3 ms·

If the label doesn't offer the artist anything and they can do all by themselves, don't sign a contract with them. As simple as that, nobody is forcing new art

• redis_mlc 6y ago
  Correct, and that's what I tell artists. But it's not black and white what the whole story is, and it's not simple. Label heads shouldn't be providing false testimony about label benefits to maintain their edge, especially since they even control streaming services like Spotify (I didn't see that mentioned in the article.) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-listing-factbox/factbox-spotify-opens-up-on-ownership-and-clients-in-listing-files-idUSKCN1GD5PX https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-listing-factbox/f... 1) If you're trying to be libertarian, understand that a 20 yo artist doesn't have the legal resources to negotiate a contract against the labels' unyielding armies of lawyers. 2) Also, signing a contract is not the same as enforcing one. Labels don't follow their own contract terms on payouts, so there is no good faith on their part. 3) If your second or third albums don't sell well, labels often just stop answering your phone calls. Yet the artist is stuck in the terms of a zombie contract, and often that will block (end) their career. The Goo Goo Dolls were advised by their first lawyer that, "It's slavery. Don't sign it." After their first multi-platinum album, they still "owed" $300,000. "Free markets" or not, why is that allowed to continue for decades? "The band filed suit against Metal Blade, claiming they had not earned any royalties from their album's sales, which was attributed to a "grossly unfair, one-sided and unenforceable contract" which had been signed by the band in 1987." The Dolls won by refusing to record their next album until there was a contract that wouldn't ruin them. They were ok sleeping together in one van, but not losing money despite massive sales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_Goo_Dolls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_Goo_Dolls