From JeweLink - The Official Jewel Communications List

--SNIP--
Most of you also asked for more songs and performances and longer clips of songs, or even pay to download songs. Right now we are prevented from going further with this than we do because our label is still involved in the no-downloading wars. So we are stuck. But we hear you. And we agree.
Lenedra
(Lenedra is Lenedra Carroll, Jewel's manager.)
--SNIP--

Kind of interesting don't you think when fans are willing to pay, the artist wants to sell downloads and the labels say no? Why would anyone in their right mind turn down money from the people who are willing to pay? Doesn't this attitude contribute to filesharing?

As I've said so many times, this is not about money. It's about control. It's about creating a false market so that the band d'jour gets the biggest bounce and sales at the expense of the other artists, the consumer and our culture.

And changeing the band d'jour frequently to ensure consumers buy new music constantly

Labels need to learn how to attract core fans and keep them. They still don't get it...the 12-17 demographic of girls who do the most buying and obsessing over bands are NOT the best demographic. What about college kids who can go to venues, drink, bring buddies, buy T shirts, follow bands around?

Eye is on the wrong damn prize. Stupid labels!!!!

WHat makes the label's stance all the more foolish is that Jewel, career-wise, has probably turned the corner wherein she's unlikely to attract new fans. She's at the stage in her career where she should be doing everything she can to maintain the relationship with the fans she has. I'm glad that at least she and her manager realize this.

Only 1 person has to buy a download and then it will be shared everywhere...

RasMasta,
Not sure what u are trying to say, people share her files on kazaa every second, regardless of whether people have gotten it legally. Not sure what u are trying to say, but just thought it was not logical because her songs are already being shared.
Thanks

must be a greatest hits album coming out first.....

Maybe Jewel should have had her managers check to see if she got enough for her creative soul before signing on the dotted line, eh wot?

The attitude DOES contribute to filesharing, but there is no way to entrust the common people from doing EXACTLY what RasMasta says. So 35 people go and buy her single and download it. They throw it into the music collection which is automatically populated on there shared folders for their p2p applications and within 48 hours, 35 THOUSAND people have it. Where's the product control here?

Here is food for thought:
The internet has opened the flood gates and thrown out product control when it comes to file sharing.

I'm saying if one person has it downloaded then the rest will.

Not sure if the rest will, but many will. File sharing will always be around and will only get more prolific. File sharing goes a long with the internet, whether its performed legally or not.
Thanks

I agree with directive, RasMasta. Just because you can download it (for free) hasn't stopped people from going to stores and buying stuff yet. If they want to support their favorite artist now buy offering to pay for a download, then let them download it.

poor jewel. poor, poor jewel. she *wants* to "share" her music but the big, bad record companies who hav lined her pocket prevent her from doing so.

I feel so bad for her.

(/sarcasm)

seriously, you want to share your music? untie yourself from the gravy train that made you huge. go ahead. then you'll have my respect. unless and until then, you're just another posturing "artist" wishing for things that are easily within your grasp.

and one more question for jewel and her manager. why not just do it and let jewel's case be a precedent for other artists?

oh, now that's risky isn't.

poor jewel.

Excuse me, but isn't everyone missing the "OTHER" point here? Especially you, RasMasta!

If I was Jewel, I would be ecstatic to have my music paid for by 35 people, and downloaded for free by 35,000 more! Why? Even if I'm NOT getting paid for the 35,000 file traded downloads, I am getting the one thing I need to survive in this business: EXPOSURE!!! If people don't know my music, they won't buy CD's, won't come to shows (where artist can make some REAL money), and won't pay attention when I release new material.

Note I included "buy CD's". Yes, people can, and do continue to purchase CD's even after files have been downloaded. Why? Because a downloaded file is still of lesser quality than the original, doesn't contain lyrics or other extras that may come with the CD. Of course, CD purchases may be determined by how many songs you like on the CD.

A referesher of Janis Ian's points are needed here. Go to www.janisian.com and see what she says about downloading.

To iceweasel23: Presumably there's a little matter of *breaking a contract*. I for one would love to see her extricate herself from whatever contract she's in, but to just say "fuck it" and put the songs out there can set oneself up for a huge lawsuit -- look at Tom Petty and Courtney Love.

Untying oneself from the "gravy train" is noble, but it's not easy.

INeedalover....

You are thinking like an independent musician. Why does a major artist need to give out 35,000 traded files for exposure? Jewel, a mutli-platinum artist, needs to give out thousands of copies for exposure? Jewel can give out far less copies, generate the same exposure and make more money once you have to buy her product.

This idea that all artists need to drop thousands of MP3's for exposure is ridiculous. Maybe that kid's band down the street, which just got signed does, but do major established artists need to make the same sacrifice for exposure? No, they don't. She would only have to give out some CD's, and that's because that is the only way stations will play music.

iceweasel23....

It just is not that simple. Jewel is signed to something we like to call a contract. She can just rip it up and walk away. On top of that, I'm will to bet that contract says that her company owns the masters. This means that the company owns the copyrights to Jewel's music and she can't just do what she wants with it.

What Jewel wants to do is a good idea and I would pay the money to buy such product. Right now is not the time though. Part of marketing a new product involves timing...and the timing is shit right now.

jmmcombs,

while I appreciate the "contract" jewel has my suggestion, as I stated above, was based on the premise that she would use her fame, her resources to stand up for "what is right" rather than allow the fight to be taken up by music listeners.

it's a shame that some of these artists don't see themselves as the potential catalyst for change they could very well be.

yes, I understand why jewel doesn't break her contract and expose herself to a potential lawsuit. she prefers her money, status and future earnings over her integrity. I don't judge her for that. but I certainly won't sugarcoat her part in the big play either.

doug77,

I addressed your first point above.

as to your second, I disagree. there is no time like the present to reach out to the music consumer and do something that is easily demonstrated to be in their (the consumer's) best interest.

I have some small experience in music marketing. I think it would play rather well. assuming she has the fortitude and strength of convictions.

I realize that my position is a bit cynical. but as I mentioned above, who, but the artists is better position to lead this change in the paradigm?

besides, of course, the parties who fighting this.

-----

and a final note, back to the original topic story.

I hate to disagree, but it really is about "the money". control of the money is the same thing as money. if it were just the chance to play puppetmaster to creative people and no money were involved, trust me, this wouldn't be a fight.

it's *all* about the money. protecting it, making it *and* controlling it.

iceweasel23

I agree completely. The bottom line is it's about the money. The major labels want as much as they can get. Why else would they ILLEGALLY fix the prices of CD's? They also seek control of the product because they think they know better what WE want to listen to and will pay for... again, essentially control of the money.

Doug77...

I agree with you to a point. Yes, Jewel doesn't need the exposure IF (and this is a BIG IF) she gets it through her major label and contract. Why the big IF? Because major labels can be more fickle than the audiences that listen to pop radio. Many a major label has given up on a star like Jewel, released her music, NOT promote iit, and just throw her on the has-been heap, because it didn't sell. Yet, if she were able to generate interest in her music through other means independent of her contract, she would sell more CD's. No, all artists don't need to drop thousands of downloads to be sucessful. But I still believe it wouldn't hurt, especially if your an artist that can't get exposure any other way. I believe Jewel is an artist that is already headed in that direction.

Why does a major artist need to give out 35,000 traded files for exposure?

Because it's a helluva lot cheaper than giving out a million free CDs, which is what the label will do. And they'll pay to get her music on the radio on top of it. How about a few million-dollar television spots, too?

Those inferior traded files are the most affordable marketing and promotion that Jewel will ever see.

Jewel is NOT thinking like an independent. She is speaking like a businessperson that wants control of her own music, her budget and her expenses.

If there's one thing that the labels are trying to prevent, it's artist control.

And the only thing that gets your music on the radio is a check.

Before I start, please don't take me naming particular individuals as offensive or talking down. No one has complained, but I just wanted to clear that up.

I NeedAlover...

Interesting point... I don't think Jewel needs MP3's, but I understand your point.

Everyone....

I'm so happy someone acknowledged that this is about money. Now I don't feel completely alone.

iceweasel 23...

The consumer may want MP3's, but the labels can not effectively enforce the copyrights on CDs right now. It does not make any sense to release a new product when you can't keep on top of your current product. On top of that, free sites are more appealing than a pay site would. Until paysites have staked a legitimate claim, and offer more than the free sites do, the timing isn’t right. There are people who want MP3's, but until the problems I mentioned are cleared up the timing is not right.

Haydenswall….

The millions of CD’s given out are not just given out to kids on the street. Most of them are given to the press, radio stations and at CD release parties. Even when MP3’s become a sellable product, I don’t think that will erase the existence of promotional CD’s.

mp3s should not be a sellable product. They are inferior copies of the original. They cost nothing to distribute.

There's one major problem with your logic, even ignoring this obvious fact.

The labels are the only ones trying to charge for mp3s. There are 95 times as many of us as there are signed artists.

Even Orrin Hatch lets us listen to his music for free.

If it's all about the money, then why are the labels so anxious to give away millions of free CDs when they could just as easily drop one totally free mp3 on a web site?

You could give out 3 CDs and hit the majority of the radio stations in the country. Clear Channel only needs one copy.

The poor labels can't enforce their copyrights. Boo-hoo. They never will be able to and never have been able to. If I can hear it, I can re-record it. There is nothing the RIAA can do to stop me. Ever.

And what's wrong with having a target market of "kids." It worked for Britney Spears, like her or not. The RIAA thought the opinion of "kids" to be of enough value that they used the purported buying patterns of 12-year-olds as part of their survey condemning downloading.

If you're going to argue the RIAA side of the point, at least get it right.

Why would you want to give the radio stations what you already called an inferior copy? Do you want the stations playing an inferior copy on the air?

Why do we give out millions of CD's? (look at my last post)

Where did the little kid argument come from? I don't remember saying a single thing about kids. Please tell me the "kid post" was an answer to a previous post I had not read.

MP3's should not be a sellable product? Any argument you put forth is masking the truth that you just don't want to pay for them. I think that MP3's can be a sellable product. They would never replace CD's, but they have a market in the future.

It was in your previous response, but apparently you missed it. "The millions of CD’s given out are not just given out to kids on the street."

The radio -- You give the radio conglomerate a CD. You put an mp3 on the Internet. One promotional method you pay for; the other is free.

To save you from further misplaced assumptions, let me clarify -- mp3s should not be a sellable product because they just plain suck.

You're selling an advertisement. Most mp3s are so inferior that I can't bear to listen to them at all. I don't listen to them for free. I don't use Kazaa or Gnutella. I'm sure not going to pay for advertising.

If you can con people into paying you for your downloads, well go happily down that greedy road.

I'm more concerned about potential customers. These mp3s are my promotional tool. I'm not going to insult my customers by trying to convince them we're so good that they're not even allowed to hear it before they fork over some cash.

filesharing = free promotion

I've seen the record label financial statements. You guys could have jumped on mp3 samples and saved billions in the first year. You could have exploited Napster, but instead chose to shut it down.

We will never see this from the same perspective because you are apparently a label or RIAA rep. You're worried about the money. I'm a musician. I'm worried about the music.

If the RIAA and ACSAP succeed in demonizing my marketing plan and listening is a crime, there is simply no point to continue writing music.

I got into music to have fun and make people feel good -- not put them in jail. And if I have to start asking people NOT to listen to my music, I might as well move to Afghanistan where the government is not quite so backward and repressive.

The comment about "giving CD's to kids on the street" was definitely misunderstood. This was supposed to be an analogy saying that the CD's are not just given to anyone and everyone carelessly. I could have said "old people, middle-aged people or 20-somethings" and it would not have mattered. I wasn't cutting down the "TRL demographic."

Nope, I'm not with a label and I'm not a rep with the RIAA. I did not want to say this, not that it really mattered much, but I do have a music industry background. At the same time, I am a musician too. Before I changed paths, in my education, I earned a two-year degree in General Music. I used to have “rock star dreams”, but I decided I rather just play for fun and move into a different direction professionally. You see, I am actually thinking like a musician and a business man. Even as a musician I am and was against sites like Napster. As long as anyone’s music is just given away for free, regardless of the owner’s wishes, I will always be against them. I know you want to make your music available, and that is your right. In fact, I think it's a good idea for an independent to do something like that. The thing is...most people don't download MP3's for indie music. I like downloading MP3's so I can hear Japanese and Korean music. Afterwards I drop cash for the CD or I erase the file. But really...how many people do that? Most people download major acts. I have many people close to me who download and burn like it's no one's business. Although I’ve not taken a good look at it, I’m sure DMusic and similar sites are more effective than sites like Kazaa

To put it in a nutshell, I think that MP3’s should be controlled and that is coming from someone who is a musician and is not just involved in the industry. I’m sorry that you are having problems with ASCAP, but you should not feel like giving up. Someday MP3’s will be sold, that don’t suck, and you’ll be able to give yours away for promotion too. Once this whole mess is sorted, I think everyone will be happy.

I wish you luck in getting your music out.

I thought the great thing about Napster was the plethora of out-of-print songs, the ones the record labels aren't even allowing to be sold. Even the free downloads didn't hurt the artists because you simply cannot buy them anymore.

Kazaa seems to basically be the radio playlist in mp3 form. I looked for a Kansas song I wanted to learn a week or so ago. You can find "Dust in the Wind" and "Carry On My Wayward Son" -- the two radio songs (and probably their weakest songs) -- but "Belexis" and "Journey From Mariabronn" were nowhere to be found.

So there's nothing there worth "stealing."

That's just my opinion.

What I see as the big problem is "As long as anyone’s music is just given away for free, regardless of the owner’s wishes, I will always be against them."

On one hand, I understand that point of view. But the labels are the owners, not the creators. I think the person that creates the music should have some say in it.

My problem with ASCAP is that they are lobbying against downloading in Washington on my behalf but they never asked my opinion. They are stealing my songs to use for the profit of others. I trusted them to protect my music from the record labels and they are delivering it into the hands of the RIAA.

At this point in time, the only way to protect my music from being used as evidence to prosecute consumers is to stop writing and performing. Copyrighting a song no longer protects it, but merely enables it to be used to advance the interests of the labels.

The authors need a way to opt out of the DMCA provisions before the labels even see our songs. We need a way to bypass the use of our songs in the consumer witch hunt without giving up the protection against plagiarism.

Unless this happens, I'll never be happy.
And I'll never write another song.

let's play pretend for a minute.

if you operated in a true free market, where the company that met the consumer demands most efficiently prospered, and vice versa, I think you would see a vastly different scenario than the one that is playing out in real life.

the record could easily, and I want repeat this word for emphasis, easily, sell qulity mp3's or give away low quality mp3's promotionally, one the web, for, relative to what they spend in what is legalized bribery and a controlled market now, nothing.

there's just no question to that.

the idea that you beat "bootleggers" of the type that the riaa constantly mewls about in the media by selective prosecution and draconian legislation is ridiculous. the chance for success is equal to that of the war on drugs. and most adults know how well that money is being spent.

the truth is, the simple truth, is that you beat "copyright infringement" of the type the riaa is whining about by beating the "counterfeiters" at their own game. you offer a better product at a lower price so that the consumer sees no value in the illegal one.

this may be the only speculative part of the my post (of course, it's all pretend as I said in the beginning), is that the increased and varied exposure added with the savings in promotion and production would offset the losses from traditional revenue streams.

but the record companies, and most importantly, the folks who maintain large buildings to sell cd don't want to do this.

so, in the end, the pretend part of this concept is that the market isn't anything like "free". it's not driven by the consumer. it's led exclusively by the record companies and the consumer is force fed like a strasbourg goose.

the solution is obvious and easy. sell your music, the way the consumer wants it, for what the consumer is willing to pay to ignore "free" and "illegal" means of obtaining it or die clinging to coal-powered, steam fed business model in a solid state age.