AfterDawn: Tech news

Joss Stone wants her music to be shared, calls piracy "brilliant"

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 29 Jun 2008 14:34 User comments (27)

Joss Stone wants her music to be shared, calls piracy "brilliant" Following in the footsteps of a few artists before her, the Australian singer/songwriter Joss Stone has begun encouraging fans to share her music online, going as far as to call piracy "brilliant".
In a recent interview, the artist admits she loves music but hates the music industry and feels that most artists are brainwashed by the industry.

When asked after a recent concert how she felt about piracy and unauthorized downloads on the Internet, she replied, ďI think itís greatÖyeah, I love it. I think itís brilliant and Iíll tell you why,Ē Stone continued. ďMusic should be shared. [...] The only part about music that I dislike is the business that is attached to it. Now, if music is free, then there is no business, there is just music. So, I like it, I think that we should share.Ē

ďItís ok, if one person buys it, itís totally cool, burn it up, share it with your friends, I donít care. I donít care how you hear it as long as you hear it. As long as you come to my show, and have a great time listening to the live show itís totally cool. I donít mind. Iím happy that they hear it.Ē


Late last year, the rapper 50 Cent made positive statements for piracy, and bands like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have even offered their albums on their own sites, disregarding the record labels. More recently, Kidrock told fans to "steal" his album all they wanted.

Previous Next  

27 user comments

129.6.2008 16:48

ars gratia artis...

you just got a new fan, Joss...

229.6.2008 18:15
atomicxl
Inactive

I guess what always shocks me is that if someone doesn't like your music enough to even pay $8.99 for a CD, are they really going to drop $30+ on a concert ticket? I think concerts are primarily attended by people who don't mind spending money on music.

329.6.2008 18:25
Drunkken
Inactive

Nobody likes her music, so she says that to get even 1 listener. :EE :D

429.6.2008 18:28

Quote:
I guess what always shocks me is that if someone doesn't like your music enough to even pay $8.99 for a CD, are they really going to drop $30+ on a concert ticket? I think concerts are primarily attended by people who don't mind spending money on music.

I for one don't mind forking out 70 euros to see the live show of the bands I appreciate, because I know that most of that money actually goes to the performing artist. It's widely known that they make a living off the live shows and they would have to get a day job if they had to depend on the royalties the music industry pays them (IF it's paid at all, see Poison's case).

529.6.2008 20:02
nobrainer
Inactive

true artists wants to be heard, money grabbing courporate manufactured garbage want to be famous!

so does joss see piracy just like radio, a way to be heard and free advertising for her sell out tours? joss is a great vocalist who can perform live without the need for a backing tape, unlike many of the big 4's record label's brand name bands, you can't manufacturer real talent!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Jun 2008 @ 20:05

629.6.2008 20:48
tripplite
Inactive

Quote:
As long as you come to my show, and have a great time listening to the live show itís totally cool. I donít mind. Iím happy that they hear it.Ē
i seriously applauded that, she obviously loves the music and is humble enough to live whatever amount of $$ she has already,

*claps hands*
-tripplite

729.6.2008 21:33

finally, nobrainer shows his true colors as to why he is so avid against the man.

829.6.2008 23:36

Ahh Joss Stone how I love you !

I remember meeting her on Much On Demand when she was there, veryyy nice girl.

She's right, music has turned into a business.

929.6.2008 23:37

I think its funny that she even said piracy is "Brilliant".

I agree with her and I think that her comment about people going to her concert was absolutely correct.

I would gladly pay $30+ to go to a concert if I like the artist well enough, I usually don't buy music as I know the artists don't see squat from the CD sale anyway. They might not get a whole lot from the concert but its probably better than what they get from a CD sale.

Peace

1030.6.2008 8:59
atomicxl
Inactive

Originally posted by nobrainer:
true artists wants to be heard, money grabbing courporate manufactured garbage want to be famous!

so does joss see piracy just like radio, a way to be heard and free advertising for her sell out tours? joss is a great vocalist who can perform live without the need for a backing tape, unlike many of the big 4's record label's brand name bands, you can't manufacturer real talent!
Umm, you do know that artists (assuming they were a writer on the song) get paid for radio spins. And its not chump change. A big hit can bring in hundreds of thousands to millions on radio spins alone to writers and publishers... and most writers keep their publishing so its like getting paid twice.

Also... Joss Stone is signed to a Big 4 record label. Is she automatic crap too? Is she, how did you say it, manufactured talent? I guarantee you she has a stylists, managers, assistants, and has taken vocal lessons or sang in a choir (where they teach you technique). Her big 4 label promotes her music and her big 4 label is paying for those headlining tours. She's done Gap commercials... THE GAP. She's done music for Chanel commercials and she a spokeperson for Cadbury Schweppes. She's manufactured just like everyone else.

You guys are painting her like she's some hippy who doesn't even release CDs, she just gives away MP3s for free and only holds benefit concerts for charities.

1130.6.2008 10:41

this is a big fat lie, musicisians want money,it's like a job, would u work withouth a paycheck? some do but still that's the way the world is, u can't change it. Musicians get money from interviews, concerts, fan shops, cd's,awards, clothes companies,...etc. They just say that beacuse they know they are gonna get the money anyway. .. oh a could without my hummer without my mansion, give it away now for charity then... the only true step i've seen so far is nin makeing their album available for free

1230.6.2008 12:26

I'd rather buy a CD than pay many times that amount to attend a concert.

1330.6.2008 12:57
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by atomicxl :
Umm, you do know that artists (assuming they were a writer on the song) get paid for radio spins. And its not chump change. A big hit can bring in hundreds of thousands to millions on radio spins alone to writers and publishers... and most writers keep their publishing so its like getting paid twice.

Also... Joss Stone is signed to a Big 4 record label. Is she automatic crap too? Is she, how did you say it, manufactured talent? I guarantee you she has a stylists, managers, assistants, and has taken vocal lessons or sang in a choir (where they teach you technique). Her big 4 label promotes her music and her big 4 label is paying for those headlining tours. She's done Gap commercials... THE GAP. She's done music for Chanel commercials and she a spokeperson for Cadbury Schweppes. She's manufactured just like everyone else.

You guys are painting her like she's some hippy who doesn't even release CDs, she just gives away MP3s for free and only holds benefit concerts for charities.
maybe you want to check out here story, that's if this is who i am thinking about, as the Joss stone i know of has been gigging around my county for many years before getting picked up by s curve records her first album was titled the soul sessions.

The reason most artists are singed to either one of the four or one of their affiliates is because they are the gatekeepers and unless you sign to them you have little to no chance of getting any airtime because of the payola deals made by the big four to only play their music.

this is also why the riaa has demanded that they collect ALL royalties from all streamed media regardless of weather the artist and composer want them to or not, it's their last attempt to stop indie. They even managed to convince congress that stealing other artists monies was acceptable!

RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
Originally posted by hyper:
Look at the information on SoundExchange.com (RIAA created SoundExchange) and see how it works. The RIAA has secured legal authority to administer a compulsory license that covers all recorded music.

"The recent U.S. Copyright Office ruling regarding webcasting designated SoundExchange to collect and distribute to all nonmembers as well as its members. The Librarian of Congress issued his decision with rates and terms to govern the compulsory license for webcasters (Internet-only radio) and simulcastors (retransmissions)." (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b4)

"SRCOs (sound recording copyright owners) are subject to a compulsory license for the use of their music...SoundExchange was established to administer the collection and distribution of royalties from such compulsory licenses taken by noninteractive streaming services that use satellite, cable or Internet methods of distribution."
(http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a4)

SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free. (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a7)

So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#b6). But, and this is a big "but," you only get royalties if you own the sound recording copyright. If you are signed to a major label, chances are you donít. Even if you do own the copyright to your own recording of your own song, SoundExchange will collect Internet radio royalties for your song even if you donít want them to do so.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Jun 2008 @ 13:00

1430.6.2008 13:05

Press is press.

However it affects her career, she just made headlines with a statement.
And it will probably lead to a least a little bit more exposure which usually ends up dropping a few more coins in the proverbial upside-down hat...or in this case: bra.



1530.6.2008 16:09
lynchGOP
Inactive

What do you wanna bet that crappy-assed Metallica (Napster killer) does NOT agree with this?

What really pisses me off is that bands make money ONE WAY and ONE WAY ONLY.........................concerts. 35 T-shirts that cost them 2.50 to get in bulk. Ever priced out logo shirts for a baseball/softball team? CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.

I remember back in 1995 when Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones toured the world. Record setting incomes. Pink Floyd brought in 104 MILLION DOLLARS only to be beaten by The Stones at 109 MILLION DOLLARS.

I hate Metallic for this reason, I HATE THEM I HATE THEM I HATE THEM!!! Music sucks too......................PPPfffftttt, orchestra in heavy metal...........BLOW ME!

1630.6.2008 17:59

Quote:
The reason most artists are singed to either one of the four or one of their affiliates is because they are the gatekeepers and unless you sign to them you have little to no chance of getting any airtime because of the payola deals made by the big four to only play their music.
So... She sold her soul to the devil, she got what she wanted, and now she wants her soul back...

If you want what the record companies are offering, you've got to give something in return. That's how BUSINESS works... both sides profit from the deal, otherwise there's no point an making a deal. And yes, the music industry is a for-profit BUSINESS. Nobody forces these artists to get into the business side. They can stay independent and give away their music if they want to.

171.7.2008 7:06

smart girl, and beautiful too =)

181.7.2008 7:18
varnull
Inactive

So... will she send her lawyers to defend anybody accused of sharing her songs? Somehow I don't think so. The only way I will believe these people is when they put their money where their mouths are and release everything under a creative commons licence. Until then it's just so much hot air.

The riaa are attempting to collect royalties from airplay of artists who are not part of their cartel. Can I have a slice of the pie too.. I think I'm owed something from radio plays of songs I have had nothing to do with as well...




The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Jul 2008 @ 7:23

191.7.2008 11:40
atomicxl
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
The reason most artists are singed to either one of the four or one of their affiliates is because they are the gatekeepers and unless you sign to them you have little to no chance of getting any airtime because of the payola deals made by the big four to only play their music.
So... She sold her soul to the devil, she got what she wanted, and now she wants her soul back...

If you want what the record companies are offering, you've got to give something in return. That's how BUSINESS works... both sides profit from the deal, otherwise there's no point an making a deal. And yes, the music industry is a for-profit BUSINESS. Nobody forces these artists to get into the business side. They can stay independent and give away their music if they want to.
This guy hit the nail on the head. Despite what nobrainer would like you to think, labels are needed for more than Payola. Theres is a major difference between a major label act and a indie act. An indie act is considered MASSIVE if they get sales of 100k for an album. If they can do regional tours on a regular basis, thats considered super star for indie. Major label super stars sell 100k their first week and tour the world... and perform in stadiums... that sell out... for months/years at a time. Its a totally different ballpark of fame and getting your music heard.

Maybe you should read up more on the Joss Stone you're thinking of. She was indie and she took that as far as it can go. Like all successful indie acts there comes a point where you outgrow your label and you need a major to really push you to that next level of fame or getting your music heard or whatever you want to call it or spin it.

201.7.2008 11:56
nobrainer
Inactive

@ atomicxl

do you know of the arctic monkeys?

211.7.2008 20:13

Joss Stone Australian??? Do your research fellas!

222.7.2008 7:49

@nobrainer

You can't use a rare occurence to describe a norm.

Kimbo Slice is huge so now every boat yard brawler is going to headline MMA events on CBS prime time.

In Iran you can buy gas for 15 cents a gallon so the price is going to drastically drop nation wide.

Virgin, Utah requires all citizens to own fire arms and had such great success that the enitre nation will soon be required to own a hand gun.

Now how stupid does all this sound?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Jul 2008 @ 7:54

232.7.2008 8:03
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by grkblood:
@nobrainer

You can't use a rare occurence to describe a norm.
you heard of lilly allen?

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Jul 2008 @ 8:06

242.7.2008 9:05

honestly, I had to google all the people in this thread. I'm not from the UK so none of these names have been familiar to me. That is saying something though, they havent jumped the pond yet.

I did just go to billboard.com and took a look at the top 50. None of these artists were on there. And actually, I didnt see one artist on that top 50 lists that didnt have an affiliation with a major record label. The point is you can pick names all you want but facts dont lie, and my facts are www.billboard.com.

BTW, I totally support indy artists. They're actually the only artists that I buy music from. Gotta support the small guys!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Jul 2008 @ 10:54

253.7.2008 21:13

Originally posted by nobrainer:
@ atomicxl

do you know of the arctic monkeys?

They are distributed by Warner Bros in USA
In Australia and New Zealand there publishing rights are handled by EMI
When you are on a indie label like the one they are on in England it is impossible to get the distribution in other countries without the help from a major label who has the money to get your name out.

264.7.2008 23:54

good for her.

2723.3.2009 13:50

Why is it that musicians are so supportive of file sharing while it's the total opposite in the gaming industry? Game devs have such a hostile relationship with their fans that it's incredible. Most game devs (not as much as their publishers though) will whine about piracy and the used game market and then insist that they need DRM to protect their jobs and DLC to protect themselves against both the used market and piracy. How often do you see game devs say, "file sharing is great"? You hear musicians say that all the time but not game devs. What gives? The gaming industry seem to be the most greed-driven of the entertainment industries out there whereas musicians (obviously Metallica and other major anti-piracy whiners are an exception) are more likely to see their work as a thing of art and love.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive