expression, just “copyright owner”. The artists could “rent” this copyright to the labels but they should never be able to sell or give up their copyright. This is one more proof that the system is completely broken and only harms the creators.

Sure this poses a problem of who owns if many worked in the creative process (do not mistake it with the expression process that is when the music created by some1 is played by a group).

Richard (profile) says:

Who could buy back

if the artists who could afford to buy back their rights did so, that would take away many of the “big name” acts,
Actually, if the market rates are fair, it ought to be equally possible for any artist – since the copyrights of poorer artists ought to be cheaper – unless of course they are poorer because they did a worse deal with the label rather than because their music is less valuable.

Anonymous Coward says:

‘the technological revolution has displaced the old music business players. We do not need to repeat the mistakes of the past.’

isn’t it strange how the artists use the same argument, when it is to their advantage, as customers do, over the old and the new business models, and what is the way forward, ie giving customers what they want ‘at fair market value’! instead of constantly fighting against the people, these artists should be joining the customers in the fight against the labels, the outdated business practices and copyright in general. get a win-win situation going for a change!

No One says:

Re: Re:

What artists are “constantly fighting the people” other than a few who were ripped to shreds.

I think most all artists keep their mouths shut.

I think most artists are more interested in music.

But I don’t think most of them like getting ripped off by a label, or a publisher, or a tech company, or “the people”, or anyone.

Would you?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Your analogy is poor.

You’re thinking of labels and “the people” as physically slapping the artist. i.e. The labels have already ripped the artist off, which is a slap in the face. “The people” also slap them in the face through “illegitimate” access to content.

What actually happens is that if the labels are ripping off artist, the artist doesn’t get paid regardless of what “the people” do.

anon says:

Ohh dear me

Just the fact that this is being discussed shows how artists have really been following the arguments. It will go nowhere but will be a good bit of evidence when the time comes for the labels to pay what they owe.
Personally i don’t think all label’s are evil, but this needs to come out into the open and those that have been ripping of the artists needs to be sued , and if people like Simon Cowel are found to have been using creative accounting then they must be forced to sell every house and every car and every whore they have purchased. Every penny they have ever made must be returned to the artists , even if it meant taking the shirt of there backs and leaving them with nothing to there names.

Michael says:

Honestly, I don’t see the artists acquiring the copyrights to their back catalogs. The artists’ ‘termination rights’ go into effect in 2013 and we already know that the labels are going to fight it out tooth and claw with the artists for ownership (ya know, to *protect* them). Would it surprise anyone if the RIAA/labels loaded TPP with ammunition to serve that very purpose? Hmm.

Keep your eyes open.

Cagey (profile) says:

Who wants 'em?

I think it’s telling that companies with more money than God don’t buy up some of these major labels. I mean, think about it. Google/Apple/Microsoft could buy the likes of EMI with front pocket money, and they have the wherewithal to make a going concern of the business with little or no trouble. Yet, they don’t. Why is that? Could it be that the whole concept of selling disks has run its course?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...