Slashdot Mirror

agree, wish I had mod points. https://musicbusinessresearch.... http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot... http://money.futureofmusic.org...

Performing artists don't get paid for radio play. - http://www.americansongwriter....
Radio is a form of promotion and does not pay performers royalties. http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
https://www.futureofmusic.org/...

You know, where musicians actually make money as opposed to record deals which usually land the artists deeply in debt when they don't pan out?

This isn't necessarily the case, especially for self-published artists. For instance, Zoe Keating has published her revenue breakdown -- only 26% comes from touring. And that's revenue, not profit, and touring is expensive.

Her situation is unique as she is independent (so no label to take profits) and yet reasonably successful. However, the aggregate information based on responses to this survey puts live performance income at 28%, so her experience is right in line with that. (The survey responses are wildly spread out though -- it covers people who just don't do live performances all the way through people who only make money from live performance (6.3%). The number varies a lot by genre; e.g., in rock, the average was 44%. But that's still a long way from "where they actually make money".)

This is mostly myth. Touring does not make artists tons of money.

http://money.futureofmusic.org/mythbusting/3/

I am not really surprised. It looks like the amount of offer in music grows with time. There is more directors and composers than before. According to [1], there are 2.5 more music director and composer than 3 years ago while the number of musician appears to have decrease by roughly 10% in the same time. Since 99, it went from 52K people to 67K people. So there are 15% more people to pay. Meanwhile the US population only increase 12% [2].
I do not think the average entertainement of famillies changed a lot but if anything the music budget went down. So I am really not surprised.

Moreover, I feel like Internet concentrated music interest on a smaller number of artists which performs better than anybody else for no good reason. I mean gangnam style from psy shipped more than 6 millions albums in not even a year [3].

I do not know the artist that is speaking and I never listen to her music. But she is a cello artist which is not a popular style. So of course making money out of it is difficult. Yet her income increased according to her own numbers [4].

The real numbers we lack are the numbers from 10 or 15 years ago. How much money did an independent artist make in the 90's ? Is it really worse in 2013? (I ma not saying it is not, I am asking a real question)

[1] http://money.futureofmusic.org/how-many-musicians-are-there/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangnam_Style
[4] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkasqHkVRM1OdGhjdExSMzYyMXFZUkZNSUJrY3MwNXc&pli=1#gid=0

Here's a few articles and interviews for you on the subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/perfect/radio.html

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/low-power/consolidation.html

http://futureofmusic.org/tags/radio-consolidation

http://futureofmusic.org/article/research/employment-and-wage-effects-radio-consolidation

http://www.daveyd.com/lettertofcc.html

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/05/27/fcc-ponders-the-future-of-radio-consolidation/

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4653720-1.html

http://iplj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Note-NO-COMPETITION-HOW-RADIO-CONSOLIDATION-HAS-DIMINISHED-DIVERSITY-AND-SACRIFICED-LOCALISM.pdf

Here's a few articles and interviews for you on the subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/perfect/radio.html

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/low-power/consolidation.html

http://futureofmusic.org/tags/radio-consolidation

http://futureofmusic.org/article/research/employment-and-wage-effects-radio-consolidation

http://www.daveyd.com/lettertofcc.html

http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2010/05/27/fcc-ponders-the-future-of-radio-consolidation/

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4653720-1.html

http://iplj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Note-NO-COMPETITION-HOW-RADIO-CONSOLIDATION-HAS-DIMINISHED-DIVERSITY-AND-SACRIFICED-LOCALISM.pdf

The problem is that while money does move around the industry, most of it goes into profits of the labels, never to be seen again. There are costs with producing albums, but those costs are recouped and then profits on top of it without ever paying the artists anything other than their advance (and sometimes charging them more) due to accounting tricks.

http://futureofmusic.org/article/article/major-label-contract-clause-critique

Just because they deliver slightly more than BlueHippo did doesn't make them any less of a scam.

The next step is the RIAA and MAFIAA teaming up with the Telecomms and Cable Companies to trash Net Neutrality. The theory being that they'll be putting the cork back in the genie's bottle, and then be able to tell us what we'll see and hear (think Bud TV, the Home Shopping Network, and Britney) instead of us deciding. So if you're an independent musician/producer, you better hook up with the Rock the Net folks and keep the Net free.

i've always wondered why the artists don't just get up and leave... but then after doing some googling, and reading of the standard contracts most artists sign, it seems like the reason they aren't leaving is simply because they can't.

http://www.futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm

The labels basically own all rights to the artist's music, name, likeness, etc... they basically own everything about the artist short of their soul, and are free to exploit it as they see fit.

and things don't stop there... if the artist chooses to leave, then all their works stay with and belong to the label for a period of effectively forever. And you will not receive royalties either, letting the label keep every penny.

So if artists leave, they'll be screwed. If artists stay, they'll continue to be screwed, just not as badly. And there's nothing an artist can do about it, because once signed, nothing short of the top 1% of artists can negotiate out of it.

Promotions costs: Very few lesser bands get very much "promotions". Michael Jackson may get a $100 million dollars in promotions. But your average bands do not.

The thing about Napster & MP3.com was that they were self-promoting systems. With Napster, good or interesting music within a genre floated to the top. That is what this whole media war is about. The record labels are merely promotion machines. Who have controlled the music industry for decades. If you wanted any promotion you have to give 80%-90% of your profits to RIAA. This barrier got broken with the internet. Napster, MP3.com, online radio.

Take iTunes. The break down was something like Apple gets 19 cents, the artist 10-14 cents. And the record label the rest of the 99 cents.

For CDs, many artists never see any money except for their initial signing bonus and the CDs they sell on tour. The big RIAA labels tend to wheedle out & over deduct at every turn. When the actual cost of a CD to manufacture and deliver is about a $1. How do I know this? Because I've been involved in small scale CD projects and it worked out to a $1.50 for a 1,000 CD batch in jewel case with full color inserts - delivered. That was using a third party. Thanks to mass production, printing 500,000 CDs by a mega label with their own printing facilities equates to much less.

Here's a good break down of CD profits for the average band.
http://www.futureofmusic.org/itunes2.cfm

This isn't bullshit. Just ask the bands that aren't Michael Jackson, Metallica, or some other super-hit.

***

But RIAA knows it's business model is over. That's why it's trying to fight via buying off congressmen to pass new laws extending their control. In fact, RIAA stole every artist's right to royalties for web broadcasted radio. And very few bands will ever see any royalties from web radio as most are indies and just don't rack up enough plays for RIAA to consider it worth sending them a check. That said, RIAA collects for ever single play.

"That many musicians would rather NOT go that route, and would rather have the record companies pay for the recording and production, and artwork, and sales and marketing and distribution and all that, doesn't mean that the artists are getting ripped off."

The record companies don't pay for the recording, production, or any of the other things you list -- these and other costs are paid by the artist(s), usually from an advance much like the ones book publishers give to authors, and said advance must be paid back in full from the artist's portion of the royalties from sales before they actually see any money from those royalties themselves. If there aren't enough royalties from CD sales to pay the advance back, they'll have to find some other way of doing it, e.g. touring, waiting on tables, flipping burghers, etc. Record companies will only pay for the following things:

1) Promotional expenses such as travelling to TV and radio interviews.
2) Pressing, printing, and transporting the packaged product.
3) Bribes (sorry, _incentives_) to radio stations and the like (although these are reserved for a very small number of artists).
4) Shelf space fees (where such are incurred) in certain large retail chains.

"Oh, and also offloading all of the risk that they are unable to recoup any of these costs."

You're either a troll who is deliberately spreading lies, or have never actually seen a standard contract from any of the five major labels, and are therefore simply spouting tripe from ignorance rather than deliberate malice.

"The musicians made the deals with the record companies willingly"

They did indeed, although most (and I do mean most, i.e. just about anybody that isn't mega-famous) seem to repent the fact after discovering that the deal they _thought_ they were getting (which was a lot like your fictitious account of generous record companies who pay for everything) resulted in them having no net earnings despite selling significant numbers of CDs, or (more usually) large amounts of debt that must be paid back.

Read the following links. If you are merely misguided, then you will be less so afterwards, and will not therefore post balderdash like this in the future. A troll who is trying to present the record companies as a cuddly brotherhood of artist defenders will obviously not bother to read them, and continue to disseminate total crap in the vain hope that somebody with the IQ of a cardboard box will believe them without bothering to verify anything for themselves.

http://www.futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm
http://www.iaje.org/article.asp?ArticleID=122
http://negativland.com/albini.html
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/recording-c ontract.htm

Looking further in to the language, SoundExchange was not Mandated by congress in the law. They just filled in the void that was created by the legislation. This is confirmed by the response given in an interview with the membership director of Sound Exchange found here: http://www.futureofmusic.org/articles/soundexchang e.cfm Artists, Make it known up front if you do not want these punks taking your money away, and when you find that they have taken your money away (check here to find out: http://63.236.111.137/jsp/unpaidArtistList.jsp )without your permission, Sue them in to dust. Remember, your release says ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, so reserve em and keep these punks out of your life.

On the freedom of religion front, there's also Bush's attempt to withhold AIDS treatment from Africans that have access to abortions, and the faith based initiatives.

The other areas actually look worse. Under Clinton, US radio stations were consolidated into the hands of a few by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Television and newspapers are following. The trend has accelerated, and now the military (now, government) is even writing some of our news for us, and ISPs are lobbying congress so they can control speech online. The NSA has been building up networks to log all IP connections made over the Internet background.

http://rockthenet.futureofmusic.org/

The article references the Rock the Net campaign, which has an Online Petition you can sign.

Unfortunately, it appears to be down - I get this stacktrace when I try to sign it:

java.sql.SQLException: [Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]Arithmetic overflow error converting IDENTITY to data type tinyint.
at macromedia.jdbc.base.BaseExceptions.createExceptio n(Unknown Source)
at macromedia.jdbc.base.BaseExceptions.getException(U nknown Source)
at macromedia.jdbc.sqlserver.tds.TDSRequest.processEr rorToken(Unknown Source)
at macromedia.jdbc.sqlserver.tds.TDSRequest.processRe plyToken(Unknown Source)
...

Of course, since you're just making up statistics (Clear Channel has never controlled close to 75% of the US radio market or "something like" it), it's hard to take your comment seriously at all. I heard that currently 99% of US radio stations only play NPR news and indy rock. It's true because I said so.

True, Clear Channel doesn't and never did own close to 75% of the market. However, corporate owned radio networks do own a huge percentage of radio stations in the United States. I think his point about corporate ownership of large numbers of stations creating fairly homogeneous, industry-driven music playlists across large areas and markets rings true. Not saying anything about the DRM angle, just the point about corporate station ownership and the vanilla mainstream playlists.

Further info is available on corporate radio station ownership and it's effects, etc., with a Google search. One of the top results I found was the Future Of Music Coalition http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/PRradiostudy.cfm .

With such large percentages of stations in the largest markets having their playlists determined by far-away corporate execs, the results are fairly predictable. Little chance there for some crazy DJ to "discover" some band or musician and give them airplay based solely on their musical merits.

Cheers!

Strat

Thing is, as a layman, this ruling doesn't strike me as radically different to the concepts of vicarious and contributory infringement already common in US courts. If the big US hosting companies, search engines and content aggregators are prepared to cope with vicarious copyright infringement threats (which is what took down the original napster) why not this?

Contributory infringement

        CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
        The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." [2] In other words, the record labels must not only show ownership of a valid copyright and unlawful copying but must show that the P2P company 1) had knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) materially contributed to the infringing conduct. Again, this is for the purpose of holding someone other than the infringer liable for copyright infringement.

        VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
        Vicarious liability is another means of holding someone liable for copyright infringement even when that person or party is not the one who did the infringing. In order to find a defendant liable under the theory of vicarious liability for the actions of an infringer, it must be shown that the defendant 1) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts, and 2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.[3] Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. However, courts have determined that the combination of the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and the receipt of a direct financial benefit from the infringement suffices to hold a defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement, even if the defendant had no knowledge of the particular infringement.[4]

This

message is to every musician speaking out against file sharing:
get your facts straight, and stop regurgitating everything the major label tells you.
Anyone still clinging to the cage-format for music is either a middleman or lazy. Squidnecks

You major label suckers make me laugh
Do you really think your label would come out and say, "Hey we cut your paycheck in half because you've got to help pay for the 250 billion copies we give away. Have they mentioned when they cut new releases by 25% sales dropped 4.1% and they blamed it on P2P? Have they mentioned that they responded to that drop by raising the cost of your CD $1 every year? Does that seem like a good business move to you? Or does that smell like fear?
Ask yourself what kind of business would cut research and development first? I'll tell you: the business that's about to make it's bed up in a mother fuckin hearse.
While Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are trying to convince you that free listeners are a bad thing, those same five labels that pay them are charging you $500,000 to buy you spins
While you're negotiating whether or not the latest Napster pays you 1/3 of a cent per download, Comcast and AOL are turning the information highway into a toll road.
you know the end is near when Britney Spears is calling it a moral issue
they've positioned you right between their wallets and your fans
they can't really expect to turn the tide with a few pathetic lawsuits
So you gotta ask yourself how does one stop a flood? You build a damn.
IT'S THE ISPs, IT'S THE ISPs!
Comcast will have every last consumer on their knees
starting with 5.3 million subscribers to cable access high speed
they own the wires, so they can discriminate with bandwidth and queuing fees
guaranteed monopoly by the FCC so

We're standing on the verge of an artistic cleansing of biblical proportions I say bring it
when the wickedness of big business is great in the earth
and it will even try to sell the waters that it's drowning in
marching two rappers
two rockers
two composers
two programmers
onto a pirate ship
in a free-market flood
until businessmen are businessmen
and art is art again. Rock

this is not an issue of children not recognizing value in art
this is an issue of children recognizing value-less art
getting artists paid doesn't even play a part
The truth is
for the first time since it's creat

This

message is to every musician speaking out against file sharing:
get your facts straight, and stop regurgitating everything the major label tells you.
Anyone still clinging to the cage-format for music is either a middleman or lazy. Squidnecks

You major label suckers make me laugh
Do you really think your label would come out and say, "Hey we cut your paycheck in half because you've got to help pay for the 250 billion copies we give away. Have they mentioned when they cut new releases by 25% sales dropped 4.1% and they blamed it on P2P? Have they mentioned that they responded to that drop by raising the cost of your CD $1 every year? Does that seem like a good business move to you? Or does that smell like fear?
Ask yourself what kind of business would cut research and development first? I'll tell you: the business that's about to make it's bed up in a mother fuckin hearse.
While Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are trying to convince you that free listeners are a bad thing, those same five labels that pay them are charging you $500,000 to buy you spins
While you're negotiating whether or not the latest Napster pays you 1/3 of a cent per download, Comcast and AOL are turning the information highway into a toll road.
you know the end is near when Britney Spears is calling it a moral issue
they've positioned you right between their wallets and your fans
they can't really expect to turn the tide with a few pathetic lawsuits
So you gotta ask yourself how does one stop a flood? You build a damn.
IT'S THE ISPs, IT'S THE ISPs!
Comcast will have every last consumer on their knees
starting with 5.3 million subscribers to cable access high speed
they own the wires, so they can discriminate with bandwidth and queuing fees
guaranteed monopoly by the FCC so

We're standing on the verge of an artistic cleansing of biblical proportions I say bring it
when the wickedness of big business is great in the earth
and it will even try to sell the waters that it's drowning in
marching two rappers
two rockers
two composers
two programmers
onto a pirate ship
in a free-market flood
until businessmen are businessmen
and art is art again. Rock

this is not an issue of children not recognizing value in art
this is an issue of children recognizing value-less art
getting artists paid doesn't even play a part
The truth is
for the first time since it's creat

This

message is to every musician speaking out against file sharing:
get your facts straight, and stop regurgitating everything the major label tells you.
Anyone still clinging to the cage-format for music is either a middleman or lazy. Squidnecks

You major label suckers make me laugh
Do you really think your label would come out and say, "Hey we cut your paycheck in half because you've got to help pay for the 250 billion copies we give away. Have they mentioned when they cut new releases by 25% sales dropped 4.1% and they blamed it on P2P? Have they mentioned that they responded to that drop by raising the cost of your CD $1 every year? Does that seem like a good business move to you? Or does that smell like fear?
Ask yourself what kind of business would cut research and development first? I'll tell you: the business that's about to make it's bed up in a mother fuckin hearse.
While Hilary Rosen and the RIAA are trying to convince you that free listeners are a bad thing, those same five labels that pay them are charging you $500,000 to buy you spins
While you're negotiating whether or not the latest Napster pays you 1/3 of a cent per download, Comcast and AOL are turning the information highway into a toll road.
you know the end is near when Britney Spears is calling it a moral issue
they've positioned you right between their wallets and your fans
they can't really expect to turn the tide with a few pathetic lawsuits
So you gotta ask yourself how does one stop a flood? You build a damn.
IT'S THE ISPs, IT'S THE ISPs!
Comcast will have every last consumer on their knees
starting with 5.3 million subscribers to cable access high speed
they own the wires, so they can discriminate with bandwidth and queuing fees
guaranteed monopoly by the FCC so

We're standing on the verge of an artistic cleansing of biblical proportions I say bring it
when the wickedness of big business is great in the earth
and it will even try to sell the waters that it's drowning in
marching two rappers
two rockers
two composers
two programmers
onto a pirate ship
in a free-market flood
until businessmen are businessmen
and art is art again. Rock

this is not an issue of children not recognizing value in art
this is an issue of children recognizing value-less art
getting artists paid doesn't even play a part
The truth is
for the first time since it's creat

Although a bit dated, the Simple Machines Records Mechanic's Guide has all the info you need about recording, releasing and promoting your band/record/label, along with information on publishing and copyright and a bunch of other stuff. I don't think it has anything about online distribution (like I said, it's a little dated), but all of the comments above should probably fill that in for you. Jenny Toomey, one of the people who put that out is now running the Future of Music Coalition, a think tank (if you will) whose goal is to ensure that future policy regarding music and media is sane and artist-friendly. Well worth a look if any of this actually means anything to you.

They've invented a faceless entity called the "RIAA" who does every evil thing you can imagine. I hear they even rip off artists! Though I never cite an actual, specific instance.

The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it.

In reality, the RIAA has nothing to do with the contracts artists sign. The RIAA is just a lobbying group for the record labels, and artists hire entertainment lawyers to work out their contracts with the labels. And then willingly sign them.

They've invented a faceless entity called the "RIAA" who does every evil thing you can imagine. I hear they even rip off artists! Though I never cite an actual, specific instance.

The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it.

In reality, the RIAA has nothing to do with the contracts artists sign. The RIAA is just a lobbying group for the record labels, and artists hire entertainment lawyers to work out their contracts with the labels. And then willingly sign them.

A quick Google turned up this explanation (as opposed to writing my own).

Contributory infringement and vicarious liability are court-created theories (i.e., not specified in the Copyright Act) designed to hold a company liable for its participation in unlawful copying. The theory is analogous to the getaway driver in a robbery; everyone knows that the person who drives the getaway car will be in trouble, even if he does not rob the store. The imposition of secondary or indirect liability [1] is common throughout the law. Those who aid or abet the commission of wrongs, or who benefit from them, are frequently held liable.

Secondary liability is an especially important tool in copyright enforcement. Often, alleged contributory infringers may be in the best position to prevent or police violations. And suing many individual direct infringers may be impractical or expensive. However, secondary liability can create disincentives to innovation and entrepreneurship. Generally products have legitimate uses as well as infringing ones, and liability may inhibit firms from serving beneficial purposes. The Supreme Court's decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios limited the circumstances in which liability for contributory infringement may be imposed on a technology company simply because it provided a product that was used for infringement.

The copyright laws do not expressly provide for secondary liability for copyright infringement. But the courts, in a long series of cases, have imposed liability on those who facilitate or profit from copyright infringement. Thus there are two main strands of secondary liability for copyright infringement: contributory infringement and vicarious liability.

CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
The standard definition for contributory copyright infringement is when the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." [2] In other words, the record labels must not only show ownership of a valid copyright and unlawful copying but must show that the P2P company 1) had knowledge of the infringing activity and 2) materially contributed to the infringing conduct. Again, this is for the purpose of holding someone other than the infringer liable for copyright infringement.

VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY
Vicarious liability is another means of holding someone liable for copyright infringement even when that person or party is not the one who did the infringing. In order to find a defendant liable under the theory of vicarious liability for the actions of an infringer, it must be shown that the defendant 1) has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts, and 2) receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement.[3] Unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. However, courts have determined that the combination of the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and the receipt of a direct financial benefit from the infringement suffices to hold a defendant vicariously liable for copyright infringement, even if the defendant had no knowledge of the particular infringement.[4]

Another interesting conference on a smaller scale was held in Viennal last week: Free Bitflows. Participants there were Brewster Kahle from Archive.org (with images of the Amsterdam PetaBox), Ian Clarke from Freenet, Musicians favoring fair and free distribution, and the organizer of Wizards of OS, among others. What are links to comparable events in the US?

Really, how much can you respect a group of people who state their primary purpose is to support the artist, but advocate downloading songs and sending artist a dime or more for their efforts. Downhillbattle is a silly protest group, who hasn't decided who they should protest.

If you want to support independent artist at least get your stats from the Future of Music Coalition--independent artist who support and organize independent artist. You'll actually see muscians who want to stay independent, who aren't seeking the Big 5 for a quick fame, but working hard and living off their music. Go visit http://www.futureofmusic.org/

Your suspicions are largely correct.

According to this report (partly done with the help of Lawrence Lessig), ClearChannel owns 1244 stations and owns 27% of the listenership. They've achieved this largely by playing to the safe music picks in CHR (Contemporary Hit Radio) and other formats, with a focus on crossover music (songs that fit in more than one genre) so they can play the same song on all the different stations they own in the same market.

Or, to put it a different way, ClearChannel is the "McDonalds" of radio. They find safe bland songs within each genre (mostly about sexual attraction), and serve it up constantly, heavily laden with ads. About a quarter of Americans love this format -- just like some people love McDonalds. And they have parlayed that profitability into such a dominant position in radio that they can use their market power to drive even better deals for themselves from the RIAA and musicians.

New songs? Forget it. Unless you have already climbed the dial elsewhere or have big money backing you.

maybe they should be getting behind a group like the Future of Music Coalition. They're doing brilliant work and have the interests on musician in mind when they look at the problems and promise of new technologies.

Just accept that Apple is playing Janus regarding the music industry. They screw up artists exactly the same way. Want some more details ?

Stop defending Apple against common sense, please...

Regards,
jdif

According to this (Clause 5) artists gets royalties on maximum 10 songs per album... Didn't you think majors are going the give them more money? Since when are they nice to them?

Your statistics are absolutely wrong.

65-35 split

Its a 60-30 split. The labels get 65% of the profits.

So Apple gets Apple takes a 35% cut from every song or album sold. 65% goes to the record label. 0% to the artist. At best, if an artist has a good contract or their own record label they might actually make money. Otherwise artists don't give a damn about this as they don't make a single penny. After all the deductions and fees, the record company pockets just about everything. So with a good deal the moast an artist can make is around 11 cent. 11%. The artist usually never gets this because most artists do not have contracts which handle digital sales such as these.

Artists get at most 11 cent and usually nothing at all

twelve percent is average, but successful bands often hammer out better contracts.

12% is successful. 0% is average. Most musicians do not make a penny in profits from CD sales, Album sales, digital sales or any other kinda music sales. They make their money touring and playing live.

In many major-label contracts, charges for 'packaging' and promotional copies are subtracted from the artist's cut, leaving the talent with a measly 8 percent. BMG, Universal, and Warner have announced plans to do away with such deductions for digital downloads."

Just because they announce a plan to do away with it doesnt mean it will happen. Microsoft announced they'd stop bullying OEMs after the anti-trust lawsuits, have they stopped? RIAA was charged with price fixing, have they stopped?

Yeah they dropped CD prices alittle bit, but not much. The only reason they dropped the prices is because people like me are smart and boycott their asses. We won't buy their shit because its not worth what they ask for and we won't allow them to pricefix any longer.

Its that simple. Musician's who do not have special contracts with their record labels will not make a penny. Eminem might get rich, Dr.Dre, and others might get rich. But 50 cent is broke. Thats right, he sold a million copies+ and hes broke.

Stop trusting music companies, they arent on our side or artists side.

Might also consider sending your $13 (and/or other money you want to give to a good cause) to the Future of Music coalition, which describes itself as "a not-for-profit think tank based in Washington, DC that strives for the creation of a musicians' middle class. The FMC's primary goal is to educate musicians and the public at large about some of the critical issues that are shaping the policy debate in the music/technology space." They're decidedly anit-RIAA and pro-musician and favor alternatives to RIAA-controlled distribution.

Might also consider sending your $13 (and/or other money you want to give to a good cause) to the Future of Music coalition, which describes itself as "a not-for-profit think tank based in Washington, DC that strives for the creation of a musicians' middle class. The FMC's primary goal is to educate musicians and the public at large about some of the critical issues that are shaping the policy debate in the music/technology space." They're decidedly anit-RIAA and pro-musician and favor alternatives to RIAA-controlled distribution.

Speak up? You mean like all the people who spoke up during the FCC's biennial review process of media ownership rules? Yeah, like the FCC really cared about what they had to say. Their voices just fell on deaf ears.

as I have pointed out in the past There's a petition to the FCC about this issue that is worth reading. It has been signed by many prominent musicians, and they are looking for as many listeners as possible to listen.

Actually no it isn't...Because since July 13, 2000 when I first registered boycott-riaa.com and threw together the website, I have purchased not one REPEAT not one, major label release. Nor have I downloaded any either. I don't feel the need. But I have bought close to 150 independent cds. The RIAA drove me to it, and you know what? Its usually much better music, production without overproduction, and usually much better priced as well. My shopping habits have changed as a result.

As for me and my cookie cutter friends usually most people are quite surprised to find that I'm not a 20 something geek that's pissed that I can't download for free, but instead a 50+ year old who works the system writing letters, meeting with congresscritters, attending events like Future of Music Coalition Policy Summitt or SXSW Educating consumers and artists alike.

Tha whole point is to make the RIAA, Hilary Rosen, The IFPI, and Jay Berman irrelevant. They are are a Maginot line to independent music. We just go around them. If an indie is given a chance to distriubte their work, get airplay without paying millions in "bagman" payola they will have a chance to make a decent living from their music. It doesn't take millions of sales to make a damned decent living if you aren't having 90% of every dollar in sales (of those actually reported) skimmed by corrupt record labels, And you pay the expenses out of your 10%.

What needs to happen is to forget the RIAA labels and their 60 year old business model.
1) If you write music NEVER sell your publishing (the typial deal is 50%)
2) If your goal is to be a "Rock Star" then forget it. You're playing music for the wrong reasons.(try acting, at least you get paid)
3) Remember that music is a business too, treat it as such.(or at least get an attorney and an accountant)
4) Concentrate on each sale rather than selling a million or two and gold records. There are many people with gold records pushing brooms in Las Vegas.
5) If you're good, you will come to the attention of labels, get a lawyer who is NOT an entertainemt attorney (Not beholding to anyone) to look at the contracts. Boilerplate contracts amount to virtually indentured servitude. If they think you are worth persuing don't let them have publishing (a common practice these days)change your look or the music you want to play. (artistic control)Take a look at this contract critique.
6) Get your music out there. There are plenty of free websites like DMusic.Com that offer artists a free page to let people discover your music, link to your website, sell your cd, etc. I recently ran across an artist who has their music on over 100 free websites and has TURNED DOWN a major label contract.(and is happy she did, all the money she earns is hers)
7) When not everyone else is taking their cut before you get yours, you don't need to sell millions of CDs to make a damned decent living.

As for the 14 year old using Shoutcast, there's been no word on what would happen to them. The RIAA spokesperson in the Salon article said they aren't interested in going after "hobbyists," but there's no legal assurance that people who are not webcasting commercially will not be prosecuted. They could go after those people in the same way that anyone goes after someone in a copyright case where the alleged violation occurred online. They would probably start with a cease and desist.

BTW, Brian Zisk (the "critic" in the Salon article) is a pretty rad guy. He's one of the people who started the Future of Music Coalition.

is available from The Future of Music Coalition, in PDF format, that explains in plain english what the various terms mean. The file can be found here

is available from The Future of Music Coalition, in PDF format, that explains in plain english what the various terms mean. The file can be found here

The Future of Music Coalition, some of the folks helping to organize this, is one of the few organizations that really "get it". Basically, they've taken the stance that creators of music should be rewarded, and that the practical implications aren't as black and white as "file sharing bad" or "record industry bad". So, what they're trying to do is figure out what technological and social solutions can be used to address the problem of artist compensation. The FOMC Manifesto is recommended reading.

The Future of Music Coalition, some of the folks helping to organize this, is one of the few organizations that really "get it". Basically, they've taken the stance that creators of music should be rewarded, and that the practical implications aren't as black and white as "file sharing bad" or "record industry bad". So, what they're trying to do is figure out what technological and social solutions can be used to address the problem of artist compensation. The FOMC Manifesto is recommended reading.

Suggested reading is Moses Avalon's "What the Reocrd Companies Don't Want You to Know" You can do a royalty calculation on his website. The Future of Music Coalition has an excellent document that analyzes the "standard contract" explaining how that 16% royalty turns into 6%. Both websites cut through the RIAA spin, and get to the underlying truths.

The truth is that the 90-95% of artists that don't recoup, don't recoup because of inflated expenses, the fact they don't get paid for "special" sales, such as overseas, and record club sales, and music taken out of the label catalog and not available for the public to purchase at any price. If the labels don't sell it, you can't make money off of it. In addition to this, you give up your copyrights to boot.

It took John Denver's Estate 5 years after his death to get a accurate total of his sales in which 19 MILLION more sales were "found". This Article on the RIAA website documents it. Talk about your "smoking gun".

I recently had a conversation with a member of a 60's group who had several top ten hits, his words explain it better than anything else I've ever heard. "If I were going to tell any group that is considering signing a major label contract any one thing it is, get as much money up front as you can, because you will never see another cent from royalties."

See also Coalition for the Future of Music which is organizing a conference in January which will take up this issue.

The most interesting part of this whole thing is gonna be to see whether or not artists will be able to bypass major labels and still thrive. The rights of the artist trickle down to the fan. Those of us who know anything about major labels are seeing right through their "We're fighting for the artists" stance. It's plain bs. For great info on this go to the Future of Music

--